[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Jos Laycock <jos.laycock at virgin.net>:

> Hi Platt 
> 
> Funny thing is, Dawkins almost has me...
> He is not a SOMist by our definitions, frequently citing a tendency towards
> dualist attitudes in children as being a primary factor in susceptibility to
> the acceptance of religious ideals. He utterly rejects any mind/body split.
> In his view the more advanced or sophisticated* (and scientific) stance is
> monism. His only difference from the MOQ seems to be that his world is made
> of a substance (that he can't define) and ours is made of Values (that we
> can't define), the two may prove to be indistinguishable.

Hi Jos,

Since the MOQ does acknowledge substance (patterns of static values) but Dawkins
doesn't acknowledge values, wouldn't it be fair to say that the two monisms
are indeed "distinguishable," the former being more inclusive of experience? 

> There is even a
> lengthy section on theories of how cultural memes and belief systems evolve
> in a quasi Darwinian fashion, which could have plucked directly from Lila.

One you put your faith in Darwinian evolution, you can force fit almost anything
into its assumptions.

> I'll dig out the quotes if anyone cares, but the book is if nothing else a
> good laugh so go read it!
> 
> (*what an in8teresting connotation that word can have!)

Indeed. "Sophisticated" is a great big balloon word whose meaning is kept
deliberately obtuse by self-appointed elites to intimidate the great unwashed.

Platt




-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/