[MD] Richard Dawkins vs John Lennox Redeaux

[Ian Glendinning]

Hi NDP, I'll get to your point, but

Firstly I do tend to be a Dawkins basher, but I have to say (as DMB
said) that Fixed-Point are motivated by defending Christianity and the
edit (in the 10 minute sequence, not your selection of quotes) is
highly weighted against Dawkins and science. Many of the things
Dawkins is seen saying are clearly reactions to things Maddox has just
said, that we don't get to see or hear. And the final edit is the
audience laughing at Dawkins .... despicable dirty stuff ....
fixed-point won't be on my christmas card list.

My point against Dawkins is however the same point Maddox makes.
Science is not rationality. There is more to rationality than science,
and that "more" includes a kind of faith .... clearly not any kind of
blind-faith (that nether "side" will defend excess or ignirance). And
I too believe that atheist fundamentalism on this point is indeed
undermining science and rationality in general ... it's why I'm
personally both a Dawkins basher and an atheist / non-theist.

And, more importantly, I agree with your point NDP. I do believe the
natural directedness (a la MoQ) is the crux of the matter. (All those
"chance" statements are Dawkins reacting to Maddox use of the word -
which we don't see ... Platt's "oops" rhetoric ... no evolutionary
scientist would use the word.)

MoQ does provide a more rational metaphysics to underpin rationality,
and one which provides a naturally directed hierarchy of patterns, one
whose basis is essentially undefined, yet being a metaphysics can
provide a basis for rational belief. (Scientifically speaking from
fundamental physics and cosmology upwards, this same directedness is
being recognized in some of the less whacky versions of Anthropic
Principles ... but it's early days there .... need to wait for LHD
(Higgs Boson / God Particle / garbage) to fail before there is likely
to be attention or funding. And similarly, philosopher of science Nick
Maxwell, is pushing "aim orientation" to be underlying scientific
rationality.) If the fundamentalists (scientific and monotheistic)
stop bashing each other, there is interesting discussion to be had,
but unfortunately the scientific fundamentalists have all the
political correctness on their side when it comes to funding
negotiations. It's like the emperors suit of clothes, to suggest
science is not entirely rational. Come the revolution, however ;-) Cue
audience laughter.

MoQ has a lot to offer this debate. These are dots I join up daily.
Ian

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 4:22 AM, nom de plumeweb <nomdeplumeweb at gmail.com> wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> Many thanks for your polite and considerate responses.  In reading
> these initial comments it is gratifying to see that there was not an
> immediate brouhaha between atheists and theists.
>
> Otherwise, I have again (sigh) relearned rule number one—always say
> what you have to say as opposed to assuming that folks can read your
> mind.  Then again, it is interesting and enlightening to see how the
> excerpt was snapped into the construct of the forum.
>
> What struck me hard, in the video, was that each debater could ground
> his arguments in Pirsig's Quality and achieve, a less disjointed, in
> the case of Dawkins and a more direct, in the case of Lennox,
> understanding.  Pirsig's work speaks to the crux of the matter.
> Quality has the ability to provide a foundation, a methodology?, to
> guide natural selection beyond Dawkins' “undirected process” and
> without Lennox's appeal to the supernatural.
>
> As I understand the debate:  after Dawkins dismisses religion as
> “superseded”, he does not have a fundamental organizing concept, other
> than to later state, that natural selection is an “undirected process”
> which is not chance but the “very opposite of chance”; while Lennox,
> in refute amplifies and hopes to reduce to absurdity, an argument in
> Dawkins book by denying that scientific theories are produce by “an
> unguided, random, mindless process” which is mere reductionist
> materialism.  He is then left to ground his argument in the
> supernatural.
>
> The relevant quotes from the two men, as best I could hear, are:
> Dawkins, “...That this (Darwinian evolution) can not only be explained
> by a, an, undirected process[sic].  It's not chance by the way. It's
> entirely wrong to say it's chance.  It's not chance.  Natural
> selection is the very opposite of chance and that's the essence of it.
> That was what Darwin discovered...”;
> and Lennox, “If, in the end, my beliefs, my theories, my scientific
> theories are the results ultimately of the motion of atoms in my brain
> produced by an unguided, random, mindless process...”
>
> The surface form of this debate led me to think that Pirsig was driven
> by something similar.  This is why I posted the link.
>
> Addendum:
>
> One, This video is only an excerpt.  I do not know all that was said;
>
> Two, Obviously, and I hope honestly, I have selected statements which
> best illustrate my proposal; and
>
> Three, Don't let me put my words into your mouths.  Watch the video
> and think for yourselves.  Based on what I've read on MOQ, this last
> one is a given.
>
> Best Regards
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>