--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > salyavin, first of all, yes, it's a really good day when one > > learns something new. So thank you for this and though I'm > > concerned by what he sees as scientific overreach (let's > > hook him up to fMRI, I say), I'm so encouraged that DanDen > > is hanging out with scientists and enjoying it. > > Er, Dennett doesn't just "hang out with scientists," he > *is* a scientist. Did you think otherwise? > > > Also encouraged by what he says about free will and our having > > enough responsibility, autonomy and control. Actually I'm > > encouraged simply by his talking about free will and > > responsibility at all, topics both wonderfully everyday > > practical and spiritual at the same time, as well as being > > philosophical and even psychological. > > For your (and salyavin's) amusement: > > "To avoid acknowledgement of irreducible purpose or goal-directedness in > nature including in the human mind Dennett writes it all off as a mere > fiction, a matter of taking an interpretative 'stance' toward the world. Yet > taking an interpretative stance is itself an inherently purposive or > goal-directed activity, as clear an example of intentionality (and indeed, of > Aristotelian final causality) as can be imagined. Thus the entire strategy > is simply incoherent, a shameless sophism which reveals the absurd lengths to > which the materialist must go in order to maintain his position in the face > of the insuperable difficulties facing it. As Alfred North Whitehead once > put it, 'Those who devote themselves to the purpose of proving that there is > no purpose constitute an interesting subject for study.'" > > --Edward Feser > > http://web.archive.org/web/20071014120942/rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2007/06/not_so_bright.html > > Dennett's incoherence is legendary among those who > know what they're talking about (including atheists). >
Judy, I'm not impressed with Dennett either. I saw a video of him debating the Kalam Cosmological Argument against Dr. William Lane Craig. Dennett looked foolish arguing against the reasoning of philosophical giants like Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, and Al-Ghazali. If he had known the pitfalls of his arguments, he would have declined to enter the debate against Craig. To illustrate the point, Richard Dawkins, another atheist, declined to enter a separate debate on the same topic with Craig. Dawkins knew that he would look silly arguing against the KCA. Unfortunately for Dennett, he could not understand or see the strength of KCA and the intelligence of his formidable opponent in Dr. Craig. > > > > > > > I know I keep harping on the topic of fMRIs but I'm now even more motivated > > to do so because yesterday I read an article in Huffington Post explaining > > that the recently published DSM5 has come under criticism, even from the > > director of the National Institute of Mental Health. I'll say more about it > > in a post to Xeno but here will simply say that I'm hoping that, in the > > name of increasing human and planetary well being, we're headed to a > > convergence of science and spirituality and pragmatism. > > > > Meanwhile, am looking into becoming neurogeologist with specialization in > > hard heads (-: >
