--- In [email protected], "Seraphita" <s3raphita@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" wrote: > > > > If you're interested in the debate with materialists, you > > could do a lot better than Chopra. He's not what I would > > call a rigorous thinker. > > > > You might try Thomas Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos: Why the > > Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost > > Certainly False." > > > > Nagel got in a lot of trouble with the big-time materialists; > > the book really upset them, so he must have hit close to the > > bone. > > Yes, Nagel's book is already on my to-read list
Oh, excellent. Again, if you want to preview it, probably a good quarter of it is on FFL in those posts I listed. > as I've been amused by the way atheist philosophers and > neo-Darwinian scientists have closed ranks to denounce > his heresy. It's been sort of a hobby of mine since the book came out to read all the reviews I can find. It's a sort of non-Chopra education in the "War of the Worldviews." ;-) Except that Nagel himself hasn't been interested in responding to his critics (can't say as I blame him, but it would be fun to see his defense). If you're interested, there's a neat blog by a classical theist philosopher who made a series of eight longish posts on Nagel's book, picking a few nits here and there but mostly taking apart the materialists' attacks on it: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/06/mind-and-cosmos-roundup.html All kinds of interesting stuff on that blog. The guy's sort of crabby, but he's also a very clear writer. > It's curious that so many people have a strong emotional > attachment to whatever the current orthodoxy is. Well, the nonmaterialists are generally just as emotionally attached to their UNorthodox point of view... > My vice > is the exact opposite - I only enjoy reading people who > shake the foundations - whether they are right or wrong I > find that approach is invariably more entertaining. *And* more educational, I'd say, especially when those who are trying to hold up the foundations do their best to debunk the shakers. > (Of course one has to draw the line somewhere: I need my > heretics to make a good case and not simply spout wild > theories like David Icke, for example.) Oh, jeez. We had somebody on FFL a few years back who was a big Icke fan, a very intelligent woman, believe it or not.
