On 1/14/10 at 3:59PM, Krimel wrote:
[Quoting Ham]:
Why should I have to contend with Dawkins, a biologist who
(like many here) is obsessed with the notion that Creationism
somehow has a stranglehold on scientific investigation?
Is this a joke? Creationism (I notice you use the honest term,
at least, rather than disingenuous ID) has a stranglehold on biology?
I think what pisses Dawkins off is the persistence of this stupid idea.
Creationism is rooted in dogma not logic or science or anything else.
If ever there was an example of people being held in the thrall of an
idea for social rather than intellectual reasons this is it.
Creationism doesn't serve a social reason any more than a biological one.
It simply expresses man's innate belief in a Creator -- a spiritual entity
greater than himself by whose power he exists. Such a belief predates
Darwinism by thousands of years and is the foundation of the world's
religions. By the tone of your response, I suspect that this pisses you off
more than it does Dawkins.
It is just flatly dishonest for people of that ilk to pretend to justify
their dogma with the very tools they are trying to overthrow. Like say
obvious misconstrueals of the Law of Thermodynamics. I suspect that
is what annoys Dawkins and impels him to speak out against such absurdity.
Is belief in a divinity more absurd than Kurzweil's Singularity or a Big
Bang that arose from nothing?
You refuse to acknowledge that the universe is intelligently designed
because it implies a Creator, yet you are a product of this design and all
of Science thrives on its order and consistency. I would say there's more
than a little hypocrisy in your disbelief.
Regards,
Ham
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Of what metaphysical significance is the fact that Dawkins took four pages
of his postmodern Pilgrim's Progress to argue that "there is no essence"?
Better that he had used that space to explain why there is no nothingness.
Or how it is that we are free to believe in a primary source or not.
I am neither a creationist nor a platonist. Plato believed that "essence"
was the ideal form or cause of a thing, apart from its being. His protégé
Aristotle suggested that the ideal is to be found in the thing's being
itself, which led to the plurality of "essences".
The Essence of my philosophy is the uncreated Absolute Source from which
relational existence is experientially derived. So Essentialism has very
little in common with these ontologies.
At least Robert Pirsig demonstrated that experienced Value is the
metaphysical ground of existence.
On that we both agree.
Best regards,
Ham
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
