Jump to content

Richard Dawkins Documentary - Enemies of Reason


Recommended Posts

PeterJ

 

There is a HUGE difference between morals and religious dogma. Just because I can find 10 values I find agreeable in any religious text, doesn't mean we just swallow the other 10 that are bat shit crazy. The psychos who suicide bomb and infest the world with hate sure as hell don't. Aristotle is the same person that left the world thinking heavier objects fall faster then smaller, and the sun revolved around the earth. Dawkins is using genetics, and evolution to support his claims. What can you not get about this? IF TANGIBLE PROOF DOESN'T WORK WHY WOULD LOGICAL THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS WORK? Metaphysics is not a science, I am sorry, I know it hurts.

 

And Samjase......................................................huh?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Do you have anything to say that is relevant to the discussion? Or do you just like to be foul to people for fun. All you do is make of fool of yours

What was dishonest? You changed the wording of my statement and totally changed what it said and meant, you did that intentionally, you are dishonest the rest of this post smacks of special pleading,

speaking of dictionaries, define meta.   [Mid-16th century. < medieval Latin metaphysica (plural) < medieval Greek (ta) metaphusika "(the) metaphysics" < ta meta ta phusika "the (works of

PeterJ

 

There is a HUGE difference between morals and religious dogma. Just because I can find 10 values I find agreeable in any religious text, doesn't mean we just swallow the other 10 that are bat shit crazy. The psychos who suicide bomb and infest the world with hate sure as hell don't. Aristotle is the same person that left the world thinking heavier objects fall faster then smaller, and the sun revolved around the earth. Dawkins is using genetics, and evolution to support his claims. What can you not get about this? IF TANGIBLE PROOF DOESN'T WORK WHY WOULD LOGICAL THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS WORK? Metaphysics is not a science, I am sorry, I know it hurts.

 

And Samjase......................................................huh?

 

Metaphysics is a science remote viewing works, it is a learnable scientific technique to aquire information from outside our five senses the military relies on it to gather intelligence.This technique is proven to work but the science of it is not understood. Alien life on other planets would have about zero chance of evolving with the same DNA system we have.Even Dawkins is entertaining intelligent design for life on our planet. Support amoung experts of evolutionary origins of life on our planet is in decline.

 

 

quote

 

"DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at

some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved,

probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of

technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this

planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility.

And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you

look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a

signature of some sort of designer.

 

 

 

Why on earth would someone who vehemently argues against the existence of

God by quoting Occam's Razor talk about space aliens designing and seeding

life on planet earth?! Well, Darwin's Theory, although still hugely popular

with the scientific masses and the educated public, is coming under

increasing attack. A few very eminent and very serious scientists, including

Nobel Prize Winners, are

arguing that Darwin's Theory just doesn't work (eg Roger Penrose, probably

the world's top scientific mind today). These scientists are not

necessarily saying that this proves the existence of God, they are just

saying scientists have absolutely no idea what caused life on Earth to

originate and evolve. Whilst Richard Dawkins is still selling a record number

of pro-Darwinian books to the public, in the upper echelons of the scientific

community support for evolution is undoubtedly in decline. There are several major problems with Darwin's Evolution

but for the sake of brevity I will detail here only the most popular one.

Some notes on other problems can be found at this

footnote."

 

Here's the rest of the article

 

http://www.theoligarch.com/richard-dawkins-aliens.htm

Edited by Semjase
Link to post
Share on other sites

Metaphysics is a science remote viewing works, it is a learnable scientific technique to aquire information from outside our five senses the military relies on it to gather intelligence.This technique is proven to work but the science of it is not understood. Alien life on other planets would have about zero chance of evolving with the same DNA system we have.Even Dawkins is entertaining intelligent design for life on our planet. Support amoung experts of evolutionary origins of life on our planet is in decline.

 

No, remote viewing does not work, the US military did extensive experiments with it and found it did not work at all.

 

quote

 

"DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at

some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved,

probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of

technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this

planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility.

And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you

look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a

signature of some sort of designer.

 

This is called quote mining Semjase, it's the equivalent of lying. Dawkins was asked a question pertaining to the possibility of some aliens designing us, he was not promoting the idea.

 

 

 

 

Why on earth would someone who vehemently argues against the existence of

God by quoting Occam's Razor talk about space aliens designing and seeding

life on planet earth?! Well, Darwin's Theory, although still hugely popular

with the scientific masses and the educated public, is coming under

increasing attack. A few very eminent and very serious scientists, including

Nobel Prize Winners, are

arguing that Darwin's Theory just doesn't work (eg Roger Penrose, probably

the world's top scientific mind today). These scientists are not

necessarily saying that this proves the existence of God, they are just

saying scientists have absolutely no idea what caused life on Earth to

originate and evolve. Whilst Richard Dawkins is still selling a record number

of pro-Darwinian books to the public, in the upper echelons of the scientific

community support for evolution is undoubtedly in decline. There are several major problems with Darwin's Evolution

but for the sake of brevity I will detail here only the most popular one.

Some notes on other problems can be found at this

footnote."

 

Here's the rest of the article

 

http://www.theoligarch.com/richard-dawkins-aliens.htm

 

Nothing in biology make sense except in the light of evolution Semjase, how about you name a few of those major problems with Darwin's theory instead of simply claiming there are some?

 

BTW Semjase your link "footnote" is nothing but horsefeathers, it is trying to dredge up old arguments that have been debunked many times and giving them new names, irreducible complexity is not a problem for evolution, yes eyes have evolved independently several times, the idea that the first "cell" had to just poof into existence is totally bogus, behaviors can be passed down through both genes and teaching. and yes speciation has been observed both in the lab and in the wild. It's really quite a dishonest tactic used by creationists to mislead people who want to believe in a creator.

 

Total Fail Semjase....

Edited by Moontanman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Semjase, I continue to be amazed by how some people can be wrong ALL the time. It's like you're making a conscious effort not to include anything based on reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Look guys, this all quite simple. - -

Yeah, it is - you haven't read anything substantial the guy has written, nevertheless you have strong opinions about it. What do you suppose the odds are that you have guessed correctly?

 

As it happens, in the book The God Delusion Dawkins spends a couple of pages responding to that remarkably common phenomenon, among his critics - specifically, he explains why he chose the specific religions and deities he did, why he chose the examples he chose, why the issue of detailed theological scholarship is irrelevant to his argument, and so forth. Your complaints about his reasoning would be caricatures of criticisms he chooses rather more sensible versions of, to discuss in his writings, if caricature were possible in this context.

 

Quit telling people who have read the dang book what's in it until after you have read it yourself, OK? You're being silly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Metaphysics is a science remote viewing works, it is a learnable scientific technique to aquire information from outside our five senses the military relies on it to gather intelligence.This technique is proven to work but the science of it is not understood. Alien life on other planets would have about zero chance of evolving with the same DNA system we have.Even Dawkins is entertaining intelligent design for life on our planet. Support amoung experts of evolutionary origins of life on our planet is in decline.

 

 

quote

 

"DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at

some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved,

probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of

technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this

planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility.

And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you

look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a

signature of some sort of designer.

 

 

 

Why on earth would someone who vehemently argues against the existence of

God by quoting Occam's Razor talk about space aliens designing and seeding

life on planet earth?! Well, Darwin's Theory, although still hugely popular

with the scientific masses and the educated public, is coming under

increasing attack. A few very eminent and very serious scientists, including

Nobel Prize Winners, are

arguing that Darwin's Theory just doesn't work (eg Roger Penrose, probably

the world's top scientific mind today). These scientists are not

necessarily saying that this proves the existence of God, they are just

saying scientists have absolutely no idea what caused life on Earth to

originate and evolve. Whilst Richard Dawkins is still selling a record number

of pro-Darwinian books to the public, in the upper echelons of the scientific

community support for evolution is undoubtedly in decline. There are several major problems with Darwin's Evolution

but for the sake of brevity I will detail here only the most popular one.

Some notes on other problems can be found at this

footnote."

 

Here's the rest of the article

 

http://www.theoligarch.com/richard-dawkins-aliens.htm

 

Wow, just wow! I don't know what to say, aside from the fact that I am stunned. First of all, GO AWAY! nothing you are talking about has anything to do with the friggin topic. Every thread I have read where you chime in, it is some ridiculous crap that holds about as much water as an invisible jug. You really need to learn how to fact check your facts. Or would that destroy the fantasy you create to make up for your inability to cope with reality? Moontanman was much more patient in addressing the metaphysics BS than I am even able to be.. Anyone who says thinking is all they need to solve a problem is a moron. Anyone who argues against the scientific method again, is a moron. The saddest part is the history of thinking, and its evolution is not not some obscure Where's Waldo search. It is a very clearly defined and laid out topic. But, for someone who says "rational and logic are king", you should already be VERY aware of this fact. You can't just pick and choose based on what you want to be true.

 

"These scientists are not

necessarily saying that this proves the existence of God, they are just

saying scientists have absolutely no idea what caused life on Earth to

originate and evolve. Whilst Richard Dawkins is still selling a record number

of pro-Darwinian books to the public, in the upper echelons of the scientific

community support for evolution is undoubtedly in decline."

 

..huh? Evolution is in decline? Oh I see what you did there. You think someone else who just thinks, is a source of credible information. Well next time you go to Narnia be sure to tell Aslan that I said s'up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

s

 

what is meta physics ?

 

it's nothing more than religion trying to incorporate physics into their nonsense.

so i ask,

what metaphysical problems ?

Let me get this right. You feel able to state that metaphysics is an attempt by religion to incorporate physics into their nonsense, but do not know what metaphysical problems are. Amazing. Just plain amazing. No doubt another supporter of Dawkins.

 

 

 

It doesn't raise questions, it shows that some DNA is parasitic, some of it is from neutral mutations. in amoebas it is thought by some that the enormous amount of DNA is do to an onslaught of viruses, such neutral DNA is the raw materials of evolution but it has nothing to do with the complexity of the animal or plant involved .

 

Metaphysics is an oxymoron, what tangible results has metaphysics ever produced? You can argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin until the universe dies of heat death but science has produced our first world civilization, and put men on the moon, no to mention eradicated some diseases, doubled the average human lifespan and provide food in quantities not even dreamed of be actual science.

 

Metaphysics is a scam, a joke, and Dawkins is right when he says religion is the antithesis of reason....

 

No one can show god doesn't exist or does exist for that matter in the absence of positive evidence the default position is there are no gods. Can anyone else answer those so called profound questions about the universe? No they cannot... but Dawkins can answer real world questions about the real world which metaphysics cannot do...

 

 

Oh dear. Do I have to explain everything from scratch? It's easy enough to look these things up online. Another person with strong opinions about metaphyscis who doesn't know what it is. Is everybody here a supporter of Dawkins' approach to scholarship and dogma? Or are there some honest thinkers around? Who have you read on metaphysics? Anybody?

 

PeterJ

 

There is a HUGE difference between morals and religious dogma. Just because I can find 10 values I find agreeable in any religious text, doesn't mean we just swallow the other 10 that are bat shit crazy. The psychos who suicide bomb and infest the world with hate sure as hell don't. Aristotle is the same person that left the world thinking heavier objects fall faster then smaller, and the sun revolved around the earth. Dawkins is using genetics, and evolution to support his claims. What can you not get about this? IF TANGIBLE PROOF DOESN'T WORK WHY WOULD LOGICAL THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS WORK? Metaphysics is not a science, I am sorry, I know it hurts.

 

Well,I prefer to agree with Hegel. Have you heard of him? I would usually take this for granted but not here. Perhaps you would like to explan why he was wrong to call metaphyscisa science of logic. Or do you mean it is not a science when it is done the way you do it? This is very possible. given this post of yours. I have no idea what relevance to anything most of it has, and it appears to be written in the style of the Dawkin's school of muddled ranting.

 

Metaphysics is a science remote viewing works, it is a learnable scientific technique to aquire information from outside our five senses the military relies on it to gather intelligence.This technique is proven to work but the science of it is not understood.

 

Weirder and weirder...

 

Yeah, it is - you haven't read anything substantial the guy has written, nevertheless you have strong opinions about it. What do you suppose the odds are that you have guessed correctly?

 

As it happens, in the book The God Delusion Dawkins spends a couple of pages responding to that remarkably common phenomenon, among his critics - specifically, he explains why he chose the specific religions and deities he did, why he chose the examples he chose, why the issue of detailed theological scholarship is irrelevant to his argument, and so forth. Your complaints about his reasoning would be caricatures of criticisms he chooses rather more sensible versions of, to discuss in his writings, if caricature were possible in this context.

 

Quit telling people who have read the dang book what's in it until after you have read it yourself, OK? You're being silly.

I am well acquainted with Dawkin's views, and I read enough of his book to form the opinions I hold. One does not have to read much of it to judge the standard of the debate. But if you can pick out a specific criticism I have made which is unfair please do. I concluded that by the time he explained what he was objecting to it was clear that he was objecting to all the things I would object to, and that to call this religion displayed considerable ignorance. In any case, just consider the title. How much of the book does one have to read before it becomes clear that the author has no idea whether God is a delusion? Why does he make no argument?

 

By the way, I also believe that God is a delusion. But I believe in rigour and scholarship, not useless populist rants that bring science into disrepute. His book is an insult to million scholars who have written much better books but are too difficult for Dawkin's audience.

Edited by PeterJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me get this right. You feel able to state that metaphysics is an attempt by religion to incorporate physics into their nonsense, but do not know what metaphysical problems are. Amazing. Just plain amazing. No doubt another supporter of Dawkins.

first of,

i did not know who this richard guy is until this topic let alone a " supporter " .

second,

 

yes you are correct,

what metaphysical problems ?

the only problem i see is this meta physics.

 

and also,

you commented on my question, but never provided any kind of answer to it,

 

typical.

 

Or are there some honest thinkers around? Who have you read on metaphysics? Anybody?

actually,

yes i have.

 

given this post of yours. I have no idea what relevance to anything most of it has,

i agree with you here on your postings,

but i do not understand why you continue to post,

weird

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me get this right. You feel able to state that metaphysics is an attempt by religion to incorporate physics into their nonsense, but do not know what metaphysical problems are. Amazing. Just plain amazing. No doubt another supporter of Dawkins.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh dear. Do I have to explain everything from scratch? It's easy enough to look these things up online. Another person with strong opinions about metaphyscis who doesn't know what it is. Is everybody here a supporter of Dawkins' approach to scholarship and dogma? Or are there some honest thinkers around? Who have you read on metaphysics? Anybody?

 

 

Well,I prefer to agree with Hegel. Have you heard of him? I would usually take this for granted but not here. Perhaps you would like to explan why he was wrong to call metaphyscisa science of logic. Or do you mean it is not a science when it is done the way you do it? This is very possible. given this post of yours. I have no idea what relevance to anything most of it has, and it appears to be written in the style of the Dawkin's school of muddled ranting.

Philosophy is the foundation for logic, do you reside in the foundation of a home? Or did you go ahead and make the leap and splurge on one with walls, a roof, and electricity?

 

"If he'd written his book on God in the 19th century then fair enough.

But we now have the internet, and there is no longer any excuse for so

misunderstanding religion. The very fact that he thinks it is all about

swapping reason for dogma shows he knows little about it, or knows only a

small part of the story."

 

And this is what my post was responding to. You make the assumption he doesn't know what he is talking about, as if this somehow eluded him. He doesn't misunderstand religion, he is just keenly aware of the dangers that an eyes closed approach has, and where it could potentially lead us. Just because 50% of something is morally sound or just, doesn't mean that you should just accept the other 50% that is bat shit crazy. or let me explain it like this. Just because you and I can look at the text and decipher good from bad, doesn't mean everyone else in the world can.

Edited by moreinput
Link to post
Share on other sites

Philosophy is the foundation for logic, do you reside in the foundation of a home? Or did you go ahead and make the leap and splurge on one with walls, a roof, and electricity?

Logic is the foundation for philosophy, and I certainly did not move in before checking the foundations. It is exactly my complaint that people rarely test the foundations for their opinions.

 

"

And this is what my post was responding to. You make the assumption he doesn't know what he is talking about, as if this somehow eluded him. He doesn't misunderstand religion, he is just keenly aware of the dangers that an eyes closed approach has, and where it could potentially lead us. Just because 50% of something is morally sound or just, doesn't mean that you should just accept the other 50% that is bat shit crazy. or let me explain it like this. Just because you and I can look at the text and decipher good from bad, doesn't mean everyone else in the world can.

 

Good point. It is precisely Dawkin's inability to read the texts that disturbs me so much. Not everybody can do this, or even wants to, but if one is going to write a decent book on the topic and not just more opinionated waffle then some attempt has to be made. It is not what is 'morally sound' that is at stake, it is what is true and what is false.

 

I know very well that he does not know what he is talking about. It would be blindingly obvious to any student of comparative religion. This is my objection, not that he is wrong, but that he has not made an effort to be right, and this is not good enough for a scholar. Just the fact that he equates religion with unreason is enough to show that his research is woefully inadequate and his presentation unrigorous and hopelessly partial and temperamental. It is as if I used the theory of philostogen to show that science is nonsense, not noticing that most scientists think the theory is nonsense. .

 

 

 

.

Edited by PeterJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

first of,

i did not know who this richard guy is until this topic let alone a " supporter " .

second,

 

yes you are correct,

what metaphysical problems ?

the only problem i see is this meta physics.

 

and also,

you commented on my question, but never provided any kind of answer to it,

 

typical.

 

I didn't see much point is answering since you didn't seem to know what metaphysics is (and post twitter messages!). There are dozens of well known metaphysical problems,. Take your pick. One problem would be the existential status of God. . .

 

 

 

actually,

yes i have.

 

i agree with you here on your postings,

but i do not understand why you continue to post,

weird

Yes, it is weird. You're right. And a big waste of time. Thanks for reminding me. I always have this idea that people want to discover the truth about these things and that I could help, but I get too irritable at the way people choose their opinions over the facts and usually blow it.

 

My apologies to the moderators for being tetchy and deliberately provocative.

 

So, I won't argue anymore. I will answer questions about metaphysics and religion if I get asked any, but not about Dawkins.

.

 

.

Edited by PeterJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't see much point is answering since you didn't seem to know what metaphysics is

yes, i would have said that also.

especially if i was running my mouth with ridiculous ignorance.

it appears maybe you are religious spewer,

which is why you would be an advocate for metaphysics,

i clearly understand and know what metaphysics is,

i'll restate what it is,

 

"it's nothing more than religion trying to incorporate physics into their nonsense ",

simple.

(and post twitter messages!)

smile.png i have no clue what this means.

but ok what ever.

There are dozens of well known metaphysical problems,. Take your pick. One problem would be the existential status of God.

exactly,

" it's nothing more than religion trying to incorporate physics into their nonsense "

Yes, it is weird. You're right. And a big waste of time. Thanks for reminding me. I always have this idea that people want to discover the truth about these things and that I could help,

well, the problem is no one knows the truth,

including you.

but I get too irritable at the way people choose their opinions over the facts and usually blow it.

funny, THERE IS NO FACT ABOUT THIS

what's even funnier is,

you are doing nothing more than ,

" way people choose their opinions "

and do not realize it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am well acquainted with Dawkin's views, and I read enough of his book to form the opinions I hold.

You have greatly overestimated your familiarity with Dawkins arguments, if you think you are addressing them in your posting here.

 

The blunders and incomprehensions and irrelevancies you post are difficult to reconcile with your literacy and claims of education in metaphysics, if you are indeed "well acquainted" with Dawkins's views.

 

 

. But if you can pick out a specific criticism I have made which is unfair please do

You have made no specific criticisms of Dawkins's actual arguments or approach, and I think it's because you can't do that without reading what he's written.

 

What you have done that is remotely pertinent is object to the fact that he has not engaged in profound metaphysical debate on their own grounds with the elite metaphysicians of history and our time. That objection is at least in agreement with fact - he hasn't - but it has very little to do with his writing or arguments (he deals with that aspect of the debate he has joined in a page or two, in one of those books you haven't read). He has other fish to fry.

 

 

But I believe in rigour and scholarship, not useless populist rants that bring science into disrepute

You might want to take another look at the kind of reputation metaphysicians of "rigor" in your apparent sense have among actual scientists. I can assure you that they do not worry very much about science falling into disrepute among that group of scholars.

Edited by overtone
Link to post
Share on other sites

y

 

i clearly understand and know what metaphysics is,

i'll restate what it is,

 

"it's nothing more than religion trying to incorporate physics into their nonsense ",

simple.smile.png

Hysterically funny some of these posts. I suggest buying a dictionary.

 

You have greatly overestimated your familiarity with Dawkins arguments, if you think you are addressing them in your posting here.

 

The blunders and incomprehensions and irrelevancies you post are difficult to reconcile with your literacy and claims of education in metaphysics, if you are indeed "well acquainted" with Dawkins's views.

 

 

You have made no specific criticisms of Dawkins's actual arguments or approach, and I think it's because you can't do that without reading what he's written.

I see. I have made no specific criticisms of Dawkins and yet you are able to disagree with them. This is a pretty neat trick.

 

 

What you have done that is remotely pertinent is object to the fact that he has not engaged in profound metaphysical debate on their own grounds with the elite metaphysicians of history and our time. That objection is at least in agreement with fact - he hasn't - but it has very little to do with his writing or arguments (he deals with that aspect of the debate he has joined in a page or two, in one of those books you haven't read). He has other fish to fry.

Yes. He is concerned to debunk God, not seeing that this is a metaphysical issue. Rank stupidity. I hope one day he finds a fish to fry.

 

You might want to take another look at the kind of reputation metaphysicians of "rigor" in your apparent sense have among actual scientists. I can assure you that they do not worry very much about science falling into disrepute among that group of scholars.

Yes. Metaphyscians are held in very low regard by many scientists. This is why some scientists think they can address the issue of God without bothering with it. It is embarrasing to watch. .

 

To be fair, most metaphysicians in western academia talk a load of nonsense. But only a person who looks into it would be able to see this, and as it is usually only the best of scientists who do look into it. Most assume that metaphysics is a waste of time. Gone are the days of great thinkers like Schrodinger and Eddison. Funnily enough I have an essay up at philpapers.com called 'Is Metaphysics a Waste of Time' that adresses this very issue. I suspect I'm the only participant in this debate that has actually published anything on it. No complaints yet from any philosophers or editors, but then they usually know their stuff. .

Edited by PeterJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hysterically funny some of these posts. I suggest buying a dictionary.

speaking of dictionaries,

define meta.

 

[Mid-16th century. < medieval Latin metaphysica (plural) < medieval Greek (ta) metaphusika "(the) metaphysics" < ta meta ta phusika "the (works of Aristotle) after the 'Physics'"]

 

metaphysics

1. philosophy of being

2. underlying principles

3. abstract thinking

 

meta

2. beyond, transcending, encompassing

3. change, transformation

 

so with your " dictionary ",

what's the difference from religion and these short definitions ?

 

and if there is not difference from physics, then why add meta to it ?

 

here's this also,

 

Metaphysics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

Etymology [edit]

 

The word "metaphysics" derives from the Greek words μετά (metá) ("beyond", "upon" or "after") and φυσικά (physiká) ("physics").[7] It was first used as the title for several of Aristotle's works, because they were usually anthologized after the works on physics in complete editions. The prefix meta- ("beyond") indicates that these works come "after" the chapters on physics. However, Aristotle himself did not call the subject of these books "Metaphysics": he referred to it as "first philosophy." The editor of Aristotle's works, Andronicus of Rhodes, is thought to have placed the books on first philosophy right after another work, Physics, and called them τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικὰ βιβλία (ta meta ta physika biblia) or "the books that come after the [books on] physics". This was misread by Latin scholiasts, who thought it meant "the science of what is beyond the physical". However, once the name was given, the commentators sought to find intrinsic reasons for its appropriateness. For instance, it was understood to mean "the science of the world beyond nature" (phusis in Greek), that is, the science of the immaterial. Again, it was understood to refer to the chronological or pedagogical order among our philosophical studies, so that the "metaphysical sciences" would mean "those that we study after having mastered the sciences that deal with the physical world" (St. Thomas Aquinas, "In Lib, Boeth. de Trin.", V, 1).

There is a widespread use of the term in current popular literature, which replicates this error, i.e. that metaphysical means spiritual non-physical: thus, "metaphysical healing" means healing by means of remedies that are not physical.[8]

Origins and nature of metaphysics

....considered metaphysical for centuries are now typically subjects of their own separate regions in philosophy, such as philosophy of religion, philosophy of mind, philosophy of perception, philosophy of language, and philosophy of science.

Religion and spirituality

....Theology is the study of a god or gods and the nature of the divine. Whether there is a god (monotheism), many gods (polytheism) or no gods (atheism), or whether it is unknown or unknowable whether any gods exist (agnosticism; apophatic theology), and whether the Divine intervenes directly in the world (theism), or its sole function is to be the first cause of the universe (deism); these and whether a God or gods and the World are different (as in panentheism and dualism), or are identical (as in pantheism), are some of the primary metaphysical questions concerning philosophy of religion.

Within the standard Western philosophical tradition, theology reached its peak under the medieval school of thought known as scholasticism, which focused primarily on the metaphysical aspects of Christianity. The work of the scholastics is still an integral part of modern philosophy,[12] with key figures such as Thomas Aquinas still playing an important role in the philosophy of religion.[13]

Edited by krash661
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Dawkins is being too loud for his content. Although I do think that debunking superstition and to some extent religion and promoting rationality is important, the way he does it makes it sound TOO important. It's all too exaggerated and hyperbolic that the target audience take it as an insult and stop listening 3-4 sentences in. Other people definitely do the job better.

 

That's coming from a guy that only sees him on youtube and has read zero of his books.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hysterically funny some of these posts. I suggest buying a dictionary.

If attacks on someone's spelling is the only thing you've got, I suggest you read post #36.

Rank stupidity. I hope one day he finds a fish to fry.

Ad hominem.

...and as it is usually only the best of scientists who do look into it.

How do you define "best scientists"? Because if you're defining them as the ones who actually come up with results, I think you'd be surprised if you take the time to look it up.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I see. I have made no specific criticisms of Dawkins and yet you are able to disagree with them.

Basic reading comprehension problems in a self described metaphysician, expert in logical argument?

 

Or does the Foxtype propaganda approach just come naturally to authoritarians whose ox is gored? Here's what I posted:

You have made no specific criticisms of Dawkins's actual arguments or approach,

What I am disagreeing with is your pejorative descriptions of a public and political activist whose work you don't know.

 

Yes. He is concerned to debunk God, not seeing that this is a
metaphysical issue. Rank stupidity. I hope one day he finds a fish to
fry.

Once again the limits of Dawkins's sight are described by someone who has not read his books.

 

One of the things Dawkins sees is that this is - in real life, which is his chosen arena - an issue with metaphysics in general and the political role of theologians in particular. That's not quite the same thing as a metaphysical issue, eh?

 

 

Yes. Metaphyscians are held in very low regard by many scientists. This
is why some scientists think they can address the issue of God without
bothering with it. It is embarrasing to watch.

It's even more embarrassing when one of their points is that the metaphysicians often don't know what they are talking about, and the metaphysicians ranting about their books don't know what's in them.

 

 

To be fair, most metaphysicians in western academia talk a load of
nonsense. But only a person who looks into it would be able to see this,

Oh, I don't know - sometimes all you have to do is log unto a casual science forum, and you get it smacked into your face.

 

But that is irrelevant to this thread - Dawkins is not analysing profound metaphysics to discover its subtle errors and their relationship to a comprehension of the issue of God etc. The exact form of the nonsense - or sense - being talked by elite metaphysicians is outside the arena of his discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Dawkins is being too loud for his content. Although I do think that debunking superstition and to some extent religion and promoting rationality is important, the way he does it makes it sound TOO important. It's all too exaggerated and hyperbolic that the target audience take it as an insult and stop listening 3-4 sentences in. Other people definitely do the job better.

 

That's coming from a guy that only sees him on youtube and has read zero of his books.

 

ho ho ha ha...

 

It seems that the people who most object to these books are the people who have no interest in reading them, Nice to meet a fellow non-reader.

 

I think you have put my objection to this author much better than I have done so far. 'All fur coat and no knickers' is what they would say around here.

 

I shall try not to mention this author or his books again in this thread.

 

But I'd be happy to discuss metaphysics if anyone is the least bit interested in it, even if it is off-topic.

Edited by PeterJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear. Do I have to explain everything from scratch? It's easy enough to look these things up online. Another person with strong opinions about metaphyscis who doesn't know what it is. Is everybody here a supporter of Dawkins' approach to scholarship and dogma? Or are there some honest thinkers around? Who have you read on metaphysics? Anybody?

Way to dodge a question there PeterJ, I'll ask it again, how has metaphysics contributed to the real world? How many more tons of food are produced each year by metaphysics? How many diseases have been cured or eradicated by metaphysics? Could civilization stumble on without metaphysics PeterJ? Take away science and all it has given us and people begin to die immediately, within days millions would be dead, within months billions. If metaphysics were taken away how would that impact our 1st world civilization?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Way to dodge a question there PeterJ, I'll ask it again, how has metaphysics contributed to the real world? How many more tons of food are produced each year by metaphysics? How many diseases have been cured or eradicated by metaphysics? Could civilization stumble on without metaphysics PeterJ? Take away science and all it has given us and people begin to die immediately, within days millions would be dead, within months billions. If metaphysics were taken away how would that impact our 1st world civilization?

 

Good point. I can understand Dawkins problem he has with organized religion which is based

on a very primative intervention on mankind which has not led to a more peaceful intelligent

civilization.For mankind to survive I think it has to move away from religion to peaceful coexistence

based on intelligence rather than unsubstantiated Earth based religions, I think this is what Dawkins is getting at. Intelligent design will most likely be the religion of tomorrow that even Dawkins won't argue with.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

 

Edited by Semjase
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point. I can understand Dawkins problem he has with organized religion which is based

on a very primative intervention on mankind which has not led to a more peaceful intelligent

civilization.For mankind to survive I think it has to move away from religion to peaceful coexistence

based on intelligence rather than unsubstantiated Earth based religions, I think this is what Dawkins is getting at. Intelligent design will most likely be the religion of tomorrow that even Dawkins won't argue with.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

If organisms are designed it sure as hell wasn't intelligently Edited by Ringer
Link to post
Share on other sites

ho ho ha ha...

 

It seems that the people who most object to these books are the people who have no interest in reading them, Nice to meet a fellow non-reader.

 

I think you have put my objection to this author much better than I have done so far. 'All fur coat and no knickers' is what they would say around here.

 

I shall try not to mention this author or his books again in this thread.

 

But I'd be happy to discuss metaphysics if anyone is the least bit interested in it, even if it is off-topic.

 

Did you really expect a different response? It's like going to a Christian forum and critiquing Jesus.

 

As for Dawkins, how someone can make an argument for the non-existence of something and be taken seriously is beyond me, although from some of the posts in this thread I can see how he has an audience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Way to dodge a question there PeterJ, I'll ask it again, how has metaphysics contributed to the real world? How many more tons of food are produced each year by metaphysics? How many diseases have been cured or eradicated by metaphysics? Could civilization stumble on without metaphysics PeterJ? Take away science and all it has given us and people begin to die immediately, within days millions would be dead, within months billions. If metaphysics were taken away how would that impact our 1st world civilization?

Do you imagine that it';s possible to do physics without doing metaphysics? It would be an unorthodox view. It would be like building a sand-castle.

 

.

 

Did you really expect a different response? It's like going to a Christian forum and critiquing Jesus.

 

As for Dawkins, how someone can make an argument for the non-existence of something and be taken seriously is beyond me, although from some of the posts in this thread I can see how he has an audience.

Actually, I hadn't realised that he had any real respect or support anymore. So rather naively I was taken by surprise. My fault.

 

Good point. I can understand Dawkins problem he has with organized religion which is based

on a very primative intervention on mankind which has not led to a more peaceful intelligent

civilization.For mankind to survive I think it has to move away from religion to peaceful coexistence

based on intelligence rather than unsubstantiated Earth based religions, I think this is what Dawkins is getting at. Intelligent design will most likely be the religion of tomorrow that even Dawkins won't argue with.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

I doubt it. Intelligent Design is not an idea based on intelligent analysis. Maybe there's a sophisticated form of it that works, but usually it's presented as anything but sophisticated.and far from well-considered. Usually it's fans do no metaphysics, like all fans of illogical theories, for it is not supported by reason and logic. .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.