Nature comes first

[The Grand Nudger]

The trouble with ancient wisdom is that it's answers keep turning out to be hilariously wrong, Lek.  It doesn't matter whether or not science can ever answer all the questions or every question, or if it discovers some new thing - that much is already an answered question.

You were only indicating your preference for discredited fairy tales in that statement, nothing more.

[fredd bear]

The trouble with ancient wisdom is that it's answers keep turning out to be hilariously wrong, Lek.  It doesn't matter whether or not science can ever answer all the questions or every question, or if it discovers some new thing - that much is already an answered question.

You were only indicating your preference for discredited fairy tales in that statement, nothing more.

Yep. That realisation led me to look much more critically at  the "god is an alien" nonsense . I must have read dozens of those books in the 70's.  A waste? Not al all, all attempts to learn are worth while, some more so than others.

My all time favourite graffito;

"Religion: Man's attempt to communicate with the weather"

[Gawdzilla Sama]

How's that working out?

[The Grand Nudger]

Yep. That realisation led me to look much more critically at  the "god is an alien" nonsense . I must have read dozens of those books in the 70's.  A waste? Not al all, all attempts to learn are worth while, some more so than others.

My all time favourite graffito;

"Religion: Man's attempt to communicate with the weather"

I -love- that sort of shit.  It's wrong, but it's instructive in that it provides a window, by creating a new theology in real time, on how the old theology was likely created.

[fredd bear]

Yep. That realisation led me to look much more critically at  the "god is an alien" nonsense . I must have read dozens of those books in the 70's.  A waste? Not al all, all attempts to learn are worth while, some more so than others.

My all time favourite graffito;

"Religion: Man's attempt to communicate with the weather"

I -love- that sort of shit.  It's wrong, but it's instructive in that it provides a window, by creating a new theology in real time, on how the old theology was likely created.

 I loved it for a long time.  After reading quite a few of those books I noticed the authors began quoting each other.

I recently came across a convinced Ufologist. Oh dear, like trying to have rational conversation with a Christian apologist; impervious to  reason or scholarly method. (probably not the case with all  apologists,  just the one's I've I've run across in the last 40 years or so)

As you are interested in the process, I highly recommend 'New Heaven New Earth'  by Kenhelm Burridge.  He examines the process of the growth of millennial movements; the stages are actually predictable. Cheap at Amazon, possibly cheaper as an E book, even cheaper second hand. I studied this book as part of a university course in Anthropology. I think it's excellent.


ADDENDUM; Just thought of this; Christianity is a failed millennial movement. Jesus' disciples expected Jesus to return, and with him, the new millennium, within their lifetime. Christians are still waiting for the second coming.

[EgoDeath]

I tend to agree with Dawkins in thinking that if there is some sort of "supreme intelligence" (whatever that even means, because theists refuse to even define what that supreme intelligence would look like), it must have evolved through some kind of Darwinian evolution. I think that nature encompasses all that there as, as there has never been anything to exist that has been demonstrated to exist "outside" of nature. In that way, I'm certainly a naturalist.

[GrandizerII]

I tend to agree with Dawkins in thinking that if there is some sort of "supreme intelligence" (whatever that even means, because theists refuse to even define what that supreme intelligence would look like), it must have evolved through some kind of Darwinian evolution. I think that nature encompasses all that there as, as there has never been anything to exist that has been demonstrated to exist "outside" of nature. In that way, I'm certainly a naturalist.

Or it could've always been, and with full storage of all information that could be known by such an entity. In this sense it can be a supreme intelligence without having to evolve.

There are ways to imagine a seemingly possible god without having to accept Dawkins' thinking.

[EgoDeath]

I tend to agree with Dawkins in thinking that if there is some sort of "supreme intelligence" (whatever that even means, because theists refuse to even define what that supreme intelligence would look like), it must have evolved through some kind of Darwinian evolution. I think that nature encompasses all that there as, as there has never been anything to exist that has been demonstrated to exist "outside" of nature. In that way, I'm certainly a naturalist.

Or it could've always been, and with full storage of all information that could be known by such an entity. In this sense it can be a supreme intelligence without having to evolve.

There are ways to imagine a seemingly possible god without having to accept Dawkins' thinking.

Provide evidence for such a god then. Hell, define the god first, then provide evidence. If you can't, then thanks for your time.

[fredd bear]

it must have evolved through some kind of Darwinian evolution.

Not sure that claim may be reasonably made.

My understanding is that Christian theologists argue that god is eternal and perfect, having always existed. Being subject to evolution makes god imperfect ,and therefore not god. By definition, god is super-natural, and not required to meet physical, or scientific laws.


Richard Dawkins seems to be a pretty good evolutionary biologist . I really enjoyed his demolition the argument of irreducible complexity. However, I'm not overly impressed with him as a philosopher.

I recommend the article linked below;

https://www.philosophersmag.com/footnote...rd-dawkins

Credentials of the writer:;

MASSIMO PIGLIUCCI IS THE K.D. IRANI PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY AT THE CITY COLLEGE OF NEW YORK. HIS BACKGROUND IS IN EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, THOUGH HE HAS RECENTLY DEVELOPED A KEEN INTEREST IN STOICISM (AT HOWTOBEASTOIC.ORG). HIS MOST RECENT BOOK (CO-EDITED WITH MAARTEN BOUDRY) IS “PHILOSOPHY OF PSEUDOSCIENCE: RECONSIDERING THE DEMARCATION PROBLEM” (UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS, 2013). HIS OTHER WRITINGS CAN BE FOUND AT PLATOFOOTNOTE.ORG.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Richard Dawkins; Good Scientist, Bad Philosopher:

https://www.patheos.com/resources/additi...rd-dawkins

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Why do philosophers hate Richard Dawkins:

This is from Reddit, so make of it what you will. I think's it's not bad.)


Because anything Richard Dawkins has to say on philosophy is terrible, especially on philosophy of religion. Dawkins' education is in the field of evolutionary biology, not philosophy, so you basically guarantee that whenever he speaks at length of philosophical matters, everything he says is riddled with error.

https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/c...d_dawkins/

[EgoDeath]

And why should we take anything philosophers have to say seriously, when it comes to science?