gtsrulez
Junior Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 39
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 6
No, I am not a creationist. Are you?
Watch this:
http://fora.tv/2008/05/24/John_Gray_in_Conversation
I will when I have the time.
Grey makes the point that secular humanism (he does mention Dawkins) refutes the content of Christianity (and religion in general) but retains its thought processes:
-Dawkins makes the point that "we alone have the ability..." to defy our genes etc., in effect, we are special. But where does this specialness come from?
-Dawkins offers his own eschatology. Have you read Unweaving the Rainbow? Well, to me, it is as if Dawkins has set about weaving his own rainbow.
Dawkins is stating the obvious in completely naturalistic terms. There's no similarity with religious thought processes. Setting goals and wishing for a certain future is not eschatology. I still don't understand what exactly it is you support and why the obsession with Dawkins.
So, what some take from the new eschatology, and the new religion (humanism) is the belief that humanity can be so much more than it is --science and technology offer the grand potential of a utopian society, where all realise the infallibility of the scientific method (world view) and conflict becomes a thing of the past?
Everyone has a vision for the future and works for it. I don't see how humanism is eschatological, and what exactly your problem is.
Grey also makes the point (cf. Schopenhauer) that a multiplicity of conflicting desires, are an intrinsic part of the reality of human existence --good vs. bad, them vs. us is an illusion (think 'NeoDarwinians' vs. 'Creationists')... instead we choose between 'goods', between 'bads' etc. So as Kissinger (!) would have it, great men must choose between evils...
Sorry, the above is irrelevant, relativistic nonsense. The harm caused by creationists in education is not an illusion.
Politically, the Discovery Institute is in bed with the Israeli Lobby, and with the Neoconservatives. Ideologically, Dawkins presents a kind of secondary add-on to Neoconservatism. It other words, both sides are being played within the theatre that is the ever-changing/transitioning public sphere (again, call me a relativist!). And yes, the political world really is that complicated!
I don't really know what to respond to such nonsense. This looks like pretending to be an intellectual simply by dismissing both sides of an argument as being the same. Being played? By whom? Again, I don't know what you believe exactly but it sounds like a conspiracy theory.
I've read Dawkins, McGrath, Grey, Dennett, Blackmore and all the rest. Why don't you do the same? What are you so worried about? Please consider that the real world is not a wrestling match, there are always shades of grey... and there in lies the 'truth' of the matter.
:bring it on:
Worried? I'm not the one desperately trying to discredit a popular author by spreading common creationist lies. What are you so worried about?
Some issues are black and white, like the existence of god, if that's what you had in mind. There aren't ALWAYS shades of grey.