Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You asked Gordon what you meant by altruism? How odd?

BTW is the different meaning of theory in scientific terms, as opposed to colloquial terms some form of linguistic Stalinist revisionism by science?

Science is science and cannot be Stalinist or revisionist.

Scientists on the other hand can be both and Dawkins it could be argued is both given his views on what is suitable for academic study and what isn't.

What is at fault is bringing scientific definitions into philosophical discussion and assuming they are the deeper definition with other ideas relegated to being colloquiall or quaint.

That is part of the very DNA of new atheism it seems.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ive put Bluehillside down as holding Altruism as illusiory.

[Nearly Sane]

Science is science and cannot be Stalinist or revisionist.

Scientists on the other hand can be both and Dawkins it could be argued is both given his views on what is suitable for academic study and what isn't.

What is at fault is bringing scientific definitions into philosophical discussion and assuming they are the deeper definition with other ideas relegated to being colloquiall or quaint.

That is part of the very DNA of new atheism it seems.

  Odd that in complaining about the use of language, you take something such as having an opinion on what is suitable for academic study and call it Stalinist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

  Odd that in complaining about the use of language, you take something such as having an opinion on what is suitable for academic study and call it Stalinist.

Academic study needs resourcing otherwise it faces extinction in the face of earning a living. Of course Wanting expel theologians from universities is intellectual totalitarianism as is declaring that only your definition of anything is both deeper and overruling.

[Nearly Sane]

Academic study needs resourcing otherwise it faces extinction in the face of earning a living. Of course Wanting expel theologians from universities is intellectual totalitarianism as is declaring that only your definition of anything is both deeper and overruling.

Shiny shiny mirror

[Nearly Sane]

Ive put Bluehillside down as holding Altruism as illusiory.

Unlikely, since he can spell.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Shiny shiny mirror

I don't think religion ever claimed a deeper definition of photosynthesis or nuclear fusion.

Krauss and Dawkins did clumsy hatchet Jobs on the terms "nothing" and "altruism"

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Unlikely, since he can spell.

I would expect a new atheist to be able to spell illusory. Goodness knows it crops up enough in their evangelistic mission.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think religion ever claimed a deeper definition of photosynthesis or nuclear fusion.

Krauss and Dawkins did clumsy hatchet Jobs on the terms "nothing" and "altruism"

I wasn't talking about abstracts like religion. I was talking about your abuse of terms.


I tried having the discussion about how 'nothing' is problematic with you but you didn't seem to engage.

As for altruism, I think you have to look at your own links, and see where the charge against Dawkins here makes no sense. In any form of philosophical discussion of it, the common idea is problematic, as is free will. The problem you have is that you use terms like this in different senses throughout your posts. It makes your posts often meaningless due to your lack of clarity of your own meaning. Posting links to pages with multiple meanings isn't useful unless you identify what YOU mean.

[Nearly Sane]

I would expect a new atheist to be able to spell illusory. Goodness knows it crops up enough in their evangelistic mission.

Who do you think this applies to on this board?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Who do you think this applies to on this board?

Er, you brought spelling up.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I wasn't talking about abstracts like religion. I was talking about your abuse of terms.


I tried having the discussion about how 'nothing' is problematic with you but you didn't seem to engage.

As for altruism, I think you have to look at your own links, and see where the charge against Dawkins here makes no sense. In any form of philosophical discussion of it, the common idea is problematic, as is free will. The problem you have is that you use terms like this in different senses throughout your posts. It makes your posts often meaningless due to your lack of clarity of your own meaning. Posting links to pages with multiple meanings isn't useful unless you identify what YOU mean.

Really Sane......indulging in such whataboutery.

[Nearly Sane]

Er, you brought spelling up.

And? I asked you who you think on the board is a new atheist who has an evangelistic mission?

[Nearly Sane]

Really Sane......indulging in such whataboutery.

You seem confused - none of

'I wasn't talking about abstracts like religion. I was talking about your abuse of terms.


I tried having the discussion about how 'nothing' is problematic with you but you didn't seem to engage.

As for altruism, I think you have to look at your own links, and see where the charge against Dawkins here makes no sense. In any form of philosophical discussion of it, the common idea is problematic, as is free will. The problem you have is that you use terms like this in different senses throughout your posts. It makes your posts often meaningless due to your lack of clarity of your own meaning. Posting links to pages with multiple meanings isn't useful unless you identify what YOU mean.'

is in any sense a tu quoque since I'm talking about me trying to engage with you. I am not saying that others don't do it. I'm not saying if they do that should be ignored because of your inability to be clear. I'm saying that it makes it difficult to discuss what you mean, when you post links that have multiple meanings, or use terms in ways that seem to have different meanings in different posts, or use terms in a way that seem completely idiosyncratic to you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

is in any sense a tu quoque since I'm talking about me trying to engage with you. I am not saying that others don't do it. I'm not saying if they do that should be ignored because of your inability to be clear. I'm saying that it makes it difficult to discuss what you mean, when you post links that have multiple meanings, or use terms in ways that seem to have different meanings in different posts, or use terms in a way that seem completely idiosyncratic to you.

I agree of course, but what given this track record causes you think he actually wants to discuss anything? 

[jeremyp]

At least one of its descriptions adequately describes your position and criticises it.

Really? Which ones?

Also, how do you know what my position is since I have refused to discuss it until you tell me what you mean by "reductionism"?

Right now, I am of the opinion that you don't know what reductionism is but you have decided it's a big word that you think will confound your opponents.

[jeremyp]

How about you define altruism for us, Vlad, instead of idly speculating about what others may or may not think.

Good luck with that.

Vlad: I asked about your definition of reductionism first, so please address my request before you address Gordon's.

[jeremyp]

I don't think religion ever claimed a deeper definition of photosynthesis or nuclear fusion.

Krauss and Dawkins did clumsy hatchet Jobs

Wrong. He died of cancer.

[jeremyp]

I would expect a new atheist to be able to spell illusory. Goodness knows it crops up enough in their evangelistic mission.

So would I and, if Bluehillside is a New Atheist, he would therefore not be "holding Altruism as illusiory" which was your claim.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good luck with that.

Vlad: I asked about your definition of reductionism first, so please address my request before you address Gordon's.

You are reductionist because you think free will is an illusion, you dont the believe in it because the illusion is explicable in terms of electrical and chemical reaction.

That makes you reductionist.

[Maeght]

You are reductionist because you think free will is an illusion, you dont the believe in it because the illusion is explicable in terms of electrical and chemical reaction.

That makes you reductionist.

Isn't reductionism about explaining complex things in terms of smaller parts? If so then thinking free will is an illusion isn't reductionism surely.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Isn't reductionism about explaining complex things in terms of smaller parts? If so then thinking free will is an illusion isn't reductionism surely.

I have to concede that his conclusion is eliminative.
But his view of what gives rise to brain function and phenomena is explicable by chemistry and ultimately the laws of physics.That is reductionist.

[Gordon]

I have to concede that his conclusion is eliminative.
But his view of what gives rise to brain function and phenomena is explicable by chemistry and ultimately the laws of physics.That is reductionist.

From what is it reduced?

[Alan Burns]

Isn't reductionism about explaining complex things in terms of smaller parts? If so then thinking free will is an illusion isn't reductionism surely.

Any complex series of electro chemical reactions will still ultimately produce a definable reaction with no perceivable freedom to produce anything else.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

From what is it reduced?

Complex bioological activity reduced to laws of physics. Classic reductionism.