Didn't Darwin make Teleological obsolete?

<< < (4/16) > >>

GCG (September 16, 2010, 10:39:41 AM):
you know, if darwin was alive today, he would bitchslap you tele.
do you think, this oke spent years travelling accross the globe, spending his years in the dust and much, researching evolution for an asshat like you to say he believed in intelligent design.
do you think he worked himself into illness and beyond, to get his works out, to publish his books, for you to say he actually believes that it all had a plan.
do you think he flew in the face of establishment, to have you, years and years after he died, decide you know him well enough to make decisions about his mental processes?

* from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church.
* in 1879 he wrote that "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind." (that means he will believe it when he sees it, in case you were looking for a loophole)
* The "Lady Hope Story", published in 1915, claimed that Darwin had reverted back to Christianity on his sickbed. The claims were repudiated by Darwin's children and have been dismissed as false by historians
* he (darwin)thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy
* He (darwin)considered it "absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist"

stop trying to fit this genius man into your hokey pokey ideas of the world. he didnt work his ass off his whole life so people like you can abuse and misinterpret his work for your own gains.
mdg (September 16, 2010, 10:46:49 AM):
Quote from: Mefiante
Quote
Quote from: Jacques on Yesterday at 10:11:53
So, in short, thanks for confirming once more that it's a waste of time to engage with you further.
You are of course free to interpret my withdrawal whichever way you see fit.

Mefi, I'm confused. I think Jaques was talking about Teleological and not you - perhaps I'm reading it wrong??

Quote from: GCG
you know, if darwin was alive today, he would bitchslap you tele.

@GCG, your replies always make me smile. ;D

mdg
Teleological (September 16, 2010, 11:01:12 AM):
There you go, contradicting your own position once again, Teleological. On the one hand, paraphrased, you imply (twice) that the findings and successes of modern science hold no sway over the validity of the metaphysical theories that underpin science. On the other hand, you point (many times) to our present ignorance concerning certain aspects of some of those results (e.g. evolution, biochemical processes, studies in cognition, etc.) in an obvious and broad hint that an exclusively materialist foundational metaphysic is inadequate. You can’t, by your own assertions, have both.
I think you missed the point by miles... unsurprisingly. Now see if you can understand this:
1) EVEN IF the successes of modern science are due in part or even as a whole to materialistic metaphysics, it still does not impart any truth to materialism and the same goes for others.
2) I am arguing that materialism is IN PRINCIPLE inadequate (meaning, whatever science finds, materialism will be inadequate) at describing phenomena such as intentionality. That has been one of the stock standard objections (in various forms of course) since anybody tried to sell materialism thousands of years ago. Trying to find a square circle is like trying to find a materialistic explanation for certain phenomena in reality.
3) You would like to acknowledge that materialism "might" have no convincing account for some phenomena at present, but you appeal to "materialism-of-the-gaps" type of argumentation by saying it is an incomplete metaphysics. You show no understanding of your own about materialism and what it is, yet still tout it as some magical metaphysics that helped science so much.

In essence, you like to ascribe the successes of modern science to materialism without having a (well, I am waiting for you to demonstrate any king of understanding) proper understanding of materialism and claim it is because it is an incomplete metaphysics. So, I'll ask you again:
Could you perhaps describe what you think materialism and the materialist position refers to in your mind in your words?
Also, after articulating this, describe why you think this metaphysics and which particular elements of this metaphysics can be held responsible for the successes of modern science.

I am also waiting for an argument of any sort as to why Aristotle's metaphysics is incompatible with modern science's understanding of motion...



Jacques (September 16, 2010, 11:03:37 AM):
Quote from: Mefiante
Quote
Quote from: Jacques on Yesterday at 10:11:53
So, in short, thanks for confirming once more that it's a waste of time to engage with you further.
You are of course free to interpret my withdrawal whichever way you see fit.

Mefi, I'm confused. I think Jaques was talking about Teleological and not you - perhaps I'm reading it wrong??

Was talking about Tele, yes.
Mefiante (September 16, 2010, 11:05:56 AM):
Mefi, I'm confused. I think Jaques was talking about Teleological and not you - perhaps I'm reading it wrong??
I think you misunderstood my intent – I’m sorry for giving the wrong impression. I merely used Jacques’s reply to Teleological because I thought it succinctly captures all that is wrong here. I won’t engage any further with Teleological on the present matter because he is neither open to anything that calls his ideas into question, nor does he actually know his oats anywhere near as well as he would have his Punch-and-Judy act suggest.

'Luthon64

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page