Dawkins is an utter failure as a philosopher! (and he smells)

[Copperknickers II]

It's pretty simple. Religion is there to enforce morality, it is very crappy at formulating it, as crappy as random people making stuff up. Evidence #1: scripture.

That's not morality without religion. Dawkins claims that all morality is basically inbuilt or rationally formulated, and owes nothing whatsoever to religion. Which is clearly not true or why do different religions and cultures have such different moral compasses.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Dawkins himself should read Heidegger. Dawkins is a metaphysician, in the sense that he makes foundational and essential claims such as the one gently provided by the user above. It makes me wonder! If a foundational claim can be made about anything, without looking like a liar's game, the something miraculous and supernatural is at hand.

This is just the way it works. Due to language, perspectival obstructions, etc... and the fact that philosophy, ontotheology, etc... is garbage, Dawkins himself proves his amateurish bent. He is a little, pitful wizard who builds blocks on sand and interprets reality to suit only himself. In the end, his claims cannot be substantiated above himself. He is far below the European tradition in this regard, which has discussed the issue of metaphysics in Heidegger, Levinas, Sartre, etc... in a far more concisive and suitable fashion.

[athanaric]

That's not morality without religion. Dawkins claims that all morality is basically inbuilt or rationally formulated, and owes nothing whatsoever to religion. Which is clearly not true or why do different religions and cultures have such different moral compasses.

I believe his assumption is that if there were no religion, there'd still be morality. Your argument is that actual real life morality is influenced by religion, which is a given but does not disprove his theory.

Dawkins himself should read Heidegger. Dawkins is a metaphysician, in the sense that he makes foundational and essential claims such as the one gently provided by the user above. It makes me wonder! If a foundational claim can be made about anything, without looking like a liar's game, the something miraculous and supernatural is at hand.

This is just the way it works. Due to language, perspectival obstructions, etc... and the fact that philosophy, ontotheology, etc... is garbage, Dawkins himself proves his amateurish bent. He is a little, pitful wizard who builds blocks on sand and interprets reality to suit only himself. In the end, his claims cannot be substantiated above himself. He is far below the European tradition in this regard, which has discussed the issue of metaphysics in Heidegger, Levinas, Sartre, etc... in a far more concisive and suitable fashion.

You know it'd help a lot if you illustrated this argument with examples (like direct quotes) from Dawkins' oeuvre, and maybe contrasted them with the philosophical work (again, direct quotes) of the big names you're referring to. Otherwise it'll just be a rant.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

You know it'd help a lot if you illustrated this argument with examples (like direct quotes) from Dawkins' oeuvre, and maybe contrasted them with the philosophical work (again, direct quotes) of the big names you're referring to. Otherwise it'll just be a rant.

I mean this is so frankly obvious to someone acquainted with postmodernism that I felt no need to proceed. Ok, let's us proceed? Heidegger claims, as per Levinas, Sartre, etc... that metaphysics grounds itself on an objective reality, but that this grounding and enframing cannot proceed from an ever-changing substance-less physical reality. Metaphysics is a mental exercise. Then he proceeds to argue in a following, concise fashion: if ontotheology, which means the use of building blocks of abstract theoretcal objects, speaks about OBJECTS, BEINGS, without touching the question of REALITY, BEING, outside of these objects, then metaphysics is nihilism (was ist die Sein des Seiendes?). Particulalrly because the Cartesian tradition which is the culmination of metaphysics sees reality as a single large building block, without ever knowing or asking a damn thing about qualia, and other such things that cannot be adequately measured by mere rationality.

Ultimately, Dawkins' error proceeds from a theological error. Dawkins, just like Heidegger (but without the brilliance of the former) is an ontotheologian, of a protestant bent. Protestantism itself was only possible because the late Scholastic tradition posited the univocity of Being and God, and also posited the univocity of Metaphysics with Being. Meaning that it confounds the Absolute with its manifestation, and also confuses mentally posited objects with reality, which is really one and not derived from people's perspectival cogitations.

The only good thing about Dawkins is his biology, and even that is pitiable. Ultimately, technique is the only good thing that metaphysics has brought us - it is best not to become lost in the jungle of useless arguments and thoughts.

[PointOfViewGun]

A lot of people get dished out fallaciously based on perception of their character. What's so special about Dawkins that makes some people flip over such attack?

[Gaidin]

I see Marie still can't reference Dawkins' actual arguments. Just make vague arguments pointing at him. K. We'll cross her off the list of people who have something useful to say.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Then, you should honestly grasp Dawkins' OBJECTIVE experiments (eg, his biological work, his meme theory, etc...) without trusting Dawkins the metaphysician, because his claims about reality being in such and such fashion are only really his thoughts and nothing else. I just thought the OP was right: ok biologist, mediocre philosophy (as if philosophy was in any way useful to any purpose).

[Denny Crane!]

A lot of people get dished out fallaciously based on perception of their character. What's so special about Dawkins that makes some people flip over such attack?

No one is flipping out. Amused perhaps or even bemused. This thread is to find out if it is all character based. Largely so barring some minor niggles copperknickers has.

[PointOfViewGun]

No one is flipping out. Amused perhaps or even bemused. This thread is to find out if it is all character based. Largely so barring some minor niggles copperknickers has.

Then there wouldn't be a thread dedicated to it.

[Taiji]

I mean this is so frankly obvious to someone acquainted with postmodernism that I felt no need to proceed. Ok, let's us proceed?

You're aquainted with meaningless nonsense? No! Don't proceed! ... Argh, too late:

Heidegger claims, as per Levinas, Sartre, etc... that metaphysics grounds itself on an objective reality, but that this grounding and enframing cannot proceed from an ever-changing substance-less physical reality. Metaphysics is a mental exercise. Then he proceeds to argue in a following, concise fashion: if ontotheology, which means the use of building blocks of abstract theoretcal objects, speaks about OBJECTS, BEINGS, without touching the question of REALITY, BEING, outside of these objects, then metaphysics is nihilism (was ist die Sein des Seiendes?). Particulalrly because the Cartesian tradition which is the culmination of metaphysics sees reality as a single large building block, without ever knowing or asking a damn thing about qualia, and other such things that cannot be adequately measured by mere rationality.

All that fancy name-dropping was wasted on me.

Objectivity is a modelling tool. When we talk about objective facts we are talking about those which cannot vary with opinion.

Qualitative analysis varies with opinion. Qualia does not exist in the modern sense of objective reality. You are, how do you put it, "confusing mentally posited objects with reality", or as Alfred Korzybski put it better; "confusing the map with the territory it is meant to represent", or more generally, and a bit more pretensiously (imo), "confusing logical levels of abstraction".

Interesting that you suggest we have to dispense with rational thought to achieve your level of understanding.

Ultimately, Dawkins' error proceeds from a theological error. Dawkins, just like Heidegger (but without the brilliance of the former) is an ontotheologian, of a protestant bent. Protestantism itself was only possible because the late Scholastic tradition posited the univocity of Being and God, and also posited the univocity of Metaphysics with Being. Meaning that it confounds the Absolute with its manifestation, and also confuses mentally posited objects with reality, which is really one and not derived from people's perspectival cogitations.

Quote him confusing the map with the territory or it's just waffle by you.

The only good thing about Dawkins is his biology, and even that is pitiable.

Poor Dawkins, hey? Or was it poor Dawkins' research?

How exactly do you pity a successful scientist for his work? Or how do you pity an inanimate?

Someone sounds a bit jelly ^^

Ultimately, technique is the only good thing that metaphysics has brought us - it is best not to become lost in the jungle of useless arguments and thoughts.

What's that meant to mean?

[Gaidin]

Then, you should honestly grasp Dawkins' OBJECTIVE experiments (eg, his biological work, his meme theory, etc...) without trusting Dawkins the metaphysician, because his claims about reality being in such and such fashion are only really his thoughts and nothing else. I just thought the OP was right: ok biologist, mediocre philosophy (as if philosophy was in any way useful to any purpose).

I'm not making your argument for you and neither is the OP. The OP asked you to point out references in his own writing on what drags him down. You refuse to do this. You just rant.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Qualia do not exist in post-Cartesian philosophy, and yes they do vary with opinions. Now if you honestly argue that qualia does not exist then I honestly suggest you to taste lemons, apples, and ... then come back and tell me if the experience was "unreal" enough.

The ultimate fact lies that although qualia exist in reality, some philosophical models try to destroy it: for one, because they either don't need it (as in the case of technology, technique), or because they are simply lousy, arrogant and reductionist. Now, to tell why somebody is an atheist or a Muslim, or that somebody likes oranges and not apples, and vice-versa, is beyond the capabilities of most philosophers and even scientists. This suggests how our intellect is limited.

All that fancy name-dropping was wasted on me.

Because metaphysics, in essence, is nothing but fancy name dropping. OK, you got it now!

Oh, and the ontotheology part is quite consistently present in Western thought. This is why Heidegger, etc... broke their backs and spent so much time studying it: ontotheology is the sort of thing that allows one's subjectivity to take absolute hold, in face of everything else. And this is the movement of Western thought since antiquity. Scotus, a Catholic theologian, is the father of every modern atheist including Dawkins.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/summa/2...-ontotheology/

[Lazarus]

A lot of people get dished out fallaciously based on perception of their character. What's so special about Dawkins that makes some people flip over such attack?

By that same token - a lot of thread are made in the EMM - what's so special about this one that has provoked you to flip out over it, if we apply your logic that a post constitutes "flipping out"

[Taiji]

Qualia do not exist in post-Cartesian philosophy, and yes they do vary with opinions. Now if you honestly argue that qualia does not exist then I honestly suggest you to taste lemons, apples, and ... then come back and tell me if the experience was "unreal" enough.

Objectively speaking, it doesn't exist. So far you've only given me cause to repeat myself.

The ultimate fact lies that although qualia exist in reality, some philosophical models try to destroy it: for one, because they either don't need it (as in the case of technology, technique), or because they are simply lousy, arrogant and reductionist.

They can't exist in our objective model.

Now, to tell why somebody is an atheist or a Muslim, or that somebody likes oranges and not apples, and vice-versa, is beyond the capabilities of most philosophers and even scientists. This suggests how our intellect is limited.

You mean we aren't mind-readers?!!

Because metaphysics, in essence, is nothing but fancy name dropping. OK, you got it now!

I don't get your joke.

Oh, and the ontotheology part is quite consistently present in Western thought. This is why Heidegger, etc... broke their backs and spent so much time studying it: ontotheology is the sort of thing that allows one's subjectivity to take absolute hold, in face of everything else. And this is the movement of Western thought since antiquity. Scotus, a Catholic theologian, is the father of every modern atheist including Dawkins.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/summa/2...-ontotheology/

OMG what utter twaddle. Like it takes someone else's example to reject a theism like Christianity. You don't expect this kind of unsubstantiated 'running your mouth' to be taken as serious discourse, do you?

You still have not substantiated your claim that Dawkins confused the map with the territory. Just keeping score

[PointOfViewGun]

By that same token - a lot of thread are made in the EMM - what's so special about this one that has provoked you to flip out over it, if we apply your logic that a post constitutes "flipping out"

Well, I don't see posting in a thread to ask a simple question at the same level as creating a thread for starters. However, my participation here is due to my participation in the other thread about Dawkins' words. Perhaps, I "flipped out" because I don't like when people flip out so defensively over non-issues, such as your post. The cheapness of such points, such as yours, can never be missed so easily.

[Denny Crane!]

Then there wouldn't be a thread dedicated to it.

The threads existence, it's reason is self explained if you can't get that I can't help you now unless you have something on topic to add there is some real debate going on that I am enjoying reading.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Quality does not exist in objective models, yet objectiveness is a quality. If an objective model fails to account for its own objectivity, it is missing a crucial aspect of reality.

It is not only Dawkins. It is, as a whole, Western ontotheological thinking of which Dawkins is part. All of which, particularly, juxtaposes representation into reality and falls into unrealism.

Sometimes it is better to have faith in Christianity, or Islam, or Buddhism. At least they are honest about it, and honest about the realities they portray which we cannot ordinarily perceive.

[PointOfViewGun]

The threads existence, it's reason is self explained if you can't get that I can't help you now unless you have something on topic to add there is some real debate going on that I am enjoying reading.

That is a strange argument to make. Things are not true just because they're stated. What you claim something to be and what it really is doesn't necessarily have to be the same thing.

I'll bite though. Tell me. How can an educated scholar like Dawkins label life with Down Syndrome as a life of suffering for the child and condemnation for the parents? I wouldn't expect someone like him to make such an ignorant statement.

[Denny Crane!]

That is a strange argument to make. Things are not true just because they're stated. What you claim something to be and what it really is doesn't necessarily have to be the same thing.

I think you'll find I know my feelings about making a thread better than you do. The reasons for the thread I explained in the opening post. I can't help you further than this and also my personal reasons for opening the thread are off topic.

I'll bite though. Tell me. How can an educated scholar like Dawkins label life with Down Syndrome as a life of suffering for the child and condemnation for the parents? I wouldn't expect someone like him to make such an ignorant statement.

There is a premise that it is an ignorant statement and that your phraseology adequately encapsulates his statement which it does not.

"If your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child's own welfare,"

Nothing wrong with that statement.

[Taiji]

Quality does not exist in objective models, yet objectiveness is a quality. If an objective model fails to account for its own objectivity, it is missing a crucial aspect of reality.

Objectiveness is a description of the type of inquiry. For you to posit objectivity in the objective model is like saying a map must include itself. Surely I don't need to explain why that is problematic?

To call ideas about experiences 'qualities' is a confusion of logical levels of abstraction - You've confused the sensory level with the descriptive level.

It is not only Dawkins. It is, as a whole, Western ontotheological thinking of which Dawkins is part. All of which, particularly, juxtaposes representation into reality and falls into unrealism.

I'm saying that I've seen you do that, and I have not seen them do that. Since I only have evidence of you doing it I cannot agree that they do it also.

Sometimes it is better to have faith in Christianity, or Islam, or Buddhism.

Better than what and why this choice but not others?

At least they are honest about it, and honest about the realities they portray which we cannot ordinarily perceive.

So you've assumed every conflicting religion is right, and that's postmodernism is it?