29 Jan 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI guess I dont have much of an understanding of ideology. However, even though I suspect that Dawkins does have an ideological axe to grind, his ideology whatever it may be could not even remotely be equated with "The Theory of Evolution" nor does he claim it is.
I don't know enough about your understanding of ideology to judge. I think that Dawkin quite obviously has an ideological axe to grind, although I hesitate to label him an 'evolutionary fundamentalist'. However, there are people who know about as much about the science of evolution as I do (dangerously little) but are quite happy to let it influence th ...[text shortened]... tic phrase -- "survival of the fittest". (I'll omit the obligatory reference to Hitler).
I do not know what "Evolutionism" is, but Ivanhoe specifically talks about The Theory of Evolution and only puts "Evolutionism" in brackets.
It is equivalent to claiming that Einsteins E=mc2 is an ideology and that it is equivalent to the ideology of people who use nuclear bombs for terrorism.
29 Jan 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadAn example would be justifying colonial genocides with reference to the survival of the fittest -- 'it's nature's way', which somehow excuses it.
I do not know what "Evolutionism" is, but Ivanhoe specifically talks about The Theory of Evolution and only puts "Evolutionism" in brackets.
It is equivalent to claiming that Einsteins E=mc2 is an ideology and that it is equivalent to the ideology of people who use nuclear bombs for terrorism.
Briefly -- 'evolutionism' is 'social Darwinism'.
29 Jan 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI see. However, that could be confusing as creationists usually refer to 'evolutionists' meaning anyone who accepts the Theory of Evolution as fact. A totally different thing altogether.
An example would be justifying colonial genocides with reference to the survival of the fittest -- 'it's nature's way', which somehow excuses it.
Briefly -- 'evolutionism' is 'social Darwinism'.
However, Ivanhoe clearly got it all wrong by referring to the Theory of Evolution.
So, do you think that Dawkins' ideology would correctly be described as 'evolutionism'? From what I have read of his work, I do not think he is a 'social Darwinist' at all. I suspect that the ideology that Ivanhoe really takes issue with is Dawkins form of atheism, which really has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution, the Theory of Evolution or even social Darwinism.
29 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NagePopes' proclamations are not merely boring but also dangerous. See, for example, the AIDS epidemic in Africa, caused in no small part by people's adherence to the Catholic Church's position on the use of condoms.
The Pope is a bore; who cares what he says?
29 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, I don't. I suspect he might have a inverted messianic streak to his personality, like Isaac Newton. A sort of atheist missionary. I don't like any sort of missionary.
So, do you think that Dawkins' ideology would correctly be described as 'evolutionism'? From what I have read of his work, I do not think he is a 'social Darwinist' at all. I suspect that the ideology that Ivanhoe really takes issue with is Dawkins form of atheism, which really has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution, the Theory of Evolution or even social Darwinism.
Social Darwinism could be perhaps be explained by the theory of evolution (is it adaptive?). In any case it is a case of ideology gone wrong, if it is possible for ideology to go right.
I can't say I really think I know what ivanhoe is ever thinking.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
30 Jan 08
Originally posted by StarrmanNo; his argument rests on the presupposition that we cannot understand the mystery of human beings. He never states that we should not "pursue an accurate and empirical description" of man, but that such an empirical description can never fully explain man in his totality.
His whole argument rests on the presupposition that we should maintain the 'mystery' of humans being and that it is a good thing not to pursue an accurate and empirical description of them. Quite frankly that's just twaddle, I can only view such a desire as being nested upon the need to keep people in the dark, to avoid them seeing the light.
30 Jan 08
Originally posted by Conrau KHe clearly states that we should avoid circumscribing human identity and enclose it with the limits of what is known. Why? Why should we endure some nonsensical notion of mystery for which he has offered no evidence? Why can an accurate and empirical description of man never explain his totality? Are we not natural? Is he suggesting that humans are now supernatural?
No; his argument rests on the presupposition that we cannot understand the mystery of human beings. He never states that we should not "pursue an accurate and empirical description" of man, but that such an empirical description can never fully explain man in his totality.
Humans aren't mysterious, we're just complicated, unfortunately the pope is too dull to understand the difference.
30 Jan 08
Originally posted by StarrmanI'm not sure if it is the Scotch or the mystery of otherness, but I feel funky.
He clearly states that we should avoid circumscribing human identity and enclose it with the limits of what is known. Why? Why should we endure some nonsensical notion of mystery for which he has offered no evidence? Why can an accurate and empirical description of man never explain his totality? Are we not natural? Is he suggesting that humans ...[text shortened]... ious, we're just complicated, unfortunately the pope is too dull to understand the difference.
30 Jan 08
Originally posted by StarrmanOr too deluded? After all he is the head of a religion which has that belief as one of its essential components. After all, unless man has a supernatural component, he cannot possibly hope for an afterlife.
Humans aren't mysterious, we're just complicated, unfortunately the pope is too dull to understand the difference.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
30 Jan 08
Originally posted by StarrmanHe still does not say that it is a "good thing not to pursue an accurate and empirical description of them." He acknowledges that “the exact sciences, both natural and human, have made prodigious advances in their understanding of man and his universe". But as any Catholic does, he believes that man is supernatural as well as natural. So while he recognizes the merits of scientific endeavor, he also believes in its inadequacy to explain man totally, He does not seem to advocate that people be kept “in the dark”, as you say. Instead, he asks that “theology, anthropology and philosophy” be used to complement the scientific view of man.
He clearly states that we should avoid circumscribing human identity and enclose it with the limits of what is known. Why? Why should we endure some nonsensical notion of mystery for which he has offered no evidence? Why can an accurate and empirical description of man never explain his totality? Are we not natural? Is he suggesting that humans ...[text shortened]... ious, we're just complicated, unfortunately the pope is too dull to understand the difference.
And how do you know that he has no argument to support his view that man is part supernatural? Have you read any of his theological works apart from this small article with only abbreviated quotes? Perhaps in his speech he did expound an explanation as to why man is part supernatural.
30 Jan 08
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesCatholics are 7.1% of South Africa and 5% in Botswana. Obviously the RCC's position isn't helping, but the part it plays is small.
Popes' proclamations are not merely boring but also dangerous. See, for example, the AIDS epidemic in Africa, caused in no small part by people's adherence to the Catholic Church's position on the use of condoms.
30 Jan 08
Originally posted by PalynkaBut the percentage of Catholics is much higher in other parts of Africa and the RCCs position has most definitely had a significant impact. It may even have a significant impact in areas with relatively few Catholics because the message and behavior is carried over to people of other denominations (and faiths). If a prominent and well respected person in your community says something, it carries weight far beyond his religious circle.
Catholics are 7.1% of South Africa and 5% in Botswana. Obviously the RCC's position isn't helping, but the part it plays is small.
I believe that in some parts of East Africa however it was various US based denominations that were discouraging the distribution of condoms - for slightly different reasons than the Popes stated reason.
30 Jan 08
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI've often seen the percentage of Christians being wrongly used to defend the position that the RCC's position about condoms is a key factor.
But the percentage of Catholics is much higher in other parts of Africa and the RCCs position has most definitely had a significant impact. It may even have a significant impact in areas with relatively few Catholics because the message and behavior is carried over to people of other denominations (and faiths). If a prominent and well respected person in ...[text shortened]... aging the distribution of condoms - for slightly different reasons than the Popes stated reason.
This are the stats, according to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism_by_country#Africa
Southern Africa is the most HIV/AIDS affected region in the world and why I mentioned those two countries (to which one can add Zimbabwe with just 7.7% being Catholics). And yet there are much less Catholics in these two countries than other Central African countries (for example).
The facts seem to point out that the percentage of Catholics isn't a very relevant factor in explaining HIV/AIDS prevalence. This means that the idea that the Pope plays any significant role is simply throwing sand in people's eyes.