Philosophy

[ONeill]

I love the subject but struggle to verbalise their theories to myself never mind blokes down the pub

Well there you go - you're Socratic in nature. The great man believed that the wisest of the lot were those who identified and realised their limitations.

[saffron]

Read the God delusion and while some of it was excellant some of it was rubbish - his explanations on nimes I think he called them was weak. Was a bit disappointed with it over all.

Not sure if its everybodies cup of tea but Sophie's World is a good introduction to philosophy and goes through the spectrum.

[Hardy]

I've often been tempted to read it, but the guy's social skills put me right off.

I was always able to put that kind of consideration aside and cheer for Liam Hayes.

The God Delusion is a tough enough oul read, my main problem with it is the absolute arrogance with which Dawkins presents his work with little consideration for an opposing point of view, fair play to him I suppose for his steadfastness but can be quite annoying to read when you may have an opposing opinion in the first place (as I would hope most Christians like myself have). Its either his way or no way rather than trying to present a balanced debate for the reader and let them make up their own mind at the end. I guess he isnt very good at presenting two sides to an argument and rather than simulate a debate on the matter he fills the book with correspondence and anecdotes which do little in terms of debate. A friend has told me that there is an antithesis to this book which I havent spotted on the bookshelves, anyone got directions?

It's a recurring theme that people can't stand Dawkins because of his arrogance. I don't think it's relevant to the merit of his argument and, while it comes across in every page, he writes very well and presents a brilliantly cogent argument. And, in fairness to him, he doesn't set out to present a balanced "one one hand - on the other hand" presentation of the case for and against God, so to accuse him of lack of balance is not really fair. He's arguing the case against the existence of God from a confirmed aetheistic stance.

Saffron - memes, yeah. I thought that was interesting stuff, though.

[Declan]

It's a recurring theme that people can't stand Dawkins because of his arrogance. I don't think it's relevant to the merit of his argument and, while it comes across in every page, he writes very well and presents a brilliantly cogent argument. And, in fairness to him, he doesn't set out to present a balanced "one one hand - on the other hand" presentation of the case for and against God, so to accuse him of lack of balance is not really fair. He's arguing the case against the existence of God from a confirmed aetheistic stance.

Well put Hardy. its written as a polemic as such but he sure doesn't take it well when someone puts up an equally cogent argument against his theories.

[theskull1]

If you don't like Dawkins style of delivery then I'd recommend Dan Dennett's work. He is much more interested in understanding from a scientific perspective how and why religions have evolved

[lynchbhoy]

Philosophy
...isnt it a smile on a dog ?

[Billys Boots]

don't think it's relevant to the merit of his argument and, while it comes across in every page, he writes very well and presents a brilliantly cogent argument. And, in fairness to him, he doesn't set out to present a balanced "one one hand - on the other hand" presentation of the case for and against God, so to accuse him of lack of balance is not really fair.

You see, I wouldn't be terribly interested in reading a polemic - I'd love it or hate it, and what I want is to be informed about the issue(s), I don't want someone to confirm or deny my own views/prejudices.  I think I'll still give it a go for the summer - I'll be in France, they'll love me.    In France, it's not uncommon for people to describe their occupation as 'intellectual' - you've gotta love that. 

[Mentalman]

I've often been tempted to read it, but the guy's social skills put me right off.

I was always able to put that kind of consideration aside and cheer for Liam Hayes.

The God Delusion is a tough enough oul read, my main problem with it is the absolute arrogance with which Dawkins presents his work with little consideration for an opposing point of view, fair play to him I suppose for his steadfastness but can be quite annoying to read when you may have an opposing opinion in the first place (as I would hope most Christians like myself have). Its either his way or no way rather than trying to present a balanced debate for the reader and let them make up their own mind at the end. I guess he isnt very good at presenting two sides to an argument and rather than simulate a debate on the matter he fills the book with correspondence and anecdotes which do little in terms of debate. A friend has told me that there is an antithesis to this book which I havent spotted on the bookshelves, anyone got directions?

It's a recurring theme that people can't stand Dawkins because of his arrogance. I don't think it's relevant to the merit of his argument and, while it comes across in every page, he writes very well and presents a brilliantly cogent argument. And, in fairness to him, he doesn't set out to present a balanced "one one hand - on the other hand" presentation of the case for and against God, so to accuse him of lack of balance is not really fair. He's arguing the case against the existence of God from a confirmed aetheistic stance.

Saffron - memes, yeah. I thought that was interesting stuff, though.

I read "The Meme Machine" a while back, a very interesting idea The book gets to be heavy going though, the problem being that it is basically, at the moment, an unprovable idea, although I hear some serious research is going into it. Even us "talking" about it here on this forum is an example of the very concept!

As for Dawkins, I couldn't put it better than Hardy. He is not interested in presenting both sides of the argument, he is absolutely convinced that the other side is complete hocus pocus. That can be off putting for those newly introduced, or those of strong faith, but I think if you start reading his works from the earliest onwards you can see how that view formed. His public manner does leave something to be desired, but at the same time it's refreshing - in effect he feels he is correct and he doesn't care if you like him or his ideas. I would sooner him to the creationists or proponents of so called "intelligent design", but maybe that's just because it fits more comfortably with my own beliefs.

[Declan]

I would sooner him to the creationists or proponents of so called "intelligent design", but maybe that's just because it fits more comfortably with my own beliefs.

Both are equally intolerant of those who disagree with them!!!

[Hardy]

I'd demur slightly, Declan. I wouldn't call Dawkins intolerant (in fact I think he leans a bit towards PC). Contemptuous maybe! Many of the ID lunatics, on the other hand are the very definition of intolerance.

[Puckoon]

Puck - have you read Dawkins' "The God Delusion"? It's the other side of the argument and interesting on Aquinas's (and others') proofs.

Havnt read that Hardy - Ill put it on the list. Was fecking dreaming all night about Descartes and the skeptic.

One of the earliest lectures I had at queens was on ethics, and the questions went something like this.

http://listverse.com/miscellaneous/top-10-moral-dilemmas/


You are an inmate in a concentration camp. A sadistic guard is about to hang your son who tried to escape and wants you to pull the chair from underneath him. He says that if you don't he will not only kill your son but some other innocent inmate as well. You don't have any doubt that he means what he says. What should you do?

[Declan]

You are an inmate in a concentration camp. A sadistic guard is about to hang your son who tried to escape and wants you to pull the chair from underneath him. He says that if you don't he will not only kill your son but some other innocent inmate as well. You don't have any doubt that he means what he says. What should you do?

Whatever you think is right. By killing your own son you'd be led to believe that you'd saving saving another persons life but then again if he's a sadistic guard in a concentration camp he'd probably kill you, your son and someone else as well.

Can you offer to take your sons place?

[Mentalman]

You are an inmate in a concentration camp. A sadistic guard is about to hang your son who tried to escape and wants you to pull the chair from underneath him. He says that if you don't he will not only kill your son but some other innocent inmate as well. You don't have any doubt that he means what he says. What should you do?

Refuse to pull the chair, realising that the guard is solely responsible for the consequences of this situation, no matter what action you take.

[Puckoon]

I understand there is alot of grey matter, but lets for sake of arguement, pretend that there isnt.

Pull the chair= 1 person (your son) dies
Dont Pull the chair= 2 people die

[Declan]

I understand there is alot of grey matter, but lets for sake of arguement, pretend that there isnt.

Pull the chair= 1 person (your son) dies
Dont Pull the chair= 2 people die

Don't pull it