It sounds like you got the better talk! When I saw him in Newark the interviewer talked too much himself and then asked a lot of social questions rather than focusing on the book or on evolution! 😭
To be honest, I’m not entirely sure that saying genes can explain all aspects of an organism is the philosophical position of reductionism? I think that’s more of a biological question—and he may very well be wrong on it (there are scientists who take other physical aspects of the organism into account).
I think it’s more-so just the thesis that genes can explain all biological-physical aspects of the organism. And it’s limited to biology. It’s not taking a philosophical position on whether organisms exist or if only atoms and such exist. I do think Dawkins is a reductionist, but I don’t think this scientific theory presupposes reductionism necessarily.
I’ve always been less keen on Dawkins’ arguments for atheism though. I do think they’re generally simplistic, and I don’t think belief in God is incompatible with belief in evolution. That said, the Problem of Evil does rear its ugly head - you can definitely bring up design flaws cause by evolution line the trachea & esophagus being close and leading to choking. Why would a good God allow this? But this is just a form of the philosophical problem of natural evil - nothing really new.
“tends to think you can’t have God and evolution.” A science-based society will have to get rid of God.
Interesting! ... his need to get rid of God points to some kind of nihilistic OCD.
However, it is also interesting that the CC (IMHO) needs to stop using 'Genesis' as a debarkation point to insist on Original Sin while allowing the faithful to believe in evolution. It is a dead end Gordian paradox that can only highlight the inconsistency of its own dogma vis a vis science.
Well, Dawkins is entirely correct that you cannot have God and evolution. It may be the only correct thing he's ever said, and it's entirely unsurprising that it's the one statement of his that the modern church has decided to disregard.
By the way, I wrote and published the definitive disproof of Darwinian evolution here, if anyone is interested:
It sounds like you got the better talk! When I saw him in Newark the interviewer talked too much himself and then asked a lot of social questions rather than focusing on the book or on evolution! 😭
To be honest, I’m not entirely sure that saying genes can explain all aspects of an organism is the philosophical position of reductionism? I think that’s more of a biological question—and he may very well be wrong on it (there are scientists who take other physical aspects of the organism into account).
I think it’s more-so just the thesis that genes can explain all biological-physical aspects of the organism. And it’s limited to biology. It’s not taking a philosophical position on whether organisms exist or if only atoms and such exist. I do think Dawkins is a reductionist, but I don’t think this scientific theory presupposes reductionism necessarily.
I’ve always been less keen on Dawkins’ arguments for atheism though. I do think they’re generally simplistic, and I don’t think belief in God is incompatible with belief in evolution. That said, the Problem of Evil does rear its ugly head - you can definitely bring up design flaws cause by evolution line the trachea & esophagus being close and leading to choking. Why would a good God allow this? But this is just a form of the philosophical problem of natural evil - nothing really new.
I didn't know the post was duplicated. Sorry
“tends to think you can’t have God and evolution.” A science-based society will have to get rid of God.
Interesting! ... his need to get rid of God points to some kind of nihilistic OCD.
However, it is also interesting that the CC (IMHO) needs to stop using 'Genesis' as a debarkation point to insist on Original Sin while allowing the faithful to believe in evolution. It is a dead end Gordian paradox that can only highlight the inconsistency of its own dogma vis a vis science.
Well, Dawkins is entirely correct that you cannot have God and evolution. It may be the only correct thing he's ever said, and it's entirely unsurprising that it's the one statement of his that the modern church has decided to disregard.
By the way, I wrote and published the definitive disproof of Darwinian evolution here, if anyone is interested:
https://intelligentdasein.blogspot.com/2020/05/alt-wrong-paradigms-id-contra-hbd.html