The eminent biologist Richard Dawkins in 2006 he published his best-seller "The God Delusion '. Six years later, Rupert Sheldrake, a biochemist, has published its response,' The Illusion Science" (2012). Dawkins rejects God, rejects science and Sheldrake. Who wins an argument? It begins with 'The God Delusion'. Title Dawkins' is deliberately aggressive, which means that anyone who believes in God suffers from a delusion. Dawkins defines as its target was not that 'there is a superhuman supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us. "But people who believe in God would put it that way. Some, for example, could simply say that they believe in God and that God is Eternal Love. You could hear that they are feeling ill deluded.It is easy, and sometimes useful , for Dawkins to address religious dogma and practice out of fashion. The statement that God created the world in 7 days (and so on) is an easy target. Whether it's a useful worked up about is to get as objectionable still, there is no comprehensive and rational alternative: either the theory of evolution by Darwin, or the science of cosmology to explain the events of creation. In contrast, the scandal of religious schools subsidized by the state is a difficult but a laudable goal . But matters of detail trying to divert attention from the real issue.Dawkins knows he can not prove that God does not exist so does the weaker claim that the existence of God is 'unlikely'. But God is not a horse racing in Derby and there is no rational basis for betting on the likelihood of its existence.The great biologist Stephen Gould has written a book on the rules for its exercise examined topics like this. Gould says in effect that in any discussion on science and religion, participants must recognize two areas of thought: Zone 1 - The material world of science that looks at things like are.Zone 2 - The non-material world of human mind and morality in which we ask ourselves who we are and how things should be.Dawkins read Gould's book, but I do not listen to his wise counsel. Wielding all its weapons science, storms across the border in a flood of words that drowns the starters issue.For main one laughs about an astronomer who, in conversation, he once suggested that the ultimate questions about the universe were the province of the chaplain. Dawkins would had scored a point, responding: 'Why is not the head?' But this would be to own goal: experience of the chef is cooking, Zone 1 While the skills of the chaplain is the religion in Zone 2 where the experience of the chef is irrelevant.Dawkins Einstein cites in support of his attack on religion, but it was not Einstein would give this book a favorable review. Einstein believed that there is a metaphysical world beyond science. Or, in the words of Shakespeare, 'there are more things in heaven and earth ... Than are dreamed of in your philosophy " (Hamlet). As informed Darwinist, Dawkins knows that Homo sapiens is a fortuitous state of evolution, confused by the 'human condition'. Maybe Dawkins should renounce materialism and siding with Einstein and Hamlet.Now back to 'The God Delusion'. In all, Sheldrake does one thing very clear: he rejects materialism. End. He just needs to emphasize the fundamental defect of materialism and who would win a crash. Unfortunately it continues to make a huge mistake: he equates materialism with science. But materialism is a personal philosophy or has been, considering that the 'science' is the application of human reason to the physical world. Materialism (and his partner, reductionism) are worthy goals, but science is not.In his attempt to refute the materialism that makes statements go against the mainstream of scientific opinion. For example: - He suggests that people who claim to live for months without food and water may be drawing energy from the air or from the quantum vacuum - Defends homeopathy to the fact that people get treated better if they think they are .. This is close to approving the doctors found their patients -. 'Nature' is in 'morphic resonance' with its past, present and future. If a person begins to learn from other skateboarding 'resonance' -. Sheldrake challenges the scientific thesis that the fertilized egg contains all the information necessary to produce offspring. He argues that young peo nondeterministic genes undermine the form of organisms. A developing embryo responds to 'morphic resonance' for 'morphic fields, however, has its species.He almost land a punch. Materialists believe that the subject is unconscious, an opinion sustainable. But we also believe that consciousness is an illusion. This was is absurd, almost madness. How can materialists deny the reality of his own conscience? But consciousness poses a dilemma. In both cases (1) Consciousness is a phenomenon not-material, or (2) A certain degree of consciousness exists in the field. In option 2, the degree must differ from its level in humans, through a much lower level than in higher animals, to the lowest level of insects, worms and plants. Sheldrake adopt option 2 and includes stones, and molecules of all matter. Sheldrake sees the dilemma, as Dawkins apparently does not. But preferring option 2 to option 1, Sheldrake is not to land his punch.To sum up, neither the author wins the argument. Sheldrake would have won if he had not mistaken the materialist philosophy with science and not the spectacle of pseudo-science. Dawkins presents itself as a scientist by far the best orator and takes aim, but a goal that a materialist can not destroy: the human aspiration for a world not of flesh but of spirit. [ABSTRACT] In 2006, the famous biologist Richard Dawkins published his bestseller "The God Delusion". Six years later, Rupert Sheldrake, a biochemist, has published its response, "The Science Delusion" (2012). Dawkins rejects God rejects science as Sheldrake. Who wins if one of the arguments? It begins with "The God Delusion". Title Dawkins is intentionally aggressive, which means that anyone who believes in God, suffers from a delusion. Dawkins describes his goal as the belief that "there is a superhuman supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us." But people who believe in God is not the case. Some, for example, might say, simply, that they believe in God and God's eternal love You can feel bad for saying that deluded.It is easy, and sometimes useful, for Dawkins obsolete dogma and religious practice must be targeted. The statement that God created the world in 7 days (and so on) is an easy target. Whether it's a profit of about is questionable, because, again, there is complete disorder practical alternative: either the theory of evolution by Darwin to explain the science of cosmology, or the case of creation. Instead, the scandal of the government-funded religious schools is a sensitive target is still commendable. But these arguments in detail, taking attention from the real issue.Dawkins knows he can not prove that God does not exist, so that he is weaker claim that the existence of God is "unlikely" does. But God is not a horse running in the Derby and there is no rational basis for betting on the likelihood of its existence.The great biologist Stephen Gould has written a book on the rules for participation in matters like this. In fact, Gould says that in any dispute over science and religion, the participant must identify two areas of thought: Zone 1 - examines the world of material science, things, since they have two are.Zone - The non-material world the human mind and morality, in which we ask ourselves who we are and how things have be.Dawkins Gould should read the book, but does not listen to his wise counsel. Swinging storms all its weapons science, has crossed the border in a flood of words that drowned the starters issue.For more important, it takes around an astronomer who suggested in an interview, once the last questions were about the universe of the province of the chaplain. Dawkins wants to answer a question of fact: "Why do not you cook?" But an own goal would have: knowledge of the chef is cooking, Zone 1 Kaplan's expertise is religion in Zone 2, where the experience of the chef irrelevant.Dawkins Einstein is quoted in support of his attack on religion, but Einstein did not this book a positive review. Einstein believed that there is a metaphysical world beyond the confines of science. Or, in the words of Shakespeare: "There are more things between heaven and earth ... that your philosophy" (Hamlet) dreamed. As an expert Darwinist Dawkins knows that homo sapiens in a state of random evolution, confused by the "human condition". Maybe Dawkins should renounce materialism, and align with Einstein and Hamlet.Now allows us to "The God Delusion" position. Wherever Sheldrake does one thing very clear: He rejects materialism. End. He needed only to point out the fundamental errors of materialism, and would be a knockout victory. Unfortunately, continues to make a huge mistake: it is materialism with science. But materialism is a personal philosophy or belief, while the "science" is the application of human reason in the physical world. Materialism (and his partner, reductionism) are worthy goals, but science is not.In his attempt to get in makes claims against the materialism of the dominant scientific opinion to refute. For example: - He suggests that people who claim to be able to live without food and water for months, or the energy from the quantum vacuum - He defends homeopathy on the grounds that people are better when being treated, to think .. This is close to approval by the doctors, patients can be found -. 'Nature' is 'morphic resonance "with its past, present and future, if a person begins to learn from other Skateboarding.' Resonance '-. Sheldrake denies the scientific view that the fertilized egg has all the information necessary to ensure a seed for the production of content. He argues that genes do not determine the shape of the bodies. A developing embryo reacts to "morphic resonance" to "morphic fields" of its species.He has, however, almost a blow to the ground. materialists believe that the subject is unconscious, a defensible opinion. But we also believe that consciousness is an illusion. This conviction is absurd, almost insane. How can materialists deny the reality of his own conscience? But that consciousness poses a dilemma. O (1) Consciousness is a phenomenon of non-material, or (2) A certain degree of confidence on the subject. must vary in Option 2, the measure of its high levels in people with a level significantly lower in the higher animals, the lowest level in insects, worms and plants. Sheldrake takes option 2 and contains stones, and molecules of all matter. Sheldrake sees the dilemma as it apparently does not Dawkins. But I prefer option 2, option 1 on the ground, Sheldrake punch.To sum up the argument fails to win both the author. Sheldrake has won no philosophy materialistic science and not confused with the spectacle of pseudo-science. Dawkins seems by far the best orator and scientists, but aims at a target that a materialist can never be destroyed: the human desire for a world not of the flesh, but of the spirit.
0 ความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น