From Me?: Something against Francis Collins? No!.
On the other hand, I admit to deep disappointment in the intellectual substance of Collins’ arguments, which I unpack in the multipart review at Access Research Network.Hmmm ... I don't know of very many radical materialist atheists who fall for evolutionary psychology. I wonder who she could be talking about? Maybe it's PZ?
Note to all, especially Collins fans: C. S. Lewis is not a security blanket, and the debate over the origin of free will, morality, altruism, and consciousness has moved on from his day. Today's atheist is not usually a genial, classical God-denier; he is a radical materialist who honestly believes that we are all just robots replicating our selfish genes. And he cannot wait to get his gospel onto the curriculum of publicly funded schools, as "evolutionary psychology," forcing everyone's nose into his nonsense.
5 comments :
I suspect Dawkins was the target. Evolutionary Psychology, or at least its previous incarnation as sociobiology, was the primary reason for the Dawkins-Gould feud. (Dawkins supporting it, Gould not).
Today's atheist is not usually a genial, classical God-denier; he is a radical materialist who honestly believes that we are all just robots replicating our selfish genes.
You can always count on O'Leary to supply some unsubstantiated - and most likely wrong - rhetoric.
I am curious as to who the genial, classical god-deniers of the past may have been.
We have always been bastards and cheats of some sort or other, and me, I am just a robot with the disposition of Marvin the Robot. But I have twice facilitated the replication of my selfish genes.
As an atheist I am very grateful for Denyse to make it clear what I am supposed to believe and not believe. She's performing a great service for us!
I used to comment on her site, but I've given up. Rather than wanting to engage in meaningful debate she seems to be taken on the role of a one-woman vendetta against the evil forces of materialism in the world. Her blog entries have become shrill and silly (and for somebody who doesn't claim to be a fundamentalist she sure is sounding like one). And, considering she is a journalist, her writing is often incredibly sloppy, overly-colloquial, and her articles often lack any focus or point. I only hope her professional writing is not this bad.
I do commend her that she (unlike The Great Dembski) does publish both positive and negative comments. But it irks me that requests for clarification are ignored, supposedly because she is so busy with her 'thesis', the new book (The Spiritual Brain) that is finally going to reveal the mysteries of the Universe. We'll see...
The fact of course is that materialism is a very,very reasonable worldview and much more in line with the evidence (or lack thereof), has completely escaped her religion-infected brain.
"I only hope her professional writing is not this bad."
I thought this is her professional writing.
Post a Comment