[Gazeboss]

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/artic...05/3561096.htm

Professor Steve Fuller is a philosopher-sociologist at the University of Warwick. I first heard about him through his involvement in the Dover 'Intelligent Design' Trial in the USA back in 2005, where he gave evidence for the defendant in support of Intelligent Design Theory.

He's now had a blog article published on the ABC Religion site, in which he discusses '"Theomimesis" [his] neologism for attempts to acquire God's point-of-view - in short, to take literally that we might "get into the mind of God" or even "play God."'

I critiqued a part of his article, and got this comment in response: I was wondering how long it would take before an anti-ID troll would appear. PeterB wins! As it turns out, the title of this piece was chosen by the editor. I didn't originally include the phrase 'intelligent design' in the title, and the phrase occurs more than half-way through the article. But even in the article I refer to 'testable predictions' from ID, namely, in Frank Tipler's work -- and there is more in the literature, especially Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell. But trolls will be trolls.... I assume it's a honour of some sort to be abused by a professor.

[IteseFrusty]

seeing through the eyes of a child.

[AndyPharmc]

philosopher-sociologist?

Is that someone who has a degree in thinking about talking about people?

[StitsVobsaith]

someone who does a degree of the above.

[ARKLqAZ6]

Just left my comment there.

At the risk of Peter B calling me a troll for going off topic, has anyone else noticed that Radio National seems to be giving ever increasing time to what might be termed "philosophy and practice of religion" with virtually zero time devoted to rationalist philosophy and ideas? In fact on the rare occaisions when atheists are mentioned it's almost always in terms that suggest they are some intellectually deficient sub-species with an unfortunate lack in the all important "spirituality" department.

[VovTortki]

Just left my comment there.

At the risk of Peter B calling me a troll for going off topic, has anyone else noticed that Radio National seems to be giving ever increasing time to what might be termed "philosophy and practice of religion" with virtually zero time devoted to rationalist philosophy and ideas? In fact on the rare occaisions when atheists are mentioned it's almost always in terms that suggest they are some intellectually deficient sub-species with an unfortunate lack in the all important "spirituality" department.

Yes and it bothers me. It was not always the case.

[BPitt]

It's interesting he chose to attack Peter B's comment, rather than this one:

Articles like this one contribute greatly to the destruction of the religion they try to support. The first thing they do is to make a strong case why many other interpretations of their chosen religion are wrong. This article does this admirably. They then go on to say how their (complicated and convoluted) interpretation is so much better. It certainly leaves the faithful wondering who their friends are.

[Lhiistyssdds]

Wikipedia on Fuller:

In 2008 Fuller's book on the intelligent design controversy, Dissent Over Descent: Intelligent Design's Challenge to Darwinism was published. Steven Poole of The Guardian wrote: "book is an epoch-hopping parade of straw men, incompetent reasoning and outright gibberish, as when evolution is argued to share with astrology a commitment to "action at a distance", except that the distance is in time rather than space. It's intellectual quackery like this that gives philosophy of science a bad name."[38] Michael Ruse, Philosopher of Science at Florida State University wrote in the journal Science that Fuller's book "is completely wrong and is backed by no sound scholarship whatsoever. In at least one case, Fuller makes his case by an egregious misreading—of something I wrote about the role of genetic drift in Sewall Wright's shifting balance theory. For the record, Charles Darwin set out to provide a cause, what he called—following his mentors like William Whewell (who in turn referred back to Newton)—a true cause or vera causa. Darwin felt, and historians and philosophers of science as well as practicing evolutionary biologists still feel, that he succeeded…"[39] In a "book of the week" review by retired Divinity Professor Keith Ward in the Times Higher Education Supplement, the book was praised for providing often overlooked information and provocative interpretations, but was criticised for a number of inaccuracies and misrepresentations.[40]

A. C. Grayling, in New Humanist, wrote that the book contains a "mark of ignorance and historical short-sightedness on Fuller’s part".[41] In response, Fuller wrote an online response saying "if Grayling’s grasp of the history of science went beyond head-banging standards, he would realise that our current level of scientific achievement would never have been reached, and more importantly that we would not be striving to achieve more, had chance-based explanations dominated over the design-based ones in our thinking about reality."[42] To which Grayling wrote: "Steve Fuller complains, as do all authors whose books are panned, that I did not read his book properly (or at all)."[43] He continued, "I'll take on Fuller any day regarding the history and theology of the various versions of Christianity with which humanity has been burdened. […] The same applies to the history of science."[43]

[Yessaniloas]

philosopher-sociologist?

Is that someone who has a degree in thinking about talking about people?

I suspect its someone who just wanted a degree but without the stigma of getting an Arts degree.

[asharbiq]

Two versions of this project have enjoyed considerable secular influence in the modern era:

Leibniz's theodicy, which would understand Creation in terms of a divine utility function that tolerates many local harms in service of ours being "the best possible world";
Hegel's philosophy of history, which makes temporality constitutive of God's own self-realization, which means that Creation itself is incomplete as long as the distinction between God and humanity remains.
Historically these two secular theomimetic projects are known as capitalism and socialism, respectively. What the...?

[Gymnfacymoota]

What the...?

Oh, good. Thought I was just a dumb shit for thinking the very same thing.

[pobrierce]

I thought that about the whole article. How do you comment on something based purely on make believe?

[q9h9pPne]

How do you comment on something based purely on make believe?
------------------------------------------------------

Put it in a best fit model and discribe its influence.

Works for Science.

[HedgeYourBets]

"but without the stigma of getting an Arts degree. "

Stigma? What stigma is there in getting an Arts degree? I have A BA with First Class Honours from Sydney University and I am immensely proud of my accomplishment knowing the amount of work I had to do to achieve it. Anyone can get a pass degree in any subject. A Pass BSc is no more difficult than a Pass BA and you find Pass degrees in Commerce on a roll on a toilet wall. Honours degrees in any subject are hard to get and require a lot of work. Let us stop knocking Arts degrees, after all Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin both had one and that is company I don't mind sharing.

[Mugflefusysef]

Just left my comment there.

At the risk of Peter B calling me a troll for going off topic, has anyone else noticed that Radio National seems to be giving ever increasing time to what might be termed "philosophy and practice of religion" with virtually zero time devoted to rationalist philosophy and ideas? In fact on the rare occaisions when atheists are mentioned it's almost always in terms that suggest they are some intellectually deficient sub-species with an unfortunate lack in the all important "spirituality" department.

Answer?

"yes with bells on"


and From Jay Rosen ‏@jayrosen_nyu

A political press more tuned to *what's effective* than to *what's true* is an international problem. In Australia: http://bit.ly/PH2YAF

[M_Marked]

It seems that my comment has not appeared. It was just a politely worded comment to the effect that making a reasoned criticism of a specific statement in an article cannot be considered trolling, so I hope it was a case of me pressing the wrong button, rather than over-zealous editorial control.

[enentique]

>>>In fact on the rare occaisions when atheists are mentioned it's almost always in terms that suggest they are some intellectually deficient sub-species with an unfortunate lack in the all important "spirituality" department"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Adams

Yeah right.

I'd expect ABC is becoming more pluralistic and indulging some metaphysics, which isn't at all a bad trend.

We've had quite a few decades of metaphysical impoverishment and ideological abandonment of the authority of subjective experience, so no complaints here. Empiricist objectivity junkies don't exactly give me easy erections.

[Signabeademia]

On the subject of intelligent design, why the term isn't simply turned around and the question of if or if not there is happened upon functional 'design intelligence' in nature, well, it throws me to be honest.

[FYvWldC0]

On the subject of intelligent design, why the term isn't simply turned around and the question of if or if not there is happened upon functional 'design intelligence' in nature, well, it throws me to be honest.

That's hard to say really, what does it mean?

[Laqswrnm]

That's hard to say really, what does it mean?

that if there wasn't something smart about it.. we'd all be forked?