tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post8945943995003102671..comments2024-03-28T02:54:46.537-04:00Comments on The TOF Spot: The Platonic Idealism of Richard DawkinsTheOFloinnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-54742903941697869302016-03-01T07:28:36.692-05:002016-03-01T07:28:36.692-05:00@Gyan: We can certainly speak of the soul generica...@Gyan: We can certainly speak of the soul generically for all rational beings, but each rational being has his own specific rational form. Even as regards mere <i>physical</i> form each of us has a different form. Only among inanimate kinds is one form pretty much like ever other one of the same kind. You seen one hydrogen atom, you seen em all.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-20670846375997546822016-03-01T06:48:08.050-05:002016-03-01T06:48:08.050-05:00Wrong.
Precisely the form which is the form of a ...Wrong.<br /><br />Precisely the form which is the form of a RATIONAL animal is the form which is a SPIRIT.<br /><br />However, the form of a horse or a horsefly is a non-rational, non-spiritual and impersonal soul.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-33845169379472523522016-03-01T04:44:53.253-05:002016-03-01T04:44:53.253-05:00The word "soul" seems to be used equivo...The word "soul" seems to be used equivocally. <br />1) "Soul" means "form" of a body. specifically "soul" of a human being is the form of a rational animal.<br />This "soul" is impersonal. We can't say Dawkins's soul or Susan's soul. <br />2) "Soul" in the religious sense that God infuses into each human being at conception. this is a personal soul, perhaps better termed a "spirit". Gyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09941686166886986037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-32181288891743377712016-02-29T03:39:59.042-05:002016-02-29T03:39:59.042-05:00Well, some Anglicans had a very sloppy Anglicanism...Well, some Anglicans had a very sloppy Anglicanism!Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-15289544332375917312016-02-28T20:26:54.490-05:002016-02-28T20:26:54.490-05:00As Msgr. Ronald Knox said, "If you have a slo...As Msgr. Ronald Knox said, "If you have a sloppy religion you get a sloppy atheism."Sophia's Favoritehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02871625814389904112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-32160467399132646482016-02-27T05:52:19.518-05:002016-02-27T05:52:19.518-05:00Unfortunately, the reply button does not function ...Unfortunately, the reply button does not function here. I'll reply to both TheOFloinn and Mark Magagna at low point of comment thread.<br /><br /><i>"Being unversed, Dawkins did not see the Platonic and incarnational aspects of his woo-woo 'genes'."</i><br /><br />What does that say about Anglicans, considering he was one prior to his apostasy?<br /><br /><i>"I'm not sure how 'meme' differs from 'soul' in this formulation (at least 'soul' in the monad sense). Of course I am not a philosopher or scientist."</i><br /><br />Meme refers to "idea" (as existing in one human mind or a series of human minds). A soul is also an immaterial form, but self subsistent, therefore one which God chose to actually create.<br /><br />Obviously, God knows both the genes and the souls of all the persons He did NOT chose to create, including Susan Pevensie and Tristram Thorn.<br /><br />This doesn't mean soul and genome are identical. Even genome pre-existing to actually being one materialised in physical chromosomes.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-67179196705174524322016-02-26T21:41:41.027-05:002016-02-26T21:41:41.027-05:00You'll have to forgive Dawkins, he doesn't...You'll have to forgive Dawkins, he doesn't know what "soul" means. He thinks it means "white glowy smoke" (just like how he thinks "God" means "guy with white beard on cloud").Sophia's Favoritehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02871625814389904112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-81754073995746234962016-02-26T12:50:50.115-05:002016-02-26T12:50:50.115-05:00That's why it's irony.
Being unversed, D...That's why it's irony. <br /><br />Being unversed, Dawkins did not see the Platonic and incarnational aspects of his woo-woo "genes".TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-78174386487270753282016-02-26T11:50:54.247-05:002016-02-26T11:50:54.247-05:00I'm not sure how "meme" differs from...I'm not sure how "meme" differs from "soul" in this formulation (at least "soul" in the monad sense). Of course I am not a philosopher or scientist.Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17661875524794619835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-15439406545855858452016-02-26T11:09:13.562-05:002016-02-26T11:09:13.562-05:00"But does the gene pre-exist its encoding, or...<i>"But does the gene pre-exist its encoding, or does it need the encoding to exist?"</i><br /><br />Any either individual gene or individual's genome or generic created kind genome pre-exists in God's eternal mind.<br /><br />Both those He chose to create, and those whom He left for novelists to create.<br /><br />Susan Pevensie was never born, but obviously God knows her genome much better than either I or CSL (the original author) or Neil Gaiman or any other fan fic writer does.<br /><br />Obviously, since this appeals to existence and foreknowledge of God (of every created and of every only fictitious creature*), this is not what Dawkins wants in order to save his idea.<br /><br />*(as well as of any creature not even given fictional actuality)Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-64866740127368638952016-02-25T18:36:44.698-05:002016-02-25T18:36:44.698-05:00Technically calling a gene selfish is supposed to ...Technically calling a gene selfish is supposed to be a metaphor, though admittedly for a concept with minimal explanatory power (whatever there would tend to be more of, there will probably be more of). Hence the misleading analogy. Chris Lansdownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04528778422746685923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-72546003921680329532016-02-25T18:36:36.507-05:002016-02-25T18:36:36.507-05:00Technically calling a gene selfish is supposed to ...Technically calling a gene selfish is supposed to be a metaphor, though admittedly for a concept with minimal explanatory power (whatever there would tend to be more of, there will probably be more of). Hence the misleading analogy. Chris Lansdownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04528778422746685923noreply@blogger.com