This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← A very atheist Christmas

digofthedump's Avatar Jump to comment 86 by digofthedump

Alan4discussion. Thanks for your responses... ...It's good to practice the dialectic method...talking to you has made me aware of the short-comings in my use of happens I suppose when one develops ideas in ones own head that one uses terms which are meaningful to the self but confuse the issue for others who relate the terms to something else.

The word subjective I have used in it's basic sense to mean relating to the capacity to percieve...the 'I' as opposed to 'objective' which I have used to mean the object of perception...the thing which the 'I' percieves....'I see the world'...'I' is subjective...the world is 'objective'. I realise these terms are not perfect...'subjective' and 'objective' have alternate meanings which probably suit the words better....'subjective' can refer to something relating to a person that might not have anything to do with anyone else...'objective' can refer to something that is not dependant on a particular point of view...something that anyone can percieve. Hence forth I'll use the terms 'subjective' and 'objective' in accordance with this latter definition. The basic quality of perception relating to 'that which percieves' I will now refer to as 'the subject' and the quality of perception relating to 'that which is percieved' I will now refer to as 'the object'.

Subjective views and dreams have been repeatedly proved to be unreliable and regularly wrong in relation to material existence. Mental images detached from objectivity are clearly dreamy delusions.

Yes I agree. As per above I've redefined my terms for clarity..the misunderstanding is my fault. I wish to affirm that I'm not suggesting that each individual persons subjective experience (in that it differs from his/her neighbours) has equal claim to 'truth' in an objective sense. There IS such a thing as reality that unites individual subjective perceptions...although I would say this is relative...what we call objective reality could also perhaps be refered to as 'collective subjective reality'. My claim is that ultimately, subject and object are mutually dependant and neither defines reality more than the other.

This is unclear as to if you have shifted the meaning of "subjective" to mean a god, of if you are suggesting the cosmos is a figments of imagination.

The term 'God' I am taking to mean the ultimate subject, the basis of all life and individual subjective experience. It is the impersonal subject upon which the personal subjective experience has it's being. The phrase 'figment of the imagination' is not an unreasonable interpretation but it is not entirely correct for the following reason...It pre-supposes an imagination that creates reality according to its desire. This poses a problem of shifts the problem of complexity back one.

No! rather it would be more accurate to say that the cosmos IS the imagination. The subject and object are mutually dependant's not logical to consider them seperately.

Please bare in mind that I am not advocating a view of reality that is psychotic...I am not saying that the world outside is a product of the mind...the mind is just as much a product of the world could it be otherwise? rather, I am saying that the subject and object are ultimately two aspects of the same thing... and that they quite logically mirror one another.

This is simply a confused misunderstanding. No such argument about gods being 747s was ever made by RD. The "whirlwind in a scrapyard creating a 747 by chance", argument, was a creationist argument illustrating their lack of understanding of evolution, which he quoted in his books.

Dawkins did challange the creationist argument about evolution being the equivalent of a whirlwind in a junkyard...but if memory serves he then turned the argument against creationists by claiming that God must be 'the ultimate boeing 747'...his point being that the idea of God doesn't explain anything as God would have to be at least as complex and the thing he was creating. My point is that God is not complex...he is simple...yet still qualifies as the Supreme Being...because reality is subjectively based....and any complexity (be it apparent external sensation or intelligence) is not the basis of life...but the means through which life manifests.

There is no evidence whatever of any supernatural properties or intrusions in the material universe, but there is abundant evidence of spiritual feelings and subjective imagery arising in brains.

According to the argument I have are looking in the wrong place for "supernatural...intrusions in the material universe". The point being that the universe ITSELF is 'supernatural' (defined I guess as meaning that the material world is a reflection of the spirit or 'ultimate subject' to use my above terminology). One way of looking at the brain is that it is the symbol used to represent 'mind' to the other words...brain doesn't produce mind...mind produces brain (actually my view is that, as spoken of above, they are mutually dependant).

There are therefore two ways of viewing which empasizes the subjective (most religion proceeds from this view) and one which emphasizes the objective (philosophy and materialism proceeds from this view).

Thankyou for saying have a good mid-winter too.

Sun, 25 Dec 2011 17:43:56 UTC | #902657