Link blog: religion, dualism, francis-collins, discovery-institute

Substance dualism

QualiaSoup has a new video up, a short argument against substance dualism (the idea that consciousness arises from separate kind of mental substance outside the physical world).
(tags: consciousness philosophy dualism qualia)

Theodicy III: Primo Levi versus Francis Collins

Jerry Coyne has been reading Francis Collins's "The Language of God" as well as Levi's works on Auschwitz. Not surprisingly, he doesn't find Collins's theodicy very convincing.
(tags: theology religion jerry-coyne francis-collins)

Rowan Williams’ choice | Andrew Brown | Comment is free |

Andrew Brown kicks some righteous ass: "Under Williams, the church that marries two women who love each other is to be thrown out of the Anglican Communion. The church that would jail them both for life, and would revile and persecute their defenders, stays snugly in his bosom. Not even the Archbishop's remarkable gift for obfuscation can conceal these facts forever."
(tags: homosexuality politics uganda uk religion christianity anglicanism rowan-williams)

Discovery Institute: The Mask Falls Away

The IDers at the DI go bonkers about the Climategate emails: "A cabal of leading scientists, politicians, and media concubines have conspired to lie about global warming. The reasons are obvious: power and money. … I’m not sure that the scientific community can or will respond to this debacle in a courageous or ethical way. The ID-Darwinism debate clearly demonstrates that venality and shameless self-interest, as well as a toxic leftist-atheist ideology, runs very deep in the scientific community." I'm adding "toxic" to my standard "neo-sceptical strident fundamentalist neo-atheist" spiel.
(tags: lolxians climate global-warming intelligent-design discovery-institute)

2 Comments on "Link blog: religion, dualism, francis-collins, discovery-institute"

  1. I got less than a minute into that QualiaSoup video before I had to give up. The claims that “substance in the sense intended is a physical concept” and “the term ‘non-physical substance’ is literally meaningless” are simply staggeringly ignorant.


    1. I think he’d have done better to leave out the claim that these things are a priori contradictory. The valid part of his point seems to be that substance dualists work by making analogies to physical things, making substance a physical concept, but then say “it’s like that, but non-physical”, which, at least, needs further explanation: how can something be like a physical thing, but non-physical?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *