The Pretense of Materialism

I've long agreed with philosophers who claim that Materialism is a fallacious theory, and one that should be tossed on the scrap heap. To illustrate this point consider the following quotes.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'At an appearance at a local bookstore in Washington D.C., a visitor asked Dawkins whether it was consistent for him to believe in determinism and then take credit for writing his book. [The God Delusion] Access Research Network tells how Dawkins hemmed and hawed, and then conceded he had to live as if determinism is false, and society must treat people as if they are responsible for their actions. He admitted “it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable.” (1.)

- I've long been tired of responding to Dawkins; but I suppose one must point out the obvious flaw in his argument. He admits to being inconsistent (a major intellectual flaw surely) but on the other hand he castigates Christians for being inconsistent! This is a joke. You can't both absolve yourself of sin X and then attack others for it. Give me a break.

- Materialism is self-refuting. As it involves believing contradictory things it can't be lived out. Isn't that evidence Richard, that it's not true? One would think so.

- Who or what is this 'society' Richard, that supposedly governs us? I thought selfish genes were in control.

- Society isn't a person Richard. You claim to rely on 'reason' for all your wisdom and knowledge, but then you engage in gross errors like personifying society. That's a logical fallacy (as I assume you know) and therefore does not qualify as reason.

- To pretend a is non-a is also a logical fallacy; and thus not reason; i.e. it's fallacious reasoning. To pretend man is free when he is not sounds a lot like religion to me; and false religion at that.

- to treat people as responsible when they're not is also a logical fallacy; unreason on stilts. This too smacks of the religion you say you hate. In fact you don't hate religion, you hate Christianity. This make-believe nonsense of pretending x is really y is religion of an idiot sort; a religion for people who don't want to face the truth of creation.

- Dawkins is continually chiding Christians for not being consistent (e.g. if they believe in heaven why don't they want to die? etc.) but yet he admits to being wildly inconsistent himself. No honest person can take such hypocricy seriously.

- Dawkins pillories c's for many various reasons; the joke is that he's engaging in moralism... when he has No basis for doing so. This is intellectual charlatanism. If his model of reality were correct there would be no moral truths, no moral realities; there couldn't be. The man has no right to give a moral critique of anything... but yet he writes voluminously on the subject. Are we supposed to belive he's so clueless he doesn't see the problem? Of course he does; he just pretends he doesn't see a problem. (eg. how can he write a book and make a lot of money, if he doesn't pretend there's no problem?) I'm sorry; this is nothing but a farce.

- Dawkins is all about pretense; his entire argument against 'religion' depends on a definition of religion that he hand picks to be favorable to his case. In my opinion his definition (religion is a belief in a supreme being) is meaningless. I think the word religion itself is bogus; or has become so in recent decades. A much better term (certainly if our aim is to communicate) is world view. (But maybe Dawkins has no desire to communicate.) If we take his book and replace the word religion with world view it would make no sense. The reason for this is simple; his argument is dishonest... and thus makes no sense. He likes to ignore the fact the communists (Marxists, Maoists, etc.) murdered approximately 200 million people in the 20th century alone. Why? Because of their world view beliefs.

- More pretense? Dawkins claims men are slaves of selfish genes, who manipulate them (in all ways, even in their thoughts) for the sake of their own reproductive success. Having delivered himself of the strangest bit of metaphysics known to man, he then goes on to pretend that 'truth' exists, and that he knows what it is! Can the man not see the contradiction. If his nightmare scenario were true, there would be no truth; there could be no truth. But since Dawkins doesn't mind pretending, he pretends this isn't the case, he pretends truth exists... and that he has a patent on it. I can't begin to take such twaddle seriously.

Notes;
1. reference source; Darwinist Anti-Creation Tactics Increase in fervor (C/E Headlines; 2006)