Mind-body dualism = Cartesian. How do Wittgenstein's language games make his "theology" non-Cartesian? And could you give examples of pre-Cartesianist theology that isn't dualist or idealist?
-
-
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
Descartes offers particular vr. m-b dualism, Berekeley of monism. Wittgenstein that kinds of claims are dependent on broader language games
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RT_Editing
I don't think Wittgensteinian linguistics or your other egs, apart from idealism, are a sufficient basis for non-Cartesian religion. But all of this is irrelevant. The original point I wanted to make is that Anglicanism is very much Cartesian, which is why Dawkins attacked it.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
Sorry for being slow, debating nationalism/racism elsewhere
Anglicanism is not a theology, but a denomination. Berkeley was an Anglican.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RT_Editing
Right, but Berkeley was 1st & foremost a philosopher, and his ideas are an exception and not a rule within the broad church (hehe) of Anglicanism (or Christianity). Rowan Williams, the leader of the CofE, believes in mind-body dualism. Which is why Dawkins would have attacked it.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
Williams is a philosopher & theologian & nothing Berkeley said was incompatible with Anglicanism. CoE isn't so uniform or unsophisticated
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RT_Editing @G_S_Bhogal
Which is Dawkins problem, he thinks the religious are irrational because he attacks an irrational, generalising caricature of the religious.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RT_Editing
Dawkins attacked dualism because it is by far the most common philosophy underpinning religion. By doing so he wasn't really caricaturing religion. One could just as easily find irrationality in Berkeley's Christianity as Williams' but at that moment Dawkins was debating Williams
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
Watch the debate, I'd say its apparent that he failed to land a hit on Williams, the mainstream CofE or even contemporary Christian theology
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RT_Editing
I watched it, though it was a while ago. I actually think Dawkins won the debate, and would have won even if he'd said nothing, because the burden of proof rests on the one making the claims, and Williams was the one making the claims.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
But anyway, I gotta go out now, but thanks for the convo, it's been enlightening!
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.