More Denton: A new book; language (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, March 21, 2016, 15:15 (3169 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The theory states just that, a common basis for all.
> 
> dhw: But it does not give us any coherent description of what that basis is!-Back to stating Chomsky's and Pinker's point, grammar and syntax are basically the same throughout all languages.-> DAVID: His writings suggest a God. He doesn't define the mechanism used.
> 
> dhw: Back to square one!-No, not 'back': The appearance of convergence implies a planned evolution.-
> DAVID: He was an educator and philosopher, not a biologist.
> 
> dhw: One does not have to be a biologist to discuss evolution or God's possible methods. Adler obviously felt he knew enough about the subject to oppose the views of an expert in the field by the name of Darwin, plus every other expert who agrees with Darwin.-Strange answer. Darwin's expertise was at an 1850's level of knowledge in biology. Adler is/was a modern day philosopher, educator, and proposed an interpretation of the human brain development in philosophic terms.-> 
> DAVID: Your atheistic hat is much stronger. I've never seen you as 50/50. You brought up this issue of your evenhandedness. You have my impression.-> 
> dhw:I know what you believe. I am merely pointing out that your belief in this one personal interpretation of God's methods and purpose is so fixed that when I offer you an alternative theistic version of evolution, you take it to be a sign that I am an atheist disguising myself as an agnostic!-I didn't say that. To me you come across as an agnostic tilted toward atheism in your reasoning. Using Dawkins scale of nine, five atheist, four agnostic. Perhaps it is the way you try to analyze my reasons for theism which are in part an overall impression of purpose, without full interpretation of details, which details cannot be answered, but which details you insist upon for your thinking. There are lots which have no direct answers.