Quote:
Originally posted by Eddier1
What amazes me about Bergson is that such a brilliant man should have such a glaring blind side to his thought that even when he became a Roman Catholic, and had studied the scholastics that he learned nothing from the work of William of Occam whose cardinal principle was that "entities ought not be multiplied unneccessarily". But Bergson went on to apply spiritual views to evolution that also are metaphysically based, and are really errors. When I consider all of this I seriously wonder that though he is a great writer and espouser of his ideas, could it be that his so highly accepted astuteness was in reality only acuteness?
Sincerely,
EddieR
|
Eddie,
Well, I'm going to poke around a bit more in the critique, but, I have to say at this point that I am inclined to agree with your assessment.
By the way, what is your impression of the recent development in protein synthesis presented in my thread "Not so fast there, Manny!" in the religion forum, as it bears on the matter of abiogenesis? While Dawkins doesn't go there in his discussion of evolutionary theory, I see no reason to separate abiogenesis from the evolutionary process. In fact, that idea is the cornerstone of my theorem on existence, that we so-called "living" beings have evolved quite naturally from INANIMATE matter. Further, if that is true, barring the HAND OF GOD, where is the BRIGHT LINE OF DEMARCATION between the "non-living" and the "living" in that long, slow process of myriad transformations? My answer is the SIMPLE one: THERE IS NONE! Hence, the THEOREM.
Regards, Raul