Good interview here, or as blogger Arni Zachariassen put it: “Jarod Longbons interviews the quite badass Conor Cunningham.”

This entry was posted in Conor Cunningham, Evolution. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Quite

  1. Burk Braun says:


    “Put differently, transcendence enables immanence, and that includes a natural world that evolves – otherwise there would only be a pure flux of materiality without real shape or form. That being the case, all objects or entities would only exist nominally.”

    This is classic gibberish. He is proposing a physical theory here- (material things by themselves can not evolve)- but without knowing what he is talking about or supporting with any evidence. It is same story as vitalism.. the idea that we are somehow more than organic chemicals. Well, it ain't so. It is alot of hot air.

    “Nominally”? “Real shape”? It is debased rhetoric trying to pass itself off as profundity. Material things have real shape and form whether he wants them to or not, whatever his theories of the heavens, etc.

    “Another point of contact between both camps is a hate of matter, that is to say, both camps think the spiritual and the material are inimical (see below).”

    Pure casting aspersions.. Christians may hate matter, but the atheists don't. They love it. They even think the spiritual is quite imicable with matter, being a human creation and emotion.

    “Put another way, if there is such a thing as mere matter, which there is not, and that we are reducible to this fiction called matter, if that is true, how in the name of all things pink could we ever discover that? After all, who is the ‘we’ in the last sentence, if matter is all there is?”

    Again, clearly a person who doesn't understand what he is talking about, and anxious to force his view (pantheism) to the fore without understanding how empty it is. God is everything and everwhere, and thus nowhere and nothing.. it is both epistemologically empty (no evidence or way to tell either way) and functionally empty (science is completely unchanged either way) in additional to its metaphysical emptiness. It is a fantasy that seems comforting to him.

    “No, when Darwinism is left to itself, there is no mind, only a mechanism that fulfills certain functions, and that being the case it is easily replaceable with anything which fulfills the same functions: a computer, corkscrew, pencil, piece of shit. But this also includes the mind of Charles Darwin, which begs the question, to say the very least.”

    More classy rhetoric. Can he build a mind out of a pencil? I don't think so. It is disgusting that such a person can be respected by anyone as a “thinker”. Darwinism and Darwin both celebrate minds, and show how they are built.

    Very well. It sounds like he has found a pleasant equilibrium of compatibalism, where evolution can be true as long as matter is infused or whatever so the he can feel all superior as a partisan of theology in what looks otherwise like a rather rude and mechanistic world. It would be helpful if he could recognize that all this infusedness and pantheism is a projection from his own love of the world, which is wonderful, surely, but neither epistemically nor metaphysically informative.


  2. Darrell says:


    Allow me to translate your true frustration here:

    “You know what's wrong? Everything I don't understand.”


Comments are closed.