Richard Dawkins: "The God Delusion" II
Sun, 2006-11-12 13:07
#1
M. Spector
Richard Dawkins: "The God Delusion" II
Sun, 2006-11-12 13:07
#2
M. Spector
I have renamed this thread to be a sequel to this [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=21&t=001674]i... one.[/url]
[url=http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20637568-5003900,00.h.... Moss:[/url]
quote:
If our moral sense is rooted in our Darwinian past, predating religion, then, as Dawkins says, it should be possible to demonstrate some moral universals that have no apparent reliance on religious belief. He explores this by considering several hypothetical moral dilemmas and the responses of disparate groups of individuals, including that of a remote primitive tribe with no formal religion. The results seem to provide clear evidence that there is no statistically significant difference between atheists and religious believers in the type of judgments made when faced with such dilemmas.His discussion of the abortion debate makes grim reading, although a reference might have been added to the evidence of a statistical link, revealed by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner in their book Freakonomics, between the introduction of abortion legislation in various states in the US and the marked drop in serious crime rates in those states as a result of the consequent termination of unwanted pregnancies, especially among poor and otherwise vulnerable women.
That society permits the religious indoctrination of young children draws his ire, as does the labelling of such children as Catholic or Muslim when they are merely children of parents holding those religious beliefs. Such indoctrination, whether the beliefs involved be Jewish, Christian or Muslim, often takes root, which suggests it is the process regardless of the message that is at work. This practice seems particularly reprehensible given evidence that children's brains are ill-equipped to evaluate such material.
[ 21 November 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
Sun, 2006-11-12 13:19
#3
M. Spector
[url=http://www.beliefnet.com/story/202/story_20279_1.html]U.S. Journalist gives fair review of brilliant Dawkins book:[/url]
quote:
[i]The God Delusion[/i] is an important book that merits close reading.
....
There's no doubt that all faiths contain their share of claptrap. There's no doubt religion has done the world considerable wrong in the past and will cause more wrongs in the future. There's no doubt many believers are hypocrites or can barely describe the most basic tenets of the theology they claim to cherish. There's no doubt the religious often act as though they don't believe what they profess. In one of the best passages of The God Delusion, Dawkins asks why Christians mourn the righteous dead, when their faith holds that a perfect afterlife awaits, and Jesus taught not to fear death. "Could it be that [Christians] don't really believe all that stuff they pretend to believe?" he asks. (I've written pretty much [url=http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w050314&s=easterbrook031405]the same thing myself[/url]. And there's no doubt that televangelists are a shameless, seedy group. If Jesus was moved to rage when he saw moneychangers in the temple, how would he feel about late-night religious charlatans with their 800 numbers flashing on the screen?[b]But The God Delusion overstates the case against religion by blaming faith for practically everything wrong with the world.[/b] Suppose we woke up tomorrow morning and found that every denomination had disappeared. The Israelis and Palestinians would still be at each other's throats: their conflict is about land, liberty, and modernity, not faith. (Israel is among the world's most secular nations; the fact that most Israelis are not particularly religious has hardly reduced tensions.) If neither Hinduism nor Islam had existed in 1948, the partition of the Subcontinent might still have occurred and been as awful. Very strong ethnic hostilities, combined with resource scarcity, were at work. September 11? The key fact is not that the United States was attacked that day by Muslims. The key fact was that the country was attacked by Arabs, and there would be radical Arab hostility to American suzerainty in the Persian Gulf even if religion vanished.
This last paragraph really zeroes in on Dawkins's main flaw: his lack of appreciation for a class-based analysis of society's ills, and a tendency instead to blame every evil on religion.
[ 12 November 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
Sun, 2006-11-12 13:35
#4
M. Spector
[url=http://www.newsday.co.tt/features/0,46720.html]Caribbean novelist Kevin Baldeosingh gives positive review of brilliant Dawkins book[/url]
quote:
This is an excellent polemic from Britain’s leading atheist....The God Delusion is a comprehensive collection of arguments against religious belief. The book is divided into ten sections. The first is titled, with seeming paradox, “A deeply religious non-believer”. In this section, Dawkins explains why the scientific world-view should be respected, while the respect given to religious opinions is baseless and even harmful. The third section examines the various classical arguments for God’s existence, all of which Dawkins dismisses in so succinct and precise a manner as to make one pity theologians who have wasted their intellects on such questions. Section five provides a Darwinian explanation for religious belief, with Dawkins arguing that religion is a misfiring of brain modules which evolved for entirely different evolutionary purposes (most specifically, a “mind-reading” module which allows us to discern other people’s intentions). Other sections show why we can be moral without religion; explain why religion causes evil acts; and argue that science can be a substitute for the wonder and comfort provided by religious belief.
Sun, 2006-11-12 13:59
#5
N.Beltov
quote:
P.J. Moss: His discussion of the abortion debate makes grim reading, although a reference might have been added to the evidence of a statistical link, revealed by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner in their book Freakonomics, between the introduction of abortion legislation in various states in the US and the marked drop in serious crime rates in those states as a result of the consequent termination of unwanted pregnancies, especially among poor and otherwise vulnerable women.
Long before there was any data, Dr. Henry Morgentaler, predicted this result. He was far ahead of his time.
Thu, 2006-11-16 14:57
#6
M. Spector
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xUk78ocGvs&mode=related&search=]Watch BBC interview with Dawkins[/url] about his book on YouTube.
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNjpfBc7Jmw&mode=related&search=]Watch another BBC interview with Dawkins[/url] about his book on YouTube.
[ 16 November 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
Tue, 2006-11-21 16:36
#7
M. Spector
And now, a comment from someone who has never read the book and has nothing of interest to say about it:
[ 20 December 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
Tue, 2006-11-21 20:49
#8
Cueball
Ok. Why don't you just call this "the Windmill Thread"?
Tue, 2006-11-21 22:26
#9
I think the Rottweiler's master himself began to have second thoughts about the finality of death. In 1892, Thomas Huxley said there is more to this universe than just matter and energy: [i]"There is a third thing ... consciousness, which I cannot see to be matter or force, or any conceivable modification of either."[/i] He said that any student who admits to an existence of immaterial phenomena in the form of consciousness must also admit the possibility of [i]"an eternal series of such phenomena."[/i] Huxley couldn't be absolutely sure about it until the time of his own death, which comes soon enough for all of us.
Wed, 2006-11-22 00:21
#10
N.Beltov
The problem with allowing consciousness to be described as another "substance", not simply a property of highly complicated (grey) matter, is that one gets all tangled up in dualistic twaddle. And then you have to explain how these two substances "react" with each other and other annoying problems of philosophical consistency or coherence.
Wed, 2006-11-22 00:22
#11
Cueball
You want coherence at 3:00 am in the morning?
Wed, 2006-11-22 00:25
#12
N.Beltov
Zounds! It's late.
Wed, 2006-11-22 10:07
#13
M. Spector
Read Daniel Dennett's [url=http://dannyreviews.com/h/Consciousness_Explained.html]Consciousness Explained.[/url]
Wed, 2006-11-22 10:49
#14
N.Beltov
I'm part way through 3 different Dennett books - including that one.
Wed, 2006-11-22 17:37
#15
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]The problem with allowing consciousness to be described as another "substance", not simply a property of highly complicated (grey) matter, is that one gets all tangled up in dualistic twaddle. And then you have to explain how these two substances "react" with each other and other annoying problems of philosophical consistency or coherence.[/b]
Yes, that's right, "twaddle." I didn't know it was referred to as that. Very scientific. Sir John Eccles postulated that the human psyche exists independently from the physical brain. And so did William James, Wilder Penfield, Sir James Jeans, and even the scientist-sceptic, and materialist for most of his life, Thomas Huxley.
Wed, 2006-11-22 18:15
#16
I don't think consciousness is very often considered a "substance", so that point is kinda moot. It could possibly be considered a kind of inward dimension that's sometimes neglected if not denied by athiests, but that's just an impossible to answer philosophical issue.
I've been following these threads, but haven't read any Dawkins outside certain possibly distorted excerpts, so I'll just ask if he actually states that religion is the root of all evil in the world, and theoretical non-belief the big answer(?) I'd also like to know if he ever considers other belief systems besides the organized monotheist forms that hardcore athiests generally prefer to attack...?
Reason I ask is because someone mentioned a "primitive tribe" that is supposedly without any religion at all, and therefore a useful comparison. I have a hunch I know which ones it is, and if so he's sadly mistaken. Most old anthropology I'm afraid is pure wastepaper, interesting only in the old cultural biases and blindspots it shows. Maybe a few useful field observations of practices nolonger practiced.
[ 22 November 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]
Wed, 2006-11-22 18:22
#17
quote:
Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
[b]I don't think consciousness is very often considered a "substance", so that point is kinda moot. [/b]
Not by post-Newtonian science, no.
The old view of science, with Newton, said that atoms were the ultimate particles of matter - indestructable, hard, impenatrable and indivisible into smaller parts. Space, time, & matter was the Newtonian recipe for the universe with all obeying static laws. The scientist as observer was on the outside looking in on his scientific measurements.
But since the turn of the last century, astounding scientific advancements have taken place. Einstein's theory of relativity led physicists to disbelieve ideas of absolute time and space. The scientific observer is not apart from, but rather a part of the world of physics. Time and space are relative to the point at which observer is observing. Sometimes people tell others to step outside themselves for a minute and see the error in their reasoning or logic. Do they realize what it is they are suggesting people do ?.
And then Ernest Rutherford was responsible for discovering a whole new branch of physics. This led to Newtonian atomic theory of materialist views being displaced by the development of quantum mechanics by the likes of Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg in the 1920's. So, the scientist as unobserved observer was tossed out, and the idea that atoms are balls of energy replaced atoms as indestructable bits of matter. This is why physicists of today are said to come close to the language of mysticism when describing material reality as a "cosmic dance of energy" rather than "stuff" or "substance."[color="#FFFFFF"]
[ 22 November 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Wed, 2006-11-22 19:00
#18
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
[b]...I'll just ask if he actually states that religion is the root of all evil in the world...[/b]
"The Root of All Evil" was the title of his TV documentary, but it was written by the producers of the show as an attention-grabbing device. Dawkins himself has disavowed the title and denies that religion is the root of all evil.
Wed, 2006-11-22 19:04
#19
Kinda what I was edging towards, but I'm glad You took the time to say it. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] The old Platonic/Zoarastrian dualism lives on though, in some philosophic debates. (Some physicists do seem to take exception to their theories of quantum "mechanics" being compared to Eastern mysticism, but I'm too ignorant of the science involved to make out what exactly they maybe objecting to -if anything besides their own preconceptions. Only thing I know about quantum physics is that few if any completely understand its depths. Could even prove to be "incomplete" too, like relativity and Newtonian physics were)
Wed, 2006-11-22 19:08
#20
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]...and the idea that atoms are balls of energy replaced atoms as indestructable bits of matter. This is why physicists of today are said to come close to the language of mysticism when describing material reality as a "cosmic dance of energy" rather than "stuff" or "substance."[/b]
Nice thread drift, Fidel.
But you seem to be trying to sell the idea that atoms are energy, not matter. That's not orthodox 21st century physics.
And don't be so ready to dismiss Newtonian physics. That's what we used to land probes on Mars.
Wed, 2006-11-22 19:10
#21
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]"The Root of All Evil" was the title of his TV documentary, but it was written by the producers of the show as an attention-grabbing device. Dawkins himself has disavowed the title and denies that religion is the root of all evil.[/b]
That's good to know, as most evolutionary biologists now believe our more negative anti-social traits were also set by biological pressures. Just balanced by more positive ones, depending on circumstances, personalities and differing social norms. Maybe his arguments are more sophisticated than some of his critics admit, I'll have to add him to my growing reading list.
[ 22 November 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]
Wed, 2006-11-22 19:25
#22
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]But you seem to be trying to sell the idea that atoms are energy, not matter. That's not orthodox 21st century physics.[/b]
I said atomic theory doesn't look at atoms as indestructable bits of matter since Ernest Rutherford. You said that I said "atoms are not matter" and not energy, which is false-false. Get it straight yourself. The components of atoms are building blocks of energy, ie. electrons, photons and neutrons, which is post-Newtonian in concept.
quote:
[b]And don't be so ready to dismiss Newtonian physics. That's what we used to land probes on Mars.[/b]
And a third of our modern economy(on 2nd thought, maybe not Canada's economy) is based on quantum physics. By the same token, I'm not ready to dismiss modern science either.
[ 22 November 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Wed, 2006-11-22 19:40
#23
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]I said atomic theory doesn't look at atoms as indestructable bits of matter since Ernest Rutherford. You said that I said "atoms are energy" which is false, and false. Get it straight yourself. Atoms are building blocks of energy, which is post-Newtonian in concept.[/b]
Did you not write the following?
quote:
So, the scientist as unobserved observer was tossed out, and the idea [b]that atoms are balls of energy[/b] replaced atoms as indestructable bits of matter.
And now you're telling us that atoms are "building blocks of energy"? In which universe?
Wed, 2006-11-22 19:46
#24
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]And now you're telling us that atoms are "building blocks of energy"? In which universe?[/b]
I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say, M. What is it you would like me to explain to you about high school chemistry ?. Newtonian atomic theory said that atoms are indivisible, indestructable bits of matter. What part of Newtonian atomic theory don't you get ?.
Wed, 2006-11-22 20:00
#25
Matter into energy, energy into matter, the only significant difference Here is that the ancient Greeks thought that Atoms were indivisable, that is true, that's their original meaning. Newtonian physics still works fine on our practical level, but not so fine on the subatomic or cosmic levels. Re this Philosophic question of "mind-body" dualism, the ancient Greek philosophers were almost as much to blame as the old Catholic church was. Judaic monotheism with its conception of a single God Above and separate from "His" Earthly creations also had something to do with the centuries of Western misconceptions and anxieties. I don't see near so many hang ups over this in most Eastern or Aboriginal religions or philosophies. If a ruler wanted to kill another for their property that was understood.
Wed, 2006-11-22 20:03
#26
M. Spector
"Newtonian atomic theory"?
Try Googling that phrase: you will find one other document on the entire World Wide Web (the same document occurs in two different places) that contains that expression.
Congratulations! You have just created what will eventually become document #2.
Newton knew nothing about atoms, and had the good sense not to try to make theories about them. You could learn a lot from Newton, Fidel.
Even your revised statement that "The components of atoms are building blocks of energy, ie. electrons, photons and neutrons..." is wrong. First of all, photons are not components of atoms. Second, there is no sense in which subatomic particles are "building blocks" of energy. Energy's existence does not depend on subatomic particles, Einstein showed that particles could be transformed into energy - a particular kind of energy known as radioactivity, but other forms of energy, such as heat energy and kinetic energy, are not dependent on subatomic particles for their existence.
Wed, 2006-11-22 20:07
#27
Cueball
Leave it to the good sheppards of the gospel of rationalism to make derrisive fun of the ignorance of others in the name of promoting humanism.
Wed, 2006-11-22 20:17
#28
You an expert in particle physics now Spector? No, I didn't think so.
Wed, 2006-11-22 20:24
#29
Cueball
It is pretty unreal someone going after someone for making an obvious typographical error, and typing "photon" instead of "proton." But the difference of a single letter is enough for the shameless and officious trumpeting of presumed superior authority for the purposes of self-engrandizing smugness.
I thought you were trying to encourage open minded scientific investigation. Here you seem to be mimicing the manner of Jesuit priest who lets it be known that he holds the secrets of the universe beneath his robe -- mind you it is a big one.
Wed, 2006-11-22 21:29
#30
But some still insist Their's is bigger... [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] Maybe just proof that we don't need to believe in an omnipresent authority figure to get into squabbles over relative authority.
Wed, 2006-11-22 21:41
#31
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]Even your revised statement that "The components of atoms are building blocks of energy, ie. electrons, photons and neutrons..." is wrong. First of all, photons are not components of atoms.[/b]
You must find it somewhat difficult to read technical jargon. Because you seem to be parsing and extracting one and two words of what I say, and pasting them together out of order to form sentences. I did not say, and read carefully, "Photons are components of atoms."
The ie. "in example" list refers back to the last or closest noun in the sentence not the first. You should think about it before jumping head-first into a hasty reply like that.
Photons exhibit wave-particle duality and are responsible for EM phenomena, which has both electric and magnetic components. Electric current contains electrical energy from electron flow. Quantum theory says disturbances in the electromagnetic fields are called photons. And the energy of photons is quantized.
quote:
[b]Second, there is no sense in which subatomic particles are "building blocks" of energy ... a particular kind of energy known as radioactivity, but other forms of energy, such as heat energy and kinetic energy, are not dependent on subatomic particles for their existence.[/b]
It's almost as if you're providing a reply to something that no one here made mention of. Energy can be released at the subatomic level, as every physics book will tell us, by combining or splitting nuclei.
In fact, radioactivity is the occurrence of emitting radiation. That happens when atomic nucleus releases energy in order to shift to a more stable form. Perhaps you can post a link to whatever it was you were trying to paraphrase ?.
[ 23 November 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Wed, 2006-11-22 22:17
#32
N.Beltov
quote:
Fidel: Yes, that's right, "twaddle." I didn't know it was referred to as that. Very scientific.
My point was that adopting a dualistic point of view leads one to hopeless philosophical entanglements and self-contradictions. For example: if consciousness (or spirit) and matter really are separate and independent substances ... then how could these two things, which have nothing in common between them, influence each other? How does the brain inform the conscious mind and how does the mind communicate its wishes to the brain? No one since Descartes has provided a satisfactory answer to that question.
quote:
Fidel: Sir John Eccles postulated that the human psyche exists independently from the physical brain. And so did ...
I'm rather surprised that you would refer to such an idea approvingly - especially in a thread on Richard Dawkins. I doubt that there is a serious neuro-biologist in the world who would subscribe to such a view. Whatever differences I've had with Spector about Dawkins are tiny nuances compared to this claim. Without a brain ... there is no mind. Good luck trying to disprove that.
Wed, 2006-11-22 22:54
#33
quote:
Originally posted by N. Beltov:
My point was that adopting a dualistic point of view leads one to hopeless philosophical entanglements and self-contradictions. For example: if consciousness (or spirit) and matter really are separate and independent [b]substances[/b] ... then how could these two things, which have nothing in common between them, influence each other? How does the brain inform the conscious mind and how does the mind communicate its wishes to the brain?.[/qb]
Yes, good question. I get the feeling that most neurobiologists are concerned with leading edge research nowadays not so much with proving or disproving consciousness.
But mass and extensions of mass are no longer thought of in the same crude ways as per the "old science." Physicist Fritjoff Capra says,
quote:
[b]In modern physics, mass is no longer associated with a material substance, and hence particles are not seen as consisting of any kind of 'stuff', but as [i]"bundles of energy"[/i][/b]
quote:
[b]I'm rather surprised that you would refer to such an idea approvingly - especially in a thread on Richard Dawkins. I doubt that there is a serious neuro-biologist in the world who would subscribe to such a view. Whatever differences I've had with Spector about Dawkins are tiny nuances compared to this claim. Without a brain ... there is no mind. Good luck trying to disprove that.[/b]
Perhaps the physical brain is a "transformer" that handles mind energy and manifests it as our "selves" or the "I" which Penfield was trying to pin-point in the brain. That's one of Capra's notions not mine. By what i understand, there are recent studies that have shown regions of the brain that are highly active and thought to be associated with consciousness. IOW's, they're feeling around in the dark right now. But I'm an interloper here on M's thread for too long, and he's let me know about it. Carry on ...
Wed, 2006-11-22 23:09
#34
N.Beltov
I get the impression, Fidel, that you're using a very old-fashioned materialist view of "matter". I don't think you really need to get into all this atomic and sub-atomic theory to make a point. Matter can't be reduced to its concrete forms since there are, for example, immaterial forms of matter such as electromagnetic waves (light), gravitational fields, etc. This is all still [b]matter[/b]. Furthermore, it is a mistake to identify matter with any of its properties: mass, energy, space, etc. Matter has an inexhaustible variety of properties. Me, personally, I just stick to the notion that matter is [i]objective reality[/i] independent of consciousnes, and leave it at that.
Wed, 2006-11-22 23:23
#35
I'm saying the Newtonian materialist view of matter is considered old science since Einstein, Rutherford, Bohr, Heisenberg etc arrived on the scene. That's what I'm saying, and don't you dare try to invert what I've just said. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Anywho N, there are hostile energies present in this thread. Our chat will have to transpire in another time and space relative to whichever point we happen to be making our stand.[color="#FFFFFF"]
[ 22 November 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Wed, 2006-11-22 23:38
#36
N.Beltov
OK, go ahead and beam up to the mother ship. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2006-11-22 23:57
#37
We should be able to transport "material" objects from here to there at some point in this century according to at least one or two physicists. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]But you seem to be trying to sell the idea that [color="##FF0000"]atoms are energy, not matter. That's not orthodox 21st century physics.[/b]
M's been snatched by Homer Simpson pods from outer space ?. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
[url=http://www.forsmark.com/upload/277/eng_broschyr.pdf]Forsmark: Atoms are Energy [/url]
[url=http://www.aecl.ca/About.htm]Atomic Energy of Canada[/url][color="#FFFFFF"]]
[ 25 November 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Tue, 2006-12-19 14:28
#38
M. Spector
[url=http://thetyee.ca/Books/2006/12/14/Dawkins/]"This is necessary reading for everybody"[/url] - Charles Demers
quote:
With a four-headed fundamentalist hydra rending progressive social movements, co-opting populist anger, and marginalizing women and religious minorities around the world, one would expect a warm reaction among the liberal left to The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins's moving and articulate plea for reason, skepticism and Enlightenment values. Instead, Dawkins is being treated like a party guest offering Moses a golden calf for his birthday, or the purveyor of a beer-baked ham at a Saudi potluck.
...
The God Delusion is a declaration of secular humanism that excoriates religion, both moderate and extreme. It also attempts to outline a possible Darwinian origin for the emergence and prevalence of religious belief.So what has the progressive reaction been? Not very, as it turns out. The November issue of Harper's magazine was emblazoned with a front cover notice calling attention to Pulitzer-winning author Marilynne Robinson's Dawkins [url=http://darwiniana.com/2006/10/23/marilynne-robinson-on-dawkins/]critique... "In Defense of Religion." Harper's, of course, certainly didn't mean a defence of Islam; the publication's continuing mockery of Muslim faith was recently cited by a writer friend of mine (at an Eid party marking the end of Ramadan, no less) as the reason she no longer buys the mag....
Meanwhile, in the London Review of Books, one of the great minds of serious Marxist and progressive literary criticism, [b]Terry Eagleton launches a critique of Dawkins so histrionic you'd think it was his dad, and not Christ's, who was being insulted. After writing the first half of his review as though he hadn't read Dawkins's book[/b] (continuously raising objections that Dawkins himself had already brought up and demolished), [b]Eagleton makes it to his one redeeming criticism: Dawkins's superficial grasp of politics and history. After that, it's back to grasping at straws.[/b]
There's even a sentence that could be taken as a bizarre threat, not unlike the ones from Christian fanatics reproduced in The God Delusion, when Eagleton says: "Dawkins may be relieved to know that I don't actually know where he lives." Eagleton then dismisses Dawkins's rationalism as a liberal trope of the English middle-class -- no word yet whether Eagleton's LRB essay was filed from a meatpacking plant or a more traditional coal mine, but his upcoming book, How to Read a Poem, promises to be a huge hit amongst inner-city Pakistani teens and white proletarian football hooligans.
...This is necessary reading for everybody, if those of us without holy books are ever to stand a chance.
[ 08 February 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
Tue, 2006-12-19 14:35
#39
Thank you, M. Spector.
Wed, 2006-12-20 03:11
#40
that November Harper's disappeared from the newsstand before I could really read it;
not sure if its on-line,
as my quick skim suggested it was more balanced than the LRB thing
Wed, 2006-12-20 03:32
#41
Catchfire
The only salient point from that review from the Tyee is that Dawkins doesn't grasp the things he critiques. The rest of it is baseless [i]ad hominem[/i] attacks against those who dare criticize the book. For someone who claims not to have a "holy book," it sure seems like the reviewer holds Dawkins' monody with pseudospiritual reverence.
But, since we're in the habit of posting reviews:
[url=http://richarddawkins.net/article,238,n,n]Lawrence M. Krauss in Nature[/url]
quote:
I wish that Dawkins, who has a gift for making science — in particular, evolutionary biology — both exciting and understandable to a broad audience, had continued to play to his strengths, which are desperately needed now more than ever as we confront growing attacks on the teaching of evolution, not just in the United States but in the UK and Europe.Dawkins the preacher is less seductive. And make no mistake: this book is, for the most part, a well-referenced sermon.
[...]
A less sympathetic reader than the author's wife (who apparently read the entire manuscript aloud to Dawkins for him to review) might have provided a more useful foil. Several indulgences detract from the flow, but more importantly, I was struck at how Dawkins' presentation, particularly in the early chapters where he builds his case against God, might offend those who, like myself, are quite sympathetic to his central thesis. I suspect that few thinking people of faith are unaware of the remarkable evil that has been done in the name of God, or the possibility that, although most cultures worship some god, this could be a mere reflection of the workings of the human brain rather than definitive evidence for God's reality. Yet Dawkins seems to suggest early on that even agnostics might never confront these issues and that he needs to "raise their consciousness", as he puts it. At the very least I find it doubtful that constantly questioning the intelligence of 'true believers' will be helpful in inducing any such reader to accept Dawkins' strongly argued thesis that both God and religion are nonsensical and harmful.
Wed, 2006-12-20 03:40
#42
[b].... constantly questioning the intelligence of 'true believers' will be helpful in inducing any such reader to accept Dawkins' strongly argued thesis[/b]
and I am constantly tempted to award the Dunce Prize in PR to professional atheists for their preening and insistence on their own unbeatable intellects;
this was capped with the self-adoption of the term "brights" for skeptics [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img]
get it, get it?
the rest are "dulls", including notorious dullards like Plato, Pascal, Augustine, Kant, and much of the western canon, who could not quite grasp atheist arguments such as .... [img]confused.gif" border="0[/img]
a real argument treats one's adversaries with respect, but this debate seems to consistently lack that
[ 20 December 2006: Message edited by: Geneva ]
Wed, 2006-12-20 03:46
#43
Cueball
Hegel.
Wed, 2006-12-20 10:02
#44
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by Geneva:
[b][b]this was capped with the self-adoption of the term "brights" for skeptics [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img]get it, get it?
the rest are "dulls", including notorious dullards like Plato, Pascal, Augustine, Kant, and much of the western canon, who could not quite grasp atheist arguments such as ....[/b]
Just as the homosexuals stole our word "gay." Get it? get it? The rest of us are "sad".
[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Geneva, buy yourself a dictionary for Christmas and look up the word "bright"; you will see that it has several meanings, the first of which is not "smart".
ETA:
quote:
I am still not convinced that it was a mistake to go with bright. These things take time. Had Geisert and Futrell chosen some bland, mealymouthed term most would have forgotten it by now. The “in your face” quality of the term is, in my opinion, a piquant, but mild, antidote to the prevailing practice of hyper-deference paid to religions but to no other institution in the country. And I have reminded those who find the term objectionable that just as the antonym of gay isn’t glum, but straight -- another happy word -- they are free to choose a peppy antonym for bright. I recommend super, since, unlike us brights, they believe in the supernatural.
[url=http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/daniel_c_dennett/2006/12/not_... Dennett[/url]
[ 01 January 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
Wed, 2006-12-20 10:21
#45
M. Spector
Lawrence Krauss is much more interesting when he writes [url=http://www.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/14a08801.htm]stuff like this[/url]:
quote:
In spite of that polite coexistence, however, the current effort to increase the bonds between religion and science can present a problem, because it reinforces scientists' concern about offending religious sensibilities. [b]Some sensibilities need to be offended.[/b]Religious fundamentalists around the United States spout nonsense when they argue that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and that fossils were spawned in the great flood -- yet those fundamentalists are flooded with donations instead of derision. U.S. Presidential candidates make untenable claims about a lack of evidence for evolution, yet the press continues to cover those claims as if they could be well-founded.
....There is a war going on for the hearts and minds of the U.S. public, and science -- the driving force behind the technology that makes the modern world possible -- is losing because [b]scientists often are too timid to attack nonsense whenever and wherever it appears.[/b]
....Scientists must become evangelists, reaching beyond the traditional borders of academe to rebut such nonsense, which is demeaning to both science and theology. They must be prepared to give talks at local high schools and churches, write for newspapers, become members of school boards, and, in general, defend science in public with as much energy as fundamentalists use to promote their beliefs.
Wed, 2006-12-20 10:23
#46
Catchfire
Give me a break, Spector, the implication is obviously that atheists are supposedly smarter than everyone else, despite Dawkins' insistence to the contrary. He's essentially saying "Call us all 'smarts,' but that just means we dress nicer." What a crock.
And your weak point could have been made without the dig at Geneva's literacy level.
Edited to add: What you and Dawkins miss, Spector, and Krauss doesn't, is that there is a difference between fundamentalism and religion, and that there is a difference between fighting Creationism and insulting people who believe in God. No one here is arguing Krauss's position on the importance of fighting anti-evolution nonsense.
[ 20 December 2006: Message edited by: Catchfire ]
Wed, 2006-12-20 10:55
#47
Frustrated Mess
Given the rise of religious fundamentalism and the ensuing violence, I think it is necessary for atheists to begin an intellectual offensive against the "believers" who have us sliding down the slippery slope to hell (I recall Geneva, for example, supported George W. Bush's divinely inspired mass murder of Iraqis).
I think there has been a very patient awaiting of non-fundamentalist believers to take their faith back from the fundamentalists but it just doesn't seem to be happening.
Wed, 2006-12-20 11:27
#48
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
[b]Give me a break, Spector, the implication is obviously that atheists are supposedly smarter than everyone else, despite Dawkins' insistence to the contrary. He's essentially saying "Call us all 'smarts,' but that just means we dress nicer." What a crock.And your weak point could have been made without the dig at Geneva's literacy level.
Edited to add: What you and Dawkins miss, Spector, and Krauss doesn't, is that there is a difference between fundamentalism and religion, and that there is a difference between fighting Creationism and insulting people who believe in God. No one here is arguing Krauss's position on the importance of fighting anti-evolution nonsense.
[ 20 December 2006: Message edited by: Catchfire ][/b]
Anyone who spends a lot of time attacking the existance of an unprovable presence, in favour if an unprovable absence should read Don Quixote. I hardly think commiting a lot of time and energy to this project is worthy of a "great mind" and not evidence that one is operating either. The other way round frankly.
[ 20 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Wed, 2006-12-20 12:27
#49
Catchfire
quote:
Over conceits of this sort the poor gentleman lost his wits, and used to lie awake striving to understand them and worm the meaning out of them; what Aristotle himself could not have made out or extracted had he come to life again for that special purpose.
[img]http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/359/donquixotehk0.jpg[/img]
![http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/359/donquixotehk0.jpg[/img]](http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/359/donquixotehk0.jpg[/img]){kind=link}
Wed, 2006-12-20 12:53
#50
Frustrated Mess
quote:
“There are no salmon on one level of existence. There is only the movement of God’s eyebrows. I’ve had the experience of transcending all duality. There’s only this kind of rush of consciousness, and a part of that consciousness becomes salmon, and a part of that consciousness becomes time. And the salmon thrive for millions of years, and they go extinct. There’s all this momentary burst of consciousness.” Because, the story goes, these creatures are nothing but a part of this illusory earth—a “movement of God’s eyebrows”—it doesn’t matter so much if these creatures are driven extinct. In fact, I’ve been told, there can be no extinction because the salmon don’t exist in the first place, or if there is extinction, then it is God’s will, God’s dream.
Wed, 2006-12-20 15:29
#51
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
[b]What you and Dawkins miss, Spector, and Krauss doesn't, is that there is a difference between fundamentalism and religion, and that there is a difference between fighting Creationism and insulting people who believe in God.[/b]
What you miss is that the aim of the book is not "fighting Creationism".
What both you and Krauss also miss (apparently because neither of you has read the book's preface, where Dawkins makes this clear) is that the book is not aimed at the people Dawkins calls "dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads;" for, as he notes, they are "immune to argument, their resistance built up over years of childhood indoctrination using methods that took centuries to mature..." Rather, his target audience is the person seeking to come to terms with his or her own doubts about religious belief:
quote:
I suspect - well, I am sure - that there are lots of people out there who have been brought up in some religion or other, are unhappy in it, don't believe it, or are worried about the evils that are done in its name; people who feel vague yearnings to leave their parents' religion and wish they could, but just don't realize that leaving is an option. If you are one of them, this book is for you. It is intended to raise consciousness - raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled.
To his target audience, Dawkins's writing undoubtedly comes as a breath of fresh air.