|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A New Book on Dawkins ("How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think") | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5222 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Hi all,
Amazon just sent me this:Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think. Not out just yet, so just a heads up. Mark
{Added by Adminnemooseus: The book title is Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think by Alan Grafen (Editor), Mark Ridley (Editor). I have also added this title to the topic title.} This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-22-2006 05:35 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
I read a good article in DISCOVER about him. I actually found it online here. In the article, there is a robust exchange...
DiscoverMagazine writes: Throughout his remarks, Dawkins could barely suppress the contempt he feels for mystical religion. “What I can’t understand is why we are expected to show respect for good scientists, even great scientists, who at the same time believe in a god who does things like listen to our prayers, forgive our sins, perform cheap miracles,” he said, prompting a burst of nervous laughter to ripple through the audience, “which go against, presumably, everything that the god of the physicist, the divine cosmologist, set up when he set up his great laws of nature. So I don’t understand a scientist who says, ”I am a Roman Catholic’ or ”I am a Baptist.’ ” As even (Dawkins) friend Patrick Bateson conceded, “Personally, I think he’s gone a bit over the top on that, attributing all the evils of the world to religion. . . . I am not a believer, but I know some of my colleagues have been very offended by his brief on this.” “I wish he wouldn’t do it,” said David Barker flatly. “It creates huge negative feelings in some people.”(...) But even as Dawkins waved the banner of evolution in New York, he engaged in a little friendly fire, attacking a fellow officer in Darwin’s latter-day army”Ken Miller, the Brown University professor, who sat at the other end of the table. Miller is in many ways as staunch a defender of Darwin as Dawkins, and, from a practical standpoint, perhaps an even more important one. He has tirelessly traveled to Georgia, Pennsylvania, and other redoubts of creationism, to school board meetings and to courtrooms, to debate and refute those seeking to undermine the importance of evolution in modern school curricula. But Miller is also a walking paradox to people like Dawkins. As he confessed in his book Finding Darwin’s God, Miller is a practicing Catholic, and as he pointed out to Dawkins, “I will persist in saying that religion for me, and for many other people, answers questions that are beyond the realm of science.” Indeed, he complained that scientists often trafficked in a caricature of religion. And then, nodding toward Dawkins and Ann Druyan, he suggested that “atheists and agnostics are a whole lot more evangelical than religious people are.” The observation may have started out as a joke, but it landed at Dawkins’s end of the table like a spear. Dawkins and Druyan proceeded to gang up on Miller. These arguments invariably devolve into snippy exchanges about the Genesis version of creation and unfold in a rhetorical no-man’s-land somewhere between King James and Watson and Crick. “I regard Genesis as the spiritual truth,” Miller said. “And I also think that Genesis was written in a language that would explain God that was relevant to the people living at the time. I cannot imagine”cannot imagine”Moses coming down from the Mount and talking about DNA, RNA, punctuated equilibrium. I don’t think he would have gotten very far.” Nonetheless, he reiterated his belief that the biblical stories of the world’s creation “are true in the spiritual sense and that they are written by human beings in the language of the time.” Dawkins, at the far end of the table, almost levitated out of his seat with indignation. “But what does that mean?” he demanded, voice rising. The audience rewarded his indignation with combustive applause. “Is it a caricature for me to ask you, since you are a Roman Catholic, do you believe Jesus had an earthly father?” “Ah, this is the famous Richard Dawkins question,” Miller replied, sounding a little defensive. “No, don’t ridicule it!” Dawkins shouted, relentless. “If I can just get a fragment of the body of Jesus,” Miller continued, “I could do DNA fingerprinting! I could figure out who gave Mary that Y chromosome!” “That’s a facetious answer!” Dawkins cried out, his face flushed with conviction, shaking his finger at Miller. “That’s a facetious answer!” The heat was so palpable that, as Margaret Wertheim, the moderator, said later, “At least now we know that Richard actually believes this. Before, I wasn’t sure if it was just a performance.” Quite a fervant man! Even scientific evolutionists have religious arguments! (Maybe Sir. Richard has one of them "demons"... ) This message has been edited by Phat, 03-16-2006 07:05 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
There is another good book out on Dawkins by Alister McGrath also an Oxford professor.
It's called "Dawkins God" Genes,Memes, and the Meaning of Life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Ah, but what a dull, boring world it would be without people like him. "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DogToDolphin Member (Idle past 5903 days) Posts: 40 From: Avignon, France Joined: |
Ah, but what a dull, boring world it would be without people like him I think it would do the world a lot of good if people like him were more open-minded, and not get furious because some fellows don't agree with his philosophy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Since the thread is technically a zombie, I thought it wouldn't be looked upon too poorly to wryly point out:
Sir Richard Not yet Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Sir Richard Oooh, that would put the cat amongst the pigeons wouldn't it? The world's most prominent atheist, given an honour by the head of the Church of England!Indeed, one has to wonder why such such an eminent scientist hasn't already been honoured for his genetics work. They couldn't be trying to save Her Madge the embarrassment could they... I wonder if he would accept? Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I think it would do the world a lot of good if people like him were more open-minded.... Maybe Dawkins is open minded. Maybe he took a dispassionate, close look at the beliefs of Christians and logically concluded that it's all utter nonsense. And maybe a clear examination of history and current events shows that the type of religious beliefs held by Christians and Muslims really are dangerous. Reaching a conclusion and feeling strongly about one's conclusions is not necessarily a sign of close mindedness. If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey. Haven't you always wanted a monkey? -- The Barenaked Ladies
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2504 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
DogToDolphin writes: I think it would do the world a lot of good if people like him were more open-minded, and not get furious because some fellows don't agree with his philosophy. Would you care to give us a list of open minded "true religions". Dawkins thinks that religions encourage closed mindedness and impede free thought. Historically, and in the present day, he can find a great deal of evidence for his point of view. He isn't as dogmatically atheistic as some people think, and tends to use phrases like "extremely unlikely" to describe his assessment of the likelihood of the existence of a God. It's probably a good idea to actually read "The God Delusion" before criticising him, and it's worth a read. There's plenty in it that people could criticise, from many points of view, but at least you'll know where someone who seems to be becoming the world's most famous living atheist is coming from. More important, he's a very good "thinking" scientist, full of original ideas, and to me, always more interesting when writing on science than anything else. I also think that outside strict science, the idea of memes is the thing he'll be remembered for most, as his criticism of religion is similar to that of many others, but none of us have come up with an idea that's caught on like the meme one. Perhaps it is a meme.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DogToDolphin Member (Idle past 5903 days) Posts: 40 From: Avignon, France Joined: |
It's easy to blame religion, like that you don't have to deal with it.
I 'm gonna tell you something. I became a Christian at 16 years old, the experience I had is commonly called born-again - it is the conversion that makes you a follower of Christ, and puts you directly into a real relationship with God - I am French and I had never heard of the born-again experience before that. I knew there was a God who created the Earth and the first living organisms, but i really didn't care about the way He did it, whether it was using the Neo-Darwinian evolution or not, it was not an issue because I knew we would never know. That experience completely changed my life and it opened my eyes literally (my vision was clearer), and it confirmed to me that Jesus was indeed the saviour of my soul, and that God indeed existed, and that he totally forgave my sins. I cannot prove that to you, I am not lying, it just happened over night and every Christians have experienced it (I thought I was a Christian before that conversion, but I was wrong, I was only believing that there must be something true about all that God/Jesus/Love/Sin stuff). Anyway just to tell you that I don't think Dawkins has all the information necessary to get angry at people with faith in God. Some humility would be nice on his side. I totally understand why one is atheist and thinks there's nothing but matter, but I wouldn't judge of something we don't really know anything about.It's obvious he is more reacting toward something that goes contrary to his belief (his belief that nothing except atoms exists). I don't want to get into a debate that will deviate the discussion, just to tell you that you also might not have the information "religious" people have (more specifically Christians).On a side note, spiritists and mediums also have spiritual experiences (actually I knew a girl in my high school class that could see the so-called aura, she could describe my body underneath my clothes), and you might not believe in paranormal phenomenons, but it does exist ( I wouldn't advise you to call on spirits though). I am not into spirits and mediums since it is forbidden by God, spirits will usually say that we are gods, which is not true, or evil spirit will try to scare us. I haven't had any experience (except that girl that could saw aura) but i have heard and read by chance reports of some paranormal activities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2504 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Phat writes: Sir Richard... You do realise, Phat, that you've just taken over the role of ruling monarch of most people on this thread, including a Canadian? We await your orders. Any chance of a Sir Modulous, a Lord Bluegenes, or a Dame Magda while you're in a mood of such largess?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DogToDolphin Member (Idle past 5903 days) Posts: 40 From: Avignon, France Joined: |
Would you care to give us a list of open minded "true religions". Believe me or not but real Christianity (not organized Christianity, or political Christianity), is very open minded. Jesus was open minded compared to the religious Jews of his time. But at the same time he refused merchants to sell in the temple. So is this closed-minded?Closed-minded to me means that you would not be willing to take into account what someone else say or believe, we're not perfect so it happens that each one of us can be closed-minded if it threatens our certainty or self-confidence. Now, I understand you say and Dawkins view Christianity as closed-minded, since a lot of events like Galilee's death and the Inquisition, also the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre in France (where Catholics slayed Protestants - but now it's not clear who started the whole thing, the Vatican?) tend to make Christianity look bad and insane, but obviously the fruits carried out by those evil (crazy) people were bad so it's fair to question the Christianity of those people of that time that shed blood. Le's not mix Christianity and politics even if sometimes it's/was mixed. I believe Christianity gives the freedom to live out your life knowing that God loves and frees you and that he has forgiven your sins, you still sin but now you know you can come to God and ask for his forgiveness, and God gives the power to overcome your shortcomings.God gave us this Earth to have dominion over it and to subdue it. So we can literally explore everything that is in store. I think many atheists think Christians are restrained in their thinking, I know some of us don't like to think of the possibility that God might not exist (even if the evidence doesn't go against the fact that God is likely to exist) but since we can't see Him it does require faith, but sometimes doubt cripples in. Perhaps it is a meme.
I read Meme - Wikipedia about memes, but I can't seem to understand exactly what it is trying to prove or disprove. It seems to me it's more like a way to explain cultural behaviors, or anything about human culture (since animals don't have one, they don't make movies right?), but without explaining much. I'm very skeptical about such all-encompassing theories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Most of what you wrote is pretty irrelevant to my question. So I'll just jump to this bit:
Anyway just to tell you that I don't think Dawkins has all the information necessary to get angry at people with faith in God. Well, it may be that he doesn't. But the question is, would a reasonable man, looking at the information that he does have, come the conclusion that he does have enough information, and that his conclusions about religion are justified? Is he ignoring counter-evidence that is brought to his attention? I'm not claiming that he is right or wrong -- in fact, I haven't read any of his writings about religion. I'm just questioning your claim that Dawkins is not open minded. If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey. Haven't you always wanted a monkey? -- The Barenaked Ladies
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DogToDolphin Member (Idle past 5903 days) Posts: 40 From: Avignon, France Joined: |
I don't know if he is open-minded or not, but to me the fact that he got angry at Miller proves me that he doesn't like the idea of a fellow believing in a deity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Now, I understand you say and Dawkins view Christianity as closed-minded To quote King Richard of Dorking,
quote:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024