Why does Richard Dawkins sing Christmas carols?

I like Douglas Adams too. I've often been asked why I want there to be "more" to reality than the natural wonders that already exist. In reply to that I guess I would say that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Why go through life with 2D rather than 3D vision. etc etcI think I have to be in the right frame of mind to stomach Dawkin's anti-spiritual diatribes but I may as well at least engage with the book, even if it's to criticise it. I might contact you after the holidays.

You had me thinking about this for some time. I don't think anyone would deny that self-knowledge is part of it. Would there not also be a greater sense of connectedness to other people, or the universe? That's a pretty big leap from a) to b). The definitions of transcendence that I'm aware of don't require superhuman physical abilities -- though having said that, I am intrigued by the stories that have been around a long time about someone in a car crash being able to physically lift a vehicle so that someone, a child maybe, can get out from underneath. We might be capable of more than we realise under certain circumstances. (Those circumstances often not being laboratory conditions or the demand for repetition.)I'm getting a sense that we're starting to have the same conversation that we've been having on another thread, where it's also pretty much OT. I think I need to have a good ol' bash as soon as I can about what science is and what it is capable of explaining.

No need for more derisory comments thanks, there are enough here already.Dogmatic skepticism is a position too, and those who choose it as their world view are in as much danger of deluding themselves -- by ridiculing and ignoring the valid experiences of others and potentially of their own -- as anyone else.

To set the record straight, I'm not bothered at all. I just had a bit of a chuckle from the story, as presumably did others, hence its appearance on the BBC website. I thought it might provoke some interesting comments here -- about Christmas, Dawkins, atheism, whatever. Seems to be working OK.

No, it's just that the idea that there could possibly be anything about existence or the universe that is not measurable by science, is not itself explainable through the empirical answer you want. Your demand in itself is an impossibility: "Tell me empirically how there's anything empiricism can't measure." When anyone makes an attempt at explaining, you put their suggestions into the same fanciful made-up categories as Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. Never mind that intelligent, grown-up human beings have held these kinds of beliefs for millennia. They're all deluded, right? Maybe you ought to honestly ask yourself who is really in denial, and why."The best truths cannot be spoken. The second best are misunderstood." -- Heinrich Zimmer

Try some meditation or tai chi. Look into the religions of the world, not for empirical evidence (or lack thereof) for the credibility of their concrete claims, but for the spiritual truths that their stories and ideologies express. Joseph Campbell was a pivotal figure in my life, and his research in comparative mythology blew my little Catholic world right open. What I'm saying is that if many people have said for millennia that they have experienced or believed something, it might well be worthy of study. It's possible that they are all "deluded" of course, but it's also possible that they are not. You have not produced any evidence that they are, nor can you, because God and religion can neither be verified nor "debunked" by science, however much some people like to try. There are a few fallacies in this statement. First of all, you have chosen two representatives of fundamentalist branches of different faiths. They believe in the literal truth of their holy texts, which is a fallacy in itself as the greater and deeper meanings are lost this way. Mythology is not something that is meant to be taken literally, that is not where its wisdom truly lies. These two people are also hate-filled bigots. This is not an accurate description of many of the peaceful and loving followers of religion in the world.You therefore misrepresent the majority of religious people in the world by choosing these two examples. What's more, you do not seem to have made a distinction between religion and spirituality. Apparently it is all delusional to you.Finally, you misrepresent religion and spirituality by calling them "magic," which is the equivalent of claiming these beliefs to be on a par with Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. As I said in my previous post, it is insulting and, I believe, mistaken, to deride serious beliefs about life and the universe, common in intelligent and mature people for millennia, by equating such beliefs with made-up childish fallacies.Thank you for this enlightening conversation. I'm learning a lot here. It's never what people here want me to learn, either, which is always the fascinating twist.

Yes, meditation affects the brain, particularly the limbic system. But this is only one thing it does. Meditation has been seen as one of the great paths to enlightenment by many people because of the insights it makes possible. Instead of me making feeble attempts at trying to explain, why don't you try it yourself and see what happens?You're also welcome in the Is Thought Transcendent thread I resurrected recently. I think there's evidence that there is more to consciousness than brain and neurons.

Because I've read about him and I've read conversations about him. He believes that religion is a toxic mental delusion and a pathology. Do you honestly think that reading his book is going to cause me to change my mind about his ideas? It would make me depressed and angry and I'm not sure I feel like doing that to myself. Believe me, I know I'm not going to find any kind of inspiration from Dawkins' opinions about religion, though I'm happy to read about what he's contributed to science.