Richard Dawkins: The Magic of Reality

[Serena03]

Initially aimed at young readers, but open to all ages, this brilliantly illustrated book is meant to convey the majestic and bewildering workings of nature displayed through science on a preliminary level of some of the most common questions regarding the world and universe.

Each chapter begins with an ancient myth originally attempting to answer these questions, such as, 'what are things made of? who was the first person? what are rainbows made of? and are we alone in the universe? followed by reality's explanation. Although the explanations may not be quite elaborate enough to reach a satisfactory understanding, it at least offers a well enough overview of each subject to generate interest of further reading with great eloquent literacy.

Controversy is likely to spur with its debunking of each myth and arguments from supernatural magic, which Dawkins is use to, but it's great for those who may have lost touch or appreciation of reality;fairy tales may be fun, but nature and reality alone presents enough awe inspiring 'magic' which seems like a fairy tale, almost too astonishing to believe.

From what I hear, the iPad version is much better than the regular book; I presume the pictures become animate and takes you on a journey through the book. Unfortunately I don't have and iPad to compare, but happy reading with much recommendation!

Overview by Dawkins:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlUPlpUci4c

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51x8aypkxcL._SS400_.jpg

[JBI]

As an Atheist, I think Dawkins takes the fun out of life. simply put, the myths are not just to answer questions, they are also to delight and charm and foster an imaginative process. Nobody actually believes them, and even the Greeks or whomever themselves wrestled with them. The point is not about creation, but merely about experience and imagination. He really has no sense for art that Dawkins.

[JuniperWoolf]

Haha, wow. I did not know that Richard Dawkins was writing a children's book. I predict that kids who read it suddenly become very annoying.

[Pierre Menard]

I can't think of anything more nauseating to read.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think the book sounds kind of neat, actually. . . .

[Ragnar Freund]

gone.

[Serena03]

Dawkins never intended to take the fun and imagination out of mythical stories; actually he comes off supportive of these stories, but he wants people to understand and appreciate those myths as myths while appreciating and understanding reality too. He's basically using them as a explanation of early 'science,' while transitioning into today's understandings.

I think Dawkins is often misunderstood and it's unjust to say he has no sense of art when he just has a different interpretation of it, a more scientific interpretation of it, as abstract as the world is. I understand the controversy against Dawkins, but some people really do believe in some of these myths, stubbornly ignoring the evidence of science, and causes him to frustratingly seem forceful and arrogant. Don't dismiss the book as a whole just because you may not favor the author; the words alone are still written in eloquent, informative and friendly manner which personally I find better and more refreshing than giving your child another copy of the Bible.

[OrphanPip]

I think the only people more annoying than those who take Dawkins' work as gospel truth are those who attack him without ever actually reading anything he's written.

[cafolini]

I think the only people more annoying than those who take Dawkins' work as gospel truth are those who attack him without ever actually reading anything he's written.

I agree. But those of us who grasp a lot of natural science also have to say that the myths idiots have adopted throughout history and still want to impose as truth are of such a poor quality artistically compared to the well examined works of nature from a scientific point of view.

[Pierre Menard]

I think the only people more annoying than those who take Dawkins' work as gospel truth are those who attack him without ever actually reading anything he's written.

The vast majority of people I know who dislike Dawkins, disliked him after they'd read him or watched his videos.

Just my experience though.

[cafolini]

The vast majority of people I know who dislike Dawkins, disliked him after they'd read him or watched his videos.

Just my experience though.

I think the people Orphan and I are talking about are simply incapable of reading that stuff. They are disgusted almost at the outset.
That's the advantage of scientists over the religious. We can read their stuff and have a few laughs while they can't read ours. When I was a teenager, I used to watch PTL and religious programs enjoying them as much as Johnny Carson's.

[OrphanPip]

The vast majority of people I know who dislike Dawkins, disliked him after they'd read him or watched his videos.

Just my experience though.

Then I'd say most of those people don't read very carefully. Much of Dawkins' work is largely uncontroversial: The Selfish Gene, The Ancestor's Tale, and The Extended Phenotype are all very good popular science books that anyone with an interest in evolutionary biology would benefit from reading.

Unweaving the Rainbow essentially addresses the claim made by JBI above, that Dawkins' approach to myth and story takes the fun out of it. Also, not very controversial.

The God Delusion is pretty much the only book he has written that contains anything in it that people can reasonably object to, and even then much of what Dawkins says in that book is open to debate and none of it is particularly out there. Which leads me to thinking that most of the people bashing Dawkins are as much jumping on a bandwagon as the card carrying internet New Atheist, his ideas are not so unconvensional views. It's boring, and just as trite as those who parrot Dawkins' anti religious arguments.

[Ragnar Freund]

gone.

[cafolini]

Actually, Pip, Dawkins’s work in the Selfish Gene and its sequels is quite controversial among evolutionary biologists (but not among religious folk, who can’t understand it anyway). For years, Dawkins and his followers (the “ultra-adaptationists”, as S.J. Gould called them) were under attack from Gould and his punctuated equilibrium folk, as well as from the group selectionists and others. Lately, epigenetic inheritance joined the ring. The idea that the gene is the only major unit of selection is anything but uncontroversial.

Back to the book: Dawkins is simply trying to fight back. As he mentions in The God Delusion, there is no such thing as a Christian (or Jewish, or Hindu) child. Kids simply swallow what their parents feed them. Dawkins is just trying to offer kids some science, reason, and common sense. It is a praiseworthy endeavor that is nonetheless doomed to fail: the same parents who send their kids to church won’t buy this book for their kids, and will likely throw it out the window if they find it stashed somewhere.

I agree. But these people no longer count where the action is. So it is not true that Dawkins books are doomed to fail. The freaks are the ones who failed and now live in a powerless museum awaiting for recycling. And many of their children are waking up to the benefits of science and leaving the ridiculous stage they inherited.

[stlukesguild]

I agree. But those of us who grasp a lot of natural science also have to say that the myths idiots have adopted throughout history and still want to impose as truth are of such a poor quality artistically compared to the well examined works of nature from a scientific point of view.

My God! How can you not agree. I mean the Bible, the Qur'an, the Sistine Ceiling, Dante's Comedia, Paradise Lost, Giotto's frescoes in the Arena Chapel, Bach's St, Matthew Passion, Mozart's Requiem, etc... etc... All clearly of such poor artistic merit. And the morons who believed this crap: Bach, Michelangelo, Dante, Leonardo, John Milton, Mozart, St. Thomas Aquinas, Rembrandt, Rubens, Palestrina... Thank God (sarcasm intended) for such superior intellects as cafolini brings to bear.

I think the people Orphan and I are talking about are simply incapable of reading that stuff.

I agree. But these people no longer count where the action is. So it is not true that Dawkins books are doomed to fail. The freaks are the ones who failed and now live in a powerless museum awaiting for recycling. And many of their children are waking up to the benefits of science and leaving the ridiculous stage they inherited.

This is the very sort of stuff that leads toward the hostility directed toward Dawkins converts and militant atheists. While I would probably define myself as an agnostic, I find the above comments repulsive and pretentious in the extreme. Because someone holds a spiritual or religious belief that you do not embrace you immediately presume they are not only intellectually inferior to yourself but also may be freely termed as "freaks". One hopes that it is this sort of moronic prejudice that is awaiting recycling.

[cafolini]

I agree. But those of us who grasp a lot of natural science also have to say that the myths idiots have adopted throughout history and still want to impose as truth are of such a poor quality artistically compared to the well examined works of nature from a scientific point of view.

My God! How can you not agree. I mean the Bible, the Qur'an, the Sistine Ceiling, Dante's Comedia, Paradise Lost, Giotto's frescoes in the Arena Chapel, Bach's St, Matthew Passion, Mozart's Requiem, etc... etc... All clearly of such poor artistic merit. And the morons who believed this crap: Bach, Michelangelo, Dante, Leonardo, John Milton, Mozart, St. Thomas Aquinas, Rembrandt, Rubens, Palestrina... Thank God (sarcasm intended) for such superior intellects as cafolini brings to bear.

I think the people Orphan and I are talking about are simply incapable of reading that stuff.

I agree. But these people no longer count where the action is. So it is not true that Dawkins books are doomed to fail. The freaks are the ones who failed and now live in a powerless museum awaiting for recycling. And many of their children are waking up to the benefits of science and leaving the ridiculous stage they inherited.

This is the very sort of stuff that leads toward the hostility directed toward Dawkins converts and militant atheists. While I would probably define myself as an agnostic, I find the above comments repulsive and pretentious in the extreme. Because someone holds a spiritual or religious belief that you do not embrace you immediately presume they are not only intellectually inferior to yourself but also may be freely termed as "freaks". One hopes that it is this sort of moronic prejudice that is awaiting recycling.

Look, I never touched your posts because we need curators and you do a good job at it. But please don't come out against science on horseback and saber.

I'm not militant and not an atheist. Those subjects are not of my interest.

[stlukesguild]

Look, I never touched your posts because we need curators and you do a good job at it. But please don't come out against science on horseback and saber.

I haven't come out against science in any way, shape, or form. Indeed, I have not even mentioned the subject or suggested anything of my own thoughts concerning science. What I have questioned is your pretentious dismissal of those who believe different than yourself as so many "idiots" and "freaks" which considering the profitability of members holding beliefs different than yourself amounts to openly insulting any number of members on this site. I assume that you wouldn't hold still for any Christian, Jew, or Muslim calling you an "idiot" or "freak" because of you fail to share their faith. The civility needs to run both ways.

[JuniperWoolf]

While I would probably define myself as an agnostic, I find the above comments repulsive and pretentious in the extreme.

Exactly. The content of the book sounds solid, I simply hate the attitude that comes along with the "debunking" fetish as demonstrated by cafolini. Actually, funnily enough, I've come to find that most people who make the most irritating, vitriolic statements (such as "that's the advantage of scientists over the religious - we can read their stuff and have a few laughs while they can't read ours" and "the freaks are the ones who failed and now live in a powerless museum awaiting for recycling") are in reality science amateurs. It seems to me like "new atheists" simply enjoy the feeling of calling other people stupid. Putting other people down makes them feel taller.

Also, before you accuse me of "coming out against science on horseback and saber," I might mention that I am a science student.

[Ragnar Freund]

Gone.

[stlukesguild]

Who ever claimed that any of these are of poor artistic merit? Why attack that straw man again?

Read closely:

But those of us who grasp a lot of natural science also have to say that the myths idiots have adopted throughout history and still want to impose as truth are of such a poor quality artistically compared to the well examined works of nature from a scientific point of view.

Have you noticed how many of your posts have the generic structure

[name(s) of great artist(s) and/or critic(s)] said X, but [dismissive remarks] [name of poster] disagrees [dismissive remarks]

What about civility on your end? How about you stop trying to impress us with your ability to quote and reference others? How about an original thought for a change? What is it wrong for an atheist to thumb his nose at religious folk, but it's OK for you to thumb yours at whomever disagrees with your artistic gods?

Hmmm... let me see. You have been here long enough to make all of 26 posts and have no idea about anyone here one way or the other, but you imagine that you can already make judgments about others based upon what? Your extensive experience in having read 3 or 4 of my posts? Your profound intellect? Your ability to employ original thinking? Most people recognize that you debate the point that is being made not the form it takes. Criticism of spelling, vocabulary, or form is commonly considered a rather weak approach to challenging what is being debated: "Oh yeah, Dude?! Well you spelled ___________ wrong! So there!"

It seems you have just jumped into this fray... and taken sides without even having taken time to have actually read what has been posted. I have not attacked anyone's beliefs... atheist or true believer. What I have challenged is using personal insults and making snide and insulting comments and blanket about others based upon their personal beliefs.

So let me lay it out for you in simple terms. Do you feel it is OK for a member to refer to a broad group of individuals as "idiots" or "freaks" and make dismissive comments about their intellect based upon their religious beliefs... one way or another?

[ftil]

I haven’t read Richard Dawkins books. However, this discussion is very interesting. Members have raised important questions. Do we believe in myths? Do we reject those myths and only believe in science? When I had to study mythology at school, I hated it and I didn’t see any intelligent reason to study it. However, I have changed my opinion since I started studying mythology and region again. I understand Joseph Campbell’s passion. I came to the same conclusion as J. Campell that those diverse stories were all telling the same story but in slightly different language. He concluded that there was an archetypal plot within those myths that remained constant from one culture to another.
Interestingly enough, I came to that conclusion before I read his work. It is fascinating to see in art and artifacts as well as in historian writings similarities between cultures that apparently had not contact. I don’t think that it is a matter of believing but asking questions and seeking the answer.

Secondly, rejecting myths or religions but accepting science is a polarized thinking.
Life is very far from being black or white. As we know, science has changed and is constantly changing. Well, today we have more pseudo scientists than ever before. They don’t dare to mix myths and religious beliefs with physics, for example. :biggrin5:

[JBI]

The irony is that Dawkins is also a crappy reader of art in general; he missed the point of that famous quote by Keats that he took the title of his other book from.

Simply put, Keats himself was rushing out against religious deists, and the argument of creationism - Dawkins takes that as an attack on science, and tries to point how reducing things to mat his somehow more beautiful. Oh the irony, perhaps he needs to get his head out of a microscope and get some human feeling for art and artistic argument.

As for his new book, I think it will be the usual antics. Typically British, typically rude, and typically boring. That cold British rationalism generally takes much of the fun out of life, and sucks the poetic energy out of everything.

I thought we were beyond that, but I guess the Romantics (many of whom were non-believers or had questionable beliefs) never happened to Dawkins. He simply has no feeling - he is like a tedious Alexander Pope couplet on repeat.

That being said, science may have answers, but it lacks imaginative capacity. It is not through looking at the stars in the sky that the imagination works, but through looking through ones own understanding of them that the imagination catches fire.

In the end, the rather more polemic and crazy William Blake would be my religious sage, who argued essentially that the religious force is contained within in how one personalizes and creates through one's own creative impulses.

That old world British rationalism is just so tedious; typical of an Englishman to be so obsessed with trying to rationalize something into scientific terms without realizing that irrationality is what creates the delight in the myth. Reading is not just about "getting allusions" as he seems to understand it, and the Bible is not just about reductionist terms of zealotry.

Even someone like Christopher Hitchens does a better job convincing me of this new atheist bit, but he too is too polemic in that he sees a desire for atheism as a political movement; something which is far more American than makes me comfortable, despite the fact that I myself am a non-believer.

It's fun that none of these authors write about things like Buddhism or non-theist religious doctrines and beliefs, simply because they cannot possibly understand them. Something like the Nihilist Daoism will forever break apart a Dawkins mentality, the same way the power of a Buddhist Sutra rips apart the arguments of science toward a more full understanding of human subjectivity.

Art is far more complex than just irrational beliefs.

[ftil]

As an Atheist, I think Dawkins takes the fun out of life. simply put, the myths are not just to answer questions, they are also to delight and charm and foster an imaginative process. Nobody actually believes them, and even the Greeks or whomever themselves wrestled with them. The point is not about creation, but merely about experience and imagination. He really has no sense for art that Dawkins.

I would argue that considering the existence of many gods’ cults in ancient Greece. If they didn’t believe it, why would they want to be involve in such a practice? Some of the rituals are quite shocking. They had to believe it to be part of it.

[OrphanPip]

Actually, Pip, Dawkins’s work in the Selfish Gene and its sequels is quite controversial among evolutionary biologists (but not among religious folk, who can’t understand it anyway). For years, Dawkins and his followers (the “ultra-adaptationists”, as S.J. Gould called them) were under attack from Gould and his punctuated equilibrium folk, as well as from the group selectionists and others. Lately, epigenetic inheritance joined the ring. The idea that the gene is the only major unit of selection is anything but uncontroversial.

These are different topics actually. While Dawkins was involved in the "gene wars" against Gould, the Selfish Gene is uncontroversial in the sense that it is merely showing how a gene centric view of selection can explain certain phenomena, like altruism in humans, more effectively than the concept of reciprocal altruism. I have discussed in another thread around here somewhere.

Punctuated equilibrium is a hypothesis that explains a certain artefact of the fossil record, and doesn't have to do with the topic of the Selfish Gene. Although, I know the camp of biologist you are talking about, the real proponents of controversial deterministic ideas are Pinker and Harris, rather than Dawkins, who never really addresses the issue very in depth.

Thus, I would disagree that Dawkins is controversial in the Selfish Gene, as he is merely describing one dominant mainstream view. So, he may be controversial in the sense that someone giving a rather plain description of free market capitalism can be considered controversial, just because disagreement will always exist. However, I would never associate that book with any serious scientific controversy.



Back to the book: Dawkins is simply trying to fight back. As he mentions in The God Delusion, there is no such thing as a Christian (or Jewish, or Hindu) child. Kids simply swallow what their parents feed them. Dawkins is just trying to offer kids some science, reason, and common sense. It is a praiseworthy endeavor that is nonetheless doomed to fail: the same parents who send their kids to church won’t buy this book for their kids, and will likely throw it out the window if they find it stashed somewhere.

Where Dawkins probably does deserve criticism is in the approach he has taken in increasingly politicizing his message and acting dismissively towards the religious. However, even then people like Pinker make Dawkins look like a saint, and it is bizarre that Dawkins receives all the flak.





Simply put, Keats himself was rushing out against religious deists, and the argument of creationism - Dawkins takes that as an attack on science, and tries to point how reducing things to mat his somehow more beautiful. Oh the irony, perhaps he needs to get his head out of a microscope and get some human feeling for art and artistic argument.

I don't think Dawkins takes it as an attack on science. He takes it as it is stated in "Lamia," if you read the preface to the book he draws analogy to the line from Keats to how some readers of his previous books responded to him in letters, saying that they felt his view of the world made them feel that life was somehow purposeless, and thus made devoid of beauty. "Lamia" puts forward the argument that cold philosophy devoid of feeling is somehow insufficient, Dawkins' response is that it is a false dichotomy presented by Keats, as there is feeling and beauty within that "cold philosophy" of science.

Edit: Also, I just find it bizarre to criticize Dawkins for his views on art, because the point of the book is obviously not to criticize art, but merely to promote the understanding and appreciation of science in a way that is not usually done.

[ftil]

What about civility on your end? How about you stop trying to impress us with your ability to quote and reference others? How about an original thought for a change? What is it wrong for an atheist to thumb his nose at religious folk, but it's OK for you to thumb yours at whomever disagrees with your artistic gods?

Hm…StLuke gave the examples of the artistes who were inspired by religion or mythology. They are the greatest and their creations are breathtaking.
I felt a chill in my spine reading that ” children are waking up to the benefits of science and leaving the ridiculous stage they inherited”
Specialists….without souls to appreciate the beauty of art?

[cafolini]

Exactly. The content of the book sounds solid, I simply hate the attitude that comes along with the "debunking" fetish as demonstrated by cafolini. Actually, funnily enough, I've come to find that most people who make the most irritating, vitriolic statements (such as "that's the advantage of scientists over the religious - we can read their stuff and have a few laughs while they can't read ours" and "the freaks are the ones who failed and now live in a powerless museum awaiting for recycling") are in reality science amateurs. It seems to me like "new atheists" simply enjoy the feeling of calling other people stupid. Putting other people down makes them feel taller.

Also, before you accuse me of "coming out against science on horseback and saber," I might mention that I am a science student.

I am not an atheist, nor a theist, nor an agnostic. Now tell me that I have to fit within one of those three stooges because otherwise I would be against large groups. Ha!

"Never in history so many owed so much to so few." Winston Churchill at the end of WWII.


Look, I never touched your posts because we need curators and you do a good job at it. But please don't come out against science on horseback and saber.

I haven't come out against science in any way, shape, or form. Indeed, I have not even mentioned the subject or suggested anything of my own thoughts concerning science. What I have questioned is your pretentious dismissal of those who believe different than yourself as so many "idiots" and "freaks" which considering the profitability of members holding beliefs different than yourself amounts to openly insulting any number of members on this site. I assume that you wouldn't hold still for any Christian, Jew, or Muslim calling you an "idiot" or "freak" because of you fail to share their faith. The civility needs to run both ways.

It is not a matter of me believing or disbelieving differently. You invented that. I can believe or disbelieve whatever I please. You just wish I would fit into some of the available boxes and you call them civility.

[Serena03]

There's a difference between embracing a myth as an inventive piece of art and taking it as historical truth. Nobody is arguing against the joy and amusement fantasy stories can give us as long as they are understood as fantasy. If anyone took Lord of the Rings as a true event in history, they'd likely be laughed out of the room; although, some do take the teachings of Jedi as a new religion.

But I'm not sure if it's fair to dismiss anyone on their misinterpretation or lack of appreciation when art itself is far too artistically abstract to define. All Dawkins attempts here is to convey 'art' through the language of science and nature as 'poetic magic.' It's the truths and workings of nature that almost act as if it is a fairytale, but discovering nature does not mean you cannot fantasize either, some fantasies can be completely dreamed into reality. Is it fair to say that art can only be a product of human effort? There is so much to take in from the universe that goes beyond profoundness, which often results in new myths because some of it's all to overwhelming to understand logistically. Just because one may reject religious creativity, does not necessarily mean they take the fun out of imagination. The endless surprises of nature to discover keeps the imagination flowing of more possibilities. Who would of thought the staggering thoughts of a black hole could become so realistic? Is gravity really just a 'theory?' Who would of thought we could mutate from 'pond scum' to intricate progressive beings? And the science fiction books keep pouring out new imaginative possibilities of what the future may hold. I see nothing wrong with using science as a way of spirituality to convey more appreciation and wonder of the world around us, there's a big universe out there that we could never fully subjugate, which will only leave us forever wondrous where supernaturals just seem needless.

[cafolini]

There's a difference between embracing a myth as an inventive piece of art and taking it as historical truth. Nobody is arguing against the joy and amusement fantasy stories can give us as long as they are understood as fantasy. If anyone took Lord of the Rings as a true event in history, they'd likely be laughed out of the room; although, some do take the teachings of Jedi as a new religion.

But I'm not sure if it's fair to dismiss anyone on their misinterpretation or lack of appreciation when art itself is far too artistically abstract to define. All Dawkins attempts here is to convey 'art' through the language of science and nature as 'poetic magic.' It's the truths and workings of nature that almost act as if it is a fairytale, but discovering nature does not mean you cannot fantasize either, some fantasies can be completely dreamed into reality. Is it fair to say that art can only be a product of human effort? There is so much to take in from the universe that goes beyond profoundness, which often results in new myths because some of it's all to overwhelming to understand logistically. Just because one may reject religious creativity, does not necessarily mean they take the fun out of imagination. The endless surprises of nature to discover keeps the imagination flowing of more possibilities. Who would of thought the staggering thoughts of a black hole could become so realistic? Is gravity really just a 'theory?' Who would of thought we could mutate from 'pond scum' to intricate progressive beings? And the science fiction books keep pouring out new imaginative possibilities of what the future may hold. I see nothing wrong with using science as a way of spirituality to convey more appreciation and wonder of the world around us, there's a big universe out there that we could never fully subjugate, which will only leave us forever wondrous where supernaturals just seem needless.

I don't want to get into an argument with your perspective.
The actual problem about what's art interests me, however. From a natural science point of view, absolutely anything is art. From a religious point of view, you'd have to ask the sect.
Have fun.

[Serena03]

I don't want to get into an argument with your perspective.
The actual problem about what's art interests me, however. From a natural science point of view, absolutely anything is art. From a religious point of view, you'd have to ask the sect.
Have fun.

And from any philosophical point of view you're even more lost because religion doesn't just have to refer to the supernatural. It's a problem with most concepts such as music, that cannot be universally justified. What's uninteresting is the intellectual black holes everyone gets sucked into through these endless abstract discussions that will commonly and unsatisfactory end as a labyrinth in cyclic quarrel. But reality is reality, love it or leave it.

[ftil]

I see nothing wrong with using science as a way of spirituality to convey more appreciation and wonder of the world around us, there's a big universe out there that we could never fully subjugate, which will only leave us forever wondrous where supernaturals just seem needless.

I have a big problem with that. It took my hours to read the opinions of scientists as I questioned the theory. I am not a physicist and I shouldn’t have done it. Hiding it behind science is not professional and it is dishonest.

So, nothing is wrong using science as a way of spirituality if some people choose …....but it can’t be hidden and shouldn’t be called science. :banana:

[Serena03]

I have a big problem with that. It took my hours to read the opinions of scientists as I questioned the theory. I am not a physicist and I shouldn’t have done it. Hiding it behind science is not professional and it is dishonest.

So, nothing is wrong using science as a way of spirituality if some people choose …....but it can’t be hidden and shouldn’t be called science. :banana:

It's dishonest and unprofessional to feel inspired and passionate about what science can bring to you? Spirituality itself is not a science, but science can convey it.

[ftil]

It's dishonest and unprofessional to feel inspired and passionate about what science can bring to you? Spirituality itself is not a science, but science can convey it.



I will give you an example to clarify what I mean. When I listened to Nassim Haramein’s theory I was misled as everybody else that it was a groundbreaking Unified Field theory that was scientifically proved. It wasn’t. I am open to study new theories that may convey spirituality but I question lack of integrity of pseudo scientists who don’t tell the truth. If he called his theory spiritual science, I wouldn't need to spend hours reading physicist’s analysis but I would look into a different field to evaluate it.

He may be inspired about science but he needs to be honest. He was quite defensive when a physicist criticized many aspects of his theory. His response was a joke. :biggrin5:

[Serena03]

What I do wish Dawkins would write again is another straightforward science book without having to constantly refute religion throughout. We know science is the antithesis of religion, we don't have to be reminded, leaving the controversy between scientists and religion in it's own dimension. But his own atheism has seem to have made him a bigger celebrity than his scientific contributions. Thanks, but atheism doesn't need a pope.

[ftil]

What I do wish Dawkins would write again is another straightforward science book without having to constantly refute religion throughout. We know science is the antithesis of religion, we don't have to be reminded, leaving the controversy between scientists and religion in it's own dimension. But his own atheism has seem to have made him a bigger celebrity than his scientific contributions. Thanks, but atheism doesn't need a pope.

I haven’t read his book so that I can’t make any comments.

Is Dawkins a physicist to write science book?

[Scheherazade]

~

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing such comments and/or off-topic remarks will be removed without further notice.

~

[Serena03]

I will give you an example to clarify what I mean. When I listened to Nassim Haramein’s theory I was misled as everybody else that it was a groundbreaking Unified Field theory that was scientifically proved. It wasn’t. I am open to study new theories that may convey spirituality but I question lack of integrity of pseudo scientists who don’t tell the truth. If he called his theory spiritual science, I wouldn't need to spend hours reading physicist’s analysis but I would look into a different field to evaluate it.

He may be inspired about science but he needs to be honest. He was quite defensive when a physicist criticized many aspects of his theory. His response was a joke. :biggrin5:

There's a difference between being dishonest about your works and having your theories honestly falsified because you may have not been aware of the faults. It's not technically pseudoscience if it still underwent the scientific method. I haven't studied the works of Haramein, but if he's at least capturing the ear of many commendable scientists, that's at least something to get his spirit going for his theory.

Real pseudo-scientists are just misled about their works, feeling spiritually conveyed, and some of them really are trying to pull off a scam. But the proofs of what science has already presented can be spiritually enriching enough to crave more discovery.

[cafolini]

What I do wish Dawkins would write again is another straightforward science book without having to constantly refute religion throughout. We know science is the antithesis of religion, we don't have to be reminded, leaving the controversy between scientists and religion in it's own dimension. But his own atheism has seem to have made him a bigger celebrity than his scientific contributions. Thanks, but atheism doesn't need a pope.

Bingo. I agree to an extent. Science conveys the mystery and doesn't try to solve it. You never undestand elementary gravity, for example, until you stop asking why and ask how. Once you get the how, it is still a mystery, but the answers to the whys begin to appear along the trails of the how and not beyond.
Dawkins might have that boring aspect Sam Harris has, but it's not as annoying as the circular entanglement their critics provide.

[Serena03]

I haven’t read his book so that I can’t make any comments.

Is Dawkins a physicist to write science book?

He's an evolutionary biologist who wrote numerous of books regarding biology, but lately he's been sort of 'crusading' science at every religious doorstep. Fundamentally I would stay with him, but it's almost a hopeless battle and it's time to get back to work. His last book The Greatest Show on Earth, which was an overview of evolution, managed to stay on topic for the most part.

[ftil]

There's a difference between being dishonest about your works and having your theories honestly falsified because you may have not been aware of the faults. It's not technically pseudoscience if it still underwent the scientific method. I haven't studied the works of Haramein, but if he's at least capturing the ear of many commendable scientists, that's at least something to get his spirit going for his theory.

Real pseudo-scientists are just misled about their works, feeling spiritually conveyed, and some of them really are trying to pull off a scam. But the proofs of what science has already presented can be spiritually enriching enough to crave more discovery.

He theory captured the ear of a number of physicists. Interestingly enough, his theory wasn’t published in professional journals, and as such, his theory hasn’t received peer review.
I will be curious to see peer review. I depend on opinion and evaluation of physicists. I will change my mind if scientists prove it and agree upon it.

[cafolini]

It's dishonest and unprofessional to feel inspired and passionate about what science can bring to you? Spirituality itself is not a science, but science can convey it.

That's one of the main obstacles of religion, Serena. Science can convey and explain (at least philologically) religion and spirituality, while religion could never convey and explain science.

[ftil]

He's an evolutionary biologist who wrote numerous of books regarding biology, but lately he's been sort of 'crusading' science at every religious doorstep. Fundamentally I would stay with him, but it's almost a hopeless battle and it's time to get back to work. His last book The Greatest Show on Earth, which was an overview of evolution, managed to stay on topic for the most part.

Interesting that he is biologist and he is moving into religion. It is a very different field. Joseph Campbell spent his entire career studying that subject. I guess I will stay with Cambells’s books and Hesiod or Ovid. I guess I am not that fond that much to read books written by biologists for a while after reading Bruce Lipton’s book, a cellar biologist, “The biology of belief”.

[Serena03]

He theory captured the ear of a number of physicists. Interestingly enough, his theory wasn’t published in professional journals, and as such, his theory hasn’t received peer review.
I will be curious to see peer review. I depend on opinion and evaluation of physicists. I will change my mind if scientists prove it and agree upon it.

Of course it's unlikely to get published if nothing has been proven or even remotely proven; I suspect he still has a lot of work to do if he hasn't at least received peer review. But sometimes it take a lot of strenuous effort to succeed the belief of others, some proofs still have yet to succeed.


That's one of the main obstacles of religion, Serena. Science can convey and explain (at least philologically) religion and spirituality, while religion could never convey and explain science.

Yes, which explains why religion will probably not go anywhere anytime soon or 'how' it insists upon sustenance.


Interesting that he is biologist and he is moving into religion. It is a very different field. Joseph Campbell spent his entire career studying that subject. I guess I will stay with Cambells’s books and Hesiod or Ovid. I guess I am not that fond that much to read books written by biologists for a while after reading Bruce Lipton’s book, a cellar biologist, “The biology of belief”.

He's a biologist that politically refutes religion for the sake of science, so he studies religion to display the potential dangers of religion and why science should be more dominating. Fundamentally I admire the means for what he's doing, but lately it's sort of becoming overwhelming and intervening, needlessly using atheism as a celebrity status. It's becoming a pointless debate, and sometimes you just need to know when to quit.

[ftil]

Of course it's unlikely to get published if nothing has been proven or even remotely proven; I suspect he still has a lot of work to do if he hasn't at least received peer review. But sometimes it take a lot of strenuous effort to succeed the belief of others, some proofs still have yet to succeed.

It is true. I can relax and wait for his theory be proven. :wink5:

[mal4mac]

As an Atheist, I think Dawkins takes the fun out of life. simply put, the myths are not just to answer questions, they are also to delight and charm and foster an imaginative process. Nobody actually believes them, and even the Greeks or whomever themselves wrestled with them. The point is not about creation, but merely about experience and imagination. He really has no sense for art that Dawkins.

Why "as an atheist"? I know lots of atheists who have fun! Atheists can happily enjoy the delight and charm of fairy tales and myths - and Dawkins does! He has said so many times - try "Unweaving the Rainbow" to get some idea of his appreciation of these matters. How do you know he has no good sense for art? Have you read any of his adult books?

[Ragnar Freund]

gone.

[Alexander III]

Is it just me, but this thread can be summarized: as an argument on life prespective between people who have read and understood romantic writers, and people who have not read and understood romantic writers?

[stlukesguild]

You just wish I would fit into some of the available boxes and you call them civility.

I don't need to wish your behavior would fit into an accepted standard of civility. You either will or the moderators will remove you. It is simple as that. WE all agree to meet a given standard upon joining this group and no one, myself or yourself included is immune. Your posts have been reported.

Have a nice day.:wave:

[OrphanPip]

Is it just me, but this thread can be summarized: as an argument on life prespective between people who have read and understood romantic writers, and people who have not read and understood romantic writers?

No, I don't see how it does. First of all, understanding the Romantics does not mean one should agree with them. Second of all, I don't see where you get this distinction from in this discussion. I'd actually argue that there is much of the Romantic aesthetic in Dawkins' views, since they are essentially a modern reiteration of Burke's concept of the sublime, which was hugely influential on Coleridge and Wordsworth.

[Drkshadow03]

Is it just me, but this thread can be summarized: as an argument on life prespective between people who have read and understood romantic writers, and people who have not read and understood romantic writers?

I've been thinking along those same lines recently. One of the big takeaways from some of Wordsworth's poems ("We are Seven" and "Anecdote of Fathers" comes to mind) and even Victorian writers like Dickens (Hard Times in particular) is that it isn't clear that Reason, Rationality, and Science should trump other forms of knowledge or even emotional desires, in all instances.

However, I suspect sides in this fight might better be divided between those who have a background in the sciences and those who have a background in the humanities. Nevertheless, I agree with Orphanpip that one should at least read Dawkins before commenting on him rather than just assuming he supports one position or the other. I've always understood Dawkins (from the little I've read) to support The Bible and mythology for the sake of art, history, and culture.

[Ragnar Freund]

gone.

[stlukesguild]

Ragnar Freund- Nice try, but what I am criticizing is deeper than mere form. I'm criticizing your seeming inability to make an argument, instead relying on opinions of others as if they were absolute, incontrovertible truths. It's called an appeal to authority, it's a logical fallacy (especially in art!), and it should be pointed out. The way one argues is closely related to what one argues, as illogical arguments lead to illogical conclusions.
Note, by the way, how you threw vocabulary and spelling in there just for good measure, even though I never touched those.

Perhaps the opinions of others that I draw upon as illustrations may have been chosen for the simple reason that those individuals may be seen to have had perhaps a greater experience and grasp of a given subject under debate than the usual second-year college student who imagines he or she knows more than everyone else. All opinions are objective in art, certainly, but some opinions are worth more than others.

I'm not likely to spend my time writing three or four paragraphs in explaining why I think Cormac McCarthy is a good writer or Michelangelo is a great artists to someone who has dismissed the same artists with a mere flippant comment.

As for questioning the way one argues, I'm not about to abide to your high-school debating team rules. if I would, I might point out your use of broad and sweeping accusations as opposed to specific points of contention:

Ragnar Freund- How about you stop trying to impress us with your ability to quote and reference others? How about an original thought for a change?

Again, I haven't met many individuals who would jump into a conversation and with their first comment directed at another feel they are qualified to insult them by questioning their manner of speaking or debate.

Ragnar Freund- What is it wrong for an atheist to thumb his nose at religious folk, but it's OK for you to thumb yours at whomever disagrees with your artistic gods?

For someone who has supposedly been around for a while, you seem to have missed out on quite a bit with regard to how a group such as LitNet operates. This forum is privately owned and open to individuals of different ages, races, cultures, and beliefs. Upon joining this group we all agree to abide by certain rules of behavior. Profanity and name-calling are among the things we agree to avoid. I have no problem with an individual questioning another's belief... even though I recognize that it is a slippery slope that frequently and rapidly degenerates into arguments, insults, name-calling, and profanity. It is for this reason that Religion and Politics are off-bounds in discussions. This leads to the problem, however, of dealing with books that are religious in intent or deal with religion, such as the Bible, the Qur'an or Dawkins' writings.

You ask what is wrong with thumbing your nose at religious folk? The obvious answer is that it doesn't stop there. What we are bound to run into is Christians thumbing their nose at Jews or Muslims, Buddhists thumbing their noses at Christians, "Pagans and Wiccans thumbing their noses at all the other religions, and believers of any faith thumbing their noses at atheists and agnostics. I am all for free speech in the real world... but that is not what we have here, is it? Debating religion and religious beliefs is off bounds. That means it is off bounds for everybody. I took offence with the comments of cafolini in spite of my own acknowledged agnosticism because he/she felt it was OK to openly insult those who hold religious belief as "idiots" and "freaks" who can be dismissed because they "no longer count", they "live in a powerless museum awaiting for recycling" and unlike himself, certain in his great intellect, "they can't read our (literature)". Such comments are unacceptable in this context, and if not dealt with with undoubtedly lead to name-calling and insults from the others side.

You talk about civility but a few weeks ago you referred to someone as Mr. Jing-a-ling simply because he dared argue, contra your god Bloom, that McCarthy is not a great author. You could have written a thoughtful response explaining McCarthy's greatness, but instead you chose to call names and appeal to Bloom. You were uncivil and unconvincing.

And if you read that debate, you will have noticed that the individual involved came out in a rather insulting manner ("I can't believe that intelligent people can read Cormac McCarthy") and then continued with such inane comments as "I was the editor of my high school literary magazine, and I can say with full honesty that if you hadn't told me differently, I'd believe that a high schooler had written the quoted passage--because I've read the same melodramatic, stream of conciousness BS dozens upon dozens of times."

Considering that this was his first post (and it remains his only post), it immediately appeared as if he was doing nothing less than trolling, and I responded in a like manner. Again, I probably shouldn't have fed the troll, but after a day spent with hundreds of loud, and disrespectful children and I come here to unwind, I will admit that I may have a short fuse when responding to further "children" who know it all.

As for Bloom... he's far from being my "god". I haven't read anything by him in years. Indeed, I haven't bothered to read much literary criticism at all recently outside of that of Octavio Paz, Italo Calvino, J.L. Borges... or others who are good writers as well as critics.

Returning to McCarthy, as I stated above I'm not likely to spend the time explaining why I feel he is a good or great writer to someone who dislikes him and has flippantly dismissed him. If there were a serious discussion with both sides offering an honest appraisal, that is one thing. When the poster is almost certainly trolling, its is another matter altogether.

:wave:

[cafolini]

You just wish I would fit into some of the available boxes and you call them civility.

I don't need to wish your behavior would fit into an accepted standard of civility. You either will or the moderators will remove you. It is simple as that. WE all agree to meet a given standard upon joining this group and no one, myself or yourself included is immune. Your posts have been reported.

Have a nice day.:wave:

When it comes to these menaces, you fail to realize how big is the world and how insignificant it is what you say. You have little idea of what an accepted standard of civility is except your claims of clear ownership of it and repeated sonata with which you express it.
You speak as if I had a need of this good forum in order to be able to function. Even if you were the owner of it, what you are saying is not more than pure pricking and irrelevant. You have never genuinely read a word I said except what tickled your fancy.
Appropriate moderators are facilitators. Moderating on principle is in a museum. Good luck.

[OrphanPip]

Pip,

What is controversial about The Selfish Gene is not the idea itself, but rather how central it is to evolution. Dawkins argues that the gene is the only agent of selection and that adaptation is the only (or by far the strongest) agent of evolution. Others believe that adaptation is one of many forces of evolution and that the gene is one of many agents of selection.

I don't think that idea is controversial though, especially more recently. The problem with disagreeing with Dawkins about the gene as basic unit of selection is that there is no evidence to the contrary, and this idea is the most explanatory, and thus the best we currently have. What we do have recently is more nuanced understandings of how phenotypes arise, and how selective pressures can act on genes in subtly different ways, such that a strictly adaptationist view of evolution is becoming a bit more outdated. I personally think that looking at the individual as the unit of selection is just another approach to the same question, which is ultimately what genes will be passed on to subsequent generations. I don't disagree that there are ways of looking at selection other than at the unit of a single gene, but I don't think Dawkins really holds to that view these days anyway. The Selfish Gene is essentially an outdated book that presents an idea that has been incorporated into general knowledge of evolutionary biology. Dawkins' deterministic interpretations of the gene as unit of selection are arguably controversial.



Actually it does, albeit indirectly. Punctuated equilibrium implies that adaptation is not the only, and may not even be the strongest, force of evolution. The selfish gene hypothesis, via “ultra-adaptationism”, implies that it is. It is not by accident that Dawkins and Gould were such bitter foes.

Personally, I think this is one of the most important and interesting debates in science, and I wish it got more attention in scientific and popular media.

I'm not sure it does imply that. Punctuated Equilibrium is at its core simply a question of how speciesation occurs over a geological time scale. Dawkins' ideas are looking only at the scale of individual units of selection, and thus shouldn't be put in contrast to Gould's ideas. After all, Dawkins himself addresses the idea of P.E. and accepts it as simply a form of gradualism in his later works.

I don't actually think that the selfish gene is by its nature an ultra-adaptationist hypothesis. What Gould objected to primarily was the lack of evidence required to conclude certain traits were genetic in a sense, he wouldn't necessarily disagree with the idea of the selfish gene if we could demonstrate a relationship between certain genes and traits. What Gould disagreed with was Dawkins willingness to jump to reductionist arguments about altruism and human behavior. It's a fair criticism, I haven't read The Panda's Thumb in a while, but that's what I've always taken away as the core of Gould's critique of Wilson's theory of sociobiology. The problem for Gould didn't seem to be the gene-centric view of selection, but rather the application of the idea by Dawkins.

One main problem with this debate is that ideas which are really minor disagreements over the details of evolutionary theory get presented in popular press as raging polarized debates. All of these authors are arguing within the same theoretical frame of Neo-Darwinism, and none of them disagree on the fundamental aspects of the theory.

[Ragnar Freund]

gone.

[JBI]

Why "as an atheist"? I know lots of atheists who have fun! Atheists can happily enjoy the delight and charm of fairy tales and myths - and Dawkins does! He has said so many times - try "Unweaving the Rainbow" to get some idea of his appreciation of these matters. How do you know he has no good sense for art? Have you read any of his adult books?

As an atheist because people here seem to believe science is somehow an antithesis to religion, which is logically false.

Likewise because some people would be quick to jump on me as a "religious" person and dismiss me as is common amongst self proud sciencey New Atheists who hold science as some form of ridiculous Bible, and Dawkins as some sort of ridiculous prophet.

As for the delight and charm in things, rationalism and the British common sense generally have ways of disrupting the foundational understandings of much artistic work. The general stereotype is that Italians generally are far better artists, since they are far more passionate and emotional people, and seem to have a wider range of subjective experiences.

The idea that one must unweave a rainbow, as it is, or that one should want to is totally ridiculous. The real problem with Dawkins is he tries to make science a form of ethical community, and a form of religious body.

Ultimately, religion and science are two different things, the same way beauty and fact are two different things. Atheism will never be able to have the communal aspect that religion has, nor will it ever really be able to have its own culture.

The same is with science; the fact that science is so "true" or so obsessed with truth does not matter in that it itself is amoral. It can never be against religion, because religion functions differently; it seeks to build community.

As for debunking some myths with science, I guess Dawkins in the end is just a little annoyed that people would rather see the Sistine chapel than look into some annoying telescope.


No, I don't see how it does. First of all, understanding the Romantics does not mean one should agree with them. Second of all, I don't see where you get this distinction from in this discussion. I'd actually argue that there is much of the Romantic aesthetic in Dawkins' views, since they are essentially a modern reiteration of Burke's concept of the sublime, which was hugely influential on Coleridge and Wordsworth.

I will contest with you there. Wordsworth's sublime is very different thank Burke's, likewise Coleridge's is far more complex.

The idea of Burke is very rational and deist, and is far more in keeping with an earlier train of thought. Tintern Abbey, for instance, is not a poem about a sublime experience, it is very different than that, as are pretty much all romantic poems.

As for the whole thread being an argument, I mentioned those points, as I have been reading intensely Romantic literature of late, but on the whole I would say it is an interesting question.

Romanticism is an agnostic movement, after all, and neither of the 6 major English poets, for instance, were particularly religious in any way. What the problem that arises is in the actual purpose of such an annoying children's book.

I grew up loving Greek myths, as I did the stories from the Arabian Nights that my father occasionally would embellish upon. Likewise, though never religious, I always seemed to like some of the Biblical stories, and various other mythological foundational stories.

As for culture; we are with myths everywhere and everywhere, it isn't just an irrational past that formulates them. Even creation myths are present in our own conjectures of the universe, even if we are scientific.

I think that children ultimately should be exposed to something like Ovid, a rather secular author, as Ovid, rather than as an irrational pagan. But then again, I also believe that the Trojan War and Achilles are real, in the sense that our imagination brings them into a form of reality.

[OrphanPip]

The same is with science; the fact that science is so "true" or so obsessed with truth does not matter in that it itself is amoral. It can never be against religion, because religion functions differently; it seeks to build community.


The problem with the concept of separate magisteria between science and religion, as Stephen Jay Gould put it, is that there is inevitable overlap. Science, by definition, is only concerned with the objective verification of material phenomena. Where this comes into conflict with religion is when some religions make claims about material truths. This is less of a problem with Judaism and more mainstream Christianity, but it is undeniably a problem with fundamentalist Protestant sects and Islam. Certain religions, like Islam, contain explicit claims to objective truth about material reality that are contradicted by science. So, it isn't quite true that these domains do not relate to each other.

Then of course, there is the issue that there is a culture of science, and a scientific community. There are science based charities, there are philosophies of science, concepts of materialistic ethics, and what have you.

The problem with saying science and religion are not in conflict, or do not touch on each other at all, is that it simply isn't true. Are we really going to say that evolutionary theory has in no way impacted religious thought since the 19th century? Scientific ideas influence religious ones, just as in the past religious ideas have influenced pre-scientific method science.

[JBI]

The problem with the concept of separate magisteria between science and religion, as Stephen Jay Gould put it, is that there is inevitable overlap. Science, by definition, is only concerned with the objective verification of material phenomena. Where this comes into conflict with religion is when some religions make claims about material truths. This is less of a problem with Judaism and more mainstream Christianity, but it is undeniably a problem with fundamentalist Protestant sects and Islam. Certain religions, like Islam, contain explicit claims to objective truth about material reality that are contradicted by science. So, it isn't quite true that these domains do not relate to each other.

Then of course, there is the issue that there is a culture of science, and a scientific community. There are science based charities, there are philosophies of science, concepts of materialistic ethics, and what have you.

The problem with saying science and religion are not in conflict, or do not touch on each other at all, is that it simply isn't true. Are we really going to say that evolutionary theory has in no way impacted religious thought since the 19th century? Scientific ideas influence religious ones, just as in the past religious ideas have influenced pre-scientific method science.

Well, here is your problem, such a euro-centric, if not America-centric view of religion and science are ultimately going to lead to such a conclusion.

As for certain religious beliefs contradicting science - that says stuff about certain beliefs, not about capital R Religion. Like I said, where is the criticism of Buddhism that we see about Christianity from Dawkins? What about a relatively nihilist religion like a Fundamental Daoism? Where is my criticism of that?

No, what you mean with an opposition from a Euro-centric world view, is that somehow certain Christian beliefs, and to a lesser extent, Muslim beliefs contradict scientific discovery. Fine, make the argument, but ultimately, that does not put science as a direct opposition to religion, merely to a certain set of beliefs.

The same can be said about Science itself; certain theories ultimately contradict others, the same way Aristotle's scientific discoveries are now dated. It says nothing of religion that certain beliefs cannot be tolerated based on contemporary understandings of the world, especially since almost all religions have some sort of evolutionary history in their own right; I believe the Vatican accepts Evolution, does it not?

As for scientific charities, that is true, however, there were also Nazi Scientists, and Eugenicist scientists, and all sorts of other communities. To assume belief in evolution has any correlation to any sort of morality or community is false; simply put, the power of scientific thought is that it is beyond such communities, and functions differently. That neither discredits community, nor replaces it.

Which brings me generally to another issue - if we do not believe in God, which arguably most of the world does not (China, for instance, is almost completely atheist and makes up 1.4Billion people) what does that have to do with science?

IT doesn't really. Basically we just head to certain forms of discourse that create communities; religion is one, interests are another, sports are another, even what we eat, what class we belong to, what clubs we participate in, what we read, what we think - all those are forms of thought outside of scientific understandings of community.

Breaking an atom doesn't make someone a good person. Rationally adhering to a moral code does, for better or for worse. To suggest that scientific discourse in any way has any real function on that is rather silly. Simply put, science may discover we have a familial tendency, but that doesn't change the tendency. They may discover people have selfish or violent tendencies, that does not change the fact that they still have them.

All sorts of moral and communal understandings of the world ultimately express themselves outside of science, sometimes contradicting each other. That does not put science in opposition with them.


Just face it, Science and Religion have no antithesis. There has never been a convincing argument for one, nor has their ever been an historical understanding as such. That certain religious beliefs may contradict and be debunked by science is one thing, that Religion itself though, is not true as of now, and has never been.

[cafolini]

I've been thinking along those same lines recently. One of the big takeaways from some of Wordsworth's poems ("We are Seven" and "Anecdote of Fathers" comes to mind) and even Victorian writers like Dickens (Hard Times in particular) is that it isn't clear that Reason, Rationality, and Science should trump other forms of knowledge or even emotional desires, in all instances.

However, I suspect sides in this fight might better be divided between those who have a background in the sciences and those who have a background in the humanities. Nevertheless, I agree with Orphanpip that one should at least read Dawkins before commenting on him rather than just assuming he supports one position or the other. I've always understood Dawkins (from the little I've read) to support The Bible and mythology for the sake of art, history, and culture.

This seems to deal with the issues. Science has to support history. It would be ridiculous to deny the value, although not ridiculous to consider it good or bad. The same for religion or philosophy or any of the systems of confusion that were elaborated. And humanity? Who would deny the posibility of a scientific interest in it. It would be as idiotic as Platonic people speaking of degenerate art and trying to eliminate it.
Science doesn't necessarily go along with the power of rationality either. But of course, all animals reason, and the reasons of the insane are as abundant as the reasons of the healthy. So, I would say with Nietzsche, "what matters reason?" Or indirectly the same was said by Dostoievski and countless others after Dostoievski.
What does science have to do with rationality apart from recognizing it, not as the right way to go about it, but as entanglement solved by entanglement. That's why I do no get into Sam Harris. He cannot make sense even when he can argue very well and resolve stupidity, but always in the same context of existence and being, two-dimensional realities that if it is well to recognize operative, it is not well to recognize in the three dimensional world. Imagine for example, apart from depiction, if it were possible for an exorcist to make a 50 lb bed or sofa move with the force of the energy in his wondrous thought emision. Yet, that the exorcist is a ridiculous freak is a genuine scientific fact to properly keep in mind.

[Drkshadow03]

This seems to deal with the issues. Science has to support history. It would be ridiculous to deny the value, although not ridiculous to consider it good or bad. The same for religion or philosophy or any of the systems of confusion that were elaborated. And humanity? Who would deny the posibility of a scientific interest in it. It would be as idiotic as Platonic people speaking of degenerate art and trying to eliminate it.
Science doesn't necessarily go along with the power of rationality either. But of course, all animals reason, and the reasons of the insane are as abundant as the reasons of the healthy. So, I would say with Nietzsche, "what matters reason?" Or indirectly the same was said by Dostoievski and countless others after Dostoievski.
What does science have to do with rationality apart from recognizing it, not as the right way to go about it, but as entanglement solved by entanglement. That's why I do no get into Sam Harris. He cannot make sense even when he can argue very well and resolve stupidity, but always in the same context of existence and being, two-dimensional realities that if it is well to recognize operative, it is not well to recognize in the three dimensional world. Imagine for example, apart from depiction, if it were possible for an exorcist to make a 50 lb bed or sofa move with the force of the energy in his wondrous thought emision. Yet, that the exorcist is a ridiculous freak is a genuine scientific fact to properly keep in mind.

Uhm, what?

[Serena03]

All that is meant by 'antithesis' is that science fundamentally deals with the physical observable universe while religion generally deals with mystics and metaphysics, otherwise it's probably not a religion, it's a philosophy. However, that is not to say that science cannot be compatible with religious views;as I have said, religion does not always refer to a supernatural. I believe Einstein said he was religious about his studies of science. But if you wish to unweave every aspect of every religion,you probably will find some compatable matches where science gives the basic outline. Hence why human behavior can also be scientifically observed.

[cafolini]

All that is meant by 'antithesis' is that science fundamentally deals with the physical observable universe while religion generally deals with mystics and metaphysics, otherwise it's probably not a religion, it's a philosophy. However, that is not to say that science cannot be compatible with religious views;as I have said, religion does not always refer to a supernatural. I believe Einstein said he was religious about his studies of science. But if you wish to unweave every aspect of every religion,you probably will find some compatable matches where science gives the basic outline. Hence why human behavior can also be scientifically observed.

I don't find much echo in that, but in that Einstein was absolutely religious in what he postulated. Einstenian relativity has now been fully overcome, and the unified field theory is a ridiculous proposition to any scientific possibility. The global aspects of science today are concerned with the studies of density. It has in many occasions already shown gravitation to be the result of a push rather than attraction.

[OrphanPip]

Well, here is your problem, such a euro-centric, if not America-centric view of religion and science are ultimately going to lead to such a conclusion.

As for certain religious beliefs contradicting science - that says stuff about certain beliefs, not about capital R Religion. Like I said, where is the criticism of Buddhism that we see about Christianity from Dawkins? What about a relatively nihilist religion like a Fundamental Daoism? Where is my criticism of that?

But the criticism is essentially directed at the reasoning that produces beliefs in opposition to science. Of course, we can't come up with blanket criticism of capital R Religion, because capital R religion is not a coherent specifically defined concept. If we step out of the Western tradition to start criticizing other religions, we would just end up being criticized of bias and misunderstanding of those cultures.

Besides, I differ from Dawkins in that I don't believe religious belief in and of itself is bad, I just think that there are systemic problems created by current dominant organized religions which are deserving of criticism.



No, what you mean with an opposition from a Euro-centric world view, is that somehow certain Christian beliefs, and to a lesser extent, Muslim beliefs contradict scientific discovery. Fine, make the argument, but ultimately, that does not put science as a direct opposition to religion, merely to a certain set of beliefs.

But how can we say anything meaningful about science or religion if we will not address the way these belief systems are experienced and expressed in society. If certain religious beliefs fundamentally oppose scientific practice, then it matters little whether certain abstract notions of science and religion can get along. Pragmatically, there is a matter of contention if religions seek to make claims of materialism, and science seeks to make claims of materialism, then it is inevitable that they might make claims in opposition to each other. I didn't say science is within its nature antithetical to religion, but that religion and science are capable of being in conflict.



The same can be said about Science itself; certain theories ultimately contradict others, the same way Aristotle's scientific discoveries are now dated. It says nothing of religion that certain beliefs cannot be tolerated based on contemporary understandings of the world, especially since almost all religions have some sort of evolutionary history in their own right; I believe the Vatican accepts Evolution, does it not?

But no one would dispute that scientific ideas are always under scrutiny and suspect to review, that is a fundamental aspect of modern science. No one would make a claim that science does not enter into a discourse with itself. And as the Vatican accepts evolution, it certainly demonstrates that religion, at least as institution, enters into a discourse with science. So it can't be said that science and religion deal with fundamentally different ideas, and so should never be in conflict.



As for scientific charities, that is true, however, there were also Nazi Scientists, and Eugenicist scientists, and all sorts of other communities. To assume belief in evolution has any correlation to any sort of morality or community is false; simply put, the power of scientific thought is that it is beyond such communities, and functions differently. That neither discredits community, nor replaces it.

I wouldn't say science leads to any superior morality, just that science is capable of producing cultural communities just like any other belief system. The method itself should be outside aspects of morality and community, but I think it is naive to say that science can be ignored as an influence on morality and how communities organize.



Which brings me generally to another issue - if we do not believe in God, which arguably most of the world does not (China, for instance, is almost completely atheist and makes up 1.4Billion people) what does that have to do with science?

IT doesn't really. Basically we just head to certain forms of discourse that create communities; religion is one, interests are another, sports are another, even what we eat, what class we belong to, what clubs we participate in, what we read, what we think - all those are forms of thought outside of scientific understandings of community.

I don't think anyone has said that atheism has to come out of science, or that science produces better communities. I was merely addressing the statement that science and religion have nothing to do with each other, which just simply doesn't work.



Breaking an atom doesn't make someone a good person. Rationally adhering to a moral code does, for better or for worse. To suggest that scientific discourse in any way has any real function on that is rather silly. Simply put, science may discover we have a familial tendency, but that doesn't change the tendency. They may discover people have selfish or violent tendencies, that does not change the fact that they still have them.

All sorts of moral and communal understandings of the world ultimately express themselves outside of science, sometimes contradicting each other. That does not put science in opposition with them.

Just face it, Science and Religion have no antithesis. There has never been a convincing argument for one, nor has their ever been an historical understanding as such. That certain religious beliefs may contradict and be debunked by science is one thing, that Religion itself though, is not true as of now, and has never been.

Dawkins view isn't so much that religion is antithetical to science, but that certain systems of belief which rely on revelation and or special authority are inferior to those based on rational scientific discourse. This isn't even only directed at religion, as it includes critiques of pseudo-science like homeopathy and other superstitious beliefs like astrology. I don't necessarily agree with Dawkins here, except to say that I believe society should be organized around secularism for other reasons. Dawkins doesn't even suggest science as an alternative system of morality, instead he promotes humanism and a sort of Singerian preference utilitarianism.

No one has to say that science will make you a better person to believe that science can be in opposition to religious belief. After all, nothing stops one from being a nihilist who thinks science renders religious belief obsolete. Moreover, I'd agree that in most cases science does not produce ethical meaning, although the interpretation of science does inform ethical arguments, and there are ethical naturalist who think science can produce insight into ethics, especially if one thinks that ethics is merely constructed and thus science provides a means to build functional, rational ethical systems in the same way science provides the means to engineers to build functional televisions.

The only problem is the concept that science and religion are incapable of commenting on the same subjects. Science and religion can be in conflict, because they can make competing claims about the same things. While science doesn't make claims about morality, it does make claims about history and the functioning of the material world, which religion tends to make claims about as well.

Edit: This reply is a little jumbled and rushed, I have to run or I'm going to be late to the opera.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It is for this reason that Religion and Politics are off-bounds in discussions.
As far as I'm aware, religion is not at all off-bounds within the rules. Am I mistaken?


Another poster referred to you as a curator. I’d go further and call you a catalog. You appear to have vast knowledge and can point to numerous sources and works, but I’ve yet to see you, even once, make a thoughtful argument.
After all your talk about how long you've looked at these forums and what-not, this statement seems to invalidate all of that.


I'm so sick of the "debate rules" crap. So many times when something gets interesting now, we have to hear about some stupid fallacy that's being used, or how a negative is trying to be proven, or some other stupid BS that just bogs down an actual conversation, and seems to be most often used when someone is put in a corner. These are casual forums, so why don't we just keep it that way?

[cafolini]

As far as I'm aware, religion is not at all off-bounds within the rules. Am I mistaken?

No it is not off bounds. Neither is politics, since an apolitical world would be as impossible as an amoral one. No, you are not mistaken. Good sense.

[KCurtis]

I agree. But those of us who grasp a lot of natural science also have to say that the myths idiots have adopted throughout history and still want to impose as truth are of such a poor quality artistically compared to the well examined works of nature from a scientific point of view.

Why resort to calling people idiots?? Isn't any agrument you make after calling names like this irrelevant? They are to me.



I think the people Orphan and I are talking about are simply incapable of reading that stuff. They are disgusted almost at the outset.
That's the advantage of scientists over the religious. We can read their stuff and have a few laughs while they can't read ours. When I was a teenager, I used to watch PTL and religious programs enjoying them as much as Johnny Carson's.

Oh really? I am quite sure that many religious people can and do read your "stuff".
I've been reading posts here for quite awhile, and in my not so humble opinion, I see quite clearly that those of you who name call and insult have a great need to think that you are superior. It is so transparent it's laughable. I will stick to posting about books- except, it seems that on this forum, if one likes a book that others see as not so great, watch out- be prepared for insults!!!! Have you nothing better to do but hide behind a computer and try to make yourselves look so damn smart and intellectual? How sad.
Not only are the religious people attacked here, but the Americans, the British, (read the whole thread to find out, shall we) should I go on? I'm a non religious American, AND PROUD OF IT!!!!! HAPPY VETERANS DAY!!!!!!

[Drkshadow03]

After all your talk about how long you've looked at these forums and what-not, this statement seems to invalidate all of that.


I'm so sick of the "debate rules" crap. So many times when something gets interesting now, we have to hear about some stupid fallacy that's being used, or how a negative is trying to be proven, or some other stupid BS that just bogs down an actual conversation, and seems to be most often used when someone is put in a corner. These are casual forums, so why don't we just keep it that way?

Oh, I don't know. The rules of logic aren't just a matter of choice to apply in certain debates and not in others. "Today in this debate it will be perfectly fine for posters to spend their time attacking Strawman, but tomorrow attacking Strawmen are off-limits."


Ragnar Freund, however, was simply wrong about his claim that St Luke committed a Strawman fallacy, which he conceded already. I would also suggest he is wrong about the argument from authority. It is perfectly legitimate to bring in authority in a discussion without it being fallacious, if they are a recognized expert in the field being discussed and a consensus exists among other authorities in the field on the matter under discussion. I would add my own additional qualifications that in certain instances, depending on what is being discussed, it may also be valid to invoke an authority that holds a minority position if a large enough minority of experts in that field agree on that position and you/they can justify the reasons for holding that minority position. Also, if questioned you should be able to go beyond merely saying, "But Harold Bloom says so . . ." and should be able to explain Bloom's position and present your own reasons for why you agree with it.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Oh, I don't know. The rules of logic aren't just a matter of choice to apply in certain debates and not in others. "Today in this debate it will be perfectly fine for posters to spend their time attacking Strawman, but tomorrow attacking Strawmen are off-limits."

I agree. We have to adhere to logic, but some people get so not-picky it's annoying.

No it is not off bounds. Neither is politics, since an apolitical world would be as impossible as an amoral one. No, you are not mistaken. Good sense.
I meant according to the rules of the forum.


I've been reading posts here for quite awhile, and in my not so humble opinion, I see quite clearly that those of you who name call and insult have a great need to think that you are superior. It is so transparent it's laughable. I will stick to posting about books- except, it seems that on this forum, if one likes a book that others see as not so great, watch out- be prepared for insults!!!! Have you nothing better to do but hide behind a computer and try to make yourselves look so damn smart and intellectual? How sad.
Not only are the religious people attacked here, but the Americans, the British, (read the whole thread to find out, shall we) should I go on? I'm a non religious American, AND PROUD OF IT!!!!! HAPPY VETERANS DAY!!!!!!
Is this your first internet forum?

And Veteran's Day was yesterday.

[JBI]

But the criticism is essentially directed at the reasoning that produces beliefs in opposition to science. Of course, we can't come up with blanket criticism of capital R Religion, because capital R religion is not a coherent specifically defined concept. If we step out of the Western tradition to start criticizing other religions, we would just end up being criticized of bias and misunderstanding of those cultures.

Besides, I differ from Dawkins in that I don't believe religious belief in and of itself is bad, I just think that there are systemic problems created by current dominant organized religions which are deserving of criticism.



But how can we say anything meaningful about science or religion if we will not address the way these belief systems are experienced and expressed in society. If certain religious beliefs fundamentally oppose scientific practice, then it matters little whether certain abstract notions of science and religion can get along. Pragmatically, there is a matter of contention if religions seek to make claims of materialism, and science seeks to make claims of materialism, then it is inevitable that they might make claims in opposition to each other. I didn't say science is within its nature antithetical to religion, but that religion and science are capable of being in conflict.



But no one would dispute that scientific ideas are always under scrutiny and suspect to review, that is a fundamental aspect of modern science. No one would make a claim that science does not enter into a discourse with itself. And as the Vatican accepts evolution, it certainly demonstrates that religion, at least as institution, enters into a discourse with science. So it can't be said that science and religion deal with fundamentally different ideas, and so should never be in conflict.



I wouldn't say science leads to any superior morality, just that science is capable of producing cultural communities just like any other belief system. The method itself should be outside aspects of morality and community, but I think it is naive to say that science can be ignored as an influence on morality and how communities organize.



I don't think anyone has said that atheism has to come out of science, or that science produces better communities. I was merely addressing the statement that science and religion have nothing to do with each other, which just simply doesn't work.



Dawkins view isn't so much that religion is antithetical to science, but that certain systems of belief which rely on revelation and or special authority are inferior to those based on rational scientific discourse. This isn't even only directed at religion, as it includes critiques of pseudo-science like homeopathy and other superstitious beliefs like astrology. I don't necessarily agree with Dawkins here, except to say that I believe society should be organized around secularism for other reasons. Dawkins doesn't even suggest science as an alternative system of morality, instead he promotes humanism and a sort of Singerian preference utilitarianism.

No one has to say that science will make you a better person to believe that science can be in opposition to religious belief. After all, nothing stops one from being a nihilist who thinks science renders religious belief obsolete. Moreover, I'd agree that in most cases science does not produce ethical meaning, although the interpretation of science does inform ethical arguments, and there are ethical naturalist who think science can produce insight into ethics, especially if one thinks that ethics is merely constructed and thus science provides a means to build functional, rational ethical systems in the same way science provides the means to engineers to build functional televisions.

The only problem is the concept that science and religion are incapable of commenting on the same subjects. Science and religion can be in conflict, because they can make competing claims about the same things. While science doesn't make claims about morality, it does make claims about history and the functioning of the material world, which religion tends to make claims about as well.

Edit: This reply is a little jumbled and rushed, I have to run or I'm going to be late to the opera.

So what is your point? That somehow this book is what? I am confused. On one hand you stress how scientific discourse can overstep some religious discourses; perhaps more "Scientific" understandings of the Bible - for instance, creationism as interpreted by X sect, or certain things contained within Islam.

Fine, but where is the point. The actual argument of intelligent design that Dawkins seems to link to Religion is not in the Bible - it was invented by people, ironically, who more than their predecessors totally disregarded the religious in favor of what they believed to be the "rational."

As for the text itself - just look at the title. It automatically makes an assumption that it itself is "truth" and "reality."

Now as for the content, it doesn't turn on just Christian religious ideas, but on tons of other mythological traditions.

Somehow it asserts that the cultures that created them naturally were primitive, and somehow the text can show the "reality" or "truth" about them.

What kind of a moron thinks these stories need someone to come and say how ignorant the authors were? Clearly everyone has always known that Homer was not telling the "truth" or "reality" the same way there is no Chinese primary document of mythology that was widely adopted, and believed in.

That mythology needs to be debased is a rather silly concept. Especially as a kids book. Simply put, the idea of children's literature has never been to prove reality or show truth. The fun of such classics as Where the Wild Things Are, or even Harry Potter is the simple fact that there is no truthfulness to it, it is a joy to read, the same way Kubla Khan is a fictitious dream.

Do we need Dawkins to write an essay and say that Caverns Measureless to Man is a bad metaphor and unscientific as we can measure every canon in this world? What tedious nonsense.

I hear the illustrations are good. But ultimately, something like the fantastical, allegorical, nonsensical Journey To the West (Monkey) would be a far better book to give children I would think, as would the 1001 Nights, or any other non-true, unrealistic whatever. I would rather see more kids reading Greek myths than I would see them sitting there telling me how stupid Greek myths are for not understanding microbiology.

Clearly someone has no concept of metaphor.

Look at the chapter names, for instance:

What is Reality
What is Magic

Who was the First Person

Why are there so many Different Kinds of Animals

What are things made of

Why do we have night and day, winter and summer [ironically not every place has winter and summer]

What is the Sun

What is a Rainbow

When and How Did Everything Begin

Are we Alone?

What is an Earthquake

Why do bad things happen

What is a mircale


Take a look at the opening words where he discusses what is real; the conclusion he arrives at is this: what is real is what we can stretch our perception to know is real through our senses and special instruments.

What a dumb book - I want my kid to hear this: What is real is anything you can imagine, and can make real to you. That's the answer; it is so simple - you do not need to tell kids they need to see something in their microscope to know it is real.

The same way Blake's prophets do not "see god" to speak with him, they merely imagine him, and thus, speak to him on a way that speaks to them - through their own creative impulses.

Even for the more creative ideas, like finding something new - it is always through someone inventing an instrument, from someone discovering signs through science, why not answer the question simply.

Lets say you are a child who has an imaginative mind - how do you know if there are aliens? Simple - you imagine them into existence, you don't need to prove they exist, as, if they exist to you, they exist. You don't need to show everything in a microscope to accept it.

A child does not need to know about "Models" to test their understandings of the world; it belittles children and the process of childhood all together.

Such a cheap and impoverishing book to sell to kids - kids should learn to understand the world in their terms.



Now, what is the child to get out of the book? The point seems to be, the child is supposed to learn to enjoy the fact that everything that is real should be reduced to scientific understandings. Even Bill Nye was more entertaining.

[KCurtis]

I agree. We have to adhere to logic, but some people get so not-picky it's annoying.

I meant according to the rules of the forum.

Is this your first internet forum?
No, is it yours?

And Veteran's Day was yesterday.

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
I know veterans day was YESTERDAY!!!! Is this all you can think of to say to me? Wow.
When I joined, I did not think the forum would be a lot of: lets see who can intellectually one up so and so! I'd much rather discuss books that I love. I don't even know why I am bothering to post here, again. I also picture people hiding behind their computers, with nothing else to do but write these long boring diatribes. Yawn yawn yawn. Saying things too scary to say face to face! Maybe I am just too old. 54, better things to do. I must say I am disappointed in the forum, topics get off topic, too many insults, too much showing off. Better to be very picky about what I read- if something catches my interest concerning a book I love or would love to read, I'll post again. And insult me all you want- I know who you are and why you are doing it. Hide, hide, hide and hide some more behind your machine.

[XQZ]

I think you're right on one hand JBI, but there's a foulness in some (many) parts where religion is involved (and those who prey on the vulnerable with their tales of voices from the 'other side'). I think the idea of the book is a good one for undereducated parents to read and then attempt to explain cons and flimflams to prepare kids for the real world. Getting the parents to read it is another matter, but the daily rise in shady businesses and scams means it has potential as a required parenting text.
There is a Lutheran church near my old house (poor neighborhood) with a priest or whatever they call them, and this bloke has been screwing the funds from the place for years, financing a millionaire lifesyle that he shouldn't have had: two story mansion, speedboats, Mercedes AWDs, holidays in the sun, and all from the donations of its poverty stricken elderly 'believers'.
The bloke was a complete shyster as evidenced by his behavior, but was I going to get involved in the mess? No, because it wasn't my mess, but also because their kids at least should have been sharp enough to see what was going on. Maybe if they read this book they'd have some inheritance to look forward to?

There's a parable in the Bible about a camel passing through the eye of a needle (this is a mistranslation, and in the original it's a rope which makes more sense contextually). But that's the first scam! All churches should be independently taxed and audited (at least as a charity) and the perverts and conmen weeded out.

I think the idea for the book, maybe to be discussed in a classroom scenario, is a good one, even though it's a a little heavy handed and one sided, but isn't a school preaching only Creationism and dismissing all scientific evidence worse? I think so.

[cafolini]

Oh, I don't know. The rules of logic aren't just a matter of choice to apply in certain debates and not in others. "Today in this debate it will be perfectly fine for posters to spend their time attacking Strawman, but tomorrow attacking Strawmen are off-limits."


Ragnar Freund, however, was simply wrong about his claim that St Luke committed a Strawman fallacy, which he conceded already. I would also suggest he is wrong about the argument from authority. It is perfectly legitimate to bring in authority in a discussion without it being fallacious, if they are a recognized expert in the field being discussed and a consensus exists among other authorities in the field on the matter under discussion. I would add my own additional qualifications that in certain instances, depending on what is being discussed, it may also be valid to invoke an authority that holds a minority position if a large enough minority of experts in that field agree on that position and you/they can justify the reasons for holding that minority position. Also, if questioned you should be able to go beyond merely saying, "But Harold Bloom says so . . ." and should be able to explain Bloom's position and present your own reasons for why you agree with it.

Would you please tell me what are the rules of logic. It's not the first time you piggyback on that without telling us. Do you have a secret that I don't know?
And what are the authorities in your consensus. Germany in the 1940's had a lot of authority and probably more consensus to introduce authority than all skinheads put together with embroidered KKK hats and Casper sheets.

[Drkshadow03]

Would you please tell me what are the rules of logic. It's not the first time you piggyback on that without telling us. Do you have a secret that I don't know?
And what are the authorities in your consensus. Germany in the 1940's had a lot of authority and probably more consensus to introduce authority than all skinheads put together with embroidered KKK hats and Casper sheets.

If you would like to learn about logic you could always start with google, then move onto some books. The authorities I mentioned aren't government officials, but rather experts in a field of study like an evolutionary biologist discussing evolutionary biology or a Romantic English Professor discussing Romanticism or a doctor specializing in Jewish genetic diseases sharing their knowledge about Tay-Sachs Disease.

[JuniperWoolf]

When I had to study mythology at school, I hated it and I didn’t see any intelligent reason to study it.

Are you serious? How could anyone think that for even a second? Greek mythology is beautiful, it's so intricate. Myths stick with you for life, they're like a blueprint for what it is to be a feeling, thinking human being. It's amazing how instances of mythological influence in art/literature/music, even references in science (the Electra/Oedepus complex springs to mind, as well as various species names that taxonomists have devised) have popped up all over history for thousands of years.


That being said, science may have answers, but it lacks imaginative capacity.

It's an old adage that the best scientists are those who posess imagination and spirit. Look at Craig Venter, he's got one hell of a flair for the poetic side of life.


I suspect sides in this fight might better be divided between those who have a background in the sciences and those who have a background in the humanities.

I've always strongly favored the opinion that everyone with some claim in the arena of academia should have a background in both. By limiting yourself to one or the other, you miss out on so much. You might as well make the conscious decision to cripple your own viewpoint.

[Alexander III]

I'm so sick of the "debate rules" crap. So many times when something gets interesting now, we have to hear about some stupid fallacy that's being used, or how a negative is trying to be proven, or some other stupid BS that just bogs down an actual conversation, and seems to be most often used when someone is put in a corner. These are casual forums, so why don't we just keep it that way?

My god! Yes , yes and yes!

There is nothing which makes people look so petty and incompetent as talking in this manner when someone is trying to discuss a topic.

[MarkBastable]

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
I suspect sides in this fight might better be divided between those who have a background in the sciences and those who have a background in the humanities.



I'm with J. That's no way to carve up human intelligence. It seems to suggest that science has a patent on logic and structure, but art is the only place to exercise imagination and creativity.

That's patently not true. Ask any mathematician or novelist. Or Mozart.

And, incidentally, I'm not suggesting, Shadow, that you necessarily think it is true. But for God's sake don't encourage the schism between those who do think so. For instance...

Originally Posted by JBI
That being said, science may have answers, but it lacks imaginative capacity.

Ho hum....

[Drkshadow03]

I've always strongly favored the opinion that everyone with some claim in the arena of academia should have a background in both. By limiting yourself to one or the other, you miss out on so much. You might as well make the conscious decision to cripple your own viewpoint.

Sure. I didn't mean to imply an either/or situation. Orphanpip clearly likes the arts and literature, despite his background in the sciences. I'm not exactly ignorant of major scientific discoveries, despite my humanities background. My point was more that I think there is a way of looking at the world that is unique to someone with a science background versus someone with a humanities background who has their own unique ways at looking at the world, even when knowledgeable and able to appreciate the other field.

[stlukesguild]

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
As far as I'm aware, religion is not at all off-bounds within the rules. Am I mistaken?

No it is not off bounds. Neither is politics, since an apolitical world would be as impossible as an amoral one. No, you are not mistaken. Good sense.

The below are quoted from the forum rules not made by me but agreed upon by anyone who registers for this site:

Forum Rules

2. These are privately owned and run public access sites. The Administrators of The Literature Network and The Poetry Post reserve the right to refuse membership to anyone, at any time, for any reason. These rules are subject to change at any time. It is your responsibility to acquaint yourself with them and govern yourself accordingly.

4. In general, you may not use your membership privileges here via posting text or images in the forums, signature lines, tags, blog entries or blog comments, profile visitor messages, social groups, photo albums, or private messages for:

a) flaming, baiting, trolling, or ad hominem (personally attacking or insulting other members),
b) maliciously hijacking discussion topics,
c) deliberately posting so as to circumvent the inappropriate word filters,
d) threatening, harassing, abusing or intimidating other members,
e) spamming -- posting commercial messages, overtly promoting personal or commercial websites or services, and/or promoting/advertising other forums,
f) flooding -- posting multiple posts or topics in a short period of time,
g) any illegal activity, and,
h) any other disruptive behaviour that negatively affects other members’ fair use of this site.

6. Discussion of current politics is not allowed. Also see this topic’s post titled “Political Discussion”.

Religious Texts Forum Rules

A: Discussion of any and all faiths and spiritualities, and religious and or sacred texts is encouraged here, but please remember to respect the beliefs of others.
Respect the fact that someone might not agree with you.
Respect the fact that there are others with different points of view.
Respect the fact that people are entitled to post their opinion as long as it is done in a way that is not inflammatory or disrespectful to others.
Respect the fact that there are members here representing myriad faiths, religions and spiritualities.

B: These forums are not here for preaching, or attempts to convert, nor promote other religiously affiliated websites.

C: The Religious Texts area of the forums is heavily moderated due to the unfortunate fact that there are so many discussions that escalate to ad hominem, insults, baiting, trolling, harassing, and or flaming. If you do not know the meaning of these terms please look them up first before posting here. It is not the job of the Moderators to explain them or the rules to you.

E: This area was initially created for discussing specific religious texts. Any other general topic threads posted relating to religion or spirituality will be subject to Admin's or the Moderator's approval.

[ftil]

Are you serious? How could anyone think that for even a second? Greek mythology is beautiful, it's so intricate. Myths stick with you for life, they're like a blueprint for what it is to be a feeling, thinking human being. It's amazing how instances of mythological influence in art/literature/music, even references in science (the Electra/Oedepus complex springs to mind, as well as various species names that taxonomists have devised) have popped up all over history for thousands of years.



I was honest. I didn't like to study it and I had quite different passions and interests. I love it now. Everybody is unique with own passions. Life would be extremely boring if everybody was like you or I. :wink5:

[JuniperWoolf]

In short, you can discuss religion as long as you're not a dick, but politics is absolutely off the table.

[stlukesguild]

Current politics. The Carthaginians and Romans are wide open to debate.:biggrin5:

[Vonny]

What I see in the rules is the word "Respect" repeated again and again.

[cafolini]

What would having a good imagination have to do with the context of its manifestation?
And suppose someone has a poor imagination but it's the person that invented the wheel with the only complete idea s/he ever had.
And what prevents Freud coming across a death man in the fetal position and exclaim: "Seeeee? All dreams are about going back to the womb. That's because they want to relive all of prehistory over again."

[mortalterror]

Current politics. The Carthaginians and Romans are wide open to debate.:biggrin5:


'When is our next wild-beast fight?' said Clodius to Pansa.

'It stands fixed for the ninth ide of August,' answered Pansa: 'on the day after the Vulcanalia—we have a most lovely young lion for the occasion.'

'Whom shall we get for him to eat?' asked Clodius. 'Alas! there is a great scarcity of criminals. You must positively find some innocent or other to condemn to the lion, Pansa!'

'Indeed I have thought very seriously about it of late,' replied the aedile, gravely. 'It was a most infamous law that which forbade us to send our own slaves to the wild beasts. Not to let us do what we like with our own, that's what I call an infringement on property itself.'

'Not so in the good old days of the Republic,' sighed Sallust.

'And then this pretended mercy to the slaves is such a disappointment to the poor people. How they do love to see a good tough battle between a man and a lion; and all this innocent pleasure they may lose (if the gods don't send us a good criminal soon) from this cursed law!'

'What can be worse policy,' said Clodius, sententiously, 'than to interfere with the manly amusements of the people?'

'Well thank Jupiter and the Fates! we have no Nero at present,' said Sallust.

'He was, indeed, a tyrant; he shut up our amphitheatre for ten years.'

'I wonder it did not create a rebellion,' said Sallust.

'It very nearly did,' returned Pansa, with his mouth full of wild boar.
-The Last Days of Pompeii by Lord Lytton

Roman politics and literature: ta-da.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
I know veterans day was YESTERDAY!!!! Is this all you can think of to say to me? Wow.
When I joined, I did not think the forum would be a lot of: lets see who can intellectually one up so and so! I'd much rather discuss books that I love. I don't even know why I am bothering to post here, again. I also picture people hiding behind their computers, with nothing else to do but write these long boring diatribes. Yawn yawn yawn. Saying things too scary to say face to face! Maybe I am just too old. 54, better things to do. I must say I am disappointed in the forum, topics get off topic, too many insults, too much showing off. Better to be very picky about what I read- if something catches my interest concerning a book I love or would love to read, I'll post again. And insult me all you want- I know who you are and why you are doing it. Hide, hide, hide and hide some more behind your machine.
Calm down, man. I wasn't trying to insult you . . . I was sincerely letting you know Veteran's Day was yesterday. I get days mixed up all the time. Hell, last week on Tuesday I thought it was friday until I realized I had class.

I asked if this is your first internet forum because all internet forums I've ever been to are like this. The only difference is that all the others I've been to have been much, much worse. This is the most respectful forum I've been to, so your comment about how horrible everyone is confused me.

Frankly, I don't know what you're upset about.

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
As far as I'm aware, religion is not at all off-bounds within the rules. Am I mistaken?

No it is not off bounds. Neither is politics, since an apolitical world would be as impossible as an amoral one. No, you are not mistaken. Good sense.

The below are quoted from the forum rules not made by me but agreed upon by anyone who registers for this site:

Forum Rules

2. These are privately owned and run public access sites. The Administrators of The Literature Network and The Poetry Post reserve the right to refuse membership to anyone, at any time, for any reason. These rules are subject to change at any time. It is your responsibility to acquaint yourself with them and govern yourself accordingly.

4. In general, you may not use your membership privileges here via posting text or images in the forums, signature lines, tags, blog entries or blog comments, profile visitor messages, social groups, photo albums, or private messages for:

a) flaming, baiting, trolling, or ad hominem (personally attacking or insulting other members),
b) maliciously hijacking discussion topics,
c) deliberately posting so as to circumvent the inappropriate word filters,
d) threatening, harassing, abusing or intimidating other members,
e) spamming -- posting commercial messages, overtly promoting personal or commercial websites or services, and/or promoting/advertising other forums,
f) flooding -- posting multiple posts or topics in a short period of time,
g) any illegal activity, and,
h) any other disruptive behaviour that negatively affects other members’ fair use of this site.

6. Discussion of current politics is not allowed. Also see this topic’s post titled “Political Discussion”.

Religious Texts Forum Rules

A: Discussion of any and all faiths and spiritualities, and religious and or sacred texts is encouraged here, but please remember to respect the beliefs of others.
Respect the fact that someone might not agree with you.
Respect the fact that there are others with different points of view.
Respect the fact that people are entitled to post their opinion as long as it is done in a way that is not inflammatory or disrespectful to others.
Respect the fact that there are members here representing myriad faiths, religions and spiritualities.

B: These forums are not here for preaching, or attempts to convert, nor promote other religiously affiliated websites.

C: The Religious Texts area of the forums is heavily moderated due to the unfortunate fact that there are so many discussions that escalate to ad hominem, insults, baiting, trolling, harassing, and or flaming. If you do not know the meaning of these terms please look them up first before posting here. It is not the job of the Moderators to explain them or the rules to you.

E: This area was initially created for discussing specific religious texts. Any other general topic threads posted relating to religion or spirituality will be subject to Admin's or the Moderator's approval.
Okay, I was pretty sure religion is okay to discuss.

[Vonny]

Originally posted by Mortalterror:

'When is our next wild-beast fight?' said Clodius to Pansa.

'It stands fixed for the ninth ide of August,' answered Pansa: 'on the day after the Vulcanalia—we have a most lovely young lion for the occasion.'

'Whom shall we get for him to eat?' asked Clodius. 'Alas! there is a great scarcity of criminals. You must positively find some innocent or other to condemn to the lion, Pansa!'

'Indeed I have thought very seriously about it of late,' replied the aedile, gravely. 'It was a most infamous law that which forbade us to send our own slaves to the wild beasts. Not to let us do what we like with our own, that's what I call an infringement on property itself.'

'Not so in the good old days of the Republic,' sighed Sallust.

'And then this pretended mercy to the slaves is such a disappointment to the poor people. How they do love to see a good tough battle between a man and a lion; and all this innocent pleasure they may lose (if the gods don't send us a good criminal soon) from this cursed law!'

'What can be worse policy,' said Clodius, sententiously, 'than to interfere with the manly amusements of the people?'

'Well thank Jupiter and the Fates! we have no Nero at present,' said Sallust.

'He was, indeed, a tyrant; he shut up our amphitheatre for ten years.'

'I wonder it did not create a rebellion,' said Sallust.

'It very nearly did,' returned Pansa, with his mouth full of wild boar.
-The Last Days of Pompeii by Lord Lytton

Funny how history repeats itself. Our society is returning to this, where this is appreciated as an excellent form of entertainment. And the Roman Empire collapsed. We're seeing a return to Ancient Roman, complete with gorging and vomitoriums.

[mortalterror]

Funny how history repeats itself. Our society is returning to this, where this is appreciated as an excellent form of entertainment. And the Roman Empire collapsed. We're seeing a return to Ancient Roman, complete with gorging and vomitoriums.

Actually, a vomitorium was simply the exit of a sports stadium. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vomitorium

[Vonny]

Actually, a vomitorium was simply the exit of a sports stadium. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vomitorium

Oh my goodness, it's amazing the things I learn here! :)

[Aylinn]

That being said, science may have answers, but it lacks imaginative capacity.

Albert Einstein would not agree with you. :) He often emphasized how important imagination is.
The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.
Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.
Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.

[Alexander III]

Funny how history repeats itself. Our society is returning to this, where this is appreciated as an excellent form of entertainment. And the Roman Empire collapsed. We're seeing a return to Ancient Roman, complete with gorging and vomitoriums.

I would give away a lot of money to see a man and lion fight to death. And I would give even more for an opportunity to fight a lion to death in an arena. I don't see why such things are seen as barbaric? I think the romans understood more about what it means to live than we do, we take life to seriously and have too little consideration for honor.

[Scheherazade]

I am quite touched that Forum Rules have been discussed in such detail!


From the OP:

Initially aimed at young readers, but open to all ages, this brilliantly illustrated book is meant to convey the majestic and bewildering workings of nature displayed through science on a preliminary level of some of the most common questions regarding the world and universe.

Each chapter begins with an ancient myth originally attempting to answer these questions, such as, 'what are things made of? who was the first person? what are rainbows made of? and are we alone in the universe? followed by reality's explanation. Although the explanations may not be quite elaborate enough to reach a satisfactory understanding, it at least offers a well enough overview of each subject to generate interest of further reading with great eloquent literacy.

Controversy is likely to spur with its debunking of each myth and arguments from supernatural magic, which Dawkins is use to, but it's great for those who may have lost touch or appreciation of reality;fairy tales may be fun, but nature and reality alone presents enough awe inspiring 'magic' which seems like a fairy tale, almost too astonishing to believe.
Off-topic posts will be removed without further notice.

~

[JBI]

Albert Einstein would not agree with you. :) He often emphasized how important imagination is.
The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.
Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.
Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.

You are the fourth person to try and say the same thing without reading. Einstein said the imagination was a true sign of intelligence, not science.


That science is unimaginative does not mean all scientists are unimaginative. Likewise it does not mean the people who study science cannot be imaginative thinkers.

However, the scientific method, and the pursuits of scientific research have no place for an imagination when they ultimately are pursuing things that a) are based on proof, and b) work only to draw conclusions from fact. Science does not care anything for imagination or the individual; it does not care for any tradition, it has one concern, and that is to be a discourse based on the assumption that only the "factually" proven can be accepted.

I shouldn't need to explain this, I would have thought others could have come to that conclusion, and not quote Einstein, who ironically really stopped writing scientific papers after his creative period early in life.

[Ragnar Freund]

gone.

[cafolini]

Albert Einstein would not agree with you. :) He often emphasized how important imagination is.
The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.
Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.
Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.

Imagination without knowledge is like a toilet without water.

[JBI]

I must ask: do you have any scientific training, or knowledge, whatsoever? I'm not asking this to insult; I am simply shocked that you can say such nonsense and still have the confidence to say I shouldn't need to explain this. In particular, the following sentence:
shows such utter misunderstanding of how science works, that I'm not sure whether you're serious or not.

Have you ever studied advanced mathematics? Do you know what remarkable imagination mathematicians must have to come up with their proofs?

Do you understand what theoretical physicists do? Do you know how much creativity and imagination these guys have?

There's so much reading that you need to do, "bibliophile", but I suggest you start here (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=jacob%20bronowski%2C%20the%20nature%20of%20scien tific%20reasoning&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.public.iastate.edu%2F~bccorey %2F105%2520Folder%2FThe%2520Nature%2520of%2520Sci. pdf&ei=Hti_TsmyKouE8gP1q9GRBA&usg=AFQjCNF-ZycLNUJlXnQnVPcGLlKeCZHubg&cad=rja). There are even study questions at the end.

Again, you missed my point. That the individual scientific thinker must come up with an imaginary idea or use a creative mind to draw a conclusion does not make the conclusion imaginative in itself.

Science is not concerned with how someone arrives at conclusions as much as it is that those conclusions are valid. Quit trying to berate me with how creative certain individuals were, or how creative certain scientists were, in the end, the discourse does not care how creative they were, merely how they arrived at a factual conclusion.

The concern with science is fact, and proven fact, not how creative an individual scientist is. That is the claim it has for its validity, that it exists beyond a subjective mode of thinking; it is not a weakness, nor is it a particular strength, it serves a purpose.

That certain scientists end up being creative or do creative things is completely irrelevant. Perhaps it is you who needs to read clearly what people write before you run out and yell.

You seem to have a knack for your own intelligence, perhaps you should look up such key terms as "scientific method" or "scientific inquiry" or read the first chapter of the godawful book by Dawkins.

The main point of scientific methodology seems to be that such results be repeatable. The idea that one must be creative to come up with a hypothesis is true, that one must be creative in how to test it, is perhaps true some times, that this is part of scientific discourse is false. Science doesn't care. Science is not biased toward individuals, science itself has no place for creativity or imagination except as they lead certain thinkers toward a scientific observation beyond the imaginative and into the factual.

Read my post before you comment on it please.

[MarkBastable]

I would give even more for an opportunity to fight a lion to death in an arena.


No, no, no. Put your money away. We'll pay for it.

[Alexander III]

No, no, no. Put your money away. We'll pay for it.

Marvelous!!

Arrange it all, preferably in the colloseum, but I will accept a more modern arena. It much have an audience of at least 50.000. PM the details once it is sorted.

When I emerge victorious I will make sure to tell my chornicalist and memoirist to mention your name somewhere so that your efforts wont go forgoten.

[cafolini]

Again, you missed my point. That the individual scientific thinker must come up with an imaginary idea or use a creative mind to draw a conclusion does not make the conclusion imaginative in itself.

Science is not concerned with how someone arrives at conclusions as much as it is that those conclusions are valid. Quit trying to berate me with how creative certain individuals were, or how creative certain scientists were, in the end, the discourse does not care how creative they were, merely how they arrived at a factual conclusion.

The concern with science is fact, and proven fact, not how creative an individual scientist is. That is the claim it has for its validity, that it exists beyond a subjective mode of thinking; it is not a weakness, nor is it a particular strength, it serves a purpose.

That certain scientists end up being creative or do creative things is completely irrelevant. Perhaps it is you who needs to read clearly what people write before you run out and yell.

You seem to have a knack for your own intelligence, perhaps you should look up such key terms as "scientific method" or "scientific inquiry" or read the first chapter of the godawful book by Dawkins.

The main point of scientific methodology seems to be that such results be repeatable. The idea that one must be creative to come up with a hypothesis is true, that one must be creative in how to test it, is perhaps true some times, that this is part of scientific discourse is false. Science doesn't care. Science is not biased toward individuals, science itself has no place for creativity or imagination except as they lead certain thinkers toward a scientific observation beyond the imaginative and into the factual.

Read my post before you comment on it please.

All is well. But science is also concerned with indirect thinking and there are many things we know by high probability without them being fact until we actually get to that. Also, there are lots of things in science that we know with a probability 1, without having to make them a fact unless it becomes useful to do so. Also in the macroworld (not in the micro below particles) we know that no matter how many UFO's we see, they cannot be extraterrestrial unless they were capable of violating the principles of physics, e.g., some material object accelerating beyond any possible means. Etc.

[Arrowni]

Another question would be whether or not you can actually advance in science without a decent amount of creative thinking.

Saying that science doesn't care about how advances are made doesn't mean they will be possible without imagination. At its worst, it just advances the hypothesis that any amount of imagination can be mimicked by enough mediocre scientists and a long period of time.

[Ragnar Freund]

gone.