Originally posted by rwingett This is the new book by Richard Dawkins. Looks like it's going to be a good one.
From the blurb:
[i]While Europe is becoming increasingly secularised, the rise of religious fundamentalism, whether in the Middle East of Middle America, is dramatically and dangerously dividing opinion around the world.
In America and elsewhere, a vigorous dispute be ...[text shortened]... sm' thread. Namely, Noah and the great flood.
So who's going to rush out and buy it?
Here is a quote from Darwin: "From the war of nature, from famine and death, themost exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or inot one, and tha.....from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved."
Originally posted by kirksey957 Here is a quote from Darwin: "From the war of nature, from famine and death, themost exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or inot one, and tha.....from s ...[text shortened]... a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved."
so what?
Why is your moniker "With white women"? I find this offensive. If I put "With black women", wouldn't this be racist?
Originally posted by rwingett This is the new book by Richard Dawkins. Looks like it's going to be a good one.
From the blurb:
[i]While Europe is becoming increasingly secularised, the rise of religious fundamentalism, whether in the Middle East of Middle America, is dramatically and dangerously dividing opinion around the world.
In America and elsewhere, a vigorous dispute be sm' thread. Namely, Noah and the great flood.
So who's going to rush out and buy it?
[/i]I will look for it in the library--when I return Bart Ehrman (I'm on an economically dictated book-buying ban).
Speaking of delusion, nice thread Rwingett. So am I to believe that the only delusion man suffers is the thought that there is a God? In reality, the only thing uncovered by this thread is man's susceptibility to delusion in general.
It must be nice to live a life free of delusion such as the one you are living. If only we all were as insightful. Dare I even suggest that the true delusion lie in unbelief?
Originally posted by whodey Speaking of delusion, nice thread Rwingett. So am I to believe that the only delusion man suffers is the thought that there is a God? In reality, the only thing uncovered by this thread is man's susceptibility to delusion in general.
It must be nice to live a life free of delusion such as the one you are living. If only we all were as insightful. Dare I even suggest that the true delusion lie in unbelief?
I have never claimed to be free from all delusions. I only claim to be free from your particular delusion. You'd have to be deluded to claim that true delusion lies in unbelief.
Originally posted by rwingett So who's going to rush out and buy it?
Not me. Dawkins is great on evolution but I can do without reading another polemic against religion, unless he has something original to add to what has already been well said by, for example, the Enlightenment demolition squad (Voltaire, Paine, etc).
Incidentally belief in the divine arose (I think) to meet a specific human need: an evolutionary necessity, if you like. On this topic, I recommend Dudley Young's "Origins of the Sacred". (Amongst other things it has the advantage of lacking Dawkins' supercilious tone, which gets right up my nose. If you like Jared Diamond you'll probably like Young too.)
Originally posted by kirksey957 Here is a quote from Darwin: "From the war of nature, from famine and death, themost exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or inot one, and tha.....from s ...[text shortened]... a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved."
To me, he seems to be saying "I don't know how abiogenesis occured but the development of life from those first self replictors is entirely explainable through my simple theory"
We also now reckon that abiogenesis is also distinctly possible without divine intervention, though much work needs to be done in this field to flesh out the details.
Originally posted by Penguin To me, he seems to be saying "I don't know how abiogenesis occured but the development of life from those first self replictors is entirely explainable through my simple theory"
We also now reckon that abiogenesis is also distinctly possible without divine intervention, though much work needs to be done in this field to flesh out the details.
--- Penguin
Forget about abiogenesis. How about matterogenesis?
Originally posted by whodey Forget about abiogenesis. How about matterogenesis?
Fair enough but it doesn't actually answer any questions; it just shift them back a little further. If matter had to be made, who made the maker? If you posit that the maker was eternal, why not just say the matter is eternal?
Originally posted by Penguin Fair enough but it doesn't actually answer any questions; it just shift them back a little further. If matter had to be made, who made the maker? If you posit that the maker was eternal, why not just say the matter is eternal?
The Maker is not made up of matter. This is the only solution to the problem, rather, the Maker created matter. In regards to time, time is merely a property of matter and need not extend into another realm in which matter does not exist such as a spiritual realm. Therefore, God did not have a beginnging, rather, he initiated the beginning once matter was created as was time created as a byproduct of that matter.
Time measures from point A to point B. Therefore, matter must have a point A ie it must have a beginning. Science traces this beginning back to the Big Bang about 15 billion years ago. The only question remains, a beginning from what!!!!!
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Not me. Dawkins is great on evolution but I can do without reading another polemic against religion, unless he has something original to add to what has already been well said by, for example, the Enlightenment demolition squad (Voltaire, Paine, etc).
Incidentally belief in the divine arose (I think) to meet a specific human need: an evolutionary ne ...[text shortened]... y like Young too.)
I disagree. What society needs is more people who are not afraid to take a vocal stand against the encroachment of religious fundamentalism. Voltaire and Paine are all well and fine, but they're also dead and buried. The world needs more of the likes of Dawkins, who speak specifically to contemporary readers.
The development of religion may have had an evolutionary role, but I doubt it was an evolutionary necessity. I don't think we would have gone the way of the trilobites without it. In any event, unless we are able to evolve beyond our primordial religious fanaticism, those beliefs will likely become a greater evolutionary disadvantage.
Originally posted by rwingett What society needs is more people who are not afraid to take a vocal stand against the encroachment of religious fundamentalism....The world needs more of the likes of Dawkins, who speak specifically to contemporary readers.
The development of religion may have had an evolutionary role, but I doubt it was an evolutionary necessity. I don't think we woul ...[text shortened]... ial religious fanaticism, those beliefs will likely become a greater evolutionary disadvantage.
I'm sure his book will be a success, but I doubt whether it will shed much insight into the sacred, other than characterising it as delusional, which is not a stance that I consider productive. Illusionary, yes...
You can trace a line from the dances of bees and chimps through the rituals of ancient peoples up to the hierophantry of today. The psychological need for connection is as old as the umbilicus. Disconnection from a notional Source causes spiritual/psychological/emotional malaise, which can give rise to real disease. Does Dawkins address this?
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage I'm sure his book will be a success, but I doubt whether it will shed much insight into the sacred, other than characterising it as delusional, which is not a stance that I consider productive. Illusionary, yes...
You can trace a line from the dances of bees and chimps through the rituals of ancient peoples up to the hierophantry of today. The psych ...[text shortened]... sychological/emotional malaise, which can give rise to real disease. Does Dawkins address this?
A sense of connection need not come through wrathful gods and dogmatic faith. It can be had without all the baggage and real psychological damage that religion causes. Carl Sagan touched on this in some of his writings. The natural universe itself is sufficient to inspire us to feelings of wonder and awe. We certainly don't need to invent some petty gods to be psychologically connected.
Edit to your edit: I don't know enough about Taosim to comment.
Originally posted by rwingett A sense of connection need not come through wrathful gods and dogmatic faith. It can be had without all the baggage and real psychological damage that religion causes. Carl Sagan touched on this in some of his writings. The natural universe itself is sufficient to inspire us to feelings of wonder and awe. We certainly don't need to invent some petty gods to be psychologically connected.
I'm not sure that "feelings of wonder and awe" suffice for contemporary gnosis.
Delusion is a goddess:
http://www.theoi.com/Daimon/Ate.html
The God Delusion
26 Sep '06 01:39
Back to Top