seespotrun2008 wrote:

Many people switch off from Dawkins because his elitist ideas suggest they are stupid.

I find this curious because I find Dawkins to be very understandable. He writes so that most people will understand very complex scientific issues. Certainly not all academics do that.

SSR08, you are right regarding 98% of The Selfish Gene. In the main, Dawkins provides a compelling and lucid explanation for genetics. However, his discussion of faith, which I quoted in the thread on Chapter 11 on Memes, suggests that faith is intrinsically blind by definition. Now, this is true of fundamentalism, but there is also an intellectual rational tradition within theology which Dawkins resolutely ignores because it does not fit his argument. Yet this rational theology is also in tune with some broader religious instincts, for example the importance of a sense of the divine as a basis for social cohesion. By refusing to debate against rational theology, which admittedly is a rare thing in this world, Dawkins comes over as condescending towards ordinary culture in which religion plays an important part.

Robert: "It is an error of reasoning to say that because Satan and God do not exist as empirical entities therefore this story is meaningless. If Satan is considered as a metaphor for the forces of disorder, then this parable is meaningful."

For what reason do we need a metaphor for disorder? In an attempt to place meaning in the workings of entropy? We do not need to find meaning in entropy, let alone place it there. Also, because something may be meaningful, does not mean it should be held onto. I just finished moving this weekend, and realized while moving that a half dozen boxes or so of my stuff were nothing but junk. It was junk that I was fond of, it had meaning to it, a story behind it. At the same time it was junk, worth nothing but the memories I've made with it. Memories which I can recall without needing that junk. So I trashed it. I still have the more meaningful items, such as the pine twig that my brother removed from my thumb with a knife while camping. My point is, just because there is a bunch of our history that may be meaningful, does not mean we should hold onto it as truthful or instructive. There are those of us who may cherish an item or two, but such things are only of personal value.

I envision your work to end with something along the lines of an old wise man sitting around a campfire. There is a lot of wisdom in the stories you tell, and the stories are meaningful to you personally. They speak to the heart of what it is to be human. You may teach people a few things. But there are other campfires with other old wise men, and they gain their wisdom from different sources. They have different stories through which to get their meaning across. I don't think the christian bible, or any bible, has such universal wisdoms that they are necessarily in the toolbox of all old wise men. I actually feel bad writing this since I admire you and your insight. I even hope you may turn out to be correct. Yet my ultimate motive is the search for truth, to my own detriment, and it's not allowing me to sign on with your agenda. There are some components that are aligned too much with wishful thinking, and not enough with impersonal cognition.

RT: "In ‘opposing the entirety of Biblical thought’, you are arguing that society should form into cultural blocs, with the good rational scientific liberal bloc going to war with the evil irrational religious conservative bloc, and refusing to look for meaning in religion. With respect, this is a futile and arrogant strategy, assuming that scientific reasoning is sufficient for human life and we can do without spiritual mystery."

You are assuming that by opposing the entirety of biblical thought, such a stance necessarily opposes those principles which most people consider Christian. I work for the YMCA, which is a Christian association. I am a regional director and participate in community events and am very active in many programs. Trustworthiness, Respect, Responsibility, Fairness, Caring and Citizenship are considered the six pillars of our association. I sign on to teaching these principles to children and families wholeheartedly. It's not that I oppse such things because they are considered Christian, that's absurd(futile and arrogant?). I consider such principles virtuous because they strengthen society and spread comfort. There is no need for me to understand any of the stories of the bible to understand in depth these principles, and other principles, and work toward instilling them in others. I find joy in helping children and families become stronger and build memories that will last a lifetime. I do not propose a 'war' of any type. When confronted with religion from friends and family, I respectfully engage in debate, but little more. More than anything, I help people to understand why I'm an atheist. At work, everyone thinks I'm religious just like them, I don't even discuss it. If it would be called a war, I would say it's a war of attrition by redirection of focus. Focus on all the good qualities of life, educate and build strong communities, and ignore religion. The fundamentalists who would like to wipe out science and plunge us back into the middle ages are a different story, as I'm sure you'd agree.

On a side note, I'm baffled as to why you think I would require spiritual mystery. What does that even mean?

RT: "Themes in the Bible such as love, grace and truth are redeeming and redeemable, and should not be ignored because they emerge from a pre-scientific context."

I'm wholeheartedly concerned with love and truth, but I'm not sure what grace is. See above regarding virtues.

Perhaps someone can help me with Dawkins' sense of humor. He made a statement to the effect that alien's visiting the earth would determine our level of civilization based on whether we believed in evolution or not.

Is he serious?

Please, no epistles, just a short answer of a sentence or two.

Star
Perhaps someone can help me with Dawkins' sense of humor. He made a statement to the effect that alien's visiting the earth would determine our level of civilization based on whether we believed in evolution or not.

Is he serious?

Yes he is serious…

Basically Dawkins is saying that any race advanced enough to traverse the great distance to come meet us will likely be the type of creature that has embraced science and the scientific method.

The simple fact that some humans fail to see the truth when the plethora of evidence is right there in front of them will most probably reflect negatively to any such race.

Later

Interbane wrote:Robert: "It is an error of reasoning to say that because Satan and God do not exist as empirical entities therefore this story [Job] is meaningless. If Satan is considered as a metaphor for the forces of disorder, then this parable is meaningful."For what reason do we need a metaphor for disorder? In an attempt to place meaning in the workings of entropy?

In seeking to evolve towards a better world, it seems clear that the goal should be a world that is both more complex and more ordered; that we should use human creativity to build order against the entropic tendency towards disorder. Complex order is the best guarantee of peace and stability. By a more complex world I don’t mean a more stressful or regimented world, but rather one that is sophisticated and interlinked through communication, with complexity a function of natural adaptation. Setting this dichotomy in moral terms, we get the idea that a more complex ordered world is good, while a disordered world is evil.

We do not need to find meaning in entropy, let alone place it there.

We do in fact need to place meaning in entropy, as a prime opponent in the struggle for existence and culture. Entropy continually sucks us towards death and poverty. Only through moral identity and vision can we counter the entropic evil of destruction by building an orderly culture, open to universal ideas.

Also, because something may be meaningful, does not mean it should be held onto. I just finished moving this weekend, and realized while moving that a half dozen boxes or so of my stuff were nothing but junk. It was junk that I was fond of, it had meaning to it, a story behind it. At the same time it was junk, worth nothing but the memories I've made with it. Memories which I can recall without needing that junk. So I trashed it. I still have the more meaningful items, such as the pine twig that my brother removed from my thumb with a knife while camping. My point is, just because there is a bunch of our history that may be meaningful, does not mean we should hold onto it as truthful or instructive. There are those of us who may cherish an item or two, but such things are only of personal value.

Well Interbane, you are obviously an incarnation of the Buddha in your detachment from worldly possessions. Good for you, getting rid of clutter in your life that distracts you from thinking.

I envision your work to end with something along the lines of an old wise man sitting around a campfire. There is a lot of wisdom in the stories you tell, and the stories are meaningful to you personally. They speak to the heart of what it is to be human. You may teach people a few things. But there are other campfires with other old wise men, and they gain their wisdom from different sources. They have different stories through which to get their meaning across. I don't think the christian bible, or any bible, has such universal wisdoms that they are necessarily in the toolbox of all old wise men.

Interbane, it is kind of you to say I speak to the heart of what it is to be human. That is what I am trying to do by seeing the Bible as the centre of human culture, especially the theme of cross and resurrection, but assessing this in a fairly secular moral framework. It is about defining the universal mythic archetypes of moral law through the Christian lens of love of God and neighbour.

I actually feel bad writing this since I admire you and your insight. I even hope you may turn out to be correct. Yet my ultimate motive is the search for truth, to my own detriment, and it's not allowing me to sign on with your agenda. There are some components that are aligned too much with wishful thinking, and not enough with impersonal cognition.

I’m having an interesting discussion at http://forums.truthbeknown.com/viewtopi ... 7569#17569 about how to reconcile the Bible with scientific knowledge, specifically regarding the nature of time. As discussed there, this is a fairly large cosmological question, and there is a lot of underpinning analysis which is quite hard to explain.

RT: "In ‘opposing the entirety of Biblical thought’, you are arguing that society should form into cultural blocs, with the good rational scientific liberal bloc going to war with the evil irrational religious conservative bloc, and refusing to look for meaning in religion. With respect, this is a futile and arrogant strategy, assuming that scientific reasoning is sufficient for human life and we can do without spiritual mystery." You are assuming that by opposing the entirety of biblical thought, such a stance necessarily opposes those principles which most people consider Christian. I work for the YMCA, which is a Christian association. I am a regional director and participate in community events and am very active in many programs. Trustworthiness, Respect, Responsibility, Fairness, Caring and Citizenship are considered the six pillars of our association. I sign on to teaching these principles to children and families wholeheartedly. It's not that I oppose such things because they are considered Christian, that's absurd (futile and arrogant?). I consider such principles virtuous because they strengthen society and spread comfort. There is no need for me to understand any of the stories of the bible to understand in depth these principles, and other principles, and work toward instilling them in others. I find joy in helping children and families become stronger and build memories that will last a lifetime. I do not propose a 'war' of any type. When confronted with religion from friends and family, I respectfully engage in debate, but little more. More than anything, I help people to understand why I'm an atheist. At work, everyone thinks I'm religious just like them, I don't even discuss it. If it would be called a war, I would say it's a war of attrition by redirection of focus. Focus on all the good qualities of life, educate and build strong communities, and ignore religion. The fundamentalists who would like to wipe out science and plunge us back into the middle ages are a different story, as I'm sure you'd agree.

This reminds me of the evolutionary process Dawkins describes whereby a process evolves to a point that it destroys its antecedents, its own original source code. For example he speculates the complex inorganic crystals of the primeval seas somehow produced a replicator, which then proceeded to outcompete and eliminate its non-replicating forebear chemicals. This is similar in principle to the way you want to support Christian ethics while kicking away the ladder of Christianity which provided the social capital that produced those ethics. This conversation shows how words are loaded. I brought in the metaphor of war in response to your comment “The polarized strategy I suggest is the only way. If you think you can make millions across the world pick and choose what to believe of the written text, you're delusional.” You have now shown that you yourself do not agree with your proposal for a polarised strategy, but rather recognise the merit of core Christian ethics and pick and choose how to live them.

On a side note, I'm baffled as to why you think I would require spiritual mystery. What does that even mean?

Natural systems, including people, evolve into greater depth of soul, meaning they develop an intrinsic complexity which deepens with age and acquires a timeless quality. Spiritual mystery is the point at which we touch the eternal.

RT: "Themes in the Bible such as love, grace and truth are redeeming and redeemable, and should not be ignored because they emerge from a pre-scientific context."I'm wholeheartedly concerned with love and truth, but I'm not sure what grace is. See above regarding virtues.

Yes, grace is a big mystery, and lacks empirical clarity. I think of grace as being in touch with our natural source. The idea of salvation by grace can be understood in evolutionary terms, as entities prosper when they fit their niche, so ‘there but by the grace of my niche go I’.

Frank 013

So let me get this straight, An alien race comes to the earth, probably does some recon, sees the pyramids (which demonstrate understanding of mathematics), sees hospitals, art museums and churches, but upon landing, instead of, "Take me to your leader," is going to say, "Do you believe in evolution?"

Conversely, should we encounter an alien race, either here or in space, the gauge we will use to detemine if they are civilized is whether they believe in evolution. Seems like we would prefer they not.

Star
So let me get this straight, An alien race comes to the earth, probably does some recon, sees the pyramids (which demonstrate understanding of mathematics), sees hospitals, art museums and churches, but upon landing, instead of, "Take me to your leader," is going to say, "Do you believe in evolution?"

Get an imagination please!

No one made any claim as to how things would transpire… but as our races got to know each other better that information would surface…

Imagine that you met someone who you thought was a regular guy and then they said something utterly stupid and in all seriousness like “I believe that Gargoyles mated with jelly beans to create humans” would you still consider that person normal? Would you still hold the same level of respect for them?

I will answer for you… No… and you shouldn’t.

Aliens that embrace the scientific method would likely look down on a race of people that did not accept its own scientific findings… just as we look down on people who are willfully ignorant, it is likely that aliens would see us in a similar light.

That is the point of Dawkins statement… it is a simple point, don’t try to make it into more than it is.

Later

“I believe that Gargoyles mated with jelly beans to create humans” would you still consider that person normal?"

Makes as much sense as

Random molecular motion + billion of years = life

Star
Makes as much sense as

Random molecular motion + billion of years = life

I believe that that particular statement is a hypotheses, meaning that it is not believed with any certainty until proven correct or until all other possibilities are proven incorrect.

I also believe (if I am not mistaken) that there have been great strides in that area of science over the last several years.

On the flip side however the Gargoyle/jellybean statement is demonstrateably false… they do not make equal sense… although they might to you, due to your willful lack of acceptance of science and its progress.

Later

I'll tell you what, I'll put some jelly beans and a gargoyle in a jar, and some amino acids, water, and whatever else you want in another jar and I'll bet you the jelly bean/gargoyle jar produces a living organism before the amino acids do.

Moving around on crystals, give me a break.