Krimel: <snip>> > [Krimel] > I think that Dawkins is one of the best and most lucid science writers of > the past 30 years. His work in print and on television has done a lot to > educate the public about the beauty and wonder of Darwin's theory. As for > neglecting "proofs of God," here is a website that lists more than 500 such > proofs: > > http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm > > This one appears to be Zen: > http://proofsofgod.com/ > > Maybe Dawkins as an empiricist dismisses such rationalism out of hand. Or > perhaps he really never has heard any proofs of God that were "...elegant > and marvels of sustained creative energy".
mel: Dawkins science writing IS good. (Although he leans a bit too far 'nature' in the 'nature/nurture' spectrum.) [Krimel] > > Me either. > > Got one to share? mel: If I have time I will dig through my decades old school notes for the basics, but Google will get you there faster. [Krimel] > > I would suggest to you and Dave that if Dawkins produces such an emotional > reaction perhaps it isn't reason and lucidity or the lack there of, that is > the cause. But either of you are welcome to provide some issue of substance > where you find Dawkins' arguments defective. What I read here from both of > you is on a par with Pirsig dismissal Kant as "ugly". mel: Apologies if my e-mail conveyed an emotional reaction, but my real reaction was logical. Shoddy logic is just that. Dawkins, from his photos, seems reasonably dashing, so being ugly is not one of his problems. Shockley's disease, however, is. (Named for the Nobel Laureate who being an expert in one area presumed that the value of his opinion on other areas was equal to his area of expertise.) > > [mel] > Some wag, somewhere, stated that Science and Religion both explain man's > place in the universe... > > [Krimel] > For Science place means the world around us, spatial location. For Religion > it mean place in the sense of one's role. Christianity was in fact a > synthesis of the Greek mode of thinking of place as space and Jewish ethics > that dealt with one's role in society. mel: There is also Persian and Egyptian and other European and Mediterranean groups' social and beliefs that slide into the accompanying traditions. [Krimel] > But beyond this I would suggest to > you that science and religion are both illusions in the sense that they > provide schemas for understanding ones relationship to the world and others > in the world. One can in fact make Gestalt shifts between them; seeing the > world one way and then the other. That kind of shifting of perspective is > not for everyone of course and it can give you a headache but it does help > provide a better handle on the issues that separate the two. > mel: MoQ-ly, you are right both are illusion, but that is a different discussion to the Dawkins logic and the problem of false distinction...in its context. Ah, back to confusing the plunger and the ladle...;-) thanks--mel Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
