Creation / Evolution Debate and Spiritual Development

[dor]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

If you define religion as culture, then you are correct. If you don't, then you are not necessarily correct and must explicate exactly why religion is a "large part of ...a human being"..

"if"

In some ways you've been both missing and making my point....When you hate religion, or pre-define what it is rather than explore you're missing out on quite a bit.

In the course of this you delivered 'pre-packaged' arguements (i probably did this too) - fenyman quotes that appealed to your view of why science and why people are 'angry' at it - which had litterally nothing to do with my comparision/analogy....or bringing up physicist-ministers like John Polkinghorn -

In the course of this an other conversations - atheists/religion haters tend to focus on the most extreme fundementalist interpretations of scripture - ignoring, not realizing or forgetting a religion like christianity has a wide range of practices and beliefs.

To some extent this illustrates 'you get what you're looking for' or what you focus on. You think religion is at best useless at worse destructive and you've filtered the world accordingly - just don't tell me that's scientific or even reasonable

i must ...."explicate"? Sorry you've brought up a pet peeve....

Politics and the English Language - Essay by George Orwell - Charles' George Orwell Links
Now that I have made this catalogue of swindles and perversions, let me give another example of the kind of writing that they lead to. This time it must of its nature be an imaginary one. I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort. Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes:
I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
Here it is in modern English:
Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.

PRETENTIOUS DICTION. Words like phenomenon, element, individual (as noun), objective, categorical, effective, virtual, basic, primary, promote, constitute, exhibit, exploit, utilize, eliminate, liquidate, are used to dress up a simple statement and give an air of scientific impartiality to biased judgements. Adjectives like epoch-making, epic, historic, unforgettable, triumphant, age-old, inevitable, inexorable, veritable, are used to dignify the sordid process of international politics, while writing that aims at glorifying war usually takes on an archaic colour, its characteristic words being: realm, throne, chariot, mailed fist, trident, sword, shield, buckler, banner, jackboot, clarion. Foreign words and expressions such as cul de sac, ancien regime, deus ex machina, mutatis mutandis, status quo, gleichschaltung, weltanschauung, are used to give an air of culture and elegance. Except for the useful abbreviations i. e., e. g. and etc., there is no real need for any of the hundreds of foreign phrases now current in the English language. Bad writers, and especially scientific, political, and sociological writers, are nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones

[Angela]

Regarding a large vocabulary: a man who is well-endowed should wield it copiously!

Please don't anyone dumb down their tawk. Already thanks to y'all I've added inexorable, trow, and explicate to my palaver, and I'm beholden to you for it!

(Mods: please don't get upset. This certainly relates to evolution!)

[dor]

Originally Posted by Angela

Regarding a large vocabulary: a man who is well-endowed should wield it copiously!

Please don't anyone dumb down their tawk.

Its not about dumbing it down - read the essay - its probably the best thing you'll ever read about good writing.
It was written by George Orwell in the late 40s and even more relevant today.

From the essay:
Now that I have made this catalogue of swindles and perversions, let me give another example of the kind of writing that they lead to. This time it must of its nature be an imaginary one. I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort. Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes:

I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Here it is in modern English:
Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.

[Megan]

A veritable phenomenon! A thread wherein we utilize language like explicate instead of the jackboot and the mailed fist upon other individuals!

A thread wherein we avoid the cul de sac of the ancien regime, namely resorting to fisticuffs and the sword!

A thread wherein we do not require the deux ex machina of the mods swooping down upon us and closing the thread! Well, at least so far....

A thread wherein we Unweave the Rainbow, only to re-weave it again!

A thread where the Quest for Unmitigated Truth is our shield, our buckler, our...our...weltanschauung!

O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
She chortled in her joy.

[Angela]

Commensurate!! Innate!! More GREAT words! Thanks, Dor!
Keep 'em coming!

Love,
The Frumious Bandersnatch
(please don't shun me)

[dor]

well i am glad you two are having a good laugh - and Orwell's essay is funny in places, but he was also making a serious point. Read it through. You won't look at writing the same, or write the same, if you apply it.

[Megan]

But I must point out, dor, that picking at people's language is another kind of, you should pardon the expression, ad hominem argument, i.e., logical fallacy.

What does explicate have to do with the price of memes, er, I mean beans?

Other than to discredit the writer, that is.

Now I ask you, is that a good Christian witness, when you get right down to it? Is that how you want people to see Christians, as people who take potshots at people over trivialities?

Since this thread is about "spiritual growth," and all.

Is Christianity about humiliating the opposition into submission?

Please explicate your aim here.

Edit: On second thought, please just think about it. Thanks.

[Megan]

I haven't read Dawkins' book--have any of you?

Unweaving the Rainbow is as lucid, beguiling and serious as Dawkins's readers now expect.

Some of them may be surprised by his literary range, but then his starting point is to take on a poet and Dawkins, apart from having a lifelong affection for poetry, has always got to know his enemy.

John Keats, whose lines Dawkins quotes with open affection, is the hinge which opens the door of this book. It is reported by the painter and critic, Benjamin Haydon that Keats, at a dinner, with Wordsworth toasted 'confusion to the memory of Newton'.

When Wordsworth asked for an explanation before he drank the toast, Keats replied 'because he destroyed the poetry of the rainbow by reducing it to a prism'.

There is poetry in science. It's just that most poets are deaf to its rhythm | By genre | Guardian Unlimited Books

[dor]

Originally Posted by Megan

But I must point out, dor, that picking at people's language is another kind of, you should pardon the expression, ad hominem argument, i.e., logical fallacy..

I specifically said it was a pet peeve....."i must ...."explicate"? Sorry you've brought up a pet peeve..." Which I think implied it was a side note.

But I also felt it was instructive and informative. If someone (like i often do) had so many typos in their posts that it made them hard to read, would you suggest they use a spell-checker?

Seriously, after looking at those two passages in Orwell's essay - do we all chuckle out ourselves a little and see a little of ourselves (myself) included? And as Orwell's essay points out - clear writing, like good drawing skills (well that's my note) is a sign of clear thinking.

Michael Michael, after reading the parts i posted from Orwell's essay, I can see how you might read it as a personal attack, please don't take it that way....as i said, my pet peeve, and nothing personal meant, just a friendly suggestion.

"Please explicate your aim here.

Edit: On second thought, please just think about it. Thanks."
As I said it was a pet peeve - but if people thought about it and perhaps dropped some of the 'pretentious diction" we could communicate better and in doing so, come to a better understanding of one another...
Once, twice, a few times, I don't mind, paragraph after paragraph....well it just commensurates bio-neurological agitation.

[Angela]

Megan, I have not read Unweaving the Rainbow, but as soon as I saw the subtitle, "Science, Delusion, and the Appetite for Wonder" I decided to put it next on my list. He's just so much fun to read anyway -- thanks for pointing this one out.

Looks like it's right on topic for what we've been discussing here lately.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by dor

But I also felt it was instructive and informative. If someone (like i often do) had so many typos in their posts that it made them hard to read, would you suggest they use a spell-checker?

No, I wouldn't do that. It would be rude.

Originally Posted by dor

well it just commensurates bio-neurological agitation.

Bio-neurological agitation builds brain synapses!! That's a good thing.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Megan

I haven't read Dawkins' book--have any of you?

John Keats, whose lines Dawkins quotes with open affection, is the hinge which opens the door of this book. It is reported by the painter and critic, Benjamin Haydon that Keats, at a dinner, with Wordsworth toasted 'confusion to the memory of Newton'.

When Wordsworth asked for an explanation before he drank the toast, Keats replied 'because he destroyed the poetry of the rainbow by reducing it to a prism'.

What about the metaphysical poets? They are referring to one specific group of poets (damn good ones) There is Donne (? or dryden?) 's use of a compass (not a magnetic one, but a measuring one) as an analogy of two lovers that never part even though apart, as posted earlier classically trained art students study anatomy almost as thoroughly as a medical student...and so on.
But again, Dawkins I think, is trying set up a false, polarized argument and also making science the God of all things. As I said he's preaching his own 'religion'

That said there might be some truth in Wordworth's words if we only looked at a rainbow as reduced to a prism.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Angela

No, I wouldn't do that. It would be rude.

but you don't hestitate to point out logical falicies, or inaccurate statements....how is that not 'rude' then?
And as the essay by Orwell points out, pretentious diction is a form of logical fallacy:

PRETENTIOUS DICTION. Words like phenomenon, element, individual (as noun), objective, categorical, effective, virtual, basic, primary, promote, constitute, exhibit, exploit, utilize, eliminate, liquidate, are used to dress up a simple statement and give an air of scientific impartiality to biased judgements. Adjectives like epoch-making, epic, historic, unforgettable, triumphant, age-old, inevitable, inexorable, veritable, are used to dignify the sordid process of international politics, while writing that aims at glorifying war usually takes on an archaic colour, its characteristic words being: realm, throne, chariot, mailed fist, trident, sword, shield, buckler, banner, jackboot, clarion. Foreign words and expressions such as cul de sac, ancien regime, deus ex machina, mutatis mutandis, status quo, gleichschaltung, weltanschauung, are used to give an air of culture and elegance. Except for the useful abbreviations i. e., e. g. and etc., there is no real need for any of the hundreds of foreign phrases now current in the English language. Bad writers, and especially scientific, political, and sociological writers, are nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones

[Angela]

Originally Posted by dor

but you don't hestitate to point out logical falicies, or inaccurate statements....how is that not 'rude' then?

Spelling and grammatical errors, though they grate on me, don't interfere with a person's explanation or argument; for me to redline them would be nitpicky and offensively unnecessary. Same goes with a person's use of words -- if they're mundane, no problem, and if they're more challenging, well, then I'm treated to the delight of learning a new word and presto! my brain evolves.

Speaking of biased judgements: You get all up-in-arms about others' prejudices, but I'd like to point out you've done exactly that about "Unweaving the Rainbow" with your statement: "But again, Dawkins I think, is trying set up a false, polarized argument and also making science the God of all things. As I said he's preaching his own 'religion'".

It sounds to me like Dawkins is harmonizing science and poetry, not polarizing them:

In Dawkins's world (and, he hopes, in ours), science is poetry; he ends his journey by referring to his title's author and subject, maintaining that "A Keats and a Newton, listening to each other, might hear the galaxies sing."

I'll check back with you on this after I read the book.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Angela

Speaking of biased judgements: You get all up-in-arms about others' prejudices, but I'd like to point out you've done exactly that about "Unweaving the Rainbow" with your statement: "But again, Dawkins I think, is trying set up a false, polarized argument and also making science the God of all things. As I said he's preaching his own 'religion'".

It sounds to me like Dawkins is harmonizing science and poetry, not polarizing them:

In Dawkins's world (and, he hopes, in ours), science is poetry; he ends his journey by referring to his title's author and subject, maintaining that "A Keats and a Newton, listening to each other, might hear the galaxies sing."

radicals seek to destroy society and rebuild it in their image. Again, based on the quote he's setting up a false argument. As i have said he willfully distorts history - and grossly - to achieve an agenda. He's doing the same thing here. Dawkins is pretending such harmonies never existed, then offering a Dawkins solution. ...including, according to the review , Dawkins explanations for spirtuality of Blake and Yeats....which "dor" thinks, knowing these two poets that they might, just might, disagree with how Dawkins portrays them.

Anyone familiar with the Bolsheviks, Republican France, Political Correctness, the so called counter culture of the 1960s finds this a tired gambit.

Originally Posted by Angela

I'll check back with you on this after I read the book.

That will be when the non-existent subterranean entity is inundated with h20 crystallizing temperatures. ...

In other words, based on the review , I won't ......I have a stack of far more interesting and important books to read...and there's literally millions more that i don't even know about yet. As I have said before from what i have read from him (mostly articles and lengthy quotes) and about him he is just as irrational and self-deceiving as the fundamentalists he claims to abhor. And as the orwell essay alludes to, he's hiding bias judgment behind scientific authority.

and the words aren't 'challenging' by the way, just pretentious - its like watching the bad form of poorly trained ballerina - you aren't challenged, you just wince.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by dor

Again, based on the quote he's setting up a false argument. As i have said he willfully distorts history - and grossly - to achieve an agenda. He's doing the same thing here. Dawkins is pretending such harmonies never existed, then offering a Dawkins solution. ...including, according to the review , Dawkins explanations for spirtuality of Blake and Yeats....which "dor" thinks, knowing these two poets that they might, just might, disagree with how Dawkins portrays them...from what i have read from him (mostly articles and lengthy quotes) and about him he is just as irrational and self-deceiving as the fundamentalists he claims to abhor.

Dor, what are you talking about?! Megan never quoted Dawkins, and the reviewer that she quoted never quoted Dawkins! The only original source material here is what I quoted, "A Keats and a Newton, listening to each other, might hear the galaxies sing." How in the world could that be construed as a false argument to advance an agenda?

Originally Posted by dor

and the words aren't 'challenging' by the way, just pretentious - its like watching the bad form of poorly trained ballerina - you aren't challenged, you just wince.

I find new words challenging, not wince-inducing. In my post, I was careful to speak for myself. You're welcome to nurture your pet peeve.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Angela

Dor, what are you talking about?! Megan never quoted Dawkins, and the reviewer that she quoted never quoted Dawkins! The only original source material here is what I quoted, "A Keats and a Newton, listening to each other, might hear the galaxies sing." How in the world could that be construed as a false argument to advance an agenda?

I referred to dawkins quoting keats/wordsworth and setting up a false conflict between art and science, as he has set up a false conflict between science and religion...this may make you sick to your intes- gut but there strong evidence the scientific method evolved out of christian thought - and at the very least out of christian educational systems - the greeks did not experiement -

Originally Posted by Angela

I find new words challenging, not wince-inducing. In my post, I was careful to speak for myself. You're welcome to nurture your pet peeve.

Didn't say they were new, just mis-used.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by dor

I referred to dawkins quoting keats/wordsworth and setting up a false conflict between art and science, as he has set up a false conflict between science and religion...

You are referring to a quote that is nowhere in evidence, and accusing Dawkins of setting up a false conflict that you have invented out of your own prejudice in order to advance your agenda of discrediting him. Kettle, meet the pot - you're black!

[dor]

Originally Posted by Angela

You are referring to a quote that is nowhere in evidence, and accusing Dawkins of setting up a false conflict that you have invented out of your own prejudice in order to advance your agenda of discrediting him. Kettle, meet the pot - you're black!

John Keats, whose lines Dawkins quotes with open affection, is the hinge which opens the door of this book. It is reported by the painter and critic, Benjamin Haydon that Keats, at a dinner, with Wordsworth toasted 'confusion to the memory of Newton'. When Wordsworth asked for an explanation before he drank the toast, Keats replied 'because he destroyed the poetry of the rainbow by reducing it to a prism'.

There is poetry in science. It's just that most poets are deaf to its rhythm | By genre | Guardian Unlimited Books

I said:

I referred to dawkins quoting keats/wordsworth and setting up a false conflict between art and science,

What part of this do you not understand?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by dor

John Keats, whose lines Dawkins quotes with open affection, is the hinge which opens the door of this book. It is reported by the painter and critic, Benjamin Haydon that Keats, at a dinner, with Wordsworth toasted 'confusion to the memory of Newton'. When Wordsworth asked for an explanation before he drank the toast, Keats replied 'because he destroyed the poetry of the rainbow by reducing it to a prism'.

There is poetry in science. It's just that most poets are deaf to its rhythm | By genre | Guardian Unlimited Books

I said:

I referred to dawkins quoting keats/wordsworth and setting up a false conflict between art and science,

What part of this do you not understand?

I do not understand why you keep saying that Dawkins quotes keats/wordsworth and sets up a false conflict between art and science. That part.

The above quote is from a reviewer who incidentally states that Dawkins quotes Keats affectionately in his book. He does not refer at all to Dawkins quoting Wordsworth. Dawkins does not quote anybody at all in this reference. The reviewer recounts an anecdote from painter and critic Benjamin Haydon. If Mr. Haydon is correct in his account, the it's KEATS who has set up a conflict. If Mr. Dawkins has included this third-hand anecdote in his book, which we don't know, because neither of us has read it, we can't know the context he's using, or what he thinks of what Keats has said, until we READ THE BOOK. Which you've said you will never do. Therefore, you are declaring that you will remain forever ignorant about the very subject you denounce so indignantly. Your are propounding a deceitful prejudice.

sorry about the big words.

[dor]

Originally Posted by dor

there strong evidence the scientific method evolved out of christian thought - and at the very least out of christian educational systems - the greeks did not experiement -
.

I wanted to quote myself here, to bring this thread slightly back on topic an emphasize a point - for political, idealogical and personal reasons under the guise of scientific people, numerous groups and people have advanced other adgendas.

There was a time period i hated christinaity and organized religion - directly do the people like carl sagan - i was fascinated (and still am somewhat) by Cosmos and abhorred the 'ignorant christians' sacking the library of alexandria and setting back civilization eons ...

Then I found out Sagan was a liar.
The library was not sacked by christians.
He deliberately left out the fact that newton and kepler were deeply religious and sought God' order - and it was the beleive that there was a rational god - and the assumption of an ordered universe led to finding it.
the big question why?

As with art and science there have been and continue to be people that deliberately try to polarize. In the case of Dawkins I believe he is 'preaching' his own 'religion' of reason to replace religion - religion cannot be replaced reason or science anymore than religion can replace science - or art replace science or science replace are...sometimes there is art in science, sometimes science in art..

[dor]

Originally Posted by Angela

I do not understand why you keep saying that Dawkins quotes keats/wordsworth and sets up a false conflict between art and science. That part.

The above quote is from a reviewer who incidentally states that Dawkins quotes Keats affectionately in his book. He does not refer at all to Dawkins quoting Wordsworth. Dawkins does not quote anybody at all in this reference. The reviewer recounts an anecdote from painter and critic Benjamin Haydon. If Mr. Haydon is correct in his account, the it's KEATS who has set up a conflict. If Mr. Dawkins has included this third-hand anecdote in his book, which we don't know, because neither of us has read it, we can't know the context he's using, or what he thinks of what Keats has said, until we READ THE BOOK. Which you've said you will never do. Therefore, you are declaring that you will remain forever ignorant about the very subject you denounce so indignantly. Your are propounding a deceitful prejudice.

sorry about the big words.

Umm then how can you be so sure i am wrong. The title of the book is:
"Unweaving The Rainbow by Richard Dawkins,"
after the reviewer uses those examples and quotes he writes:
Three years later, in 'Lamia', Keats wrote: 'Do not all charms fly/ At the mere touch of cold philosophy?/ There was an awful Rainbow once in heaven.'

Part of Dawkins's purpose here
Implying that Dawkins uses them in the book.

As I mentioned, there are poets that used scientific tools to describe love (donne, i think) I referred to the anatomical training classically trained artists receive...to illustrate - Dawkins is trying ...oh forget, just re-read what i said if you care to, I am done going around in circles like this.

[Angela]

That was very slippery of you, Dor. You attack Dawkins with sketchy, misleading pronouncements; then when called on it you dodge and weave about Sagan, unnamed "people that deliberately try to polarize," other complaints about Dawkins, more quotes from Keats and a reviewer (not Dawkins) a smug attempt to "bring this thread slightly back on topic," and finally, "I am done going around in circles."

You are an agenda advancer, Dor.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Angela

That was very slippery of you, Dor. You attack Dawkins with sketchy, misleading pronouncements;

so you are disagreeing with my assessment that
a. the title of the book is based on keat's quote or perhaps more accurately 'incident'.
b. when bringing up the quotes and incident the reviewer is discussing the content of the book
yes or no to both please.. if not what is he talking about? another book? his personal thoughts?

Originally Posted by Angela

then when called on it you dodge and weave about Sagan,

No I specifically was trying to illustrate that science and religion and art and science were not always in conflict and i brought up a specific example of a deliberate attempt to polarize...by ignoring other things and outright lying about others.
'science' is filled with such people - stephen jay gould and franz boas,
- both of whom had marxists beliefs, and dilberately lied or distorted data.

Originally Posted by Angela

unnamed "people that deliberately try to polarize," other complaints about Dawkins, and a smug attempt to "bring this thread slightly back on topic."

You're simply ignoring part of what i said, and twisting the other.
It was smug? That's not what i felt when i wrote it...but i guess it says more about you than me, doesn't it?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by dor

yes or no to both please

Yes to both. Again advancing your agenda, neither of your questions supports your attack on Dawkins.

Originally Posted by dor

No I specifically was trying to illustrate that science and religion and art and science were not always in conflict and i brought up a specific example of a deliberate attempt to polarize...by ignoring other things and outright lying about others.
'science' is filled with such people - stephen jay gould and franz boas,
- both of whom had marxists beliefs, and dilberately lied or distorted data.

None of which supports your attack on Dawkins.

Originally Posted by dor

It was smug? That's not what i felt when i wrote it...but i guess it says more about you than me, doesn't it?

It sounded smug to me. I apologize if you were not being smug, or were unaware that you were.

[Megan]

Snicker-snack! The fun's over!

From Publishers Weekly

Keats complained that Newton's experiments with prisms had destroyed all the poetry of the rainbow.

Not so, says Oxford biologist Dawkins (The Selfish Gene) who, in an eloquent if prickly defense of the scientific enterprise, calls on the "two cultures" of science and poetry to learn from each other.

Amazon.com: Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder: Books: Richard Dawkins

I'm just beamish enough to think our two cultures can learn from each other rightcher on this veritable phenomenon of a thread!

[dor]

Originally Posted by Megan

Snicker-snack! The fun's over!
I'm just beamish enough to think our two cultures can learn from each other rightcher on this veritable phenomenon of a thread!
Not so, says Oxford biologist Dawkins (The Selfish Gene) who, in an eloquent if prickly defense of the scientific enterprise, calls on the "two cultures" of science and poetry to learn from each other.

Of course this is the purpose of the book. But there are just as many examples of harmony of art science and religion...of course dawkins wants religion eliminated - or re-interpreted through his prism....Yeats included.

Angela, my 'attack' on Dawkins as you call it, goes back to what i said before about radicals -they first have to destroy the old by creating or encouraging conflict, then rebuild and re-interpret all aspect of culture through idealogy - if you want to look at the creepy results, go through any 'pc' child's book, or one from the soviet era...... and on a smaller scale that's what I feel dawkins is doing.
I think it is clear you disagree, or perhaps not, I think you said you liked him because he did just that - like the 'in your face gay activists' or something like that? Well when you're one of the people who's face those people are in, it gives you a different perspective....

[Michael Chui]

Sheesh. I posted something before I went to bed, turned around, and I see an entire page of posts when I come back. I'm impressed.

Originally Posted by dor

In some ways you've been both missing and making my point....When you hate religion, or pre-define what it is rather than explore you're missing out on quite a bit.

....

atheists/religion haters tend to focus on the most extreme fundementalist interpretations of scripture - ignoring, not realizing or forgetting a religion like christianity has a wide range of practices and beliefs.

My goal, over the past few years, has been a study of society in general in search of an acceptable ideal and a path to get to it. I haven't succeeded in finding either, but what I am sure of is that religion isn't necessary. This is based on my definition of religion. You will note that I do not use the word "spirit" or any morpheme related to it. This is because I have yet to see a reasonable definition for any such term.

There has been no instance, to my knowledge, where a practice or belief of a religion is necessary or has not been tested out in secular law. This does not stop me from continuing to explore various belief systems, which I still do, including those which have no modern or reputable believers (such as the Greek) as well as those invented as escapist fantasies.

Originally Posted by dor

i must ...."explicate"? Sorry you've brought up a pet peeve....

This explains why you didn't answer the the request, but rather merely dismissed it? Alright, let me try again in tiny words.

You must make explicit exactly why religion is a "large part of ...a human being".

No, scratch that. Word too big.

You must make clear exactly why religion is a "large part of ...a human being".

Wait, metaphors are difficult to understand.

You must make obvious for my understanding exactly why religion is a "large part of ...a human being".

Shoot. I got another metaphor with some implicit references.

You must restate your previous declaration, that religion is a "large part of ...a human being", obvious for my understanding.

Or can't you? I wasn't thinking when I said "explicate". I didn't need to. I didn't spend an hour poring through the thesaurus and wondering, "Does this sound snobbish enough?" It's a simple enough term; the meaning of "pet peeve" is far less clear. What is it, a pet that makes you peevish? Are you peevish? When's the last time you used the word "peevish"?

Explicate. To make explicit. It's clear, from your posts, that you'd rather use two words when you can use one, but don't impose that religion on me. I don't believe in it.

And yes, I am making an ad hominem. But you forgot to actually say anything in response.

Let me make my stance clear, before you respond:

I am anti-religion, because I feel that religion is replaceable and thus unnecessary. I am not an atheist, because such a term requires a definition of the term "deity" that I do not accept, and then presumes certainty where there is none. I am especially anti-Christianity, because the idea of a bearded man in a red suit showering gifts down to his children writing prayers and leaving them next to the chimney is just laughable. And as someone who does not believe that religion is necessary, I am also free to pick and choose what portions of various religions I am inclined to imitate, and which I wish to reject: this is because I believe religion does not have to be taken as a whole, and that components are not functions of their sum: thus, ignoring religion, I may agree with the Golden Rule and disagree with the Book of Revelations. I may appreciate the beauty of the Psalms, the simplicity of the Proverbs, and the eros of the Song of Solomon without soliciting their references to God. I may give my regards to the courage of Abraham yet disdain the blindness of Isaac. I may walk the Middle Way without seeking nirvana and respect my ancestors without lighting incense to invoke them. I may believe that the royal son resurrects the imperial father through ritualized revolution without expecting that he rules the dead and makes the plants grow. I may anticipate futures and ponder histories without expecting human beings be taller in those times. And I may chart the moons and stars in the sky without predicting apocalypse during a dearth of sacrificial virgins. All this I may do, because I do not need religion.

Religion is simply another book.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

S
Explicate. To make explicit. It's clear, from your posts, that you'd rather use two words when you can use one, but don't impose that religion on me. I don't believe in it..

"explicate exactly' as opposed to 'explicating inexactly'? Ok Spock, you write how you want, as I said, I didn't mean it as an ad homimen (please see a few posts down) but as some friendly advice. When I see prose like that I see what Orwell was talking about. It's like profspeak. Do you agree with the points of Orwell's essay?

By the way, I don't refine religion as culture.

"Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words?"
-- Ernest Hemingway (about William Faulkner)

[Angela]

Originally Posted by dor

Angela, my 'attack' on Dawkins as you call it, goes back to what i said before about radicals -they first have to destroy the old by creating or encouraging conflict, then rebuild and re-interpret all aspect of culture through idealogy - if you want to look at the creepy results, go through any 'pc' child's book, or one from the soviet era...... and on a smaller scale that's what I feel dawkins is doing.
I think it is clear you disagree, or perhaps not, I think you said you liked him because he did just that - like the 'in your face gay activists' or something like that? Well when you're one of the people who's face those people are in, it gives you a different perspective....

Michael, I missed you!! Nice post, but too many long words*.

Dor, you may be right about radicals destroying and rebuilding culture. Don't forget, this is a phenomenon (d'oh!) that can be constructive, as well as creepy. In and of itself it's not necessarily something that needs to be obliterated (double d'oh!)

Of course your 'face' has a different perspective, and I don't begrude you that. I simply can't stand by idly and allow slanderous remarks about My Man Dawkins to propagate unchallenged (don't worry, Danger Man likes him, too.) If you disagree with him or find him dangerous, I completely support your saying so. But if you make statements and pronounce judgements on him based on third-hand or absent info, then I must body-block you. Figuratively speaking, of course.

*that was a joke