Creation / Evolution Debate and Spiritual Development

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by dor

"explicate exactly' as opposed to 'explicating inexactly'?

First step: reading comprehension.
Second step: answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question.

Originally Posted by dor

Do you agree with the points of Orwell's essay?

No. Should I?

Originally Posted by dor

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

Then you are wrong, in my opinion, unless you back yourself up.

Originally Posted by Ernest Hemingway

Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words?

Orwell: Ernest, Faulkner may be poor, but the metaphor you use is dead. And emotions can't be measured, such meaningless words!

Want to try again?

[dor]

Originally Posted by Angela

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.

Looking back through history, I don't see where it has been- I am not talking about new ideas or discoveries - but imposing ideologies...and yes you can bring up 'Christianizing' pagan cultures or Europe or the 'Hellenization' of the ancient world....but i prefer organic growth - lets just say I 'explicitly and exactly' understand why Edmund Burke supported the American revolution (even when he was an MP) and was horrified by the French Revolution.
Just look how 'pc' has stifled scientific research - particularly in genetics (and .... I think even Dawkins has brought this up) ....
Anyone who's been on an American university in the past decade knows the chilling atmosphere created by the 'pc police' .
(I am not saying Dawkins is part of this)

[dor]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

First step: reading comprehension.

First step: Ingwish.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

"No. Should I?"

That's obvious.

[takkaria]

Michael: That was poetry ("I may give my regards to the courage of Abraham yet disdain the blindness of Isaac." and the surrounding text). Thanks.

Well, I feel some responsibility comment seeing as I helped spark this off. Just a meta-comment for now:

I think there is a certain idea running against Dawkins (and many other people) that what he (and others) write is wilfully deceptive, or that authors do not have the best of intentions when saying what they say.

An example of this is in what dor has been saying: things like "fundamentalists he claims to abhor" -- no, damnit, he does actually dislike them. He's not in some sort of alliance with them, which is what you imply. In your very language, you are saying "I dislike Dawkins, you should too". You also accuse him of "hiding bias behind scientific authority" -- but was he not an award-winning scientist, this claim wouldn't stand. The point there is that he is a respected scientist putting out his views, and this means that they are interpreted to have authority. I cannot see anything he could do about such interpretation.

On the subject of words: debates bring with them their own set of rules and words, and especially in philosophy this is the case. Again, unless there's actually a good reason to believe that someone's being complex just for the hell of it, I don't see why we can't assume that people act in the best of faith.

[Erock]

Originally Posted by bylto

Think I got it fixed Erock, click the link now.

Build Your Life To Order ™ » Blog Archive » The Creation vs Evolution Debate - The Solution (Well, To My Satisfaction)

Thanks a ton. Sounds like a good article!

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by dor

That's obvious.

Obvious that Orwell is wrong. Your remarkable clarity strikes once again.

But wait! "obvious" is derived from Latin. Are you sure you want to use that word?

You still haven't 1) recognized that the two words were "make explicit", not "explicate exactly", nor have you 2) answered the question. Last chance, I suppose, to defend your claim that religion is a large part of a human being.

[Megan]

The Language Police chill the atmosphere too, in a creepy sort of Orwellian way, dor.

As the Holy Scriptures say, "Takes one to know one."

Edit: That includes me, it goes without saying!

[dor]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Orwell: Ernest, Faulkner may be poor, but the metaphor you use is dead. And emotions can't be measured, such meaningless words!

Want to try again?

Good. You've applied to Hemingway, now, please apply it to your own clumsy writing . Unless you feel that your writing doesn't need it. After all, you feel qualified to speak for Orwell critiquing Hemingway; I 'm impressed.

Megan:
Clear writing is a sign of clear thinking. Let me use the example of drawing. The muscles used make a master drawing and mere scribble are the same. There's little difference between the use of them. Its through seeing and ultimately thinking clearly that creates a master drawing. The same goes for writing.

The evidence is not hard to find:

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Scenario: someone is holding a gun to your head. Is it ethical to kill them? Every instance of jurisprudence I know of, excepting pacifist religions like Jainism, say yes.

Michael jumps to the conclusion that your thoughts of what someone is thinking (in the case of harris, the inaccurate description of suicide 'terrorists') equate with someone holding a gun to your head. Sloppy, shallow thinking makes one eager to jump to pretty dangerous conclusions.

He uses the opportunity to share that he knows what Jainism is, intentionally skipping the more familiar amish or quakers....(i'm bored michael, I have actually been to part of india, painted their temples, met their priests, seen the women you'd mistake for muslim and know why they dress like that. Try something more obscure next time. )

back to 'michael:
"You still haven't 1) recognized that the two words were "make explicit", not "explicate exactly", nor have you 2) answered the question. Last chance, I suppose, to defend your claim that religion is a large part of a human being."
1. wrong michael, i was pointing out redundancy and clumsiness of your writing. On a message board one makes mistakes but your entire writing style is mistake - its the mark of someone trying convince himself and others he has something important say, rather than actually saying something important.

If "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".." is the best you can do, or if you even think its good writing, then I don't consider you fluent in English, even if that's your native language. Honestly, you can't think of an easier way to say "not necessarily correct and must explicate exactly "? You have a long way to go kid. dust of that copy of strunk &white.

"Last chance, I suppose, to defend your claim that religion is a large part of a human being."
ohhhhhh boy I am so scared is this really my LAST chance michael? I can't do it two posts from now? If you're going to bore people with cumbersome posts like ""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" ...do yourself (and begrudgingly, me) a favor...sorry favour... and at least say 'please': "If you define religion as culture, then you are correct. If you don't, then you are not necessarily correct, please explicate exactly why religion is a "large part of ...a human being"
In any event, its as tiresome as answering your silly "point" that I was 'deceived by normalcy' when I suggested that it's easier to learn about a religion that comes from your culture.
Is religion a large part of being a human being? Well, its a large part of humanity - nearly all of the world's art, literature and architecture for most human history was religious based...but i guess no one ever really found that it was important. you're right ..you win!

[Megan]

I agree, but who made you the language police, dor?

I appeal to you to step back a bit. You're arguing for God and religion with words, but with your attitude you're reinforcing people's worst conceptions of God.

Who would want anything to do with this God whose picture you're painting?

After you've dismantled Michael to your satisfaction, do you suppose he's going to have a Damascus experience? Really, what is your aim here?

I really suppose that Michael is a genius; it ill suits you to paint him as a nincompoop. It doesn't wash.

I think you're very, very intelligent, interesting and well read also.

We're all human beings. People who are "radical" are that way for very cogent and interesting reasons, and I'm sure Richard Dawkins is no different. Does God "look down" and say, "There's a radical," "There's a sloppy thinker?"

I rather imagine s/he sees children, beloved children.



I like to look at Richard Dawkins' face--there's so much there, so much intelligence, so much complexity, so much fire. What an interesting person!

When we label people, we lose interest in them as individuals. That's a great loss to all of us.

I once heard Mary Evelyn Tucker speak. She's a professor of religion at Bucknell University. I'll never forget what she talked about: how we need to "bring our religious conversation forward."

I challenge you to consider ways we can bring our religious conversation forward, while "speaking evil of no man."

I know that what you value most seems very threatened, but nothing real can be threatened, I believe. God will do just fine without our 'protection.' We're really here to learn to care for one another and this beautiful world.

Just my 2 cents.

Best regards,

Megan

[Megan]

Advocates of The Great Story see science not only as a source of physical truths that empower technology and the material affluence and complexity of modern life. They see its 14 billion year epic of evolution – with its eons of increasing complexity, aliveness, consciousness and intelligence – as a story filled with meaning and moral texture.

The Great Story - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do love Thomas Berry. My friend made a film about him:

Thomas Berry: The Great Story



"This is a powerful film about one of the most important thinkers of our time."
--Matthew Fox

Thomas Berry: The Great Story (Home Video Version) | Bullfrog Films

The universe is a community of subjects, not a collection of objects.
--Thomas Berry
The Mystique of the Earth - Interview with Thomas Berry, 2003

[dor]

Originally Posted by Megan

Who would want anything to do with this God whose picture you're painting?

After you've dismantled Michael to your satisfaction, do you suppose he's going to have a Damascus experience?

I could not paint God with my second rate hand. I could not even begin. I wouldn't even being to say I represented someone christian. In micahel, Perhaps I see a little of myself when I was younger...i had rhetoric professor (that's what we called...umm writing ....classes...where i went to college) with a bit more patience then i have that put up with a lot of my nonsense and even if I don't always write well, made me realize when I wasn't ...anyway, i did say we can all see a bit of ourselves in that essay...

" I agree, but who made you the language police, dor? "
no one, and I am not. Just giving my opinion. Too many "you must"s and "its obvious' type replies & responses and posts from Michael.
yes, he is bright. Yes he has good rote memory. yes, despite his clumsy writing, he's passionate
yes. i make plenty of mistakes....i got sam or richard harris's name wrong as Angela was so kind to tell us. My posts are filled with spelling and grammatical errors but .......there are offenses given and offenses not given but taken.
(since i don't want to accused of plagiarism, izak walton
The The Compleat Angler (and yes compleat is spelt right):

"And I wish the reader also to take notice that in writing of it I have made myself a recreation of a recreation; and that it might prove so to him, and not read dull and tediously, I have in several places mixed, not any scurrility, but some innocent, harmless mirth; of which, if thou be a severe, sour-complexioned man, then I here disallow thee to be a competent judge; for divines say there are offenses given and offenses not given but taken.
Izaak Walton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by dor

Good. You've applied to Hemingway, now, please apply it to your own clumsy writing .

Haven't I already said that I think Orwell is wrong? I think your writing is plenty clumsy itself; should I start going through it with a red pen?

Originally Posted by dor

Michael jumps to the conclusion that your thoughts of what someone is thinking (in the case of harris, the inaccurate description of suicide 'terrorists') equate with someone holding a gun to your head.

You pointed this out, and I accepted this error. Was the instant replay necessary?

Originally Posted by dor

He uses the opportunity to share that he knows what Jainism is, intentionally skipping the more familiar amish or quakers....

I'm more familiar with Jainism than I am with the Amish or the Quakers. But thank you for asking. Your insight to my thought processes, my history, and knowledge is astonishing. Hey, what am I thinking now? Oh, yes. I'm having trouble deciding what to have for dinner. That's impressive.

Originally Posted by dor

wrong michael, i was pointing out redundancy and clumsiness of your writing.

Sorry, it wasn't clear to me until you explained yourself. But I guess that's an indication of unclear thinking on your part?

What was 2? Or is that 1 just for show?

Originally Posted by dor

ohhhhhh boy I am so scared is really my LAST chance michael?

Last chance, because I won't ask again. Poor phrasing, yes, but we already know what a terrible writer and speaker I am. But I think I listen (or at least read) better than you do.

Originally Posted by dor

In any event, its as tiresome as answering your silly "point" that I was 'deceived by normalcy' when I suggested that it's easier to learn about a religion that comes from your culture.

I did not say you were deceived by normalcy. You were using the convention of "you" as a general address. Specifically, you (read: dor) said, "when you have the cultural context, it is easier to stay undeceived by the 'exoticism'". Were you referring to me, specifically? I didn't think so, though I may have been wrong. Using the same style, I responded that if you are undeceived by exoticism, you are then open to being deceived by normalcy.

Disagree with me if you will, but disagree with what I say.

Originally Posted by dor

Is religion a large part of being a human being? Well, its a large part of humanity - nearly all of the world's art, literature and architecture for most human history was religious based...but i guess no one ever really found that it was important. you're right ..you win!

I had to think about how to respond to this. Because I could be nice, say thank you, and back off. But since you've enjoyed condescending to me about my condescending to you for having condescended to me, I'll play.

dor said, about religion, "my main, big point is you're denying a large part of your make up as human being"

I said, to paraphrase myself, "Explicate that."

And you, dor, made the above response (after having twisted yourself into a knot over that one word).

1. There is a difference between the experience of being human and the nature of being human. The difference is not always relevant (I would assume you would say it is not), but I would at least ask: which are you talking about?
2. Humanity is not a human being. You might as well say that living in houses is a large part of humanity, a large majority of the world's population live in houses, of one kind or another. Does that mean that living in houses is a large part of our make up as human beings?
3. History is not an indicator of component. Most civilizations of human history have committed atrocities in the name of expanding their domain. Does that mean that making war upon our neighbors is a part of our make up as human beings?
4. Importance is not an indicator of component. The appendix (the one in your intestine) is generally agreed to be unimportant, and thus there's minimal harm in removing it when it's infected. But it is nevertheless a part of our make up as human beings.
5. I don't care if other people agree or disagree with you. The request was directed at you, and it is your opinion I asked for. If you need someone else to have said so before you can say it, then that's your problem. But I asked for an argument, not a citation.

Though...if you had cited someone else's argument, and it was sound, then you would have made your point. I was genuinely curious, because you are not the first person to say this to me. My debate with a friend on the necessity of religion is still unfinished, so my request was sincere. If you wish to continue, then I will listen.

P.S. I've noticed that people tend to argue from a position where they assume they know something about the other person; specifically, there is a tendency to assume the other person disagrees diametrically, and there is a tendency to assume they know everything about the other person. The last time I pointed this out, I was told that this is how it's done. I can't agree with that style of argumentation; is this a standard part of a curriculum somewhere I don't know of? I don't claim to be above this, but I feel I do it less often and less clearly than other people do.

[Angela]

Megan and Michael: I would like you both to know that it is a great pleasure to communicate with you. Your thoughts are well organized, interestingly expressed, and presented with wit and clarity. I wouldn't change a thing (and I doubt you would anyway!). I believe that anyone who emulated or admired either of your disparate styles would be doing well in their quest for connection.

Megan, I must especially thank you for posting that photo of the
Delicious Dr. D. Yummola.

[Megan]

Thanks, and I just want to say that I think your advice to Sarah was compassionate and well crafted--good communication about communication!

How to act with this person?

I think your words about "forging an agreement about boundaries" are good in any situation, and are applicable in this thread, also.

What if we all forged an agreement to speak about issues and withhold negative judgments about personalities and peccadilloes?

Ad hominem arguments are generally seen as exposing the weakness of one's reasoning on an issue, so swearing off them is just agreeing to stop shooting oneself (and one's cause) in the foot.

That hardly a great sacrifice, it seems to me, and especially not considering the intelligence level of this forum, and its potential for really great clean debate.

I suggest we agree on boundaries and proceed from there. Does that sound reasonable?

PS: Glad you like the pic.

[Angela]

Thanks, Megan. In beach volleyball, there's an etiquette rule that is a little difficult to abide by, but when everybody honors it, it works pretty well.

"Call your own." If a player makes an illegal play: say, he double-hits a set and the ball spins wildly. That player is expected to say, "my bad", and his team forfeits the point. Everybody makes mistakes, nobody is immune; so calling your own creates a lot of good will and makes everybody want to play with you. Sometimes a set is so awful and spinny and ugly that everyone watching holds their breath, waiting for the player to call his own, and it can be a tense moment. If he doesn't call it, an angry opposing player might call it for him and create defensiveness and humiliation (which affects everyone of course), or get all mad which usually messes up his own game, or sometimes even start an altercation. Any of those scenarios can really mess up the beauty of a volleyball day, so all the responsible players do their best to call their own, and we try to dissuade the irresponsible ones from playing on our courts, if possible. Or some brave soul will gently take him aside privately and say, "perhaps you are not aware of the rules by which we play here." If none of that works, we all go for beer.

I think I will write a book about beach volleyball as an allegory for life.

[Megan]

Very wise, indeed. Otherwise it's just Big Brother waiting to pounce--an ugly scene.

By all means, write that book--I know my son would read it, as he's into beach volleyball bigtime. I'd read it too!

So nobody ever made the beach volleyball etiquette 'rules,' they just evolved? That's very interesting and instructive, I must say.

Wow, I'm really impressed, Angela. Please feel free to share more.

[esn]

I started reading this thread early this morning. I anxiously returned, after doing the Saturday shopping to see what became of Michael and dor's < intellectual battle of the titans > .
And now I am thinking about playing volleyball.

A surprising conclusion to a very interesting engagement.

Best Wishes,
Eric

[Angela]

The following is from an interview posted on Richard Dawkins' website today, wherein Richard Dawkins quotes from his own book, Unweaving the Rainbow. I believe it's trustworthy, then, as source material. I think it's very lovely, poetic, and inspiring.

Unweaving the Rainbow, which I wrote in the late '90s, was my answer to those people who say that science and, in particular, my world view in The Selfish Gene was cold and bleak and loveless. Maybe I could read a few words from the opening of Unweaving the Rainbow, which I've set aside and asked to be read at my funeral.

"We are going to die and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they're never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place, but who will, in fact, never see the light of day, outnumber the sand grains of Sahara. ...In the face of these stupefying odds, it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here. Here's another respect in which we are lucky. The universe is older than a hundred million centuries. Within a comparable time, the sun will swell to a red giant and engulf the earth. Every century of hundreds of millions has been in its time, or will be when its time comes, the present century. The present moves from the past to the future like a tiny spotlight inching its way along a gigantic ruler of time. Everything behind the spotlight is in darkness, the darkness of the dead past. Everything ahead of the spotlight is in the darkness of the unknown future. The odds of your century being the one in the spotlight are the same as the odds that a penny, tossed down at random, will land on a particular ant crawling somewhere on the road from New York to San Francisco. You are lucky to be alive and so am I."

We are lucky to be alive and therefore we should value life. Life is precious. We're never going to get another one. This is it. Don't waste it. Open your eyes. Open your ears. Treasure the experiences that you have and don't waste your time fussing about a non-existent future life after you're dead. Try to do as much good as you can now to others. Try to live life as richly as possible during the time that you have left available to you.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Haven't I already said that I think Orwell is wrong? I think your writing is plenty clumsy itself; should I start going through it with a red pen?.

"well your writing sucks too"!
how convient of you to discover that after I told you as much. I don't think i write very well here because its a message board and i have other things to do...on the other hand I don't put links to my essays in my signature and try to present my self as vigorously inquisitive intellectual who challenges societies conventions...or what ever you're trying to do, you know better than me. You can continue to write as you do, I really don't care. I don't care what you think of my writing, but as a side note I will mention that I have written 'stuff' i do care about, and someone paid me lots and lots of money for it. So, i was offering, for lack of a better term, my 'professional' opinion.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I'm more familiar with Jainism than I am with the Amish or the Quakers..

again this comes across (to me) as false modesty "I couldn't use a baseball analogy because we only played cricket at Harrow". You know they are pacifists, and you know your largely american, english-speaking audience would be familiar with them. There are british writers here who will use pounds instead of dollars, stone instead of pounds, but most of the cultural references here are american. Its not about what you know - its about explaining things to your audience, not self-aggrandizing...like mentioning you've been paid good money for your writing.
So instead of saying "unless you're a Quaker if someone walked up to you and put a gun to your head...." you chose to say: "Scenario: someone is holding a gun to your head. Is it ethical to kill them? Every instance of jurisprudence I know of, excepting pacifist religions like Jainism, say yes."

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

dor said, about religion, "my main, big point is you're denying a large part of your make up as human being"

I hate jazz. I was talking to a cab driver/jazz musician about music and mentioned that. He explained the beauty of the 'groove' he said if you don't get the 'groove' then you just don't get jazz. I don't get the groove. I don't like jazz.
Imagine trying to explain to an illiterate bushman the importance and joy of reading - I think you'd be hard pressed.
Thus, if you *think* its not important the common-sense evidence of it isn't going to convince you.
I see religion as a frame work to explore human spirtuality -to contemplate the whys and read from the sages who talked about whys. To pray, because like cod liver oil and push ups, it's good for you.
Imagine a human being with no curiousity, no appreciation of art, in my opinion he's living like an animal - yes are still human, you're also human if you're in a coma - religion - the practice of it - is stepping out of the coma of day to day living. You don't think that's important, or can you think it can be achieved by dropping acid I doubt I can convince you otherwise. Have fun.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Does that mean that living in houses is a large part of our make up as human beings?.

the need for shelter is, and the fact that we live in houses is a reflection of that need.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

[*]History is not an indicator of component. Most civilizations of human history have committed atrocities in the name of expanding their domain. Does that mean that making war upon our neighbors is a part of our make up as human beings?.

The desire for war and violence is part of our make up , especially in males. Pretending that such desires don't exist is dangerous and foolish. History reflects that yes, we're pretty violent.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

[*]Importance is not an indicator of component. The appendix (the one in your intestine) is generally agreed to be unimportant, and thus there's minimal harm in removing it when it's infected. But it is nevertheless a part of our make up as human beings.
.

from this statement I assume you assume that part of the human body is unimportant. We're on different planets Michael.
i can remove my hair with minimal harm, if i get gangrene i can remove my pinky with minimal harm....
Could you please explain this a bit further or in your langauage "you must explain"
are you saying " just because an appendix is part of our body doesn't mean it's important' - so just because religion's part of our culture, doesn't mean it's important? "

[Megan]

I see that Eric shall not be disappointed in his fascination with the clash of the titans. Volley ball etiquette is the least of our worries here.

I like the Dawkins quote, Angela. And in that vein, I think that, though I am a fellow Christian with dor, I can quite agree with the atheists that religion is unnecessary, at least to some people, though probably not to society as a whole.

Thomas Berry, a Catholic monk (who prefers the title "geologian" to "theologian") and who cosmologist Brian Swimme compares to Confucius, made the famous assertion that we could do well to put the Bible on the shelf for twenty years:

We all know Thomas Berry’s notorious remark that he has repeated more than once—that we should “put the Bible on a shelf for twenty years”.

This is simply a logical conclusion that we have been overdoing the book-bit in the name of revelation at least since the invention of the printing press.

Why is it that by now EVERY seminary, every school that pretends to be training spiritual leaders, does not have scientists on its faculty telling us the revelation of nature, its mysticism and the ethics to be derived from that as well as biblical theologians?

By Rev. Dr. Matthew Fox

I think that dor makes a category error assuming that spirituality can only be accessed through religion. That is an example of Christian hubris that we are long overdue to outgrow, IMO.

Much of religion has absolutely nothing to do with spirituality, and, in fact, is antithetical to spirituality, it seems to me.

By spirituality, I mean the innate sensitivity to beauty of human beings; their proclivity to creativity and seeing-things-whole, which finds expression in art and science, and in religious and contemplative pursuits.

I believe spirituality expresses through biology. Here is Antonio Damasio, head of the department of neurology at the University of Iowa Medical Center, and adjunct professor at the Salk Institute:

By connecting spiritual experiences to the neurobiology of feelings, my purpose is not to reduce the sublime to the mechanic and by so doing reduce its dignity.

The purpose is to suggest that the sublimity of the spiritual is embodied in the sublimity of biology, and that we can begin to understand the process in biological terms.

Antonio Damasio, Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow and the Feeling Brain, p. 286

That certainly echoes Dawkins and many others.

That said, I don't disagree with dor about the, ahem, perspicacity* of Edmund Burke in supporting the American Revolution and warning against the French Revolution. These are subtle issues, and do not yield themselves to blunt instruments, I think.


*I hope you liked dor's new vocab word: scurrility.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Megan

I
I believe spirituality expresses through biology. Here is Antonio Damasio, head of the department of neurology at the University of Iowa Medical Center, and adjunct professor at the Salk Institute:

That certainly echoes Dawkins and many others.

That said, I don't disagree with dor about the, ahem, perspicacity* of Edmund Burke in supporting the American Revolution and warning against the French Revolution. These are subtle issues, and do not yield themselves to blunt instruments, I think.

*I hope you liked dor's new vocab word: scurrility.

thank you I will awkwardly work it into my next post to show off my new found knowledge.
One of the few useful things the Anglican Church as done in recent years, is produce a crop of minister-scientists-Barbour, Peacock, Polkinghorne - interesting reading they seek harmony between the two, where Dawkins has overtly stated he wants religion to 'vanish' --and his supporters take delight in their hatred of religion..that is what i find disturbing, and i think they are deceiving themselves that they are embracing 'reason'.

John Polkinghorne didn't think he had time to cram one more thing into his busy schedule. But his wife persuaded him to attend a Bible class near their home in Cambridge, England.

It was a decision that changed his life. He ended up resigning his post teaching mathematical physics at Cambridge University in 1979 and becoming an Anglican priest.
His treatment of theology as a natural science and his role as a leading figure in bringing together science and religion has earned Polkinghorne the 2002 Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion. The prize, announced last week, has honored individuals, especially in the sciences, who advance spiritual learning. Polkinghorne has written more than 20 books, helping other scientists to grasp the spiritual element in science.

"I think that the sense of wonder in doing science is a religious experience, though not everyone who has it would certainly call it that," he says. "There certainly is a sense of awe, even of worship, at the beauty of creation."

Polkinghorne, who was knighted in 1997, is the fourth consecutive scientist to win the Templeton. But other winners say his search for truth in the universe has gone well beyond theirs. "Polkinghorne has really carried his science further than Peacock [last year's winner] and myself," says Ian Barbour, professor emeritus at Carleton College and the 1999 winner.

Scientist-turned-cleric wins Templeton Prize in religion | csmonitor.com

i'll just let dawkins speak for himself...
Biologist Richard Dawkins said that physicists would give religion another problem: a theory of everything that would complete Albert Einstein's dream of unifying the fundamental laws of physics. "This final scientific enlightenment will deal an overdue death blow to religion and other juvenile superstitions."
No religion and an end to war: how thinkers see the future | Science | Guardian Unlimited

Some will accuse Dawkins of being not just impolite but also intolerant. He is indeed a kind of crusading atheist, and makes no bones about his opposition not just to religious extremism but also to all species of religious faith -- a phenomenon he regards as fundamentally irrational and deeply dangerous. Religious moderates, he points out, have an unfortunate tendency to lend their perceived legitimacy to more extreme faith-based positions. They do this in large part by encouraging the common belief that accepting religious claims in the utter absence of evidence, and treating them as immune to rational criticism, is perfectly reasonable behavior.
Better living without God? / Religion is a dangerously irrational mirage, says Dawkins
Sounds more like 1789 than 1776.

which reminds me, is rational, enlightened Voltaire's 'man will be free when the last bishop is strangled with entrails of the last king" (or the other way around?) - or the thought behind it - the reason the French Revolution turned out the way it did? In any event, Dawkins echos that spirit and that's what i find worrisome.

[Angela]

Oh, man!! I can't believe I missed a great one like scurrility. My compliments, Dor. It reminds me of one of my very favorite words:
Vulgar.

Doesn't that word just get you hot?

As for spirituality being built into biology -- that begs a question that I've been pondering that I am going to take my time formulating, perhaps in a new thread. Stay tuned!

[Angela]

Originally Posted by dor

[I]Religious moderates...(encourage) the common belief that accepting religious claims in the utter absence of evidence, and treating them as immune to rational criticism, is perfectly reasonable behavior.

Dor, you yourself appear to be deeply intolerant of Dawkins, so once again, you are the pot calling the kettle black.

Some people describe Dawkins as intolerant because he does not subscribe to the belief that religious faith is immune to rational criticism. In fact, he doesn't call for the destruction of people who have religious faith (now, THAT would be intolerant). Rather, he'd like to see religious faith itself vanish. Like Abolitionists, he believes there's an outdated, unnecessary, and dangerous force at work, and that it's time to get rid of it. Granted, there were some Abolitionists who wanted to kill the slaveholders along with slavery, but Dawkins certainly doesn't wish for the death of the religious as well as religion.

[Megan]

But, I gotta love dor, he (she?) brings up good stuff...when not distracted by, ahem, erudite flaming....it's worth waiting for!

Funny too, and in a self-deprecating way! 10 extra points!

By dor, Today 03:58 PM

Its not about what you know - its about explaining things to your audience, not self-aggrandizing...like mentioning you've been paid good money for your writing.

Yes, I've read a little of Polkinghorne and appreciated him--I think that's when I decided to call myself a panentheist, if I remember correctly.

I still think religion hasn't cornered the market on spirituality, and Dawkins gets understandably apoplectic when he encounters, say, Ted Haggard, who not only gets up in his face and insists it has, but orders him off church property in a snit.

If you think Dawkins is juvenile, he is just resonating with juvenile religion, I would say. They sort of are made for each other.

But he is working on it, feeling his way to spirituality through biology. I give him A for effort! Bruce Lipton got to spirituality via biology, and I think biology is speaking to people much more effectively than religion these days.

If Christians don't want to own their part of making religion a stench in the nostrils of modern people, then they are contributing to their own cultural decline, it seems to me.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by dor

on the other hand I don't put links to my essays in my signature and try to present my self as vigorously inquisitive intellectual who challenges societies conventions...or what ever you're trying to do, you know better than me.

I'm trying to find people who disagree with me and can explain to me why I'm wrong. Because if I'm getting anything wrong, I'm having a hard time figuring it out myself.

Originally Posted by dor

You can continue to write as you do, I really don't care.

So you're not peeved by your pet. Good to know.

Originally Posted by dor

I have written 'stuff' i do care about, and someone paid me lots and lots of money for it.

Credible, and generous: but people have been paid lots and lots of money for doing precisely what you, and Orwell, disagree with.

Originally Posted by dor

You know they are pacifists, and you know your largely american, english-speaking audience would be familiar with them.

I know of the Jains through reading two of Joseph Campbell's books and grabbing bits and pieces about them from The Jain's Death and Antanayarda (sic)'s description of it as a Dharma religion. This is all I know about them.

About the Amish, I knew that they were Christian in origin, that they were typically farmers, and were seen as technophobes. I have, however, read a fascinating Wired article about their adoption of cell phones. I did not know they were pacifist. Heck, I'm not entirely sure they're only in America; until the last year or two, I was pretty sure they were in east Europe.

About the Quakers, I knew that they were also Christian in origin, that they came across the Atlantic similar to the Puritans, and settled in the general region of Pennsylvania, most likely because William Penn was a Quaker. (Or was he? I'm intentionally not looking this up as I write.) I also did not know they were pacifist.

I was raised American. This means that my knowledge of the world around me is terrible. I have, until the past eight years or so, been a singularly shy introvert, meaning that my willingness to seize opportunities to learn has been even worse. I have spent these eight years struggling to make up for lost time. I think abstractly and analyze from an uncommon perspective. I have, after many years, become proud of who I am.

Like everyone else, what I don't know outweighs what I do know. It always has and it always will.

Originally Posted by dor

Thus, if you *think* its not important the common-sense evidence of it isn't going to convince you.

Let's use a prepackaged response to that: it was common sense to believe that the Earth was flat. Why should common sense be the dictator of truth?

Originally Posted by dor

I see religion as a frame work to explore human spirtuality -to contemplate the whys and read from the sages who talked about whys. To pray, because like cod liver oil and push ups, it's good for you.

Religion, however, is only one way to ask "Why?" Since it is an invocation, shall we ask Socrates' religion? I do not know it, if he had one. According to Wikipedia, he put the statement offered by the Oracle of Delphi to the test, in his own way. Was he religious?

Originally Posted by dor

Imagine a human being with no curiousity, no appreciation of art, in my opinion he's living like an animal - yes are still human, you're also human if you're in a coma - religion - the practice of it - is stepping out of the coma of day to day living.

If I ask, "Why do people believe in religions?" am I therefore religious? If I ask, "Why does this painting look more beautiful than that one?" am I therefore religious?

I am curious, and I appreciate some art. Yet, I do not call myself religious. Am I wrong?

Originally Posted by dor

The desire for war and violence is part of our make up , especially in males. Pretending that such desires don't exist is dangerous and foolish. History reflects that yes, we're pretty violent.

I disagree.

I think that war and violence are expressions of a deeper desire, which may simply be, hypothetically, the desire for "more". Thus, neither war nor violence, two things which I do not think the vast majority of human beings exhibit, are part of our make up as human beings.

History reflects not that we are necessarily violent, but that we are often willing to use violence in order to achieve our means. In some cases, people are violent for the sake of violence; these cases are, to my knowledge, quite rare if existant.

Originally Posted by dor

are you saying " just because an appendix is part of our body doesn't mean it's important' - so just because religion's part of our culture, doesn't mean it's important? "

"If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell." -- Matthew 5:29-30

Though I suppose, if we were to listen to religion, we wouldn't have much left, neh?

But the original question was not about its importance. That's a value judgment that I'm not asking you to convince me of. Religion is important, not because it's a part of our make up, but because it exists at all. As I said, to many people, I am religion's defender, not its prosecutor.

The question is: "Why do you claim that religion is a part of our make up as human beings?" I'm asking you to back that statement up.

[Megan]

The most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the power of all true science.
--Albert Einstein

Disclaimer: I am not down-playing the role Christianity has played in the creation of Western culture, in the least. As I said on another thread, I think it was Alfred North Whitehead who said that Christian monotheism prepared the way for the scientific method to take root in the West, and notably science took root nowhere else in any comprehensive way.

I've reframed repeatedly until I'm back to having an overall respect for Christianity which I thought I would never regain. Over several decades, I've reframed Christianity into an evolutionary perspective, which allows for a lot of flotsam and jetsam to be bumping around in it without disqualifying it entirely for me. I have no illusions about being able to transfer this respect to anyone else. Perhaps Christianity has forfeited respect almost entirely for modern people, through its widespread extreme disrespect for their intellects and welfare. I can certainly understand that sentiment.

But I do not believe Christianity is the only viable spirituality, because I think spirituality is an innate human endowment, expressing through biology, and the entire cosmos, which I see as a living whole.

I think it is unconscionable for religion to try to patent spirituality and make it a marketable commodity, when it might be teaching how freely available and unfettered spirituality really is.

As I said, I believe science...biology...may be speaking more effectively to people now than religion. Certainly cell biologist Bruce Lipton's breakthrough into epigenetic theory reads like a biblical epiphany:

However, I concede that while science led me to my euphoric moment of insight, the experience resembled instantaneous conversions described by mystics. Remember the biblical story of Saul who was knocked off his horse with a lightning bolt? ...

The fact that science led me to spiritual insight is appropriate because the latest discoveries in physics and cell research are forging new links between the worlds of Science and Spirit.

These realms were split apart in the days of Descartes centuries ago. However, I truly believe that only when Spirit and Science are reunited will we be afforded the means to create a better world.
--Bruce Lipton, The Biology of Belief, pp. 184, 185

Here I will post the Caravaggio painting, c. 1600, simply because it's beautiful and evocative:

Caravaggio is close to the Bible. The horse is there and, to hold him, a groom, but the drama is internalized within the mind of Saul. He lies on the ground stunned, his eyes closed as if dazzled by the brightness of God's light that streams down the white part of the skewbald horse, but that the light is heavenly is clear only to the believer, for Saul has no halo. In the spirit of Luke, Caravaggio makes religious experience look natural.

Caravaggio _ Road to Damascus

[dor]

Originally Posted by Megan

The most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the power of all true science.
--Albert Einstein

Disclaimer: I am not down-playing the role Christianity has played in the creation of Western culture, in the least. As I said on another thread, I think it was Alfred North Whitehead who said that Christian monotheism prepared the way for the scientific method to take root in the West, and notably science took root nowhere else in any comprehensive way.
But I do not believe Christianity is the only viable spirituality, because I think spirituality is an innate human endowment, expressing through biology, and the entire cosmos, which I see as a living whole.

I think it is unconscionable for religion to try to patent spirituality and make it a marketable commodity, when it might be teaching how freely available and unfettered spirituality really is.

Here I will post the Caravaggio painting, c. 1600, simply because it's beautiful and evocative:

I have always liked his caling of st. matthew.

Its like he's just about to look up and say, me?

I agree with your post, but it only, in my opinion, illustrates how wrong Dawkins is.
ps male
Angela, as I have repeatedly said, he either intentionally distorts history and reality, or ignorantly distorts history and reality, to achieve an agenda. That's not 'scientific' - and that's my problem with him. If what he said was so true ,he would need to twist the truth - perhaps he's actually deceived himself -either way i can't take his 'theories' seriously. In fact, he is just as guilty of spreading damaging lies that will ensure that, for example out conflict with the muslim world will continue - it's much more comfortable to believe those lies, but in the long run it's damaging.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

ICredible, and generous: but people have been paid lots and lots of money for doing precisely what you, and Orwell, disagree with..

Usually it involves some other value: buy real estate with no money down or something. the value of mine was inherent in the writing. I optioned two screenplays - 'Shakespeare in Love' type historical stuff (and no i am not half a good a writer as Stoppard)...you know the type highbrow critics like. ( i should edit 'lots of money' not lots and lots' -) No, they didn't get made into films - they are filed away with the other 100+ scripts a year major studios buy but never make into films for every 10 that are.... Both got into preproduction but fell through...Shakespeare In Love took ten years to get made. ..actors die, change their minds, get in fights, and 100+ other reasons....part of me coming to this forum, besides getting needlessly sidetracked, was accepting that they aren't made because the financing fell through (in one case) but because I am responsible for it. when i was younger, I used to subscribe to the skeptical inquirer, i loved finding plausible explanations for for things like vampires, or superstitions like hanging garlic up. I never would have believed the stuff that both steve and erin say about visualization , sycnornicity and so on.....all i can say is as i have gotten older, and presumably wiser, I do.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I know of the Jains through reading .....About the Amish, I knew that they were Christian in origin, that they were typically farmers, and were seen as technophobes. .......About the Quakers....I also did not know they were pacifist..

I find it extraordinary that an American could go through high school and college and not learn that...but considering the state of higher education, maybe I shouldn't. but, you miss my point. You were trying to make a point, and in bringing up the Jains to your audience you may as well brought up the Bishnoi (a smaller but similar tribe-religion in that part of Inja) . Now if you somehow weaved it into the discussion and offered some fact - orthodox jain women don't cover their mouths out of sexual modesty but for fear of killing a bug by inhaling it....or that bishnoi were the original tree-huggers- they hugged trees in a sacred grove to protect them from the Maharaja's men who wanted to cut them down , and lost 365 of their heads in the process, you would have interested us and engaged us AND self aggrandized by showing off your knowledge, as i have just done...but ask yourself, do YOU think that most people reading knew who the jains are? Then why did you include it?

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I have, until the past eight years or so, been a singularly shy introvert,....I have spent these eight years struggling to make up for lost time. I think abstractly and analyze from an uncommon perspective. I have, after many years, become proud of who I am..

Now you're making me feel bad. Well, I am probably the last person you want to take advice from, but I would say go out and experience some of that abstract stuff. You'll probably take this as insult, but I have found that people who say 'have an open mind' or uncommon perspective...usually don't. If you're going to create this identity of yourself you're going to deceive yourself...a lot.

Going back to religion, let me again self -aggrandize.
I was an art student for a year, switched over to another major. I always kept drawing though. I have started to study seriously again. Old master type stuff. - I can draw and paint at a near master level. I often make sketches of paintings in museums. usually a tour will whisk by, led by some graduate art history major - she (and it usually is a she) offers lots of interesting facts about the painting, the subject....until she tries to get into the mind of the painter...then it just becomes comical. when you reach a certain level of painting you being to understand things about the masters like Sargent, even if you're not half as good as them. I would come to class mention that the tour guide said this or that about sargent, and my classmates and instrcutor will just roll their eyes in disgust/amusement...because the guides don't paint they just don't get it... . Sports are another example its a lot different to read about tennis than to play. Reading might help, watching might help but to understand you have to play...same goes with religion....You don't think so? I can't explain the color red to someone blind.

One more analogy...are you familiar with planned cities like Brazillia (sp) or those 'rational' public housing projects that were supposed to engineering perfect societies? Their boring, empty lifeless places....compare that to a town that's grown organically, - different architectural styles, the buildings settle and lean in odd ways, the streets don't look good an orderly grid on a map but there's something pleasing in their twists and turns...
well studying within the framework of one religion is something like that- as opposed to a 'create your own' in or ordered one...in that caos and seemingly random creations, an order emerges....

[Angela]

Originally Posted by dor

Angela, as I have repeatedly said, he either intentionally distorts history and reality, or ignorantly distorts history and reality, to achieve an agenda.

I understand that you believe that about Dawkins. I believe exactly the same is true for you. So there we are!

[dor]

Originally Posted by Angela

I understand that you believe that about Dawkins. I believe exactly the same is true for you. So there we are!

I have given specific examples of Dawkins doing this - Northern Ireland.
Yes, you've believe that about me, but as far as I know, you haven't provided an example.

Harris does the same thing about conflicts in the middle east. Neoconservatives spread the same lies...that's why lots of people are dying and trillions of US money being wasted....because of lies.

Dawkins has an agenda. On this we agree. Do you disagree that he has either distorted history, ingored history or deceived himself about history in order to prove that agenda.

If you don't I would urge you to do some independent reading about Northern ireland, the middle east, suicide terrorism, and a host of other problems these two sages blame on religion, then get back to me. Because when people believe this - particularly americans - it directly effects my life.
You claim to like or 'follow' dawkins because he sheds light on superstitions - well in my opinion you're embracing a superstition of your own IF you actively realize that he is distorting the truth.

harris and dawkins help to keep alive the big lie that 'crazy islamo-facists want to take over the world' or that the conflicts in the middle east are caused by islam. And because many americans have been duped or deceived into that notion.
If i close my eyes i can still smell the stench that hung over NY after 9/11. I'd prefer not smell that stench again.