The Fog of Superstition - Richard Dawkins with us for one whole hour
Having Richard Dawkins on our blawg for one whole hour is quite a treat. Here is a much needed effort at demystification of astrology and spiritism. Although not as funny, it reminds one of an earlier blawg, Carlin On Religion.
3 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I WOULD RATHER WATCH GEORGE CARLIN..................
Dawkins is most intriguing and yep, not as entertaining as George Carlin. I loathe superstitious minds - and all concepts of primal fear and cargo cults. Yet to be fair to my own personal beliefs (including my doubts!) the rebuttal to Dawkins is NOT to prove faith but to prove other scientists/researchers disagree with the core (not the conditions).
If I were to point out the literary balance to Dawkins it would refer to the works of Joseph Campbell, with a supplement of either Stephen Hawkings or even Carl Sagan. I'd also note that, to date, it remains impossible for humans even to discern a common objective human history - and our human subjectivity seems as essential to our history as objective definition.
I've just edited many digressions on motivations and human connectivity but here's a few of my own questions on topic, though I think they are at best largely rhetorical...
Is Dawkins work new research or simply new cultural trend? Is PBS balancing its curriculum or are we, culturally, searching for a way to make excuses for our mistakes, via either technophobia (fear of science) or religious intolerance?
Isn't the evangelism of fear and contempt towards either science or religion - isn't THIS DEBATE what is the largest WASTE of words, time, human potential, virtue, etc?
Pull my finger. What is going to happen next?
Pattern is retro. However you answered - it's your finger now, and what I do the next time you pull my finger remains the same question, because the definitions are over-simplified and the pattern is either prejudice, preconditioned, or STILL, unknown.
One of my favorite authors and influences is Irish playright and philosopher, George Bernard Shaw. I think the man was brilliant, visionary, and also well humored.
He also, incidentally, was a self-proclaimed atheist. This matters not to me, but mattered to a few of his friends at the time.
I believe it was William Blake, I'm not sure, who wrote Shaw once jibing him that for an atheist Shaw spent more time writing about virtue and God than most evangelists! Shaw declared himself Shaw and he did the only thing possible. Kept writing about both. And laughing a bit while he did.
He fell off a ladder at a ripe old age. And if he helps me understand the ladder I'm not going to quibble the semantics of duality with the man. That's what he was writing about in the first place!
Happy Man and Superman Day, George! Nothing has changed, just evolved. Works for me! I like most of the better mousetraps, just hate some of the fine print, necessity's ritual as disclaimers often are.
3 comments:
I WOULD RATHER WATCH GEORGE CARLIN..................
Dawkins is most intriguing and yep, not as entertaining as George Carlin. I loathe superstitious minds - and all concepts of primal fear and cargo cults. Yet to be fair to my own personal beliefs (including my doubts!) the rebuttal to Dawkins is NOT to prove faith but to prove other scientists/researchers disagree with the core (not the conditions).
If I were to point out the literary balance to Dawkins it would refer to the works of Joseph Campbell, with a supplement of either Stephen Hawkings or even Carl Sagan. I'd also note that, to date, it remains impossible for humans even to discern a common objective human history - and our human subjectivity seems as essential to our history as objective definition.
I've just edited many digressions on motivations and human connectivity but here's a few of my own questions on topic, though I think they are at best largely rhetorical...
Is Dawkins work new research or simply new cultural trend? Is PBS balancing its curriculum or are we, culturally, searching for a way to make excuses for our mistakes, via either technophobia (fear of science) or religious intolerance?
Isn't the evangelism of fear and contempt towards either science or religion - isn't THIS DEBATE what is the largest WASTE of words, time, human potential, virtue, etc?
Pull my finger. What is going to happen next?
Pattern is retro. However you answered - it's your finger now, and what I do the next time you pull my finger remains the same question, because the definitions are over-simplified and the pattern is either prejudice, preconditioned, or STILL, unknown.
Try it again. See if anyone feels the wiser now.
Pull my finger.
I thought of a way to say this better...
One of my favorite authors and influences is Irish playright and philosopher, George Bernard Shaw. I think the man was brilliant, visionary, and also well humored.
He also, incidentally, was a self-proclaimed atheist. This matters not to me, but mattered to a few of his friends at the time.
I believe it was William Blake, I'm not sure, who wrote Shaw once jibing him that for an atheist Shaw spent more time writing about virtue and God than most evangelists! Shaw declared himself Shaw and he did the only thing possible. Kept writing about both. And laughing a bit while he did.
He fell off a ladder at a ripe old age. And if he helps me understand the ladder I'm not going to quibble the semantics of duality with the man. That's what he was writing about in the first place!
Happy Man and Superman Day, George! Nothing has changed, just evolved. Works for me! I like most of the better mousetraps, just hate some of the fine print, necessity's ritual as disclaimers often are.
Post a Comment