Blog - /Personal

Posted by Gregory Farr at Tue Jan 22 10:15:39 2008

If you haven't already, you might want to check out what Carl Sagan has written on the topic of spirituality.

Posted by Michael Olson at Tue Jan 22 16:39:15 2008

A book from Carl Sagan is on my to-buy list.  I really enjoyed his Cosmos series.

Posted by Glyn Millington at Thu Jan 24 04:10:14 2008

Hi Michael,

Really only here because I very much appreciate your work with Muse! but
the title caught my eye. And then this:-

"The most recent works by authors Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens
are excellent reads - both were once theists, and have some understanding
for the positions of their opponents."

The trouble is that Dawkins and Hitchens display virtually NO
understanding of the position of their opponents.  Even some of their
fellow atheists find them an embarassment (Michael Ruse) .  Dawkins
received a roasting in July's "Skeptic" magazine from fellow atheist and
biology professor David Sloan Wilson which is well worth studying


http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-07-04.html

"Dawkins .... at the moment ....  is just another angry atheist, trading
on his reputation as an evolutionist and spokesperson for science to vent
his personal opinions about religion."

It seems odd for a Christian minister to be recommending atheist reading material  :-)  but it has always seemed to me that that the best atheists writers deserve respect and study. I'm not so sure about Dawkins and friends!

Posted by Michael Olson at Thu Jan 24 13:16:39 2008

Hi Glyn,

I'm not sure what you mean by "Christian minister".  Who are you referring to?

As for that article, I'm trying to figure out how that is somehow supposed to "shame" Dawkins.  Religion as a parasite?  It seems obvious that it is one.  For the vast majority of people, it's only mildly injurious to the individual carrier (and perceived to be beneficial by said carrier), however, and takes a long time and closed conditions to spread (the average person has to be exposed around 7 times, if I recall correctly).

From the article: "The founding fathers realized that religions work well for their own members but become part of the problem at a larger social scale."  Ugh.  The author needs to back that up with same evidence (quotes in the proper context, specifically).  One only needs to look at the quotes from Jefferson and Adams to disprove this.  Namely: the second quote on <http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/adams.htm>:

  The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first
  example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature;
  and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves
  of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will
  consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail
  of the formation of the American governments is at present little
  known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter
  become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any
  persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or
  were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those
  at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or
  agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments
  were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
  -- John Adams

Also from the article: "The problem with Dawkins' analysis, however, is that if he doesn't get the facts about religion right, his diagnosis of the problems and proffered solutions won't be right either."  Wow, that is quite a leap: show that one single section of a chapter may be controversial in the biological community and ipso facto, he's wrong about all of his claims.  Disagree.  His later claims can only be claimed not well-founded if the weak link is the only link in the chain backing up his later points, and this is not so: he initiates multiple chains of thought -- if one chain of induction fails, there are still several strong inductive paths to his claims.

The article closes with: "Time will tell where Dawkins sits on the bell curve of open-mindedness concerning group selection in general and religion in particular. At the moment, he is just another angry atheist, trading on his reputation as an evolutionist and spokesperson for science to vent his personal opinions about religion."  The author is implying that anger about religion clouds Dawkins' judgments, but he has not presented enough evidence in the article to come to this conclusion.  Therefore, I conclude that he is trying to pull a fast one on the reader.  If you will read Dawkins' article at <http://richarddawkins.net/article,2095,What-have-you-changed-your-mind-about-Why,Richard-Dawkins>, I think you will find the implied slur on Dawkins' open-mindedness to be without great merit.

It looks like Dawkins has yet another "flea" <http://richarddawkins.net/article,2045,n,n>.

That said, I'm actually more of a fan of Hitchens' book, because he approaches things with a more literary bent -- I'm a bit out my league w.r.t. biological theories.

Posted by Glyn Millington at Sat Jan 26 03:50:50 2008

Hi Michael,

Th Christian minister would be me! However I wasn't trying to sell you
God, but simply to point you towards some more thoughtful, insightful
atheist sources than Dawkins and Hitchens!

Atheism, like, say, Christianity, comes in a wide variety of forms.  Some
of them are intellectually laughable, some deserve attention and
respect. Dawkins and Hitchens come firmly in the former category as far
as their two latest books are concerned.  With regard to Dawkins,
Wilson's main point in the article I mentioned is that "he has not done
any original work on the subject and he has not fairly represented the
work of his colleagues."  "The God delusion" is a deeply UN-scientific
book, consisting largely in assertion and smear rather than argument.
The approach Wilson is taking is an attempt to offer a scientific and
evolutionary account of religion - I still hate it of course! but it is
at least real science and not simply a rant.

I think that your Adam quotation might well prove Wilson's point rather than
disprove it!

The "fleas" thing is another attempt by Dawkins to evade real debate by
sneering - some (not all!) of the scientists, philosophers and theologians who have
argued against his position  deserve a better response than that.

Posted by Michael Olson at Sat Jan 26 13:30:35 2008

Hi Glyn,

"Th[e] Christian minister would be me!"

Ah, I better understand the context of your first comment now.

"I think that your Adam quotation might well prove Wilson's point rather than disprove it!"

I was specifically invalidating the first part of Wilson's statement, namely: "The founding fathers realized that religions work well for their own members [...].".  I have no qualms with the remainder of his statement :^) .

As for the "fleas", I think I can see why he would make note of them rather than answering each one.  Namely: it takes quite a bit of time and energy to respond to something that only nominally mentions your work in an attempt to piggy-back your popularity with their own views.  Real, thorough critiques which actually quote the original text are much easier to deal with, because they are responding meaningfully to your work.

Posted by Bjorn Watland at Sat Feb 9 22:08:57 2008

Thanks for your kind words about our podcast.  Our mission is short, "Positive Atheism in Action."  We don't want to be that angry group people think of.  I hope you keep listening, and catch our radio show podcast.