Sunday, August 09, 2009
God. Again
In The Sunday Times I review Robert Wright's The Evolution of God: The Origins of Our Beliefs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A blog about, among other things, imaginary ideas - What ifs? and Imagine thats. What if photographs looked nothing like what we see with our eyes? Imagine that the Berlin Wall had never come down. What if we were the punchline of an interminable joke? All contributions welcome.
Search This Blog
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(472)
-
▼
August
(21)
- Turner and Boris
- The American Way of Death
- On Class
- Back to the Past
- Ben Hur
- Kliban and the Ontological Proof
- Elberry the Unkillable
- Science and the Guardian
- All We Have Is Cricket
- Factasms
- Dave Lull's Death Worm
- Protecting Steve Jobs
- Not So Green
- Cheney and the Fear of Softness.
- What Life Is
- The Epistemological Sucker Punch
- Auden at Golgotha
- God. Again. Again
- God. Again
- Unopinionated Post in the Style of a Famous Physicist
- Art and Death
-
▼
August
(21)
Maybe its your advancing years?
ReplyDelete''Christ. Boring''
ReplyDeleteno, actually, thinking about this, maybe, no, forget it.
G-d - he just won't go away, will He? Like the State stamping out dissent and it only grows.
ReplyDeleteAm I a fool because I am religious (I am not especially) or am I foolish - deficient in - religion? Just wondered.
ReplyDeleteit is blindingly obvious that claims about a spiritual reality can neither be proved nor disproved by material means.
ReplyDeleteIs this likewise true for ghosts? Astrology? Homeopathy? Is scientific skepticism of no value at all, or is it valuable in all instances except...?
Perhaps I am not in a position to discuss this, being alchemically illiterate.
Talking about gawd, I hear on radio 4 that one of your gaffers, one young master Murdoch, who most certainly did not get the job because of nepotism, is speaking in Edinburgh shortly, eminently missable, sorry gawd.
ReplyDelete@ kynefski,
ReplyDeleteYou have a junk box where you put such items as ghosts, Astrology, & Homeopathy. In context, you have placed God into the same box.
If I read you right, you then label the box, "Things scientists are (or maybe Science is) skeptical of". Also in context, you take the side of being skeptical yourself, as if to side with those skeptical scientists with your own skeptic sympathy.
None of this does anything to refute Bryan's statement, which you began with:
Put it like this: it is blindingly obvious that claims about a spiritual reality can neither be proved nor disproved by material means. End of argument.
Of course, skepticism is part of religious faith. There is Mark 9:24:
Immediately the boy's father exclaimed, "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!" (NIV)
Skepticism is not an argument, nor does it advance an argument. It recognizes that there is one, and in your case, you recognize that some of those arguing could be scientists. In this sense, you have supported Bryan's position, giving raison d'etre to his article.
Yours,
Rus
If I read you right, you then label the box, "Things scientists are (or maybe Science is) skeptical of".
ReplyDelete(1) "Scientific skepticism" is not the exclusive realm of scientists. It is a disposition to which, in appropriate circumstances, we should all aspire.
(2) The box should be labeled "Things to which scientific skepticism should be applied."
(3) I was not trying to refute Bryan's assertion. I honestly want to know if his assertion (that claims about a spiritual reality can neither be proved nor disproved by material means) should be taken to be universal.
I'm somewhat sceptical that those London escorts are really all that busty. However, in order to increase your commission, Bryan, I have clicked on the link seventeen times.
ReplyDeleteHi kynefski,
ReplyDeleteThe box is not something to necessarily aspire to. It is a recognition of what scientists would find themselves skeptical of, based on the materialistic-only approach. If you would like to aspire to it, then by all means go ahead. It's not a bad thing as far as it goes. Although know going forward, that has its limitations.
The domain of Science is the material world. Scientists look at physical things, at least measurable things. Such a bent would tend to a lumping of all things spiritual into the same box, for people to be "scientifically" skeptical of them. In a sense, this means that such things cannot be proven, but neither can they be disproved.
Like I say, this does nothing to refute them. If you were to take a trail through Science to be skeptical of God, this would mean that you have reached, with the scientists, the modern dead-end to research. You might then try a spiritual approach. This is all personal aspiration, nothing to which "we should all aspire" as you put it. That would be to say that at any given moment, no matter where you are, or wherever Science is in relation to the question of God, everyone else should be there too. People take different trails up the mountain, some of which don't even cross, never mind make it to the top. And Science, for all its value to humankind, may not have a trail to get us there ever.
So I will re-assert my initial label, that your personal box, the one you say you accept from Science, is better labeled "Things scientists are (or maybe Science is) skeptical of". This takes out the "should" you want to apply to everyone else.
Yours,
Rus
Maybe the problem is that there's nothing about God that hasn't already been said. So the only thing folks have left is to argue about it instead. Maybe a permanent argument should be set up in a theatre somewhere. When compulsive arguers are feeling a bit down and even at a complete loss for anything to argue about, they can pop in to the theatre and refresh themselves listening to God and No-God duking it out. Thus God is the argument that never sleeps.
ReplyDeleteBryan, just out of curiosity, if you could choose between proving there is a God, and proving there isn't one, would you have a preference? I know the question might seem a bit meaningless, but in terms of the social implications of each option, does one seem preferable? Do you agree with Julian Barnes when he says, "I don't believe in God, but I miss him."? Would you miss him too?
ReplyDeleteGRRRRR!
ReplyDeleteGRRRRRRRRRR!
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
Now excuse me, I must find another blog in which I have an opportunity to rail against God, faith etc.
And they say that intelligent discourse is dead.
ReplyDeleteOh lordy. I notice people aren't even bothering to criticise the absurdity (some would say dishonesty) of using the phrase 'militant atheist' when we just mean 'atheist' or 'outspoken atheist' or 'atheist who has written a book about atheism'. We could, I suppose, try to flip it back on Bryan and the other outspoken religious apologists of the press by describing them as ‘militant religionists’, but the trouble is that in that context we are all too aware of what ‘militant’ really means, so the sleight of hand doesn’t come off.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, leaving that aside, and ignoring the nonsense about ‘Dawkinsians’ wanting to ‘stamp out ‘religion, I thought this bit was staggering:
“The point is not how the watch was designed but the fact that it is designed. Some process has led to its existence and it is that process that matters”
Surely Bryan understands that ‘some process’ is not the same thing as ‘design’? Beachy Head came about by ‘some process’ but would you really want to talk about its ‘design’ or its ‘designer’? How does the design of the Saharan dunes strike you? The rest of the review is nonsensical because it follows from this absurdity. You may (I don’t know why, but some do) want to use the word ‘god’ to mean the laws of nature, or the sense of awe that there is something rather than nothing (you could use ‘teatray’, instead, if you like) and Dawkins has repeatedly and explicitly said that he has no beef with that contentless, empty category from which nothing normative can follow (he calls it ‘Einsteinian’ religion), but don’t fool yourself that that advances any argument.
Hi John,
ReplyDeleteGoshk. Bryan used the adjective "militant" correctly. Richard Dawkins has more than written a book. He's been militant.
Here are onelook.com's quick definitions:
▸ noun: a militant reformer
▸ adjective: showing a fighting disposition without self-seeking ("Militant in fighting for better wages for workers")
▸ adjective: engaged in war
We are looking at the second one, the first adjective.
Merriam-Webster flips the two adjective definitions around to get this:
1 : engaged in warfare or combat : fighting
2 : aggressively active (as in a cause) : combative (militant conservationists) (a militant attitude)
Also, on the word "god", I suppose I could do the same, show definitions where your "god" ("to mean laws of nature"), would not fit. The key word in those definitions would be "supernatural"). And your using your "sense of awe" seems to be an attempt to ground god in the material world, even to project or insist upon this assumption before any argument begins. So your arguments beg for pretense as if to say, "Pretend there is nothing supernatural (or even spiritual) . . . . then there would be no God."
If you were a supernatural god, a creator of everything people behold, how might you create this world? And I am not supporting intelligent design by asking this. I am calling you on your assumption that God can only be in the process, if an argument in support of intelligent design were to point to that process. Again, you would need to first take the assumption that we are not spiritual beings. And then take the assumption that those you are arguing against, Bryan in this case, would pretend with you, that we are not spiritual beings. But this position has already been refuted when he establishes this:
Put it like this: it is blindingly obvious that claims about a spiritual reality can neither be proved nor disproved by material means. End of argument.
Yours,
Rus
Gravitation Force is the Ultimate Creator, this paper I presented at the 1st Int. Conf. on Revival of Traditional Yoga, held at The Lonavla Yoga Institute (India), Lonavla, Pune in 2006. The Abstract of this paper is given below:
ReplyDeleteThe Universe includes everything that exists. In the Universe there are billions and billions of stars. These stars are distributed in the space in huge clusters. They are held together by gravitation and are known as galaxies. Sun is also a star. Various members of the solar system are bound to it by gravitation force. Gravitation force is the ultimate cause of birth and death of galaxy, star and planets etc. Gravitation can be considered as the cause of various forms of animate and inanimate existence. Human form is superior to all other forms. Withdrawal of gravitational wave from some plane of action is called the death of that form. It can be assumed that gravitation force is ultimate creator. Source of it is ‘God’. Gravitational Field is the supreme soul (consciousness) and its innumerable points of action may be called as individual soul (consciousness). It acts through body and mind. Body is physical entity. Mind can be defined as the function of autonomic nervous system. Electromagnetic waves are its agents through which it works. This can be realized through the practice of meditation and yoga under qualified meditation instruction. This can remove misunderstanding between science and religion and amongst various religions. This is the gist of all religious teachings – past, present and future.
AND
‘In Scientific Terminology Source of Gravitational Wave is God’ I have presented this paper at the 2nd World Congress on Vedic Sciences held at Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi on February 9-11, 2007. The Abstract of this paper is given below:
For Centuries, antagonism remained between science and religion. Science and spirituality require to be fused. An integrated philisophy is to be developed. It is written in the scriptures that entire creation is being maintained only through love or force of attraction. In Persian it is known as quvat-i-jaziba. It is on account of this force that the entire creation, which come into existence through the combination of small particles and atoms, is being maintained and sustained. The creation or universe includes everything that exists. In the universe there are billions and billions of stars. They are held together by gravitation and are known as galaxies. Sun is also a star. Various members of the solar system are bound to it by gravitation force. Gravitation force is the ultimate cause of birth and death of a galaxy, star and planet etc. and various forms of animate and inanimate existence. Gravitation force is the ultimate creator, sustainer and destroyer of the universe. These are the three attributes of God. Providence has located within the human body a spiritual faculty. When this faculty is developed like physical and mental faculties we find that Truth-the goal of science and God-the goal of religion are one and the same thing.
ugg boots
ReplyDeleteugg amelie
ugg australia tall classic women's boots beva 5818
ugg cardy
ugg classic
ugg crochet
ugg lace-ups boots
ugg mini
ugg nightfall
ugg roxy
ugg short
ugg sunburst tall
ugg sundance limited edition 30th anniversary
ugg tall
ugg tasman
ugg tasmina
ugg ultimate tall braid
ugg ultra short
ugg ultra short Le
ugg upside
ugg whitely boots
Escort services are highly in demand nowadays all over the world. You won't find any big city without escort agency. It's highly convenient to use such services.
ReplyDeleteugg boots
ReplyDeletebuy ugg boots
ugg new style
ugg boots on sale
cheap ugg boots
ugg
Ugg Amelie Suede Sandals
Ugg Bailey Button
Ugg Classic Cardy
Ugg Classic Mini
Ugg Classic Short
Ugg Classic Tall
Ugg Fluff Flip Flop
Ugg Infant Erin
Ugg Nightfall
Ugg Short Metallic
Ugg Sundance II
Ugg Tall Metallic
Ugg Tasmina Braid Sandals
Ugg Tasmina Sandals
Ugg Ultra Short
Ugg Ultra Tall
ed hardy
buy ed hardy
cheap ed hardy
ed hardy shoes
ed hardy sunglasses
ed hardy watches
ed hardy t-shirts
ed hardy tanks
ed hardy clothing
In order to enlarge and refresh our market,with the advent of Thanksgiving Day,we encourage both newcomers and loyal customers to browse our sale promotions.The price of our AF Men Trousers,ED Hardy Handbag or ED Hardy Women Suitsare lowest than anytime and anywhere,there are also lots ED Hardy Women Jeans and UGG 5818 Sienna Miller that you can choose of course high quality.If the goods you choose are more than $100,you can pick up a Belt,Cap,Jewelry,or Wallet Free.Time Limited, Don't be hesitation,pick up your favorate goods,Free Shipping & Fast Delivery. http://www.edfashionclothes.com/
ReplyDeleteActivity is the only road to knowledge . Do not, for one repulse, give up the purpose that you resolved to effect. air Jordan Love is ever the beginning of nike shox knowledge as ato shoes fire is of puma light. The sting of a reproach,is the creative recreation truth of it.A mothers love never changes. http://www.nikeaf1jordanshoes.com/
ReplyDeleteThank you for the great job!In order to meet Thanksgiving Day, recently,our company is on ugg boots promotional sales and the prices of all products such as UGG Sienna Miller or UGG 5803 Bailey Button are lower than any time!And the biggest surprise is that you can buy one get one free,that is once you buy an ugg classic short , ugg 5125 coquette, or uggs snenna mille,you can get an belt, wallet,or hat free.Don't hesitate, to get a free present, check it on http://www.uggsnowbootsbest.com/
ReplyDelete