Hello Keith
KA> "To give an example: The God Delusion trumpets the fact that its KA> author was recently voted one of the world's three leading KA> intellectuals....." I searched for the corresponding terms (I've got TGD as an ebook); the book contains no such passage. Perhaps McGrath was refering to a blurb on the cover of the paper version, in which case Dawkins can hardly be held accountable for that. This would be entirely in keeping with the distortion and intellectual dishonesty so often displayed by religionists (McGrath is a theologian, not a secularist). I've read several of Dawkins' books & I've seen & heard numerous interviews with him and talks given by him. He's not interested in self-aggrandisement. I'd be the first to lambast Dawkins if I thought he were on an ego trip. McGrath is upset because an interview that Dawkins conducted with him during the making of the TV programme "The Root Of All Evil" wasn't included in the programme. It was the people at Channel 4 (I think) who decided what bits of footage were going to be used, not Dawkins. He (Dawkins) is also on record as having said that he was not at all happy with the programme's title. His intention was not to assert that religion is the only or even the main cause of evil. KA> "....... The title of the KA> review? "Dawkins the dogmatist."" If instead of religion, Dawkins had written a similarly robust criticism of Marxism, or economic libertarianism, or astrology, do you think people would be accusing him of dogmatic fundamentalism? Religion is granted a special privilege; we're not allowed to criticise it. If someone points out that there is not one single shred of evidence to support its claims, religionists and theologians get indignant. KA> That's from McGrath's piece, it makes a valid point. I beg to differ. >>A disturbingly large percentage of the population of the world's >>economically and militarily most powerful country, which is also the >>world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, seriously believe that a >>mythical being called Jesus will during their lifetimes descend from >>the clouds like a superhero and escort his true believers to heaven >>and then destroy the planet and the rest of of humanity with it. These >>people therefore don't have the slightest interest in doing anything >>about environment/climate issues. Religion is relevant. KA> Yes, yes, David, and if you dig back a little (or a lot) you'll find KA> that the first and main source of information here about that has KA> been me. I know. I lurked in this list for a long time before I posted anything, and this was where I first learned about the existence of the armageddonists. I wrote the above because other people might be following this thread who don't know about the armageddonists and the degree of influence they wield. KA> As I said, I'm not taking sides, yet you seem to assume that because KA> I've posted an article which criticises Dawkins and his book I'm KA> somehow condoning excesses of religious extremism such as the KA> Armageddon-craving insanities of America's millennial KA> dispensationalist madmen. I hope it's clear now that I most definitely did not make such an assumption. KA> McGrath says they're often KA> people who would previously have supported Dawkins McGrath the theologian would previously have supported Dawkins? KA> I must say I didn't see Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins as a very KA> effective counter to that. Who or what would in your view be an effective counter? KA> You'd do better in the list archives (and KA> emerge unassailed by Harris's anti-Islam jingoism and apologisms for KA> torture, furthermore). I searched in the archive for sam+harris+torture & found nothing apart from this current thread. I'm not entirely comfortable about his position on torture, but that doesn't invalidate his criticism of religion. As to "anti-Islam jingoism": political correctness requires us to say that Islam is a religion of peace and it's being hijacked by extremists. Islam is a not a religion of peace. The reason most Muslims aren't homicidal maniacs is that they don't take their religion as seriously as they might. A genuine religion of peace cannot have extremists. A genuine religion of peace would not have any passages in its scriptures that could be construed as sanctioning or calling for violence. KA> Not a polarised response? Just take a look KA> at how you've tried to pigeonhole me into the enemy camp. "If you're KA> not for us you're against us"? I hope you realise now that I had no such intention. >>KA> Doesn't your >>KA> imagination stretch that far? Give it some exercise. >> >>You're making some rather unwarranted assumptions about the elasticity >>of my imagination. I can conceive of, and do not categorically rule >>out, the existence of some kind of spiritual dimension. But since it's >>perfectly possible to live morally and ethically without such a >>belief, I don't give the matter very much thought. KA> That is apparent. There's been some discussion quite recently on KA> whether the spiritual dimension or whatever is merely an object of KA> belief or something that can be experienced, with posts from people KA> to whom it is a matter to experience. And to whom you must seem like KA> a blind man pontificating about colour. I wrote "I can conceive of, and do not categorically rule out ....". So where am I pontificating? >>bandwagon, but the fact remains that he says nothing that hasn't >>already been said and refuted countless times. KA> You're being as shrill as both Dawkins and McGrath. I'm sorry, but I can't find anything shrill in my sentence above. KA> Atheists who see religious belief as the main threat to civilisation KA> and our future ..... You're ascribing a viewpoint to me that I do not hold. See my comment above regarding TGD. KA> You KA> might enjoy this, if you haven't read it already: KA> http://journeytoforever.org/rrlib/greenspan.html KA> Toward a Psychology of Interdependency - A Framework for KA> Understanding Global Conflict and Cooperation When I've got 3 or 4 hours free I'll read it. It's v.long. KA> I've never had KA> much time for Dawkins, he's always seemed flat and narrow to me. The KA> Selfish Gene = not a lot more than chickens vs eggs, his concept of KA> memes is rather simplistic and not exactly new, yawn. The gene-centred view of evolution - as opposed to organism-centred or species-centred - provides a very good explanation for altruistic or non-selfish behaviour, something that had always puzzled evolutionary biologists. Dawkins is often at pains to emphasise that the stress should be on "gene" and not on "selfish". The corollary of this is that ethics and morals are based in biology, so it is indeed a lot more than chickens vs eggs. Like yourself, however, I'm not overly impressed by the memes idea. I can't think of any phenomenon that this concept enables us to understand better than previously. KA> By the way, very sorry, I didn't spot this at the end your original KA> post that started the thread: KA> "Keith, do you have a program that does line wraps when you post web KA> articles? I had to do it manually." KA> What a PITA. I do have, but it's for Macs (OS9, but probably KA> available for OSX too), do you use a Mac? Windbag 98 I'm afraid. KA> It's called SpellTools, by KA> Newer Technology, nice bit of kit, it does a few other useful things KA> too. Actually Tex-Edit also does that, one click, "Strip CR/LFs" KA> (carriage returns and line feeds), so does BBEdit I think. There must KA> be such things for PCs. Dumb of me not to think of doing a spot of googling. I've addded it to my to-do list. Regards, David _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
