3 posts tagged “dawkins”

Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine writes an open letter to Messrs Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens in the Skeptic column of Scientific American. He argues that we should avoid defining ourselves as anti-religion, instead outlining what we support (presumably rationality and having the strength of character to see the world as it truly is). Quoting von Mises, Darwin, Sagan, and Luther King Jr he argues that what stands above science and religion is the freedom to think, believe, and behave what and as we wish, so long as exercising that freedom does not impinge upon the freedom of others.

Hear, hear.

There are brights of many stripes, from the livid hues of vehement anti-religionists like Richard Dawkins, through the pale pastels of more moderate secularists, all the way out to the indistinct colourations of a few religious people who nevertheless welcome the secularization of society. I find myself more in the middle of this muddle, but am beginning to elbow my way to the Dawkins end.

I have an enduring affection for Buddhism, partly because it (can) dispense with supernaturalism, partly for the respect it pays to the individual and the scientific method ("repeat the following experiments and see if you can reproduce the findings"), and partly because of the time I spent living in Japan. My upbringing in an Anglican country, and attendance at a Church of England school from the ages of seven to 11, left me a lingering affection for the Church of England, if not for Anglicanism or even Christianity as a whole. Work by secular Buddhists centers around "transformation and healing", to borrow the title of a book by Thich Nhat Hanh. (From my own understanding of his work, Nhat Hanh cannot be considered a bright, or even a secular Buddhist, but he does seem to welcome a reinterpretation of Buddhism' s basic definitions, claiming for example that reincarnation need not be understood as the preservation of any kind of identity beyond death. This is an important message from a Buddhist leader, because most Buddhists' understanding of reincarnation is indeed of an eternal essence progressing from life to life, in direct contrast to what was taught by the historical Buddha.)

I also occasionally enjoy the work of "radical" theologians such as Spong or Cupitt. Since organised religion is clearly dying and has no place in a decent society, I had thought that by pushing their still-believing flock in a secular direction, such theologians might prevent nasty problems when the death knell finally sounds. I still think they can fulfill such a role, but lately, and here we come to my elbowing, the likes of Spong and Cupitt have got increasingly on my nerves. Cupitt writes very well, but as a "believer" in postmodernism he can only hope to persuade by the eloquence of his writing rather than the coherence of his argument, since postmodernism holds that nothing is true - except for postmodernism.

In general, these people - radical only in relation to their peers, tame in relation to secularists - start strongly. Spong, for example, argues eloquently against the existence of a god external to the universe who can respond supernaturally to the appeals of mortals, and for the example of a fully mortal Jesus as a taboo-breaking radical of great love and equanimity. He clearly demonstrates that the Bible should be read as epic (read mythic) "history" and never never as literal, eternal, or in any way god-given. With this largely admirable background, he praises the ideals and achievements of secular society such as the abolition of slavery, universal sufferage, equality of the genders, races, and sexual orientations.

But having run the marathon, he stumbles at the finishing line by declaring that some new kind of non-organised Christianity must be preserved. Why? Why should it? Having clearly argued that Christianity has contributed only suffering for two millenia (apart from some nice paintings and bits of music) and that any joy has been found beyond - indeed, inspite of - its dehumanizing influence, why do we need it for our future joy and happiness? If Jesus was kind and loving, need we the Bible to become kind and loving too? No, we do not.

I just have to post a link to this "Sampling of Mathematical Folk Humor". If you laugh with any of these jokes then congratulations, you're one of us. If you don't then congratulations.

Also check out Richard Dawkins's TEDtalk here for one of the funniest jokes I've ever heard from a scientist. After referring to an article in Playboy, he said "I was reading Playboy because I myself had an article in it." [My emphasis.]