A film with just dinosaurs running around would never have been so successful and would never have been made. That was our point. Dawkins' statement about Hollywood and Jurassic Park epitomizes the type of mindset that has kept scientists from having more productive encounters with the entertainment industry.
Now look at how Myers strives to defend Dawkins against us:. What Mooney and Kirshenbaum fail to grasp is that to a scientist, factual accuracy must be paramount; it is not a matter on which we can compromise. Further, what they fail to recognize, and what they excuse for Hollywood, as that accuracy does not have to compromise narrative, drama, and character!
They berate Dawkins as if he has no awareness of the basics of what makes a good story, which makes me wonder if they've read any of his books at all — do they think he simply drily recites a body of abstract thoughts at the reader? Perhaps they should take a look at The Ancestor's Tale. But of course, in context, it is absurd to think that factual accuracy would be paramount in a movie like Jurassic Park.
And for that matter, what can Myers possibly be saying about Dawkins' admittedly very good writing? Again, that's pretty hard to believe.
Myers claims the book "offers no new solutions. Chad Orzel even found one we couldn't fit into the main text--the idea of forming a Science PAC to get more scientists elected to Congress--buried in an endnote, and built an entire discussion around it. There are solutions in each chapter of the main body of the book, broken down by sector--politics, media, entertainment, religion.
And then there is the grand solution in Chapter which emerged from our collaboration, and which we don't think either of us would have come up with on our own. So far as we know, it really is new in its particular way of analyzing the academic pipeline and finding, in it, a solution to our problems at the science-society interface. Again, we would ask that readers consult the book, rather than Myers' review, to determine whether it really offers "no new solutions.
This difference in perceptions in these reviews is certainly remarkable. It's clear that those who are invested in the "New Atheism" have a strong negative reaction to the book--but is that surprising, in that the book strongly criticizes the "New Atheism"? But for those who do not have such a strong investment, yet care about the promotion and communication of science--like Michael Mann of Real Climate , Darksyde of Daily Kos , and many others--the book has prompted much valuable thought, response, and commentary.
We're very honored to see that it is having this effect. In our final post, tomorrow, we will conclude our responses to the claims in PZ's review. Register or Log In. The Magazine Shop. Though the rise of New Age and all kinds of funny ideas borrowed from the East, and adulterated, has changed that slightly. It refers to spirit, an invisible, preternatural force that in some way awakens, animates, or suffuses the human or the living world but is not mundanely physical.
In other words: I reject the notion that there is a sacred sphere separate from the profane sphere. Churches, or mountaintops, or toilets… none is more, or less, sacred than another, none is more, or less profane than another.
Now, perhaps Pantheism achieves this by implying, on some level, that the divine is universally distributed. Or so I think…. Anyway, if I may respond to the most important point, I would respond by saying that I think there would be many practicioners of many religions who would also not distinguish between the sacred and the profane; this would be particularly true of the mystics.
At that point, perhaps it is less religionists coopting the language of wonder as it is modern people coopting the language of religion to express their wonder. We will probably have to disagree on the question of the intellectual fashionability of atheism in Canada. Unless you consider the Nazis and the Holocaust to be Christianity, since as far as I know, atheist reform Judaism emerged after that.
I also would remind you not to mistake buying a book for agreeing with it. Maybe not the majority, but possibly a significant minority. I hope I can comment just one more time in this highly interesting discussion you and I are having. Funny you should make that remark about the Nazis. While their program was definitely not Christian, I do draw a direct line between the New Testament particularly the Gospel of John and the Holocaust. About for organized religions coopting the whole sense of wonder, I think we need to remember that the sense of wonder is the origin of all religion back to the cave man frightened of the thunderstorm.
The ability to consciously wonder and the religious impulses that led to organized religion have been with humankind from the very primordial beginning. Our closest primate relatives engage in these behaviours, too, just on a scale that non-toolmaking primates can manage. Likewise for a sense of wonder at the universe, at visual beauty, and so on. Your email address will not be published.
Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email. That is why I disagree with my wonderful classmate Julie, when she writes: Religion encompasses three things: moral philosophy, metaphysics, and tribal identity. Nice folks, those clerics. P Diddy calls Bjork.
Writing-Stuff Update. Richard Dawkins on collateral damage Is Richard Dawkins endorsing eugenics? Oh, wow, I got all the tags right! Go me! Nathan, Thanks. The bit about the accusation of arrogance is what spurred me to post, from the get-go. Hi Gord! A few minor points of my own: 1. Anyway, that was nitpicking, I guess… 2. Nathan, Thanks for expanding on your point, and for the interesting questions. A fascinating reply, Gord! Keep well! Take care! Leave a Reply Cancel reply Your email address will not be published.
The interview is good, but skip the comments—they descend into the usual mush-mouthed yammering about dictionary definitions of "agnostic" and "atheist," ignoring the fact that for all practical purposes they're exactly the same, and they're both going to get burned at the stake for apostasy and heresy when the theocracy comes. I've decided that when I invent my time machine, my first stop is going to be 19th century England, where I shall slap Tom Huxley upside the head and tell him that he's being a waffling coward by inventing a word that'….
What's the difference between a pope and a frill-necked lizard? In superficial morphology, surprisingly little. The lizard looks a little more friendly to me. The lizard is probably a little less concerned about where other lizards put their hemipenes, though, and certainly isn't at all worried about this: Benedict, a German, has made combating a Europe of empty churches and religious apathy a priority of his papacy. Vatican officials have declared that such former Catholic bedrocks as Spain are in need of what they call a "new evangelization.
What an excellent idea! I'm thinking we need to begin some secular…. Dire warnings. Reading some of my favorite blogs today, I can't help but feel the looming hand of fate preparing to destroy us all. You're in Kansas, Jon. It's not that far from Oklahoma. What happened to Bell could happen to you. Ophelia Benson is saying harsh words about Mother Theresa. An uppity woman criticizing an icon of Christian charity?
Someday, you could be in a hospital with a hatchet-faced nun looming over you, contemplating how best to chastise your body before your immortal soul meets the god who will fling you into the….
True patriots are apostate and infidel! Social Sciences pharyngula July 4, Since it is the Fourth of July, it seems only right to post something from the Revolution. Our reading for the day is the Age of Reason, by that fierce freethinking firebrand, Thomas Paine. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to….
They say she has a tear on her cheek The picture says it all, doesn't it? Well, maybe not everything. There's lots that could be said, but personally, I find it hard to get much beyond shocked silence. Can we please take our country back from the christianists soon? Here's something else to prompt your disgust.
Forthright godless scientists, arise! If we get a few more signing on, we'll have the start of a movement. A quick reply to some of the arguments made recently. I seem to have struck a nerve. I'm getting lots of irate email over this post I made yesterday…not the usual cranky, ungrammatical rants I get from creationists, but literate notes with a hint of desperation. They're still wrong. Everyone is mangling the question.
0コメント