What is it they say about 'playing the man rather than the ball'. I fear that Mr Dawkins and yourself have both fallen into the same trap. What say you to the idea of raising the level of the debate again?
I'll put my cards on the table, I'm an empiricist. I base my sense of reality on what can be ascertained by careful investigation. The last two words are extremely important.
I'll give an example. Archaeologists used to puzzle over why cave paintings in South Africa shared were very similar to those in Spain and France. Populations who had no contact were observing and painting dots, hands and animals in surprisingly similar ways.
Then someone pointed out: "Well what if they were stoned when they painted? Those dots are what you see when you use a hallucinogenic drug." It's highly probably that these primitive cultures were attributing spiritual significance to the effect of drugs. Many cultures did: South and North American indians ate peyote cactus, South Africans a Psilocybe mushroom, and Siberians based a religion around experiences eating Amanita muscaria mushrooms.
So what has that got to do with science, or religion for that matter? Be careful always believing what your senses tell you. That was their error, and that is sometimes an error in science and it is the error of all religions.
Professor Richard Dawkins is not only a scientist but a celebrity. He is not only lecturer but a debater. He is not only a teacher but an author.
Prof. Richard Dawkins has long been one of the world’s leading voices for the activists atheist movement, one of the leaders of the “New Atheists.”
This blog, Richard Dawkins : Scientist or Activist?, which was established in Nov. 2007, provides a careful dissection of his various statements on a wide range of issue: biology, evolution, morality, abortion, religion, the Bible, and much more.
Get my ebook, "The Apocryphal Jesus," here
Sebastian, London, UK.
ReplyDeleteWhat is it they say about 'playing the man rather than the ball'. I fear that Mr Dawkins and yourself have both fallen into the same trap. What say you to the idea of raising the level of the debate again?
I'll put my cards on the table, I'm an empiricist. I base my sense of reality on what can be ascertained by careful investigation. The last two words are extremely important.
I'll give an example. Archaeologists used to puzzle over why cave paintings in South Africa shared were very similar to those in Spain and France. Populations who had no contact were observing and painting dots, hands and animals in surprisingly similar ways.
Then someone pointed out: "Well what if they were stoned when they painted? Those dots are what you see when you use a hallucinogenic drug." It's highly probably that these primitive cultures were attributing spiritual significance to the effect of drugs. Many cultures did: South and North American indians ate peyote cactus, South Africans a Psilocybe mushroom, and Siberians based a religion around experiences eating Amanita muscaria mushrooms.
So what has that got to do with science, or religion for that matter? Be careful always believing what your senses tell you. That was their error, and that is sometimes an error in science and it is the error of all religions.
All the best.