Author
|
Topic: Richard Dawkins: The Ancestor's Tale (Read 1240 times) |
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.06
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
  
|
 |
Richard Dawkins: The Ancestor's Tale
« on: 2004-09-23 17:55:39 » |
 |
A book review. Sounds interesting.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2102-1252147,00.html
(free registration required)
The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life, by Richard Dawkins
Weidenfeld £25 pp528
When Richard Dawkins was a small child in Africa, his father, detectable only by his luminous watch in the equatorial darkness, regaled Richard and his sister with bedtime stories as they lay under their mosquito nets. He told them of a "Broncosaurus" that lived "faaaaaaaaaaar away in a place called Gwonwonky-land". Dawkins forgot about this until he learnt of the great southern continent known as Gondwanaland, or Gondwana. One hundred and fifty million years ago, Gondwanaland incorporated what we now know as South America, Africa, Arabia, Antarctica, Australasia, Madagascar and India. The southern tip of Africa was at that time in contact with a warm and wooded Antarctica, so there was a triangular gap between the east coast of Africa and north coast of Antarctica that was filled by India.
Dawkins goes on to relate that in the central region of Madhya Pradesh, where the Gonds live, there is a place called Gondwana; the word comes from the Sanskrit vana, which means land, or forest. The purpose of this mix of personal reminiscence, geography and language is the background it provides for Dawkins's discussion of the ratite, the flightless group of running and walking birds — such as ostriches, emus and cassowaries. The group, which also included the prodigious elephant bird, travelled and settled throughout the vast geographical expanse of that early continent, which explains how they have turned up, without being able to fly, as fossils and living survivors in regions now separated by the oceans. With allusions to the fables of Sinbad, and the giant moa (the elephant bird's rival for size), Dawkins wants us to know that his instincts as an evolutionary theorist would normally lead him to suppose that the ratite group emerged from parallel pressures of natural selection and adaptation in different places on the planet. "Alas," he writes, "this is not so. The true tale of the ratites . . . is a tale of Gondwana, and of continental drift or, as it is now called, plate tectonics."
Dawkins's new book, which is fabulous in many more ways than one, is a picaresque account of evolution running in reverse as a series of wondrous tales of explanation, from man to the amoeba, interspersed with anecdotes, and a huge circuit of reference to mythology, literature, nonsense verse and history. Lavishly illustrated, and brilliantly signposted, with something to amaze on every page, it will be a hard book for non-scientists to put down. There is not a scientist writing today who expounds his subject for the lay reader with such scintillating clarity and sheer politesse for the limits of the non-specialist.
Dawkins has cast his narrative as a kind of Chaucerian pilgrimage, with different groups and species telling their tales. He might just as well have taken the Arabian Nights tales as his model. The marvels, oddities and mysteries tumble out, one after another, with fascinating, sometimes hilarious asides: the origin of your prehensile tail, the infrared optics of pit snakes, the radar in the beak of the platypus, flying frogs, why humans are hairless (more or less), the phenomenon of lungfish, the peculiarity of the giant redwood (remember Ronald Reagan's "You've seen one, you've seen them all"), the wonky-eyed jewel fish, why westerners think Chinese people look more alike than westerners, the five-eyed crustacean of the Burgess Shale. And that big, vexing question: is evolution progressive? Is it value-free? In his discussion about anthropomorphic values, I loved his suggestion that an ancestor's tale written by an elephant would see "proboscitude" as the quintessence of progress.
His mischievousness is irrepressible, and certain to deny him a knighthood under a Labour government. Take his theory of our shift from quadruped to biped. Dawkins believes it was simply an ostentatious quirk, possibly the gimmick of a cocky male to show off his penis. Then it became contagious, as walks do; and he cites a special walk at his school, Oundle. As the senior boys paraded into the chapel, he tells us, they acted out a mixture of swagger and lumbering roll that behavioural bio- logists call "dominance display". Then comes a typical Dawkins aside. "At the time of writing," he declares, "the abject sycophancy of the British prime minister to the US president has earned him the title Bush's Poodle . . . he imitates Bush's macho cowboy swagger, with arms held out to the sides as though ready to reach for two pistols."
Despite the fun and the fantasy chit-chat between species and genes that abound, I am convinced that the serious student will find this book not only extremely useful but essential. A biologist colleague at Cambridge complains that, while it is admirable that every candidate for admission to the biological sciences has read at least one of Dawkins's books, the tragedy is that few of them have read anything else. His grievance, I suspect, should be less about Dawkins than the failure of his colleagues to write similarly readable studies.
This new book, however, makes generous and readable reference throughout the text to the research and ideas of a veritable army of biologists and other specialists in the fields of botany, zoology, ethnography, anthropology, neuroscience and natural history. Dawkins's acknowledgment of his researcher, Yan Wong, is everywhere apparent. I doubt whether Dawkins has ever written a book so eminently pluralist in the sense that he makes it clear on every page that evolutionary biology does not speak with a single and oracular voice.
It would not be a Dawkins work, of course, if he did not have a go at religion. "My objection to supernatural beliefs," he growls at the end of the book, "is precisely that they miserably fail to do justice to the sublime grandeur of the real world. They represent a narrowing down from reality, an impoverishment of what the real world has to offer." This is twaddle. Throughout the history of human kind it is precisely the sublime grandeur of the real world that has raised the hearts and minds of poets, musicians, mystics and religionists of every kind towards intimations of something beyond. It is strange that Dawkins, so sensitive to a wide range of mythology and literature, never picked that up from the psalms that he sang routinely as a choirboy. Had Dawkins taken a leaf out of Chaucer's book on the question of religion, he might have tempered his detestation with just a small degree of enlightened patience, if not understanding. But he is certainly right about one thing: the creationists' attempts to substitute Genesis for scientific explanation is not only ludicrous but dangerous.
Supernatural hobby-horses apart, I have just one serious quarrel with the book, which is the difficulty of reading it in bed. I note that at nearly 4kg it is a whole kilogram heavier than my hardback F N Robinson edition of The Works of Chaucer, which has twice as many pages and is printed on high-quality paper. Fans of Dawkins, and I now count myself as one of them, may wish to invest in a lectern.
|
|
|
|
|
Drakeo Vortex
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 77
Reputation: 7.62
Rate Drakeo Vortex
|
|
RE: virus: Richard Dawkins: The Ancestor's Tale
« Reply #1 on: 2004-09-24 15:21:04 » |
|
Awesome Dawkins new book. I'll be ordering it soon. Thanks for the review
rhino. Can't wait to read it. I think this book would be great to talk abou
tin the book club.
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
hell-kite
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 73
Reputation: 5.03
Rate hell-kite
feed me!
 
|
|
RE: virus: Richard Dawkins: The Ancestor's Tale
« Reply #2 on: 2004-09-25 08:18:29 » |
|
>>It would not be a Dawkins work, of course, if he did not have a go at
religion. "My objection to supernatural beliefs," he growls at the end of
the book, "is precisely that they miserably fail to do justice to the
sublime grandeur of the real world. They represent a narrowing down from
reality, an impoverishment of what the real world has to offer." This is
twaddle. Throughout the history of human kind it is precisely the sublime
grandeur of the real world that has raised the hearts and minds of poets,
musicians, mystics and religionists of every kind towards intimations of
something beyond. It is strange that Dawkins, so sensitive to a wide range
of mythology and literature, never picked that up from the psalms that he
sang routinely as a choirboy. Had Dawkins taken a leaf out of Chaucer's book
on the question of religion, he might have tempered his detestation with
just a small degree of enlightened patience, if not understanding.<<
To some extent, I agree to this objection - it is true as far as I know that
most religious doctrines also draw attention to how beautifully the world is
"constructed" (in fact, I am somewhat wasting my time right now reading a
Jehova's Witness' book that exploits the science-meme heavily in explaining
cosmos/life/the human brain, only to come to the conclusion that there must
be an intelligent creator - sick enough that they quote even Dawkins along
the way...).
Yet that is probably not what Dawkins is actually criticizing: He isn't
attacking religion for impoversishing the PHENOMENA, the things that are,
but he's attacking them for using extremely simplifying EXPLANATIONS. Why is
the world as it is? can always be answered by a religious person through the
religious shortcut - "because God designed it to be so". A religiously
inclined person would - likely enough - never have come to ask "why" very
seriously, because for her or him the final answer was obvious in the first
place.
Evolutionary explanations such as design through random processes filtered
through natural selection might simply be too secular - and definitely too
RANDOM - for most believers to consider. In accepting evolutionary theory,
all "intelligent design"-arguments (the most data-reducing arguments there
are) would become superfluous; or, at least, the only intelligent design
would be the mechanisms of evolution, while the rest, nature in all its
beauty, would be degraded (in the eyes of a believer) to the
not-quite-but-somewhat-random product of these mechanisms.
I would love to hear your opinions on this.
Björn
<<Ygnailh... ygnaiih... thflthkh'ngha.... Yog-Sothoth... Y'bthnk... h'ehye -
n'grkdl'lh...>>
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]Im Auftrag
von rhinoceros
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. September 2004 23:56
An: virus@lucifer.com
Betreff: virus: Richard Dawkins: The Ancestor's Tale
A book review. Sounds interesting.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2102-1252147,00.html
(free registration required)
The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life, by Richard Dawkins
Weidenfeld £25 pp528
When Richard Dawkins was a small child in Africa, his father, detectable
only by his luminous watch in the equatorial darkness, regaled Richard and
his sister with bedtime stories as they lay under their mosquito nets. He
told them of a "Broncosaurus" that lived "faaaaaaaaaaar away in a place
called Gwonwonky-land". Dawkins forgot about this until he learnt of the
great southern continent known as Gondwanaland, or Gondwana. One hundred and
fifty million years ago, Gondwanaland incorporated what we now know as South
America, Africa, Arabia, Antarctica, Australasia, Madagascar and India. The
southern tip of Africa was at that time in contact with a warm and wooded
Antarctica, so there was a triangular gap between the east coast of Africa
and north coast of Antarctica that was filled by India.
Dawkins goes on to relate that in the central region of Madhya Pradesh,
where the Gonds live, there is a place called Gondwana; the word comes from
the Sanskrit vana, which means land, or forest. The purpose of this mix of
personal reminiscence, geography and language is the background it provides
for Dawkins's discussion of the ratite, the flightless group of running and
walking birds — such as ostriches, emus and cassowaries. The group, which
also included the prodigious elephant bird, travelled and settled throughout
the vast geographical expanse of that early continent, which explains how
they have turned up, without being able to fly, as fossils and living
survivors in regions now separated by the oceans. With allusions to the
fables of Sinbad, and the giant moa (the elephant bird's rival for size),
Dawkins wants us to know that his instincts as an evolutionary theorist
would normally lead him to suppose that the ratite group emerged from
parallel pressures of natural s!
election and adaptation in different places on the planet. "Alas," he
writes, "this is not so. The true tale of the ratites . . . is a tale of
Gondwana, and of continental drift or, as it is now called, plate
tectonics."
Dawkins's new book, which is fabulous in many more ways than one, is a
picaresque account of evolution running in reverse as a series of wondrous
tales of explanation, from man to the amoeba, interspersed with anecdotes,
and a huge circuit of reference to mythology, literature, nonsense verse and
history. Lavishly illustrated, and brilliantly signposted, with something to
amaze on every page, it will be a hard book for non-scientists to put down.
There is not a scientist writing today who expounds his subject for the lay
reader with such scintillating clarity and sheer politesse for the limits of
the non-specialist.
Dawkins has cast his narrative as a kind of Chaucerian pilgrimage, with
different groups and species telling their tales. He might just as well have
taken the Arabian Nights tales as his model. The marvels, oddities and
mysteries tumble out, one after another, with fascinating, sometimes
hilarious asides: the origin of your prehensile tail, the infrared optics of
pit snakes, the radar in the beak of the platypus, flying frogs, why humans
are hairless (more or less), the phenomenon of lungfish, the peculiarity of
the giant redwood (remember Ronald Reagan's "You've seen one, you've seen
them all"), the wonky-eyed jewel fish, why westerners think Chinese people
look more alike than westerners, the five-eyed crustacean of the Burgess
Shale. And that big, vexing question: is evolution progressive? Is it
value-free? In his discussion about anthropomorphic values, I loved his
suggestion that an ancestor's tale written by an elephant would see
"proboscitude" as the quintessence of p!
rogress.
His mischievousness is irrepressible, and certain to deny him a knighthood
under a Labour government. Take his theory of our shift from quadruped to
biped. Dawkins believes it was simply an ostentatious quirk, possibly the
gimmick of a cocky male to show off his penis. Then it became contagious, as
walks do; and he cites a special walk at his school, Oundle. As the senior
boys paraded into the chapel, he tells us, they acted out a mixture of
swagger and lumbering roll that behavioural bio- logists call "dominance
display". Then comes a typical Dawkins aside. "At the time of writing," he
declares, "the abject sycophancy of the British prime minister to the US
president has earned him the title Bush's Poodle . . . he imitates Bush's
macho cowboy swagger, with arms held out to the sides as though ready to
reach for two pistols."
Despite the fun and the fantasy chit-chat between species and genes that
abound, I am convinced that the serious student will find this book not only
extremely useful but essential. A biologist colleague at Cambridge complains
that, while it is admirable that every candidate for admission to the
biological sciences has read at least one of Dawkins's books, the tragedy is
that few of them have read anything else. His grievance, I suspect, should
be less about Dawkins than the failure of his colleagues to write similarly
readable studies.
This new book, however, makes generous and readable reference throughout the
text to the research and ideas of a veritable army of biologists and other
specialists in the fields of botany, zoology, ethnography, anthropology,
neuroscience and natural history. Dawkins's acknowledgment of his
researcher, Yan Wong, is everywhere apparent. I doubt whether Dawkins has
ever written a book so eminently pluralist in the sense that he makes it
clear on every page that evolutionary biology does not speak with a single
and oracular voice.
It would not be a Dawkins work, of course, if he did not have a go at
religion. "My objection to supernatural beliefs," he growls at the end of
the book, "is precisely that they miserably fail to do justice to the
sublime grandeur of the real world. They represent a narrowing down from
reality, an impoverishment of what the real world has to offer." This is
twaddle. Throughout the history of human kind it is precisely the sublime
grandeur of the real world that has raised the hearts and minds of poets,
musicians, mystics and religionists of every kind towards intimations of
something beyond. It is strange that Dawkins, so sensitive to a wide range
of mythology and literature, never picked that up from the psalms that he
sang routinely as a choirboy. Had Dawkins taken a leaf out of Chaucer's book
on the question of religion, he might have tempered his detestation with
just a small degree of enlightened patience, if not understanding. But he is
certainly right about one thing:!
the creationists' attempts to substitute Genesis for scientific explanation
is not only ludicrous but dangerous.
Supernatural hobby-horses apart, I have just one serious quarrel with the
book, which is the difficulty of reading it in bed. I note that at nearly
4kg it is a whole kilogram heavier than my hardback F N Robinson edition of
The Works of Chaucer, which has twice as many pages and is printed on
high-quality paper. Fans of Dawkins, and I now count myself as one of them,
may wish to invest in a lectern.
----
This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2004 board on Church of
Virus BBS.
<http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=61;action=display;threadid=308
97>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Othello. Thou dost conspire against thy friend, Iago,
If thou but think'st him wrong'd, and mak'st his ear
A stranger to thy thoughts.
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.63
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Richard Dawkins: The Ancestor's Tale
« Reply #3 on: 2004-09-25 10:30:53 » |
|
Gorogh
Sent: 25 September 2004 02:18 PM
<snip>To some extent, I agree to this objection - it is true as far as
I know that most religious doctrines also draw attention to how
beautifully the world is "constructed" </snip>
[Blunderov] I tend to agree more whole heartedly with Dawkins. It seems
to me that religion diverts attention from the incredible (and very
obvious) wonder of the 'here and now' in favour of the supposedly even
greater, albeit completely unknowable (!), wonder of the hereafter.
This nonsense offends me to my very marrow and I will have no truck with
it. As far as I am concerned 'saving souls' is a euphemism for 'thieving
lives'.
But to each their own. Free will and all that.
Best Regards
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.61
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re: virus: Richard Dawkins: The Ancestor's Tale
« Reply #4 on: 2004-09-25 12:09:59 » |
|
Amen, Blunderov. Amen.
Walter
Blunderov wrote:
>Gorogh
>Sent: 25 September 2004 02:18 PM
> <snip>To some extent, I agree to this objection - it is true as far as
>I know that most religious doctrines also draw attention to how
>beautifully the world is "constructed" </snip>
>
>[Blunderov] I tend to agree more whole heartedly with Dawkins. It seems
>to me that religion diverts attention from the incredible (and very
>obvious) wonder of the 'here and now' in favour of the supposedly even
>greater, albeit completely unknowable (!), wonder of the hereafter.
>
>This nonsense offends me to my very marrow and I will have no truck with
>it. As far as I am concerned 'saving souls' is a euphemism for 'thieving
>lives'.
>
>But to each their own. Free will and all that.
>
>Best Regards
>
>
>
>
>---
>To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
>
>
>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
hell-kite
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 73
Reputation: 5.03
Rate hell-kite
feed me!
|
|
RE: virus: Richard Dawkins: The Ancestor's Tale
« Reply #5 on: 2004-09-25 14:07:16 » |
|
<snip> [Blunderov] I tend to agree more whole heartedly with Dawkins. It
seems
to me that religion diverts attention from the incredible (and very
obvious) wonder of the 'here and now' in favour of the supposedly even
greater, albeit completely unknowable (!), wonder of the hereafter.</snip>
to make that understood, i am fiendishly anti-religious.
yet i wouldn't be so sure that religion generally tries to do what you
stated, "diverting attention from the here and now etc.". at least some more
modern manifestations of christianity (whom i, the lamb of god, just
recently sacrificed myself into exploring in order to bring you
enlightenment...) do not actually propagate that kind of medieval
afterlife-focus anymore. from what i see, its the togetherness, the idea of
having a friend in jesus (the most sickening sight surely is this:
http://www.catholicshopper.com/products/inspirational_sport_statues.html),
the being-close-to-god, the
is-it-not-great-that-god-sacrificed-his-beloved-son-to-lead-us-to-salvation-
meme and similar memes, but ALSO the notion that this world is so
beautifully made by god. as i mentioned, i have an entire book by the
witnesses (surely not the most representative faction of christianity, but
nevertheless) that deals with nothing but how intricate and beautiful(ly
made) the world is... and i bet since this notion of beauty is an effective
meme, religion is very much inclined to use it!
the basic dogmas (such as regarding the afterlife) surely won't have
changed - but still "they" (who that is, is another topic...) have to appeal
e.g. to younger people, so i guess they use all kinds of memetic engineering
(as done in the past) to twist their own doctrine to fit into the reality of
the people they want to buy it.
ah well - "free will and all that" i will subscribe to anyway.
blessings from björn
(blärg)
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]Im Auftrag
von Blunderov
Gesendet: Samstag, 25. September 2004 16:31
An: virus@lucifer.com
Betreff: RE: virus: Richard Dawkins: The Ancestor's Tale
Gorogh
Sent: 25 September 2004 02:18 PM
<snip>To some extent, I agree to this objection - it is true as far as
I know that most religious doctrines also draw attention to how
beautifully the world is "constructed" </snip>
[Blunderov] I tend to agree more whole heartedly with Dawkins. It seems
to me that religion diverts attention from the incredible (and very
obvious) wonder of the 'here and now' in favour of the supposedly even
greater, albeit completely unknowable (!), wonder of the hereafter.
This nonsense offends me to my very marrow and I will have no truck with
it. As far as I am concerned 'saving souls' is a euphemism for 'thieving
lives'.
But to each their own. Free will and all that.
Best Regards
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Othello. Thou dost conspire against thy friend, Iago,
If thou but think'st him wrong'd, and mak'st his ear
A stranger to thy thoughts.
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.63
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Richard Dawkins: The Ancestor's Tale
« Reply #6 on: 2004-09-25 16:48:02 » |
|
Gorogh
Sent: 25 September 2004 08:07 PM
to make that understood, i am fiendishly anti-religious.
yet i wouldn't be so sure that religion generally tries to do what you
stated, "diverting attention from the here and now etc.". at least some
more
modern manifestations of christianity (whom i, the lamb of god, just
recently sacrificed myself into exploring in order to bring you
enlightenment...) do not actually propagate that kind of medieval
afterlife-focus anymore. from what i see, its the togetherness, the idea
of
having a friend in jesus (the most sickening sight surely is this:
http://www.catholicshopper.com/products/inspirational_sport_statues.html
)
the being-close-to-god, the
is-it-not-great-that-god-sacrificed-his-beloved-son-to-lead-us-to-salvat
ion- meme and similar memes, but ALSO the notion that this world is so
beautifully made by god. as i mentioned, i have an entire book by the
witnesses (surely not the most representative faction of christianity,
but nevertheless) that deals with nothing but how intricate and
beautiful(lymade) the world is... and i bet since this notion of beauty
is an effectivememe, religion is very much inclined to use it!
the basic dogmas (such as regarding the afterlife) surely won't have
changed - but still "they" (who that is, is another topic...) have to
appeal
e.g. to younger people, so i guess they use all kinds of memetic
engineering
(as done in the past) to twist their own doctrine to fit into the
reality of
the people they want to buy it.
ah well - "free will and all that" i will subscribe to anyway.
blessings from björn
(blärg)
[Blunderov] Blessings to you too Bjorn! (The 'sickening sight' is
hauntingly similar to the 'Buddy Christ' from that splendid movie
(Hollywood's' answer to 'The Life of Brian') 'Dogma'.
http://www.explosiontoys.com/com057.html)
Yes, I think you are right about religion not overtly trying to 'divert'
etc. To refine that thought, my main objection is that religion, whether
purposely or not, seems to make it all the more possible for people to
believe in yet other nonsensical things like astrology and lottery
tickets for instance. It sets a terrible precedent.
I appreciate, as I'm sure do the rest of the congregation, your
self-sacrifice in investigating the belly of the modern xtian beast; it
must not be a pretty sight! And it does seem that your findings are
correct; the Pope declared 'hell' to be a sort of metaphorical construct
quite some while ago and one can only assume that the same must apply to
'heaven' too.
As to the memetic engineering you mention, according to a Time magazine
from a few months ago, this is not without its problems. In Europe,
surprisingly, the numbers of young people who claim to be religious have
been rising. The difficulty for the church is, apparently, that these
people are often not very strict in their adherence to dogma; many of
them have borrowed little bits and bobs of other religions and
superstitions and incorporated them as well. Furthermore and very
unsurprisingly, they often leave out some of the more inconvenient
aspects of their 'official' religion too. It presents the ecclesiastical
authorities with something of a quandary when, for instance, important
strictures on birth control and abortion are completely ignored by most
of their clients.
All things considered, I think we rationalists may be winning slowly.
Let's hope that it does not turn out to be hollow if victory it be; it
might behoove us to consider what it would be like to live in a world
that worships money instead of god. What was that commandment about
graven images again?
Best Regards.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
hell-kite
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 73
Reputation: 5.03
Rate hell-kite
feed me!
|
|
RE: virus: Richard Dawkins: The Ancestor's Tale
« Reply #7 on: 2004-09-26 07:05:06 » |
|
blunderov
wrote
<snip> my main objection is that religion, whether
purposely or not, seems to make it all the more possible for people to
believe in yet other nonsensical things like astrology and lottery
tickets for instance. It sets a terrible precedent. </snip>
yes, exactly one of dawkins' arguments - to quote his most powerful and one
of my favourite statements by him,
blind faith can justify anything. (...) faith is such a successful
brainwasher in its own favour, especially a brainwasher of children, that it
is hard to break its hold. but what, after all, is faith? it is a state of
mind that leads people to believe something - it doesn't matter what - in
the total absence of supporting evidence.
and further down,
i don't want to argue that the things in which a particular individual has
faith are necessarily daft. they may or may not be. the point is that there
is no way of deciding whether they are, and no way of preferring one article
of faith over another, because evidence is explicitly eschewed. indeed the
fact that true faith doesn't need evidence is held up as its greatest
virtue; this was the point of quoting the story of doubting thomas, the only
really admirable member of the twelve apostles.
<snip>investigating the belly of the modern xtian beast (...) must not be a
pretty sight! </snip>
aye, 'tis true. talk about evasive, illogical argumentation with
quasi-solipsistic conclusions here... too sad that it's all german, so i
even linking to the page where i published it won't help a lot...
<snip> The difficulty for the church is, apparently, that these people are
often not very strict in their adherence to dogma; many of them have
borrowed little bits and bobs of other religions and superstitions and
incorporated them as well. Furthermore and very unsurprisingly, they often
leave out some of the more inconvenient aspects of their 'official' religion
too. </snip>
makes sense. as far as i got into it, it's less dogma and more "personal
experience" (combined with the eclectic ecclesiasticism mentioned by you)
involved here, such as "god often answers my prayers", "i am often touched
by the presence of god, it makes me wanna cry" and similar statements. the
unnerving thing is, these sentiments are even less rational than the dogmas
which the church at least tries to defend on a logical basis (which is
perfectly impossible without repeatedly raping your own reason and judgement
of plausibility). the instance a person interprets an experience as
religious (even if it has a completely natural explanation, such as
exceptional emotional states or even drug use), it is hard to attack their
religiosity without attacking their person as a whole - so they struggle
mightily.
any idea how to break a person's mind?
<snippety snip> All things considered, I think we rationalists may be
winning slowly. </snip>
i'm pessimistic - while you actually may be right that organised religion is
on the decline (then again, just look at us policy... well, you know more
about this than i do), human nature will have a hard time combating as
seductively yet short-sightedly convenient ways of living as the western
lifestyle. you obviously cannot change sociological entities without a very
idealistic and steadfast education, and that again depends on a
non-opportunistic government with the same virtues. which will never exist,
of course.
too many people, too effective means of communication for effective
indoctrination... hard time for philosopher kings...
björn
<<Ygnailh... ygnaiih... thflthkh'ngha.... Yog-Sothoth... Y'bthnk... h'ehye -
n'grkdl'lh...>>
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]Im Auftrag
von Blunderov
Gesendet: Samstag, 25. September 2004 22:48
An: virus@lucifer.com
Betreff: RE: virus: Richard Dawkins: The Ancestor's Tale
Gorogh
Sent: 25 September 2004 08:07 PM
to make that understood, i am fiendishly anti-religious.
yet i wouldn't be so sure that religion generally tries to do what you
stated, "diverting attention from the here and now etc.". at least some
more
modern manifestations of christianity (whom i, the lamb of god, just
recently sacrificed myself into exploring in order to bring you
enlightenment...) do not actually propagate that kind of medieval
afterlife-focus anymore. from what i see, its the togetherness, the idea
of
having a friend in jesus (the most sickening sight surely is this:
http://www.catholicshopper.com/products/inspirational_sport_statues.html
)
the being-close-to-god, the
is-it-not-great-that-god-sacrificed-his-beloved-son-to-lead-us-to-salvat
ion- meme and similar memes, but ALSO the notion that this world is so
beautifully made by god. as i mentioned, i have an entire book by the
witnesses (surely not the most representative faction of christianity,
but nevertheless) that deals with nothing but how intricate and
beautiful(lymade) the world is... and i bet since this notion of beauty
is an effectivememe, religion is very much inclined to use it!
the basic dogmas (such as regarding the afterlife) surely won't have
changed - but still "they" (who that is, is another topic...) have to
appeal
e.g. to younger people, so i guess they use all kinds of memetic
engineering
(as done in the past) to twist their own doctrine to fit into the
reality of
the people they want to buy it.
ah well - "free will and all that" i will subscribe to anyway.
blessings from björn
(blärg)
[Blunderov] Blessings to you too Bjorn! (The 'sickening sight' is
hauntingly similar to the 'Buddy Christ' from that splendid movie
(Hollywood's' answer to 'The Life of Brian') 'Dogma'.
http://www.explosiontoys.com/com057.html)
Yes, I think you are right about religion not overtly trying to 'divert'
etc. To refine that thought, my main objection is that religion, whether
purposely or not, seems to make it all the more possible for people to
believe in yet other nonsensical things like astrology and lottery
tickets for instance. It sets a terrible precedent.
I appreciate, as I'm sure do the rest of the congregation, your
self-sacrifice in investigating the belly of the modern xtian beast; it
must not be a pretty sight! And it does seem that your findings are
correct; the Pope declared 'hell' to be a sort of metaphorical construct
quite some while ago and one can only assume that the same must apply to
'heaven' too.
As to the memetic engineering you mention, according to a Time magazine
from a few months ago, this is not without its problems. In Europe,
surprisingly, the numbers of young people who claim to be religious have
been rising. The difficulty for the church is, apparently, that these
people are often not very strict in their adherence to dogma; many of
them have borrowed little bits and bobs of other religions and
superstitions and incorporated them as well. Furthermore and very
unsurprisingly, they often leave out some of the more inconvenient
aspects of their 'official' religion too. It presents the ecclesiastical
authorities with something of a quandary when, for instance, important
strictures on birth control and abortion are completely ignored by most
of their clients.
All things considered, I think we rationalists may be winning slowly.
Let's hope that it does not turn out to be hollow if victory it be; it
might behoove us to consider what it would be like to live in a world
that worships money instead of god. What was that commandment about
graven images again?
Best Regards.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Othello. Thou dost conspire against thy friend, Iago,
If thou but think'st him wrong'd, and mak'st his ear
A stranger to thy thoughts.
|
|
|
simul
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 614
Reputation: 7.53
Rate simul
I am a lama.
 
|
|
RE: virus: Richard Dawkins: The Ancestor's Tale
« Reply #8 on: 2004-09-26 10:02:52 » |
|
> <snip> my main objection is that religion, whether
> purposely or not, seems to make it all the more possible for people to
> believe in yet other nonsensical things like astrology and lottery
> tickets for instance. It sets a terrible precedent. </snip>
Faith:
1. "an expectation of an outcome based on expedience or necessity, rather
than experience" as in "I had no time to test the program, so I had to run
it on faith"
2. "an unreasonable or illogical expectation of an outcome intended to
inspire others in that outcome and produce results" as in, "Ghandi had faith
in a free India"
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.61
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re: virus: Richard Dawkins: The Ancestor's Tale
« Reply #9 on: 2004-09-26 12:21:09 » |
|
How about the definition of faith given in Hebrews by those sneaky, priestly,
wordsmithing redactors of old.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hebrews 11:1 says:
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
*******Bullshit!********
Walter says:
Evidence is the substance of things seen, faith is the hope of things not seen.
----------------------------------------------------------
Walter
Erik Aronesty wrote:
> > <snip> my main objection is that religion, whether
> > purposely or not, seems to make it all the more possible for people to
> > believe in yet other nonsensical things like astrology and lottery
> > tickets for instance. It sets a terrible precedent. </snip>
>
> Faith:
>
> 1. "an expectation of an outcome based on expedience or necessity, rather
> than experience" as in "I had no time to test the program, so I had to run
> it on faith"
>
> 2. "an unreasonable or illogical expectation of an outcome intended to
> inspire others in that outcome and produce results" as in, "Ghandi had faith
> in a free India"
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
"Pursue the small utopias... nature, music, friendship, love"
--Kupferberg--
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
simul
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 614
Reputation: 7.53
Rate simul
I am a lama.
|
|
Re: virus: Richard Dawkins: The Ancestor's Tale
« Reply #10 on: 2004-09-26 19:11:28 » |
|
When religion serves faith, it is useful and powerful and produces real and creative results. When faith serves religion, it is just the opposite... a Dawkins' style timewaster at best, and at worst - a path to destruction.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Gorogh" <gorogh@pallowrun.de>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:07:16
To:<virus@lucifer.com>
Subject: RE: virus: Richard Dawkins: The Ancestor's Tale
<snip> [Blunderov] I tend to agree more whole heartedly with Dawkins. It
seems
to me that religion diverts attention from the incredible (and very
obvious) wonder of the 'here and now' in favour of the supposedly even
greater, albeit completely unknowable (!), wonder of the hereafter.</snip>
to make that understood, i am fiendishly anti-religious.
yet i wouldn't be so sure that religion generally tries to do what you
stated, "diverting attention from the here and now etc.". at least some more
modern manifestations of christianity (whom i, the lamb of god, just
recently sacrificed myself into exploring in order to bring you
enlightenment...) do not actually propagate that kind of medieval
afterlife-focus anymore. from what i see, its the togetherness, the idea of
having a friend in jesus (the most sickening sight surely is this:
http://www.catholicshopper.com/products/inspirational_sport_statues.html),
the being-close-to-god, the
is-it-not-great-that-god-sacrificed-his-beloved-son-to-lead-us-to-salvation-
meme and similar memes, but ALSO the notion that this world is so
beautifully made by god. as i mentioned, i have an entire book by the
witnesses (surely not the most representative faction of christianity, but
nevertheless) that deals with nothing but how intricate and beautiful(ly
made) the world is... and i bet since this notion of beauty is an effective
meme, religion is very much inclined to use it!
the basic dogmas (such as regarding the afterlife) surely won't have
changed - but still "they" (who that is, is another topic...) have to appeal
e.g. to younger people, so i guess they use all kinds of memetic engineering
(as done in the past) to twist their own doctrine to fit into the reality of
the people they want to buy it.
ah well - "free will and all that" i will subscribe to anyway.
blessings from björn
(blärg)
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]Im Auftrag
von Blunderov
Gesendet: Samstag, 25. September 2004 16:31
An: virus@lucifer.com
Betreff: RE: virus: Richard Dawkins: The Ancestor's Tale
Gorogh
Sent: 25 September 2004 02:18 PM
<snip>To some extent, I agree to this objection - it is true as far as
I know that most religious doctrines also draw attention to how
beautifully the world is "constructed" </snip>
[Blunderov] I tend to agree more whole heartedly with Dawkins. It seems
to me that religion diverts attention from the incredible (and very
obvious) wonder of the 'here and now' in favour of the supposedly even
greater, albeit completely unknowable (!), wonder of the hereafter.
This nonsense offends me to my very marrow and I will have no truck with
it. As far as I am concerned 'saving souls' is a euphemism for 'thieving
lives'.
But to each their own. Free will and all that.
Best Regards
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
|
|
|
hell-kite
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 73
Reputation: 5.03
Rate hell-kite
feed me!
|
|
RE: virus: Richard Dawkins: The Ancestor's Tale
« Reply #11 on: 2004-09-27 03:32:12 » |
|
<snip>When religion serves faith, it is useful and powerful and produces
real and creative results. When faith serves religion, it is just the
opposite... a Dawkins' style timewaster at best, and at worst - a path to
destruction.</snip>
honestly - i don't understand. could you paraphrase this/define "faith" &
"religion"?
björn
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]Im Auftrag
von Erik Aronesty
Gesendet: Montag, 27. September 2004 01:11
An: Church of Virus
Betreff: Re: virus: Richard Dawkins: The Ancestor's Tale
When religion serves faith, it is useful and powerful and produces real and
creative results. When faith serves religion, it is just the opposite... a
Dawkins' style timewaster at best, and at worst - a path to destruction.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Gorogh" <gorogh@pallowrun.de>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:07:16
To:<virus@lucifer.com>
Subject: RE: virus: Richard Dawkins: The Ancestor's Tale
<snip> [Blunderov] I tend to agree more whole heartedly with Dawkins. It
seems
to me that religion diverts attention from the incredible (and very
obvious) wonder of the 'here and now' in favour of the supposedly even
greater, albeit completely unknowable (!), wonder of the hereafter.</snip>
to make that understood, i am fiendishly anti-religious.
yet i wouldn't be so sure that religion generally tries to do what you
stated, "diverting attention from the here and now etc.". at least some more
modern manifestations of christianity (whom i, the lamb of god, just
recently sacrificed myself into exploring in order to bring you
enlightenment...) do not actually propagate that kind of medieval
afterlife-focus anymore. from what i see, its the togetherness, the idea of
having a friend in jesus (the most sickening sight surely is this:
http://www.catholicshopper.com/products/inspirational_sport_statues.html),
the being-close-to-god, the
is-it-not-great-that-god-sacrificed-his-beloved-son-to-lead-us-to-salvation-
meme and similar memes, but ALSO the notion that this world is so
beautifully made by god. as i mentioned, i have an entire book by the
witnesses (surely not the most representative faction of christianity, but
nevertheless) that deals with nothing but how intricate and beautiful(ly
made) the world is... and i bet since this notion of beauty is an effective
meme, religion is very much inclined to use it!
the basic dogmas (such as regarding the afterlife) surely won't have
changed - but still "they" (who that is, is another topic...) have to appeal
e.g. to younger people, so i guess they use all kinds of memetic engineering
(as done in the past) to twist their own doctrine to fit into the reality of
the people they want to buy it.
ah well - "free will and all that" i will subscribe to anyway.
blessings from björn
(blärg)
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]Im Auftrag
von Blunderov
Gesendet: Samstag, 25. September 2004 16:31
An: virus@lucifer.com
Betreff: RE: virus: Richard Dawkins: The Ancestor's Tale
Gorogh
Sent: 25 September 2004 02:18 PM
<snip>To some extent, I agree to this objection - it is true as far as
I know that most religious doctrines also draw attention to how
beautifully the world is "constructed" </snip>
[Blunderov] I tend to agree more whole heartedly with Dawkins. It seems
to me that religion diverts attention from the incredible (and very
obvious) wonder of the 'here and now' in favour of the supposedly even
greater, albeit completely unknowable (!), wonder of the hereafter.
This nonsense offends me to my very marrow and I will have no truck with
it. As far as I am concerned 'saving souls' is a euphemism for 'thieving
lives'.
But to each their own. Free will and all that.
Best Regards
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Othello. Thou dost conspire against thy friend, Iago,
If thou but think'st him wrong'd, and mak'st his ear
A stranger to thy thoughts.
|
|
|
simul
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 614
Reputation: 7.53
Rate simul
I am a lama.
|
|
Re: virus: Richard Dawkins: The Ancestor's Tale
« Reply #12 on: 2004-09-27 19:22:10 » |
|
Faith is defined as either:
1. An irrational belief in an outcome borne out of necessity, as in “I had no more time to debug the code, so I ran it on faith”. The purpose of this is to eliminate the paralytic (no-action) effect of fear.
2. An irrational belief in an unreasonable outcome designed to inspire others in that outcome, as in “Ghandi had faith in a free India”
In both instances, faith removed the subject from fear - which would have otherwise prevented any action.
Religion can serve this goal to motivate and inspire its adherents beyond fear and into new territory for personal exploration. My business partner likes to call this “spiritual technology” ... the science of using faith as a tool to achieve results.
Religion can also exploit this mechanism and inspire its adherents solely in the growth and promotion of the religion itself, or in outcomes that are detrimental to the adherents. Some gurus will exploit this effect and drain their adherents of all of their resources...
-----Original Message-----
From: "Gorogh" <gorogh@pallowrun.de>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 09:32:12
To:<virus@lucifer.com>
Subject: RE: virus: Richard Dawkins: The Ancestor's Tale
<snip>When religion serves faith, it is useful and powerful and produces
real and creative results. When faith serves religion, it is just the
opposite... a Dawkins' style timewaster at best, and at worst - a path to
destruction.</snip>
honestly - i don't understand. could you paraphrase this/define "faith" &
"religion"?
björn
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]Im Auftrag
von Erik Aronesty
Gesendet: Montag, 27. September 2004 01:11
An: Church of Virus
Betreff: Re: virus: Richard Dawkins: The Ancestor's Tale
When religion serves faith, it is useful and powerful and produces real and
creative results. When faith serves religion, it is just the opposite... a
Dawkins' style timewaster at best, and at worst - a path to destruction.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Gorogh" <gorogh@pallowrun.de>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:07:16
To:<virus@lucifer.com>
Subject: RE: virus: Richard Dawkins: The Ancestor's Tale
<snip> [Blunderov] I tend to agree more whole heartedly with Dawkins. It
seems
to me that religion diverts attention from the incredible (and very
obvious) wonder of the 'here and now' in favour of the supposedly even
greater, albeit completely unknowable (!), wonder of the hereafter.</snip>
to make that understood, i am fiendishly anti-religious.
yet i wouldn't be so sure that religion generally tries to do what you
stated, "diverting attention from the here and now etc.". at least some more
modern manifestations of christianity (whom i, the lamb of god, just
recently sacrificed myself into exploring in order to bring you
enlightenment...) do not actually propagate that kind of medieval
afterlife-focus anymore. from what i see, its the togetherness, the idea of
having a friend in jesus (the most sickening sight surely is this:
http://www.catholicshopper.com/products/inspirational_sport_statues.html),
the being-close-to-god, the
is-it-not-great-that-god-sacrificed-his-beloved-son-to-lead-us-to-salvation-
meme and similar memes, but ALSO the notion that this world is so
beautifully made by god. as i mentioned, i have an entire book by the
witnesses (surely not the most representative faction of christianity, but
nevertheless) that deals with nothing but how intricate and beautiful(ly
made) the world is... and i bet since this notion of beauty is an effective
meme, religion is very much inclined to use it!
the basic dogmas (such as regarding the afterlife) surely won't have
changed - but still "they" (who that is, is another topic...) have to appeal
e.g. to younger people, so i guess they use all kinds of memetic engineering
(as done in the past) to twist their own doctrine to fit into the reality of
the people they want to buy it.
ah well - "free will and all that" i will subscribe to anyway.
blessings from björn
(blärg)
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]Im Auftrag
von Blunderov
Gesendet: Samstag, 25. September 2004 16:31
An: virus@lucifer.com
Betreff: RE: virus: Richard Dawkins: The Ancestor's Tale
Gorogh
Sent: 25 September 2004 02:18 PM
<snip>To some extent, I agree to this objection - it is true as far as
I know that most religious doctrines also draw attention to how
beautifully the world is "constructed" </snip>
[Blunderov] I tend to agree more whole heartedly with Dawkins. It seems
to me that religion diverts attention from the incredible (and very
obvious) wonder of the 'here and now' in favour of the supposedly even
greater, albeit completely unknowable (!), wonder of the hereafter.
This nonsense offends me to my very marrow and I will have no truck with
it. As far as I am concerned 'saving souls' is a euphemism for 'thieving
lives'.
But to each their own. Free will and all that.
Best Regards
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
|
|
|
|
Logged
