On Monday, Dec. 3 I went to a $5 concert at the LC put on by CD101. The headliner was Spoon, with the opening acts Happy Chichester, a Columbus native, Great Northern from LA and Buffalo Killers.
I wasn't feeling too well, so I decided not to drink. I had never seen Happy Chichester before, although I'd often heard his local shows promoted. He was pretty good and I would see him again. Great Northern performed a great set and their lead singer had a lovely voice, and they had the requisite pretty, aloof and scantily clad bassist. They were exactly the type of band I would like.... but not quite love. My stomach was feeling awful through the show though, and with every drumbeat or bass note I felt more nauseous. The Buffalo Killers were the last straw and they looked like overweight Jesus' transported straight from 1972. I just wish their music had stayed back then too. It was so bad I had to go to the back of the venue as far from the stage and speakers as possible. Where I had originally been standing, I could feel an actual breeze moving my shirt from the speakers.
Spoon came on at 10:30 and I couldn't even see them on stage so I left after 3 songs. No one was manning the merch table when I left or I might have bought an album by Spoon or Great Northern.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Monday, December 3, 2007
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
I recently read The God Delusion, and I view my reading it as a sacrifice I have made for all my friends and acquaintances so that I can present Dawkins' arguments and then we can discuss it amongst ourselves. I must say, it wasn't nearly as bad as the digressing diatribes in his description of evolution The Ancestor's Tale. Of course, it is still a partisan polemic: But here's my chapter-by-chapter review:
Chapter 1:Deeply Religious Non-Believer: Dawkins discusses the God of scientists which is often just a semantic stand-in for the awesome nature of the physical world. He holds respect for this type of religious stance, and even respect for many Anglican priests of his acquaintance who never let their religious beliefs curtail their inspection and understanding of the world. Dawkins makes a point I have been trying to make for years, that an Anglican, or Episcopalian, is a complicated religious being- and deserving of the respect of even the most hardened atheist.
Dawkins continues to state that liberal western societies currently give too much respect to religious beliefs and sentiments, and don't allow them to be challenged - which is to the dis-service of all.
Again, I think Dawkins makes a strong case, one that is also made in an essay in Harper's magazine.
Chapter 2: The God Hypothesis: In this chapter, Dawkins sets forth the doctrine of monotheism as presented by the three Abrahamic faiths as the definition of God he will argue against. I think that it would only strengthen, and not weaken the arguments he makes further along if he had covered all religious belief.
He continues to argue that the US was not founded as a Christian nation, a point reiterated in a NY Times editorial today discussing Mitt Romney's religion speech.
Dawkins goes on in this amalgamate of a chapter to take umbrage with those, often scientists, who remain agnostic, and allow such agnosticism to appear as though there is a 50/50 chance of God existing (this is the probability problem with permanent agnosticism on principle in contrast to temporary agnosticism in practice.). In addition, he is annoyed with scientists who allow science and religion to belong to non-overlapping magisteria, calling them Neville Chamberlain evolutionists. Unfortunately, I think the situation is a little more complicated than Dawkins allows. Scientists have surely bent over backwards to be nice to moderate Christians in the evolution debate, but all people questioning their faith don't have to declare themselves atheists. Maybe the existence of God deserves to be treated differently than the probability of winning the lottery. And agnosticism regarding the existence of God needn't imply the 50/50 chance of God's existence, or the 50/50 chance of every miracle of the Abrahamic faiths being true.
Chapter 3: Arguments for God's existence: Dawkin's shows the weakness of major theological proofs of God's existence including: Aquinas' arguments of first causes and perfection, the a priori thought experiment of the most perfect thing=God, that beauty exists=God, personal experiences of God, that scripture is true, that famous people have believed in God, Pascal's wager that believing in God will protect you from hell if he does exist, and finally that probability leads one to believe in God. I think Dawkins correctly tears these arguments apart easily. Are there really no better proofs of God's existence for him to tackle? And why do the theologians resort to silly logic proofs of God's existence if they want to stress the importance of faith and belief?
Chapter 4: Why there almost certainly is no God: Dawkins primarily focuses on natural selection, which he does a better job describing in The Ancestor's Tale, and goes further to suggest that the anthropic principle can allow for the creation of the universe in physics as natural selection provides for the creation of man in biology. He likes talking about the difference between a crane and a skyhook. On this subject he says, "A mischievous biologist might wonder whether some physicists are in need of Darwinian consciousness-raising" and "Maybe the psychological reason for this amazing blindness has something to do with the fact that many people have not had their consciousness raised, as biologists have, by natural selection and its power to tame improbability." Dawkins also puts great stress upon the necessity of a complex being to create other complexity, and he asserts that God cannot be as simple as theologians Swinburne or Ward hypothesize. Dawkins disappoints in this chapter, and as a physicist I would like to say perhaps the reason that more physicists than biologist have religious belief is that we have a fuller understanding of the limits of science in providing explanations. He cannot fathom that physicists find the anthropic principle as much a cop-out as God in explaining the universe. I also do not buy on a scientific level the argument that God must be a very complex being. On the other hand, I love the title of this chapter because it adopts the perfect tone.
Chapter 5: Roots of Religion: Dawkins here discusses the evolutionary origins of religion. He doubts the existence of any direct advantage or group selection, and thinks it is probably a by-product of something. He offers a few options such as the importance of children believing adults, humans being primed by the intentional stance, irrational love, and optimism in the face of death, along with the supporting development of memeplexes. Evolutionary psychology is still such a load of crap that I wouldn't base any decisions upon it. In a New York Times and article regarding the advent of art and dance, they are discussed as having a direct advantage- just like religion! obviously his points are not necessarily the mainstream in that field. And if natural selection is to be questioned anywhere, it is certainly human behaviors. Once you reach a threshold of reproductive success, is it necessary to maximize it? Can't a lot of waste persist? I think that waste, or neutral actions even in animals are always hypothesized to hold some evolutionary benefit and disproving that will be nearly impossible.
Chapter 6: The roots of morality, Why are we good?:
Dawkins discusses here the changing of morality over time. Our morals are obviously not from scripture> Dawkins says that they evolved as a by-product from small family based groups; he gives the example of sharing showing status. Apparently, we still need our moral philosophers (good news for Andy) since religiondoesn't get the job done.
Chapter 7: The 'Good' Book and the Changing Moral Zeitgeist: See the above chapter discussion. Dawkins adds that the morality of the desert religion's stresses the difference between group members and others, an idea largely repudiated by modern morality. And that original sin is bullshit. Yup, he's right here too. But I think that are deeper ideas to be explored, even when they are rejected.
Chapter 8: What's wrong with religion? Why be so hostile?: Here Dawkins attempts to answer the question I've been wondering through the whole book, "Why is he such an asshole?" In his defence Dawkins points out the many evils that accompany the Abrahamic faiths: cruelty to homosexuals, and an odd stance on sanctity of life. He opposes religious belief so strongly because moderation fosters fanaticism, and fundamentalism leads to no questioning of the world, no scientific exploration. I think that the link between religious moderates and fanatics can take a full book, not just a few paragraphs. Dawkins doesn't make the case strongly enough for me here. Certainly, moderates have turned a blind eye to extremists, but that needn't always be the case.
Chapter 9: Childhood, Abuse and the Escape from Religion: Here Dawksins expounds upon the idea that our gullibility and trust of authority as children can have a direct link to the existence of religion. He cites examples of physical and mental abuse, including the fear of hell, taking child from jewish parents, and ritual Inca murder. Dawkins takes exception with children described as Catholic, Protestant or Muslim, since children, indoctrinated with their parents' beliefs have not had the time or development to make up their own minds. I did like Dawkins stress of the ridiculous giving of religion to children or even infants. But I'm not exactly convinced that religion is any worse than anything else a child encounters while growing up, or that we have religion because of childhood development.
Chapter 10: A much needed gap?: In this chapter Dawkins addresses whether Science and humanity need religion to fill some gap; obviously his answer is no. He doesn't believe religion is needed for morla guidance, consolation, or inspiration. And it can do actual harm by preventing us from seeing the world as it is. Unfortunately, I think that Dawkins mistakes the arguments that he doesn't need religion for the purposes stated above to mean that thw world doesn't need it either. Of course, those supporting religion make the same bad arguments for why the world does need religion.
Chapter 1:Deeply Religious Non-Believer: Dawkins discusses the God of scientists which is often just a semantic stand-in for the awesome nature of the physical world. He holds respect for this type of religious stance, and even respect for many Anglican priests of his acquaintance who never let their religious beliefs curtail their inspection and understanding of the world. Dawkins makes a point I have been trying to make for years, that an Anglican, or Episcopalian, is a complicated religious being- and deserving of the respect of even the most hardened atheist.
Dawkins continues to state that liberal western societies currently give too much respect to religious beliefs and sentiments, and don't allow them to be challenged - which is to the dis-service of all.
Again, I think Dawkins makes a strong case, one that is also made in an essay in Harper's magazine.
Chapter 2: The God Hypothesis: In this chapter, Dawkins sets forth the doctrine of monotheism as presented by the three Abrahamic faiths as the definition of God he will argue against. I think that it would only strengthen, and not weaken the arguments he makes further along if he had covered all religious belief.
He continues to argue that the US was not founded as a Christian nation, a point reiterated in a NY Times editorial today discussing Mitt Romney's religion speech.
Dawkins goes on in this amalgamate of a chapter to take umbrage with those, often scientists, who remain agnostic, and allow such agnosticism to appear as though there is a 50/50 chance of God existing (this is the probability problem with permanent agnosticism on principle in contrast to temporary agnosticism in practice.). In addition, he is annoyed with scientists who allow science and religion to belong to non-overlapping magisteria, calling them Neville Chamberlain evolutionists. Unfortunately, I think the situation is a little more complicated than Dawkins allows. Scientists have surely bent over backwards to be nice to moderate Christians in the evolution debate, but all people questioning their faith don't have to declare themselves atheists. Maybe the existence of God deserves to be treated differently than the probability of winning the lottery. And agnosticism regarding the existence of God needn't imply the 50/50 chance of God's existence, or the 50/50 chance of every miracle of the Abrahamic faiths being true.
Chapter 3: Arguments for God's existence: Dawkin's shows the weakness of major theological proofs of God's existence including: Aquinas' arguments of first causes and perfection, the a priori thought experiment of the most perfect thing=God, that beauty exists=God, personal experiences of God, that scripture is true, that famous people have believed in God, Pascal's wager that believing in God will protect you from hell if he does exist, and finally that probability leads one to believe in God. I think Dawkins correctly tears these arguments apart easily. Are there really no better proofs of God's existence for him to tackle? And why do the theologians resort to silly logic proofs of God's existence if they want to stress the importance of faith and belief?
Chapter 4: Why there almost certainly is no God: Dawkins primarily focuses on natural selection, which he does a better job describing in The Ancestor's Tale, and goes further to suggest that the anthropic principle can allow for the creation of the universe in physics as natural selection provides for the creation of man in biology. He likes talking about the difference between a crane and a skyhook. On this subject he says, "A mischievous biologist might wonder whether some physicists are in need of Darwinian consciousness-raising" and "Maybe the psychological reason for this amazing blindness has something to do with the fact that many people have not had their consciousness raised, as biologists have, by natural selection and its power to tame improbability." Dawkins also puts great stress upon the necessity of a complex being to create other complexity, and he asserts that God cannot be as simple as theologians Swinburne or Ward hypothesize. Dawkins disappoints in this chapter, and as a physicist I would like to say perhaps the reason that more physicists than biologist have religious belief is that we have a fuller understanding of the limits of science in providing explanations. He cannot fathom that physicists find the anthropic principle as much a cop-out as God in explaining the universe. I also do not buy on a scientific level the argument that God must be a very complex being. On the other hand, I love the title of this chapter because it adopts the perfect tone.
Chapter 5: Roots of Religion: Dawkins here discusses the evolutionary origins of religion. He doubts the existence of any direct advantage or group selection, and thinks it is probably a by-product of something. He offers a few options such as the importance of children believing adults, humans being primed by the intentional stance, irrational love, and optimism in the face of death, along with the supporting development of memeplexes. Evolutionary psychology is still such a load of crap that I wouldn't base any decisions upon it. In a New York Times and article regarding the advent of art and dance, they are discussed as having a direct advantage- just like religion! obviously his points are not necessarily the mainstream in that field. And if natural selection is to be questioned anywhere, it is certainly human behaviors. Once you reach a threshold of reproductive success, is it necessary to maximize it? Can't a lot of waste persist? I think that waste, or neutral actions even in animals are always hypothesized to hold some evolutionary benefit and disproving that will be nearly impossible.
Chapter 6: The roots of morality, Why are we good?:
Dawkins discusses here the changing of morality over time. Our morals are obviously not from scripture> Dawkins says that they evolved as a by-product from small family based groups; he gives the example of sharing showing status. Apparently, we still need our moral philosophers (good news for Andy) since religiondoesn't get the job done.
Chapter 7: The 'Good' Book and the Changing Moral Zeitgeist: See the above chapter discussion. Dawkins adds that the morality of the desert religion's stresses the difference between group members and others, an idea largely repudiated by modern morality. And that original sin is bullshit. Yup, he's right here too. But I think that are deeper ideas to be explored, even when they are rejected.
Chapter 8: What's wrong with religion? Why be so hostile?: Here Dawkins attempts to answer the question I've been wondering through the whole book, "Why is he such an asshole?" In his defence Dawkins points out the many evils that accompany the Abrahamic faiths: cruelty to homosexuals, and an odd stance on sanctity of life. He opposes religious belief so strongly because moderation fosters fanaticism, and fundamentalism leads to no questioning of the world, no scientific exploration. I think that the link between religious moderates and fanatics can take a full book, not just a few paragraphs. Dawkins doesn't make the case strongly enough for me here. Certainly, moderates have turned a blind eye to extremists, but that needn't always be the case.
Chapter 9: Childhood, Abuse and the Escape from Religion: Here Dawksins expounds upon the idea that our gullibility and trust of authority as children can have a direct link to the existence of religion. He cites examples of physical and mental abuse, including the fear of hell, taking child from jewish parents, and ritual Inca murder. Dawkins takes exception with children described as Catholic, Protestant or Muslim, since children, indoctrinated with their parents' beliefs have not had the time or development to make up their own minds. I did like Dawkins stress of the ridiculous giving of religion to children or even infants. But I'm not exactly convinced that religion is any worse than anything else a child encounters while growing up, or that we have religion because of childhood development.
Chapter 10: A much needed gap?: In this chapter Dawkins addresses whether Science and humanity need religion to fill some gap; obviously his answer is no. He doesn't believe religion is needed for morla guidance, consolation, or inspiration. And it can do actual harm by preventing us from seeing the world as it is. Unfortunately, I think that Dawkins mistakes the arguments that he doesn't need religion for the purposes stated above to mean that thw world doesn't need it either. Of course, those supporting religion make the same bad arguments for why the world does need religion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
