I was alerted to a book by Michael Poole - "The new athiesism: ten arguments that don't hold water" - as a book that might be interesting in looking at the issues raised by Dawkins et al. I haven't read the book yet (I will try to find it) - but I did read some supportive reviews of the book. One review was by Bruce Craven (Christian Perspectives on Science and Technology - ISCAT Online Journal 2010). He referred to a group of dedicated athiests who were "trying hard to propogate their creed". It was on this basis that he considered it necessary to reply to their statements "lest some shaky arguments go by default". He refers to Dawkins and allies as firing "most of their bullets at the Christian God" (as opposed to eg the Aztec god who required human hearts torn from living bodies). [Actually Dawkins et al from my reading and watching address a full range of religions - including Islam and Spiritualism - as well as alternative theorapies etc. Their issue appears to more about challenging beliefs that are held and propogated without honestly addressing the evidence).
The war theme (bullets above) is continued as Craven reviews Poole's book "Chapters 2 (faith) and 3 (virus) deal with missiles that could be fired back at athiestic critics".
Hang on! Is it really a war? In 2010 are we intellectually fighting about whether the world is older than 10,000 years? Do we all hold on to our set beliefs so dear that we refuse to discuss in a rational civilised manner and we shoot metaphorical (and in some case real) bullets and missiles at each other over scientific/religious beliefs?
In the Dawkins documentary that I referred to in an earlier blog, I was impressed with the discussion between Dawkins and the Archbishop of Canterbury (or someone of that ilk). They didn't agree, but there was actually a discussion between the two. Dawkins continued his questioning of comments made that didn't seem rationale to him, but his interviewee actually smiled and mused without putting up a shield and firing bullets.
I remember reading an article between Bishop Spong (the percevied to be very liberal Episcopalean Bishop in the USA) and a very conservative African Bishop. They sought to find where the common ground was between their viewpoints with respect to the very controversial issue of ordaining homosexual priests (an issue that was splitting their Church) and the differences (what they could not at all agree on). Surprisingly there was a good list of agreements - for example the value of relationships and families and the well being of people and the Church. They gave their views on where they differed as well - and why. It was one of the most "adult" public Christian discussions I had come across about such a divisive issue.
I would love to see a similar work between say Dawkins and one of his many religious critics.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Dawkins on Evolution
I am half way through a series of 3 documentaries by Richard Dawkins on Evolution. I have always enjoyed his documentaries and the passion he takes to them. In his documentries, it is interesting to watch him when talking with/observing religious fundamentalists and people involved in hoemopathy etc. He comes across as genuinely wanting people to explain why they hold their views in the face of alternatives - and evidence that opposes their view. You see his quizical - even surprised - face when views are espoused that he can't see the rationale, logic or evidence for - and he seems to shake his head not quite believing that people can hold such views.
In the documentary, there are scenes of him teaching older school students about evolution (a cameo teaching role) - his argument being that so little time or effort is put into teaching children at school about the force that has shaped our planet and all living things! Even in this scene, he appears shocked at how little they know - and how confronting a number of students found the concept. In another scene, he talks with a senior minister (Bishop) in a Church in Kenya (next to where he lived as a boy) - and again seems surprised at the atttitude of rejecting that mankind is effectively the "5th Ape". Incindently, the Bishop spoke about his perspective very well - without the usual defensive or aggressive response Dawkins often gets from religious leaders.
Interestingly, while seeing evolution as what has shaped us as a people - he does not see it is a basis - or excuse - for a dog eat dog view of society - or a justification for the strong winning over the weak. It was interesting to see how he looked at these notions in business and politics. Dawkins was actually quite swayed by Sam Harris in thinking about how the notion of how morality developed in humans as our brain capacity grew - where we could almost step outside of ourselves and think through consequences in an empathetic way and not driven just by genes survival and procreation.
Dawkins wrote a book on evolution for the everyday reader "The Greatest show on Earth - the evidence for evolution". This is a good, considered work. His last chapter is entitled "There is Grandeur in this view of life". He also has an appendix entitled "The History Deniers".
Why is evolution and our natural origins so threatening to many of those who believe in God?
In the documentary, there are scenes of him teaching older school students about evolution (a cameo teaching role) - his argument being that so little time or effort is put into teaching children at school about the force that has shaped our planet and all living things! Even in this scene, he appears shocked at how little they know - and how confronting a number of students found the concept. In another scene, he talks with a senior minister (Bishop) in a Church in Kenya (next to where he lived as a boy) - and again seems surprised at the atttitude of rejecting that mankind is effectively the "5th Ape". Incindently, the Bishop spoke about his perspective very well - without the usual defensive or aggressive response Dawkins often gets from religious leaders.
Interestingly, while seeing evolution as what has shaped us as a people - he does not see it is a basis - or excuse - for a dog eat dog view of society - or a justification for the strong winning over the weak. It was interesting to see how he looked at these notions in business and politics. Dawkins was actually quite swayed by Sam Harris in thinking about how the notion of how morality developed in humans as our brain capacity grew - where we could almost step outside of ourselves and think through consequences in an empathetic way and not driven just by genes survival and procreation.
Dawkins wrote a book on evolution for the everyday reader "The Greatest show on Earth - the evidence for evolution". This is a good, considered work. His last chapter is entitled "There is Grandeur in this view of life". He also has an appendix entitled "The History Deniers".
Why is evolution and our natural origins so threatening to many of those who believe in God?
Monday, December 20, 2010
Science versus religion - and Adam
I just read a paper I was sent called "Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople" by Tim Keller. It is an interesting paper as it provides an apologetics framework for pastors as they deal with questions about the Bible and science from their parishioners or seekers. Keller says "We (pastors) are to be a bridge between the world of scholarship and the world of the street and the pew." I found this interesting in the light of the historical view where priests were seen as the bridge between God and the Laity....
Anyway, Keller has some insights into the nub of the problem between science and (literal Christian) religion:
1.To accept that science and religion are not fundamentally opposed, there is a need to accept that some parts of the Bible are not literal but metaphorical - but where does it stop? And what does this do to the view of the absolute authority of the Bible? - so he argues that the writers give us clues as to how they meant their writing to be taken - and that it is a mix and in context.
2.The problem with accepting evolution as a biological process - is that then religion becomes a result of biology not from God - so he distinguishes between evolution as a biolgical process and evolution as a grand theory of everything.
3. If Adam and Eve weren't literal people, then the notion of the fall through one man and the basis for salvation becomes problematic - so he argues for scenarios of God intervening in the biological process in some way to set man apart.
4. If there was a biological evolution prior to Adam and Eve, then there was already death and suffering prior to the fall - so he argues that the "garden of eden" so to speak was set apart within this chaos - a foretaste of heaven.
While forgiving CS Lewis for seeing Adam and Eve metaphorically, Keller sees the reality of Adam as central to his Christian belief - despite a tacit acceptance of otherwise biological evolution. He quotes a writer - Kidner - as saying: "What is quite clear....in the light of other scriptures is their doctrine that mankind is a unity, created in God's image, and fallen in Adam by one act of disobedience; and these things are strongly asserted in this understanding of God's word as on any other." This appears to back up his own view.
Keller is very critical of Sam Harris (see previous blog) - because Sam Harris criticised the appointment of Francis Collins by saying..."Must we really entrust the future of biomedical research in the United States to a man who sincerely believes that a scientific understanding of human nature is impossible?"
His premise is that "we must interpret the book of nature by the book of God". And herein lies the fundamental difference between the scientific approach and such a faith approach. Science asks the questions and seeks answers which can be further tested and revised based on new knowledge. Belief in the absolute authority and accuracy of Scripture, means that you view any new information through the lense and belief system of the scriptures. It means walking on a tightrope where logic and rationality has to sometimes be suspended and common sense replaced by dogma. It results in the conflicting situation of having to marry opposing scripture and having divine intervention in otherwise bioloigical processes. Tying people in knots.
Surely truth is what even the Bible tells us "sets us free". Truth is not threatened by honest inquiry and revision as new facts come to light. Truth is not about holding on to a set of premises which prevent honest inquiry. I can't see that God would be phased at all by people honestly exploring their/His/Her world, testing, re-testing and making sense of what they find - even if it doesn't gel with what a group of people hold up to be the unassailable word of God.
Anyway, Keller has some insights into the nub of the problem between science and (literal Christian) religion:
1.To accept that science and religion are not fundamentally opposed, there is a need to accept that some parts of the Bible are not literal but metaphorical - but where does it stop? And what does this do to the view of the absolute authority of the Bible? - so he argues that the writers give us clues as to how they meant their writing to be taken - and that it is a mix and in context.
2.The problem with accepting evolution as a biological process - is that then religion becomes a result of biology not from God - so he distinguishes between evolution as a biolgical process and evolution as a grand theory of everything.
3. If Adam and Eve weren't literal people, then the notion of the fall through one man and the basis for salvation becomes problematic - so he argues for scenarios of God intervening in the biological process in some way to set man apart.
4. If there was a biological evolution prior to Adam and Eve, then there was already death and suffering prior to the fall - so he argues that the "garden of eden" so to speak was set apart within this chaos - a foretaste of heaven.
While forgiving CS Lewis for seeing Adam and Eve metaphorically, Keller sees the reality of Adam as central to his Christian belief - despite a tacit acceptance of otherwise biological evolution. He quotes a writer - Kidner - as saying: "What is quite clear....in the light of other scriptures is their doctrine that mankind is a unity, created in God's image, and fallen in Adam by one act of disobedience; and these things are strongly asserted in this understanding of God's word as on any other." This appears to back up his own view.
Keller is very critical of Sam Harris (see previous blog) - because Sam Harris criticised the appointment of Francis Collins by saying..."Must we really entrust the future of biomedical research in the United States to a man who sincerely believes that a scientific understanding of human nature is impossible?"
His premise is that "we must interpret the book of nature by the book of God". And herein lies the fundamental difference between the scientific approach and such a faith approach. Science asks the questions and seeks answers which can be further tested and revised based on new knowledge. Belief in the absolute authority and accuracy of Scripture, means that you view any new information through the lense and belief system of the scriptures. It means walking on a tightrope where logic and rationality has to sometimes be suspended and common sense replaced by dogma. It results in the conflicting situation of having to marry opposing scripture and having divine intervention in otherwise bioloigical processes. Tying people in knots.
Surely truth is what even the Bible tells us "sets us free". Truth is not threatened by honest inquiry and revision as new facts come to light. Truth is not about holding on to a set of premises which prevent honest inquiry. I can't see that God would be phased at all by people honestly exploring their/His/Her world, testing, re-testing and making sense of what they find - even if it doesn't gel with what a group of people hold up to be the unassailable word of God.
Friday, December 17, 2010
The Portsmouth Connection
Well, I have now finished my first Graham Hurley book that I referred to on an earlier blog. Set around Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight - both places I have been to and really enjoyed. I started this series of books part way through the list - so I can go backwards or forwards to explore more of the characters and subplots. Each book is a story in its own rigght - but it seems as if relationships and sub-plots cotinue between stories.
The main characters were detectives of sorts - Farady (a regulation methodical cop) and Winter (a history of breaking the rules, taking shortcuts - but getting his man). In this book, Faraday was focused on the Isle of Wight trying to solve the mystery of the headless corpse that floated onto the island - and flashes to the Bosnian war. Winter was after his own man on the mainland - who was reputed to have knocked someone off around the same time as the headless man met his end. One would have thought that this would have been the connection.... but....
During all of this, Winter was battling with a brain tumour and falling in love with a high class prostitute - Maddox (I wonder if she will be around in the next book???) Faraday - who has a deaf son making his way in the world - had his own touch of romance (his partner??? was off visiting Australia) with the grand-daughter of a Psychic (will this develop?) with links back to a WW2 possible murder.
The murder investigations were quite understated in an English sort of way - and kind of fizzled at the end. The underlying story lines of the two men (who did talk by phone and then a visit at the end of the book) was the real story - entrapping the reader into caring for both - and their muddled lives.
In reading about the later books - I saw that in one book Winter and Faraday were described as being on opposite sides (of the law?) - so I see there is more interaction between them to come - and more character development. So I can see myself downloading more Graham Hurley books onto my kindle and spending more time in South England.
The main characters were detectives of sorts - Farady (a regulation methodical cop) and Winter (a history of breaking the rules, taking shortcuts - but getting his man). In this book, Faraday was focused on the Isle of Wight trying to solve the mystery of the headless corpse that floated onto the island - and flashes to the Bosnian war. Winter was after his own man on the mainland - who was reputed to have knocked someone off around the same time as the headless man met his end. One would have thought that this would have been the connection.... but....
During all of this, Winter was battling with a brain tumour and falling in love with a high class prostitute - Maddox (I wonder if she will be around in the next book???) Faraday - who has a deaf son making his way in the world - had his own touch of romance (his partner??? was off visiting Australia) with the grand-daughter of a Psychic (will this develop?) with links back to a WW2 possible murder.
The murder investigations were quite understated in an English sort of way - and kind of fizzled at the end. The underlying story lines of the two men (who did talk by phone and then a visit at the end of the book) was the real story - entrapping the reader into caring for both - and their muddled lives.
In reading about the later books - I saw that in one book Winter and Faraday were described as being on opposite sides (of the law?) - so I see there is more interaction between them to come - and more character development. So I can see myself downloading more Graham Hurley books onto my kindle and spending more time in South England.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Jesus a message for all religions?
I have just been sent a newspaper column from a newspaper in the Sunshine Coast near Brisbane. The writer of the column was Father John Dobson - a catholic priest and Chancellor of the University of the Sunshine Coast. He starts by referring to the ancient remains of long dead civilisations and their link to the emergence of Christianity...not disconnected! He then goes on to argue that Jesus' focus was not on buildings and rituals but rather his obsession was that people love one another - being the prime avenue to God.
Fr Dobson considers it amusing - if not sad - to see Christians proclaiming loud and clear the primacy of Christianity (to other religions). He sees the claim of Christianity to be the only true religion as wrongly putting down other religions - leading to conflict and violence. His argument is that this line of thinking is claiming a monopoly and control over God - indicating that God can't act outside of their own narrow horizons. He refers to Gahndi, who, he says, loved Jesus'teachings - but couldn't stand Christians - and implores Christians to be open to the movement of God in every Sphere of creation.
Brave man in his position! But good on him - the issue being that Jesus' core message transcends religions (and non religions) - about love and relationships - not about closed rituals and separateness teaching. The theme continues that we are closer to each other than we may think - regardless of the religion that we espouse - and that Jesus has something for all - that conversion may not be about changing a creed or making a statement of belief, but committing to a life of love and positive relationships.
Fr Dobson considers it amusing - if not sad - to see Christians proclaiming loud and clear the primacy of Christianity (to other religions). He sees the claim of Christianity to be the only true religion as wrongly putting down other religions - leading to conflict and violence. His argument is that this line of thinking is claiming a monopoly and control over God - indicating that God can't act outside of their own narrow horizons. He refers to Gahndi, who, he says, loved Jesus'teachings - but couldn't stand Christians - and implores Christians to be open to the movement of God in every Sphere of creation.
Brave man in his position! But good on him - the issue being that Jesus' core message transcends religions (and non religions) - about love and relationships - not about closed rituals and separateness teaching. The theme continues that we are closer to each other than we may think - regardless of the religion that we espouse - and that Jesus has something for all - that conversion may not be about changing a creed or making a statement of belief, but committing to a life of love and positive relationships.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Buddhist Christmas Party
One friend described it as an Oxymoron - a Buddhist Chistmas party. Maybe - but going for the 3rd time in a row - and I was just as touched again by it. And it was a real Christmas party - Open to anyone (and free - without even a donation box or offering in sight); presents from Santa to all; a nativity scene (as well as the odd Buddha); a wide range of free Asian food - nicely cooked and presented and plenty of it. First course and sweets! And entertainment - secular choirs singing Christmas carols - including Silent night ; traditional and modern dance; Bahai children singing; lucky door prizes - and finishing with a Prayer for World Peace.
The banners around the venue proclaimed things like: "We are all one family"; "Have true serenity"; "Have concern for all"; "Peace starts with ourselves" - none of which you can really disagree with. Or at least I can't. There was a recognition that as people - across races, nationalities, religions - we are closer than we are different. And I found that rather nice.
Its not that I want to run off and become a Buddhist - and I know there will be strange and irrational beliefs and some inconsistencies in their teaching as with other religions - but I can't help but feel warmed by the sense of inclusive community and acceptance. It saddens me that there are so many barriers preventing that same sense of family in the Christian faith of my background. I think Jesus would have enjoyed the Buddhist Christmas party - or at least the Jesus who sometimes escapes the iron strictures that Churches build around him!
The banners around the venue proclaimed things like: "We are all one family"; "Have true serenity"; "Have concern for all"; "Peace starts with ourselves" - none of which you can really disagree with. Or at least I can't. There was a recognition that as people - across races, nationalities, religions - we are closer than we are different. And I found that rather nice.
Its not that I want to run off and become a Buddhist - and I know there will be strange and irrational beliefs and some inconsistencies in their teaching as with other religions - but I can't help but feel warmed by the sense of inclusive community and acceptance. It saddens me that there are so many barriers preventing that same sense of family in the Christian faith of my background. I think Jesus would have enjoyed the Buddhist Christmas party - or at least the Jesus who sometimes escapes the iron strictures that Churches build around him!
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Mystery and Law
Well, I just had a couple of quick reads that I enjoyed - marvellous how you can so quickly download things on your kindle! Amazon must be laughing! But - it makes it hard to share and pass books on to family......
So the books. The first was by a relatively new Australian Author - Katherine Howell. Katherine has a background of working in ambulances/emergency services and the books that I have read of hers use this experience as a backdrop. Very classy writing I thought - and set around Sydney! The book I just read was called "The Darkest Hour" - and told the story of two women - an ambulance paramedic and a police officer - and was focused around a series of deaths that were related. The police officer was trying to prove herself in criminal investigation and the ambulance paramedic was trying to keep her job in the face of difficult circumstances. There were some nice sub-plots based around relationships - the paramedic and her sister (her ex being the bad guy); the paramedic and her co-worker (like/love/want/need) who had a fiance that resented her; and the paramedic and the police officer - mutual like and support. The pace was fast and well done and the story was satisfying. Nothing too deep - just a good story!
The other was "The Reversal" by Michael Connelly. Interestingly, I have never read a Michael Connelly book - although I have seen them around for ages. The characters in this book - a flawed, divorced defense lawyer (turned prosecutor for this book); his ex wife (a prosecutor); and the investigating detective have a long list of stories behind this one - and a well developed history by the author. It will be interesting to track back and see how the charaters developed over time - what were they like back in book one of the series? I found the pace a bit slow at first - and a bit too technically legal - but it hotted up and had a few twists and blind gullies and an all too quick finish and wrap up. Quite a good read in the end (although Katherine Howell kept me more firmly bound to my kindle!).
After reading these two, I was in a mood to read more good detective type yarns - but was unsure where to go. So I looked to Google to tell me what was a good read. There were blogs and lists out there - and I came up with an author I had never heard about - Graham Hurley - who had written a detective series based in Portsmouth UK (where I have visited - Nelson's ship and all) which someone recommended. So I downloaded "Blood and Honey" - not the latest as I thought that if I liked the style, I would have a couple of good books ahead in the series to read. I will write about how I found it. The first chapters are a bit of scene setting - has potential.
I continue to read Sam Harris - and more on him later.... Meanwhile, happy reading and philosophising!
So the books. The first was by a relatively new Australian Author - Katherine Howell. Katherine has a background of working in ambulances/emergency services and the books that I have read of hers use this experience as a backdrop. Very classy writing I thought - and set around Sydney! The book I just read was called "The Darkest Hour" - and told the story of two women - an ambulance paramedic and a police officer - and was focused around a series of deaths that were related. The police officer was trying to prove herself in criminal investigation and the ambulance paramedic was trying to keep her job in the face of difficult circumstances. There were some nice sub-plots based around relationships - the paramedic and her sister (her ex being the bad guy); the paramedic and her co-worker (like/love/want/need) who had a fiance that resented her; and the paramedic and the police officer - mutual like and support. The pace was fast and well done and the story was satisfying. Nothing too deep - just a good story!
The other was "The Reversal" by Michael Connelly. Interestingly, I have never read a Michael Connelly book - although I have seen them around for ages. The characters in this book - a flawed, divorced defense lawyer (turned prosecutor for this book); his ex wife (a prosecutor); and the investigating detective have a long list of stories behind this one - and a well developed history by the author. It will be interesting to track back and see how the charaters developed over time - what were they like back in book one of the series? I found the pace a bit slow at first - and a bit too technically legal - but it hotted up and had a few twists and blind gullies and an all too quick finish and wrap up. Quite a good read in the end (although Katherine Howell kept me more firmly bound to my kindle!).
After reading these two, I was in a mood to read more good detective type yarns - but was unsure where to go. So I looked to Google to tell me what was a good read. There were blogs and lists out there - and I came up with an author I had never heard about - Graham Hurley - who had written a detective series based in Portsmouth UK (where I have visited - Nelson's ship and all) which someone recommended. So I downloaded "Blood and Honey" - not the latest as I thought that if I liked the style, I would have a couple of good books ahead in the series to read. I will write about how I found it. The first chapters are a bit of scene setting - has potential.
I continue to read Sam Harris - and more on him later.... Meanwhile, happy reading and philosophising!
Monday, November 29, 2010
Help yourself to "The Help"
In between reading the "deeper philosphical books" I try to vary my reading - and often have 2 to 3 books on the go. So before finishing my "morality" book, I read "The help". It is a book about the black maids of middle class white women in the American south around the late 50s and early 60s. It views these lives through two of the maids themselves and daughter of one of the employing women. The book was written very well - got you in and kept you there - as it described the process of writing a book about..... the lives of the maids! A book about the writing of the book.
So what was it about? On the surface it was about class structure and racism - and entrenched attitudes. The author seemed to be saying how thin the line actually was between the two groups - maids and mistresses - compared to the societally constructed "reality".
To some extent we see the same between say migrant moslem women and western 'Christian' middle class Eurpean decendants in Australia. There is a political, religious and socially constructed divide - accentuated by the hijab or burkha - but maybe only a very thin line of difference in reality. How do we see past the way society conditions us to think of others?
"Born again" Christians construct a difference between themselves and others: saved/unsaved; found/lost; in the kingdom of God_light/Kingdom of satan_darkness; saved/unsaved; forgiven/unforgiven; going to heaven/going to hell etc. It is very threatening to many to consider that only a very thin line (if at all) separates them/believers from unbelievers. The constructed gulf becomes wide - emphasing what they have in Christ versus what they (and the unbelievers) would not have if they were not in Christ. [And this is similar in other religions]. It fractures the human family. Breaks the natural empathy and love that should/could flow bewteen people.
The boat people - again a political and socially constructed distinction.
So the book "the help" has a message that can help us - not to repeat the dehumanising class/ethnic/ faith distinctions that are built up and which many of us accept and embrace because it becomes a "norm" rather than something to be challenged.
So what was it about? On the surface it was about class structure and racism - and entrenched attitudes. The author seemed to be saying how thin the line actually was between the two groups - maids and mistresses - compared to the societally constructed "reality".
To some extent we see the same between say migrant moslem women and western 'Christian' middle class Eurpean decendants in Australia. There is a political, religious and socially constructed divide - accentuated by the hijab or burkha - but maybe only a very thin line of difference in reality. How do we see past the way society conditions us to think of others?
"Born again" Christians construct a difference between themselves and others: saved/unsaved; found/lost; in the kingdom of God_light/Kingdom of satan_darkness; saved/unsaved; forgiven/unforgiven; going to heaven/going to hell etc. It is very threatening to many to consider that only a very thin line (if at all) separates them/believers from unbelievers. The constructed gulf becomes wide - emphasing what they have in Christ versus what they (and the unbelievers) would not have if they were not in Christ. [And this is similar in other religions]. It fractures the human family. Breaks the natural empathy and love that should/could flow bewteen people.
The boat people - again a political and socially constructed distinction.
So the book "the help" has a message that can help us - not to repeat the dehumanising class/ethnic/ faith distinctions that are built up and which many of us accept and embrace because it becomes a "norm" rather than something to be challenged.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Free Will
Continuing with Harris's book (the moral landscape), I have now read the chapter he entitled "good and evil" in which he tackles the issue of free will and accountability - from a scientific perspective rather than a moral law perspective. He argues that "questions of human well-being run deeper than any explicit code of morality" - the latter which he asserts is a relatively very recent development. He sees a progression from genetic changes in the brain which allowed for increasingly complex interactions which became the basis for cultural norms and laws etc. He considers that "clearly, morality is shaped by cultural norms to a great degree".
Harris restated his reasons for dismissing revealed religion as a source of moral guidance namely: "there are many revealed religions....and they offer mutually incompatible doctrine; the scriptures of many religions...countenance patently unethical practices like slavery (counter to wellbeing); the faculty we use to validate religious precepts...is something we bring to scripture; and that reasons given for believing 'revealed scripture' are either risible or non-exisitent'.
In this chapter, he uses a number of scenarios and examples of how we judge good and evil and moral accountability - and points to the driving focrces that genetics, upbringing and tumors (for example) can have on the brain (outside of the indiviudal control) that can shape 'evil' behaviour. He discusses the illusion of free will - while somehow still prescribing to human responsibility and a scientific basis for acting out human values..."our sense of free well presents a compelling mystery - on the one hand it is impossible to make sense of it in casual terms - on the other hand - there is a powerful subjective sense that we are the authors of our own actions".
Of course, I am only half way through the book - so I shall see how he builds on all of this. It has been the subject of a number of articles in the New Scientists over recent years - the issue of the mind, and conciousness and free will - and all makes for fascinating discussion and implications.
on with the journey
Harris restated his reasons for dismissing revealed religion as a source of moral guidance namely: "there are many revealed religions....and they offer mutually incompatible doctrine; the scriptures of many religions...countenance patently unethical practices like slavery (counter to wellbeing); the faculty we use to validate religious precepts...is something we bring to scripture; and that reasons given for believing 'revealed scripture' are either risible or non-exisitent'.
In this chapter, he uses a number of scenarios and examples of how we judge good and evil and moral accountability - and points to the driving focrces that genetics, upbringing and tumors (for example) can have on the brain (outside of the indiviudal control) that can shape 'evil' behaviour. He discusses the illusion of free will - while somehow still prescribing to human responsibility and a scientific basis for acting out human values..."our sense of free well presents a compelling mystery - on the one hand it is impossible to make sense of it in casual terms - on the other hand - there is a powerful subjective sense that we are the authors of our own actions".
Of course, I am only half way through the book - so I shall see how he builds on all of this. It has been the subject of a number of articles in the New Scientists over recent years - the issue of the mind, and conciousness and free will - and all makes for fascinating discussion and implications.
on with the journey
Monday, November 15, 2010
What's the point?
I once said - very naively - that I "wanted to work it out before I died". And what was the "it"? Why, the meaning of life of course. I think I am coming to the sad realisation that this might be a little beyond the potential scope. If I can't then work out the "meaning of LIFE", then perhaps I might get a little glimmer at least of what 'life' has meant for me. This one conscious bit of stardust.
But really, it is about the journey and being able to reflect on it as I go along. Having started from a very conservative Christian viewpoint, I started to think (as in, think for myself rather than acepting what I had been told) and to read books that challenged Christian thinking and offered alternative perspectives of life. It is some of these that I thought I might start sharing on this blog. Its not that I have totally turned my back on my Christian history - but I do see things quite differently to what I once did - and still feel I have only started to scratch the surface on exploring this thing we call life.
The current book I am reading is "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris (who also wrote 'The End of Faith'). Harris' viewpoint is that for too long scientists have abdicated their responsibility in the area of morality and ethics. He argues that too many people on all sides say that science has nothing to contribute to these areas - that science can only deal in facts, and religion - or evolutionary psycology - is where the great moral and ethical issues are sorted out.
Harris builds his case around the idea that just as we have medical science around the notion of what denotes physical and psycological well being, that there is a science that needs to be built around what constitutes those morals and ethical choices that contribute to the wellbeing of people. The idea of moral science - open to testing facts and revising them as more knowledge accrues - as opposed to ancient statements that may have little to do with the wellbeing of those involved (Harris argues that if these do contribute to wellbeing it is by accident rather than design!). Or at least this is my take on it so far.
As I read more, I will describe what I am taking away from his book. I will also start looking back over books I have read over the last decade or so and how they contributed to my thinking.
But really, it is about the journey and being able to reflect on it as I go along. Having started from a very conservative Christian viewpoint, I started to think (as in, think for myself rather than acepting what I had been told) and to read books that challenged Christian thinking and offered alternative perspectives of life. It is some of these that I thought I might start sharing on this blog. Its not that I have totally turned my back on my Christian history - but I do see things quite differently to what I once did - and still feel I have only started to scratch the surface on exploring this thing we call life.
The current book I am reading is "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris (who also wrote 'The End of Faith'). Harris' viewpoint is that for too long scientists have abdicated their responsibility in the area of morality and ethics. He argues that too many people on all sides say that science has nothing to contribute to these areas - that science can only deal in facts, and religion - or evolutionary psycology - is where the great moral and ethical issues are sorted out.
Harris builds his case around the idea that just as we have medical science around the notion of what denotes physical and psycological well being, that there is a science that needs to be built around what constitutes those morals and ethical choices that contribute to the wellbeing of people. The idea of moral science - open to testing facts and revising them as more knowledge accrues - as opposed to ancient statements that may have little to do with the wellbeing of those involved (Harris argues that if these do contribute to wellbeing it is by accident rather than design!). Or at least this is my take on it so far.
As I read more, I will describe what I am taking away from his book. I will also start looking back over books I have read over the last decade or so and how they contributed to my thinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)