Hmmmmm. Very profound. I enjoyed the article very much, particularly: "I kept studying the sciences, picking up a PhD for research in molecular biophysics. But my heart and mind had been seduced by theology. It still excites me today." I concur.
I find it very interesting that the website is set up almost as a religious website would be set up, with "testimonies" etc. I wonder if Dawkins is actually anti religion because it seems like this is almost a religion in itself... with "evangelism" and the lot. It's also very interesting that they have provided links to people who have countered the book.
Libby, I found Kirsten Birkett's little book The Essence of Darwinism helpful for summarising how Dawkins sees the relationship between religion and science. Dawkins believes that science should replace religion as the thing which provides ultimate meaning for human living. (By comparison another scientist, Stephen Jay Gould, saw religion and science as two distinct entities that deal with completely separate realms: he called them "non-overlapping magisteria".)
I question anti-Dawkins pusuits myself (like all the anti-Da Vinci Code books). I reckon the best defence is a good offence! A relevant example would be William Lane Craig's "Reasonable Faith" lecture tour in UK universities.
Trumpets are affable summer creatures. Grumpets, on the other hand, are dour and devious and when their invasion force crosses the border from their winter wasteland, the trouble for trumpets begins... 23 Dec 06
3 comments:
Hmmmmm. Very profound. I enjoyed the article very much, particularly:
"I kept studying the sciences, picking up a PhD for research in molecular biophysics. But my heart and mind had been seduced by theology. It still excites me today."
I concur.
I find it very interesting that the website is set up almost as a religious website would be set up, with "testimonies" etc. I wonder if Dawkins is actually anti religion because it seems like this is almost a religion in itself... with "evangelism" and the lot. It's also very interesting that they have provided links to people who have countered the book.
Libby, I found Kirsten Birkett's little book The Essence of Darwinism helpful for summarising how Dawkins sees the relationship between religion and science. Dawkins believes that science should replace religion as the thing which provides ultimate meaning for human living. (By comparison another scientist, Stephen Jay Gould, saw religion and science as two distinct entities that deal with completely separate realms: he called them "non-overlapping magisteria".)
I question anti-Dawkins pusuits myself (like all the anti-Da Vinci Code books). I reckon the best defence is a good offence! A relevant example would be William Lane Craig's "Reasonable Faith" lecture tour in UK universities.
Post a Comment