Eratosphere   General Talk   The Religion of Scientism (Page 1)    voice/text chat | profile | register | preferences | faq | search

Miscellaneous User & Admin Functions Thread Open Replies: You must be registered to post replies on this thread.    Eratosphere >> General Talk >> The Religion of Scientism (Page 1)

Author Topic:   The Religion of Scientism Mark Allinson Member Posts: 4237 From:New South Wales, Australia Registered: Dec 2003 posted May 13, 2008 02:05 AM Scientism, the extension of science into metaphysics, is just as much a fundamentalist religion as “Social Constructionism”, and every bit as dull. Here’s how Huston Smith defines “scientism”: “With science itself there can be no quarrel. Scientism is another matter. Whereas science is positive, contenting itself with reporting what it discovers, scientism is negative. It goes beyond the actual findings of science to deny that other approaches to knowledge are valid and other truths true. In doing so it deserts science in favor of metaphysics – bad metaphysics, as it happens, for the contention that there are no truths save those of science is not itself a scientific truth, in affirming it scientism contradicts itself.” (Forgotten Truth, p 16). The British tv documentary – How Art made the World - presents recent evidence to suggest that both art and culture had their origin in shamanistic mystical visions, called up by hallucinogens or sensory deprivation in deep, dark caves. The images painted in the caves are not naturalistic, but distorted trance visions, products of the unconscious psyche, showing hybrid animal/human forms and geometrical patterns. Art and culture, it seems, were the products of religion, or at least spirituality, not reason. In fact, spirituality, religion, superstition and magic are human universals, found in every known culture on earth, past and present. And when some feature of human society is found in every one of its manifestations, in cultures too distant in time and space to have influenced each other, it begins to look like an innate human predisposition. In short, religion appears to be an instinct of human nature. Jung would say that religion has an archetypal origin, and is an inborn human constant, and will appear wherever there are human brains. We all follow one religion or another. It is human nature (yes, it exists) to form an over-arching world-view in which to frame our lives. We are not fully human without it. And what is the essence of “religion”? In George Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion does not equate to a belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Lindbeck defines religion as: “a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.” In short, the network of beliefs and assumptions about the “true” reality of our lives – the world-view in which we live and move and have our being – is our “religion.” By this definition, Dawkins apotheosis of Reason and his slavish devotion to its dictates are the clear expressions of a de facto religious system. As Huston Smith says, scientism “also carries marks of a religion – a secular religion, resulting from over extrapolation from science …” It is, in fact, nothing other than a new manifestation of the ancient worship of Apollo, the Greek God of light and reason, only now Apollo has been isolated from the pantheon to a monotheism. And like other fundamentalist religions, it is scathingly intolerant of all other competing religious views - it alone has access to The One Great Truth, and all followers of other religions are sadly deluded and headed for hell. But how reliable is this God of reason anyway? Is belief in his almighty powers simply another mode of superstition? Can reason really figure everything out for us? Take a recent example of the limitations of reason – the “Mad Cow” or BSE catastrophe. This condition was the result of an economic rational decision to feed cows with re-cycled waste meat products, effectively turning herbivores into carnivores, with tragic results. Unless reason is in possession of all the facts (always a tall order) its dictates can sometimes lead straight to disaster, since reason has access to only a small part of our reality. And we shouldn’t forget that the great God Reason who presides over science and medicine, also gave us the atomic bomb. Reason does not always lead to rational outcomes – no more, perhaps, than other superstition. A world run on economic rationalist principles, for instance, is not my idea of a heaven. For a start, scientistic rationalism has nothing to say on the question of values, qualities, purposes or meanings, which for me, as a poet, are everything science leaves out. So all in all, I see Dawkinsism as just another dull and pompous fundamentalist religion, sneering at all the damned infidels. And like all blind fundamentalisms, slavishly insisting on its ideal principles, it is essentially anti-life. Now it's your turn. [This message has been edited by Mark Allinson (edited May 13, 2008).] Philip Smith Member Posts: 148 From:UK Registered: Nov 2006 posted May 13, 2008 02:12 AM Mark Picking up on your point about "economic rationalism"... Interesting that John Nash (when he was totally crazy and irrational) came up with an economic theory that won him the Nobel Prize. A theory that was based on the assumption that all (wo)men act rationally at all times. Much later (when he was essentially sane) he said that his assumptions about the rationality of the individual were false and that they fatally undermined his theory. I don't know if you saw the film "A Beautiful Mind" but it bears precious little relationship to the book by Sylvia Nasar which is an excellent and recommended read. Regards Phil Edited in - and yes, I agree with you about Dawkins to some extent. He ignores the fact that much science (especially modern physics) requires a belief in the essentially invisible and a faith that at the bottom of everything there will always be simple laws that nature obeys. Science can be very presumptuous too. I struggle with the idea that we can confidently talk about the beginnings of the universe when we really can't know where the physics we know and love breaks down and all the medicine in the world can't help Stephen Hawking. The fundamental difference between religion and science is that religion tends to want to give us good news (ever more elaborate explanations for why the dogma must be true) while science proceeds by trying to disprove what we think we know and hence sometimes gives us bad news. P [This message has been edited by Philip Smith (edited May 13, 2008).] Ethan Anderson Member Posts: 811 From: Registered: Jun 2005 posted May 13, 2008 02:30 AM quote: Originally posted by Mark Allinson: We all follow one religion or another. It is human nature (yes, it exists) to form an over-arching world-view in which to frame our lives. We are not fully human without it. I don't (almost none of my friends do either), no, it isn't, and whoopsy. [This message has been edited by Ethan Anderson (edited May 13, 2008).] Mark Allinson Member Posts: 4237 From:New South Wales, Australia Registered: Dec 2003 posted May 13, 2008 03:10 AM And what is the essence of “religion”? In George Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion does not equate to a belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Lindbeck defines religion as: “a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.” In short, the network of beliefs and assumptions about the “true” reality of our lives – the world-view in which we live and move and have our being – is our “religion.” So you don't have any sort of world-view at all, Ethan? Amazing. Mark Allinson Member Posts: 4237 From:New South Wales, Australia Registered: Dec 2003 posted May 13, 2008 03:35 AM I titled this thread before looking to see if others had used the same phrase. Google shows 1590 hits for "the religion of scientism", so I am not alone in this identification. Here is a link to one of the articles by Don Watson Sorry I missed a reply to your post, Philip. Yes, you only need to turn on the evening news to dispel the fantasy that human beings are essentially rational beings. Mike Todd Member Posts: 257 From:Scotland Registered: Jan 2006 posted May 13, 2008 04:02 AM Mark— I agree, but can't help feeling sorry for the Dawkinses. Fundamentalism is a chemical imbalance in the brain in favour of too much strictness. When the chemicals slop the other way it's called Relativism. Obviously the cure for both is to remain level-headed. It's when the head is properly planted square on the shoulders that one can hold an opinion in a way that's safe and fun for all the family—Relative Fundamentalism. I'm sure many here are familiar with RF. One of the primary tenets is "stay unassuming"—I've come to understand this to mean Know The Limits of Metaphor. RF is chock full of tenets to do with metaphor. There's even one that deals with poetry. I kid you not: "Poetry begins in trivial metaphors, pretty metaphors, "grace" metaphors, and goes on to the profoundest thinking that we have." (Reading between the lines, I'd say the implication of RF is that all thought is metaphorical. And curiously enough, as well as being chemical imbalances, the problems of Fundamentalism and Relativism have lately been linked to enlarged metaphor. Those in the advanced stages of Fundamentalism are prone to a horrid condition known as Metaphoric Gigantism—the poor afflicted have literally disappeared up their own you-know-whats.) [This message has been edited by Mike Todd (edited May 13, 2008).] Mark Allinson Member Posts: 4237 From:New South Wales, Australia Registered: Dec 2003 posted May 13, 2008 04:24 AM Ha! Thanks, Mike. If you are right in your suspicions that "the implication of RF is that all thought is metaphorical", then I must be one myself! You have outed me! I am a metaphorical fundamentalist, I admit it. I have looked and looked for decades, but I can't seem to find anything more fundmental than the primary atoms of metaphor. I would even go so far in my religion as to say - beyond metaphor, nothing else is. I do agree, that metaphorical therapy is the way ahead for world peace. Janet Kenny Member Posts: 12941 From:Queensland, (was Sydney) Australia Registered: Dec 2001 posted May 13, 2008 07:12 AM Mark, I think a dislike of superstition and mob belief is hardly an absence. Listening and watching and respecting are the centre of all major cultures. Your dismissal of something you generalise as "scientism" misses the point I think. Science is the most reverent of all human activities. Misuse of discoveries is human passion, not science. I think that Dawkins is often misunderstood and misrepresented. It's his reverence for the "mystery" that enrages him when confronted with charlatans who claim to have answers. I think some of his more antiseptic utterances are in reaction to those charlatans. I know he loves classical music. A number cruncher would get bored with that. There is more to him. Janet [This message has been edited by Janet Kenny (edited May 13, 2008).] Roger Slater Member Posts: 5816 From:New York Registered: Jun 2001 posted May 13, 2008 08:18 AM In all fairness to Dawkins, Dawkins does not attack the concept of "religion" as you have broadly defined it here, which, it seems to me, doesn't even require one to believe in the existence of a "God." If you concede there is no God, then you agree with Dawkins even if you subscribe to some sort of "religion" as you have broadly defined it here. Dawkins merely attacks the specific notion of the actual, literal, empirical existence of a conscious, self-aware, all-knowing and all-powerful entity known as "God." In other words, his target is rather narrow. It's not that he claims that science is the only way to know or understand the world, consciousness, or the meaning of life and humanity. His claim is that those who believe in God are often not content to identify their belief in God as being grounded in non-scientific truth, and they therefore insist on regarding a conscious, self-aware, knowing and omnipotent "God" as something that is literally and empirically true just like any other scientific principle. What Dawkins derides, therefore, is not "religion" but the confusion of science and religion. I don't think he would argue that it is always foolish to embrace views or attitudes or beliefs that are beyond science. What's foolish, he would say, is insisting that, once you have embraced those views or attitudes or beliefs, that science must play ball and either confirm those beliefs or concede that any of its contrary proofs are false. Dawkins does not reject the power or importance of metaphor. He rejects the confusion of metaphor and science. In that, I am in complete agreement. [This message has been edited by Roger Slater (edited May 13, 2008).] Frank Hubeny Member Posts: 515 From:Illinois, USA Registered: Sep 2004 posted May 13, 2008 09:33 AM Whether it is religion or science it is still language that convinces a person to take a stand. It is that stand, not whether it comes from religion or science, that is important. Science may claim that reason backs it up, but reason is often faulty and is used to justify lies. (Remember the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?) So one can't trust reason any more than the mystical conclusions of religion. But each individual, like each voter who intends to vote in an election, still must take a stand. Here are two things that I believe are true, but which may not be. 1. In one of the ossuaries in the Talpiot tomb the bones of Jesus were placed by his extended family of followers. 2. King David left no descendants. They were all killed off by Solomon who was not David's son. The first negates the traditional Christian view of a bodily resurrection. The second negates the Jewish view of a line of David. Both negate the Muslim view. Now my belief in these two ideas is because I read the books and was convinced through language of their truth. They contradict religious positions, but that does not mean I am "scientific". Some scientists think I'm wrong to believe these things. My belief is not based on reason as much as reading. So I "conclude", it does not matter whether the source comes from "science" or "religion", but what is the stand of the reader (or hearer) after a conversation has occurred. David Landrum Member Posts: 1552 From:Grand Rapdis, Michigan, USA Registered: May 2006 posted May 13, 2008 11:17 AM The UK's most notorious Marxist literary critic, Terry Eagleton, did a review of Dawkin's book that surprised everyone. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html Having read the book myself, I agree with Eagleton. It was a real yawner by someone who basically didn't know what he was talking about and that gave no new, insightful, or decisive arguments against the existence of God. I thought, "Julian the Apostate said all of this 1700 years ago. I want my money back." For my religion: I was a devout Christian (Protestant) for years. Now I am (I've said this before) what has been termed an "agnostic protestant." I believe in it until I really start to think about it. My religion now is very general and cultural and mostly not there at all. But if someone starts a critique of God I at least expect them to know what they're doing, which Dawkin doesn't, he is merely ranting and raving. If you want to read some really good original agrument go back and read Against the Christians, c. 350 CE. dwl Ethan Anderson Member Posts: 811 From: Registered: Jun 2005 posted May 13, 2008 11:55 AM quote: Originally posted by Mark Allinson: So you don't have any sort of world-view at all, Ethan? Amazing. What's amazing is assuming that your need for a world view is proof that others must surely need one as well, and that you're persuaded by a definition so loaded with abstractions that practically anything qualifies as a religion. John Riley Member Posts: 290 From:North Carolina Registered: Aug 2007 posted May 13, 2008 12:31 PM Dawkins does not speak for science, but for a world view that rejects the dogma of Western Religion. Essentially, he's a politician and like all politicians takes his arguments beyond reason, while claiming to be arguing in support of reason. To me, scientism, or whatever term one wants to use for it, is simply the misunderstanding of science. That is the only relationship between the two. Popper's demarcation is still the best way to distinguish between science and poppycock. If it can be falsified it's science, if not it's not. Science can destroy its own dogma, religion vanishes without its dogma. I think, however, that when someone attacks scientism, they are often really attacking science. The head is with Francis Bacon, the heart is with St. Augustine (which is pretty much where the world is today.) The problem of scientism is exaggerated, and the fight is unsolvable because the conflict is internal. If Dawkins was as convinced as he says he is, he wouldn't have to be so strident. Ditto for the Creationists, New Agers, libertarians, etc. John Hutchcraft Member Posts: 310 From:California, USA Registered: Jan 2008 posted May 13, 2008 12:34 PM I think Ethan's objection is to the point, Mark. It seems like you're playing a bit of a shell-game with the definitions of two distinct terms, "religion" and "Weltanschauung." Religion, as most people think of it, includes a number of things, like rituals and clergy, that are not necessary to a worldview. As a secular humanist type, I'm sure that I have have heroes who support, challenge, inspire, or are suggested by my worldview - but those aren't the same as clergy. And I can't for the life of me think of what sort of rituals my worldview engenders or demands. I think you're talking apples and oranges but skirting the issue by referring to "fruit." John Whitworth Member Posts: 429 From:United Kingdom Registered: Aug 2007 posted May 13, 2008 12:46 PM Dawkins is passable when he's just being destructive, though he seems to think that he's the first person who ever thought about his objections to religion. If I want an atheist then Bernard Shaw is a much better bet, quicker, funnier. But when Dawkins wheels out his OWN religion, the soggy humanist tripe that he says he believes in, then it's really too much. I remember a television programme and you would laugh if it wasn't so pitiful. What was needed was a Chesterton or a Belloc but unfortunately they are a long time dead. And in heaven presumably. Mike Todd Member Posts: 257 From:Scotland Registered: Jan 2006 posted May 13, 2008 01:17 PM Let me chime in again briefly. It may be, as Roger says, that Dawkins rejects the confusion of metaphor and science. If so, I'm in complete disagreement. Anyone who believes that science—or religion or philosophy or art—is the radio set for receiving truth without attenuation or corruption of signal needs to listen in a little closer. Science is no less metaphoric than religion. Granted it's a more disciplined discipline. But for all its precision of measurement, repetition of experiment, revision of theory, it can't ever get beyond the bounds of our humanity. The only thing that can, if anything can, is metaphor. So you see, it's no disparagement to say that science is metaphoric. If anything, it's the height of compliment. And if you're wondering whether a scientist can ever be as fervent as Dawkins and still hold on to metaphor, look no further than Gould. Or Einstein. Or Bohr. Hell, even Feynman. Though to be fair, Feynman thought that light was only a particle and not a wave—still, not being a dualist doesn't necessarily make him bad. Roger Slater Member Posts: 5816 From:New York Registered: Jun 2001 posted May 13, 2008 01:18 PM I think Dawkins is strident because he perceives -- and in my opinion, accurately -- that atheists are the subject of ostracism and discrimination. Those who speak out against bigotry are supposed to be a bit strident, right? Or at least it's not unexpected or surprising if they succumb to the temptation. As for the originality of Dawkins' arguments, I wasn't aware he claimed they were original any more than those who argue that God exists these days are coming up with novel proofs. For me, the problem with Dawkins, as I mentioned, is that he defines his target in such a narrow fashion that it is almost too easy to shoot it down. He pretty much rejects the notion of God literally and physically existing as a man with a long beard sitting on a cloud surrounded by winged cherubim regaling Him with harps. He caricatures God and then tells us that the caricature is false. But there are a certain number of people who believe in a God that is very much like the one Dawkins caricatures, mutatis mutandis, and do not view God as a personal philosophy or a worldview or a necessary metaphor to make sense of the otherwise unknowable chaos of existence, etc. It is when these sorts of God-believers assert the existence of God in empirical, scientific terms that it becomes appropriate to answer in the same terms and to use such concepts as logic, scientific method, and evidence to test their claims. Science can't prove God doesn't exist, but it can prove the universe wasn't created in six 24-hour days just over 5000 years ago, and it can prove that humans evolved from lower species, etc. When science and religion collide over such matters, it is ridiculous to say that the scientifically wrong view is still as "true" because the person who is wrong is wearing a priest's collar or quoting from a book that one has decided, in advance, is literally correct in its every particular. But the question of God's existence is itself not a question of science but of faith, I agree. How one chooses which religion is "right," though, has always been something I have no notion of. Faith, sure. But why do people tend, as a general matter, to develop the faith of their parents? When people are reborn, why are they so often reborn into the same faith where they were born the first time? If faith tells us something that is as real and true as science, then why do the answers it gives us vary depending on our parents, our country, or our culture? Please answer in fifty words or less. Mike Todd Member Posts: 257 From:Scotland Registered: Jan 2006 posted May 13, 2008 02:36 PM Roger— I know it's not an answer, but it is less than fifty words—admittedly, only by one if you count the title. * A Poem Isn't True Oh, don't confuse a poem with a creed. A poem isn't true; or if it is, It's only true as water's true—when freed. (See how a river gathers till it says Its credences, as cadences, aloud. Only in this way is its truth avowed.) Clive Watkins Member Posts: 1826 From:UK Registered: May 2001 posted May 13, 2008 02:37 PM Two fairly recent books on these matters, both of which I found interesting and instructive, are these: Daniel C Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, Viking 2006, and A. C. Grayling, Against All Gods: Six Polemics on Religion and an Essay on Kindness, London: Oberon Books 2007. Clive Watkins Tim Murphy Lariat Emeritus Posts: 8851 From:Fargo ND, USA Registered: Oct 2000 posted May 13, 2008 03:27 PM Disbeliever In 1998 God appeared at Caltech. —Michael Shermer A motorchair rolls Hawking to the verge. He twitches, and his synthesizer speaks of time and space—dimensions bent an age before fish walked or dinosaurs grew beaks. He says our cosmos is a quantum tryst that birthed, improbably, our small blue ball; an event spontaneous and unrehearsed, commencing an infinitude of fall. After his talk, the physicist is hauled back to the torment of domestic life – tantrums to bear, bruises to be concealed — the disbeliever snared by a hellish wife, as though to prove mankind is born in sin no matter how the universe began. --Alan Sullivan Andrew Frisardi Member Posts: 579 From:Orvieto, Italy Registered: Nov 2003 posted May 13, 2008 03:28 PM In fewer than 50 words, I'd say that religions are dialects of a universal symbolic language. People are (often) drawn to the religion of their parents or culture in the way we're drawn to our mother tongue. But every language is a variation on the archetype of language, which is universal. The Transcendent Unity of Religions, by Frithjof Schuon, is the clearest on this I've seen. Other than that, about scientisim and such, this poem by Tom Sexton came to mind: A Blessing The path through the woods is filling with yellow leaves. A week of fall and then it will begin to snow. High in the conifers, crossbills are singing. I pause to listen and catch a glimpse of their plumage. How long ago was it that I was told their beaks were twisted when they tried to loosen the nails that held Christ to His cross? For their labour, their pale feathers were stained forever with his blood. My mind knows that that is only a tale to be told to a child. But like mist rising from water, it blesses the life that knows it. Philip Smith Member Posts: 148 From:UK Registered: Nov 2006 posted May 13, 2008 04:22 PM To steal a quote I can't attribute through faulty memory: "Islam, Judaism and Christianity are all the same religion - the only argument is about who owns the franchise." Science in a way is just another branch of the same tree religion comes from. Some kind of science and some kind of religion are human universals. And they are, each in their ways, attempts to make sense of a universe we cannot possibly fully understand. Both of them set out to emancipate and each of them is responsible for horrors. Individual scientists can be dogmatic fools (like the guy who swore against all the evidence of his peers that he had achieved cold fusion). But at least science has a programme. And that involves questioning, disputing, contradicting, testing, peer review and sometimes revolutions. The kind of revolution that leads to more enlightenment. Religion doesn't really have a programme. And I can't think of a religion that has ever had a revolution (schisms don't count). At bottom religion is simply not about anything. It has no subject and therefore no discourse is possible. It can be frighteningly self-consistent (like the belief system of a paranoid schizophrenic) while having no connection to any real evidence that can be tested. Can you imagine the Pope announcing that after extensive research (which let's face it the Catholic Church is far better placed to fund than the USA) the doctrine of transubstantiation had been disproved and that "this means we'll have to rethink everything we believe in"? I hear scientists make parallel statements with a gleam of excitement in their eye. The excitement of new discovery. I have a lot of time for Islam (the Islam of the Qur'an). However compare and contrast what it really says in the 4th Surah with the reality of so-called Islamic countries' treatment of women. It reads as a gentle reminder of men's duties toward women - not a strident statement about men's dominance over them. At base Islam is simply a prescription for living a right and decent life - you could accept 90% of it, not believe in any kind of personal God, and actually do rather well by yourself and those around you. Deities are a bit incidental to the fundamental message of Buddhism too. Let's face it - bigots and madmen will hang their hat anywhere it suits. Islamic fundamentalism does not really discredit Islam. Scientism (even in its extreme forms) does not really discredit science. And there is no Buddhist fundamentalism that I am aware of. May the blessings of Shiva-Shakti be upon you all... :-) P [This message has been edited by Philip Smith (edited May 13, 2008).] Janet Kenny Member Posts: 12941 From:Queensland, (was Sydney) Australia Registered: Dec 2001 posted May 13, 2008 04:34 PM Well God's got a bit of work to do in Burma, China and India. Aren't we funny little creatures? We're part of something too big for us to even observe let alone explain. We make these poems we call religion. Scientists are honest counters of grains of sand. The seven maids with seven mops. Mark Allinson Member Posts: 4237 From:New South Wales, Australia Registered: Dec 2003 posted May 13, 2008 04:59 PM Today is a busy day, but I hope to return to this tonight for a fuller response to points. Yes, the definition of "religion" is a tricky one - which is why I prefer Lindbeck's wide "world-view" definition, since it would include such things as Zen Buddhism, which has no God nor metaphysics. First I have to say that I am a strong supporter of Science. I believe in such things as immunization and painless dentistry. And if the west had perfected the scientific method earlier, we might not have had the situation where (for example) the front-line medical treatment for all illness for 1500 odd years was to let blood. But even so, Science today can often do no better than so-called “superstitious” methods. For instance, by their own research the drug companies that make scientifically designed anti-depressants have shown that their products have about the same effectiveness as placebos. So a quack offering his snake-oil product as a cure for depression is likely to have the same rate of success as science. But what I don’t like is when science leaves its proper precinct of observation and prediction, and enters the realm of metaphysics. As Huston Smith says, “the contention that there are no truths save those of science is not itself a scientific truth, in affirming it scientism contradicts itself.” Science I love, scientism not. Dawkins does not reject the power or importance of metaphor. He rejects the confusion of metaphor and science. In that, I am in complete agreement. Bob, I wouldn’t say that science and metaphor can be confused, since science is all metaphor – I agree with Mike that “Science is no less metaphoric than religion.” What is a “black hole”, the planetary model of atoms, curved space, etc, but metaphors. The whole concept of evolution is a metaphor drawn from plant growth. All human activity involves metaphor. And I agree with Robert Frost: “What I am pointing out is that unless you are at home in the metaphor, unless you have had your proper poetical education in the metaphor, you are not safe anywhere ... you don’t know the metaphor in its strength and its weakness. You don’t know how far you may expect to ride it and when it may break down with you. You are not safe in science; you are not safe in history.” I really do believe that poetry should be the foundation of all education. Philip Smith Member Posts: 148 From:UK Registered: Nov 2006 posted May 13, 2008 05:13 PM Janet What you mention is simply the problem of suffering - part of God's mysterious purpose apparently. If he exists I want words with him about a few things. P Roger Slater Member Posts: 5816 From:New York Registered: Jun 2001 posted May 13, 2008 05:19 PM No, Mark. Painless dentistry is not metaphor. Immunization is not a metaphor. Removing a ruptured appendix is not a metaphor. The earth is round, it's not "like round." There really is such a thing (at least there is quite often) as empirical truth that science can zero in on and describe. Yes, scientific thought and creativity and insight are often founded on metaphorical or symbolic thinking, like mathematics, but ultimately the goal is empirical and quite often there are demonstrable results and confirmations of those results. Janet Kenny Member Posts: 12941 From:Queensland, (was Sydney) Australia Registered: Dec 2001 posted May 13, 2008 06:08 PM quote: Originally posted by John Whitworth: Dawkins is passable when he's just being destructive, though he seems to think that he's the first person who ever thought about his objections to religion. If I want an atheist then Bernard Shaw is a much better bet, quicker, funnier. But when Dawkins wheels out his OWN religion, the soggy humanist tripe that he says he believes in, then it's really too much. I remember a television programme and you would laugh if it wasn't so pitiful. What was needed was a Chesterton or a Belloc but unfortunately they are a long time dead. And in heaven presumably. I cut my teeth on GBS. His music criticism and his "Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism";-) (the old skunk). GBS was his own religion. Wonderfully entertaining. I owe him that wonderful description of Brahms as the "leviathan maunderer". He also said of Brahms's Requiem that it was borne patiently only by the corpse. Not saying that I agree, just delighting in the word-power. David Landrum Member Posts: 1552 From:Grand Rapdis, Michigan, USA Registered: May 2006 posted May 13, 2008 06:21 PM George Bernard Shaw was a bag of wind. There was a great critique of him in The New Criterion a few months back that is the sanest thing on the man I've ever read. I said, "Finally someone has given voice to what I always intuitively thought about him." Once GBS was in a debate with G.K. Chesteron and Chesterton was getting the better of him. Frustrated, Shaw walked over and slapped Chesterton's paunch (GKC weighed over 300 lbs) and asked, "Gilbert, when it's born, what are you going to name it?" Without pause, Chesterton replied, "Well, if it's a boy I'll name it William, if it's a girl I'll name it Elizabeth--and if it's only gas I'll name it George Bernard Shaw." John Hutchcraft Member Posts: 310 From:California, USA Registered: Jan 2008 posted May 13, 2008 06:28 PM quote: Originally posted by Mark Allinson: Zen Buddhism, which has no God nor metaphysics. Well, I'm no expert, but I do believe that Zen Buddhism has clergy after a fashion, as well as rituals. I think, Mark, that you're treating religion as a set of thoughts rather than a set of practices, which leads to the conflation you're making. Roger Slater Member Posts: 5816 From:New York Registered: Jun 2001 posted May 13, 2008 06:59 PM As an atheist, I have no problem with Buddhism or reconciling it