tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post1476023857844870525..comments2022-06-10T22:26:42.828-05:00Comments on Looking In The Distance: Dawkins Is Not Pleased With GodUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-15065498046411085622007-03-30T22:19:00.000-05:002007-03-30T22:19:00.000-05:00I just listened to the McGrath Dawkins debate agai...I just listened to the McGrath Dawkins debate again and I agree that McGrath struggled badly with the resurrection and virgin birth questions.<BR/><BR/>Sincerely, VinnyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-72526904332472739002007-03-30T07:46:00.000-05:002007-03-30T07:46:00.000-05:00Megan:It's hard to take things 'literally' since t...Megan:<BR/><BR/>It's hard to take things 'literally' since there are so many different ways that original texts were copied and translated.<BR/><BR/>I recently came across a reference which stated that recent scholarship found previous translations of the eight beatitudes in Matthew were "wrong" because of their interpretation as passive consolation in the face of tribulations. <BR/><BR/>The Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-57583085776095700152007-03-29T21:14:00.000-05:002007-03-29T21:14:00.000-05:00Going back to our discussion on Borg, I doubt McGr...Going back to our discussion on Borg, I doubt McGrath and Borg would be in agreement on the resurrection and the virgin birth? My impression is that Borg would not take either of these events literally and he is NOT a scientist. McGrath does take them literally and he IS a scientist!<BR/><BR/>Things are never simple!<BR/><BR/>Any thoughts?<BR/>MAZAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-83534047195622734692007-03-29T09:59:00.000-05:002007-03-29T09:59:00.000-05:00Peter:I agree with you on both points particularly...Peter:<BR/><BR/>I agree with you on both points particularly McGrath's response on the virgin birth etc.<BR/><BR/>Earlier in this tread in a reply to Vinny I put forward my model and metaphor approach. McGrath tried to bring a model (suspension of science) into something that can only be addressed in terms of metaphor.<BR/><BR/>Metaphors are descriptions of the way things never were, but always Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-39484743078085301862007-03-29T09:49:00.000-05:002007-03-29T09:49:00.000-05:00Good debate! I thought both sides had some weakne...Good debate! I thought both sides had some weaknesses though.<BR/><BR/>Dawkins weakest point was when he said something to the fact that if all good in the world was associated with 'believers' and all bad in the world was associated with 'non-believers' he still wouldn't think that was proof of 'God'. Yet it seems to me that as a scientist one would adopt that 'theory' quite quickly and begin Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-22634903605055272732007-03-29T06:32:00.000-05:002007-03-29T06:32:00.000-05:00Dawkins and McGrath have debated! You can downloa...Dawkins and McGrath have debated! You can download the mp3 files here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/audio_video/podcasts/books/article1570989.ece<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>MichaelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-87021875688978533562007-03-24T12:26:00.000-05:002007-03-24T12:26:00.000-05:00Helen:I don't know you personally but I can make c...Helen:<BR/><BR/>I don't know you personally but I can make certain statements of 'belief' about you based on your writings in this blog.<BR/><BR/>However, if in making a statement about you someone asked "Is that true?" I would have to reply that I am 'agnostic' about the matter. I do not know with 100% certainity that my statement is 100% true.<BR/><BR/>So while holding a belief about which I amAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-20480474139926646552007-03-24T06:35:00.000-05:002007-03-24T06:35:00.000-05:00Michael and Peter .. you said (Michael) that you w...Michael and Peter .. you said (Michael) that you were agnostic about your 'models and metaphors' - what exactly does this mean in terms of religious belief? I don't get how someone could believe in God and be agnostic. What I am missing here?<BR/><BR/>HelenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-30902073879048062282007-03-23T18:26:00.000-05:002007-03-23T18:26:00.000-05:00Well said, Peter!MAZWell said, Peter!<BR/><BR/>MAZAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-79226418606362381122007-03-23T14:12:00.000-05:002007-03-23T14:12:00.000-05:00HelenThere is nothing wrong with believing somethi...Helen<BR/><BR/>There is nothing wrong with believing something per se. The problem comes if one continues to believe it once it has been proved false. What science does is put probabliities on its beliefs and religious beliefs can be treated the same way. If I pick up on Michael's 'boy crying wolf example' I have nearly a 100% probabality that the moral of this story is true and I have a 50% Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-55099412561160248952007-03-23T11:34:00.000-05:002007-03-23T11:34:00.000-05:00So help me, Peter, with creationism and say the Vi...So help me, Peter, with creationism and say the Virgin Birth.<BR/><BR/>I don't believe that the world was created in six days but should I then not also disbelieve the Virgin Birth? Using reason can I say that God created the earth but that it wasn't accomplished in a week? I have never seen a virgin birth so if one believes in that is it in your view blind faith?<BR/><BR/>Helen WrightAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-52214585049561023702007-03-22T14:32:00.000-05:002007-03-22T14:32:00.000-05:00Helen:McGrath handled the issue of "blind" faith i...Helen:<BR/><BR/>McGrath handled the issue of "blind" faith in his debate with Dennett. Basically he said that faith and reason have to be used in both the physical and the metaphysical sciences (Michael's models and metaphors).<BR/><BR/>For example he pointed out that when physicists were studying how light travels from point A to point B they had faith that there had to be an 'ether' to carry Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-87879198025458037462007-03-22T14:15:00.000-05:002007-03-22T14:15:00.000-05:00I find the model/metaphor distinction interesting ...I find the model/metaphor distinction interesting though a bit hard for a lay person like me to follow. But does your model idea work only with reason and then don't you need faith with the metaphor stuff? Isn't that what Dawkins says is the problem with religion that it requires blind faith and no reason?<BR/><BR/>Helen WrightAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-11964743962388808232007-03-22T07:21:00.000-05:002007-03-22T07:21:00.000-05:00Vinny:You wrote: “As a scientist I think you will...Vinny:<BR/><BR/>You wrote: <B> <I>“As a scientist I think you will find that Hofstadter makes an interesting analogy between thermodynamics and statistical mechanics as used to study the properties of material and what he calls ‘Thinkodynamcs and Statistical Mentalics' to describe the properties of the brain.”</I></B><BR/><BR/>Vinny: I think along similar lines as Hofstadter. For example, I Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-19477960965834238772007-03-21T09:47:00.000-05:002007-03-21T09:47:00.000-05:00Michael:As a scientist I think you will find that ...Michael:<BR/><BR/>As a scientist I think you will find that Hofstadter makes an interesting analogy between thermodynamics and statistical mechanics as used to study the properties of material and what he calls ‘Thinkodynamcs and Statistical Mentalics' to describe the properties of the brain. For example, we don’t describe a gas’s behavior in terms of the four fundamental forces (gravity, Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-66370584238314266612007-03-21T07:33:00.000-05:002007-03-21T07:33:00.000-05:00One of the things that Dawkins implies is that rel...One of the things that Dawkins implies is that religion is the root of a lot of evil in the world and a lot of wars etc. But this seems a strange thing to say if, as Dawkins says, the world is purposeless and is all just predetermined cause and effect controlled by physical forces.<BR/><BR/>I wonder how he would answer Douglas Hofstadter who asked in "I Am A Strange Loop": <BR/><BR/><I><B>Have Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-8071927836862670222007-03-20T20:13:00.000-05:002007-03-20T20:13:00.000-05:00I see now why Michael likes McGrath!Both born and ...I see now why Michael likes McGrath!<BR/><BR/>Both born and educated in Belfast!<BR/><BR/>Both have PhDs in Chemistry!<BR/><BR/>Both take up Philosophy after Chemistry!<BR/><BR/>What have I missed here? <BR/><BR/>;-)<BR/><BR/>ps: I promise to read both books!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-91620149353995231252007-03-20T20:05:00.000-05:002007-03-20T20:05:00.000-05:00PRDThe way McGrath demolishes the concept of the m...PRD<BR/><BR/>The way McGrath demolishes the concept of the meme is interesting. Dawkins should not rely so strongly on analogies with genes in the future!<BR/><BR/>Also I thought Dawkins reference to religious people talking about 'mystery' as 'insanity' was neatly turned around with McGrath's analysis of quantum mechanics and the references of scientists to the 'mystery' of quantum mechanics.<BRAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-48066986820508637572007-03-20T09:14:00.000-05:002007-03-20T09:14:00.000-05:00I read The God Delusion because my college kids ar...I read The God Delusion because my college kids are all reading it. I was quite shocked by the stupidity of some of it but my kids think he is the best 'religious' thinker around and of course they are completely drawn by his extreme examples. And in a way I can't blame them when I see some of the stupid extreme things being put out by the likes of the TV evangelists - the rapture! Gimme a breakAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-41911055550707986672007-03-19T21:02:00.000-05:002007-03-19T21:02:00.000-05:00Hi Peter: I agree that Dawkins won’t debate McGra...Hi Peter: <BR/><BR/>I agree that Dawkins won’t debate McGrath if he can avoid it. I have lost a lot of respect for Dawkins as I have become more aware how shallow his actual knowledge is. I’m not involved in any organized religion and would say I am an agnostic leaning towards atheism. It’s a pity he wrote this last book as some of his early stuff where he stuck to science was actually quite Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-12872007299219179352007-03-19T19:17:00.000-05:002007-03-19T19:17:00.000-05:00I heard a great debate between McGrath and Dennett...I heard a great debate between McGrath and Dennett which can be retrieved here<BR/><BR/>http://www.thersa.org/events/textdetail.asp?ReadID=710<BR/><BR/>http://www.thersa.org/audio/lecture130306.mp3<BR/><BR/>I had thought Dennett’s <B>Breaking the Spell</B> was a great book and I loved his comments at the beginning of this debate – that is until McGrath got up to speak and from that point on it Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com