Criticisms of The God Delusion, and what comes next

April 28th, 2007 - 15:19 | 19 comments

The last eight months have seen many critical reviews of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, and the most consistent criticisms, once you get past dull relativism, unthinking accusations of ‘fundamentalism’, and seemingly unending debates over what ‘agnostic’ and ‘atheist’ mean, boil down to two points:

We’re told RD hasn’t addressed the sophisticated theology¹ behind the belief in a divine being. He instead concentrates on the points that are easy to shoot down - Aquinas etc.. This argument appears to implode, however: this supposedly sophisticated theology is incredibly difficult to find. It’s continually referred to, but is never actually clarified. When asked to provide these arguments, we’re usually told it’s too complicated. I consider myself intelligent enough to understand such things (and would quite like to know if there really is a deity in the sky, actually), and even if you disagree there are plenty of atheists who’d be happy to read these sophisticated arguments. There is no reason that an intelligent person shouldn’t be able to understand the arguments for the existence of a deity - theology is not quantum physics and does not require twenty years of mathematical training. If it’s out there, bring it on. Another common answer is that you can only understand once you’ve read everything ever written about every religion ever. Dawkins hasn’t read Such-and-Such on grace, or So-and-So on how shiny angels are - who is he to say anything about theology! This is well answered by the Courtier’s Reply.

It’s worth mentioning that the hints of this sophisticated theology diverge massively from the popular understanding of religion. I’ve had people argue that something must have created the universe, and, although this is your standard god-of-the-gaps argument, it’s still far more reasonable than claiming you have contact with a magic sky-fairy who answers your prayers. The average Catholic doesn’t believe in an Agent that started off the Big Bang, they believe in an intercessory deity who turns wine and crackers into blood and flesh. The God Delusion was attacking this popular notion of religion that’s believed by billions. It wasn’t a deep philosophical tome. Even so, the supposedly sophisticated arguments don’t appear to stand up to scrutiny. Saying ‘god is simple so could have spontaneously popped into existence’ is no use if you don’t actually have any evidence to back it up. Tom Hamilton has interesting commentary on this latter argument, as well as the necessity of stepping into these areas of argument. If only more commentary was as intelligently written as his, the dialogue would be far more productive.

I think it’s possible to argue most believers to a point where they stop being logical about the existence of deities, and they’ll admit it. It’s nigh-on impossible to change a believer’s mind, but you can reach a point where the argument becomes, simply put, ‘I just think it because I do’. Religion is like every pseudoscience out there in this regard, and the psychological investigations into this phenomenon are fascinating. And this is where the second major objection appears: it’s just rude. Of course there isn’t really a god, but why upset people? Referring to divine beings as the equivalent of fairies at the bottom of the garden offends, so you shouldn’t do it. I’ve had commenters on this site tell me I should couch my language in ways such as ‘while I can see you have incredibly deeply held beliefs, I have a small problem with one particular aspect and I’m sorry if this offends you but I consider it important.’ This gets increasingly pathetic. It’s insulting to me, and it’s insulting to anybody religious who is perfectly capable of having adult discussions.

If an atheist starts insulting you and telling you you’re stupid, damn right s/he’s being rude and there’s no reason you should put up with it. But Dawkins / Harris / Dennett etc. don’t do this, no matter how often we’re told otherwise. Even if they did, there are thousands out there who don’t, yet are no less strident in tone. They are at pains to emphasise that it’s the idea that is being attacked, not the person. Saying somebody don’t know something is not the same as saying they are stupid, neither is ignorance a criticism. If you get offended when I tell you there’s no reason to think your deity exists, that’s your problem, and saying ‘maybe so, but I am offended nevertheless so shut up’ is simply a way of stifling debate. Surely this is obvious. Even if there were a way to phrase objections so that people weren’t offended, and this I doubt, it would be making a massive, pointless exception for religion when it comes to debate. We’d probably just be called patronising, too. The tone with which religion is discussed in The God Delusion is no different from any political discussion, and a thousand miles away from the excesses of art criticism, which we regularly ingest as valid commentary. That somebody believes something strongly is no reason not to attack it, but not them, when there is good reason to do so.

From this point there are other objections: the argument that religious ‘moderates’ provide a shield for extremism by being perfectly pleasant in their belief in fairies is certainly one of the more controversial areas; questioning the ‘rights’ of parents to inflict their religious beliefs on their children is another; saying that faith is sweet and harmless and good for society also comes up (although I find that one deeply patronising). But it’s the above two that are the most frequent.

The above introduction was longer than I intended, and was originally only meant to serve as a lead-in. If you have problems with Richard Dawkins, and thought The God Delusion was an insulting title, I bring you Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Here’s an excerpt:

There are four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking.

Blimey.

While some religious apology is magnificent in its limited way—one might cite Pascal—and some of it is dreary and absurd—here one cannot avoid naming C. S. Lewis—both styles have something in common, namely the appalling load of strain that they have to bear. How much effort it takes to affirm the incredible! The Aztecs had to tear open a human chest cavity every day just to make sure that the sun would rise. Monotheists are supposed to pester their deity more times than that, perhaps, lest he be deaf. How much vanity must be concealed—not too effectively at that—in order to pretend that one is the personal object of a divine plan? How much self-respect must be sacrificed in order that one may squirm continually in an awareness of one’s own sin? How many needless assumptions must be made, and how much contortion is required, to receive every new insight of science and manipulate it so as to “fit” with the revealed words of ancient man-made deities? How many saints and miracles and councils and conclaves are required in order first to be able to establish a dogma and then—after infinite pain and loss and absurdity and cruelty—to be forced to rescind one of those dogmas? God did not create man in his own image. Evidently, it was the other way about, which is the painless explanation for the profusion of gods and religions, and the fratricide both between and among faiths, that we see all about us and that has so retarded the development of civilization.

Christopher Hitchens writes so damned well that I have to be careful not to get carried away by his eloquence. He’s occasionally come out with statements that have pushed it even for me. It sounds like a good read - I’ll certainly be picking up a copy.

’theology’ throughout means the ‘research’ into the existence of deities, not the study of religious belief in general [↩]

-----

19 Responses to “Criticisms of The God Delusion, and what comes next”

1 martino Apr 30th, 2007 at 10:50 am

Kind wongaBlog,
I’d like to inform about my research:PORTRAITS CREATED IN CLOUDS “LOOKS” EVIDENCE HERE!

PSYCHOKINESIS & PHYSICS - BY MIND I GIVE THE INTENTIONAL SHAPE IN CLOUDS CREATING THE PK. PORTRAITS, ESTABLISHED AREA IN CLOUDS BEFORE THE PSYCHOKINESIS TEST, 70 PHOTOS EVIDENCE: TESTS RESULTS OF THE CREATIVE PK.RESEARCH, PORTRAITS MADE IN CLOUDS, IN VARNISH ON THE CLOTH OR CARDBOARD - cm.100 x 70
THE PORTRAITS IS TAKEN FOR THE PK. PSYCHOKINESIS CREATION FROM THE ARTWORK BY

LEONARD DA VINCI - MADAM LE BRUN - CARAVAGGIO - H.MARISSE - CIMABUE - W.A. MOZART - LUCY - SHROUD OF TURIN
Thanks.
Martino Martini
http://psychokinesiscreative.blogspot.com
http://www.psychokinesis.it
2 SF Apr 30th, 2007 at 11:00 am

Right on, dude! I read another stupid article today aimed at “The New Atheists” ( canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=a9ec1356-ba24-49c2-a466-9341ed441896) and they tottally miss the point.
The arguments are the same:
- science has to recognise it’s limits
- science can’t explain “why”
- we love/feel/etc, which are immaterial experiences

WHAT A BUNK OF CRAP!
3 Paroxysm Apr 30th, 2007 at 7:51 pm

‘The tone with which religion is discussed in The God Delusion is no different from any political discussion, and a thousand miles away from the excesses of art criticism, which we regularly ingest as valid commentary.’

Are you actually trying to piss me off with this comment?

Firstly you need to elaborate upon this flippant comment you’ve made to avoid insulting one half of the world. Then you need to look in the mirror and repeat three times over ‘Richard Dawkins may well say some things which are not gospel’.

With regard to your comments upon insulting the gentile folk of the world by insulting their beliefs, can you not put aside this meta-ethical stance for one moment and step out into the real world. Time and time again you harp on about it being ‘their problem’ if they take offense. How do you justify such a stance? With logic, objective analysis, quantifiable results. By the same criteria I could cite an experiment into the factors of physical attraction and conclude you have absolutely none. Ah well yes of course it doesn’t offend me because it’s merely an objective observation based upon established data recorded under strictly controlled conditions, with as many variables as possible accounted for or at the very least acknowledged. Nevertheless it would hurt somebody. Why? Because you take something as personal and subjective as attractiveness and attempting to create a model upon which ‘most people’ make decisions. Can you not see why something as personal and subjective as religion can mean so much to so many people and simply respect the fact that it is simply inconsiderate and rude to question their choice to follow it.

One thing you guys continually forget is that human beings are not logical…they’re human. You do not even attempt to confront this despite the fact that millions across the globe everyday defy you. Dawkins is not the messiah, positivism shall not lead human being to a new awakening. People have heard and consciously rejected your arguments. People who make up a considerable portion of the human race. It’s the same damn thing with voter apathy. People know WHY it’s logical to vote…they just CHOOse not to. Stop boring them with shit they have already heard and decided as complex people with issues, stresses and lives to reject.

Sometimes Andrew I can’t help but see you as the equivalent of one of those guys who wears a poster board over his shoulders which reads ‘the end is nigh’. We’ve read it time and time again yet I’m still going home to watch ‘deal or no deal’.
4 Arachne Apr 30th, 2007 at 9:09 pm

No, I still don’t understand why and since when ‘what we want/like to believe’ takes precedence over ‘what the evidence indicates’, especially if willful ignorance and wishful thinking are used to justify, for instance, discrimination and murder. We will not respectfully shut up about their absurd beliefs, not when so much is at stake. They’re hurt? I have a helpful suggestion. Maybe they should try growing up. Which involves understanding that believing a proposition has very much to do with how much sense it makes when it’s confronted with reality.
5 Paroxysm Apr 30th, 2007 at 9:58 pm

In order to justify this you’d have to prove to the individual being ‘ignorant’ that religion/faith (already of a highly personal and subjective meaning) equates directly with violence/discrimination. There are a hell of a lot of people out there who practice their religion peacefully and do indeed help heir communities with charity, local events, parties, free food for the hungry etc. to many people this is where their faith lies, in the benevolent and gracious acts which unite people, not drive them apart.

The problem is that you equate faith/religion with the your real beef…ignorance. Which is something totally seperate. Faith is not at fault, it is the destructive acts perpetrated on behalf of faith that are, to me at least, disagreeable (e.g. suicicde bombings). In the same way that science is not at fault, it is the destructive acts perpetrated on behalf of science that are, to me at least, disagreeable (e.g. the dropping of the atomic bomb.)
6 Andrew Apr 30th, 2007 at 10:14 pm

Paroxysm said:

Fol de rol

Thanks for the not-at-all patronising or insulting insights. Your comments have been noted and filed.
7 Paroxysm Apr 30th, 2007 at 11:09 pm

Huh? You’re not even going to engage me in discussion about this? Yet again despite the post being absolutely riddled with trite and markedly biased opinion you plain refuse to look anyone in the eye who has a disagreement with you. Worse, you position and portray yourself as being under direct personal attack. Never mind the intention of my post being to highlight the insensitivity of yours.

I’m only interested in generating discussion about a certain issue, not tantrums. If the poster refused to even comment then why should anyone else? Fear not Andrew, I shall post no more. Oh and keep posting, it’s always nice to feel right.
8 Arachne Apr 30th, 2007 at 11:10 pm

I didn’t say that there aren’t people who practice their religion peacefully, or people who are both religious and kind to others. But people’s ‘benevolent and gracious acts’ do not require any additional assumptions about, say, the nature of the universe and the possibility of an afterlife. I don’t see why people need to make up reasons to be nice to one another, especially if theycan also be interpreted as reasons to do the exact opposite. And religion does not unite as much at it divides.

I stand by my point - tolerating irrational beliefs and faith-based decision-making & shying away from criticism is not wise, to say the least. Everything should be open for debate, every assumption should be (as far as possible) objectively examined. How do you reason with someone who takes revelation seriously? And yes, it is ignorance. It’s ignorance (and … I don’t know what to call it … cowardice?) because you should be well aware of the fact that reality is indifferent to what you would like to believe and yet you choose to persist in your delusions. And I for one cannot respect that.
9 Paroxysm May 1st, 2007 at 12:08 am

Arachne. My last post to respond to your comments.

They’re not making up reasons to be nice to one another. Kindness and good will is synonymous with God or faith for some people. They are irreducible. Some people feel that God is the embodiment of benevolence - an absolute symbol. I believe it is a very natural and quite beautiful thing for mankind to invent representations of their feelings, innate impulses and inclinations, that’s where storytelling and history begins. Where complex emotions are bore out and modelled into something simplistic and servicable. Since then we’ve had the emergence of a new form of explanation and most would argue the ‘true’ one. Yet the attraction of the old model and the reasons why it came to be is understandable.

And why is it cowardice? I certainly don’t see those who believe in science as being brave. In fact they’re operating within a certain set of rules and arenas of ‘truth’ in the same way the religious man is. Now the scientists (most of them) are willing to listen to disagreement and concede the possibility of being wrong - but that concession is usually made with incredulity and presumptuousness - at least amongst those who play at being ’scientists’ i.e those not actually researching but adopting the moniker of secular humanism as a way of life - like eating organic or going vegan.

In the end it’s all quite applied on my part. I’m not on a crusade to get rid of religion because by doing so I’d end up changing some people I know and losing out on a lot of interesting discussion and insight. Sometimes, when having a drink with someone, and talking about great books, and football, and sex, and food and working it’s just better if I IGNORE their allegiance to faith and concede that for me to try and impose my truth would be as narrow minded as you profess those with faith to be.

and if that’s cowardly then um, well, shall we settle it with a duel? Choose your second, I’ll meet you by the riverbank.
10 Arachne May 1st, 2007 at 9:24 am

Even if I agree that equating god with our better nature - which is just one of the possible interpretations, I don’t remember the Christian god as a very benevolent character - and using that as a foundation for myth-building is indeed an interesting way of looking at things, it does not follow that we can meaningfully say that there is a god. If you’re going to say I’m missing the point (yeah, got it, you’re not, that was your last post), I am not. The whole idea was that it does not matter how attractive and desirable something is, wishing it was true doesn’t make it so, yelling about sceptics being rude doesn’t change that fact - and believing the opposite is mostly where the cowardice comes in. Don’t compare religion to science (BELIEVING in science? how does that term apply?), because they differ in every aspect that matters. And I would go into that, because I seem to have taken to pro-reason rants lately :), but this is already getting too long, so here - http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=atkins_18_2. And I don’t see why you couldn’t talk about religion even if there would be no more believers. We talk about mythology, right? We talk about literature, too, and don’t have to actually believe that Alejandra and Martin exist(ed) to discuss On Heroes and Tombs. And, finally, whereas some things are indeed subjective and a matter of personal opinion (e.g. whether Palahniuk is a better writer than Vonnegut or not), propositions about what exists and what doesn’t in the real world are not so. Can they bring evidence to support the idea that there is an entity with the properties X, Y and Z somewhere? No? Then they should not expect people to take them seriously and respectfully shut up. … and this is still getting longer than I intended it to be when I started writing it. A duel? I’m not one to settle a difference of opinion with violence … which is more than I could say about other people, now that the subject’s been brought up, but I’ll just leave it at that.
11 Arachne May 1st, 2007 at 9:37 am

Sry, *even if there were no more believers.

The thing is that I noticed the link didn’t work, here: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=atkins_18_2
12 Paroxysm May 1st, 2007 at 6:10 pm

Thanks for the links and the discussion. But I’m afraid it’s clear cut… Vonnegut is better than Palahniuk. I just thought Haunted was way off the mark. A real ass bustingly bad read for me.
13 Queller May 7th, 2007 at 3:12 am

“Are you actually trying to piss me off with this comment?”

A psychiatrist might ask.. Do you frequently believe people [going about their own business] to be making personal attacks against you? They might also find issues with the fact that you post using a name meaning ‘any sudden, violent outburst; a fit of violent action or emotion’ with links to pathological.

“Firstly you need to elaborate upon this flippant comment you have made to avoid insulting one half of the world. Then you need to look in the mirror and repeat three times over ‘Richard Dawkins may well say some things which are not gospel’.”

I agree wholeheartedly with you ‘Paroxysm’ that nothing anyone says should be taken as gospel, including the bible. I especially appreciate the incongruous phrasing binding the concepts of Dawkins and gospel which you have so elegantly constructed.

“simply respect the fact that it is simply inconsiderate and rude to question their choice to follow it”

Are you really saying this? Blind faith has worked so well for so many people.. there’s compulsory education in GCSE history classes to ensure every pupil in the UK is made to understand why it is just simply *NOT* inconsiderate and rude to question their choice to follow an idea! Perhaps you could explain why your teachers were wrong to the billions that have died and suffered all over the world for ideas which were blindly followed based on similar arguments? But then i digress..

“Stop boring them with shit they have already heard and decided as complex people with issues, stresses and lives to reject.”

Well if they will search out an opposing viewpoint and continue to read…

“charity, local events, parties, free food for the hungry etc. to many people this is where their faith lies, in the benevolent and gracious acts which unite people, not drive them apart.”

Your saying you believe this can only happen with faith, despite the infinite examples to the contrary… whereas wars.. they start themselves without religion entering the mix I suppose? Someone only seeing one side of things perhaps?

“portray yourself as being under direct personal attack. Never mind the intention of my post being to highlight the insensitivity of yours.”

Personally I find the manner you go about posting your offhanded comments on this blog to be most aggressive towards the writer. But then your name says it all on that front doesn’t it.

“If the poster refused to even comment then why should anyone else? Fear not Andrew, I shall post no more.”

A free lesson here, the thing with blogs is there is a tendency towards not to having to respond to every insignificant comment on a post. Otherwise all the writers in the worlds - and the typewriting monkeys too - would be far to busy responding to Viagra adverts than posting any form of creative work, opinion or scientific result. Perhaps if you have a blog of your own which you can direct us all to we can return the same positive criticism you provide this blog’s author? If the commenter refuses to even post their own opinion rather than merely comment on anothers then why should anyone care? Oh and I noticed you kept commenting, I guess it *is* always nice to feel right.
14 martino May 7th, 2007 at 7:58 am

Kind readers,

PSYCHOKINESIS & PHYSICS *IF I HAVE PULLED OUTSIDE 4.000 JOULE WHEN I CREATED THE PORTRAITS IN THE CLOUDS & VARNISH THESE( joule) THEY MUST LACK TO ME!

PK. ESTABLISHED TEST: “Collision on Flake Cloud” - negative n° 5

ESTABLISHED ITEM: VISIBLE COLLISION ON FLAKE CLOUD TO GOAL TO OBSERVE CLARLY THE ACTION OF FORCES, IN THE SAME TIME CONSTRUCTING THE FACE. WE CAN OBSERVE THE INSTANTANEOUS DISSOLUTION OF THE PART OF THE FLOKE CLOUD IN THE AREA WHERE HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED THE FACE, AND THAT HAS REMAINED OF THE FACE..

IF I HAVE PULLED OUTSIDE 4.000 JOULE WHEN I CREATED THE PORTRAITS IN THE CLOUDS & VARNISH THESE( joule) THEY MUST LACK TO ME!… WHERE ARE THEY ENDED? WE WOULD HAVE TO FIND THEM (joule) ..?

THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF THE ENERGY IS THE MORE IMPORTANT OF THE CONSERVATION LAWS NOTES IN PHYSICS

In physics, the conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant..

The joule (IPA pronunciation: [dʒuːl] or [dʒaʊl]) (symbol: J) is the SI unit of energy. It was named after James Prescott Joule for his work on the relationship between heat, electricity and mechanical work..

Thanks.
Martino

http://www.psychokinesis.it

EVIDENCE HERE! http://martino-psicocinesicreativa.blogspot.com

EVIDENCE HERE ! Altri risultati in MARTINO MARTINI - CREO CON LA MENTE RITRATT
15 Paroxysm May 7th, 2007 at 11:19 am

Well Queller we seem to be very suited don’t we? ‘A Killer; as in Jack the Giant Queller.’ http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Queller ‘One who overpowers and subdues’. Very nice. I can hear the psychiatrist shouting ‘next’ already.

If you are not going to engage in the debate then why go out of your way to make a sarcastic comment such as ‘fol de rol’? My objection to lack of response arose after this point.

Queller do you believe that people live their life logically? Do you believe the people out there who read the sun only for the football news each and every work break give a shit about living logically? No they don’t. What they DO is invest their interests in opinions which are most convenient in mapping out reality in servicable terms. They form their whole identity on the convenience of recognition. Even you I see.

My history lessons consisted of Bowen throwing pencils at the teacher’s head and kicking holes in the store room door while Grace and Chantelle spoke of how they’d slept with nearly every guy in the room. Nigel Wade consistently booted me in the base of my spine and told me I was going to get the living shit kicked out of me when it was hometime because I was a swot. ‘Compulsory education system’ Ha! This isn’t ‘The History Boys’ Tarquin.

I did however pick up a few things in my time… 10 A*’s at GCSE and 5 ‘A grade’ A levels sure don’t come outta nowhere Quellerino. Oh shit yeah I forgot about the First with honours and the Master’s you patronising chimp. Even with the education system as dire as it is; letting absolute morons in regardless of academic history, publication history or a portfolio of work at the very least, I’d say that’s doing O.K for now.

Yes wars have been started primarily due to religion but I stress yet again that to many people across the world this is not what religion is about - this is misuse of religion and their way of life to justify a cause of the few - hell, Labour do it all the time. You do not need religion to be benevolent, thanks for pointing that out because it doesn’t seem to be outlined in Dawkins 101. No you don’t need it but nevertheless many people either use it and/or justify their good nature through it. Again you’ll confuse, as many do, the difference between SHOULD and DO.

Of course you’ll have a rebuff because this debate is completely irresolvable and exists in a dimension far above what many care about but nonetheless it feels good to tease out these rediculously inapplicable concepts and ideas of what SHOULD be done as opposed to what is happening.
16 Queller May 9th, 2007 at 4:28 pm

Ah evidence being used to subvert intent! I was thinking more “put an end to”. I certainly don’t believe that people live their life entirely by logic no, however I do think people should try to think for themselves a little more - when it comes to various aspects of life it far too is easy to accept various popular thought [within your circle of association, or wider] as gospel - however it is a sign of strength when people challenge their beliefs and consider their decisions.

I’ve hardly been patronising Paroxysm, my post made no attempt to impugn your education.. never mind, B for effort, but aww aren’t you clever, you must’ve worked really hard in your exams, good for you..

You cleverly agreed with me that following anything without question has led to the most horrifying situations throughout history, whereas challenging ideas and beliefs has led to some of the most pivotal discoveries in life, making it is hard for me to disprove your second attached concept of the many being used as an excuse for the few without discrediting myself… however if everyone was to challenge their ideas and beliefs - might it not temper the radicals, and do little harm to those who choose to follow their beliefs having challenged them?

I have no idea what you’re trying to say “Even with the education system as dire as it is; letting absolute morons in regardless of academic history, publication history or a portfolio of work at the very least, I’d say that’s doing O.K for now.” so I translated it into Arabic and back and it made a bit more sense.. And yes, I agree, history departments do need new text books!

I agree with Dawkins? How convenient - I have never read any of his work, pure coincidence I assure you, how great that you have read his work and decided to challenge ideas and beliefs though, super! I suspect I distance myself when I clarify my position - I don’t deny the possibility of a deity - but I’m happy to operate day to day without one.

Should and Do? Should need religion? Do need religion? I think the vast majority of the world has moved on from needing religion, but that’s partly my perspective.. Religion came about from being unable to explain uncomfortable aspects of life.. our understanding on many things has much improved, society has become much more comfortable in accepting life on as-is arrangement.

On that note, I’m done, you’re quite right that the debate can go on forever, but it should be conducted with due respect for those involved.
17 Paroxysm May 9th, 2007 at 11:32 pm

Queller,

I was referring to the difference between the way people ’should’ conduct their lives being a significant step away from ‘do’ conduct their lives. It is facile to speak of a better world through the application of a philosophy or discourse which largely exists outside of actual application.

I’ve already covered the argument of ‘good’ sprouting from critical thought. Ultimately the power resides in the people who can most readily apply the spoils of such an endeavour. Scientific enquiry harnessed the tremendous power of the natural world and put it in the hands of idiots. Regardless of the ‘pure intentions’ or sustaining of an appealing discourse - critical enquiry has proven itself to be just as vulnerable and thus destructive as uncritical enquiry. Both are as corruptable, in fact in recent history the products of science and technological progression have marked a new form of enslavement in the human race because of the real threat to society being ignored… the few who can purchase it.

You don’t think the sciences get more funding than the arts because the government is actually interested in what is happening at a scientific level do you? They are interested in that which will yield most economic profit. If you could prove a poem solved something - and more importantly, that that resolution costs something; the government would be shitting out cash with Roy Fisher’s face on both sides.
18 Queller May 11th, 2007 at 12:07 am

What does technological advancement or funding have to do with questioning your beliefs? My theory: Nothing. And so begins the theological debate of the moment…
19 Waz May 11th, 2007 at 8:32 pm

C’mon you two. Get a life!!

-----

Commenting Policy: Thoughts, observations, argument, debate and all other conversational wonderments are encouraged, but personal attacks or general trolling will result in your comment being deleted and your account/IP banned. If you're nice, however, you get strawberries.