Religions > Atheism > Commentary: Agreeing Only to Disagree on God's Place in Science
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
27 Sep 2005 02:21:24 AM |
| Object: |
Commentary: Agreeing Only to Disagree on God's Place in Science |
From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
By GEORGE JOHNSON
Published: September 27, 2005
It was on the second day at Cambridge that enlightenment dawned in the
form of a testy exchange between a zoologist and a paleontologist,
Richard Dawkins and Simon Conway Morris. Their bone of contention was
one that scholars have been gnawing on since the days of Aquinas:
whether an understanding of the universe and its glories requires the
hypothesis of a God.
The speakers had been invited, along with a dozen other scientists and
theologians, to address the 10 recipients of the first
Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellowships in Science and Religion.
Each morning for two weeks in June, we walked across the Mathematical
Bridge, spanning the River Cam, and through the medieval courtyards of
Queens College to the seminar room.
We were there courtesy of the John Templeton Foundation, whose mission
is "to pursue new insights at the boundary between theology and
science," overcoming what it calls "the flatness of a purely
naturalistic, secularized view of reality."
On matters scientific, Dr. Dawkins, who came from Oxford, and Dr.
Conway Morris, a Cambridge man, agreed: The richness of the biosphere,
humanity included, could be explained through natural selection.
They also agreed, contrary to the writings of Stephen Jay Gould, that
evolution is not a crapshoot. If earth's history could be replayed
like a video cassette, the outcome would be somewhat different, but
certain physical constraints would favor the eventual appearance of
warm-blooded creatures something like us, with eyes, ears, noses and
brains.
Then, just millimeters from complete accord, they forked in orthogonal
directions. For Dr. Dawkins, an atheist, the creative power of
evolution reinforced his conviction that we live in a purely material
world. For Dr. Conway Morris, a Christian, nature's "uncanny ability"
to converge on moral, loving creatures like ourselves testified that
evolution itself was the handiwork of God.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/27/science/27essa.html
(get a login & password at
http://www.bugmenot.com/view.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com)
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Agreeing Only to Disagree on God's Place in Science |
27 Sep 2005 06:28:52 AM |
|
|
"Agreeing Only to Disagree on God's Place in Science"
Jason, I find your title of the post more than a little offensive, and
grossly inaccurate.
It implies that both parties accept the existance of a God, and differ
only a minor detail of application, whereas we both know that Richard
is assertive in his efforts not to be portrayed as such.
Please clarify your intent on this matter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bruce" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Agreeing Only to Disagree on God's Place in Science |
27 Sep 2005 06:46:11 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:a0bij11cc01ds5n8i4orcas75aoufbai9r@4ax.com...
"Agreeing Only to Disagree on God's Place in Science"
Jason, I find your title of the post more than a little offensive, and
grossly inaccurate.
It implies that both parties accept the existance of a God, and differ
only a minor detail of application, whereas we both know that Richard
is assertive in his efforts not to be portrayed as such.
Please clarify your intent on this matter.
The title wasn't Jason's, it was the title given to the article by the NY
Times.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BruceW" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Agreeing Only to Disagree on God's Place in Science |
27 Sep 2005 12:42:19 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
"Agreeing Only to Disagree on God's Place in Science"
Jason, I find your title of the post more than a little offensive, and
grossly inaccurate.
It implies that both parties accept the existance of a God, and differ
only a minor detail of application, whereas we both know that Richard
is assertive in his efforts not to be portrayed as such.
Please clarify your intent on this matter.
Touchy, touchy, touchy!
-BruceW
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Agreeing Only to Disagree on God's Place in Science |
27 Sep 2005 10:53:34 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:42:19 -0400, BruceW <LevelOneDiag@Yahoo.com>
wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
"Agreeing Only to Disagree on God's Place in Science"
Jason, I find your title of the post more than a little offensive, and
grossly inaccurate.
It implies that both parties accept the existance of a God, and differ
only a minor detail of application, whereas we both know that Richard
is assertive in his efforts not to be portrayed as such.
Please clarify your intent on this matter.
Touchy, touchy, touchy!
-BruceW
It had been a very long and hard day, and I made a mistake.
I was wrong, and I apologise.
Now that's something that you rarely hear from a theist!
(And never from a creationist)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jason Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Agreeing Only to Disagree on God's Place in Science |
27 Sep 2005 06:36:07 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
"Agreeing Only to Disagree on God's Place in Science"
Jason, I find your title of the post more than a little offensive, and
grossly inaccurate.
It implies that both parties accept the existance of a God, and differ
only a minor detail of application, whereas we both know that Richard
is assertive in his efforts not to be portrayed as such.
Please clarify your intent on this matter.
I didn't come up with that title, the New York Times did, or the author who
wrote the piece for the NY Times. I just copies and pastes 'em as I sees 'em.
J. Spaceman
--
My email address (notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org) is fake. Email sent to it
will only get caught in my spam tarpit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Agreeing Only to Disagree on God's Place in Science |
27 Sep 2005 10:51:51 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:36:07 -0400, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
"Agreeing Only to Disagree on God's Place in Science"
Jason, I find your title of the post more than a little offensive, and
grossly inaccurate.
It implies that both parties accept the existance of a God, and differ
only a minor detail of application, whereas we both know that Richard
is assertive in his efforts not to be portrayed as such.
Please clarify your intent on this matter.
I didn't come up with that title, the New York Times did, or the author who
wrote the piece for the NY Times. I just copies and pastes 'em as I sees 'em.
J. Spaceman
Please accept my apologies, Jason.
I must have been sober when I read it!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rolf" |
|
| Title: SV: Commentary: Agreeing Only to Disagree on God's Place in Science |
28 Sep 2005 11:47:02 AM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> skrev i
meldingsnyheter:mjshj19dnvauu79rp4vo24j1deu04hdv2a@4ax.com...
From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
By GEORGE JOHNSON
Published: September 27, 2005
[snip]
For Dr. Conway Morris, a Christian, nature's "uncanny ability"
to converge on moral, loving creatures like ourselves testified that
evolution itself was the handiwork of God.
Seems it has not occured to Dr. Morris, (and a lot of other people as well)
that traits like morals and love simply are somthing that is required for
evolving life to continue to exist. Unless advanced species can develop
certain modes of behaviour, they never even reach the playground of life.
Since morality is conducive to continued exixtence for a species, it is a
trait that is inheritable and keeps on being transmitted from parents to
their offspring. If morals or moral behaviour were of no use, why would they
still exist?
It seems reasonable to believe, however, that life like viruses, bacteria
and amoeaba are doing very well without morals or love - but then, the
overriding rule is 'each on his own', isn't it?
Rolf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Read it at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/27/science/27essa.html
(get a login & password at
http://www.bugmenot.com/view.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com)
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Googler" |
|
| Title: Re: SV: Commentary: Agreeing Only to Disagree on God's Place in Science |
28 Sep 2005 02:28:10 PM |
|
|
Rolf wrote:
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> skrev i
meldingsnyheter:mjshj19dnvauu79rp4vo24j1deu04hdv2a@4ax.com...
From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
By GEORGE JOHNSON
Published: September 27, 2005
[snip]
For Dr. Conway Morris, a Christian, nature's "uncanny ability"
to converge on moral, loving creatures like ourselves testified that
evolution itself was the handiwork of God.
Seems it has not occured to Dr. Morris,
Please get the man's name right. It is Dr. CONWAY MORRIS. not Dr.
Morris.
Seems it has not occured to Dr. Morris, (and a lot of other people as well)
that traits like morals and love simply are somthing that is required for
evolving life to continue to exist. Unless advanced species can develop
certain modes of behaviour, they never even reach the playground of life.
Since morality is conducive to continued exixtence for a species, it is a
trait that is inheritable and keeps on being transmitted from parents to
their offspring. If morals or moral behaviour were of no use, why would they
still exist?
It seems reasonable to believe....
Well, you are entitled to your beliefs.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
