| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Michael Gray" |
| Date: |
10 Jun 2006 11:43:11 PM |
| Object: |
Review: "Breaking the Spell, Reviewed by Freeman Dyson |
A review that is well worth reading, especially considering that
Freeman writes it "from the inside of religion", as a "skeptical
Christian"
He admits:
"I see religion as a precious and ancient part of our human heritage.
Dennett sees it as a load of superfluous mental baggage which we
should be glad to discard."
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19090
Freeman says at one point:
"One famous scientist for whom I have a deep respect said to me,
"Religion is a childhood disease from which we have recovered.""
--
.
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Review: "Breaking the Spell, Reviewed by Freeman Dyson |
11 Jun 2006 12:40:19 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
A review that is well worth reading, especially considering that
Freeman writes it "from the inside of religion", as a "skeptical
Christian"
Interesting review. A couple points I noticed, first, Freeman says:
"Huxley was himself an agnostic, but as a member of the commission he
firmly insisted that religion should be taught in schools together with
science. Every child should be taught the Christian Bible as an
integral part of English culture. In recent times the scope of
religious instruction in England has been extended to include Judaism
and Islam. As a result of this policy, no strong antagonism between
religious parents and public schools has arisen, from 1870 until the
present day. The teaching of religion in public schools coincided with
a decline of religious belief and a growth of religious tolerance.
Children exposed to religion in public schools do not as a rule take it
seriously. We do not know whether Thomas Huxley foresaw the decline of
religion in England, but there is no doubt that he would have welcomed
this unintended consequence of his educational policy."
I wonder how Freeman came to the dubious conclusion that Huxley's
policy caused this outcome? It could have more to do with other
factors.....
then he says:
"My mother, who was a skeptical Christian like me, used to say, "You
can throw religion out of the door, but it will always come back
through the window." I recently experienced a vivid demonstration of
the truth of my mother's words. I went with my wife to visit the
monastery of Sergiev Posad north of Moscow, the ancient headquarters of
the Russian Orthodox Church. The young guide who showed us around said
almost nothing about the ancient buildings and works of art that we
were supposed to be admiring. Instead she talked for an hour about her
own faith and the mystical influences that she felt emanating from the
old saints of the church in their tombs. After three generations of
atheistic government and official suppression of religion, here it was
sprouting again from its roots."
I don't see how we could reasonably assume that government supression
of religion would make people stop being religious. I would expect
people to continue to be religious, but to keep their religion to
themselves during the time of suprression. otoh, people who discover
on their own that religion is a crock, are not likely to return to
religion.
Finally, Freeman says:
" Religion is another bunch of tools, giving us hints of a mental or
spiritual universe that transcends the material universe."
I seen no reason to believe that religion gives us any such thing.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Review: "Breaking the Spell, Reviewed by Freeman Dyson |
11 Jun 2006 03:50:42 AM |
|
|
On 10 Jun 2006 22:40:19 -0700, "J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
- Refer: <1150004418.941964.44150@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
A review that is well worth reading, especially considering that
Freeman writes it "from the inside of religion", as a "skeptical
Christian"
Interesting review. A couple points I noticed, first, Freeman says:
"Huxley was himself an agnostic, but as a member of the commission he
firmly insisted that religion should be taught in schools together with
science. Every child should be taught the Christian Bible as an
integral part of English culture. In recent times the scope of
religious instruction in England has been extended to include Judaism
and Islam. As a result of this policy, no strong antagonism between
religious parents and public schools has arisen, from 1870 until the
present day. The teaching of religion in public schools coincided with
a decline of religious belief and a growth of religious tolerance.
Children exposed to religion in public schools do not as a rule take it
seriously. We do not know whether Thomas Huxley foresaw the decline of
religion in England, but there is no doubt that he would have welcomed
this unintended consequence of his educational policy."
I wonder how Freeman came to the dubious conclusion that Huxley's
policy caused this outcome? It could have more to do with other
factors.....
then he says:
"My mother, who was a skeptical Christian like me, used to say, "You
can throw religion out of the door, but it will always come back
through the window." I recently experienced a vivid demonstration of
the truth of my mother's words. I went with my wife to visit the
monastery of Sergiev Posad north of Moscow, the ancient headquarters of
the Russian Orthodox Church. The young guide who showed us around said
almost nothing about the ancient buildings and works of art that we
were supposed to be admiring. Instead she talked for an hour about her
own faith and the mystical influences that she felt emanating from the
old saints of the church in their tombs. After three generations of
atheistic government and official suppression of religion, here it was
sprouting again from its roots."
I don't see how we could reasonably assume that government supression
of religion would make people stop being religious. I would expect
people to continue to be religious, but to keep their religion to
themselves during the time of suprression. otoh, people who discover
on their own that religion is a crock, are not likely to return to
religion.
Finally, Freeman says:
" Religion is another bunch of tools, giving us hints of a mental or
spiritual universe that transcends the material universe."
I seen no reason to believe that religion gives us any such thing.
Jim
Freeman is one smart cookie, so it just goes to show that brains are
no innoculation against kooky thinking.
All in all, reasonably fair considering the reviewers theistic
orientation, I think.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Review: "Breaking the Spell, Reviewed by Freeman Dyson |
11 Jun 2006 08:35:25 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
A review that is well worth reading, especially considering that
Freeman writes it "from the inside of religion", as a "skeptical
Christian"
He admits:
"I see religion as a precious and ancient part of our human heritage.
Dennett sees it as a load of superfluous mental baggage which we
should be glad to discard."
Freeman says at one point:
"One famous scientist for whom I have a deep respect said to me,
"Religion is a childhood disease from which we have recovered.""
--
A god read, thanks.
I note that at one point here, Dennet speaks of morality, religion
and fanatics. and moderates who don't speak out. I twitted
fool and gabndy over such things here, bad policy by the
GOP. Its nice to see somebody else kind of has noticed such
things too.
--
"I used to think the brain was the most fascinating part
of the body. Then I thought, "Look what's telling me
that."
- Emo Phillips
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Review: "Breaking the Spell, Reviewed by Freeman Dyson |
11 Jun 2006 09:24:00 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 08:35:25 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <128o6j5cabh1r1a@corp.supernews.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
A review that is well worth reading, especially considering that
Freeman writes it "from the inside of religion", as a "skeptical
Christian"
He admits:
"I see religion as a precious and ancient part of our human heritage.
Dennett sees it as a load of superfluous mental baggage which we
should be glad to discard."
Freeman says at one point:
"One famous scientist for whom I have a deep respect said to me,
"Religion is a childhood disease from which we have recovered.""
--
A god read, thanks.
Do I note a Freudian slip?! ;)
I note that at one point here, Dennet speaks of morality, religion
and fanatics. and moderates who don't speak out. I twitted
fool and gabndy over such things here, bad policy by the
GOP. Its nice to see somebody else kind of has noticed such
things too.
Do you think I will be surprised to find that the dynamic duo, the two
stooges, are wishy-washy on this, or any other concept of any
importance?!
(They are hot on getting dictionary definitions sharply defined,
whilst Rome burns, I note)
But Dennet is really quite mild in his condemnation of this theist
'abetting crime through intentional neglect or willful inaction'.
(Neither I nor Greywolf have devised an adequate single-word term for
this behaviour yet.)
I get the feeling from hearing Dennet talk on the matter, (where I can
hear the subtle tones in is speech), that he is being deliberately
very restrained in his criticisms, for whatever reasons.
(Unlike Dawkins, who speaks both very straight, and with maximal
eloquence. His extemporisation qualifies as classic prose, in my not
entirely unqualified opinion.)
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Review: "Breaking the Spell, Reviewed by Freeman Dyson |
12 Jun 2006 12:36:27 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 08:35:25 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <128o6j5cabh1r1a@corp.supernews.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
A review that is well worth reading, especially considering that
Freeman writes it "from the inside of religion", as a "skeptical
Christian"
He admits:
"I see religion as a precious and ancient part of our human heritage.
Dennett sees it as a load of superfluous mental baggage which we
should be glad to discard."
Freeman says at one point:
"One famous scientist for whom I have a deep respect said to me,
"Religion is a childhood disease from which we have recovered.""
--
A god read, thanks.
Do I note a Freudian slip?! ;)
I note that at one point here, Dennet speaks of morality, religion
and fanatics. and moderates who don't speak out. I twitted
fool and Gandy over such things here, bad policy by the
GOP. Its nice to see somebody else kind of has noticed such
things too.
Do you think I will be surprised to find that the dynamic duo, the two
stooges, are wishy-washy on this, or any other concept of any
importance?!
(They are hot on getting dictionary definitions sharply defined,
whilst Rome burns, I note)
But Dennet is really quite mild in his condemnation of this theist
'abetting crime through intentional neglect or willful inaction'.
(Neither I nor Greywolf have devised an adequate single-word term for
this behaviour yet.)
Willfull ammorality.
Willful moral blindness.
My two suggestions.
In the OT, sin literally means to miss, such as an archer
misses his target. It implies missing goals god has set us.
Literally then, to not act in face of such immorailties, mass
murder or genocide, is sin.
Thou shalt not kill.
For churches to ignore US support of some thug like Rios
Montt as his armies commit atrocity after atrocity is literally
sin.
Supposedly these churches understand the concept of sin.
I get the feeling from hearing Dennet talk on the matter, (where I can
hear the subtle tones in is speech), that he is being deliberately
very restrained in his criticisms, for whatever reasons.
(Unlike Dawkins, who speaks both very straight, and with maximal
eloquence. His extemporisation qualifies as classic prose, in my not
entirely unqualified opinion.)
Bad cop - good cop.
Dennet may get invited to speak where somebody like
Dawkins may not. Those who'd turn off Dawkins may
listen to Dennet.
--
"I used to think the brain was the most fascinating part
of the body. Then I thought, "Look what's telling me
that."
- Emo Phillips
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Review: "Breaking the Spell, Reviewed by Freeman Dyson |
12 Jun 2006 02:02:55 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 00:36:27 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <128pustev68nd56@corp.supernews.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 08:35:25 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <128o6j5cabh1r1a@corp.supernews.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
A review that is well worth reading, especially considering that
Freeman writes it "from the inside of religion", as a "skeptical
Christian"
He admits:
"I see religion as a precious and ancient part of our human heritage.
Dennett sees it as a load of superfluous mental baggage which we
should be glad to discard."
Freeman says at one point:
"One famous scientist for whom I have a deep respect said to me,
"Religion is a childhood disease from which we have recovered.""
--
A god read, thanks.
Do I note a Freudian slip?! ;)
I note that at one point here, Dennet speaks of morality, religion
and fanatics. and moderates who don't speak out. I twitted
fool and Gandy over such things here, bad policy by the
GOP. Its nice to see somebody else kind of has noticed such
things too.
Do you think I will be surprised to find that the dynamic duo, the two
stooges, are wishy-washy on this, or any other concept of any
importance?!
(They are hot on getting dictionary definitions sharply defined,
whilst Rome burns, I note)
But Dennet is really quite mild in his condemnation of this theist
'abetting crime through intentional neglect or willful inaction'.
(Neither I nor Greywolf have devised an adequate single-word term for
this behaviour yet.)
Willfull ammorality.
Willful moral blindness.
My two suggestions.
Thanks.
I shall 'take them on board', as it were.
I like the use of "ammorality" as opposed to "immorality".
A subtle but appropriate distinction.
In the OT, sin literally means to miss, such as an archer
misses his target. It implies missing goals god has set us.
Do you have any references for this interesting etymology?
My Hewbrew is still nowhere near very good, so I have not heard of
this description/derivation.
As far as I was concerned, "Chatta'ah" (as it appears in the Torah,
with the "ch" pronounced as though one is working up a Loogie, means
"Offence", {as well as the proscribed penalty}).
http://penei.org/vocab/vocab-chatta.shtml
This term apparently encompasses the loss of bodily fluids(!), and
some thoughts, rather than physical actions.
I had always understood that it was originally Aramaic (the feminine
of "offence, or sacrifice for an offence"), but once again, my mastery
of that particular language is less than I should like it to be.
I must say that I have never heard of this fascinating, but I think
suspect, 'archery' derivation.
What is your source, please?
I am always keen to learn.
Literally then, to not act in face of such immorailties, mass
murder or genocide, is sin.
Thou shalt not kill.
The Hebrew has been rather clumsily translated into English.
I translate it as "You must not unjustly murder."
The Hebrew neither precludes killing in self-defence, nor in
legitimate warfare, as it is often ignorantly assumed.
Now, coveting thine neighbour's oxen is a REAL sin!
Not that this matters one whit, as the book is nothing more than that.
Another book.
For churches to ignore US support of some thug like Rios
Montt as his armies commit atrocity after atrocity is literally
sin.
It is immoral with or without the bible telling us so.
Supposedly these churches understand the concept of sin.
They understand it, all right!
I get the feeling from hearing Dennet talk on the matter, (where I can
hear the subtle tones in is speech), that he is being deliberately
very restrained in his criticisms, for whatever reasons.
(Unlike Dawkins, who speaks both very straight, and with maximal
eloquence. His extemporisation qualifies as classic prose, in my not
entirely unqualified opinion.)
Bad cop - good cop.
Dennet may get invited to speak where somebody like
Dawkins may not. Those who'd turn off Dawkins may
listen to Dennet.
Yes, quite a good observation.
I would listen to both!
(And regularly do)
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Review: "Breaking the Spell, Reviewed by Freeman Dyson |
12 Jun 2006 12:02:12 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 00:36:27 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <128pustev68nd56@corp.supernews.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 08:35:25 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <128o6j5cabh1r1a@corp.supernews.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
A review that is well worth reading, especially considering that
Freeman writes it "from the inside of religion", as a "skeptical
Christian"
He admits:
"I see religion as a precious and ancient part of our human heritage.
Dennett sees it as a load of superfluous mental baggage which we
should be glad to discard."
Freeman says at one point:
"One famous scientist for whom I have a deep respect said to me,
"Religion is a childhood disease from which we have recovered.""
--
A god read, thanks.
Do I note a Freudian slip?! ;)
I note that at one point here, Dennet speaks of morality, religion
and fanatics. and moderates who don't speak out. I twitted
fool and Gandy over such things here, bad policy by the
GOP. Its nice to see somebody else kind of has noticed such
things too.
Do you think I will be surprised to find that the dynamic duo, the two
stooges, are wishy-washy on this, or any other concept of any
importance?!
(They are hot on getting dictionary definitions sharply defined,
whilst Rome burns, I note)
But Dennet is really quite mild in his condemnation of this theist
'abetting crime through intentional neglect or willful inaction'.
(Neither I nor Greywolf have devised an adequate single-word term for
this behaviour yet.)
Willfull ammorality.
Willful moral blindness.
My two suggestions.
Thanks.
I shall 'take them on board', as it were.
I like the use of "ammorality" as opposed to "immorality".
A subtle but appropriate distinction.
In the OT, sin literally means to miss, such as an archer
misses his target. It implies missing goals god has set us.
Do you have any references for this interesting etymology?
My Hewbrew is still nowhere near very good, so I have not heard of
this description/derivation.
As far as I was concerned, "Chatta'ah" (as it appears in the Torah,
with the "ch" pronounced as though one is working up a Loogie, means
"Offence", {as well as the proscribed penalty}).
http://penei.org/vocab/vocab-chatta.shtml
This term apparently encompasses the loss of bodily fluids(!), and
some thoughts, rather than physical actions.
I had always understood that it was originally Aramaic (the feminine
of "offence, or sacrifice for an offence"), but once again, my mastery
of that particular language is less than I should like it to be.
I must say that I have never heard of this fascinating, but I think
suspect, 'archery' derivation.
What is your source, please?
I am always keen to learn.
This is one of those things I have known for many years.
Wikipedia
Hebrew concept of sin
The Hebrew word translated as sin is khate, Strong's Concordance:2399?a
crime, sin, fault. The root of khate is khaw-taw, Strong:2398?to miss, to
err from the mark (speaking of an archer), to sin, to stumble.
....
So I suspect it came from standard scholarly sources
via Strong's or some similar.
I read some Rabbi's comments on the old concept of sin
and where it was derived etymologically some years ago.
There are actually a number of words translated apparently as sin,
but there are things not actually sin that are still not good,
failure to keep ritual cleanliness, things like that.
But it can be hard to tell, Really we are not sure if the most ancient uses
of words were the same 800 years later when the "ancient" usage that
informs most scholars was the same. Some words in the bible are really
mysteries. "Witch " in the infamous thou shalt not suffer a witch to live
probably meant poisoner but nobody really knows what the word use meant.
Not that this matters one whit, as the book is nothing more than that.
Another book.
For churches to ignore US support of some thug like Rios
Montt as his armies commit atrocity after atrocity is literally
sin.
It is immoral with or without the bible telling us so.
Supposedly these churches understand the concept of sin.
They understand it, all right!
I get the feeling from hearing Dennet talk on the matter, (where I can
hear the subtle tones in is speech), that he is being deliberately
very restrained in his criticisms, for whatever reasons.
(Unlike Dawkins, who speaks both very straight, and with maximal
eloquence. His extemporisation qualifies as classic prose, in my not
entirely unqualified opinion.)
Bad cop - good cop.
Dennet may get invited to speak where somebody like
Dawkins may not. Those who'd turn off Dawkins may
listen to Dennet.
Yes, quite a good observation.
I would listen to both!
(And regularly do)
--
--
"I used to think the brain was the most fascinating part
of the body. Then I thought, "Look what's telling me
that."
- Emo Phillips
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Review: "Breaking the Spell, Reviewed by Freeman Dyson |
13 Jun 2006 07:25:54 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 12:02:12 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <128r72jrruudpba@corp.supernews.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 00:36:27 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <128pustev68nd56@corp.supernews.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 08:35:25 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <128o6j5cabh1r1a@corp.supernews.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
A review that is well worth reading, especially considering that
Freeman writes it "from the inside of religion", as a "skeptical
Christian"
He admits:
"I see religion as a precious and ancient part of our human heritage.
Dennett sees it as a load of superfluous mental baggage which we
should be glad to discard."
Freeman says at one point:
"One famous scientist for whom I have a deep respect said to me,
"Religion is a childhood disease from which we have recovered.""
--
A god read, thanks.
Do I note a Freudian slip?! ;)
I note that at one point here, Dennet speaks of morality, religion
and fanatics. and moderates who don't speak out. I twitted
fool and Gandy over such things here, bad policy by the
GOP. Its nice to see somebody else kind of has noticed such
things too.
Do you think I will be surprised to find that the dynamic duo, the two
stooges, are wishy-washy on this, or any other concept of any
importance?!
(They are hot on getting dictionary definitions sharply defined,
whilst Rome burns, I note)
But Dennet is really quite mild in his condemnation of this theist
'abetting crime through intentional neglect or willful inaction'.
(Neither I nor Greywolf have devised an adequate single-word term for
this behaviour yet.)
Willfull ammorality.
Willful moral blindness.
My two suggestions.
Thanks.
I shall 'take them on board', as it were.
I like the use of "ammorality" as opposed to "immorality".
A subtle but appropriate distinction.
In the OT, sin literally means to miss, such as an archer
misses his target. It implies missing goals god has set us.
Do you have any references for this interesting etymology?
My Hewbrew is still nowhere near very good, so I have not heard of
this description/derivation.
As far as I was concerned, "Chatta'ah" (as it appears in the Torah,
with the "ch" pronounced as though one is working up a Loogie, means
"Offence", {as well as the proscribed penalty}).
http://penei.org/vocab/vocab-chatta.shtml
This term apparently encompasses the loss of bodily fluids(!), and
some thoughts, rather than physical actions.
I had always understood that it was originally Aramaic (the feminine
of "offence, or sacrifice for an offence"), but once again, my mastery
of that particular language is less than I should like it to be.
I must say that I have never heard of this fascinating, but I think
suspect, 'archery' derivation.
What is your source, please?
I am always keen to learn.
This is one of those things I have known for many years.
Wikipedia
Hebrew concept of sin
The Hebrew word translated as sin is khate, Strong's Concordance:2399?a
crime, sin, fault. The root of khate is khaw-taw, Strong:2398?to miss, to
err from the mark (speaking of an archer), to sin, to stumble.
...
Well, bugger me!
You are (partly) correct.
Their are several variants of what have been translated as "sin" in
the KJV, many of which are not so subtly different in Hebrew.
Curiously, my Strong's does not have the "archer" reference, so I have
no real idea where the various (identical on-line) quotes purporting
to be from Strong's actually originate.
I can think of certain possibilities:
1) It appeared in limited editions of Strong's but not in mine, nor
any that I can find online, and has since been removed. (A very remote
probability, considering the provenance of the tome.)
2) It was casually inserted into a definition, and has been since
cloned unwittingly (much more likely)
It appears that the authour of the wiki article copied these altered
sources without checking his/her Strong's for its accuracy. (Unless
he/she has the special version!)
Either way, I have done what I should have done in the first place,
rather than relying on my appalling memory and a quick peek at
Strong's, I looked it up in a much more exstensive Hebrew Lexicon, and
it does confirm that one variant of this root word derives from the
accuracy or otherwise of an arrow reaching the goal, to hit the mark,
as it were.
It is the same origin as the Arabic and Greek.
But it is not used this way in all of the bible.
For intance:
Gen 31:29 ".. I bare the loss of it"
"loss" is the same root, but is translated in context, whereas the
same root word appears in Gen 43:9 as "blame", and in Gen 42:22 as
"sin".
In Daniel 4:27 "... break off thy sins" it appears as the Aramaic or
Chaldean root of which I originally spoke, and means just plain "sin",
no archery involved.
So, two slightly different words are both translated as "sin", yet the
same word is variously translated as "loss" and "sin".
So one has to be very careful when generalizing about word meanings.
So I suspect it came from standard scholarly sources
via Strong's or some similar.
I read some Rabbi's comments on the old concept of sin
and where it was derived etymologically some years ago.
There are actually a number of words translated apparently as sin,
but there are things not actually sin that are still not good,
failure to keep ritual cleanliness, things like that.
But it can be hard to tell, Really we are not sure if the most ancient uses
of words were the same 800 years later when the "ancient" usage that
informs most scholars was the same. Some words in the bible are really
mysteries. "Witch " in the infamous thou shalt not suffer a witch to live
probably meant poisoner but nobody really knows what the word use meant.
Not that this matters one whit, as the book is nothing more than that.
Another book.
For churches to ignore US support of some thug like Rios
Montt as his armies commit atrocity after atrocity is literally
sin.
It is immoral with or without the bible telling us so.
Supposedly these churches understand the concept of sin.
They understand it, all right!
I get the feeling from hearing Dennet talk on the matter, (where I can
hear the subtle tones in is speech), that he is being deliberately
very restrained in his criticisms, for whatever reasons.
(Unlike Dawkins, who speaks both very straight, and with maximal
eloquence. His extemporisation qualifies as classic prose, in my not
entirely unqualified opinion.)
Bad cop - good cop.
Dennet may get invited to speak where somebody like
Dawkins may not. Those who'd turn off Dawkins may
listen to Dennet.
Yes, quite a good observation.
I would listen to both!
(And regularly do)
Thank you for your input.
I learned something that I should have known, but did not.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Review: "Breaking the Spell, Reviewed by Freeman Dyson |
11 Jun 2006 09:21:54 AM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
A god read, thanks.
is that like a good read, only different?
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
