science, magic, madness

[Bekah]

From towards the end of the BBC article: 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22105898


"The glory of modern science is that, while only a very few can understand its particular theories, anyone can understand its peculiar approach - it is simply the perpetual assertion of experience over authority, and of debate over dogma."

And bouncing off your post,  you won't see Dawkins trying any open-minded prayer.  I doubt he could.   The experiential results are unpredictable and Dawkins has become too firmly entrenched, materially and ideologically,  in his own position. 

Bekah



On Apr 22, 2013, at 2:48 AM, alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com> wrote:

> Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could. When it comes to theology, however, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster. These days, theology is the queen of the sciences in a rather less august sense of the word than in its medieval heyday.
> 
> Dawkins on God is rather like those right-wing Cambridge dons who filed eagerly into the Senate House some years ago to non-placet Jacques Derrida for an honorary degree. Very few of them, one suspects, had read more than a few pages of his work, and even that judgment might be excessively charitable. Yet they would doubtless have been horrified to receive an essay on Hume from a student who had not read his Treatise of Human Nature.
> 
>  
> http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching
>  
> 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 5:43 AM, alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com> wrote:
> "... applied science, purposeful and determined, and pure science, playful and freely curious, continuously support and stimulate each other. The great nation of the future will be the one which protects the freedom of pure science as much as it encourages applied science."
>  
> http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2876.htm
> 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 5:40 AM, alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22105898
> 
>