Cracking toes and corduroys,
A flock of geese passing overhead.
Walking meditation.
I just finished reading Dawkins' The God Delusion. If you ask yourself why Dawkins is so intolerant of those with even moderate religious views, you will find your answer within this book. I actually found it refreshing after Dennett's Breaking the Spell. The second of the "Double D's of Atheism" -- as I call them -- wrote Breaking in an attempt to engage the religious. And while his argument about how the prominence of the norm to "believe in belief" is compelling, I found his attempt at religious outreach unappealing. Perhaps it will work for its intended audience. Dawkins, on the other hand, pulls no punches.
In the concluding chapter of Delusion I hoped my one criticism of the likes of Dawkins, Dennett, Gould, Sagan, and Shermer might finally be addressed. If we have alternatives to religion in explaining our existence and the nature of the universe, and exhorting moral instruction, what of consolation and inspiration (p. 347)? Dawkins still fell short. Yes, it is up to us to make meaning of our lives, but he then proceeds on to the wonders of the Milky Way, marvels of evolution, and beauty of mathematics. If one is scientifically inclined, relatively well, not hungry, and free of despair these phenomenon are indeed astounding. But I don't think that is enough for the majority of people on this planet. One needs a system of meaning making (e.g., a culture of compassion and a community of support) accessible to those other than privileged scientists. I believe non-theistic and non-superstitious religions -- "philosophies" might be a better term -- have something to offer here.
__
Copyright 2006 NrrrdBoy. All Rights Reserved. https://goatee.net/