» Some writing on the internet

Some writing on the internet - January 27th, 2006 [ « ] [ » ]

Interesting things I read on the internet this week :

According to surveys, most of the people in the world say that religion is very important in their lives. Many would say that without it, their lives would be meaningless. It’s tempting just to take them at their word, to declare that nothing more is to be said — and to tiptoe away. Who would want to interfere with whatever it is that gives their lives meaning? But if we do that, we willfully ignore some serious questions. Can just any religion give lives meaning, in a way that we should honor and respect? What about people who fall into the clutches of cult leaders, or who are duped into giving their life savings to religious con artists? Do their lives still have meaning, even though their particular “religion” is a fraud?

Dennett is so much better than Dawkins at dealing with the subtleties of the Religion thing.

Is my red your red?

Do all peoples see and recognize the same colors? Scientists disagree on the question. Two studies have shed new light on it, by examining how some of the world’s most remote cultures view color.

(includes a really nice piece of information visualisation and horrible web design).

And then Neil said:

Agreed that Dennett is better than Dawkins. Did you see Horizon last night on so-called “Intelligent design”? Dawkins was completely unwilling to even engage with the creationists’ assertions, passing up an opportunity to show why ID is rubbish- something that Prof Kenneth Miller did admirably. Slinging insults is no substitute for rational argument.

And then tom said:

I can undestand Dawkin’s point of view though, the ID lobby’s strategy so far has been like this: Propose ID, scientists respond by saying ID is rubbish, ID advocates go ’see, scientists are disputing this, there’s a controversy’, public opionion moves towards the belief that evolution by natural selection and intelligent design are on an equal footing. So you can see why he’d want to avoid giving them that credibility. Really though I wish he’d just stick to science writing where his agressive rationalism is less grating.

Yeah, good point- it’s a trap. Dawkins could illustrate his claims by showing exactly why ID is unscientific, though.

Well, to be fair he did devote a largish chunk of his recent documentary series to doing just that. In addition to quite a few column inches over the last year or so. I suspect that it was just the way the documentary makers cut the film that deprived us of the opportunity to hear him say it all again.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

little things

Leave a Reply