hi Morgan, very good to meet you. :)
Morgan Leigh <[log in to unmask]>:
> I have many times encountered people in various fora who
> think Dawkins is guilty of exactly the things he accuses
> religious people of. I think he is not only rude, but
> totally neglects to consider that others might have a
> different and equally valid conception of the universe.
so how does he evaluate magic? is this part of his field
of scientific study? if it isn't, why take him seriously?
> ...I'd argue that bringing up children to believe that
> there is only one, true, scientific way is also
> brainwashing, yet it seems Dawkins can only see
> the plank in his brother's eye.
isn't academia as a whole basically in agreement with
the notion that science has the method by which reality
is disclosed to us? isn't that in part why there is
some controversy about an academic study of magic?
for example, should we take academics seriously who
do not regard as accurate the results of archaeology
or anthropology, and their disclosure that our planet
is older than the 5000 years some religious exponents
specify, or that our species evolved through time
(i.e. the most refined theories of the origins of
the planet or of our species)? isn't the "No." answer
to this question the reason that movements such as
those surrounding the Flying Spaghetti Monster and
Pirate Fish get such amused attention and support?
> While I agree with you that many people are vocal
> when others criticise their religious convictions,
> I feel scientists are no different.
the difference is that religious convictions are
based on faith whereas scientific convictions ought
be based on reason and evaluative testing, peer review,
and refinement. when criticism of the scientific is
also rational, then it should be regarded with
sobriety and respect. when it proceeds from an
irrational (faith-based) posture, then the
response is, deservedly, laughter.
> I postulate that the beliefs of observers change the
> universe. But try saying to a scientist that they
> might like to consider that one's beliefs will
> actually change physical phenomena and they'll
> call you a looney.
the mention of physics has already been made in
response to this. postulating belief is far less
important than explaining how it might be that any
such belief might change physical phenomena. theories
absent any basis in fact deserve as much laughter
in response to them as they do appreciation for
their imaginative character.
postulating belief without any basis in experiment
or supported theory when one is oneself in a
*scientific* field may deserve the challenge
to the sanity of a faith-based proclaimer.
irrational claims have for so long been given
far too much serious attention that it is helpful
to stigmatize baseless proclamations and move on
to more sustainable concepts of the universe.
which rational, supportable theories best
explain magic's effectiveness?
great discussion! thanks!!
nagasiva yronwode ([log in to unmask]), Director
YIPPIE*! -- http://www.yronwode.org/
-----------------------------------------------------
*Yronwode Institution for the Preservation
and Popularization of Indigenous Ethnomagicology
-----------------------------------------------------
|