There are multiple interpretations of any
Shakespeare play you might care to mention, and
no discernable way to verify one versus the
other, and in the absence of any way to choose
one theory over another, the whole exercise of
literary interpretation must be considered a
waste of time. (01)
It is true that some religions and some
religious thinkers regard theological statements
as factual assertions. Against these, Dawkins
has a point. But this is by no means a
universal, or even a dominant, view among serious
theological thinkers. (02)
Kathy (03)
At 5:08 PM -0400 5/2/07, Cassidy, Patrick J. wrote:
>Patrick
> I read the book and the review(s) - more than one.
> The main complaints of the negative reviewers (including the London
>Review) is that Dawkins is "Theologically Illiterate" and one example
>was that Dawkins failed to note that there are a lot of theologians who
>believe that God created man out of "Love".
>
> Well, Dawkins's position is that there are multiple theories of
>theology and no discernable way to verify one versus the other, and
>that in the absence of any empirical way to choose one theory over
>another the whole exercise must be considered a waste of time, at
>least. He is actually a lot more emphatic than the latter
>characterization. I think that to fault someone for not immersing
>himself in the details of multiple competing theories for which no
>evidence can possibly be found is not a fair criticism of the content
>of the book. But that is not the reason I made that comment - it was
>in answer to a question about reclassification.
>
> This is, however, relevant to this thread.
>
> One of the problems I have felt in the discussions here has been the
>absence of detailed logical characterization of the terms being used.
>For Dawkins and the theologians, "Love" as experienced by God has, I
>suspect, never been the topic of a logical ontological representation.
>For one of the earlier discussions, "cultural relativism" (and related
>concepts) seems to have been interpreted differently by some of the
>discussants.
>
> When we do get into discussions where the meanings of the terms
>appear not to be universally agreed on, I think that as ontologists we
>should set a good example and define the terms we are discussing in
>ontological format.
>
>Pat
>
>Patrick Cassidy
>CNTR-MITRE
>260 Industrial Way West
>Eatontown NJ 07724
>Eatontown: 732-578-6340
>Cell: 908-565-4053
>pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
>> Patrick Durusau
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 4:51 PM
>> To: [ontolog-forum]
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] {Disarmed} Reality and Truth
>>
>> Waclaw,
>>
>> Waclaw Kusnierczyk wrote:
>>
>> >>On 5/2/07, *Cassidy, Patrick J.* <pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx
>> >><mailto:pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Debbie -
>> >> Not sure how formal your work needs to be, but Richard
>> Dawkins in
>> >> his book "The God Delusion" has reclassified all discourses on
>> >> theology as "meaningless nonsense". Does that fit?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Dawkins says:
>> >
>> >"The dictionary supplied with Microsoft Word defines a
>> >delusion as 'a persistent false belief held in the face of strong
>> >contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of
>> psychiatric disorder'.
>> >The first part captures religious faith perfectly. As to
>> >whether it is a symptom of a psychiatric disorder, I am inclined to
>> >follow Robert M. Pirsig, author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle
>> >Maintenance, when he said, 'When one person suffers from a
>> >delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from
>> >a delusion it is called Religion.'"
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> Sigh. It is works like the one by Dawkins that gives "science" such a
>
>> bad name in the humanities in general and religion in particular.
>>
>> The religion "debunked" by Dawkins in his book is a caricature of the
>
>> theology of any modern (as well as many not so modern) theologians.
>>
>> It may be amusing to bash "700 Club" type religion but why
>> not take on
>> the more serious (at least in my view) advocates of a
>> position you want
>> to criticize?
>>
>> There was a very good review of "The God Delusion" in either the New
>> York Review of Books or the London Review of Books in the
>> last several
>> months. It points out a number of errors and positions not
>> considered by
>> Dawkins that are "hidden" in the professional literature of
>> theology. If
>> anyone is interested, I can try to run down the citation for
>> the review.
>> (For anyone interested in the complexities of the issue I
>> would suggest
>> "Does God Exist?" by Hans Küng as a starting point.)
>>
>> Hope you are having a great day!
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> >Perhaps it would be interesting to argue, chaining to previous
>> >discussions, that if *all* people suffer from a delusion, it
>> is called
>> >'science'.
>> >
>> >vQ
>> >
>> >_________________________________________________________________
>> >Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>> >Subscribe/Config:
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>> >Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>> >Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>> >To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Patrick Durusau
>> Patrick@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
>> Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
>> Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005
>>
>> Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>> Subscribe/Config:
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (05)
|