Pat, (01)
Pat Hayes wrote: (02)
>> 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 Œa persistent false belief held in the face of strong
>>> contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of psychiatric
>>> disorder¹.
>>> 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, ŒWhen one person suffers from a
>>> delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from
>>> a delusion it is called Religion.¹"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> 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.
>
>
> Religion is part of the humanities? Thats an interesting position.
>
Well, one has to be mindful that the current division of studies is a
rather recent invention. (03)
And it is a division that I find troubling. After all, a criticism of
versification of the Bible was published by John Locke. An Essay for the
Understanding of St. Paul's Epistles. By Consulting St. Paul Himself
(1707). (He preferred a "...continuous Discourses..." arrangement.) And
it has been reported that most of the major figures in the American
Revolution would be considered 'literate' in a number of areas that are
now treated as distinct disciplines. To bring it a little closer to home
remember that Don Knuth (Art of Computer Programming) also wrote the
fascinating "Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About." (04)
Sorry, really off topic for this forum. It is an issue that is sometimes
discussed but then everyone goes back to their "professional"
strongholds to await visitors. If everyone stays home, there isn't a
very large pool of potential visitors. (05)
>> 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?
>
>
> Because what Dawkins is talking about is religious belief, not
> theology. And what is actually believed by the overwhelming majority -
> all but an infinitesimally small fraction - of adults who profess
> religious beliefs seems to be more like the 700 club than, for
> example, Hans Kung. And that is what needs to be explained. Theology
> is not the *advocation* of a religious position. The advocates are the
> priests and ayatollahs, not the theologians.
>
Well, I am not sure that is a fair generalization either. (06)
First, one has to decide on a definition of religion. If we follow Paul
Tillich, that which is of ultimate concern, then I suspect the church of
Visa/Mastercard beats all others hands down. And from what I have seen,
it is a fairly materialistic and pernicious religion. (07)
Second, if we are talking about religions of the "Book," such as
Christianity, Judaism, Islam, we have to decide if "religion" means
their scriptures or how their followers practice those "religions."
Which is complicated by the adoption of social customs as part of those
religions. Much as slavery was justified by the Bible in the American
South or more recently the abberrant readings of the Qur'an to justify
attacks on civilians (which have been justified, in all fairness, by
appeals to the Bible as well). (08)
Third, I am not sure what an "explanation" of even an individual's
religious beliefs would look like. At least all the people I have known
well enough to have some opinion about their "religion," whether it was
acceptance of some religious orthodoxy, rejection of a religious
orthodoxy (which is a religion too), or some other variant, could give
you an "explanation" or justification for their beliefs. Whether that
was an after the fact justification or not, it is hard to say. (09)
To say that we can "explain" a religious belief gives the impression
that we can challenge some underlying premise and then the people will
adopt whatever "religious" position we are pushing. That I rather doubt.
People believe all sorts of things for a wide variety of reasons. Some
of which they can probably articulate (as after the fact justifications)
and some they probably cannot. And people do change their beliefs,
largely due to a variety of reasons. (010)
>> 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.
>
>
> I would be interested, yes. I found Dawkin's book to be a convincing,
> if somewhat didactic, summary of a viewpoint that has seemed to me to
> be simply obvious since I was old enough to think about such matters.
> Obviously there isn't a God (my own view is the very idea of God
> embedded in Christianity/Judaism/Islam is incoherent), so the fact
> that so many people believe there is, is something that needs to be
> explained. Dawkins makes a brave attempt to do this. Its nothing
> whatever to do with theology: its more a matter for evolutionary
> biology or social psychology.
>
Terry Eagleton (2006-10-19). "Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching". London
Review of Books 28 (20). (011)
From the Google article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion) (012)
> Marxist literary critic Terry Eagleton in the London Review of Books
> argues that Dawkins has insufficient understanding of the religious
> concepts he is attacking to engage with them effectively. He comments,
> "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." He questions
> whether Dawkins has read or heard of Christian thinkers like Eriugena,
> Rahner or Moltmann. He denies that all faith is blind faith, suggests
> that "while faith, rather like love, must involve factual knowledge,
> it is not reducible to it". He claims that "Critics of the most
> enduring form of popular culture in human history have a moral
> obligation to confront that case at its most persuasive". He adds,
> however, that Dawkins is effective in attacking "that particular
> strain of psychopathology known as fundamentalism, whether Texan or
> Taliban".[28] (013)
But note that fundamentalism != religion. I am sure you will be pleased
that I used an equation. ;-) (014)
It is possible to pick up any English translation of the Hebrew Bible,
the most recent written witness of which was written some 1,700 to 1,800
years after its oldest parts, and ignoring the semantic gap between the
original and the translation as well as the context in which we think
(no one knows for sure) the original was composed, ignore the rather
clear (well, thought to be clear by Bible scholars) threads and
divisions in the text, and reach the sort of characterizations that
Dawkins gives of the Deity. (015)
For example, I am sure that Dawkins (and no, I haven't read "The God
Delusion," I don't read much popular fiction pro or con on biblical
issues) would grab the scene in the celestial court in Job as proof that
the Deity is insecure, cruel, etc. Well, that is one reading but not the
only one that is possible of that text. Consider whose position the
satan (it really isn't a proper name although tranditionally used as
such in translations) represents? Isn't that our position? That is to
say that when someone gets a reward, well, that is because they knew X,
or Y wanted to favor them, etc. What I think the scene represents is
setting the reader up for the ultimate refutation of that position. When
the voice out of the whirlwind speaks, it repudiates any interest in
rewarding or punishing Job. As a matter of fact, it says that only Job
has spoken the truth. Go back and read what Job as said. Fairly strong
stuff. The usually said to be added prose conclusion where Job is
"restored" is actually the final irony in the book. We start with our
position, that is that people other than ourselves get rewarded out of
favoritism and we end on that same note. In part to soften the blow of
the speech from the whirlwind that basically says all you have are each
other so stop trying to presume to know the mind of the Deity. (016)
Fairly complex stuff theologically speaking. And far beyond the usual
drivel that one can hear from televangilists. (017)
>> (For anyone interested in the complexities of the issue I would suggest
>> "Does God Exist?" by Hans Küng as a starting point.)
>
>
> I find the arguments used there almost absurdly naive. What should I
> try next, do you think? (018)
Well, a couple of the people mentioned in the London Review of Books
article are fairly easy to find. Karl Rahner or Jürgen Multmann. (019)
Note that I am *not* saying that either one will make arguments that
will convince anyone of the existence of God. (020)
What I am saying is that it is a far more complex issue that Dawkins
appears to acknowledge. (021)
To perhaps make an overly long post a little more relevant to this
forum, is the existence of God even a meaningful question for
formulation of an ontology? (022)
If we are trying to represent the world as viewed by some group of
users, should we ever exclude something simply because we don't share
that part of the user's world view? (023)
Or to put it more pointedly, do ontologies represent our views or those
of our users? (And yes, I assume that all ontologies represent a view.) (024)
Apologies for the length of a basically off-topic post, but I do think
the issue of whose viewpoint shapes an ontology is quite relevant. (025)
Hope everyone is looking forward to a great weekend! (026)
Patrick (027)
>
> Pat Hayes
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>
> (028)
--
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 (029)
Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work! (030)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (031)
|