tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post7772310903807380646..comments2023-12-21T06:35:36.624-05:00Comments on Recursivity: Thank Who for Evolution?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-43123950449206369422010-09-08T11:46:15.820-04:002010-09-08T11:46:15.820-04:00Nice topic; Dowd spoke at the local UU church (whe...Nice topic; Dowd spoke at the local UU church (where I used to belong) and said more or less the same stuff.<br /><br />I didn't ask a question but the questions in my mind were more or less the same as yours; the point is that nature, while awesome to comprehend, IS uncaring.<br /><br />Bottom line: many people want a deity that cares about them and they aren't going to get it from the universe as it really is.<br /><br />But, the talk was at least entertaining and not as dreadful as I had feared. <br /><br />I am starting to read the book and so far it IS dreadful. Perhaps it will get better as I go through it.Harriethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17953435368705942387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-63982796804817951342009-11-09T19:43:01.153-05:002009-11-09T19:43:01.153-05:00I would like to mention that Mr. Konstantopoulo...I would like to mention that Mr. Konstantopoulo's confusion in regarding Michael Dowd and John Lennox as somehow similar is completely unfair. Lennox is a conservative evangelical, whereas Dowd is a liberal. Theologically they are worlds apart.<br /><br />Michael Dowd would NEVER claim that "his version of Christianity is correct because the book of Revelations says so and because it has been established that the book of Revelation is more authentic than many Greek texts of that era". Such a claim is completely foreign to Dowd's theology. <br /><br />Konstantopoulo may have attended John Lennox's talk, but he clearly did not read Michael Dowd's book, and it shows.Alex Altorferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11020352316716038819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-49232903083822425202008-03-05T11:58:00.000-05:002008-03-05T11:58:00.000-05:00Thanks for letting us know about this guy (Dowd). ...Thanks for letting us know about this guy (Dowd). I was not aware of his existence. It seems that there is a movement among religious people who want to establish religion as part of the Sciences or use "scientific" methods to prove irrational beliefs. My kind of business is Mathematics and I find it most annoying when Mathematics is used to "establish" religious "truths".<BR/><BR/>Another example, on this side of the Atlantic (U.K.), is Dr. <A HREF="http://www.ttf.org/index/about/lennox/" REL="nofollow">John Lennox</A> of Oxford--a Mathematician himself (but also a priest) who uses Science and Mathematics to produce evidence for his faith [sic]. (Does faith need eveidence?)<BR/>He is a colleague of Richard Dawkins at Oxford and seems to be going around giving a talk titled "Has Science Buried God?", which is also the title of a recent book of his. He gave a talk last month in Edinburgh and I did attend it. I was appalled by the naivete of his arguments that were supposed to be used as a rational approach for his religious beliefs. <BR/><BR/>Just like Dowd, Lennox does not dismiss evolution, but he wants to have it all attributed to somebody at the top. <BR/><BR/>Unlike Dowd, Lennox is not just a priest, but also a Mathematician and so more dangerous for ordinary people can be easily impressed. Example: The only time he "uses Mathematics" in his talk is when he goes to the blackboard drawing 3-4 Venn diagrams and the symbol for "there exists" next to them, while at the same time apologizing to the audience for being carried away, but--he claims--that is due to his being a Mathematician, and Mathematicians are people who use chalk and write strange symbols.<BR/><BR/>I find it very insulting to be called an empirical theologian. First of all, I don't like the word empiricism in connection with Mathematics. Second, not only I don't like, but also don't care about the word theologian. I am sure there are other Dowd-like characters out there who think of theologians as scientists.<BR/><BR/>Theologians (in their majority--there could be some exceptions) do not care about Science nor understanding. Also, both Dowd and Lennox, when referring to "understanding" they do so in a very perverse sense. For example, they will tell you that they understand that (their version of) Christianity is correct because the book of Revelations says so and because it has been established that the book of Revelation is more authentic than many Greek texts of that era.<BR/><BR/>So what? Where is the QED???Takis Konstantopouloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14675216467783238403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-48165701168419586352008-02-10T04:37:00.000-05:002008-02-10T04:37:00.000-05:00The Teilhard mention (and various other associatio...The Teilhard mention (and various other associations like Paolo Soleri's Chardin-esque meanderings) brings up a possible quandary: does there need to be a poetics of atheism or, better yet, rationalism? Not, perhaps, with the goal of directly opposing fundies, but with the more modest goal of trying to "corrupt" the youth away from turning into future fundies.<BR/><BR/>Dawkins, at a reading I attended a few months back, mentioned that his greatest feelings of achievement were not from our little cheering squad in Palo Alto, but when he went to places like Lawrence, Kansas and got warm receptions from young people who had harbored concerns but never found a voice.<BR/><BR/>The art or poetics of rationalism has the potential to spread those realizations further still, possibly even to Topeka.Erdos56https://www.blogger.com/profile/04426474525236405685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-71876604019550727382008-02-09T00:36:00.000-05:002008-02-09T00:36:00.000-05:00I am a Hindu who has for the last year been droppi...I am a Hindu who has for the last year been dropping by at the UUA center in my neighborhood, not a member yet, but a little more active than that, as I like the breadth of vision of the people I meet, who do not approach life through religion. But this sort of lecture by Dowd makes me a little uncomfortable, it can't become anything goes, not beause it's a question of doctrine, but because no meaningful discussion os possible. Especially getting lost in a thicket full of Tao of Physics or de Chardin can quickly begin to look like a buffalo lazily walowing in a swampAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-39952229505900407272008-02-08T10:07:00.000-05:002008-02-08T10:07:00.000-05:00"The fundamentalists will dismiss him as a liberal..."The fundamentalists will dismiss him as a liberal/newage apostate."<BR/><BR/>Right. The fundies don't regard Unitarians as Christians; if he talks to them, he might as well be Buddhist or Quetzalcoatlian.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-48495361464827622008-02-07T12:34:00.000-05:002008-02-07T12:34:00.000-05:00Dowd was on the CBC last weekend (can't recall whe...Dowd was on the CBC last weekend (can't recall whether it was <I>The Sunday Edition</I>, or that wasteland of woolly thinking, <I>Tapestry</I>). When he defined "God" as being the same as the universe, rather than the traditional Western theistic concept of a Person, I largely lost interest. Sounds like a nice enough guy, but really he talks a lot of meaningless blather -- "It's not even wrong!".<BR/><BR/>The fundamentalists will dismiss him as a liberal/newage apostate.Eamon Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04262012749524758120noreply@blogger.com