"My review of The God Delusion" Topic

link

Of course, I wasn't sold on the monist world view for a minute.

Very cool book. I've known about it since it came out in 2006, and Dawkins became a household name as the world's (arguably) most (in)famous atheist. But other than passage quotations, I had not read it till now. It was a Xmas present from my daughter. "I thought it is the kind of book you would be interested in reading." She knows her dad pretty well……………….

Is this Science?

In as much as anthropology, and sociology are considered sciences…yes.

Having read the book and Doug's link I would suggest theology and philosophy instead. So no.

Science is held up beside religion/faith all the way through Dawkins's book. So, science, yes………….

So I guess a review of Hitchen's "God is Not Great" is next? I suppose Hitchens mentions the word "science" once or twice in his book and that's enough to put a review here……..apparently.

Well, I was crossposting, in case you didn't notice. "Science" was just trying to be complete.

Not science.

Thanks Parzival.

Thanks for the review…. I appreciated the perspective.

Be careful who's litter box you pee in. Apparently it is surrounded. Hopefully Dark Energy is not listening to all the people/scientists who do not believe he exists either.

Since the topic refers to Delusion….there seems to be enough delusion to go around….
TED Talk (Whitechapel) Rupert Sheldon; The Science Delusion:

youtu.be/1TerTgDEgUE

For some reason I can't seem to find the Philosophy nor the Theology board….

We should have a Social Science( or if you want Board for the Study of Social Behavior using the Social Scientific Method) board, and a Humanities board.

Hilarious JSchutt! Thanks for that.

First off, it's Rupert Sheldrake.

Secondly, he is a well known parapsychology woo who has been out of his botany job for decades to concentrate on his imaginary "morphic resonance" hypothesis.

From Wiki:

"Morphic resonance is not accepted by the scientific community as a measurable phenomenon and Sheldrake's proposals relating to it have been characterized as pseudoscience. Critics cite a lack of evidence for morphic resonance and an inconsistency between the idea and data from genetics and embryology. They also express concern that popular attention paid to Sheldrake's books and public appearances undermines the public's understanding of science."

The TED talk is a good example of the latter point.

As for TED itself I like Nathan Jurgenson's comment of, "TED is the Urban Outfitters of the idea world" — a gussied-up faux-authentic simulacrum of the real thing". It's very hit and miss.

And for JSchutt, if you insist watching TED Talks let me recommend Michael Shermer instead.

link

link

Thanks for the correction…the perils of autocorrect.

If Einstein were alive today his theories on relativity would be criticized for his personal hygiene.

If Einstein were alive today his theories on relativity would be criticized for his personal hygiene.

Utter BS. Did Sheldrake tell you that?

Thanks for the correction…the perils of autocorrect.

No worries. I own an iPad and know that well. But that was the least important part of my rebuttal.

While we are adding new Boards we should add a "Scientists Breaking Bad" Board so us consensus geeks can get our vilification-on……on.

…..we should add a "Scientists Breaking Bad" Board….

I thought that was what you were doing with the Ted talk link.

Until his wife died,Einstein was a rather dapper dresser.

Unless you mean,if he were STILL alive. He'd be 136 years old,so in that case,probably yes.

The main scientific focus of Dawkins as an attack against faith/delusion is in his section on believing through personal experience.

We all know that personal (anecdotal) experience is by its very nature limited to assertion; science cannot replicate such experiences. For instance, if I were to take Dawkins on over his focus on how the brain works, creates "inner voices" and other delusions that seem real, I'd simply relate a few of my life and death experiences where physics was defied or even laid aside. It doesn't matter if I have inner voices (schizophrenia) or other delusions. If the outcome is in defiance of known physical laws, we have a "problem" for the atheists who deny all such metaphysical occurrences. But the "Dr Arroways" of the world stage can never deny that they "had an experience" that defied outward evidence. In my case, it not only defied outward evidence, it resulted in lives not being lost or destroyed. Dawkins cannot successfully attack/destroy results. There is nothing delusional about the event or its outcome. But science could never replicate it, because it was an automobile accident, or a pitch off a deck headfirst into a concrete stairwell by a two year-old, with nary a mark to show for it, etc…………..

None of this has anything to do with Science. May I suggest the Utter Drival board?

I've never understood Bill's boards arrangement. Utter Drivel is not on TMP Plus, which makes no sense to me: "For discussion of utter drivel related to tabletop wargaming." Eh?……

Back in Ye Olde Days, we did have a few Religion boards. However they lead to naughty behavior from those who frequented them. So those Boards were wiped out, smitten from the Sacred Pages of TMP.
Would that the same standard would be applied to a Board or two where similar mischief occurs.
>cough cough< Consistency…