World's foremost atheist televangelist to attack children's literature!

Seriously?
Perhaps you could name a single scientific field of inquiry that doesn't have an attendant mythology? Any old discipline that you consider "myth-free" will do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then mission accomplished. Your objection doesn't seem to originate in truth, but in a desire to hold a social tradition together. I'm sure it was just as shocking when someone long ago suggested government and religion don't have to be unified.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What was she right about? Your quote has her claiming Dawkins's "central point" is that man's emotional nature is self-interested. That's asinine.

And "we" are making bizarre claims about it not supported by the text of the book itself.

I can't tell from your quote whether she read the book or not. Do you have some evidence that she did read it?

I don't generally regard professional philosophers as experts in conveying concepts to lay people. Certainly Midgely's attempts to convey Dawkins's concepts to me went seriously haywire, to the point that she seems to be assigning to Dawkins not just assertions, but central points of entire books, that are directly and specifically ane repeatedly denied and opposed and contradicted by Dawkins's own words in those very books.

If she is somehow drawing attention to a side effect of Dawkins's expositions, unanticipated and unwanted by Dawkins but unfortunately likely given the stupidity and ignorance of a lay audience or Dawkins's naive incompetence in making his points, then she is being most unclear in her own description. Your quote there certainly reads as though she assigns these ideas and assertions to Dawkins himself.

If her real complaint is with the propaganda twisting of evolutionary theory as a recruitment tool by fundies, then her intemperate berating of Dawkins himself seems more than misplaced.

If certain factions of his religious audience are unable to comprehend his expositions, and make goofy mistakes and crass errors like Midgely's apparent misreadings (or her examples of other's misreadings, whatever she's up to), while others find them easier to follow, and pick up his points without such difficulty and without misunderstanding so completely and obviously, then those particular religious folks might indeed have a problem, no?

If what many find a reasonably clear exposition of Darwinian evolution somehow convinces some religious people that they cannot keep both science and their particular brand of religion, then maybe they are right.

And if some religous people consistently have this kind of trouble comprehending Dawkins's expositions, getting them so badly wrong while so many others don't, then the first place to look for the explanation of that is in what these factions of religious people have in common.

Myself, I just think the concepts and theory behind Darwinian evolution are difficult. People underestimate them, in general, and routinely get them wrong - all kinds of people. That isn't Dawkins's fault, as far as I can tell. He took on a difficult task, and made a fair attempt.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, I want you to name a single scientific field of enquiry, and demonstrate that it's free of mythology; that would make it an 'entirely scientific' subject, which is also 'myth-free'.

Since there aren't any, this shows us that mythologies exist, and that scientific enquiry is itself a kind of mythology, or at least every discipline is also replete with myths of various kinds.

 

Good for you, you stay as interested/uninterested as you want.

I'll stick to my 'mythology is important to us, so important that science includes many myths. In fact every field of enquiry has an attendant mythology'.

If you're happy to dismiss this idea and also claim that I haven't explained it, or you can't provide a single counter-example, then so be it. I'm still right though, in that case.

 

Is English the primary language for the person who posted the following?

It seems like semantic nonsense to me, unless the poster has some archaic or strictly personal definition of the various terms. I always thought the term mythology applied to pseudo history: Like stories about Adams’s first wife (Lilith), Hercules, Achilles, leprechauns, The Valkyrie, et cetera. Id est: Stories once believed to be true, or stories related to archaic religions, or various stories told to children.

In response to the following:

I would nominate the following among others.

• Various gravitational theories proposed by Isaac Newton & improved upon by Einstein. There might be some myths associated with Newton (EG: Being hit on the head with an apple, leading to his theories) or Einstein (EG: The claims that he flunked algebra). I know of no account relating to their actual theories that could properly be called a myth.
  
  
• Cantor’s work on transfinite numbers.
  
  
• Plate tectonics.
  
  
• The astrophysics related to stellar life cycles & the underlying nuclear physics.

I will avoid subjects like Quantum Theory & Cosmology, for which all sorts of wild claims can be made since nobody really understands them at an intuitive level.

I suspect that some interpretations of Quantum Theory might properly be called myths rather than science.

Could the original poster describe in more detail what he had in mind relating to the above quotes?

 

The theories aren't myths, that isn't what I actually said. Einstein and Newton did not avoid constructing mythologies along with their theories, though. No scientist has managed this, ever.

Math is a symbology and a methodology. Can you seriously claim it's a "myth-free" one?

The myth here is of course the one about the planet being 'alive'. This is an unavoidable anthropomorphism; the science tries to 'avoid' it, but it can't.

The life-cycle of stars, you mean? How the science demonstrates stars aren't living, but we still apply a certain level of, well, mythology nonetheless?

My language skills are fine thanks - did that sentence really give you pause for thought?
Considering it's a completely valid sentence, and it says something fairly obvious, what sort of linguistic problems do you have with it? Is English not your native language?
Shouldn't you go and look up the word "mythology", to make sure?

 

Disease: You challenged James R. & others to give examples of myth free scientific disciplines. I gave you several valid examples. You have not really provided any cogent arguments to back up your strange views.

Instead of some serious arguments in favor of your views, you merely wrote some words, mostly reiterating your views.

How about backing up your views with actual explanations instead of merely writing words ?

The following from your latest post seems to be back tracking from your earlier assertion.

Your previous post included the following.

What did you actually say, if not the above? I do read & remember what is posted. Instead of rephrasing your original remarks, how about describing the myths related to the gravitational theories of Newton & Einstein?

My answer to the following is “Yes ! It is myth free.”

I specifically mentioned Cantor’s theory of transfinite numbers. Perhaps you can explain the mythology related to that discipline. I doubt it.

This in response to my claim that Plate tectonics is essentially myth free.

I do not remember any reference to the planet being alive in articles describing planet tectonics. Can you point out such references instead of again repeating rephrased versions of your previous unsubstantiated remarks? Perhaps you are confusing New Age theories about Gaia with plate tectonics.

Your reply to my nomination of astrophysics & the nuclear reactions behind the life cycle of stars.

Once again, how about a specific description of myths related to the pertinent astrophysics?

You remind me of Eastern mystics who attempt to baffle people with bulls**t because they cannot dazzle anyone with brilliance they do not possess. An example:

Some people might consider the above profound, but it is really silly.

 

Come on.
Science is definitely mythological. The fact is, science can actually tell us that we essentially can know nothing, what else but a mythology can be based on a search for 'truth' that it knows it will never really find? This theme, you will find, dominates every field of study, now we know that fundamental interactions and the large scale are connected. Because like I say, we simply can't live without myths. We need myths to live by.

Cosmologists etc understand what these are, and separate mythology from scientific observation, but none of us can avoid our culture. This would not fit our paradigm well at all. Our culture is founded on mythology, so therefore is any group activity of any sort, any gathering at all involves certain cultural rites and so on, because of the mythologies that attend our culture. Therefore any scientific activity is mythological, we can't actually separate ourselves from our culture, and cultural norms.

Of course we can see that myths "don't work", that logic is what explains everything. But we believe that because it's practical to do so, we were built to handle the world that way, but we aren't just logical creatures, we actually need the other 'known to not be logical' mythology so that the logic works, is how it goes. We can't be "just logical' either.

 

But what does that kind of nihilistic thinking actually achieve?

If we want to progress in our quality of life, our society and our technology we must allow progression to take place. Is it a myth if you, and others as well, can feel it there?

 

Sorry, what are you saying?

What sort of myth is it that we can "progress" and toward what? Science is just whatever we find is useful, we have to invent a mythology like "science is good", because logic doesn't understand that,.

 

Disease: From two of your recent posts.

James R. had the right idea when he decided to ignore you.

You challanged James R. & others to specifiy myth free scientific disiplnes, refusing to provide your own examples of myths associated with scientific theories.

After I posted some specific examples, your next two posts just reiterated your original views.

You seem to be a person who posts some opinion without thinking and then cannot back it up with any sort of cogent argument. The following is like a child peading to be believed:

The other quote above is verbal diarhea with little useful semantic content.

If you post something meaningful, I might post again on this issue, but I expect to ignore your comments here & in other threads.