Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

Shermer: Make Peace, Not War

The invasion of the body snatchers has begun. Or at least, that’s how it seems, reading through Michael Shermer’s most recent ‘Skeptic’ column in Scientific American. Titled “Rational Atheism: An open letter to Messrs. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens,” Shermer’s column urges that rational atheists, in the conflict between science and religion, need to “raise our consciousness one tier higher.”

Shermer warns that “anti-something movements by themselves will fail,” and advocates positive assertions about science rather than negativity about religion (I’m guessing Shermer’s good pal Randi is not of like mind). I guess he’s talking exclusively about religion with his suggestion that “it is irrational to take a hostile or condescending attitude”, considering this is the guy who turns up to UFO debates and waves toy aliens about. However, perhaps this is the start of a new, more open approach from Shermer, so let’s give him some kudos for this particular column. But he’s now issued the measuring stick for his own future work, so don’t be surprised to see me refer back…

Editor
  1. Scepticism
    Good morning everyone,
    Is this the first sign of an acceptance that septical stances have been about a battle of the paradigms rather than a search for understanding?

    I’m fanatical about moderation

    Anthony North

    1. You guys should read…
      Jaron Lanier’s article “The tangled dance of science, violence, hope & strange beliefs” that is printed on this month’s Discover magazine issue.

      In it he acknowledges that Dawkins and his pals’ cruzade against religion is bound to produce the exact opposite results they seek (free the world from violent fundamentalists) and that a new approach is needed.

      “Why not approach the idea of God in the expansive way that democratic capitalism harnesses clannishnes” Einstein did something like that when he spoke about God not playing dice with the universe and when he pledged allegiance to the God of Spinoza. It isn’t disrespectful to embrace God in a confusing way; to do otherwise could be seen as showing a lack of humility. A complex God is less likely to rally violent mobs.”

      He also writes “A workable definition of spirituality is “one’s emotional relationship with unanswereable questions.” It’s possible to find joy in them.”

      It’s refreshing to see someone from the realm of sciences humblingly admitting that YES the universe is so vast there are unanswereable questions (the raise of consciousness is one of his particular favourites), and that people like Dawkins, although unable to provide people with those answers, stubbornly redoubles his efforts to force them forfeit what folks believe to keep hope in their lives.

      —–
      It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
      It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

      Red Pill Junkie

      1. Duality
        Hi Red,
        I’m convinced there’s two ways of looking at the world – the holistic way, and the specialised way. The holistic way takes into account everything, which must include acceptance of specialisation as it’s in the world. Specialisation discounts everything except the particular specialisation.
        I wonder which one Dawkins fits into? I suppose it’s inevitable that a reaction will come against anti-spiritual stances. Mainly because to take such a fundamental stance against spirituality is to be a form of fanaticism. And eventually people realise that a fanaticism always ends in the opposite to what was intended.
        On saying that, I’m not naive enough to think science will embrace spirituality, but that it will accept that there’s no alternative, so they’ll pay lip service.

        I’m fanatical about moderation

        Anthony North

        1. Chuck Jones
          I remember reading in a Chuck Jones biography, that the idea of Wile E. Coyote came to him after reading Santayana’s definition of a fanatic, that of “a person who redoubles his efforts once he forgot his original intention”

          MEEP! MEEP! 😉

          PS: And yet, the cartoon wouldn’t work if the audience stopped ROOTING for the Coyote to finally catch the road runner…

          —–
          It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
          It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

          Red Pill Junkie

          1. Animation
            Hi Red,

            I guess animation can be traced right back to the initial idea of animism 🙂

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal