tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post3828278232403659974..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: James Wood on the New AtheismRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-11112359812450518492011-09-01T21:01:22.997+10:002011-09-01T21:01:22.997+10:00DEN wrote: "What good is basing your world vi...DEN wrote: "What good is basing your world view on a belief that is so confused you can't even come close to articulating it anyway?"<br /><br />If you care more for certain benefits you get from your religious beliefs than for their truth, that might be a good strategy.Richard Weinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095903892283146064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-52936675447872172482011-09-01T14:44:58.516+10:002011-09-01T14:44:58.516+10:00What Jean said: the "dead to metaphor" l...What Jean said: the "dead to metaphor" line is not well written, but what's the point to "endlessly hammering on the worst kinds of fundamentalism". I think it's right to say that religion is more about literature or psychology than about empirical scientific truth claims, and that Dawkins' and others (names on request) don't go there. You certainly <i>can</i> criticize religion-as-literature, but doing so seems to be not a Gnuzy thing.<br /><br />@DEEN:<br />I fear it's a vague and confused world. At any rate that's my human experience and I must play it as it lays.Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10215784276660875929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-62632753892288533652011-09-01T12:58:53.274+10:002011-09-01T12:58:53.274+10:00@Mark Jones so I'm not sure how much exposure ...@Mark Jones <i>so I'm not sure how much exposure and examination of these beliefs qualifies as sufficient to understand </i><br /><br />I think the religious belief thing is like wine tasting, there is a highly technical language used to to describe the experience but it's completely subjective. Not to say it doesn't increase the pleasure associated with drinking wine but it's mostly in the head.<br /><br />I'm reminded of these wine tasting incidents:<br /><br /><i>French researcher Frédéric Brochet "submitted a mid-range Bordeaux in two different bottles, one labeled as a cheap table wine, the other bearing a grand cru etiquette" and obtained predictable results. Tasters described the supposed grand cru as "woody, complex, and round" and the supposed cheap wine as "short, light, and faulty."</i><br /><br /><i>when Brochet served a white wine he received all the usual descriptions: "fresh, dry, honeyed, lively." Later he served the same wine dyed red and received the usual red terms: "intense, spicy, supple, deep."</i>steve oberskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-57228845185815022072011-09-01T00:15:34.299+10:002011-09-01T00:15:34.299+10:00I really rather despise the spurious discovery of ...I really rather despise the spurious discovery of symbols everywhere in literature.<br /><br />Though I haven't (yet) read the piece, I find it puzzling that anyone with two neurons to rub together could accuse the author of <i>The Selfish Gene</i> of being dead to metaphor. Perhaps Wood is dead to irony?Thannynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-65489296603620654542011-09-01T00:11:26.344+10:002011-09-01T00:11:26.344+10:00"He's correct, I'm sure, as to just h...<i>"He's correct, I'm sure, as to just how complex, confused, and confounding the religious lives and beliefs of ordinary people - people who are not fanatics, saints, or dogmatists - can be."</i><br /><br />I don't think the New Atheists are unaware of the confusion in most people's beliefs, I think they just don't have much patience for it. They'd much rather challenge people to try and cut through the confusion. <br /><br />Besides, how does Wood suggest that New Atheists engage with these vague and confused beliefs to begin with? He doesn't say. But you can't argue against a position that isn't clear. Wood and others like him seem to think this is a problem for the New Atheists. The New Atheists, on the other hand, seem to think this is a problem for the people with unclear beliefs. What good is basing your world view on a belief that is so confused you can't even come close to articulating it anyway?DEENhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01038312556912179499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-7709871934380814002011-08-31T23:58:45.122+10:002011-08-31T23:58:45.122+10:00Marilynne Robinson is the best contemporary noveli...Marilynne Robinson is the best contemporary novelist of religious experience -- and perhaps the best such novelist there has ever been. Her twin novels 'Gilead' and 'Home' are, you will forgive the expression, miraculous. If you want to understand why someone like Wood might think that there are aspects of religious thought and life which Dawkins' polemic doesn't reach, they are a good place to start.Steve Gardnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15203446281570971217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-79094839438331522032011-08-31T23:43:07.687+10:002011-08-31T23:43:07.687+10:00I'm puzzled how Jean Kazez would know that new...I'm puzzled how Jean Kazez would <i>know</i> that new atheists like Dawkins don't understand religious belief, in a way that presumably <i>she</i> does? I consider myself a new atheist, and I understand at least one instance of religious belief - my own, when I believed. I grew up surrounded by moderate Anglicans, Baptists and Catholics, so I'm not sure how much exposure and examination of these beliefs qualifies as sufficient to understand (or do I have an identifiable deficiency that prevents me?). And consider Dawkins's discussions with Father George Coyne and Rowan Williams - he seems to be straining to help them escape their self-imposed prison cells, and it's plain he understands their expressed beliefs to a large degree.<br /><br />It's a truism that we all of us find some of the more nebulous beliefs of others difficult to understand (they might, in fact, be incoherent). But, once again, this canard that <i>new atheists</i> are peculiarly imperceptive appears to be simply untrue. At least, I don't see the evidence for it.Mark Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04982524614308121228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-13931726017159073662011-08-31T22:55:32.342+10:002011-08-31T22:55:32.342+10:00For what it's worth, I find it hard to think o...For what it's worth, I find it hard to think of Moby Dick as a symbol of either God or the Devil. Wood says it's a symbol of both. Meh. In any case, by all means re-read the book. It's one of my favorites. (Melville himself said that the whale wasn't meant to be a symbol of anything. I think of it as a manifestation of the sublime.)Jason Streitfeldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06950357341620206095noreply@blogger.com