That would be science v. religion >:-)<\/p>\n
Courtesy of Curtis Brainard and CJR Daily, we have this nice round-up of the media coverage of Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion <\/em><\/a>[Update, link no longer good, sorry]:<\/p>\n [U]nfavorable reviews of The God Delusion have branded Dawkins’ promotion of science as “fundamentalist” and “evangelical.” It gave pause when proponents of intelligent design began to argue like scientists, and it is equally so when the opposite happens, and scientists begin to argue like preachers.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n You don’t say!<\/p>\n lol<\/p>\n The need for mythic statements is satisfied when we frame a view of the world which adequately explains the meaning of human existence in the cosmos, a view which springs from our psychic wholeness, from the co-operation between the conscious and unconscious. Meaninglessness inhibits fullness of life and is therefore equivalent to illness. Meaning makes a great many things endurable — perhaps everything. No science will ever replace myth, and a myth cannot be made out of any science.<\/p>\n — C.J. Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections<\/em><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n What evangelical atheists fail to appreciate is that they, too, are in the thrall of myth. More Jung:<\/p>\n The real facts do not change, whatever names we give them. Only we ourselves are affected. If one were to conceive of “God” as “pure Nothingness,” that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact of a superordinate principle. We are just as much possessed as before; the change of name has removed nothing at all from reality. At most we have taken a false attitude toward reality if the new name implies a denial.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n ;-)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" That would be science v. religion >:-) Courtesy of Curtis Brainard and CJR Daily, we have this nice round-up of the media coverage of Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion [Update, link no longer good, sorry]: [U]nfavorable reviews of The … Continue reading