This August is the 150th anniversary of Darwin presenting his theory of evolution through natural selection to the Linnean Society of London, and this year is the 200th anniversary of his birth. There's lots going on to commemorate this, including a 4 part TV programme by Richard Dawkins, called Dawkins On Darwin. It starts on the 4th of August on Channel 4, and will not doubt be availabe for download following its broadcast.
The Times has a great interview with Dawkins about the programme, where he makes numerous interesting points. Here's two...
The first is about secular spirituality:
"... there is almost a spiritual side to Dawkins, a childlike wonder and joy in the marvels of the universe. He talks about being moved almost to tears when he took his two-year-old daughter Juliet (his only child, from his marriage to Eve Barham), wrapped in blankets, out into the back garden in 1986 to see Halley's Comet in the night sky. Dawkins could barely see the comet, but, aware that he would never see it again in his lifetime, he whispered to Juliet that she might just see it when it passed again, when she was 78. He chokes up a little talking about it again, and it reminds me of the Ted Hughes poem *Full Moon and Little Frieda*, when Hughes's toddler daughter is in the garden in the evening and suddenly shouts "Moon, Moon" in the silence. It's not quite pagan worship, but "it's a fine example of secular spirituality", says Dawkins."
And the other is about natural selection itself, which he says is "the most important idea to occur to the human mind" and that "in many ways it's weird that it's still being debated", but he also notes "it is not debated by anyone who knows anything about it."
> This August is the 150th anniversary of Darwin presenting his theory of
> evolution through natural selection to the Linnean Society of London, and
> this year is the 200th anniversary of his birth. There's lots going on to
> commemorate this, including a 4 part TV programme by Richard Dawkins, called
> Dawkins On Darwin. It starts on the 4th of August on Channel 4, and will not
> doubt be availabe for download following its broadcast.
> The Times has a great interview with Dawkins about the programme, where he
> makes numerous interesting points. Here's two...
> The first is about secular spirituality:
> "... there is almost a spiritual side to Dawkins, a childlike wonder and joy
> in the marvels of the universe. He talks about being moved almost to tears
> when he took his two-year-old daughter Juliet (his only child, from his
> marriage to Eve Barham), wrapped in blankets, out into the back garden in
> 1986 to see Halley's Comet in the night sky. Dawkins could barely see the
> comet, but, aware that he would never see it again in his lifetime, he
> whispered to Juliet that she might just see it when it passed again, when
> she was 78. He chokes up a little talking about it again, and it reminds me
> of the Ted Hughes poem *Full Moon and Little Frieda*, when Hughes's toddler
> daughter is in the garden in the evening and suddenly shouts "Moon, Moon" in
> the silence. It's not quite pagan worship, but "it's a fine example of
> secular spirituality", says Dawkins."
> And the other is about natural selection itself, which he says is "the most
> important idea to occur to the human mind" and that "in many ways it's weird
> that it's still being debated", but he also notes "it is not debated by
> anyone who knows anything about it."
Personally, whilst I have a deep appreciation of Darwin, I rather
think Special Relativity was a far more important idea and far more
reaching in its implications.
> "... there is almost a spiritual side to Dawkins, a childlike wonder and joy
> in the marvels of the universe. He talks about being moved almost to tears
> when he took his two-year-old daughter Juliet (his only child, from his
> marriage to Eve Barham), wrapped in blankets, out into the back garden in
> 1986 to see Halley's Comet in the night sky. Dawkins could barely see the
> comet, but, aware that he would never see it again in his lifetime, he
> whispered to Juliet that she might just see it when it passed again, when
> she was 78. He chokes up a little talking about it again, and it reminds me
> of the Ted Hughes poem *Full Moon and Little Frieda*, when Hughes's toddler
> daughter is in the garden in the evening and suddenly shouts "Moon, Moon" in
> the silence. It's not quite pagan worship, but "it's a fine example of
> secular spirituality", says Dawkins."
> And the other is about natural selection itself, which he says is "the most
> important idea to occur to the human mind" and that "in many ways it's weird
> that it's still being debated", but he also notes "it is not debated by
> anyone who knows anything about it."
The more I think about it, the more laughable this becomes.
Dawkins, calls himself an atheist......then turns around and admits,
for all intents and purposes, that there is such a thing as
spirituality. There can't be, regardless of whether he calls it such,
a secular spirituality. The word "secular" means "Worldly RATHER THAN
spiritual" according to American Heritage Dictionary. That leaves us
with simply Spirituality. or.....The state, quality, manner, or fact
of being spiritual. (again AHD)
spir·i·tu·al
1. Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not
tangible or material. See Synonyms at immaterial
2. Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul.
3. Of, from, or relating to God; deific.
4. Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred.
5. Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit;
supernatural.
If there is condition called spirituality which pertains or relates to
the spiritual.....which relates the the Spirit.....why does Dawkins
deny it?
I wonder if it could be that he just wants to show us how intelligent
he is. It couldn't possibly be that he is simply an egoist......(says
Pottsie, tongue firmly imbedded in cheek.)
This man may be a preeminent evolutionary biologist and work at
Oxford.......but he obviously hasn't been hanging around the Semantics
department. ;)
Namaste
Pottsie
On Jul 19, 1:24 pm, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This August is the 150th anniversary of Darwin presenting his theory of
> evolution through natural selection to the Linnean Society of London, and
> this year is the 200th anniversary of his birth. There's lots going on to
> commemorate this, including a 4 part TV programme by Richard Dawkins, called
> Dawkins On Darwin. It starts on the 4th of August on Channel 4, and will not
> doubt be availabe for download following its broadcast.
> The Times has a great interview with Dawkins about the programme, where he
> makes numerous interesting points. Here's two...
> The first is about secular spirituality:
> "... there is almost a spiritual side to Dawkins, a childlike wonder and joy
> in the marvels of the universe. He talks about being moved almost to tears
> when he took his two-year-old daughter Juliet (his only child, from his
> marriage to Eve Barham), wrapped in blankets, out into the back garden in
> 1986 to see Halley's Comet in the night sky. Dawkins could barely see the
> comet, but, aware that he would never see it again in his lifetime, he
> whispered to Juliet that she might just see it when it passed again, when
> she was 78. He chokes up a little talking about it again, and it reminds me
> of the Ted Hughes poem *Full Moon and Little Frieda*, when Hughes's toddler
> daughter is in the garden in the evening and suddenly shouts "Moon, Moon" in
> the silence. It's not quite pagan worship, but "it's a fine example of
> secular spirituality", says Dawkins."
> And the other is about natural selection itself, which he says is "the most
> important idea to occur to the human mind" and that "in many ways it's weird
> that it's still being debated", but he also notes "it is not debated by
> anyone who knows anything about it."
You theists aren't very good at thinking outside the box. :)
"Secular spirituality" reflects a paradigm that has long existed, but hasn't been commonly named. I would suggest, by your flapping, that it's the perfect name. Whilst I don't think there's any worthwhile evidence for the existence of "spirit" as you might like, secular spirituality is a handy collective term for some perfectly secular notions about human behaviour, emotions, and creativity.
As for quoting the dictionary, Pottsie, well that's rather disappointing. Dawkins is, after all, a Fellow of the Royal Society for Literature. He's also one of the most noted authors for his use of concise and accurate language. In other words, I think he has the edge on you (no offence). Language evolves, and "secular spiritiuality", in our increasingly non-religious world, is absolutely appropriate for the current mood. It also, as a funny coincidence, highlights the increasing irrelevance of religious thought to people's lives. Be it for guidance, understanding where we came from, support, or marking the events of our lives, our notions of spirituality are forever changed.
Dawkins is right on the pulse of this, your ideas on spirituality are increasingly out-moded. Whilst dictionaries can easily be updated to reflect the zeitgeist, are you too closed-minded?
> Personally, whilst I have a deep appreciation of Darwin, I rather > think Special Relativity was a far more important idea and far more > reaching in its implications.
"Avoid simple "you are wrong" statements; if you have a point to make,
back it up. Please also see the section labelled "Quoting/Citations"
for specific information on how you should cite your sources." - Ian
> You theists aren't very good at thinking outside the box. :)
> "Secular spirituality" reflects a paradigm that has long existed, but hasn't
> been commonly named. I would suggest, by your flapping, that it's the
> perfect name. Whilst I don't think there's any worthwhile evidence for the
> existence of "spirit" as you might like, secular spirituality is a handy
> collective term for some perfectly secular notions about human behaviour,
> emotions, and creativity.
> As for quoting the dictionary, Pottsie, well that's rather disappointing.
> Dawkins is, after all, a Fellow of the Royal Society for Literature. He's
> also one of the most noted authors for his use of concise and accurate
> language. In other words, I think he has the edge on you (no offence).
> Language evolves, and "secular spiritiuality", in our increasingly
> non-religious world, is absolutely appropriate for the current mood. It
> also, as a funny coincidence, highlights the increasing irrelevance of
> religious thought to people's lives. Be it for guidance, understanding where
> we came from, support, or marking the events of our lives, our notions of
> spirituality are forever changed.
> Dawkins is right on the pulse of this, your ideas on spirituality are
> increasingly out-moded. Whilst dictionaries can easily be updated to reflect
> the zeitgeist, are you too closed-minded?
But, you have to admit a certain amount of defeat if you want to
have no God whilst, at the same time, wish to use words like
spirituality and anything with 'geist' in it and apply them to
yourself or the world around you. And before you remind me of what
zeitgeist means today, note that it was originally a German
translation of the Latin 'genius seculi', meaning 'guardian spirit'.
Should we next expect to see atheists talk about 'the ghost in the
machine' when referring to unpredictable quantum flux?
By definition, any type of spirituality demands a spirit, which
is refuted by atheists. It is, quite classically, an oxymoron, and it
doesn't take an FRSL member to see that. I will easily grant that
language evolves, but, when atheists admit spirituality, they admit
more than they should, if they would like to retain any dignity in
their argument.
You theists aren't very good at thinking outside the box. :)
"Secular spirituality" reflects a paradigm that has long existed, but hasn't been commonly named. I would suggest, by your flapping, that it's the perfect name. Whilst I don't think there's any worthwhile evidence for the existence of "spirit" as you might like, secular spirituality is a handy collective term for some perfectly secular notions about human behaviour, emotions, and creativity.
(Pottsie)
Yeah, it's a handy term. One that needs to be "invented" simply because it doesn't the IDEA doesn't fly. In this case it is an Oxymoron.......and even though Jumbo Shrimp are named such. They AREN'T big. The same thing holds true here. Just because one calls Spirituality "secular" doesn't mean it is.
(Ian)
As for quoting the dictionary, Pottsie, well that's rather disappointing. Dawkins is, after all, a Fellow of the Royal Society for Literature. He's also one of the most noted authors for his use of concise and accurate language. In other words, I think he has the edge on you (no offence).
(Pottsie) ... Personally, I think they ought to revoke his "license to practice". In this instance he would get "nailed to the cross" ;) If he got into a debate with anyone who had no ax to grind. The term is simply laughable.
(Ian) Language evolves, and "secular spiritiuality", in our increasingly non-religious world, is absolutely appropriate for the current mood.
(Pottsie)
1. Language evolves......but Ducks don't turn into cows. 2. Our world may or may not be increasingly non-religious. My bet is that it is about the same as it has always been. And.....if you really think about it, if it were increasingly non-religious, Dawkins et al wouldn't be fighting it......they'd be ignoring it. (Aside from that we have the matter that "secular spirituality" is not talking about religion.....it addresses Spirituality, something that the atheists conveniently ignore, attacking instead the beliefs of the extreme right. I wonder why I never hear any criticism from them regarding Borg, Spong, Tillich, Niebuhr etc.
(Ian)
It also, as a funny coincidence, highlights the increasing irrelevance of religious thought to people's lives. Be it for guidance, understanding where we came from, support, or marking the events of our lives, our notions of spirituality are forever changed.
(Pottsie)
IMHO, it highlights nothing but ignorance of the definition of the two words.
(Ian) Dawkins is right on the pulse of this, your ideas on spirituality are increasingly out-moded. Whilst dictionaries can easily be updated to reflect the zeitgeist, are you too closed-minded?
(Pottsie)
1. The definitions given for Secular and Spirituality have nothing to do with the content of the thought. They have to do with the relationship that OTHER words have to the two sides of the Universe. The Spirit and The Material.
2. I don't believe that seeing the two sides of Reality Spirit and Matter will ever become outdated. I assume that you mean that people will come to see that the Spirit does not exist. If that is the case, they won't see that things like "imagination", "beauty", "truth", or "knowledge" exist........because these are "things of the Spirit"
You simply can't see that Dawkins et al. are fighting "Big Daddy in the Sky"........an idea that probably WILL die out. I'd get off my soap box on this if atheists would simply OPEN THEIR MINDS and realize that every Effect has a Cause. They can fight all they want about a particular idea of the Cause........but to say that It doesn't exist is simply ludicrous.........whether they are a Fellow at the Royal Society for Literature or the Janitor a Royal Albert Hall.
Namaste
Pottsie
"You can't smell the roses while holding your nose!" - Pottsie
I understand your preciousness over the term "spirituality", as I'm sure Dawkins does, hence I think the choice to coin the term "secular spirituality" is very deliberate. Come in, it has hardly escaped Dawkins that the term is oxymoronic. That's the bloody point! Wouldn't it be convenient or funny if Dawkins was so stupid as to not see this? C'mon, whether you like him or not, don't misrepresent his intent.
Pat, you've perhaps taken this a step further and started speculating about what this might mean for atheists. It doesn't mean anything. You are fixated on a notion of the word "spirituality" that I think is changing, if not changed. For example, secular humanism is a positive framework for enshrining all sorts of things that are traditionally in the realm of the spiritual or the religious (e.g. weddings, funerals, etc). Humanist celebrants now carry out "spiritual" roles which do not indulge a shred of superstition.
In other words, the atheists are coming for you! They'll start by stealing your rights of passage, then they'll steal your words and claim them for their own. They'll be killing your babies next. :)
> On Jul 20, 9:25 am, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote: > > You theists aren't very good at thinking outside the box. :)
> > "Secular spirituality" reflects a paradigm that has long existed, but > hasn't > > been commonly named. I would suggest, by your flapping, that it's the > > perfect name. Whilst I don't think there's any worthwhile evidence for > the > > existence of "spirit" as you might like, secular spirituality is a handy > > collective term for some perfectly secular notions about human behaviour, > > emotions, and creativity.
> > As for quoting the dictionary, Pottsie, well that's rather disappointing. > > Dawkins is, after all, a Fellow of the Royal Society for Literature. He's > > also one of the most noted authors for his use of concise and accurate > > language. In other words, I think he has the edge on you (no offence). > > Language evolves, and "secular spiritiuality", in our increasingly > > non-religious world, is absolutely appropriate for the current mood. It > > also, as a funny coincidence, highlights the increasing irrelevance of > > religious thought to people's lives. Be it for guidance, understanding > where > > we came from, support, or marking the events of our lives, our notions of > > spirituality are forever changed.
> > Dawkins is right on the pulse of this, your ideas on spirituality are > > increasingly out-moded. Whilst dictionaries can easily be updated to > reflect > > the zeitgeist, are you too closed-minded?
> But, you have to admit a certain amount of defeat if you want to > have no God whilst, at the same time, wish to use words like > spirituality and anything with 'geist' in it and apply them to > yourself or the world around you. And before you remind me of what > zeitgeist means today, note that it was originally a German > translation of the Latin 'genius seculi', meaning 'guardian spirit'. > Should we next expect to see atheists talk about 'the ghost in the > machine' when referring to unpredictable quantum flux? > By definition, any type of spirituality demands a spirit, which > is refuted by atheists. It is, quite classically, an oxymoron, and it > doesn't take an FRSL member to see that. I will easily grant that > language evolves, but, when atheists admit spirituality, they admit > more than they should, if they would like to retain any dignity in > their argument.
