Douglas Adams reads a section from one of his Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy books.
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 23874 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Ahh… Richard Dawkin’s Good Bless him…the man that proved that you needn’t be religious or a communist to be a fanatic….
This is an excellent reminder of the fact that Richard and Douglas were close friends. The God Delusion is actually dedicated to the memory of Douglas Adams.
Whilst differing greatly in content and tone, the writings of these two, if made universally available, would undoubtably raise humankind’s aggregate IQ by a not insignificant amount.
Strewth.
#3 – Lauren the Ghoti,
Possibly. It’s a little tough to tell. One just might need to be in the correct mindset for proper appreciation already. Perhaps for Dawkins it would help to start with some of his or Gould’s books on evolution and maybe some general physics before diving into something as controversial as The God Delusion. It helps to have an understanding of what science actually is before getting into how it makes the concept of a personal deity both irrelevant and harmful.
@Ben Waymark
Huh? I guess you haven’t read Dawkins’ The God Delusion then. It’s an incredibly level headed, rational, and logical argument against the believe in ‘gods’ and supernatural fantasies. Try reading it before you attack the man who was recently voted the most important intellectual in the UK.
#4 I think you have to pick Dawkin or Gould as they disagree on some fundamental issues. Having read both I favour(favor) Dawkin’s world view. There is even a book written about their differing views “Dawkins vs. Gould : Survival of the Fittest “.
Just proving the closer you look at something the bigger and more complicated it becomes.
REAd the BOOKS, forget the movie…
From the Scripture Mr. Dawkins reads God gives meaning to human existence. To care for each other and the Earth. By trying to refute this is Dawkins saying that there is no meaning to life? That 42 is just as legitimate an answer as any other? That there is no meaning to life?
Also, quoting fiction to try and prove the Bible as fiction seems a little questionable to me in the logic department. Wouldn’t quoting a factual book to prove the “fiction” of the Bible be more logical?
/ intellectual argument from a “religious nut”
The story about the young girl and her interpretation of the reason for flowers point out how difficult for someone from the non earth religions to be an “envirenmentalist”. The belief that god created earth for the benefit and control of man means anything we do is ok because earth is ours to take advantage of. People who oppose are heretics.
John S
@Phil:
Have indeed read the God Delusion. The book opened by saying that he doesn’t understand why he should respect the views of people he doesn’t agree with. He then goes on to mock pretty much all religions. He makes a some good, rational points then blows them up by generalizing about all religion and spiritual beliefs based on a mish-mash of different theologies spanning six thousands years. When you start by mocking the opposing view point and conclude by generalizing about them and making a fragmented units into a whole you set yourself up as a fanatic.
I couldn’t care less if he has studied at Oxford, or how many prestigious awards he has, or how good his scientific knowledge is. He writings are religion have all the hallmark of a fanatic and just kinda annoy because I think there are some very good points he makes about the arrogance of many religious leaders but then he clouds them in his own arrogant and mocking tone!
-Ben.
One of my favorite Adam’s bits
(No I don’t believe in ID and I think neither did he)
“The Babel fish,” said The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy quietly, “is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy not from its carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
“Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
“The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,’ says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.’
“`But,’ says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.’
“`Oh dear,’ says God, `I hadn’t thought of that,’ and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.
I did read The God Delusion and the only conclusion that a rational person can glean from it is that Dawkins is a person filled with hate. He presents no logical arguments against a creator. In fact if a religious person had written such a book it would be classified as hate speech.
#6 – Johnny Canuck
“I think you have to pick Dawkin or Gould as they disagree on some fundamental issues. Having read both I favour(favor) Dawkin’s world view. There is even a book written about their differing views “Dawkins vs. Gould : Survival of the Fittest “.”
You beat me to it; I was just fixin’ to mention to M Scott that I’m with him, except for the mention of Gould. A great scientist inside the confines of his specialty, when he spepped away from it, the Marxist idelogy kicked in and he could be a surprisingly dishonest hack. Will supply a few refs later, if you like…
#10 – Ben Waymark
“…
He then goes on to mock pretty much all religions….”
Well, if you were paying close attention to the greater overall theme at the root of all of his words on the topic, you will’ve noticed that he takes great pains to demonstrate that, despite the differences great and small between all the hundreds of various schools of religioous belief, they all have the same factor in common, which is what makes them religions, and therefore makes them invalid; not one of them has, as I have put it before, one single fragment of a subatomic particle of evidence to lend it any credence whatsoever.
IOW: they are the same, no matter how they differ – none has the first bit of evidence to support it, and none ever has. And that tells anyone who grasps even the most primitive concept of probability that the likelihood of any of them being correct is so astronomically improbable as to not be worth consideration by any sane person. And when the inconceivably vast volumes of evidence against them is added to the mix, it is the safest bet in the Universe that religion is what reason shows it to be: a construct of man’s own primitive creation, nothing more.
Eckancar, Mormonism, Zoroastrianism, Scientology, Catholocism, Judaism, Christian Science, Buddhism – they appear to be quite different; some crackpot, some quite sensible, some incredibly dull, some quite fascinating, some dimwitted and some highly intellectually refined – but they are really all the same, just irrational products of imperfect human minds. And that’s the only evidence that exists for any of them.
I dont know if I’d lump Buddhism in there. It doesnt demand a specific faith, nor subservience or belief in any deity.
Really more of a philosophy than a religion.
I dont know if I’d lump Buddhism in there with the others.
It doesnt require a partucular faith, nor subservience or belief in any deity.
Its really more of a philosphy than a religion.
With all the book recommendations floating around this thread may I suggest The Case for Christ By Lee Strobel, a former atheist who sets out to disprove the Bible to his wife and ends up finding a a LOT of evidence that proves the Bible true..
@13 – I’d echo 15, there is in fact, reasonable, logical arguments for the validity of Christianity.
@9 I am a Christian, and always interpreted humanity’s dominion over the earth more as a stewardship than an empire. To make an automotive analogy, we’re just leasing the place, and should return it with a minimum of wear and tear.
#16 – Don’t just say there are… enumerate them.
#6 – Johnny Canuck, & #13 – Lauren the Ghoti,
Gould and Dawkins disagree on whether religion and science can coexist. They do not disagree on any significant point of evolution of which I am aware. I have read both extensively but have not read the particular book about them that you read.
I was suggesting that Gould would be a good introduction to some real science for someone who doesn’t want his/her religion challenged. After they understand what science is, they could perhaps understand the arguments about both the uselessness and actual harmfulness of religion.
#16 – Jim W.,
I have already read one incredibly silly book on apologetics. I returned it to its owner with large post-it notes stuck in nearly every page. I think I didn’t leave a single point unanswered. I find it interesting that there is this whole sub-culture of alleged scientists and skeptics that suddenly find religion based on some supposed scientific evidence. Personally, I pointed out at a number of different points that Ralph Muncaster, the author of the book that was called something like A Skeptics Search for God, was never anything like a skeptic. He took so much stuff at face value without ever researching any of it then we heard a smattering of ridiculous contradictory information, found god. Do you think your book is any different?
Does it:
* point out that science hasn’t answered absolutely everything?
* make statistical claims of improbability based on wild calculations?
* discuss the physical constants of our universe?
* point out all of the “predictions” of the old testament that came true?
* point out that the Jesus story seems to match the predictions of the OT?
* ignore the fact that the most recent prediction of the OT was in a time frame that predates the earliest known copy of the OT?
* ignore the fact that statistical and legal proofs are not science, which is held to a far higher standard?
* ignore the fact that Jesus was well learned in the OT and would have easily been able to make the predicted statements from memory?
* ignore the historical (not as strong as scientific) evidence that Jesus may never have even actually existed and instead been an allegory?
* ignore the fact that creationism completely and utterly fails to explain anything because in order to explain complexity it first postulates the pre-existence of even greater complexity?
#14 – tcc3
“I dont know if I’d lump Buddhism in there with the others.
It doesnt require a particular faith, nor subservience or belief in any deity.
Its really more of a philosphy than a religion.”
Yeah, I’ll agree that that’s arguable, to a point – but Buddhism does entail belief in sacred things and in entities existing outside of nature and the laws governing it.
And simply put, for the purposes of the discussion of the clash of science and beliefs antithetical to science, because of it’s inclusion of supernatural phenomena, Buddhism qualifies as religion.