Dawkins on Religion

Richard Dawkins asks What Use is Religion? and finds that this is completely the wrong question.

His thesis calls to mine an ongoing debate that I once got to witness in person between philosopher Daniel Dennett and the late Stephen Jay Gould. At a fascinating seminar held at Dartmouth College a decade ago, these two (among many luminary thinkers) came to discuss a whole raft of topics. Gould, at one point, brought up his view that language and culture are “spandrels.” His reference was too the triangular sections you get between four arched doorways and the round dome above it. At each corner, you get this triangular shape which is only the space between the dome and the arches. It is, essentially, a by-product. But renaissance artists used them to create beautiful works that worked in concert with the architecture. They were by-products that themselves became very important.

Dennett argued that that was incorrect. Spandrels in the architecture were intentional just as language and culture are essential rather than a by-product.

The argument was actually quite interesting as I was sitting right behind Dennett and got to hear his angry “he’s at it again” muttering to his colleagues in the audience during Gould’s talk. Finally unable to contain himself, he stood up and thus began the sparring match.

Anyway, this article harkens to that somewhat and is quite interesting.

Philip Pullman and Rowan Williams

Telegraph | Arts | The Dark Materials debate: life, God, the universe… is a fascinating “debate” between Philip Pullman, author of the wonderful “His Dark Materials” series of books, currently being performed as a play (which I wish I could see) and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. It’s hardly a debate in that they appear to see eye to eye (or close to it) on most issues but it also illustrates a point that I have held for a long time now which is that atheists and intelligent religious people have far more in common than many would think. The true spectrum is not atheist to beliver but from thefundamentalist (whether it is a militant atheist or a fundamentalist christian or Islamic) and the educated, informed, thoughtful person.

The former conceives on the world as exactly one thing and that anyone who disagrees is the infidel. The latter understands that the cosmos is, at best, a moving target and that the many philiosophies, theologies, and even scientific theories are but a few of the many ways to try to comprehend the whole of it.

I’ve often said that all of the world’s religions (including my own scientific/atheist views) are but different windows of one house looking out at the same scene.