Sunday, October 28, 2007 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Face to faith

by Mark Vernon, Guardian

Thanks to Nick Baxter and Linda Ward Selbie for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2200187,00.html

Seeing scientific knowledge as limitless erodes our capacity for contemplative wonder, says Mark Vernon

Do you need to be religious to truly experience wonder at the world? This question lurks behind much of the ongoing debate about atheism. If everything can be explained by science, what is worthy of awe?

At one level the question is answered quickly. Of course atheists understand the sense of amazement at the universe. Richard Dawkins devoted a whole book to the matter, Unweaving the Rainbow. The title comes from a poem by Keats, who feared that Newton had reduced the beauty of the rainbow to the science of coloured light. Dawkins argues that science positively reinvigorates the appetite for wonder in the astonishing explanations for things that it yields.

Nevertheless, is that the final word on the matter? Think of our primitive ancestors on the savannah, watching a thunderstorm approaching across the plain. As the dark sky splits with light, and the turbulent atmosphere howls with thunder, they feel fear. For in an enchanted world it makes sense to connect events in the natural world with those in the human and divine. Hence in King Lear the "deep, dread-bolted thunder" signals Lear's own demise.

In the scientific age the intrinsic meaningfulness of the natural world is lost. We no longer interpret the thunder; we understand it - as massive discharges of electricity. It is still spectacular but no longer mysterious, let alone portentous. The world is a little less awesome, if also less fearsome, as a result.

However, this is not quite the end of the story. Wonder survives. But its nature depends on what you make of the limits of science. For some atheists modern science can ask all questions worth asking and find answers: there are still mysteries in the world, but they are more like puzzles that can and one day will be explained by natural processes.

The wonder that someone with such a belief might feel at these things could be said to be instrumental. It is similar to that which one feels when pondering a puzzle. The puzzle might amaze with its ingenuity, confound with its complexity, and leave one in awe of its subtle resolution. But ultimately this wonder fires a desire to unravel the mystery.

This wonder is different in quality from contemplative wonder, which does not undo but lets be. It involves a conception of science that extends knowledge but admits its limits. Some things are beyond its comprehension and remain intrinsically mysterious. Consciousness, morality and existence itself are obvious candidates - the things that the artistic, religious and moral imagination are so well equipped to ponder.

This difference between intrinsic and contemplative wonder echoes a great divide in the history of science. When the pre-Socratic natural philosophers speculated about the nature of the world, they were contemplating the nature of the gods too: when Pythagoras discovered his theorem it seemed obvious to him to find an altar and sacrifice an ox.

This changed with Francis Bacon, the author of the modern scientific method. He believed that science has the empirical world at its fingertips. Moreover, he thought God had given man the right to unpick and exploit it. "The secrets of nature are better revealed under the torture of experiments than when they follow their natural course," he wrote.

However, he also knew that this magisterium of experiment did not overlap with the magisterium of religion, which "extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value", in Stephen Jay Gould's famous formulation.

It is when you deny the separate domains of these magisteria that you erode the capacity for contemplative wonder. When scientific knowledge is thought to be effectively without limit there is nothing much to stop contemplative wonder dissolving into instrumental wonder too. This must be what people sense when they fear that science is unweaving the rainbow. The worry is that it leaves nothing sacred.

· Mark Vernon is the author of After Atheism: Science, Religion and the Meaning of Life; and What Not to Say

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Sunday, October 28, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 56 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #82834 by Macho Nachos on October 28, 2007 at 1:54 am

"This wonder is different in quality from contemplative wonder, which does not undo but lets be. It involves a conception of science that extends knowledge but admits its limits. Some things are beyond its comprehension and remain intrinsically mysterious. Consciousness, morality and existence itself are obvious candidates - the things that the artistic, religious and moral imagination are so well equipped to ponder."

Sorry, but you don't just get to conceive science how you like it and make it so. You can look at science and think about its limits as much as you want, but you don't set those limits. It would seem 'contemplative wonder' is simply deliberate ignorance.

Is there any logical reason AT ALL that I should believe a 'religious imagination' (or a 'moral imagination', whatever that is) is well equipped to ponder 'mysterious' things? Are you trying to say that people who are not religious have no capacity to ponder conciousness, morality and existence? Rubbish!

He also needs a history lesson. Francis Bacon, the author of the scientific method. Huh? What scientific method? There isn't one, there are many and he didn't come up with all of them.

This whole article irritates me. Who actually thinks it's a good thing to think thunder is a sign of impending doom? If that's the best reason you can come up with for religion... well, you're on a level with most theologians.

Crap. Lame crap.

Other Comments by Macho Nachos

2. Comment #82837 by Diacanu on October 28, 2007 at 2:17 am

Geez, a lot of diarrhea sure pours out of that there Guardian.
Is there anything good about it?
You limeys must be so embarrassed.

Other Comments by Diacanu

3. Comment #82838 by epeeist on October 28, 2007 at 2:20 am

Comment #82837 by Diacanu

Geez, a lot of diarrhea sure pours out of that there Guardian.
Is there anything good about it?
You limeys must be so embarrassed.

I am sure a lot of it is just recycled from the "On Faith" column in the Washington Post ;-)

Other Comments by epeeist

4. Comment #82840 by irate_atheist on October 28, 2007 at 2:28 am

The only reason I buy The Guardian these days is that it fits perfectly on the floor-space under our cat's litter tray. Appropriate, I feel.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

5. Comment #82843 by BAEOZ on October 28, 2007 at 2:36 am

The wonder that someone with such a belief might feel at these things could be said to be instrumental.

He doesn't like science unweaving the rainbow and tells us who appreciate nature and the scientific explanation that we are less for the explanation. How would he know unless he'd seen it from our point of view? And to echo the sentiments above. You don't set limits on science where you'd like limits.
I recently read a review of the "God delusion" by this guy in Philosophy now. He regurgitated other's criticisms of Richard and the usual strawmen. He's a dishonest individual.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

6. Comment #82844 by Ilovelucy on October 28, 2007 at 2:36 am

Comment #82840 by irate_atheist on October 28, 2007 at 2:28 am
avatarThe only reason I buy The Guardian these days is that it fits perfectly on the floor-space under our cat's litter tray. Appropriate, I feel.

Well, if I were you I'd take yesterdays Guardian Weekend supplement out of the litter tray and read the brilliant Steve Jones article about animals' skeletons and evolution as well as another brilliant article debunking Sylvia Brown. The "Bad Science" column also had a good article about how pro-lifers were cooking the books with regard to survival statistics for 23 week births.

Other Comments by Ilovelucy

7. Comment #82846 by windweaver on October 28, 2007 at 2:48 am

A google search turned up the following about the author:

"Mark Vernon is a writer, journalist and author of The Philosophy of Friendship (Palgrave Macmillan), After Atheism (Palgrave Macmillan), What Not To Say (Weidenfeld and Nicolson), and Business: the key concepts (Routledge). He began his professional life as a priest in the Church of England, left an atheist, and is now agnostic. He is an honorary research fellow at Birkbeck College, London."

Talk about being all over the shop!

Other Comments by windweaver

8. Comment #82849 by fatcitymax on October 28, 2007 at 2:56 am

The more one learns about science and nature, the more awesome and wonderful they appear--and the more pathetic theism seems. The problem is that most people are too lazy to learn science and mathematics to any depth. It's much easier to believe in magic.

Other Comments by fatcitymax

9. Comment #82851 by steveroot on October 28, 2007 at 3:08 am

8. Comment #82849 by fatcitymax on October 28, 2007 at 2:56 am
The more one learns about science and nature, the more awesome and wonderful they appear--and the more pathetic theism seems. The problem is that most people are too lazy to learn science and mathematics to any depth. It's much easier to believe in magic.

Exactly. The author suggests as much in the fifth paragraph:
"But its nature depends on what you make of the limits of science."
Operative words: "make of", as in "understand".
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

10. Comment #82854 by robzrob on October 28, 2007 at 3:27 am

He assumes that when I look up at a sunset and see orange, blue, green...etc that I'm thinking about wavelengths of light, atmospheric distortions, etc. I'm not. I'm just enjoying the sunset.

Other Comments by robzrob

11. Comment #82855 by monoape on October 28, 2007 at 3:28 am

@Macho Nachos - thanks for the excellent post ... you saved me needing to read the drivel. :)

Other Comments by monoape

12. Comment #82856 by Theocrapcy on October 28, 2007 at 3:34 am

no need to waste time reading this, basic conclusion:

goddidit

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

13. Comment #82874 by Gustaf Sjoblom on October 28, 2007 at 5:13 am

"Dear scientist, don't work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries for we can use them. Don't squander precious ignorance by researching it away."

Other Comments by Gustaf Sjoblom

14. Comment #82875 by Caeruleum on October 28, 2007 at 5:15 am

However, he also knew that this magisterium of experiment did not overlap with the magisterium of religion, which "extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value", in Stephen Jay Gould's famous formulation.

Gould did us no good with this kind of comment which the religious regurgitate ad nauseam. It is quite absurd to imagine that religion can contribute anything helpful to 'questions of ultimate meaning' or 'moral value'.
Organised religions have managed to convince many people that they are the ultimate authority on matters of morals. Holy men - rabbis, priests, vicars etc. - are frequently invited to TV discussion programs dealing with issues of morality to provide their authoritative verdict. Yet in reality they have no more claim to this authority than you or I.

Other Comments by Caeruleum

15. Comment #82879 by Crazymalc on October 28, 2007 at 5:38 am

Kinda odd how he acknowledges Unweaving the Rainbow, then dismisses it without reason.

Wonder is not reduced by understanding. You can stand in awe of a rainbow even when you get the whole refraction thing

Other Comments by Crazymalc

16. Comment #82880 by ridelo on October 28, 2007 at 5:44 am

It's a pity Stephen Jay Gould isn't among us any more to see what the religionists baked from his NOMA statement.
It's just like what they've done with Darwin who so to speak recanted on his deathbed. If Gould had lived long enough I suppose he would have sided with Dawkins.

Other Comments by ridelo

17. Comment #82881 by PaulJ on October 28, 2007 at 5:51 am

Consciousness, morality and existence itself are obvious candidates - the things that the artistic, religious and moral imagination are so well equipped to ponder.

Ponder away as much as you like, but pondering won't give you any answers.

Other Comments by PaulJ

18. Comment #82882 by alexmzk on October 28, 2007 at 5:53 am

"i'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday."

scientific wonder is not simply the wonder of looking at puzzles.

Other Comments by alexmzk

19. Comment #82886 by kev_s on October 28, 2007 at 6:07 am

Re: Comment #82844 by Ilovelucy on October 28, 2007 at 2:36 am

I also read the Guardian's Bad News column on religious-motivated scientists 'cooking' the figures on survival rates of babies born before 24 weeks in order to influence UK health policy. It is a very interesting piece that explores the fine line between presenting an opposing viewpoint and downright dishonesty. You can read it here:
"Some numbers in abortion debate just can't be relied on"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/27/1
Unfortunately the same issue had the very poor 'Face to Faith' article that is the subject of this chat.

Other Comments by kev_s

20. Comment #82888 by home8896 on October 28, 2007 at 6:30 am

Sheesh, even without incredibly deep understanding of mathematics and theoretical science, and without a need for magic and fairies, I can see and sense great awe for the universe. Going out for a walk through the woods and investigating things I see without a textbook to guide me through it - or a strange faith in imaginary things - brings me great feelings of wonder and joy to be part of this huge universe.

I think even we "commoners" are quite capable of seeing more than the dull confines of life. I don't need Angels and Fairies and I really can't grasp higher maths, but I still feel the awe.

Other Comments by home8896

21. Comment #82889 by pholt on October 28, 2007 at 6:34 am

This is exactly the same argument that the militant philosophers Magikthise and Vroomfondel make in "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy". They, too, want "rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty".

The difference, of course, is that the immortal Adams was writing comedy whereas this Vernon twit is serious.

Other Comments by pholt

22. Comment #82892 by will young on October 28, 2007 at 6:58 am

What is more sacred than truth and its pursuit?

Fear of the unknown is what Mark Vernon is contemplating which is pretty sick. I could have pity on his ilk except they enjoy their fears and cling to them desperately. It would be (more) laughable if there were not so many of them.

Other Comments by will young

23. Comment #82893 by PeterK on October 28, 2007 at 7:06 am

Well since God has known everything for an infinite amount of time--he must be so not filled with awe and wonder, he could not possibly exist, as he would have surely been bored to death--no less than for an infinite amount of time!

Vernon has presented the most idiotically flawed argument for why one SHOULD embrace the notion of God existing than any that exist now. I'm sure there will be new ones invented, which will continue to fill me with awe and wonder. And Vernon will still be able to scare and boss the kids around at Sunday school.

Other Comments by PeterK

24. Comment #82894 by JanChan on October 28, 2007 at 7:11 am

Did the journalist just confuse thunder with lightning? Thunder is the sound caused by lightning, the discharge of built up static electricity. Someone should tell him to get his facts straight, well, what can we expect someone who tries to limit science.

Other Comments by JanChan

25. Comment #82896 by PrimeNumbers on October 28, 2007 at 7:28 am

And "godditit" as an answer to "why?" enhances our wonder of the universe?

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

26. Comment #82898 by 35bluejacket on October 28, 2007 at 7:38 am

If a religionist is not awed by lightning, thunder and a rainbow after knowing their science, they never had or knew the real meaning of faith, just superstition.

Hitchens, using the religionst's definition of faith says: "But faith, yet again, discredits itself by proving to be insuficient to satisfy the faithful."

Other Comments by 35bluejacket

27. Comment #82902 by keith on October 28, 2007 at 8:06 am

So we should actively try not to learn about the world since this will diminish our awe? We should keep children out of classrooms in case they actually learn something? In so doing, we would have to turn off our natural curiosity, since genuine curiosity, as opposed to the kind that the faithful like to feign in their 'search for truth', would force us to want to understand whatever it is that is perplexing us. It seems that in Mark Vernon's world awe always trumps curiosity (or rather, imitation awe trumps curiosity).
But what kind of awe is it that only survives by knowingly and willingly shutting out the explanation? The obvious difference between the writer and the savage who stands awestruck as thunder and lightning crash around him is that the savage and couldn't possibly know why this was happening. The writer, however, would 'choose' not to know. So what if the metereological office issued a warning of an approaching hurricane and suggested everybody leave the area? Would Mr. Vernon still choose not to know? It seems to me you can't pick and choose like that.
The writer seems to have decided that science has now answered enough questions: he has his washing machine, his TV, his laptop on which to type his articles. "I'm comfortable now, you can stop. Please don't reveal another thing, you'll only spoil things for me". His idea of awe sounds remarkably like he would like to bury his head in the sand, stick his fingers in his ears and watch every film, not only the scary ones, through his fingers. As Darwin might have commented, there certainly isn't grandeur in that view of life. Just abjectness in abundance.

Other Comments by keith

28. Comment #82905 by Chris Bell on October 28, 2007 at 8:17 am

This is a good opportunity for people to go comment on the NOMA Debate Point

Other Comments by Chris Bell

29. Comment #82908 by Duff on October 28, 2007 at 8:22 am

To say science is limited is the same thing as saying knowledge is limited. We are a very long way from knowing everything there is to know about the universe, so I think it is a bit premature to decry science/knowledge as "limited".
Fifty years from now, we will astounded at how much "science" has advanced. Religion will still be the same; stuck in the iron age with not a single factoid to prove it.

Other Comments by Duff

30. Comment #82911 by Jayday on October 28, 2007 at 8:28 am

Wow...When I see a thunderstorm approaching I am in awe of its power and beauty. It is "magic" in the sense that it is an amazing natural phenomena. It doesn't have to be imbued with supernatural features to make me feel that sense of wonder about it. I am amazed that in the vastness of the universe, that air, clouds, water, lightning and the various properties that intermix to create it even exist. And, that I have evolved from the same elemental properties that can stand there and be aware of it. The deep sense of beauty does not escape the fact that I know about the underlying science! This guy has got to be kidding!

Other Comments by Jayday

31. Comment #82926 by prettygoodformonkeys on October 28, 2007 at 9:25 am

What a steaming pile of horse puckey.

"Are you nostalgic for being a primitive ancestor on the savannah (read: miss your own childhood sense of wonder)? Then work with me against science wherever it conflicts with the awesome wonder of ignorance as expressed by religion (read: don't betray your own childhood)."

Pythagoras and Bacon: who cares what they imagined, or guessed - what did they FIND OUT? Pythagoras' animal sacrifice is used as an example of the ignorance of science (?!?). ARRRGH!

Silly ass. From whence issues the horse puckey.

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

32. Comment #82939 by kraut on October 28, 2007 at 10:02 am

"This must be what people sense when they fear that science is unweaving the rainbow. The worry is that it leaves nothing sacred."

It always astgonishes me that people look for meaning and sacredness outside of themselves, looking for a guiding "hand" that tells them what to do.
The sacredness of things: protection of those who evolved with us on this planet, protection of an ecosphere that permits the existence of every creature evolved as companions with us - that is where I see the sacredness. And that is where science can actually enforce this sacredness, by understanding that we are all part of one system, all related. That is where my "wonder and contemplation of it" happens. It is a rational wonder, even stronger because, backed by knowledge than some fuzzy notion of a higher power.

And in living my life the way it consciously and unconsciously evolved, by decisions made and stresses endured - that is where meaning lies for me.

This author is a weak husk who fears knowledge and cannot see that knowledge and wonder are not exclusive, but demand each other.

Wonder without knowledge - or the seeking thereof - is the sign of an incurious mind, easily manipulated by those who need wonder to defend their positions of power. A prime candidate for the post of "victim of the system".

Other Comments by kraut

33. Comment #82959 by Canuck#1 on October 28, 2007 at 11:05 am

where do they (being authors of articles written in this vein) come up with "stuff" like this...next time I feel wonder I will have to make notes and then have to decide where it falls..the entire idea is nonsense...I know the exact process that brought my children (I was in the delvery room) and my grandchildren to me..but every time I look at them I am lost in wonder..and this applies to rainbows, storms..and oh yes Iam an atheist

Other Comments by Canuck#1

34. Comment #82976 by Gorgonzola on October 28, 2007 at 12:08 pm

If you enjoyed this article by Mark Vernon, why not treat yourself to his Freudian analysis of "The God Delusion"?
Link below

http://www.markvernon.com/friendshiponline/dotclear/index.php?2007/10/14/747-dawkins-on-the-couch

Other Comments by Gorgonzola

35. Comment #82979 by ChrisMcL on October 28, 2007 at 12:16 pm

Excuse me, but what's so great about the kind of "contemplative wonder" that the author describes? Why do we need it?

Other Comments by ChrisMcL

36. Comment #82989 by Veronique on October 28, 2007 at 12:53 pm

Why not leave a comment at the Guardian?

Here's mine:

What an absolutely silly article by Vernon. I am astounded how he and so many others get it all so stupefyingly wrong.

Vernon cites the title Unweaving the Rainbow then totally dismisses its content, without, presumably, having read anything between its covers.

He says:

'In the scientific age the intrinsic meaningfulness of the natural world is lost.'

What a load of bollocks and how utterly arrogant of him. Maybe if Vernon stopped heavy-handedly dividing the world into atheists and non-atheists and saw people as people he would forgo writing rubbish like this article.

What on earth does 'intrinsic meaningfulness' mean? And I am certainly not like my primitive ancestors. I am in the 21st century, my sense of awe and wonder undiminished. My ire is up however, being told by this twerp that I can't appreciate the natural world because I am able to understand the science behind its processes.

'This wonder is different in quality from contemplative wonder, which does not undo but lets be.'

How would Vernon, locked up in his own miniscule brain, have any idea what the rest of us contemplate? What we feel? What we think? How dare he write such codswallop and make such assumptions.

Here he goes again:

'It is when you deny the separate domains of these magisteria that you erode the capacity for contemplative wonder.'

Tripe!! Pure unmitigated tripe!

And again:

This must be what people sense when they fear that science is unweaving the rainbow. The worry is that it leaves nothing sacred.

So that's it. Vernon wants the sacredness, the ignorance of knowledge so that he can hold on grimly to fantastical myths. Ah well, he did start out in life as an Anglican priest. What can anyone expect from such an addled brain.

People fear what they don't know. Vernon is appealing to that fear in people and trying to tell them that it is all right for them to shun science and knowledge; that they are better off with their lack of understanding. He even intimates that this is a 'superior' stance to that of knowledge.

What an irresponsible position to take and waffle on about. Well, Vernon, I refuse to wander back to the dark ages and believe that goddidit. I refuse to feel fear at the beauty of the storm that is raging over me, frightening my cats, but not me. The rain is cooling the earth and the ambient temperature, the lightning is stunning and the thunder, magnificent. I am enjoying this storm immensely. Take a flying leap Vernon.

It still makes me very cross that people like him are given column space to write such drivel and attempting to keep people in ignorance and fear of our extraordinary planet. Then again, I guess that's what religion is all about.

Back to the bronze age anyone? Don't forget your vaccines now, will you? Or your antibiotics.

What twaddle Vernon writes!
V

I'll check the comment thread at the Guardian now. I hope Vernon got a thrashing:-)

Good morning everyone (and the storm has been raging all night as well. It's gorgeous:-))
V

Other Comments by Veronique

37. Comment #82990 by Martin S on October 28, 2007 at 1:07 pm

Seeing scientific knowledge as limitless erodes our capacity for contemplative wonder, says Mark Vernon

Does Mark Vernon mean limitless as in the way one might describe his arrogance?

Contrary to what Vernon seems to suggest it might surprise him to know that there are scientists who have reason to doubt whether the laws of the universe are in fact wholly knowable at all. It may be that human cognitive capability is simply inadequate to make the necessary steps toward a final theory. I think it's probably a example of a form of solipsism to assume that it is. Why should it be after all? What's special about us? What if another million years of cognitive evolution is necessary before the answer to Douglas Adams' "Life, The Universe and Everything" question will finally be understood.

No harm in trying though.

Other Comments by Martin S

38. Comment #83014 by BaronOchs on October 28, 2007 at 2:03 pm

Mr Vernon I daresay Science is not for everyone, but those who can't take it can find better ways to enrich their existence than some phoney supernatural religion.

This cry of "Science can't fill our deepest needs we must flee to the church!" Rather like "The crossings a bit rough so I'll jump into the Atlantic" I think is not uncommon.

If science was inadequate there would still be plenty better ways to enrich our lives than religious lies.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

39. Comment #83015 by BaronOchs on October 28, 2007 at 2:04 pm

I could do with a better analogy there . . .

Other Comments by BaronOchs

40. Comment #83026 by Corylus on October 28, 2007 at 3:48 pm

I am always amazed at how those who talk so blithely about the importance of emotional experience understand their own so very little. There is a very simple emotion at work here. (Clue: it is our most basic, instinctive and pervasive feeling).

This emotion is called fear.

The proof lurks in the etymology of the word "awe" (A word Mr Vernon is fond of)

What does "awe" mean? It means:

1. A feeling of fear and reverence. (my emphasis)
2. A feeling of amazement.

Theists tend to use the word in relation to meaning #1 (N.B. I don't swallow that "I'm an agnostic now" line of Mr Vernon's for a moment).

For example,

Think of our primitive ancestors on the savannah, watching a thunderstorm approaching across the plain. As the dark sky splits with light, and the turbulent atmosphere howls with thunder, they feel fear.

And

In the scientific age … We no longer interpret the thunder; we understand it - as massive discharges of electricity. It is still spectacular but no longer mysterious, let alone portentous. The world is a little less awesome, if also less fearsome, as a result.

Atheists tend to use definition #2.

This is for the simple reason that while being amazed, astounded and humbled in response to the vast and overwhelming universe they do not automatically attribute agency to it. The universe is not a person: it is much, much bigger than that.

What does this mean in relation to this article? Merely a simple change of emphasis. The question becomes not 'Do atheists feel less?" the question becomes "Why assume this is a bad thing?"

Do atheists feel less emotion in the face of the marvellous, beautiful, massive, simultaneously complex and simple place in which we find ourselves? No… and yes.

I don't think the reaction of an atheist in the face of the universe is any less intensly powerful; any less likely to invoke laughter or tears; any less worthy of expression than that of any theist.

However, I am willing to consider the possibility that within that maelstrom of feeling and passion there is one particular emotion less.

Fear.

When agency disappears, so does special pleading, so does prayer, so does fear.

Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less.

Marie Curie

Some loss. Some deficit.

Other Comments by Corylus

41. Comment #83027 by Bonzai on October 28, 2007 at 3:48 pm

Not only that one doesn't need religion to see the wonder of the world. Quite the opposite, religion actually takes the awe and wonder away and substitutes with unimaginative counterfeits ladened with trivial human concerns. Science is a lot more fascinating and much grander than the crude cosmic soap operas you find in the holy books.

Other Comments by Bonzai

42. Comment #83088 by adamhaar on October 28, 2007 at 10:54 pm

It seems that Mr Vernon would prefer us all to be ignorant and fearful.

Other Comments by adamhaar

43. Comment #83096 by Veronique on October 28, 2007 at 11:58 pm

40. Comment #83026 by Corylus

Right on Corylus! I just came home and read the comments at the Guardian. Vernon does get a thrashing:-).

One of the posters linked to Vernon's 'review' of TGD on 18th October that is deeply offensive. He gets a thrashing there as well from posters. He is impervious and totally intellectually dishonest. He suffers from immense cognitive dissonance. Here's the link:

http://www.markvernon.com/friendshiponline/dotclear/index.php?2007/10/14/747-dawkins-on-the-couch

He's arrogant and has an undeserved high opinion of his abilities and knowledge. He is hubris personified.

Time for a red:-).
V

Other Comments by Veronique

44. Comment #83105 by Philip1978 on October 29, 2007 at 1:07 am

V
May I congratulate you on your use of the word "bollocks", tis a fine word and it rather does sum up this article rather well! :)

Corylus
Fantastic stuff, great post!

Apologies all but I am suffering from an over abundance of happiness this morning and I have no idea as to the cause of it, suffice to say I am rather enjoying it nonetheless!

Woo Hoo! :)

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

45. Comment #83115 by Mr DArcy on October 29, 2007 at 2:00 am

I don't know about anyone else, but knowing that lightening is an electrical discharge in the atmosphere, doesn't stop it from scaring the sh*t out of me! I am truly reverent of lightening!

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

46. Comment #83127 by irate_atheist on October 29, 2007 at 2:44 am

6. Comment #82844 by Ilovelucy -

Luckily I know in what direction the cat is most likely to miss the litter tray and I place such inane articles strategically. Managed to get the cat to piss all over the pope a few months back. Most satisfying for all concerned :)

She once did a shit on George Galloway - completely unprompted. What a star!

Other Comments by irate_atheist

47. Comment #83130 by Philip1978 on October 29, 2007 at 2:58 am

Irate

Kudos to your cat, really, she has done the world a great service! Any cat that pisses over the Pope and shits on Galloway has my full admiration!

Good beer to you for having the forethought of putting the Guardian there in the first place!

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

48. Comment #83133 by irate_atheist on October 29, 2007 at 3:21 am

Well, The Independent is my normal paper of choice, but the sheets just aren't the right size when unfolded. Interestingly, The Times works equally as well.

And, of course, if you're bored, you can always have a read as you pass by the cat. It's amazing what the casual reader can learn.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

49. Comment #83159 by logical on October 29, 2007 at 5:38 am

Uhhhh... WHICH side was the one to break Stephen Jay Gould's "two magisteriums", and now puts it as THE unanimously accepted principle?
The jesuits in my school did like to mention it, and I used to answer:
"If your side keeps it up..."
They called me various things, the politest being "too young".
Do not wake sleeping cats, they might find out that cats can bite AND scratch.
Now I am an old and wide awake atheist cat.

Other Comments by logical

50. Comment #83160 by ferfuracious on October 29, 2007 at 5:42 am

"Nevertheless, is that the final word on the matter? Think of our primitive ancestors on the savannah, watching a thunderstorm approaching across the plain. As the dark sky splits with light, and the turbulent atmosphere howls with thunder, they feel fear."

I don't know about you, but the fact that simply observing light passing through a double slit changes its behaviour sends a shiver down my spine. We might not fear thunderstorms anymore, but surely science has uncovered lots of new phenomena to find creepy.

Other Comments by ferfuracious

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last