Tuesday 18 September 2007

Bad Karma?


I fell asleep on the bus from Galway to Ennis yesterday evening.

Somebody stole my newly acquired copy of Foggy Notions while I slept.

And my half-eaten chicken fajita wrap.

I suspect the pungent tramp-like creature who boarded in Gort.

He was drunk and told a frightened French girl that she had "tempting lips".

The scurrilous fuck.


Richard Dawkins refuting a student who asks him if he might be wrong:

Mr. Dawkins, you do of course make a sound point here regarding the significance of geography and history in relation to religion... However, it is a sound point that anybody with even the most rudimentary understanding of sociological studies could make.

Also, by using terminology such as "the flying spaghetti monster", you are adopting a needlessly defensive and aggressive stance to a politely phrased question.

Rich, you're smart... She's stupid (you presume)... We get it.

Now go away and count your money.


Ronan Casey said...

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is as much "terminology" as Jesus or Zeus is. It's simply the figurehead of the well known parody religion... yes you've guessed it The Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster :) This lends his response to being more humorous for the majority agnostic audience rather than being a defensive let alone aggressive remark for the polite questioner.

Read here for more:

John Cav said...

Touché Ronan. A fascinating link.

Have heard of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) alright, so I really should have put two and two together... How theistic of me. Apologies :)

Like I said, I agree with the point about geographical significance made by Dawkins here.

What annoyed me about his answer is the somewhat personal tone he seemed to adopt towards the aforementioned polite questioner... His "bottom of the sea" gambit (directly at her) towards the end of his answer seemed needlessly mocking, for me at least.

As does the smug look on his face as he gets his laughs.

Issue is not with the content, merely the form. Or something.

John Cav said...

But more importantly, some mong stole half my chicken wrap! What the fudge is up with that?!

slurkid57 said...

The jury's out on ole Richy D as far as I'm concerned. As a fellow Man of Science & Reason, I think what he's got a point, it's just that gets so many peoples backs up.

He does a lot of good work - not so much the religion stuff, but his efforts to get people to understand what science actually is. e.g. it's not a load of big words and fancy numbers, spouted by infallible men in white coats, but our best attempt to *rationally* explain what's going on, using solid empirical evidence and an unbroken chain of logic.

Thing is though, it seems to me that most people are all ready going to agree or disagree with him before he opens his mouth. His arguments are all based on logic, and therefore hold little sway with the people he wants to convert.

Again, without getting into religion specifically, It's my own experience that there are lots of people out there who see logic as a Bad Thing. They value feelings and see reason and education not as a scaffolding for their ideas, but as a strait-jacket limiting their imagination. (cunts) Trying to get them to think otherwise is a fools errand, yet I suppose some one's got to try.

Anyway, now I'm ranting, I'd better get back to work. Important Science Work, yeah?

slurkid57 said...

Tough break on the chicken fajita, btw.

John Cav said...

Dear slurkid,

RE: Dawkins.

Well said. The man is unquestionably intelligent, and I genuinely applaud his efforts in widening the appeal of science and reason. Logic is paramount. Chaos is the alternative.

However, we shall always feel. The subjective and the emotional will never be quashed... They need not manifest themselves in a Jesus, a Buddha, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster, yet they shall prevail nonetheless.

Science is an attempt to make sense of it all. Rightly or wrongly, so is religion... My opinion, your opinion, or Richard Dawkin's opinion can do nothing to alter this.

A fool's errand? The errands are enumerable.

RE: The wrap.

Ext. Lollapalooza audience:

Stoner Kid #1: Dude, are you being sarcastic?

Stoner Kid #2: I don't even know anymore.

You're funny.

slurkid57 said...

Just to clarify: I'm not saying that feelings are stupid, and intuition is wank, (though they work best when used in combination with rationality)

What I was trying to say was that the very people Richard Dawkins targets, are the ones least likely to listen to what he says.

John Cav said...

A clarification from myself: I assumed you weren't mocking feelings and intuition. Apologies if it seemed I was implying that you were. I was speaking generally.

Michael Nugent said...

I suppose the more important answer, which Dawkins didn't say (though I am sure he would agree with) is -

If I am shown to be wrong, I will change my belief.

That's really the key difference between science and faith. It's about the process, not the outcome.

John Cav said...

Michael: Succintly put sir. A maxim for life that should become obligatory.

What is there left to say but this... Huzzah :)