Debating the unprovable...

[GrimRedBones]

Originally Posted by Graham

I enjoyed the "The God Delusion"; I'm in general, possibly total, agreement with Dawkins; but even as someone solidly on his side of the argument, the book came across as unnecessarily contentious. I'm not convinced that the tone used would help convince those on the fence.

What it does do is stir up the entrenched crowd and raise awareness of the book, so, yes, perhaps a greater proportion of fence-sitters would read it, and yes, perhaps that would lead to a greater conversion of views towards atheism overall. But surely the same publicity could be achieved in a different way?

If an argument is put in a contentious way it provides a target that can be used by those who disagree in lieu of engaging with the underlying reasoning.

Graham

Yeah I liked that one too... but the Ancestors Tale.. just read like a catalog of frankly not so interesting stories... there some good facts there, but a lot of scientific literature has this problem of producing giant overblown books that read like catalogs. I like the Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond for instance. Thats quite concise and to the point with every chapter illustrating a fascinating idea. Dawkins and scientists like him, fight too hard against Creationists. As we can see from that other thread, creationists can be master fighters and only go harder with opposition. This isn't the way to show people what atheism is or even Evolutionary theory.

[Graham]

Neil, isn't the purpose of the Lounge to provide a place where that 60,000 strong community can discuss stuff not related to mobile reading, while remaining within the community we enjoy?

The key word in the forum title of course is "friendly".

Graham

[HarryT]

This forum exists to talk about subjects unrelated to eBooks, and people are welcome to talk about religion - provided that they do so politely. If they are unable to do so politely, we will close threads. If they CONTINUE to ignore requests to abide by our posting guidelines, they may well find themselves taking a short break from MR.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by GrimRedBones

Yeah I liked that one too... but the Ancestors Tale.. just read like a catalog of frankly not so interesting stories... there some good facts there, but a lot of scientific literature has this problem of producing giant overblown books that read like catalogs.

Ah, I really enjoyed "The Ancestor's Tale". I just loved the whole premise of following the evolutionary tree further and further back in time. Yes, perhaps parts of it were a bit dry, but it was all fascinating.

Graham

[neilmarr]

***This forum exists to talk about subjects unrelated to eBooks***

I stand corrected, Harry. Apologies. Neil

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by Graham

I enjoyed the "The God Delusion"; I'm in general, possibly total, agreement with Dawkins; but even as someone solidly on his side of the argument, the book came across as unnecessarily contentious. I'm not convinced that the tone used would help convince those on the fence.

But at what point are you "unnecessarily contentious?" For fundamentalists (of all ilks) simply making a claim that conflicts with their religion is offensive. Take a look at any news article on a site with a commentary area that touches on a scientific issue that in any way implies the reality of evolution or of a universe older than 6,000 years-- you will find angry, indignant screeds from people who are insisting that it is all a lie and the people who believe that will burn in hell. And I'm talking about dry, scientific statements here-- a statement about the age of a fossil or event, with no claims whatsoever about "thus, this means that religious people are wrong."

For fundamentalists anything other than total capitulation is "contentious". So that begs the question-- where should the line be in trying to pander to the feelings of people whose beliefs collide with the evidence? Some think it is better to be nice than to be right. Others think that the facts are what matter and whether or not someone is offended by the facts is an irrelevant side effect.

[HarryT]

Interesting enough, last week my local astronomical society had a talk from Dr. Guy Consolmagno, who is also a Jesuit priest, and works at the Vatican Observatory. The subject of the supposed conflict between science and religion naturally arose, and he said that, certainly from his perspective, there's no conflict at all, and the Catholic Church, at any rate, fully accepts such ideas as the Big Bang, the universe being 13.7 billion years old, evolution, etc. etc. The Vatican has a science advisory council (of which Stephen Hawking is a member) specifically to advice it on new developments in science.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

But at what point are you "unnecessarily contentious?"

Clearly where that point comes is subjective and varies according to the reader.

Originally Posted by ardeegee

For fundamentalists anything other than total capitulation is "contentious". So that begs the question-- where should the line be in trying to pander to the feelings of people who's beliefs collide with the evidence? Some think it is better to be nice than to be right. Others think that the facts are what matter and whether or not someone is offended by the facts is an irrelevant side effect.

Ah, you misunderstand me. The facts should be presented as the facts regardless of how contentious they may be. It's the tone used in "The God Delusion" that I found unnecessarily contentious.

It's how the facts are expressed that can be adapted to increase the likelihood that all sides of an argument will engage in dialogue.

Graham

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Interesting enough, last week my local astronomical society had a talk from Dr. Guy Consolmagno, who is also a Jesuit priest, and works at the Vatican Observatory.

Was that the alien baptism talk?

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by Graham

It's how the facts are expressed that can be adapted to increase the likelihood that all sides of an argument will engage in dialogue.

And I think a little (or a lot) of mocking can go further to show how silly some beliefs are than any amount of dry prose. Look at some of the bitingly funny videos I linked in the closed thread.

[neilmarr]

***This forum exists to talk about subjects unrelated to eBooks***

I stand corrected, Harry. Apologies. Neil

Having said that, though, I do stand by the point in my PS that it's hardly cricket to re-open a debate that our moderating team has found it wise to terminate. Neil

[HarryT]

No; the subject of the talk was "Trans-Neptunian Objects" (he is a planetary scientist), but during the Q&A session he spoke a little about the work done by the Vatican Observatory in more general terms, too.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by neilmarr

Having said that, though, I do stand by the point in my PS that it's hardly cricket to re-open a debate that our moderating team has found it wise to terminate. Neil

That's certainly true, Neil.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

And I think a little (or a lot) of mocking can go further to show how silly some beliefs are than any amount of dry prose. Look at some of the bitingly funny videos I linked in the closed thread.

There's nothing wrong with humour, but I daresay that, as someone who shares your views I found the videos funnier than someone who had opposing beliefs.

Humour's a powerful tool; getting the balance right is very hard though. You need to be mindful enough in the way the joke is presented to get everyone laughing. Not just those who agree with you. Otherwise you're creating further division.

Graham

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No; the subject of the talk was "Trans-Neptunian Objects" (he is a planetary scientist)

Yeah, I'm familiar with who he is, me being a longish time meteorite collector and enthusiast. (He curates the Vatican's extensive meteorite collection.) (Stated for those not aware of that, not you HarryT.)