November 18, 2007
The truth in religion
John Polkinghorne in the Times Literary Supplement:
Religious belief is currently under heavy fire. Books by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and others tell us that religion is a corrupting delusion. Despite their assertions of the rationality of atheism, the style of their onslaughts has been strongly polemical and rhetorical, rather than reasonably argued. Historical evidence is selectively surveyed. Attention is focused on inquisitions and crusades, while the significance of Hitler and Stalin is downplayed. Believers in young-earth creationism are presented as if they were typical of religious people in general. The two books under review aim to make a more temperate contribution to the debate.
John Cornwell has hit on the amusing conceit of writing in the persona of Richard Dawkins’s guardian angel, a being, moreover, who had earlier stood in the same relationship to Charles Darwin. The book’s tone is gently ironic and its style that of modest discussion, which all makes for an enlightening read. The twenty-one short chapters each consider some claim made in Dawkins’s book The God Delusion (reviewed in the TLS, January 19) and then subject it to reasoned questioning.
More here.
Posted by Abbas Raza at 07:07 AM | Permalink
Comments
I feel like I've the same kind of article a million times since Dawkins' book.
"Dawkins' is abrasive and acidic. I don't like him, notwithstanding anything he says. Also, his version of sky-unicorn is too simplistic."
Add the obligatory nicely sounding definition of faith...'its only different from science, and its appropriate for religion'...yada yada
Posted by: chris | Nov 18, 2007 10:21:45 AM
Yes, I agree, what else is there to say? It seems that this subject has hit a kind of wall.
Posted by: J.M.M. | Nov 18, 2007 8:35:07 PM
Last year Krista Tippett interviewed Polkinghorne on Speaking of Faith. One of her best programs. (Or maybe I'm just biased in favor of anyone who speaks the Queen's English like that.)
He mentioned something that must be close to the hearts of all at this site.
In 1963, when I assigned the name "quark" to the fundamental constituents of the nucleon, I had the sound first, without the spelling, which could have been "kwork." Then, in one of my occasional perusals of Finnegans Wake, by James Joyce, I came across the word "quark" in the phrase "Three quarks for Muster Mark." Since "quark" (meaning, for one thing, the cry of a gull) was clearly intended to rhyme with "Mark," as well as "bark" and other such words, I had to find an excuse to pronounce it as "kwork." But the book represents the dreams of a publican named Humphrey Chimpden Earwicker. Words in the text are typically drawn from several sources at once, like the "portmanteau words" in Through the Looking Glass. From time to time, phrases occur in the book that are partially determined by calls for drinks at the bar. I argued, therefore, that perhaps one of the multiple sources of the cry "Three quarks for Muster Mark" might be "Three quarts for Mister Mark," in which case the pronunciation "kwork" would not be totally unjustified. In any case, the number three fitted perfectly the way quarks occur in nature.
You knew that already, of course, but most of us readers didn't.
Another great catch.
Posted by: John Ballard | Nov 18, 2007 9:08:37 PM
Post a comment