Blog against theocracy!

PZ has more on this at Pharyngula. A great idea and one that thinking people should embrace and employ.

See Karl Popper on why it is imperative that we do not tolerate intolerance and Lawrence Kohlberg on the meaning of relativism -- some explanations are relatively superior to others -- not all opinions are equally valid.

Compromising with patent nonsense is no virtue. /dps

A new biocentric theory of the universe...

Robert Lanza just published this very interesting and provocative essay in The American Scholar. He notes that:

"Part of the thrill that came with the announcement that the human genome had been mapped or with the idea that we are close to understanding the big bang rests in our desire for completeness. But we’re fooling ourselves. Most of these comprehensive theories are no more than stories that fail to take into account one crucial factor: we are creating them. It is the biological creature that makes observations, names what it observes, and creates stories."

He argues that since we create time and space as modes of thinking, our grand theories must begin with an understanding of our own wetware. I need to read it again and digest it a bit more before commenting in more detail but does raise and explore some profound and important issues. /dps

Practicing science, living faith

As if to affirm yesterday's decisions to re-think and revitalize this blog along the lines of a science: religion dialog, I today received a book to review for Choice: Clayton, P. & Schaal, J. eds. 2007. Practicing science, living faith. New York: Columbia University Press. It looks quite interesting as it documents "thick and rich" interviews with twelve scientists, primarily from biology and the cognitive sciences. What is especially intriguing is that it moves beyond the the typically narrow Western Judeo-Christian focus -- most often science and (or versus) some rather narrowly construed Christianity -- and includes researchers from Islamic, Baha'i, Hindu, Buddhist, animistic, and naturalistic traditions. I am familiar with the work of some of the biologists -- Jane Goodall, Ursala Goodenough, and Robert Pollack -- but not with that of Pauline Rudd, Thomas Odhiambo, Farahneh Varda-Khadem, or Satato. The contributions from the remaining authors, coming from a variety of backgrounds, also look rich and varied at first glance.

The book it a product of the second phase of an enterprise called Science and the Spiritual Quest which I don't really know much about at this point. In perusing the front matter of the book I am a bit mystified by exactly what 'spiritual' means in the present context. The preface advocates "interpreting spirituality in the broadest possible sense" (p. xiii) which, to me, seems to border on interpreting it out of existence for many potential readers. With an emphasis on 'lived practice' rather than theoretical relationships among science and religion, the book promises to be a refreshing departure from much recent work in this domain. More later. Time to go read for a while... /dps.

Why blog?

This morning I set out to take down this blog since I seldom write here anyway. As I began that process, for some reason I became increasingly reluctant and eventually decided to put those termination plans on hold for the time being. Now I am not sure why. What is it that I want this blog to be anyway?

When perusing other ostensibly "successful" blogs on related topics and from different perspectives (e.g., Pharyngula, Crooked Timber, Evangelical Outpost, Re Rerum Natura) I am struck by two things in particular. First, and most positively, the authors are prolific and usually concise writers -- I read those blogs because I generally learn something. Second, and more negatively, each seems wrapped in its own oddly inbred and parochial air of confident certainty -- a rather perverse self-congratulatory insularity that is reflected especially in the smug tones of many comments.

I am not a prolific writer. Words come slowly and cautiously, each fraught with its own history of shifting meaning and its implicit connotations that vary among potential readers. In any case, I am neither capable of nor interested in out-Pharynguling Pharyngula (or out-evangelizing EO). What I am interested in is exploring the origins and functions of diverse and more or less isolated communities of discourse. In particular, I am interested in furthering a legitimate dialog between science and religion(s), most broadly construed.

Establishing such a dialog is difficult. For example, I was recently invited to participate in a broadcast conversation about evolution and religion on a local Christian radio station. Against my initial (better) judgment, I agreed and was put in contact with Cornelius Hunter who was to be my dialog partner. Hunter is an affiliate of the Discovery Institute and, not surprisingly, it soon became apparent that his sole purpose was to establish a sense of controversy where none exists. End of dialog (more on this to follow in a subsequent post).

My purpose in this blog is blur boundaries among communities of discourse in the interest of our common humanity and to explore a natural history of religions -- their diverse origins and functions (for better and for worse), their common and unique premises, and their roots in human affect and cognition. As William James (quoted this recent and very interesting NY Times article) put it, “All of our raptures and our drynesses, our longings and pantings, our questions and beliefs . . . are equally organically founded.” The dialog I long to pursue here is one grounded in naturalism but one that also recognizes and respects the cultural functions of religious faith(s). Refugees from islands of isolated certainty are especially welcome to participate in this dialog. /dps

Feet (and other parts) of clay?

Before all of us good guys on the left get too jubilant about the apparent fall from grace of the National Evangelical Association's Ted Haggard we might want to remember good old Karl Rove.
Mike Jones, Haggard's accuser, just failed a polygraph test. Pay some wannabe (with buckets of unmarked cash?) to make false accusations against a popular and charismatic leader of an evangelical religious movement with 30,000,000 members nationwide...can you say "mobilize the base?" BTW -- Dawkins had some good fun with Haggard a while back... /dps