Monday, February 12, 2007

My critics are wrong to call me dogmatic by Richard Dawkins

Background: Prof. Alister McGrath wrote an article (Faith, Feb 10) that I reposted here.

Reposted from Letters to the Editor The Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/debate/letters/article1368831.ece


Sir, Alister McGrath (Faith, Feb 10) has now published two books with my name in the title. If I seem "grumpy", could it be because a professor of theology is building a career riding on my back? It is tempting to quote Yeats ("Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?") and leave it at that. I will, however, dignify his article with a brief reply.

McGrath imagines that I would disagree with my hero Sir Peter Medawar on The Limits of Science. On the contrary. I never tire of emphasising how much we don't know. The God Delusion ends in just such a theme. Where do the laws of physics come from? How did the universe begin? Scientists are working on these deep problems, honestly and patiently. Eventually they may be solved. Or they may be insoluble. We don't know.

But whereas I and other scientists are humble enough to say we don't know, what of theologians like McGrath? He knows. He's signed up to the Nicene Creed. The universe was created by a very particular supernatural intelligence who is actually three in one. Not four, not two, but three. Christian doctrine is remarkably specific: not only with cut-and-dried answers to the deep problems of the universe and life, but about the divinity of Jesus, about sin and redemption, heaven and hell, prayer and absolute morality. And yet McGrath has the almighty gall to accuse me of a "glossy", "quick fix", naive faith that science has all the answers.

Other theologies contradict the Christian creed while matching it for brash overconfidence based on zero evidence. McGrath presumably rejects the polytheism of the Hindus, Olympians and Vikings. He does not subscribe to voodoo, or to any of thousands of mutually contradictory tribal beliefs. Is McGrath an "ideological fanatic" because he doesn't believe in Thor's hammer? Of course not. Why, then, does he suggest I am exactly that because I see no reason to believe in the particular God whose existence he, lacking both evidence and humility, positively asserts?

Richard Dawkins, FRS, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, University of Oxford

reposted from: http://richarddawkins.net/article,634,n,n
my highlights / emphasis / comments

******
Selected comments posted on
http://richarddawkins.net/article,634,n,n up to 17/2/07

10. Comment #21948 by stpetes on February 12, 2007 at 1:04 am

Dear Richard,

Of course the disciples are going to love your post. But do you really think calling your Oxford colleagues 'fleas' is going to do anything to curb your reputation for arrogance? And you know as well as I do that your statement about McGarth building a career upon your back is just false. McGarth got his PhD in biology, and his theology professorship in Oxford, long before he wrote against your atheism. Maybe you think it is about the book sales. Perhaps it is but then who are you to judge McGarth on that? After all he was a very sucessfull author long before he wrote against you. And could not the same accusation be used against you - that you have made millions writing about a God whom you believe does not exist? You are surely entitled to argue your case without being entitled a money grabber - and McGrath and others are just as entitled to disagree with you in public, without being accused of seeking to build their careers upon you. I'm afraid such accusations just make you come across as self absorbed. You are not that important!

Anyway your letter deserved a response and I posted the following to The Times this morning. Doubtless it will get the usual dogs abuse (if it is allowed to stay on this Fan Club website) and doubtless you can and will dismiss it as yet another person seeking to ride on your coattails to get their name in the paper, or the rantings of some lunatic fundamentalist who just can't see THE Truth.

David

Dear Editor,


Richard Dawkins (Feb 12th) accuses his Oxford colleague Professor Alister McGrath of arrogance and of 'building a career' upon his back, whilst comparing him with a flea. Professor Dawkins should perhaps allow for the possibility that those of us who disagree with him do so because we actually disagree with him, rather than because we want to build careers on his back. McGrath built his career as a scientist and theologian long before he ever wrote about Dawkins. He is qualified to comment on the relationship between religion and science because not only is he a theology professor, he also has a PhD in biology. Dawkins on the other hand, whilst being a brilliant scientist, has no understanding of theology and covers for this by declaring that theology is not even an academic discipline. After thousands of years of theological reflection and philosophy along comes the prophet Dawkins and announces that there is no evidence for God. Perhaps he will forgive those of us who are not quite ready to ditch everything for such simplistic fundamentalist propositions.



It is clear that Dawkins is using his post as Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, not to promote science, but rather his own atheistic materialist philosophy. Using the language he does in his letter does not advance his cause and indeed makes him sound like a self-important and petulant fundamentalist whose only resort to those who disagree with him is mockery and accusation.

11. Comment #21954 by Howzat on February 12, 2007 at 1:27 am

stpetes:

Where is the rest of your letter? You wrote all of that and only addressed Dawkins first paragraph! Do you have anything to say on the meat of the issue?

12. Comment #21957 by opposablethumbs on February 12, 2007 at 1:36 am

Oh dear .... before having the temerity to utter a word about their speciousness, one must clearly get (yet again) degrees in fairyology, unicornology, hobgoblinology etc.(as opposed to actual disciplines such as psychology, neuroscience, moral philosophy, social anthropology ....). "lunatic fundamentalist"? That would be the beam in your own eye obscuring your vision, I'm afraid. "THE Truth" is the province of fundamentalism; one of the defining characteristics of reason is that it is always ready to look at genuine new evidence.

13. Comment #21959 by Heatnzl on February 12, 2007 at 1:41 am

stpetes:

'theology professorship' Can you please explain the meaning of this? The two words are logically incompatible.

14. Comment #21960 by stpetes on February 12, 2007 at 1:43 am

Howzat - the Times only publishes short letters so I had to deal with the substance of Dawkins letter - a vicious and unwarranted attack on McGarth and his motives.

The meat of the issue? Is this the paragraph where Dawkins (speaking on behalf of all scientists) boasts about his own humility?! I did not see much substance there - just so many presuppostions and prejudged assumptions that it would take a book to reply! For what it's worth McGarth admits that there are many things he does not know. You will also find that there are many scientists who are also theists. Dawkins once again provides a false dichotomy.

15. Comment #21961 by ScienceBreath on February 12, 2007 at 1:49 am

stpetes demonstrates the carefully rehearsed indignation of the ignorant theist who has yet to actually read any of the arguments put forth by either side.

Alister McGrath's recent piece criticizing both TGD and Dawkins was so free of substance that I actually felt embarrassed for him. Dawkins, on the other hand, goes to the trouble of presenting an argument--something McGrath has so far failed to do.

stpetes, if you want to contribute and be taken seriously, why not dismantle Dawkins's arguments with some incisive reasoning of your own? McGrath gets a pasting because his articles are so threadbare that he has to attack Dawkins personally. It's pathetic and predictable.

17. Comment #21965 by Hal9000 on February 12, 2007 at 1:59 am

 avatarDavid (st petes),

These continued jibes about discipleship and Fan Clubs do get rather tiresome. I know some people here have written unpleasant things about you and that is a shame but I think you should let it drop now. Your letters to Dawkins usually come across as snipes at the posters on this website, perhaps you will allow the possibility that there are those who do genuinely agree with Dawkins point of view, with regard to this topic, and are not necessarily part of this personality cult that you allude to.

I realise the in vogue response to Dawkins is to call him a fundamentalist and I suppose the implication that this site is his church falls neatly into that concept, however, if you search around this website, you will find that while most are atheists, there is a wide variety of views on the specifics of Dawkins arguments.

Also, if you feel that Dawkins is employing a tactic of belittling those who disagree with him, perhaps you could seek to rise above that sort of thing rather than replicate it?

Hal

19. Comment #21968 by Jef on February 12, 2007 at 2:04 am

'After thousands of years of theological reflection' - stpetes

Perhaps you would like to share with us the 'truths' that theology has uncovered for us in the two millenia? What are the fruits of this ongoing reflection?

20. Comment #21971 by Russell Blackford on February 12, 2007 at 2:33 am

 avatarI'm continually amazed at how many people don't actually understand the meaning of the word "fundamentalist", or affect not to.

23. Comment #21979 by Stewart on February 12, 2007 at 3:02 am

One really would think, wouldn't one, that, judging by the accusations of intolerance and arrogance so wrathfully hurled against Prof. Dawkins by some theist opponents, the very least he had done was to state categorically that there is no god. The person in the world probably most famous for his atheism, and so villified for it, has never even done that. We really are a bad bunch, if they can't even say that about the "worst" of us. How many promoters of "divinely" inspired morality use "almost certainly" to convince their followers there is a god, as Dawkins does when arguing against the proposition?

24. Comment #21989 by Severus on February 12, 2007 at 5:05 am

Richard was correct in one asssertion he has made. we are not yet ready to take on the debate with the religious. he called for a methodology which we could use to promote our position and social status such as was used by the gay pride initiative and the equal rights groups.
in recent months i have noticed (please correct me if i am wrong) that instead of leading the argument we are spending more time defending our position, answering our critics and coming second in the p.r. contest.
the words, Fundamentalism, dogma, faith, belief and others have been turned back upon us by the religious as they organise themselves for the debate.
they are more attuned to managing and administrating a p.r. campaign than atheist are and are 'cleverly' using our own arguments against us.
it is time, i feel that we began to push on in the race and are seen to be leading the debate, driving the nails of terminology into their arguments, refusing to play the game in their ball park, as seems to be happening now and developing confident and unrefutable arguments.
i know that most of our arguments and criticisms are, to us, undeniable and should be 'deadly' to the religious ideologies but i just can't help thinking that we are fragmented, defensive rather than offensive and weak in the debate.
if changing the world is down to who has the better debating skills, then it is a sad, terrible world but the fight, currently, is not on the battle field but in the lecture halls and book shelves and i find it distressing to see our own criticisms turned against us. we have to be sharper and smarter than that.
maybe, as a triviality, we should return to an earlier discussion about which terminology we should use to describe ourselves and the things that we know and feel.

25. Comment #21991 by ksskidude on February 12, 2007 at 5:13 am

Richard,

The reason McGrath isn't concerned with all those other religions is, well as my friend would put it, "they're all wrong!"
Yes as my friend utters those idiotic words with resounding confidence, I merely look at him with amusement. The funny thing thing is, he thinks I'm a little pathetic, and asked me to just stop reading Dawkins and Harris. To just emmerse myself with the "truth" and I will have a much clearer picture. I told him that is nonsense, and then challenged him to do the same. Stop reading about magic and fairy tales, and only read Dawkins, Harris, Dennett,etc.....

I look forward to tonight, and please let CNN have it for us!!!! I feel proud to say that I am a fan of yours and proud to be an atheist!!!

26. Comment #21994 by Hal9000 on February 12, 2007 at 5:44 am

 avatarre comment 21989 by Severus

I totally agree, it is frustrating but just being right is not enough!

27. Comment #21997 by padster1976 on February 12, 2007 at 6:45 am

There's no point in tackling the adults - they believe in human virgin births for crying out loud. We need to take this to kids and erase the mental stain of religion before they become infected with it.

Prevention rather than a cure!

8. Comment #22015 by captain underpants on February 12, 2007 at 10:29 am

In a searing attack on Rick Darking's The Fairy Delusion, Alexander McGrunt calls Mr Darking "arrogant", "intolerant", and "a thoroughly rotten chap".

McGrunt, a professor of Fairyology, wrote a stiff letter to The Times, extracts of which are printed below:



Deep within humanity lies a longing to make sense of things. Why are we here? What is life all about? These questions are as old as the human race. So how are we to answer them? Can they be answered at all? Might fairies be part of the answer? Rick Darking, England's grumpiest afairyist, has a wonderfully brash way of dealing with this ... His swashbuckling The Fairy Delusion sweeps to one side "dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads", who are "immune to argument". Belief in fairies is just for those who are mad, bad or sad. Science has all the answers - and fairies aren't even on the short-list. Only science-hating idiots think otherwise. End of discussion ... For Darking, things are dazzlingly simple. There is a cosmic battle taking place between reason (represented by science) and superstition (represented by fairies)... Scientists who profess religious belief are appeasers, representing the "Neville Chamberlain" school. You can't be reasonable and religious. It's one or the other - science or faith in fairies. Scientists who believe in fairies are therefore fifth columnists.

...

This quick fix is ideal for those who like glossy, superficial spins on complex questions. But in the real world, things turn out not to be quite that simple. Two other interesting books appeared in the same year as Darking's. Owen Gingerich, Harvard University's distinguished astronomer, published Fairies' Universe. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, brought out The Language of Fairies. Both these scientists, with a long track record of peer-reviewed publications, made the case for belief in fairies as the best and most satisfying explanation of the way things are.

...

It is worth reminding ourselves that the hallmark of intelligence is not whether one believes in fairies or not, but the quality of the processes that underlie one's beliefs.

...

It also shows that it makes little sense to talk about "proof" of a world view, whether Fairian or afairyist.


Fairians will argue that their world view represents a superb way of making sense of things, while accepting that this, like its afairyist counterparts, is open to challenge by sceptics. "I believe in fairies as I believe that the Sun has risen - not only because I see them, but because by them, I see everything else," wrote C. S. Lewis.

30. Comment #22028 by Pieter on February 12, 2007 at 12:09 pm

Alister McGrath = A flea on Darwin's Rotweiller. i like it.

32. Comment #22036 by Sam on February 12, 2007 at 1:44 pm

 avatarKeep up the good work, Richard!

If your critics had any serious rebuttals to your arguments, they would not have to resort to the kind of ad-hominems and straw men, we see from people like McGrath.

I have already suggested this on the forum, but i hope i will be forgiven for repeating it here. I would love it if we could have a sequel to The God Delusion, something similar to what Sam Harris did with his "Letter to a Christian Nation". Just as the first part of your miniseries "Root of all Evil?" was also titeled "The God Delusion", a great title for the sequel would be "The Virus of Faith".

For one thing i definitely don't think the many awful criticisms of The God Delusion, like the ones put forth by McGrath, should go unanswered. But it is also a matter of keeping people's attention focused on the controversy between faith and reason. I think the creationist's constant focus on the alledged "controversy" regarding evolution, has done much more to make people doubt evolution than any one of their particular arguments, which are all just a bunch of crap anyway.

The genious of The God Delusion is the way it turns the creationist's own weapons against them. I definitely credit your book for the fact that i don't hear the argument from design as often as i used to when debating believers. They may whine on about alledged "flaws" with your "Ultimate Boeing 747" argument (all they are really left with are the familiar "skyhooks", like "God has always existed" or "God is not part of the physical universe"), but you have pretty much single-handedly spoiled their chance to use it themselves.

As you have begun, we all need to continue. The first step has been to simply get the conflict between faith and reason out into the open. The next step as i see it should be to hijack their "teach the controversy" approach along with the "fairness"-argument ("Shouldn't we present both sides of the issue and let people decide for themselves?"). What is ultimately going to break religions iron grip is not a single argument or line of reasoning, but constantly drawing people's attention to every flaw and weakness in their carefully constructed castles in the air.

Happy Darwin Day!

33. Comment #22040 by stpetes on February 12, 2007 at 2:42 pm

"stpetes demonstrates the carefully rehearsed indignation of the ignorant theist who has yet to actually read any of the arguments put forth by either side."

Having read all of Dawkins and McGarth's works on the subject I think the above post demonstrates just who is ignorant.

"Alister McGrath's recent piece criticizing both TGD and Dawkins was so free of substance that I actually felt embarrassed for him. Dawkins, on the other hand, goes to the trouble of presenting an argument--something McGrath has so far failed to do."

What argument is this? McGrath is a flea?! McGarth is building his career on my back? There is no evidence for God? Please - if this is what you call intellectual debate it is little wonder that the atheist cause is floundering so much.

"stpetes, if you want to contribute and be taken seriously, why not dismantle Dawkins's arguments with some incisive reasoning of your own?"

Been there. Done that. Got the Tshirt. see www.freechurch.org (Todays' Issues and the series on Dawkins). Also got the 'you are an idiot', 'how dare you disagree with our prophet', 'hang him for blasphemy' routine.

Seriously - I think there is a serious case to be made for atheism - but calling people names and then relying on your fans to complain about others calling you names is what is both pathetic and ridiculous.

By the way I think the following posts sum up the fundamentalism of some atheists "I totally agree, it is frustrating but just being right is not enough!"

36. Comment #22107 by Hal9000 on February 12, 2007 at 11:23 pm

 avatar"By the way I think the following posts sum up the fundamentalism of some atheists "I totally agree, it is frustrating but just being right is not enough!"

That was a joke but thanbks for proving my point!!!!

37. Comment #22127 by Howzat on February 13, 2007 at 1:28 am

stpetes wrote:

"Been there. Done that. Got the Tshirt. see www.freechurch.org (Todays' Issues and the series on Dawkins)."

I took a look and couldn't see any good arguments of why the God of the Bible is true while Allah, the Greek gods or any others are not. Other than the implied dismissal of them being false gods or myths or delusions. You may see it as a "cheap point" but I don't, and I assume nearly everyone on this site wouldn't either.

38. Comment #22131 by scottishgeologist on February 13, 2007 at 1:55 am

Howzat

I took a look and couldn't see any good arguments of why the God of the Bible is true while Allah, the Greek gods or any others are not

Good point.

Several weeks ago, on TV, I saw a group of protesting Muslims - one of them held up a placard proclaiming "The Koran is the Third Testament"

Tell me, stpetes, why was this man wrong? Why are Muslims wrong? After all, they accept Jesus as a prophet, they just claim that their religion is a step further on and is the true one.

Makes a degree of sense in a way. If you accept that God revealed himself through Mohammed. Islam is just a further stage in the process - Judaism - Christianity - Islam.

So why is Islam wrong? Are Muslims deluded? And how come only Chritianity is right? After all, the two cannot BOTH be right.

And according to the teachings of both, the false believers are all heading to hell. That means billions of muzzies burning for eternity. Or else, if the muzzies are right, billions of christians suffering eternal torment.

(BTW, Do you really believe that sort of stuff? Do you really preach it? And tell me, after the funeral service for an unbelieving husband, do you tell the grieving widow that her husband (who was never in a church in his life) is now suffering for all eternity? Bet you dont. That would imply a degree of intellectual honesty if you did.)

Of course, it may be, just maybe , might it not , that BOTH religions are wrong? That when you die, thats it. No heaven. No hell. No gods. Its what happens to all other animals after all? Why not the Naked Ape?

39. Comment #22160 by the great teapot on February 13, 2007 at 5:01 am

Richard you are an idelogical fanatic because you wish to educate people who refuse to be educated.
You have an unhealthy interest in not taking things on faith. Crazy in its self but you go too far you want other people to think as you do and you want to poison their minds with critical judgement.Burn witch.

40. Comment #22202 by stevencarrwork on February 13, 2007 at 12:36 pm

The irony of somebody in the Free Church of Scotland calling others dogmatic.

Of course, there was no irony, rather it was to be expected, that the Letter to the Times would not deal with Dawkins point that faith is , by definition, founded on dogma.

And that this dogma is believed, well, dogmatically is the best word.

And the letter to the Times did not deal with Dawkins point that McGrath misrepresents Dawkins views on a continuing basis, apparently relying on the fact the people who praise McGrath , in the main, won't read 'The God Delusion' to see how accurately McGrath presents Dawkins views.

41. Comment #22206 by tatsie on February 13, 2007 at 12:49 pm

Articulate as always Richard. And as diplomatic as ever. However, I'd have preferred a response like you gave at that Belief Conference late last year. A simple "Fuk Off".

Kind regards, Leighton Dyer

43. Comment #22325 by Luis_Cayetano on February 14, 2007 at 7:21 pm

"There is no evidence for God? Please - if this is what you call intellectual debate it is little wonder that the atheist cause is floundering so much."

Evidence? Care to share it with us?

45. Comment #22366 by Homo economicus on February 15, 2007 at 6:06 am

 avatarFor the sake of inquiry I read "Dawkin's God" after having read "The God Delusion". McGrath's arguments come to the conclusion that christianity gives a beauty to existence, a framework from which to go about life with meaning.

Bully for him.

To say that Dawkins is wrong to challenge the intellectual underpinnings of such belief is wrong. In debate you should be able to challenge anything, you need evidence or at least logic on your side and the ability to argue rationally.

Religion is a human concept. It is impossible to prove any supernatural support for any particular faith. Saying that your faith gives you a sense of purpose or a warm glow does not make it true.

The issue with religion is that by taking as gospel a holy book that cannot be debated, allows views to spring which endanger humanity and the world. This is the problem when reason and debate are not allowed, because my God is right so shut up.

There are people seriously saying that God will not allow the environment to kill us so pollute away. That the end of the world is near so do not try and tackle social issues. That killing the non believer is your moral duty to protect the faith. That life after death means that only spirtual matters count. That my faith is more important than what science has to say.

Dawkins is right to get involved. Yet I hope that he concentrates on the public understanding of science. Because I fear that science as a whole is not well taught in the UK and as adults many of us try to undo the damage by reading him.

46. Comment #22370 by BaronOchs on February 15, 2007 at 9:56 am

 avatarGood style quoting Yeats there RD.

Some opponents like to Make out Richard Dawkins is culturally illiterate, for instance:

"Dawkins has made a name for himself by assailing the persistence of religion, philosophy, poetry, and many of the other human activities that constitute culture-as if these represented a threat to modern science.

http://www.crisismagazine.com/october2002/seeing.htm


Likewise in Dawkins' God McGrath steers clear for the most part of criticising Dawkins' books on evolution. But asserts that A Devil's Chaplain and Unweaving The Rainbow are shallow and poor quality.

He quotes some negative reviews of these books such as:

twin obsessions dominate [A Devil's Chaplain] namely darwinian evolution "hurrah" and religion "boo"


McGrath does not ground his attack in an actual analysis of the book however and I got the impression he was relying on his readers not to have read them. I did read A Devil's Chaplain and didn't at all find what he says to be the case at all. If the above quote is the case what of pieces like the review of Red Strangers or the moving article about Sanderson of Oundle to give only two examples?

Concerning the first quote from the catholic journal just take for starters its assertion he is against poetry. What came across strongly to me in Unweaving the Rainbow was Dawkins' excellent knowledge of poetry and his respect for the poets. He laments the negativity towards science showed by some poets but argues poetry and science should not be seen to be in opposition.

I haven't got Dawkins' God to hand but I recall its main points were a) a (quite good, by no means fatal) critique of Memetics which is all very well but Meme's are not necessary to atheism.

b) He seems to disown William Paley and says his views don't really represent theology. then he asserts that while Science leads to agnosticism the "leap of faith" from there to atheism is equal to that from agnosticism to theism(!) Ridiculous and like I say merely asserted in the book not backed up.

He also says something like "Dawkins assumes complexity implies improbability but this is an assumption that Dawkins's does not substantiate" It seems like a very reasonable assumption at the very least and once again McGrath doesn't develop the point.

Regarding that I recall according to Aquinas et al God is supposed to be "simple" McGrath doesn't pursue that line anyway, I suppose because it would only move not remove the question marks.

48. Comment #22406 by BaronOchs on February 16, 2007 at 12:57 pm

 avatar"When will this guy shut up about McGrath already" you say, all in good time, all in good time, but first some more ranting:

Like I said I haven't got Dawkins' God to hand but I was in a book shop today and I quickly perused it again.

He claims Dawkins' is wrong to call faith belief without evidence and to back this up he cites a very long definition of faith by W.H. Griffith-Thomas (dig that welsh name!).

We only need to look at one part of this definition:

"The conviction of the mind based on adequate evidence"


McGrath's cue to outline what level of evidence might be adequate and then to assess whether that level is met for christianity.

But he doesn't do this, it's as if he thinks defining faith as evidence-based is in itself an argument. The book just never engages in a real tough argument and thus I'm unconvinced by it.

49. Comment #22409 by lpetrich on February 16, 2007 at 7:39 pm

 avatarHomo economicus:
For the sake of inquiry I read "Dawkin's God" after having read "The God Delusion". McGrath's arguments come to the conclusion that christianity gives a beauty to existence, a framework from which to go about life with meaning.

I like to call that argument the "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" argument. Replace "Santa Claus" with "God" in that editorial, and you will see what I mean.

Diminishing deities

Letter from Peter Brooks Los Angeles, California, US03 February 2007

reposted from: New Scientist
my highlights / emphasis / edits

I believe "good science will come" from the Biologic Institute's efforts to find experimental proof of intelligent design, but not in the way that it intends or believes (13 January, p 18).

Starting with a premise or hypothesis, one devises experiments that attempt to negate the hypothesis or premise, demonstrating that it does not hold true for all cases, maybe not even for any. Starting with a bad premise simply means that it will take longer to come to the realisation that it is a false start; the premise must therefore be refined or revised and the process begun again. Thus they are inevitably destined to lose their theistic beliefs.

Imagine replacing all instances of "I don't know the answer yet" with "God did it", and continuing to labour to uncover the facts. Over time, we will inevitably chip away at the mountain of "God did it" assertions - we have been quietly doing so for centuries - but now we will be able to publicly state that what was once thought to be an act of God is now in fact (fill in your own discovery here).

Thus we will gather tangible and mounting evidence of the continued erosion of God's claimed ability. At present, we make no formal note of the fact. I wonder how many believers will be willing to face daily despondency as yet another cherished "God did it" claim perishes before the unstoppable juggernaut of the search for truth.

From issue 2589 of New Scientist magazine, 03 February 2007, page 21

In Turkey only 20% say Evolution is true, half that of the USA.

If you think the creationists are bad in the US, check out Turkey.

Turkey's Bosphorus Bridge, which spans the strait dividing Europe and Asia. ©Dave Bartruff/Corbis

To find the front lines of a culture war in Turkey, walk into a kebab shop in the Uskudar district of Istanbul. Meat sizzles on metal skewers, and Persian carpets adorn the walls. Look closely and you'll find a portrait of Charles Darwin—framed in dripping blood.

This is a "creation museum," the brainchild of Adnan Oktar. He's the 50-year-old founder of Bilim Araştirma Vakfi ("Scientific Research Foundation"), a creationist organization mounting one of the most potent offensives against evolution outside of the United States.

In its latest campaign, BAV has opened more than 80 "museums" in restaurants, malls, and city halls across Turkey, each stocked with fossils, posters, and eager volunteers. Oktar's disciples use tactics cribbed from US organizations like California's Institute for Creation Research, instructing passersby that evolution cannot explain biology's complexity and is against the word of God.

But unlike its western counterparts, Oktar's group claims Darwin is responsible for communism, fascism, and terrorism. Terrorists, according to Oktar, are "social Darwinists hiding under the cloak of religion," while communists, still active in Turkey, are in "bloody alliance" with Darwinism. "Evolution is a communist and fascist belief," offers Tarkan Yavas, BAV's president. "The Muslim community understands that now."

Terrorists, according to Oktar, are "social Darwinists hiding under the cloak of religion," while communists, still active in Turkey, are in "bloody alliance" with Darwinism.

Turkey is among the most Western of Muslim nations. It teaches evolution in its schools, but, even so, appears to be losing the science education battle. In 1985 the minister of education mandated that creationism be included in science textbooks. By the late 1990s, the BAV was attacking scientists who opposed a creationist curriculum via slander and death threats. The cumulative damage to science has been significant. Ümit Sayin, a neurologist at Istanbul University and outspoken critic of Turkish creationism, estimates that the number of university-educated Turks who understand evolution has dropped to 20 percent from 40 percent over the past 15 years.

BAV, founded in 1990, grew from the Turkish fringe into a global media empire. Oktar claims to have 4.5 million followers worldwide, who read his hundreds of books and essays and have seen the dozens of television documentaries that BAV produces and provides free of charge to Turkish TV stations. BAV's Web sites offer downloadable PowerPoint presentations and questions to challenge science teachers. The foundation organizes anti-evolution conferences and petitions and runs a telemarketing scheme to sell books by Harun Yahya (Oktar's pen name), which are available globally in 29 languages. Only Oktar and his lieutenants seem to know where the money for all these initiatives comes from, and they're not telling.

Critics denounce Oktar as a charlatan, citing his lack of science education and suspicious productivity. "Harun Yahya is not a person, but a brand that's cornered the market," says Taner Edis, a Turkish physicist at Truman State University in Kirksville, MO. Recently, Edis was asked to contribute to an Israeli professor's compilation of essays on religion and evolution. So was Oktar.

In August, Science published an analysis of global public attitudes toward evolution showing that, out of 34 sample countries, the US and Turkey had the lowest acceptance of Darwin's theories. While their cultures may be at war in other realms, the enemies of science in both the Middle East and Middle America are finding common ground: Last year, in a continuation of the collaboration between BAV and anti-evolutionists in the US, a BAV spokesman flew to Kansas to testify in support of intelligent design in the state's school-board hearings.

Flock of Dodos: The Evolution - Intelligent Design Circus

Today is Darwin Day -- a kind of Christmas for the science-minded.

Instead of observing a religious holiday, today is a celebration of Charles Darwin's birthday and mankind's crowning achievement -- science.

Now in its fourth year, Darwin Day is the brainchild of a group of British and American scientists.

"Our long-term goal is to establish a new international tradition ... an annual secular celebration of Darwin, science and humanity," said Robert Stephens, one of the event's organizers, to MSNBC.

Across the country, universities, schools and libraries are celebrating with talks and lectures about science, evolution and education. Many will premiere Flock of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus, a pro-science documentary by evolutionary-ecologist-turned-filmmaker Randy Olson.

On Sunday, hundreds of churches around the world took part in Evolution Sunday, which highlighted the connections between Darwin's theory of evolution and religion.

"Evolution Sunday is a day to celebrate the compatibility of science and religion, to recognize that evolution has no incompatibility with the Christian faith," said the Rev. Jim Burklo of California's Sausalito Presbyterian Church in an interview with KCBS.









reposted from: http://www.flockofdodos.com & Wired News
my highlights / emphasis / comments

The joys of life without God - Why the belief in God is the same as belief in astrology



reposted from: http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/08/23/shermer/index.html

my highlights / edits

Skeptics Society founder Michael Shermer explains why Darwin matters, how believing in God is the same as believing in astrology, and why it doesn't take divine faith to experience something bigger than ourselves.

Editor's note: This is the latest entry in a Salon series of interviews about religion and science with today's leading thinkers.

By Kevin Berger

Aug. 23, 2006 | Michael Shermer has done a fine job in his new book of letting the air out of intelligent design's tires. As you recall, the so-called scientific movement, which says that nifty things in the universe, like human eyes, are so perfect they couldn't possibly have been created by the crude steps of evolution, was rolling along quite nicely through school districts last year, kicking up a chorus of hallelujahs from creationists. Some of Shermer's ivory towerish science pals, like Richard Dawkins and the late Stephen Jay Gould, told him not to bother with the I.D. boosters, that acknowledging them meant going along for their political ride, where the integrity of science was being run into the ground.

But true to his genial nature, Shermer ignored his friends' advice and penned "Why Darwin Matters." With admirable patience and humility, he spells out each of the fancy I.D. tenets, like "design inference," in which only a higher intelligence could have come up with something as cool and ingenious as DNA. Shermer shows how imperfect evolution, and not intelligent design, has been, for generations, the only quantifiable driver behind nature's wonders.

In one way, he didn't have to write the book. You could get the rundown on I.D. by reading Judge John E. Jones' decision in the infamous trial in Dover, Penn., last year, which pitted the local school board, who supported teaching I.D., against evolution experts. The Republican judge spanked the I.D. proponents hard, calling their bedrock assumptions "utterly false," and concluded with a swipe at the "breathtaking inanity" of the Dover School Board. Yet there's no doubt that Shermer's book is a nice ally for science teachers in the perpetual battle against the creationists.

When I met him, I didn't want to get bogged down in the details of his defense. Shermer, 51, is executive director of the Skeptics Society, bold debunkers of all things supernatural; a columnist for Scientific American; and author of a bunch of readable books about why people flock to God or astrology. So while we delved into the real agenda of intelligent design advocates (like techno-guru George Gilder) we also talked about psychics, atheism, why one famous molecular biologist believes in God, and Shermer's halcyon days as a Jesus freak.

The Skeptics Society is situated in a warm little house in Altadena, a tree-shaded town, north of Los Angeles, in the shadow of the San Gabriel Mountains, home to Mt. Wilson Observatory, one of the world's pioneering astronomy centers. We chatted around the dining room table, stacked with issues of the latest Skeptic magazine, all about religion.

Why does Darwin matter?

Because we live in the age of science. And the Darwinian worldview is the preeminent and best supported theory for the explanation of the natural and biological world. Marx is gone. Freud is gone. History and data have not supported their theories. But Darwin was right. You have to know evolution to understand the natural world. And that cannot be a threat to people of faith. There's a serious problem if you are forced by your faith to reject the most well supported theory in all of science.

Why do you say evolution shouldn't be a threat?

If you believe God created the world, it's reasonable to ask, How did he do it? What were the forces and mechanisms he used? Why not look to science and see that he started with the big bang, the force of gravity, inflationary cosmology, quarks and natural selection. Those were his tools. To that extent, science is not a threat, it's your best friend. It's the best tool you have for illuminating the grandeur of creation. A Hubble Space Telescope photograph of the universe evokes far more awe for creation than light streaming through a stained glass window in a cathedral. I mean, come on, that photo is an actual representation of the reality that God created, if that's what you believe. So why not embrace science rather than fear it?

Why do people fear it?

They've been sold a bill of goods by people who like the warfare model of science and religion, particularly fundamentalists and militant atheists. Both sides want to force a choice and debunk the other side. But it need not be so. It's an incorrect interpretation promoted by extremists. The tendency is for liberals to embrace science and conservatives to mistrust it. Conservatives like technology but tend to be leery about science because it threatens their religions. They fear the Darwinian worldview is the liberal worldview, which says that if there is no God, there is no absolute right and wrong. And without an Archimedean point outside of ourselves that says this is right or wrong, then anything goes, there's no basis for morality. Therefore America will go to hell in a moral handbasket.

What do you say to them?

I say you don't need religion, or political ideology, to understand human nature. Science reveals that human nature is greedy and selfish, altruistic and helpful. Conservatives can find family values in nature. We are pair-bonded. We practice serial monogamy. Human infants are helpless for such a long time that it's better to have two parents rather than one to raise them. That's what Darwin gives us. He showed us how we evolved to be cooperative and altruistic within our groups, and competitive and avaricious between them. Within groups, amity; between groups, enmity. That explains a lot about the good and evil in our nature. I'm saying to conservatives, you're right. If you want to use the metaphors of God and Satan, fine, but let's ground them in science.

Why do we reach so hard for a divine force to explain life?

The natural inclination in all humans is to posit a force, a spirit, outside of us. That tendency toward superstitious magical thinking is just built into our nature. What's more, it doesn't cost anything to have a false positive, to assume there's a force behind the lightning or a spirit in the rock. In the ancestral environment, when we evolved, we might think spinning around three times is going to bring rain. Well, once in a while it works and makes everybody happy. And it doesn't cost much to keep doing it. It doesn't take you out of the gene pool.

You sound so benign. Yet your day job is debunking pseudo sciences like rain dances and astrology. There's no harm, then, in me thinking that because I'm a Libra I just might get what I wish for today?

[Laughs] No, for most people astrology is just light entertainment. But the problem with taking it seriously is it can lead to other irrational beliefs. And presumably in an educated democracy we want to have a certain level of education, as Jefferson says, so we can have a serious national discussion about problems. I mean, people who believe in astrology tend to believe all kinds of goofy things. All the pseudo sciences -- astrology, Tarot cards, psychics, mystic healing -- use the exact same principle. They work because we have a selective memory and a confirmation bias. We look forward to finding evidence for what we already believe and forget the rest. In an hour reading, a psychic will make 200 or 300 statements. If a person walks away with half a dozen things the psychic got right, he's ecstatic. It's like Skinner with the rats. You don't have to reinforce them every time. In fact, they'll press the bar even faster if you give them intermittent reinforcement. It's the same with slot machines. You just have to pay off every once in a while and it will keep us pulling the levers.

Do you think the impulse to believe in God is the same as believing in astrology?

Yes, it's a similar foundation of magical superstitious thinking. And our need to be spiritual takes all forms. Given that traits vary in populations, it's natural that some people will gravitate toward New Age spiritualism and others toward conservative Christianity. Even secularists believe in all kinds of transcendent things, such as "mind." This is the Deepak Chopra school. He says, I don't believe that Christian conservative stuff, but the universe is intelligent, it's alive, it knows we're here. What? You're goofier than the Christians!

At the same time, I don't think, as a lot of materialist atheists do, there's something wrong with the brain or genes, and if we could just fix them, we could get rid of all the silly religion. That's not going to happen. Besides, people believe in economic and political ideologies just as fervently as they believe in religious doctrines. Most political, economic, racial -- and racist -- ideologies have no basis in reality at all. They're articles of faith. And the best tool we have for discerning truth from all those false patterns is science.

Do you call yourself an atheist?

I prefer not to use the term. Although I guess I am an atheist. I just don't believe in God. I've always liked Thomas Huxley's term, "agnostic," by which he meant it's an unknowable, insoluble problem from a scientific point of view. By my personality, I'm comfortable with not having the answer to everything. I'm perfectly happy going through my day, thinking, I really wish I knew the answer to that but I don't. I have a very high tolerance for ambiguity. Most people get cognitively dissonant about having uncertainties and need to close that loop and have an answer.

What would you like to have the answer to?

What was here before time? What came before the big bang? Those questions cause people to posit that either God created the universe or some natural forces or some combination. I'm perfectly happy going the natural route. In fact, to answer what came before the big bang, people like Stephen Hawking are playing around with inflationary cosmology and how all of a sudden you get a new bubble universe. They don't have any evidence, but mathematically it's possible.

But when science hits a question mark, that's OK with me. Ultimately, theologians hit the same question mark. We just have to push them one more step when they say God did it. They respond that God is He who need not be created. Well, can't the universe be that which needs not be created? No, they say, it's a thing and has to be created. So isn't God a thing if He is part of the universe? These are old arguments, but at some point a thoughtful theologian has to say, You're right, we don't know. So we make a metaphysical assumption and define God into existence.

Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, recently told Salon that he believes in God, the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus. "If you believe in God," Collins said, "and if God is more than nature, then there's no reason that God could not stage an invasion into the natural world, which -- to our limited perspective -- would appear to be a miracle."

What does he mean by miracle? If God is intervening into our world, he must be doing so in some measurable way. That's what we do with science. We measure. OK, Francis, where's your data? There was just a big study done on prayer and healing. If praying to God is supposed to heal people, this was the best, most rigorous study ever done, conducted by a world-class scientist who believed he would find a positive result of praying. Here's what he found: zip, nada, nothing.

So, OK, Francis, what else have you got? The virgin birth? I mean, come on. The resurrection? Now we're talking about mythic events, we're not talking about science. What he's doing is rehashing old theological arguments that have been hashed out by evangelicals for a long time. The bit [from C.S. Lewis] that Jesus can't have been a liar or a lunatic and so therefore he's the Lord? That's not science, that's creating straw men you can knock down to leave the one standing you already believe in. It's an example of the hindsight bias we're all susceptible to. We've already made a decision and then we go back and justify it. Scientists like Collins are just particularly good at it.

What's your best answer for why there is no God?

It's not why there is no God, it's why there's not compelling evidence to believe in God. That's a better way to put it. And from my perspective, it's just not there for me. With training in science, I have high standards of evidence. If you said God is real, and you sent your evidence to the journals Science or Nature for publication, you'd be laughed out of the room; you wouldn't get past the first reviewer.

On the other side, the best evidence that there probably isn't a God is that belief in God is so deeply culturally embedded. When you study world religions, it's obvious that, throughout time, all of these different people are making up their own stories about God. If you lived 1,000 years ago, hardly anybody would be a Christian. If you were born in India, you'd likely be a Hindu. What does that tell you? From a Christian perspective, it means we need to get more missionaries over there to tell them the truth! From an anthropological perspective, it's another case. Christians today might say, I don't believe in Zeus, that was a silly superstition. Yet for many people that was a real god.

So it turns out there are 10,000 gods and yet only one right one. That means we're all atheists on 9,999 gods. The only difference between me and the believers is I'm an atheist on one more god.

So you're comfortable that humans are just products of physics and chemistry?

The electric meat -- that's us! I don't mind that at all. If anything, it's even more awe-inspiring to think that out of physics and chemistry we're able to get consciousness and thought, and you and I can sit here and have a conversation about electric meat and chemistry. That itself is miraculous.

Earlier this summer, George Gilder, the supply-side economist and guiding light to the techno-libertarian crowd, wrote an essay in National Review. He's a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, the foundation, as you know, that promotes intelligent design. In the essay, "Evolution and Me," he argues that physics and chemistry will never yield insight into the origins of life or consciousness. He says complex life results from a preceding intelligence. He's pretty hard on you Darwinists. He writes, "As an all-purpose tool of reductionism that said whatever survives is, in some way, normative, Darwinism could inspire almost any modern movement, from the eugenic furies of Nazism to the feminist crusades of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood."

That's completely absurd. He's listing all the liberal issues and wants us to see them as fascism. That's the typical right-wing response. What a political or ideological or racist movement does with a scientific theory is quite independent of the scientists. It's hardly fair to blame Gutenberg for the printing press that allowed "Mein Kampf" to be distributed. Science is just a tool, a way of understanding the natural world. We've got to get past this idea that science is a thing. It isn't a thing like religion is a thing or a political party is a thing. It's true that scientists have clubs. They have banners and meetings and they drink beer together. But science is just a method, a way of answering questions. It's a verb not a noun.

Gilder claims "intelligent design is merely a way of asserting a hierarchical cosmos." He says there's a higher form of information than physical compounds, like DNA, and that higher information is "independent of its physical embodiment or carrier."

Yeah, so there's ultimately a God. That's what he's arguing. God creates information and then the whole thing gets started. But even without God, that's a too simplistic view of the origins of life and information. What came first, life or information? In a way, it doesn't matter because the beginnings of information in life are not going to be one big step but millions of incremental steps. They both came first, they're interactive. In other words, the whole system is auto-catalytic, self-driving, so the information gives rise to a little more complex life, and more complex life gives rise to more information, and they feedback on one another, and it just drives itself.

The best example of that is, in fact, DNA, and the increasing complexity of genomes. This is what [University of Massachusetts biologist and author] Lynn Margulis has shown us. In the past 35 years, she has definitely shown that we are the product of this simple cellular world that spontaneously and naturally got more complex just by putting energy into the system, and a type of symbiogenesis, cooperation among cells, led to more complex cells. Besides, information cannot exist without a storage medium. What would that be? Your soul? What is the medium of storage for the soul when your body is gone? What carries it on into the far future? The soul discussion stops right there. Without a medium of transference of data, why would the information exist on its own?

Intelligent design boosters say that if life only develops by random chance, as Darwinists say, then we're living meaningless lives.

Life develops by Natural Selection NOT random chance!!

Right, that's the moral meme. But they're confusing human meaning with natural meaning. There is no natural meaning in the universe. Nobody, Christian or otherwise, would look at a star and go, What's the meaning of that? It doesn't mean anything. It's a bunch of atoms. Believers and non-believers alike are comfortable saying human life has meaning because we make it so. That goes for Rick Warren and Dr. Phil. They say, hey, look, man, you got to go out there and do it yourself. You got to volunteer and help the poor. We give our life meaning by being helpful and sociable.

Well, that's Darwinian. We evolved as a social primate species in which we had to cooperate to get along. It's not random, there are parameters defined by our own human nature. If these guys want to say, well, that's how God did it, OK, that's fine. But let's keep studying it scientifically to understand why that would have come about through natural forces.

In the end, you don't need a top-down entity to give life meaning. If anything, if nobody is out there, it is much more important to find meaning ourselves. Instead of this world being a mere staging for the next world of eternity -- meaning it doesn't really matter what we do now -- it's better to realize there is no eternity, that this is it. In that case, we better be careful what we do, make our choices consciously, treat people kindly and be moral because this life is what really counts.

Stephen Meyer, one of the vice presidents of the Discovery Institute, says, "Contrary to media reports, intelligent design is not a religious-based idea but instead an evidence-based scientific theory." You write in "Why Darwin Matters" that the "veneer of science in ID theory is there purposefully to cover up the religious agenda." How do you know that?

Because I asked them and they told me. I know these guys. I have debated Meyer at conferences and gone out to beers with William Dembski, another major I.D. theorist. They're all evangelical born-again Christians. They all believe in Christ as their savior. They believed it before they got into all this stuff. I've asked them that if the main tenets of intelligent design turned out to be false, would they then give up their belief in Christ? No, they say. And that's because they believe in Christ for reasons that have nothing to do with their theory.

They fit the science to match their beliefs?

Yes, in my opinion, that's all they're doing.

So what's the real agenda of I.D.?

They want the Judeo-Christian worldview accepted into American public life as policy. But the First Amendment says you're not supposed to do that. America is based on a diversity of beliefs and was founded on the principle of religious freedom. The conservatives want to blend public life with private life. But religion is private. It's nobody's business. Politicians have to announce they believe in God, and God bless America. But religion as public policy leads to a reduction of liberty and freedom for those who don't believe. It makes it harder for us to express our own beliefs without fear of condemnation.

Let's say that we passed legislation that requires the teaching of one dominant religion in public schools, which right now is Judeo-Christian. Hooray! Everybody's happy. Now let's say that Islam is the dominant religion 500 years from now. It most likely will be Europe. You still want that law on the books? Girls in public schools will have to wear burqas and, in fact, there will be no education for them after sixth grade. You still want the dominant religion legalized in America? No way!

Are you trying to talk people out of their faith by showing them the science?

No, just the opposite. First of all, I don't think you can talk people out of their faith. It's an utter waste of time. I learned that from Darwin himself. He said he learned early in life to stay out of those kinds of public debates. The only thing you can do is promote good science.

Why do you think scientists who have studied anthropology and science believe in God?

Because they believe for non-smart reasons. Smart people believe weird things because they're better at rationalizing the beliefs they arrived at for emotional, psychological or personal reasons. The No. 1 predictors of anybody's religious, political or social attitudes are those of their parents and the home where they were raised.

That doesn't seem to be true for you. You confess in "Why Darwin Matters," "I became a creationist shortly after I became a born-again evangelical Christian in high school in 1971 and I argued the creationist case through graduate school in 1977." Were your parents religious?

They were neither religious nor non-religious. They were neutral on the subject. It never came up at home. I was in high school when one of my best friends talked me into being born again. So I just went along with it, and it seemed to work for me, although my stepbrothers and -sisters always gave me a hard time about being a Jesus freak.

Still, I felt that if I'm going to take this seriously, I should be proactive about it. That includes challenging people and speaking out. I even went door-to-door in Malibu. Although it was anxiety-producing to walk up to strangers' houses and say, "Hi, I'm here to tell you about Jesus." You were also supposed to tell people that you loved them. I remember telling that to a girl who actually liked me. And she took that the wrong way. I had to correct her. No, I don't mean it that way, I mean it in the agape way, the kind of love that C.S. Lewis talks about, the love for your fellow humans. I can't believe I did that. Although I guess in a way I'm doing the same thing, only now I do it through public lectures and books: "Hi, I'm here to tell you about Darwin."

What caused you to see the light about evolution?

Taking a class in it by Bayard Brattstrom at Cal State Fullerton, where I got a master's degree in experimental psychology. He was an evangelical evolutionist and his class met Tuesday nights and then adjourned to the local pub and continued until closing time. He would just hold forth, like Socrates, sitting around with beer and ale, and talking about God, religion, the big bang and cosmology. He was a dynamic speaker. It was great stuff. I was just sitting there stunned, like, Oh my God, this stuff is real. I had no idea. I didn't really know anything about science.

Like most creationists, you just know what you read in creationist books. When you read them, it makes the theory of evolution sound completely idiotic. What moron could believe in this theory? When you actually take a class in the science of it, it's a completely different picture. That's also when I realized I enjoyed the company of scientists and science people much more than religious people and theologians. It was this exciting, open-ended, participatory process that I could be involved in. We're all in this search together, and there's an actual method to do it, and a community of people who practice it, and a way of determining whether something is true or not. I fell in love with that.

How did you feel when you first stopped believing in God?

The process came about pretty slowly. A girlfriend gave me a silver ichthus, the Christian symbol of the fish, and I wore it on a chain around my neck. This is when guys used to wear chains. It was so obnoxious but everybody did it. I remember at one point, after Bayard's evolution class, looking at the ichthus in the mirror and going, You know, that's kind of hypocritical, I don't really believe in this stuff anymore and I don't think I should be wearing this. So I took it off. That was a defining moment. It was liberating to be intellectually honest about what I felt. I didn't feel hypocritical anymore. Now, as I've gotten older, I try not to define myself by what I don't believe. I think that's a fruitless enterprise. We should define ourselves by what we do believe in.

What do you believe in?

I believe in the indomitable human spirit and the amazing capacity we have for understanding the world; for love, joy and happiness. Science not only does not take away any of those things, it adds to the sum of human knowledge. When I look through my little telescope in my backyard at the planets, moon or Andromeda galaxy that is 2.9 million light-years away, I can enjoy the beauty of the night sky and appreciate it on an emotional level. Then I can think that the photons of light that are landing on my retina left 2.9 million years ago, when we were just barely bipedal hominids in Africa, and are just now arriving tonight. Boy, that's just awe-inspiring.

To me, that's what it means to be spiritual -- what makes your spine tingle. It's what gives you a sense of awe and wonder and transcendence. It doesn't matter to me if you call it God or the cosmos. We're all talking about the same thing, whether it's religious people or New Age spiritual people or Buddhists or scientists. We're all talking about having a sense of awe and wonder at something grander than ourselves.