- Jul 16, 2011
Thanks for that. It wasn't too easy writing it, but it's useful sometimes to arrange your own thoughts. I'm glad someone else can appreciate them.Cobblestoned said:What a nice written piece.
That's the proof that English can be used to form artful sentences and thoughts. Practiced too rarely in the internets.
Thank you. It was hard, but worth reading it.
Todays limerick ?
As for Limericks, maybe I'll open a thread .
Now for the second speakers: Richard Dawkins started off pretty well and humorously, rebutting Prof. Spivey's (not Smythie) argument regarding humans are all spiritual and that religion is not necessary for culture and art (Haydn's evolution oratorio would be something). He then seemed to focus heavily on a scientific attack on a literal interpretation of the bible, which seemed inappropriate for the debate and I must admit I lost interest. So Hitchens wins hands down in this type of debate (at least on this evidence).
Rabbi Julia Neuberger was the second speaker and attempted to steal the middle ground. Her main point was that religion served the average person as a means of celebrating positive events and commiserating negative events, gave individuals ideals to strive towards and a meeting point to live as a community. It was interesting that in the book of interviews with atheists I read, one of the interviewees felt the need for such a meeting point for humanists (but obviously without the religious overtones) and I must admit that I feel a lack of such a wider community.
She also saw doubt as a positive thing that pushes people forward and keeps things in perspective. I can see where she's coming from, but from my point of view I would call it a sense of wonder. My knowledge is imperfect, but developing and I still feel awe when faced with glorious peaks and the working of biology, feeling the eons of time that have gone into their creation. So it seems, I'm in some ways closer to Neuberger than Dawkins.
To the Hitch: Unfortunately, my Polish is much better than my Welsh