As far as I know his latest release was Ancestor’s Tale containing an interesting approach on scientific storytelling and without any added psycho. It is one of his rather deep and extensive works, so be warned. I can also highly recommend The Selfish Gene in case you didn’t read this one (his first) yet. Many people tell me they would have done things different in their life if they’d read this gem of enlightenment earlier.
“We are the ultimate authority!”
“oops, boy rape, sorry”
This story will never get old.
Hmm. If we actually want to argue about this, we should probably start a new thread, since this doesn’t really belong here. But, in brief:
- I don’t think I’m conflating or confusing anything, but stand ready to be corrected
- I don’t believe science and philosophy are “at odds”, but
- Science is pursued under the banner of operating assumptions which all practitioners of science agree are reasonable, and yet which are, nonetheless, assumptions. The question of what may or may not be usefully assumed (ie, what is “properly basic”) is a philosophical, not a scientific, question. And so
- it seems to me that Dawkins et al make the mistake of behaving as though, because there is overlap between science and philosophy, being knowledgeable about science qualifies one to “do philosophy”, while showing a distinct lack of understanding about which is which, what the boundaries and dependencies between them are, &c &c.
For example, one can subscribe to the belief that the findings of scientific inquiry are all essentially true without adopting the philosophical position of “scientism”; take for example the work of Merleau-Ponty.
…did I say “in brief”? Uh, sorry.
Agreed. You don’t need an announcement beforehand to make arresting the pope a big deal.
Surprise surprise, the media exaggerated his role in the whole affair! Still, it’s nice to see him support it fully.
Comment #478580 by Richard Dawkins on April 11, 2010 at 8:48 am
Needless to say, I did NOT say “I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI” or anything so personally grandiloquent. You have to remember that The Sunday Times is a Murdoch newspaper, and that all newspapers follow the odd custom of entrusting headlines to a sub-editor, not the author of the article itself.
What I DID say to Marc Horne when he telephoned me out of the blue, and I repeat it here, is that I am whole-heartedly behind the initiative by Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens to mount a legal challenge to the Pope’s proposed visit to Britain. Beyond that, I declined to comment to Marc Horme, other than to refer him to my ‘Ratzinger is the Perfect Pope’ article here: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5341
Here is what really happened. Christopher Hitchens first proposed the legal challenge idea to me on March 14th. I responded enthusiastically, and suggested the name of a high profile human rights lawyer whom I know. I had lost her address, however, and set about tracking her down. Meanwhile, Christopher made the brilliant suggestion of Geoffrey Robertson. He approached him, and Mr Robertson’s subsequent ‘Put the Pope in the Dock’ article in The Guardian shows him to be ideal:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5366
The case is obviously in good hands, with him and Mark Stephens. I am especially intrigued by the proposed challenge to the legality of the Vatican as a sovereign state whose head can claim diplomatic immunity.Even if the Pope doesn’t end up in the dock, and even if the Vatican doesn’t cancel the visit, I am optimistic that we shall raise public consciousness to the point where the British government will find it very awkward indeed to go ahead with the Pope’s visit, let alone pay for it.
Richard
The announcement could (in theory) persuade the Pope not to come, which would also make Dawkins happy.
OK. So you are just noting that philosophy and science answer different questions? I agree with that. It looked like you were saying the Pope is a philosopher and were arguing on that level. If you just mean that scientists aren’t necessarily equipped to do philosophy (and vice versa), I have no problem with that claim. In fact, I agree with it.
I think we’re entirely in agreement, then. :) I was probably trying to be concise and ended up being ambiguous in the process - my bad.
You should try to be MORE lucid
Can anyone come up with a reason for NOT arresting the Pope, an action for which there are historical precedents, other than the grounds of his being a religious leader and thus infallible according to his faith?
Dawkins made you more pretentious?
Actually he came out with a book called The Greatest Show on Earth last year, which is a very good book explaining why evolution is true. Its probably his most accessible work to date, and has only a modest amount of fundamentalist bashing. If you want to read Dawkins, thats an excellent place to start. On the same topic released earlier in the year (it was the 150th anniversary of the publication of Origin of Species ) is Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True which also a good read and makes a good introduction to learning (or teaching to someone) the basics of evolutionary theory. The Coyne books contains practically zero religious or political content, it’s just about about the facts of biology.
I don’t understand how the Pope gets a pass on this. Do Catholics really think what he did is ok?
There was a church figure or rep of some sort on NPR the other night and he said he hoped this whole situation didn’t turn into another witch hunt. I laughed.
He’s treated as a head of state for some reason. Not sure on the exact legal status, but the Catholic Church would probably have to extradite him.
HOWEVER: In keeping with QT3 lolbertarian foreign policy against criminals who are accused of orchestrating attacks on Americans, won’t give themselves up, and are totally guilty according to some guy on the internet I think we’re supposed to take him out with a Predator drone strike, like Dan said.
And there’s a good reason!
Jason’s right. He’s the leader of the Vatican, which is a sovereign nation.
I saw the Pope rape a vintage Webster doll from 1986.
Yes, but Augusto Pinochet and Manuel Noriega were heads of state and they were both arrested by other countries. And neither of them were involved in the cover up of crimes occurring in nations other than their own. The more I think about it, the more I’m totally down with arresting the Pope.
So Richard Dawkins et al will have to declare war on the Holy See (and win) to get to the Pope? Maybe he could be tried as a war criminal for resisting arrest by being the leader of a sovereign nation/organization/whatever the hell the Holy See is.
This brings up some questions: Can the Pope be arrested for anything? Can he be given a parking ticket? Does he have diplomatic immunity for, say, murder? Are Catholic priests citizens of the Holy See? Can Catholic priests be deported to Vatican City? Are there even any citizens of the Holy See besides the Pope?