Even in Kyoto

To follow up on my previous, more important post:

Last night, Richard Dawkins gave a talk at ASU based on his latest, best-selling book, The God Delusion. The audience was one of the largest audiences he has ever addressed (Gammage Auditorium was filled). Although he praised science and the process of natural selection, he did not explain these two concepts fully. Much of his talk focused instead on logical fallacies associated with typical arguments used to support the existence of the Westernized Judeo-Christian concept of God, as well as on addressing the fundamental logical flaws associated with Intelligent Design (I was pleased to see the phrase "Failure of imagination" appear on one Powerpoint slide). He also gave some time to the subject of raising consciousness about how religions/religious thinking appear in societies (can we really label 4-year-old children as Jewish, Muslim, and Christian?).

None of these subjects was surprising, and also unsurprisingly the content overlapped considerably with Dennett's recent book Breaking the Spell, though Dawkins was perhaps even more forthright about the fact that by nature he is not inclined to be highly diplomatic in his dealings with religious thinkers. I also appreciated his mention of the fact that he does not think it necessary to be highly versed in theological studies to be able to hold the above discussion (does that mean, by extension, that I am qualified to hold a philosophical standpoint despite being poorly-versed in classical philosophical texts?).

But. There were a few moments that I wish I could remember better, when the audience laughed or applauded inappropriately, still demonstrating a sheep-like response to the presented ideas. To that, I object. And I think the two points raised in my earlier post still stand. As I've said to a few people before, I have found my studies of Biology quite humbling for what they have revealed to me about the limitations of science as a way of knowing.

After Dawkins's talk, I'm still thinking about writing a letter to Dennett about those two points. I just wonder if there's even a remote chance that I will get an honest response. Perhaps I should omit the fact that though I'm a rationalist, I never claim to be rational.

Lastly, I think I'll never get over the fact that Dawkins was perhaps overly successful in his coining of the term "meme" in The Selfish Gene, for the word has been co-opted to mean something much less meaningful than he originally intended, and its utility as originally intended is still incredibly questionable in my mind at least (augh, the "meme" meme! So Meta.).

Silly scientists. If only it were possible to intelligently discuss these things and derive some meaning from the discussion. Alas, it's but a spin of a hamster wheel. Perhaps it's time for some poetry or art instead.

This is some of the stuff that keeps on getting a bit lost in my life. It's always nice to have reminders. I just have to keep on trying. The other day I *did* realize that I stopped gossiping about people around me about 3 months ago, and that felt like a really positive change. After all, how can I work on the stuff in my own head if I'm that focused on other people?

( Maslow's characteristics of self-actualized people )

Today while looking for other stuff, I came across my Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey calendar. Today's Deep Thought (actually for Wednesday because it's funnier):

"I don't think God put me on this planet to judge others. I think he put me on this planet to gather specimens and take them back to my home planet."