EL: The best way to spread an idea, or a way of life, is to have a vision and act on it. Persuasion isn’t necessarily the most important thing. I’m not suggesting that you’re saying any different.

How else do you “spread an idea” other than by persuading others to see things in a new light?  Maybe that seems too harsh a word, I can think of other synonyms, but ultimately the plan is to take people who do not hold this view and have them come to a point where they do.  Am I missing something?  There is a school of thought within Christianity that says outright evangelism is not what they are supposed to do.  Instead they are to merely live by Jesus’ example and be ready to answer questions from non-believers about what makes Christians so different.  Is that what you are referring to?  From my point of view, that is just another strategy of persuasion, not that there is anything wrong with persuasion mind you.

Eternally Learning - 28 August 2009 11:14 AM

How else do you “spread an idea” other than by persuading others to see things in a new light?  Maybe that seems too harsh a word, I can think of other synonyms, but ultimately the plan is to take people who do not hold this view and have them come to a point where they do.  Am I missing something?  There is a school of thought within Christianity that says outright evangelism is not what they are supposed to do.  Instead they are to merely live by Jesus’ example and be ready to answer questions from non-believers about what makes Christians so different.  Is that what you are referring to?  From my point of view, that is just another strategy of persuasion, not that there is anything wrong with persuasion mind you.

I violated my own rule and falsely assumed that by “persuasion” you meant reason or argumentation. “(U)ltimately the plan is to take people who do not hold this view and have them come to a point where they do” is broader than that, and is exactly what I mean.

By analogy, I recall a few young women (when I was a younger man) who were extremely persuasive without saying a word. As Paul Simon put it:

“She said ‘Why don’t we both just sleep on it tonight and I believe that in the morning you’ll begin to see the light.’ And then she kissed me and I realized she probably was right.”

Hello,
In regards to evolution, while other creatures of the planet fit into the fact of evolution, Humans don’t and this debate has been proven. The quest for the missing link is a false quest because we would actually need to find several missing links to add up to modern humans. After millions of years of progress, humans reached a point where they instantly went from stone tools to building pyramids of great sophistication in what is now modern day Iraq. The concept of mathematics would have evolved much slower than man himself. You can’t go from stone tools to mapping the stars overnight, it’s simply not realistic. So I FULLY accept the accounted history of the Sumerians and their recordings of how modern man was created. This by far has been the most logical explanation of the instant evolution of man, mentally and physically.

K_Pre - 01 October 2009 05:00 AM

So I FULLY accept the accounted history of the Sumerians and their recordings of how modern man was created. This by far has been the most logical explanation of the instant evolution of man, mentally and physically.

Eh? I wanted to ask if you forgot your irony-tags, but then I thought this was silly. Of course it is irony. But then you post this here? What are you aiming at?

GdB

In regards to evolution, while other creatures of the planet fit into the fact of evolution, Humans don’t and this debate has been proven. The quest for the missing link is a false quest because we would actually need to find several missing links to add up to modern humans. After millions of years of progress, humans reached a point where they instantly went from stone tools to building pyramids of great sophistication in what is now modern day Iraq. The concept of mathematics would have evolved much slower than man himself. You can’t go from stone tools to mapping the stars overnight, it’s simply not realistic. So I FULLY accept the accounted history of the Sumerians and their recordings of how modern man was created. This by far has been the most logical explanation of the instant evolution of man, mentally and physically.

Humans don’t fit into the evolutionary scheme? So where do you draw the line between the animals that DO fit into the evolutionary tree and humans? At Homo Erectus? Homo Habilis? Homo Ergaster? Your claim is that evolution proceeded normally and then at some point stopped cold. Where’s the stopping point?

You say that humans instantly went from stone tools to building pyramids. That’s absolutely true. But they continued using stone tools AFTER building those pyramids, so what’s your point? And in fact the first astronomical observations were made by people still in the Neolithic. The Mayans, for example, were a Neolithic civilization that built pyramids, compiled extensive astronomical observations, created calendars, and used only stone tools.

K_Pre - 01 October 2009 05:00 AM

You can’t go from stone tools to mapping the stars overnight, it’s simply not realistic.

Hundred years ago we rode carriages, and a few decades later we went to the moon.

George - 01 October 2009 11:54 AM

K_Pre - 01 October 2009 05:00 AM

You can’t go from stone tools to mapping the stars overnight, it’s simply not realistic.

Hundred years ago we rode carriages, and a few decades later we went to the moon.

What’s this “We” stuff? We Americans went to the Moon. I’m just joking George…HeeHee…

author=“robotaholic” date=“1218877348”][color=purple]after hearing this whole interview, it sounds like this guy is trying to convert atheists to christianity or some sort of religiosity subtly

The bottom line is this - give evidence for a supernatural entity or zip it.

I don’t care for the blending of spirituality and the actual world. - I don’t even think the word spiritual has any meaning whatsoever.  This is a lot of hot air.

I would have trouble even communicating with this person.  I am ultimately a materialist.  His vocabulary is murky or unclear and dilluted with religious terminology.  It’s irritating.

HOW is this man a reverend? - HOW?  he says “facts are god’s native tongue” - uh so there IS a supernatural entity who made the universe- is THAT how he is a reverend? - if so then no thx, I don’t believe in supernatural entities like ghosts, faeries, spirits, demons, or invisible people with magic powers I just don’t and somehow he’s trying to use religious lingo to spout out science

I think you’re not getting the point of these two podcasts.  Dowd is trying to channel the positive aspects of religion (fellowship, awe at the wonders of nature, integrity, social cohesiveness, even some aspects of morality) into a direction which allows for the primacy of evidence based thinking and keeps all the myths where they belong, along with Santa and the Tooth fairy as fun stories for children, but not to be taken literally or as anything more than metaphors.  I say more power to him.  He has some chance of prying some of the religious fundies out of their haze of hatred for everyone and everything which might undermine their insane ideology.  His spirituality does seem to be a kind of pantheism, but his bottom line seems to be that the concept of god itself is to be considered metaphorically.  That he can preach to christian congregations and maybe move them into a more humanist direction is, IMHO, A Good Thing.  Evidently Dawkins agreed as he wrote a forward for Dowd’s book.