Download MP3 · RSS · Subscribe via iTunes · Discuss

Digg · Facebook · del.icio.us · reddit · StumbleUpon

.

Listening to this, I understand that Rev. Dowd seems to be describing his point of view as pantheism, and I can’t grasp what the point of it is.  If the universe is god is the metaphor, then doesn’t god lose all meaning?  My impression is that he’s really an atheist, but he can’t seem to admit it.  An impersonal and unknowable god seems like no god at all, at least from a teleological point of view.

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 remember people calling Richard Dawkins the high priest of evolution - and it made me irritated - well this guy is full of it - thx but the empirical facts and the rule of parsimony say not to posit additionals unnecessarily and this guy is all over the place -

I’d never buy his book and I hope it does poorly lool-

incidentally my cat is a member of the universal life church - an ordained minister too - mabye he should write or scratch out a book - i bet it would be more interesting

Why exactly did DJ suggest that Dowd was “Christian-lite”? Though I personally happen to reject any particular conception (even more abstract or earthy ones) of God, the Divine, Ultimate Reality, or whatever, I also reject the practice of the so-called “new atheists” to define Christianity and the religions in only the most narrow, fundamentalist terms. This is an occurrence I have often encountered in discussions, atheists and agnostics telling Christians that they’re not really Christians because they don’t believe in A, B, and C.

Shouldn’t the Christian be able to define for his or individual self what exactly it is to be a Christian?

I understand that DJ was originally Christian himself, but frankly I find it a bit arrogant that he would suggest that the particular form or thought process of the Christianity he belonged to is the ONLY form of authentic Christianity. Many fundamentalists, for instance, regard Catholicism as a kind of distorted version of the Christian faith, if they even regard it as being Christian at all. If we’re looking only to Christian fundamentalists for our definition of Christianity, then shouldn’t we then leave out things like the Inquisition, Crusades, etc. when criticizing the Christian religion? After all, according to the fundamentalists, Catholicism is barely Christianity at all. Do the new atheists agree?

Catholicism, which is the largest denomination of Christianity, also teaches (however wrongly) that there is no inherent contradiction between evolutionary theory and the Christian faith, which is why you have a Catholic like Dr. Kenneth Miller providing damning testimony against ID at Dover and co-authoring the high school textbook for biology, or a Catholic like Francisco Ayala spending time as president of the AAAS and being awarded the National Medal of Science. Interestingly enough, something so important to science as Big Bang theory itself can be traced back to the “hypothesis of the primeval atom,” proposed by none other than a Catholic astrophysicist, Fr. Georges Lemaître (who eventually served at the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences). According to the way many of my fellow atheists define Christianity, these people aren’t real Christians at all since they don’t accept a literal reading of Genesis, one of the staples of true Christianity. Yet, their church says they don’t have to. Is then Catholicism itself Christian-lite, and only Protestantism actual Christianity?

Hey, but wait. Biblical criticism had its advent in the Lutheran church, so literalism is obviously not a given there. What about the Episcopal Church? Isn’t their presiding bishop, Katherine Schori, a marine biologist? Are those another two churches gone Christian-lite?

The way I see it, I as a non-believer have no business questioning the sincerity of faith of any Christian. A great example of the nonsense of such a practice is Sam Harris, who on pg. 21 of “The End of Faith” accuses religious moderates of “scriptural ignorance” (something repeated in Susan Jacoby’s otherwise excellent “The Age of American Unreason"). He, a neuroscientist in training, is in effect claiming to be more aware of authentic Biblical teachings than somebody like John Dominic Crossan, a Biblical scholar, and [like most serious Biblical scholars and theologians] a moderate, who was educated at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome and the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem. Sorry, but I think that’s just nuts.

Fact is, Christians who accept evolutionary biology as fact and shape their Christianity accordingly aren’t doing anything different than what Augustine and the other church fathers did when they Hellenized the Christian faith to make it more acceptable to the world of their time. Their way of understanding and explaining the Christian faith was distinctly Greek, not Jewish. Indeed, all of the most hollowed of Christians dogmas, such as the Trinity, two natures of Christ, etc. were fashioned in a Greek philosophical vocabulary which earlier Christian Jews wouldn’t have recognized at all. What Dowd is doing, then, actually seems to be very much in line with Christian tradition, and not that radical at all.

Incidentally, not even Augustine advocated a literal reading of Genesis. Guess he was just as “Christian-lite” as all the rest.

mandydax,

Dowd is more likely a panentheist, as a number of the clergy and theologians who have praised his book (Matthew Fox for example) are well know for holding what they call a panentheistic view of “God.” From what I’ve heard, panentheism is a growing trend among Christian theologians. I found the following quotes from Professor of Religion and Jesus Scholar, Marcus Borg, online at mysticalseeker.blogspot.com

He speaks about panentheism as follows:

The first conceptualizes God as a supernatural being “out there”, separate from the world, who created the world a long time ago and who may from time to time intervene within it. In an important sense, this God is not “here” and thus cannot be known or experienced but only believed in (which, within the logic of this concept, is what “faith” is about.) I will call this way of thinking about God “supernatural theism.” Widespread within Christianity, it is perhaps what a majority of people (both believers and non-believers) think of when they think of God. Some accept the existence of such a being, and some reject it. But it is the notion of God as a supernatural being “out there” that is being accepted or rejected.

The second root concept of God in the Christian tradition thinks of God quite differently. God is the encompassing Spirit; we (and everything that is) are in God. For this concept, God is not a supernatural being separate from the universe; rather, God (the sacred, the Spirit) is a nonmaterial layer or level or dimension of reality all around us. God is more than the universe, yet the universe is in God. Thus, in a spatial sense, God is not “somewhere else” but “right here.” I will call this concept of God “panentheism”.

Pantheism lacks the extra syllable en, which makes all the difference. Pantheism (without the en) identifies the universe with God: God and the universe are coextensive (literally, “everything is God"). Pantheism affirms only God’s immanence and essentially denies God’s transcendence; though the sacred is present in everything, it is not more than everything. But panentheism affirms both transcendence (God’s otherness or moreness) and immanence (God’s presence). God is not to be identified with the sum total of things. Rather, God is more than everything, even as God is present everywhere. God is all around us and within us, and we are within God.

Good discussion.  I sure enjoyed my interview with D.J.!  For those interested, I was interviewed a month and a half ago by Reggie, The Infidel Guy—also a wonderful experience.  D.J. and Reggie are two of my favorite atheist interviewers.  Both the audio and video of The Infidel Guy interview can be accessed here: http://thankgodforevolution.com/audiovideo

AndChomskyMakesThree is correct: I’m essentially doing what theologians have always done: revised religious worldviews in light of the best understandings of reality available when they were alive. And yes, I’m sort of a panentheist, though I much prefer the term “creatheist” - which can be pronounced “Cree-ATHEIST” or “Cree-a-THEIST” (I discuss this concept in chapter 7 of my book, “Thank God for Evolution”, where I also distinguish it from pantheism and panentheism.)

Just this morning I posted a response to Michael J. Booker’s mixed review of my book (mentioned above). It addresses the most common misunderstandings that atheists and humanists make about the Evolution Theology perspective I offer in my book and my programs.  Here’s the link: http://thankgodforevolution.com/node/1134

Co-evolutionarily,

~ Michael

It should also be said that this interview is only Part 1. D.J.’s interview with Dowd was so long and wide-ranging, that I decided to cut it into two parts. Part 2 will be next week. Cheers, Thomas

.

It should also be said that this interview is only Part 1. D.J.’s interview with Dowd was so long and wide-ranging, that I decided to cut it into two parts. Part 2 will be next week. Cheers, Thomas

Thanks very much for the high quality of the audios.  I just finished this podcast and I think D.J. did another great job.

If I understood things correctly from the podcast, Dowd’s position reminds me of the books by John Shelby Spong, in that Spong gradually over the books he wrote clearly articulated a view that the Bible was not literally true—and yet he saw a need for religion in our current world. 

This transition from a literal Christian church to a symbolic/metaphorical Christian church is curious since the same scriptures and prayers continue to be used.

Thanks very much for the high quality of the audios.  I just finished this podcast and I think D.J. did another great job.

If I understood things correctly from the podcast, Dowd’s position reminds me of the books by John Shelby Spong, in that Spong gradually over the books he wrote clearly articulated a view that the Bible was not literally true—and yet he saw a need for religion in our current world. 

This transition from a literal Christian church to a symbolic/metaphorical Christian church is curious since the same scriptures and prayers continue to be used.

Could one create a new religion based on morality rather than magic? After all, if Scientology can be a religion, surely anything can.

.

Whenever I run into the evolution as fact, theory and a mixture therein, it’s always been in some way a response to creationist. .... Is the debate really mainly about confronting creationist? If this is true, then I surely side with Gould on this particular point. Disbanding such a word as theory[of ENS) to simply place evolution by natural selection in bolder form to mitigate creationist attack is without merit as far as I understand the issue.

Don’t all these arguments come down to evidence? The creationists can’t believe that the complexity of life can come about by natural processes and the rest of us can. Until and unless they can come up with actual evidence their arguments are moot.

For all I know there is an army of fiendish white mice circling Mars in invisible interstellar pink teapots, planning their invasion of Earth. However barring some actual evidence of this I don’t see myself spending any time worrying about it, nor contributing to the Earth Defense Fund to prevent it.

.

I was confused by the description of the podcast and thought I would understand the Rev and topic better after a listen. I was wrong.
I really do not know what he and his wife the traveling Evolutionary Church are about. Dowd seems to suggest in the discussion we can never, ever get away from “night terms” like faith and spiritual so we are obliged to dress up science in mystical garb so that the uneducatable teeming masses will accept the facts? Really? Wow. Dark, cynical. No wonder you call them night words.

Also as noted elsewhere there does seem to be a current of “evolution is great, learn its rules, follow its example” so that we can survive. ‘cept that we know evolution were it ranked in a moral way is at least as bad as it is good… an amoral destroyer of countless species… a designer who set up endless bloody, brutal, horrific warfare between predator and prey to last millions of years. ie natural = good.

We, we humans, do not need religion. We do not need quasi-religious science. We do not need mystical mumbojumbo no matter what it describes or refers to.
We do not need to worship anything- science, facts or otherwise.
We need you to buy a house without wheels and stop.

… Also as noted elsewhere there does seem to be a current of “evolution is great, learn its rules, follow its example” so that we can survive. ‘cept that we know evolution were it ranked in a moral way is at least as bad as it is good… an amoral destroyer of countless species… a designer who set up endless bloody, brutal, horrific warfare between predator and prey to last millions of years. ie natural = good. ...

Humans are the anti evolutionary species. We inoculate ourselves to prevent natural selection for disease resistance, and we do much, much more.
And then we invented war. We should, by rights, be selecting for ‘war resistance’ (not the political variety).

Another great idea how to sell books and make money.

Humans are the anti evolutionary species. We inoculate ourselves to prevent natural selection for disease resistance, and we do much, much more.
And then we invented war. We should, by rights, be selecting for ‘war resistance’ (not the political variety).

I am not sure this is so. It could be argued that innoculating ourselves IS disease resistance. Consider polio..humanity has not been made more vulnerable to polio because polio has essentially been wiped from the face of the planet. I don’t care how you keep score, polio did not win.
Supporting a policy whereby “unfit"(lets say blind or diabetic) individuals survive means the odds of the survival of my genes, on average, go up because there’s a random chance I will be “unfit” or that my children will be. An additional selective benefit of this information age is that some blind, diabetic, or immunodeficient person could cure blindness, diabetes, or aids resulting in my survival or that of my offspring.

As far as war… well that’s merely an advanced, systematized form of violence that is nowhere more typical than in “nature”. Man did not invent violence and brutality.. he invented something far more precious..  sadness and horror in response to it.
(with perhaps some level of exception for some higher mammals)

… Also as noted elsewhere there does seem to be a current of “evolution is great, learn its rules, follow its example” so that we can survive. ‘cept that we know evolution were it ranked in a moral way is at least as bad as it is good… an amoral destroyer of countless species… a designer who set up endless bloody, brutal, horrific warfare between predator and prey to last millions of years. ie natural = good. ...

Humans are the anti evolutionary species. We inoculate ourselves to prevent natural selection for disease resistance, and we do much, much more.
And then we invented war. We should, by rights, be selecting for ‘war resistance’ (not the political variety).

Saying that evolution is great and we should follow its example is like saying cancer is great, we should learn by example.

Evolution is more about the species that die off than the species that survive. Dodging bullets is nearly impossible.

And human beings are hardly anti-evolutionary. We, just like every species, have developed our own ways of fighting disease and controlling populations. It is a truism that a characteristic that is adaptive in one context is maladaptive in another. Allergies arise from an overly effective immune system. Wars arise from deficiencies in food, water, sexual partners, etc. (and community leaders’ attempts to manage such shortages). We’re a social species, so it makes sense that we don’t just kill our nest-mates, as do many birds and mammals, but as a group attempt to murder another group that “threatens” us (or rather, threatens our leaders).

Saying that evolution is great and we should follow its example is like saying cancer is great, we should learn by example.

Evolution is more about the species that die off than the species that survive. Dodging bullets is nearly impossible.

And human beings are hardly anti-evolutionary. We, just like every species, have developed our own ways of fighting disease and controlling populations. It is a truism that a characteristic that is adaptive in one context is maladaptive in another. Allergies arise from an overly effective immune system. Wars arise from deficiencies in food, water, sexual partners, etc. (and community leaders’ attempts to manage such shortages). We’re a social species, so it makes sense that we don’t just kill our nest-mates, as do many birds and mammals, but as a group attempt to murder another group that “threatens” us (or rather, threatens our leaders).

They have found examples of human skeletons several thousands of years old with defects like spina bifida or serious injuries. In animals these would quickly lead to death but humans have cared for each other enough to save lives. This does, of course, allow for reproduction which would not occur in animals.

Saying that evolution is great and we should follow its example is like saying cancer is great, we should learn by example.

Evolution is more about the species that die off than the species that survive. Dodging bullets is nearly impossible.

And human beings are hardly anti-evolutionary. We, just like every species, have developed our own ways of fighting disease and controlling populations. It is a truism that a characteristic that is adaptive in one context is maladaptive in another. Allergies arise from an overly effective immune system. Wars arise from deficiencies in food, water, sexual partners, etc. (and community leaders’ attempts to manage such shortages). We’re a social species, so it makes sense that we don’t just kill our nest-mates, as do many birds and mammals, but as a group attempt to murder another group that “threatens” us (or rather, threatens our leaders).

They have found examples of human skeletons several thousands of years old with defects like spina bifida or serious injuries. In animals these would quickly lead to death but humans have cared for each other enough to save lives. This does, of course, allow for reproduction which would not occur in animals.

I think you misunderstand evolution. The fact that a species continues to survive is testimony that it has adapted. Perhaps human caring has spread to compassion for ill individuals, but that is simply an artifact of the community spirit that originally allowed us to survive against predators, hunt large beasts that would feed an entire village, and build languages to impart information across generations.

Just because an instinctual behavior or characteristic can have alternative outcomes does not make it contra-evolutionary. It simply means that some things that aid in adaptation can be used in a variety of ways. (For example, because a canine instinctively chases small animals, they can also play fetch. The same basic activity feeds them in one context and builds a social bond in another.)

I think you misunderstand evolution. The fact that a species continues to survive is testimony that it has adapted. Perhaps human caring has spread to compassion for ill individuals, but that is simply an artifact of the community spirit that originally allowed us to survive against predators, hunt large beasts that would feed an entire village, and build languages to impart information across generations.

Just because an instinctual behavior or characteristic can have alternative outcomes does not make it contra-evolutionary. It simply means that some things that aid in adaptation can be used in a variety of ways. (For example, because a canine instinctively chases small animals, they can also play fetch. The same basic activity feeds them in one context and builds a social bond in another.)

If we adapted by evolution, we would develop a resistance to diseases like polio, AIDS and the like. Instead we search for and sometimes find ways to prevent the diseases from occurring. This is a different response than evolution.

I think you misunderstand evolution. The fact that a species continues to survive is testimony that it has adapted. Perhaps human caring has spread to compassion for ill individuals, but that is simply an artifact of the community spirit that originally allowed us to survive against predators, hunt large beasts that would feed an entire village, and build languages to impart information across generations.

Just because an instinctual behavior or characteristic can have alternative outcomes does not make it contra-evolutionary. It simply means that some things that aid in adaptation can be used in a variety of ways. (For example, because a canine instinctively chases small animals, they can also play fetch. The same basic activity feeds them in one context and builds a social bond in another.)

If we adapted by evolution, we would develop a resistance to diseases like polio, AIDS and the like. Instead we search for and sometimes find ways to prevent the diseases from occurring. This is a different response than evolution.

Again, you have an entirely too small view of evolution. Our intelligence is an evolutionary advantage to fight off such diseases, in just the same way that a skunk’s scent is an advantage for it to fight off my Golden Retriever. You’re argument is engaging is special pleading, that somehow evolution stops when it involves intelligent problem solving. If you define intelligence out of evolution, you define humanity out of nature. And quite frankly, that is nonsense.

AVOC while we are creating new vaccines and antibiotics to combat these diseases, they continue their evolution to survive as well. Life dances with many partners! Or look at it as a chess game, we make a move, create a new antibiotic, the organism makes a move to develop resistance. It’s all evolution!

Again, you have an entirely too small view of evolution. Our intelligence is an evolutionary advantage to fight off such diseases, in just the same way that a skunk’s scent is an advantage for it to fight off my Golden Retriever. You’re argument is engaging is special pleading, that somehow evolution stops when it involves intelligent problem solving. If you define intelligence out of evolution, you define humanity out of nature. And quite frankly, that is nonsense.

We are different from the other creatures. Note that we even develop treatments for our animals, domestic and domesticated. I’m merely pointing out the difference between intelligence and knowledge and the means to record it; and the sort of learning some mammals impart to their offspring or inherit from their parents.
There is a qualitative difference between us and the rest of species, and how we deal with diseases.

Again, you have an entirely too small view of evolution. Our intelligence is an evolutionary advantage to fight off such diseases, in just the same way that a skunk’s scent is an advantage for it to fight off my Golden Retriever. You’re argument is engaging is special pleading, that somehow evolution stops when it involves intelligent problem solving. If you define intelligence out of evolution, you define humanity out of nature. And quite frankly, that is nonsense.

We are different from the other creatures. Note that we even develop treatments for our animals, domestic and domesticated. I’m merely pointing out the difference between intelligence and knowledge and the means to record it; and the sort of learning some mammals impart to their offspring or inherit from their parents.
There is a qualitative difference between us and the rest of species, and how we deal with diseases.

... in the same way that there is a qualitative difference between bacteria, maggots, and pumas consume a corpse, a qualitative difference between how giraffes reach the leaves they eat and how how monkeys reach the leaves they eat, a qualitative difference between how marsupials are born & suckled and how other mammals are born and suckled.

Every creature must adapt to its environment in order to effectively produce later generations. Humans have done so amazingly well, but all we need to throw a kink into that hose is a meteor of sufficient size, a warrior whose ambition & firepower overwhelm his judgment, or a virus whose destructive power is matched by its ability to evade detection and treatment. (The only reason HIV has not risen to that level is that it remains relatively difficult to contract. We would not have been so lucky if it ever developed the capacity to be airborne.)

Every creature that survives has beaten nature’s blunt instruments of destruction, but only for now.

… Every creature must adapt to its environment in order to effectively produce later generations. Humans have done so amazingly well, but all we need to throw a kink into that hose is a meteor of sufficient size, a warrior whose ambition & firepower overwhelm his judgment, or a virus whose destructive power is matched by its ability to evade detection and treatment. (The only reason HIV has not risen to that level is that it remains relatively difficult to contract. We would not have been so lucky if it ever developed the capacity to be airborne.)

Every creature that survives has beaten nature’s blunt instruments of destruction, but only for now.

You’ve just proved my point. If a disease like airborne HIV was attacking, say, wildebeest, those with no resistance would all die out. If it was attacking humans we would learn about it, communicate to each other and, failing a better method, would start to use masks or other methods to protect ourselves. Even in the days of the Black Plague and the like people knew enough to flee, although not enough to make the best decisions about it. We are different.

I don’t get it.  I understand the intent, but I don’t understand the scaffold on which the intent is built.  Seems like a lot of slight of hand to me.  The emperor’s new clothes may be cut from cloth that is real, but in this context, the clothes are still ..... well, invisible!

… Every creature must adapt to its environment in order to effectively produce later generations. Humans have done so amazingly well, but all we need to throw a kink into that hose is a meteor of sufficient size, a warrior whose ambition & firepower overwhelm his judgment, or a virus whose destructive power is matched by its ability to evade detection and treatment. (The only reason HIV has not risen to that level is that it remains relatively difficult to contract. We would not have been so lucky if it ever developed the capacity to be airborne.)

Every creature that survives has beaten nature’s blunt instruments of destruction, but only for now.

You’ve just proved my point. If a disease like airborne HIV was attacking, say, wildebeest, those with no resistance would all die out. If it was attacking humans we would learn about it, communicate to each other and, failing a better method, would start to use masks or other methods to protect ourselves. Even in the days of the Black Plague and the like people knew enough to flee, although not enough to make the best decisions about it. We are different.

Animals also change behaviors to adapt to diseases in their environment. Wild dogs did not die out from distemper, or rabies which are invariably fatal. Chimpanzees are also susceptible to Ebola, they are still around. Sure, they can’t manufacture antibiotics or antivirals, but they do change their behaviors to adapt as we do. Antibiotics give us another weapon, but so much more disease can be stopped by just and improvement in hygienic conditions, and antibiotics don’t always save us from even the most mundane of diseases. Jim Henson died of pneumonia as a rather young man--a nasty pneumonia that you would have had no reason to believe he would ever acquire and medication could not stop.

Jim Henson died of pneumonia as a rather young man--a nasty pneumonia that you would have had no reason to believe he would ever acquire and medication could not stop.

Didn’t he fail to avail himself of good medical care?

On May 12, 1990, Henson traveled to Ahoskie, North Carolina with his daughter Cheryl to visit his father and stepmother. The next day, feeling tired and sick, he consulted a physician in North Carolina, who could find no evidence of pneumonia by physical examination and prescribed no treatment except aspirin. Henson returned to New York on an earlier flight and canceled a Muppet recording session scheduled for May 14.

Henson’s wife Jane, from whom he was separated, came to visit and sat with him talking throughout the evening. By 2 a.m. on May 15, 1990 he was having trouble breathing and began coughing up blood. He suggested to Jane that he might be dying, but did not want to bother going to the hospital. She later told People Magazine that it was likely due to his desire not to be a bother to people.

At 4 a.m., he finally agreed to go to New York Hospital, at which point his body was rapidly shutting down. By the time he was admitted at 4:58 a.m., he could no longer breathe on his own and had abscesses in his lungs. He was placed on a mechanical ventilator to help him breathe, but his condition deteriorated rapidly into septic shock despite aggressive treatment with multiple antibiotics. Only twenty hours later, on May 16, 1990, at 12:58 a.m., Henson died from organ failure at the age of 53.

Part 2 - Rev. Michael Dowd: Thank God For Evolution

I haven’t seen a new thread started, but I just listened and had a few thoughts.

I found this to be an extremely interesting conversation.

I suppose my first question would be; if we take the argument for the importance of communicating the fact and theories of evolution, then by extension the understanding that humans are story telling animals - as a twain component then to incorporate a co-evolutionary insight - is there not a danger when creating a more factual interpretation, to relate in a deep way thus provide real world consequence while retaining the recognized capacity to ‘tell stories to teach’ - of forwarding this idea from what sounds like a purely Christianized perspective? What I mean, by providing the language of one belief system to incorporate these insights, are we not asking for others who do not interpret the world this way to find another reason to question evolution? Given the fact that the largest segment in U.S. that does not accept evolution by natural selection is Christian, and the personal beliefs of the Rev., this may be an inconsequential question.

I was a bit surprised that Dawkins allowed that letter to be published in the book. Here’s why, without going into a complete comparison and taking large chunks of how he thinks on the issue, let me offer an example. When the respected scientist, evolutionary biologist, Joan Roughgarden presented her ideas that she highlights in her book, Evolution and Christian Faith: Reflections of an Evolutionary Biologist, which were essentially to take Biblical myth stories and relate them in a way for those who share her faith tradition to better come to grips with and accept evolution - Richard reacted with a fair amount of disdain (nearly mocking the enterprise - this was at Beyond Belief ‘06). His point basically was, as he said; “Why bother”, the science speaks perfectly well for itself. I will admit that I am sometimes confused by Richard’s position in some respects on this issue. For example he will recommend Kenneth Miller’s book, Finding Darwin’s God, to certain creationist.

I think part of my confusion to the above issue is do to how we take certain perspective in a larger context. For example, even though Richard would do the above, I have not come into contact with criticism going back and forth, due to Sam Harris saying; “There is no question but that nominally religious scientists like Francis Collins and Kenneth R. Miller are doing lasting harm to our discourse by the accommodations they have made to religious irrationality.” Now, I realize we are talking about different people, but, and a large but I think, what Sam is saying in the larger context of religion is diametrically apposed to what Richard does. Am I wrong? To further extrapolate than, I would surmise that Harris would have the same tone towards Dowd’s book. It would almost seem to me that what Harris does on some occasions is to say we must accept their (the religious) rules to engage in the battle. In this way then it is to state that since the religious do not accept certain principles that the discourse then must accept that the religious hold one overarching truth and thus the only way to engage is a bottom down approach. Thus a blurred line becomes evident when in moral debate, where the belief is that a structure must be mainly dismantled in order to see real change in morality. The problem then becomes, as in criticisms Sam has leveled towards secular scientist and the religious scientist alike, that some of his targets take much of the same moral stand, such as in Collins’ forwarding of not only evolution, but stem cell research. The dialogue then that must be engaged starts from a position of either or, when in fact it appears quite different. This leads inevitably in my opinion to a side debate about “appeasement”. The appeasement debate is problematic only in that it paints a stark picture without the subtleties we find, such as Richard’s and Collins’ stand. (I am in no way drawing anyone here in a painted corner, only expressing what I see and using example).

To further the above point, we have seen many people lately defining certain religious language in rational naturalistic terms (such as Harris in that he forwards words such as mysticism and spirituality - he is then in his way creating a narrative by admitting the usefulness of such terms). Daniel Dennett has done this with the word soul, by redefining the term in light of scientific discovery, he to is creating a narrative. To take the word God, Stuart Kauffman seems to be forwarding an idea that sounds like what Dowd is saying, but eliminating all context to a ‘supernatural’. But, here we find Shermer and Harris in an agreement in that the criticism here is that even though this may sound good, the term God is so connected to religion that the enterprise is in trouble from the start. My response to this (but not a statement of disagreement entirely) is that; so what? Shermer and Harris will redefine certain terms that are laden with religious meaning, but not the big one....

The Rev. brought up Robert Wright and E. O. Wilson which reminded me of this conversation between the two - HERE - they touch very much on issues brought up by Michael.

Part 2 - Rev. Michael Dowd: Thank God For Evolution

I haven’t seen a new thread started, but I just listened and had a few thoughts.

I found this to be an extremely interesting conversation.

I suppose my first question would be; if we take the argument for the importance of communicating the fact and theories of evolution, then by extension the understanding that humans are story telling animals - as a twain component then to incorporate a co-evolutionary insight - is there not a danger when creating a more factual interpretation, to relate in a deep way thus provide real world consequence while retaining the recognized capacity to ‘tell stories to teach’ - of forwarding this idea from what sounds like a purely Christianized perspective? What I mean, by providing the language of one belief system to incorporate these insights, are we not asking for others who do not interpret the world this way to find another reason to question evolution? Given the fact that the largest segment in U.S. that does not accept evolution by natural selection is Christian, and the personal beliefs of the Rev., this may be an inconsequential question.

I was a bit surprised that Dawkins allowed that letter to be published in the book. Here’s why, without going into a complete comparison and taking large chunks of how he thinks on the issue, let me offer an example. When the respected scientist, evolutionary biologist, Joan Roughgarden presented her ideas that she highlights in her book, Evolution and Christian Faith: Reflections of an Evolutionary Biologist, which were essentially to take Biblical myth stories and relate them in a way for those who share her faith tradition to better come to grips with and accept evolution - Richard reacted with a fair amount of disdain (nearly mocking the enterprise - this was at Beyond Belief ‘06). His point basically was, as he said; “Why bother”, the science speaks perfectly well for itself. I will admit that I am sometimes confused by Richard’s position in some respects on this issue. For example he will recommend Kenneth Miller’s book, Finding Darwin’s God, to certain creationist.

I think part of my confusion to the above issue is do to how we take certain perspective in a larger context. For example, even though Richard would do the above, I have not come into contact with criticism going back and forth, due to Sam Harris saying; “There is no question but that nominally religious scientists like Francis Collins and Kenneth R. Miller are doing lasting harm to our discourse by the accommodations they have made to religious irrationality.” Now, I realize we are talking about different people, but, and a large but I think, what Sam is saying in the larger context of religion is diametrically apposed to what Richard does. Am I wrong? To further extrapolate than, I would surmise that Harris would have the same tone towards Dowd’s book. It would almost seem to me that what Harris does on some occasions is to say we must accept their (the religious) rules to engage in the battle. In this way then it is to state that since the religious do not accept certain principles that the discourse then must accept that the religious hold one overarching truth and thus the only way to engage is a bottom down approach. Thus a blurred line becomes evident when in moral debate, where the belief is that a structure must be mainly dismantled in order to see real change in morality. The problem then becomes, as in criticisms Sam has leveled towards secular scientist and the religious scientist alike, that some of his targets take much of the same moral stand, such as in Collins’ forwarding of not only evolution, but stem cell research. The dialogue then that must be engaged starts from a position of either or, when in fact it appears quite different. This leads inevitably in my opinion to a side debate about “appeasement”. The appeasement debate is problematic only in that it paints a stark picture without the subtleties we find, such as Richard’s and Collins’ stand. (I am in no way drawing anyone here in a painted corner, only expressing what I see and using example).

To further the above point, we have seen many people lately defining certain religious language in rational naturalistic terms (such as Harris in that he forwards words such as mysticism and spirituality - he is then in his way creating a narrative by admitting the usefulness of such terms). Daniel Dennett has done this with the word soul, by redefining the term in light of scientific discovery, he to is creating a narrative. To take the word God, Stuart Kauffman seems to be forwarding an idea that sounds like what Dowd is saying, but eliminating all context to a ‘supernatural’. But, here we find Shermer and Harris in an agreement in that the criticism here is that even though this may sound good, the term God is so connected to religion that the enterprise is in trouble from the start. My response to this (but not a statement of disagreement entirely) is that; so what? Shermer and Harris will redefine certain terms that are laden with religious meaning, but not the big one....

The Rev. brought up Robert Wright and E. O. Wilson which reminded me of this conversation between the two - HERE - they touch very much on issues brought up by Michael.

Good points. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/4519/#46236

It’s difficult for me not to see both VOS and Michael Dowd as engaging in a semantic flim-flam.

They (sneakily? naively?) define terms in non-traditional ways (such as VOS’ defining intellect out of evolutionary adaptation or Dowd’s attempts to weave evolution into religious language). In so doing, they risk infecting the enterprise of scientific inquiry with subtly desired outcomes. This infuses the process with a need for a particular answer that can give us meaning, and at the same time can prevent us from accurately describing nature. The Church’s similarly anthropocentric needs got Galileo confined to quarters for the last decade of his life. He resisted joining the hierarchy in seeing the earth as more special than any other heavenly body. (It is only special to us humans because it’s our home.)

It seems to me that Dowd’s and VOS’ description of humanity is the same as religion’s. When we lean on the outcomes from science to verify our sense of meaning, we cease to engage in science, and instead simply look to nature for proof-texting.

My wish would be to see Tom Flynn respond to the podcast (I saw his name pop up in the member list - Norm Allen also would have something interesting to say I’m sure).

It’s difficult for me not to see both VOS and Michael Dowd as engaging in a semantic flim-flam.

This seems like a criticism - but I don’t follow your logic.

he can’t even admit that christianity is immature - “too much baggage” - he also said something similar to evolution is “random chance” - i can’t stand this person’s message!- there is no good evidence for the supernatural nor to dress up my existence in religious language-

“a way to interpret science in traditional spiritual language” - I DON’T get that argument -

“god is communicating today just as real as in bilical times” - i think he let it slip that he believes in the bible literally-

“the nested nature of creativity” = god or ultimate reality - uh ??? what??

-the more this man explains his position - the LESSS i understand

this man is completely a mess- and lives like an evangelist...out of people’s homes

“common sacred story” ?? that would be evolution and I don’t think sacred has any meaning at all
“validates scientic and religious ways of speaking” - something is either true or false not both and when religious ways of thinking contradict the science, i’ll take the science thx-

<sighs>

ENOUGH!

this man is completely a mess-

Here is a blog with another review

http://de-conversion.com/2008/08/24/thank-god-for-evolution-by-michael-dowd/

Dowd’s resulting theology of Humanistic/Christian/Universalist views is a confusing mishmash of vague spirituality, mythology, pop psychology and a smattering of science.

This blog claims to be a site for “resources for skeptical, de-converting, or former christians”

this man is completely a mess- and lives like an evangelist...out of people’s homes

But you have to admit....he has a great gig!

The morning after my interview with D.J., I realized that I could shorten “7 Reasons” to “4 Reasons...”. For those interested, I’ve posted “4 Reasons Why Nothing Matters More Than What We Think About Evolution” here: http://thankgodforevolution.com/node/1132

Thanks, Jackson.

That was a well done review I think, they bring up some of the same points as Michael Booker in skeptic magazine. I’m stuck on a certain point about this (not that there isn’t others - though I must admit that I can’t find to much terribly wrong); even though the book does not forward a ‘supernatural’ God and it is reported that it has been; - “endorsed by 5 Nobel laureates and 120 other esteemed scientists, ministers, priests, rabbis, theologians, and other religious and cultural leaders across the spectrum, from Baptists to Buddhists, including many respected atheists,” - I can’t get away from the idea that a rather bad mistake has been made in forwarding his effort with a Christianized view (though I do recognize its not all consuming - and I think I understand why Dawkins would endorse that letter being published). Here’s what I mean - take a look at the book cover - Book Cover of Thank God for Evolution

Let’s look at your 4 reasons.

1. A shared sacred story that honors both objective truth and subjective meaning...A sacred evolutionary worldview helps us celebrate both realms: the day realm of objective truth and the night realm of subjective meaning.

From this are we supposed to take it that all deep meaning if necessarily religious in nature? It is not.  Other problems:
A) anything “Sacred” or “Reverential” immediately becomes resistance to change and questioning. The effect seems to magnify with time (see The Roman Catholic Church)
B) scientists and people in general have merrily discussed the deep-thought subjective implications of evolution for the last hundred+ years. This has been easy and appropriate without ever having to call on the bullshittery of religious-speak. No one was sitting around waiting for your grand ideas in order to be able to talk biophilosophy.

2. REALizes religion, sanctifies science, and reveals the true magnitude of both: ...

For example, the biblical story of the fall of Adam and Eve and the concept of Original Sin superbly reveal a deep truth that has only recently been understood in a factual way, thanks to evolutionary brain science and evolutionary psychology. Yes, we all have powerful instincts: instincts that served the survival and reproductive needs of our ancestors in early human and pre-human times, but that are now sometimes very much out of sync with the demands of civilized life.

The Biblical story also informs all readers in clear, unmistable terms: it’s your fault. All pain and suffering in the world is your doing. This is 180 degrees away from EP answers. No one is responsible for their genetic hand or that of the species or the fact that pain and suffering is inextricably woven into life on planet Earth. This is to say nothing of the upsetting sexism of the story, also destroyed by any scientific perspective. You continue..

Thus, one of the greatest gifts afforded by religiously nourishing interpretations of the science-based history of the universe is that it becomes obvious how unnatural-sounding (“supernatural”) language can be interpreted in undeniably real, and utterly experiential, ways.

In other words, you can make it obvious to believers their book o’magical tales does not mesh with reality? Scientists and nonbelievers have been doing this for centuries if not longer. Your solution is to say “put down your religious myths and pick up our science myths- the magic tastes the same!” This is not an improvement in any way.

3. Unmasks the powers of manipulation and clarifies our way forward: When we understand our brain’s creation story and its deep structure we can easily see how the media ...

Actually I agree with everything about point 3, until you get to this..

To use religious language: only by understanding the major breakthroughs in evolution—how God actually created everything, how it measurably occurred—can we possibly know what God is up to today or what God’s will is for humanity and for the body of life as a whole.

Exactly how did this improve what was said before it? What God is up to today? What? Maybe a God who authored an evolutionary process guaranteed to kill 99.99% of every species ever to live, responsible for ebola and Malaria and fatal appendix ruptures (by design!), etc.., isn’t quite worth our checking up on.

4. Key to alleviating suffering, living life fully, and loving the life you live: So much suffering in the world today can be traced to people and groups being out of integrity—that is, living day by day in ways that just don’t square with Reality, ...

This section is fuzzyheaded and naive. A lot of suffering comes about because people do what does square with reality, at least their own. People steal and benefit from stealing. They lie and benefit from lieing. As a society, these are harmful of course but societies are not the unit of evolution. Genes are. The reason we have ignoble instincts is that they benefitted their owners. The best science indicates that rape is or was a successful reproductive strategy for some individuals. This “squares” fine with reality. Here our evolution must be fought, not welcomed.. not treated as if part of some wonderful “trajectory” if we can just follow it.

Evolution is driven by mindless forces with an amoral disregard to suffering or injustice. Morality is not and should not be so imprisoned.

Understanding evolution is critical for a hundred good reasons.. but mattering more than anything else? Madness.

Michael Dowd insists that evolution must be fable-ized to give mankind hope and a sense of direction in the future. Problem is, as long as you don’t have a solid grasp of the inherent messiness and arbitrariness of evolution in actual nature, then you can interpret it in such a way. But when you really grasp it, you can’t in my opinion. Michael’s hope is that society never truly grasps what evolution through natural selection actually is. I am reminded of my favorite line by Sam Harris in one of his talks which can be applied here. As evolution becomes accepted as religious fable its interpretation will become a “masterpiece of political correctness”.

Do we look at humanity and say “you can’t handle the truth!”

Dowd seems to think so. Or maybe Dowd has already conned himself into thinking that his rosy picture is some sort of accurate depiction of reality.

“Life is tragic, and the more we understand the more tragic it gets"- Stephen Weinberg said to Richard Dawkins. But no, says Dowd. Watching the cuckoo chick push the others out of the nest to their deaths is glorious and beautiful. It nurtures hope and bolsters our integrity. Pfwwwwwww.. mmm thats some good $%^ man.

I am reminded of my favorite line by Sam Harris in one of his talks which can be applied here. As evolution becomes accepted as religious fable its interpretation will become a “masterpiece of political correctness”.

Hi Jackpot, I must have missed Sam saying this, could you let me know where I can find this quote in context.

The reference was in his beyond belief 2 talk about 16 minutes in.  http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief2/watch/harris.php

He is talking about the romanticism of Jonathan Haidt’s views (which is what reminded me of the reverend and his attempts to romanticise evolution into something emotionally palatable and somehow inspiring to humanity)-

HARRIS- Jonathan Haidt has said that N. Korea was clearly beyond the pale, a human experiment gone awry,
and these people were needlessly suffering, this is unethical. I await with some feelings of glee his attempt to adumbrate a morality that will focus appropriate condemnation
on N. Korea but will leave Islam totally exonerated. I *guarantee* you that will be a masterpiece of political correctness.

The morning after my interview with D.J., I realized that I could shorten “7 Reasons” to “4 Reasons...”. For those interested, I’ve posted “4 Reasons Why Nothing Matters More Than What We Think About Evolution” here: http://thankgodforevolution.com/node/1132

I know you’re trying to build (or repair) bridges, but you’re engaging in nothing more than Utopian reverie.

“… For the first time in human history we have a creation story that not only addresses life’s biggest questions—Who are we? Where did we come from? Where are we going? Why are we here? How are we to live?—but helps us answer those questions in ways that are both religiously inspiring and scientifically accurate. No longer are subjective meaning and objective truth isolated from one another in separate domains. ...”

“… Only by knowing how we really got here and the trajectory we’re undeniably on can we possibly respond to global issues like climate change and terrorism without making things worse. ...”

By these statements, you’re trying to escape science, not embrace it. For example, if you really accepted evolution by natural selection, you would not look there for any answer to “Where are we going? Why are we here? How are we to live?” (Most skeptics, I think, consider it futile to search for ultimate answers.) And science provides no Utopian “trajectory” that has any meaning to our collective lives. Individually, and culturally, we define meaning & purpose for ourselves, but those answers don’t arise from scientific inquiry any more than do the works of Whitman or Wagner. If we are decide to reduce threats to our existence, we need look no further than evolutionarily achieved survival instinct, not some ultimate goal in the future.

And regarding the consequences of your writings, I really find the schmaltzing of science to be a diversion from meaningful dialogue and perhaps even dangerous. Scientific inquiry arises our innate desire to describe our surroundings and understand its processes. But if you believe that science will tell you how to live, you can just as easily justify eugenics and Social Darwinism as you can conflict-avoidance morality.

The reference was in his beyond belief 2 talk about 16 minutes in.  http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief2/watch/harris.php


He is talking about the romanticism of Jonathan Haidt’s views (which is what reminded me of the reverend and his attempts to romanticise evolution into something emotionally palatable and somehow inspiring to humanity)-

HARRIS- Jonathan Haidt has said that N. Korea was clearly beyond the pale, a human experiment gone awry,
and these people were needlessly suffering, this is unethical. I await with some feelings of glee his attempt to adumbrate a morality that will focus appropriate condemnation
on N. Korea but will leave Islam totally exonerated. I *guarantee* you that will be a masterpiece of political correctness.

Thanks, Jackpot. I do recall Sam saying this. I do have the feeling, with what I’ve seen thus far, that Sam’s view would be very similar to yours.

even though the book does not forward a ‘supernatural’ God and it is reported that it has been; - “endorsed by 5 Nobel laureates and 120 other esteemed scientists, ministers, priests, rabbis, theologians, and other religious and cultural leaders across the spectrum, from Baptists to Buddhists, including many respected atheists,” - I can’t get away from the idea that a rather bad mistake has been made in forwarding his effort with a Christianized view

I have a problem with the “there is more than one kind of truth” line of thinking.

Regarding the question of whether or not one can interpret the history of cosmos, Earth, life, and humanity in religiously inspiring ways, I recommend the following links:
http://evolutionaryspirituality.wikia.com/wiki/Evolutionary_perspective and
http://evolutionaryspirituality.wikia.com/wiki/Introduction_to_Evolutionary_Spirituality

It’s also possible to interpret the very same history of the universe in non-inspiring ways, of course.  What’s not possible is not interpreting it someway (see Primack and Abrams below).

For those interested in this subject, I especially recommend the following books:

Robert Wright – Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny
http://www.nonzero.org/
Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Nonzero-Logic-Destiny-Robert-Wright/dp/0679758941/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219621367&sr=1-1

John Stewart – Evolution’s Arrow
http://www4.tpg.com.au/users/jes999/
Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Evolutions-Arrow-Direction-Evolution-Humanity/dp/0646394975/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219621408&sr=1-1

My wife Connie Barlow’s book: Evolution Extended: Biological Debates on the Meaning of Life, originally published in 1995 by MIT Press and now self-published in paperback, is also helpful on this topic:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0262023733/qid=1125279783/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-1049298-3891134?v=glance&s=books

Joel R. Primack and Nancy Ellen Abrams - The View from the Center of the Universe
http://viewfromthecenter.com/buzz/reviews.html
Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/View-Center-Universe-Discovering-Extraordinary/dp/B000MR8TEU/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219621313&sr=8-1

Finally, I recommend you all actually read my own book, “Thank God for Evolution”: http://thankgodforevolution.com
(If not for yourself, read it with an eye to recommending it to your religious family members, friends, or co-workers, if you have any.)
The fact that 5 Nobel laureates endorsed TGFE - http://thankgodforevolution/nobel - may not impress you.  But the fact that D.J. Grothe said he considered it a “must read”! ...

even though the book does not forward a ‘supernatural’ God and it is reported that it has been; - “endorsed by 5 Nobel laureates and 120 other esteemed scientists, ministers, priests, rabbis, theologians, and other religious and cultural leaders across the spectrum, from Baptists to Buddhists, including many respected atheists,” - I can’t get away from the idea that a rather bad mistake has been made in forwarding his effort with a Christianized view

I have a problem with the “there is more than one kind of truth” line of thinking.

Well, if you’ve ever lived through teenager-angst, ever had an argument with a spouse, ever considered your boss absolutely out-to-lunch, then you’ve encountered different kinds of truth.

The problem arises when people think that there are different kinds of facts.

And often the fact most relevant to a topic is that nobody knows the answer.

FYI...For those interested, here are resources on the subject of evolutionary emergence and meaning that I cite at the end of my book, Thank God for Evolution)…

Barlow, Connie, ed. Evolution Extended: Biological Debates on the Meaning of Life
Beck, Don and Chris Cowan. Spiral Dynamics
Bloom, Howard. The Lucifer Principle • Global Brain
Carroll, Sean B. Endless Forms Most Beautiful • The Making of the Fittest
Chaisson, Eric. Epic of Evolution: Seven Ages of the Cosmos
Corning, Peter. Nature’s Magic • Holistic Darwinism
Dawkins, Richard. Climbing Mount Improbable • The Selfish Gene
Eiseley, Loren. The Immense Journey • Starthrower
Elgin, Duane. Awakening Earth
Hubbard, Barbara Marx. Conscious Evolution
Huxley, Julian. Religion Without Revelation
Liebes, Sidney, et al. A Walk Through Time
Logan, Robert K. The Sixth Language
Margulis, Lynn and Dorion Sagan. Microcosmos • Dazzle Gradually
Morowitz, Harold. Emergence of Everything: How the World Became Complex
Morris, Simon Conway. Life’s Solutions • The Deep Structure of Biology
Ong, Walter. Orality and Literacy • The Presence of the Word
Richerson, Peter and Robert Boyd. Not by Genes Alone
Russell, Peter. Waking Up in Time • The Global Brain
Sahtouris, Elisabet. EarthDance: Living Systems in Evolution
Stewart, John. Evolution’s Arrow
Teilhard de Chardin. The Human Phenomenon • The Divine Milieu
Wright, Robert. Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny

Rev. Michael,

Have you had a chance to see Stuart Kauffman’s book, Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason, and Religion?

With regards to your book, Thank God for Evolution; I’ve read several reviews from skeptics, atheist and scientist, plus read blogs, general book reviews, listened to the PoI and Infidelguy interviews, checked your site out (plus of course I’ve been reading the input on this forum) ... and I will be recommending your book highly to my sister. She is a Christian, though no where near a “fundamentalist”, but she has a great deal of trouble getting a grip on ENS. She is very intelligent and I’ve tried many different approaches, but with little luck. She simply doesn’t see the overall significance and puts up a wall at the idea of human evolution.

Edited several times after noticing that I wasn’t clear that I was talking about Thank God for Evolution in the above paragraph.

I’ve seen Kauffman’s book but have not read it yet.  I’ve heard it’s good though Connie, my wife (who read a couple of chapters in it) said his writing style didn’t do much for her.

I hope you sister likes my book.  Let me know.

Best,

~ M

I hope you sister likes my book.  Let me know.

If I can get my sister to take this book and actually read it, I assure you I will be letting you know.

While searching out review material for the book (was going to grab a copy at the library but it’s reserved for some time), I purposefully tried to find what I would consider people that would be the hardest on the book. I ran down anyone that is in the war on religion mode.

I found a few, one being from PZ Myers. Thank God for Evolution! - July 17, 2007. It’s probably the hardest hitting review I’ve seen and yet there’s nowhere to tell me my decision to recommend this book to someone like my sister is ill advised, in fact at the end he is pointing out this idea. I’ve yet to see where the science is wrong, but there is a criticism that the way the science is presented can get wishy-washy. Taking all the material I’ve read on this book so far, all I can conjure up is that if this is successful over time, that would be an amazing feat.

This interview stuck a strong chord with me ... though admittedly it took me a long time to figure out where Michael was coming from. I may still not know.

Something I got out of this interview with Michael:
I think that in order to act with purpose in our daily lives, we must first build models of how we imagine ourselves to exist within our environment. A model might be as concrete as the location of my fingers and keys on my keyboard—or as ephemeral as the model of how I see my ideas fitting within the context of this thread. In all cases, we need these models in order to set short term and long term goals for ourselves. But none of us has enough factual knowledge to build complete models of our environments, so we necessarily fill in the blind spots with our guesses and abstractions.

Our models are necessarily abstractions of reality. We understand systems and relationships not by measuring each individual part of the system, but by abstracting the system as a whole. Symbols and metaphors are methods of abstraction.

“Religion” can serve much the same purpose on a societal scale as our personal models serve us on an individual scale. The story of Adam and Eve in the garden is a publicly shared model; it’s an attempt at creating an abstraction of and a model of an aspect of our social reality. Such stories in principle can have value as a method to organize society ultimately perhaps to work collectively toward common goals.

The real problem with the Adam and Eve story is that 2000+ years later, much of society is still stuck in that metaphor. They haven’t significantly evolved from that metaphore, despite new and better understanding about the facts of the world.

A point of criticism
As already pointed out in this thread, Michael uses the word “sacred” as if it’s a good thing, and I don’t see where he’s coming from on that. As I understand the word, it carries a lot of negative baggage.

When we call something “sacred”, aren’t we basically saying that it is off limits to be challenged? and isn’t this the essential problem inherent in our religions? Religious models of the world have been resistant to evolution (i.e. resistant to being remodeled based on factual information) because the authorities of religion label certain beliefs to be “sacred” .

jholt - you are correct.  PZ Myers did a fabulous job of humorously panning my book without really making any substantive criticisms.  The science in TGFE is sound.  It was vetted by many top scientists and science writers before the book went to press.  As I mentioned in my first post on this site, I invite anyone who would attempt to claim that my science is wrong or stretched to cite page and paragraph.

My way of teaching/preaching the science is designed to work - that is, it is designed to be alluring and effective in ushering religious folk into an evidential, science-based worldview and valuing THAT over ancient mythic stories.  Only time will tell, of course, whether or not I am successful in this.  But TGFE is at least my first best shot.

Riley - I use traditional “night language” (meaning-laden) words like “reverence”, “sacred”, and “holy” to point to that which is worthy of our deepest honoring, valuing, and respect.  The universe story (a.k.a, epic of evolution) is the story of the changing story.  Our knowledge of it will always be incomplete and our telling of it will always change.  Praise Darwin!

One more thing about the word “sacred"…

While words like this certainly do (understandably!) carry lots of negative baggage for skeptical and non-religious folk, such words also carry hugely positive meaning for the billions of religious people in the world that must, it seems to me, be reached and effectively brought into an evolutionary/ecological worldview in the coming decades—that is, for our species to have half a chance of surviving and thriving into the next century.

One more thing about the word “sacred"…

While words like this certainly do (understandably!) carry lots of negative baggage for skeptical and non-religious folk, such words also carry hugely positive meaning for the billions of religious people in the world that must, it seems to me, be reached and effectively brought into an evolutionary/ecological worldview in the coming decades—that is, for our species to have half a chance of surviving and thriving into the next century.

Mr. Dowd, thanks for taking time to respond here.

Your argument here hinges on the premise (1) that people need religion or some sort of quasi-religious outlook. Further (2) it seems to demand that broad acceptance of evolution requires we talk about it like we’re Pat Robertson trying to wring another dime from our enfeebled flock.

This is all demonstrably false. (1) This forum is full of atheists with no religion and no grandiose psuedo-religion either. We have as much reverence of good, important theories without ever having needed to mystify it or obfuscate it with negatively-charged god-speak. I doubt it is much different for the millions of other atheists who presumably have no idea who you are.
(2) Most of the western world accepts evolution (and is highly atheistic). America is a bit of a freak here, but notwithstanding.. acceptance is high in the rest of the modern, free world. We can rightly ask, how did it get that way? For this there are many good answers but assuredly one of them is not a sweeping campaign of magical feel-good storytelling.

This is not to say your book would not improve the situation for some. To me though, it’s like treatment for a drug addict. Methadone can help get a heroine addict clean but a better solution is to prevent the addiction in the first place- which seems to be what has happened everywhere else.

One more thing about the word “sacred"…

While words like this certainly do (understandably!) carry lots of negative baggage for skeptical and non-religious folk, such words also carry hugely positive meaning for the billions of religious people in the world that must, it seems to me, be reached and effectively brought into an evolutionary/ecological worldview in the coming decades—that is, for our species to have half a chance of surviving and thriving into the next century.

Thanks, Michael for taking the time to explain some of these finer points. Personally, I steer away from using loaded words such as; sacred, spiritual, soul, mysticism and of course God, when in discourse describing my experiences. But, I do try to recognize what others are telling me when they use such language and by extension understand their views. There is certainly a fair amount of people in the secular/atheist/humanist/skeptical communities that do frame discourse to allow for the use of such words.

I could highlight many examples, but since we’re trying to be specific I’d point out the way Sam Harris certain words, including sacred. This example is useful in that where the language is used is in fact part of a broader outline of how Sam views the subject of religion in our current state. This view is painted in stark terms that can not be interpreted in any other way than a very potent criticism of religion.

In the opening of The End of Faith, Sam states:

There is no denying that most of us have emotional and spiritual needs that are now addressed ”however obliquely and at a terrible price” by mainstream religion. And these are needs that a mere understanding of our world, scientific or otherwise, will never fulfill. There is clearly a sacred dimension to our existence, and coming to terms with it could well be the highest purpose of human life.

The question as to why Sam would take such a route may be better understood taken in broader perspective. He lays some of this out I believe in later chapters of the above book, but to be more