TWO RESEARCH PARADIGMS, WITH OR WITHOUT „GOD HYPOTHESIS”: C.S. LEWIS AND RICHARD DAWKINS

In this present paper we try to learn something about how to cope with analytical investigation of reality, by comparing the ideas of two iconic Oxford figures. On the one hand, the renowned atheist Richard Dawkins, and the Christian apologist C.S. Lewis, on the other. It is more than interesting to know how two great thinkers of the 20th century can raise and answer to questions of life, such as Reasoned belief, the so-called „God hypothesis” or concerning our place and purpose in this world. Both Dawkins and Lewis see intellectual reflection on the big questions as natural and significant. Both insist that their beliefs – atheism and Christianity respectively – demand and deserve intellectual seriousness and are capable of being developed into larger systems. Lewis’s apologetic approach generally takes the form of identifying a common human observation or experience, and then showing how it fits, naturally and plausibly, within a Christian way of looking at things. For Dawkins, there is no room for faith in science, precisely because the evidence compels us to draw certain valid conclusions. He proposes an absolute dichotomy between ‘blind faith’ and the ‘overwhelming scientific evidence. Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator, God, almost certainly does not exist, and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. An inevitable conclusion is that both Dawkins and Lewis are men of faith, in that both hold committed positions that cannot be proved right, but which they clearly regard as justified and reasonable. We must learn to live with a degree of rational uncertainty about our deepest beliefs and values.

Agloe, and How to Get Rid of It

This chapter looks at the modern form of the conflict thesis: that people must choose a side between God and science. Polemicists such as Richard Dawkins, popularizers such as Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and novelists such as Dan Brown are all considered as proponents of this view to one extent or another, and the content of their arguments is often very reminiscent of that of John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White. By now, though, nearly all of these two men’s points have been debunked in the literature, as has the conflict thesis—so why does it still have such a strong hold? The history of its development is followed, with particular attention paid to the great historian of science George Sarton, a disciple of White. The book finishes with a call for much needed reconciliation between science and religion, and with examples of people who are working toward such a goal.

Kulturanthropologie als Veränderungswissenschaft

Es sagt sich so leicht: unsere Welt verändert sich. Was aber verändert sich oder wird verändert? Wodurch, durch wen, warum? Cui bono? Leben wir in einer Welt „kreativer Zufälle“, von denen der Physiker Klaus Mainzer (2007) spricht? Oder lenkt dies vom „Egoismus der Gene“ ab, den der britische Biologe Richard Dawkins (1976) betont. Geschieht oder passiert Veränderung? Wird sie gemacht? Sind ´Egoismen der Kultur´, des Marktes, der Ökonomie daran beteiligt? Woher kommen diese? Welchen Sinn haben sie bei globalen Kooperations- und Konsensanforderungen? Und was ist zu tun, wenn sich herausstellt, dass die Bedingungen umwälzender Veränderungen menschengemacht und brutal und gewaltförmig sind, wie Saskia Sassen in ihrem Buch „Ausgrenzungen“ (2015) beschrieb. Oder, wenn wir uns selbst, unsere Körper, unsere Seinsweisen, unsere Denkweisen absichtlich verändern, wir eine Cyborgisierung (Haraway 1991) betreiben? Muss Wissenschaft dann explizit politisch werden? Sollten die ersten Schritte eine „experimental respecification of sociality with digital technologies“ (Marres & Gerlitz 2019, 3, Anm.1) sein? Mit diesen wenigen Fragen stelle ich verändern und machen in den Vordergrund meines Essays. Der Text ist ein Plädoyer für eine Kulturanthropologie, die sich dem reproduktiven Gattungsverhalten ebenso widmet wie Kultur-, Sozial-, Kommunikations-, Urbanisierungs-praxen, Kreativität, Maschinen- und Technologieentwicklungen.

Denken over religie. Deel III Hedendaagse perspectieven

Met Deel III. Hedendaagse perspectieven is auteur Valeer Neckebrouck tot het sluitstuk gekomen van de chronologisch opgevatte reeks Denken over religie. Antropologische theorie en godsdienst. De studie van de antropologie van de religie wordt in dit laatste deel vanuit de meest toonaangevende, hedendaagse modellen en perspectieven belicht. De secularisatietheorieën, het postmodernisme, het feminisme, het neodarwinisme en de cognitieve antropologie van de godsdienst worden uitvoerig behandeld, maar ook denkers als René Girard, Walter Burkert, Edward O. Wilson en Richard Dawkins passeren de revue. Met de behandeling van hedendaagse theoretische perspectieven in de antropologische studie van de godsdienst gaat het om onderzoeksterreinen die nog constant in beweging zijn, om inzichten die nog in volle ontwikkeling verkeren. Bijna dagelijks worden in de biologie nieuwe ontdekkingen gedaan waarvan sommige verplichten tot een radicale herziening van inzichten die voordien als vaststaande verworvenheden werden beschouwd. Omdat onze kennis op gebied van biologie en neurologie voortdurend evolueert, dient het bilan ervan steeds weer herschreven te worden. Met dit derde deel uit de reeks Denken over religie heeft Valeer Neckebrouck hiertoe onmiskenbaar een belangwekkende bijdrage geleverd. Neckebrouck brengt de lezer in dit finale volume een grondige analyse en kritische evaluatie van de verschillende theoretische systemen waarmee grote en minder grote geesten uit de recente westerse cultuurgeschiedenis getracht hebben het enigmatische fenomeen “religie” vanuit antropologisch standpunt te verhelderen. Voor eenieder die geïnteresseerd is in het fenomeen “religie” en wil weten hoe antropologen doorheen de geschiedenis over godsdienst hebben gedacht, is deze trilogie een onmisbaar en bijzonder rijk gestoffeerd naslagwerk. Een zo gedetailleerde beschrijving en kritische evaluatie van de behandelde materie was tot nog toe in geen enkel taalgebied voorhanden.

The Forgotten meme. On the example of Life and works of Placyd Jankowski

Placyd Jankowski (known also as John of Dycalp) was a popular writer active in the 1840s, he quickly gained popularity thanks to his humorous lyrics, but before his death in 1872 he was almost forgotten by readers. This raises questions about the rules guiding cultural memory. One of the concepts that could explain the process of cultural heredity is the memetic theory proposed by Richard Dawkins. The scholar assumes the existence of cultural units subject to the process of evolution, which he called memes. Their success and survival depend on the fulfillment of specific characteristics to which the human mind is particularly susceptible, i.e. topicality, originality, narrative, and universality. Using the tools developed by memetics, the article will attempt to describe the reasons for social forgetting on the example of the life and work of Placyd Jankowski.

Atheism: A Very Short Introduction

Atheism: A Very Short Introduction discusses the case for atheism. Atheism is often seen as simply a rejection of theism, but it encompasses so much more. Atheists are typically naturalists, who believe that meaning and morality are possible in a finite, natural world. ‘New Atheism’, a powerful new movement in atheism in the early 21st century, driven by books from authors such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, has left a legacy. There is an important question to consider: whether East Asia has been historically atheist or not. Atheism can be located in recent European history. What is the position of atheists around the world today?

Conclusion: The Gene’s-Eye View Today

Marian Stamp Dawkins once recounted her experience marking a final exam paper by one of her undergraduates (Stamp Dawkins 2006). The student successfully answered the set question on how natural selection could have resulted in some animals not reproducing, using all the correct technical terms, but then went on to say ‘And here I rely heavily on the words of Richard Dawkins’ before wrapping up their conclusion. In response, Stamp Dawkins noted in the margin of the examination paper: ‘Yes. Don’t we all?’...

Kazus (anty)duchowości behawiorysty radykalnego B. F. Skinnera – perspektywa psychobiograficzna

Celem artykułu jest pokazanie, jak wychowanie religijne, którego doświadczył B. F. Skinner, zmieniło jego postrzeganie człowieka i świata, a w ostateczności wpłynęło na porzucenie przez niego wiary i skierowało go na ścieżkę radykalnego behawioryzmu. Analiza dostępnej literatury wykazuje, że różnica w poglądach przeciwników Skinnera (Joseph Wood Krutch, Tomasz Szasz, Ayn Rand) oraz jego sojuszników (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris) polega na ich odmiennym wychowaniu i złożonych życiowych doświadczeniach. Powiązane z tym przekonania wpłynęły na pojmowanie przez nich duchowości czy wolnej woli.

Autonomy or Authority?

This chapter analyzes samples from atheist visual culture (memes, cartoons, fan art) to explore a complex and divisive discourse on authority. Atheists have long critiqued authority as it appears in religion. Atheist culture has its own authorities, however. Famous figures in contemporary atheist culture (including Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens) gain authority largely through their appeals to science and reason, but their influence extends far beyond their respective areas of expertise. The celebrity-scientist-atheist is not an undisputed authority in atheist culture, however, and draws increasing critique from those who identify this type of authority as consistent with established forms (white, male, educated) and ultimately divisive rather than unifying to the movement as a whole. This chapter therefore highlights disagreement within atheist culture regarding the proper location and exercise of authority.