Topic: The soul of the world, available on audible
Anonymous A started this discussion 6 years ago #92,893
It's a book by Roger Scruton and I don't really know what to think about it but it's also narrated by Tom Stechschulte. The audio book plays fantastically, the narrator and the various subjects with their little stories and descriptions is a perfect mix. It's sounds like a angry half sane person that's dead serious and he knows something true and he's going to make you see the truth and then maybe kill you.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 6 years ago, 46 seconds later[^] [v] #1,052,698
Cover btw.Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 6 years ago, 19 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,052,985
I was kind of expecting you all to try listening to it and agree or disagree. But I guess the world ain't perfect.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 15 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,052,992
Audible suggested Dawkins' Unweaving the Rainbow, so I picked that instead.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 28 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,052,997
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,052,998
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 35 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,053,003
@previous (B)
I admit, the book you talked about does sound interesting because I don't know how on earth he's going to argue that science isn't at odds with reality especially since he's been such a critic of fiction.
I admit, the book you talked about does sound interesting because I don't know how on earth he's going to argue that science isn't at odds with reality especially since he's been such a critic of fiction.
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 21 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,053,006
I never enjoyed audiobooks. I prefer having the ability to re-read a sentence, paragraph, or page. Rewinding a recording is just kind of jarring and breaks immersion for me.
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL double-posted this 6 years ago, 25 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,053,007
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,053,009
@1,053,003 (A)
So far it seems like him arguing that there is an astounding amount of beauty and complexity in the natural world and that the more you understand it the more marvelous it seems. I think the idea is that knowledge enhances your appreciation of the world rather than dampens it. The sense of wonder at the circumstance and complexity is all the more intoxicating when you know the story behind it comes from digging into the truths of the universe by asking, testing, and verifying rather than by making up stories to impose upon the world. When I left off he was saying something about color vision in bees and hormones in birds. I'll pick it up tomorrow and let you know how it ends.
So far it seems like him arguing that there is an astounding amount of beauty and complexity in the natural world and that the more you understand it the more marvelous it seems. I think the idea is that knowledge enhances your appreciation of the world rather than dampens it. The sense of wonder at the circumstance and complexity is all the more intoxicating when you know the story behind it comes from digging into the truths of the universe by asking, testing, and verifying rather than by making up stories to impose upon the world. When I left off he was saying something about color vision in bees and hormones in birds. I'll pick it up tomorrow and let you know how it ends.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 30 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,053,014
tteh !GETFUCKED joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,053,027
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 1 day later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,053,507
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 6 years ago, 1 day later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,053,906
@1,053,009 (B)
Dawkins misses the point though. There are many ways to understand and appreciate things and most of those ways don't involve science at all. Religion for example, has been a great contributor of art, there's a lot of religious art, especially old art it seems. Sometimes the scientific explanation or view is just so incredibly inadequate and boring.
Dawkins misses the point though. There are many ways to understand and appreciate things and most of those ways don't involve science at all. Religion for example, has been a great contributor of art, there's a lot of religious art, especially old art it seems. Sometimes the scientific explanation or view is just so incredibly inadequate and boring.
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 5 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,054,023
@previous (A)
It's the very idea that science offers a boring explanation that drains the world of magic that Dawkins is trying to combat. I think he does it pretty successfully. Knowing the why actually adds extra layers of wonder to the world. Striving to understand the cause and effect behind the things around you can make you feel more in tune with the world. Especially when that knowledge is practical and useful. Science is magic that really works. I don't think that precludes the ability to appreciate art or religion. Paintings of angels, titans, dragons, and minotaurs are still pretty cool. Dreams, mythology, and fiction can inspire us in ways that help us imagine the unimaginable. Superhero movies are fun because we can imagine people in a world that we don't experience everyday. We can appreciate that mode of storytelling and find inspiration in it, but we can't live there.
It's the very idea that science offers a boring explanation that drains the world of magic that Dawkins is trying to combat. I think he does it pretty successfully. Knowing the why actually adds extra layers of wonder to the world. Striving to understand the cause and effect behind the things around you can make you feel more in tune with the world. Especially when that knowledge is practical and useful. Science is magic that really works. I don't think that precludes the ability to appreciate art or religion. Paintings of angels, titans, dragons, and minotaurs are still pretty cool. Dreams, mythology, and fiction can inspire us in ways that help us imagine the unimaginable. Superhero movies are fun because we can imagine people in a world that we don't experience everyday. We can appreciate that mode of storytelling and find inspiration in it, but we can't live there.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 21 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,054,037
@1,052,992 (B)
> Audible suggested Dawkins' Unweaving the Rainbow, so I picked that instead.
That book contains one of the greatest opening paragraphs ever written. The band Nightwish made excellent use of it on their epic 24-minute track (which is based on Dawkins' work) The Greatest Show On Earth.
> Audible suggested Dawkins' Unweaving the Rainbow, so I picked that instead.
That book contains one of the greatest opening paragraphs ever written. The band Nightwish made excellent use of it on their epic 24-minute track (which is based on Dawkins' work) The Greatest Show On Earth.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U double-posted this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,054,040
Dawkins is a first-rate scientist but a 3rd-rate polemicist when it comes to the tiresome subject of 'the evils of religion'. His book The God Delusion is customarily well written but terribly argued, which is a dangerous combination (because it persuades uncritical and simple-minded people). It is ignorant of its own subject and therefore full of flaws. Hitchens did it infinitely better in God Is Not Great (though I still disagree with his conclusions), as did Sam Harris in Letter to a Christian Nation. Dawkins should stick to what he is a genius at, which is evolutionary biology.
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 18 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,054,047
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Agreed. He is in his element when he sticks to biology. His earlier stuff starts off arguing from the perspective an evolutionary biologist and and pretty successfully conveys the sense of wonder he sees in his field when he looks at the complex relationships and biological systems that grow to adapt themselves to their environment. It really does seem almost magical to him. His later stuff where he takes aim at religion comes off as a little heavy handed and can be hard to get through even if you start out agreeing with his outlook.
Agreed. He is in his element when he sticks to biology. His earlier stuff starts off arguing from the perspective an evolutionary biologist and and pretty successfully conveys the sense of wonder he sees in his field when he looks at the complex relationships and biological systems that grow to adapt themselves to their environment. It really does seem almost magical to him. His later stuff where he takes aim at religion comes off as a little heavy handed and can be hard to get through even if you start out agreeing with his outlook.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 9 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,054,052
@1,054,023 (B)
I'm not saying science itself is boring and inadequate, but that in certain situations it is. For example what would music itself be in the eyes of science? A evolutionary advantage, what a boring way to see music.
I'm not saying science itself is boring and inadequate, but that in certain situations it is. For example what would music itself be in the eyes of science? A evolutionary advantage, what a boring way to see music.
not tteh !GETFUCKED replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,054,056
@1,054,047 (B)
The Blind Watchmaker remains one of my favourite books. The Greatest Show on Earth, too.
God, I remember Dawkins doing an interview with a local radio station where he quoted "if thy right eye offend thee ..." as an example of the Bible encouraging "absurd behaviour", in the context of a discussion about religious violence. Like, holy shit dude, it's not literally asking people to remove their eyes.
The Blind Watchmaker remains one of my favourite books. The Greatest Show on Earth, too.
God, I remember Dawkins doing an interview with a local radio station where he quoted "if thy right eye offend thee ..." as an example of the Bible encouraging "absurd behaviour", in the context of a discussion about religious violence. Like, holy shit dude, it's not literally asking people to remove their eyes.
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 9 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,054,059
@1,054,052 (A)
I don't think he's arguing that it's the only method of appreciating things. Just that understanding the world doesn't necessarily dumb it down into a series of smaller, simpler pieces. Although I'm sure someone who studies hearing could probably get pretty poetic about how sacs of fluid in your head are actually precise instruments that can detect differences between pressure waves finer than a human hair. How we perceive musical tones and combinations in the specific range we do is a whole story in itself. The how and the why is as much of a story of what we are and where we came from as it who we have become as individuals. The more you explore why a particular stimulus makes you react a certain way, the more interesting the story becomes.
I don't think he's arguing that it's the only method of appreciating things. Just that understanding the world doesn't necessarily dumb it down into a series of smaller, simpler pieces. Although I'm sure someone who studies hearing could probably get pretty poetic about how sacs of fluid in your head are actually precise instruments that can detect differences between pressure waves finer than a human hair. How we perceive musical tones and combinations in the specific range we do is a whole story in itself. The how and the why is as much of a story of what we are and where we came from as it who we have become as individuals. The more you explore why a particular stimulus makes you react a certain way, the more interesting the story becomes.
not tteh !GETFUCKED replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,054,060
@1,054,023 (B)
> It's the very idea that science offers a boring explanation that drains the world of magic that Dawkins is trying to combat
also, reminds me of Feynman's flower https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbFM3rn4ldo
> It's the very idea that science offers a boring explanation that drains the world of magic that Dawkins is trying to combat
also, reminds me of Feynman's flower https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbFM3rn4ldo
(Edited 27 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,054,064
@1,054,059 (B)
Yeah the more you explore something the more beautiful it can become, very true, it's just so arrogant to suppose you can only do that through science and everything else isn't "the real" explanation and so on. Can't you see that?
Yeah the more you explore something the more beautiful it can become, very true, it's just so arrogant to suppose you can only do that through science and everything else isn't "the real" explanation and so on. Can't you see that?
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 18 seconds later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,054,065
@1,054,056 (not tteh !GETFUCKED)
He could have saved that interview by having David Blaine come in at the end and literally pull a plank out of his eye. That would have been impressive.
Yeah, that's a problem with him. He'll make a few sensible points and then come with something pretty lame that makes you doubt his understanding of the topic.
He could have saved that interview by having David Blaine come in at the end and literally pull a plank out of his eye. That would have been impressive.
Yeah, that's a problem with him. He'll make a few sensible points and then come with something pretty lame that makes you doubt his understanding of the topic.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 6 years ago, 19 seconds later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,054,066
Actually yeah, speaking of Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out was a very formative book for me. It marries a child's sense of awe-struck wonder at the astonishing beauty of the world with a generational intellect's understanding of why it is constructed so. And from interviews I've seen and read, he was a humble and gentle human being, unlike Dawkins' self-conscious arrogance and irritability (not to bash too much on Dawkins, because I'll say again, he has a first-class scientific mind; I just lament how much more great science he could have done had he not chosen to follow the more lucrative path of 'debating' dim-witted creationists so that his fellow atheists can have a good self-satisfied laugh at how stupid religious people are).
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,054,070
@1,054,064 (A)
I don't think he's arguing that you can only do it through it through science. He's trying to combat the idea that science makes the world boring. It isn't a zero sum game though. Saying scientific inquiry makes the world interesting doesn't mean that other things become less interesting.
I don't think he's arguing that you can only do it through it through science. He's trying to combat the idea that science makes the world boring. It isn't a zero sum game though. Saying scientific inquiry makes the world interesting doesn't mean that other things become less interesting.
not tteh !GETFUCKED replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,054,071
@1,054,066 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Oh, he was a fantastic human being for sure. Have you read Surely You're Joking?
Oh, he was a fantastic human being for sure. Have you read Surely You're Joking?
not tteh !GETFUCKED double-posted this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,054,073
@1,054,065 (B)That would've made for a grate interview.
But yeah, it's one of the many reasons I enjoyed Hitchens' God Is Not Great over The God Delusion. I like Dawkins but bloody hell he can be obnoxious. Grate biologist – not-so-grate philosopher.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 11 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,054,078
@previous (not tteh !GETFUCKED)
I sympathize with his combativeness to a point - particularly when people selectively report on or bend scientific findings to argue for things like young Earth creationism, geocentrism, or a flat Earth. There really are people out there who will start believing that archaeologists have found Noah's Ark or humans and dinosaurs coexisted or whatever.
I sympathize with his combativeness to a point - particularly when people selectively report on or bend scientific findings to argue for things like young Earth creationism, geocentrism, or a flat Earth. There really are people out there who will start believing that archaeologists have found Noah's Ark or humans and dinosaurs coexisted or whatever.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,054,079
@1,054,071 (not tteh !GETFUCKED)
> Oh, he was a fantastic human being for sure. Have you read Surely You're Joking?
I haven't yet, but I do own it. My sister is heavily into popular science and she gave me that book (along with The Pleasure...) a few Christmases ago. This thread is inspiring me to take it down from the shelf and read it quite honestly.
> Oh, he was a fantastic human being for sure. Have you read Surely You're Joking?
I haven't yet, but I do own it. My sister is heavily into popular science and she gave me that book (along with The Pleasure...) a few Christmases ago. This thread is inspiring me to take it down from the shelf and read it quite honestly.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 11 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,054,082
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,054,142
@previous (A)
I feel like it would be difficult to come away with that impression. If anything, he is arguing against the juxtaposition of art and science in popular culture as separate domains, one being fanciful and one being practical. The whole book is trying to break down that overly simplistic idea by pointing out the beauty in knowledge.
I feel like it would be difficult to come away with that impression. If anything, he is arguing against the juxtaposition of art and science in popular culture as separate domains, one being fanciful and one being practical. The whole book is trying to break down that overly simplistic idea by pointing out the beauty in knowledge.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 33 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,054,159
@previous (B)
If he's arguing against the juxtaposition of art and science, then how am I wrong to think he's referring to art being in science because sometimes he thinks it's complex and beautiful? If you do any job and find it to be a beautiful job, then does that make you a artist?
If he's arguing against the juxtaposition of art and science, then how am I wrong to think he's referring to art being in science because sometimes he thinks it's complex and beautiful? If you do any job and find it to be a beautiful job, then does that make you a artist?
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 3 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,054,196
@previous (A)
He's not referring to art being "in" science, but a sense of wonder and beauty not being solely the domain of art. Inspiration can come from whatever you appreciate and find beauty in, science or art as you please. The very title of the book is an excuse to talk about why analyzing and explaining something doesn't diminish its impact or meaning. If anything, it magnifies it.
I think in a wider sense he is trying to break people out of the idea that science and art are opposite ends of a spectrum. There is temptation in modern society to shorthand ideas into polarized opposites. While that view might simplify the world temporarily, it is ultimately lazy thinking. Things aren't in opposition just because you define them to be, and no amount of rhetorical slight-of-hand can make the nuance in the world vanish. He's trying to remind us of that.
He's not referring to art being "in" science, but a sense of wonder and beauty not being solely the domain of art. Inspiration can come from whatever you appreciate and find beauty in, science or art as you please. The very title of the book is an excuse to talk about why analyzing and explaining something doesn't diminish its impact or meaning. If anything, it magnifies it.
I think in a wider sense he is trying to break people out of the idea that science and art are opposite ends of a spectrum. There is temptation in modern society to shorthand ideas into polarized opposites. While that view might simplify the world temporarily, it is ultimately lazy thinking. Things aren't in opposition just because you define them to be, and no amount of rhetorical slight-of-hand can make the nuance in the world vanish. He's trying to remind us of that.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 5 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,054,276
@previous (B)
> The very title of the book is an excuse to talk about why analyzing and explaining something doesn't diminish its impact or meaning. If anything, it magnifies it
Yeah but don't you think there's other ways to explain or produce meaning, other ways then just science?
> I think in a wider sense he is trying to break people out of the idea that science and art are opposite ends of a spectrum
Perhaps that's fair except he's been working hard on "juxtaposing" science and religion for so long, so it's kind of ironic that he's now at opposite ends.
> The very title of the book is an excuse to talk about why analyzing and explaining something doesn't diminish its impact or meaning. If anything, it magnifies it
Yeah but don't you think there's other ways to explain or produce meaning, other ways then just science?
> I think in a wider sense he is trying to break people out of the idea that science and art are opposite ends of a spectrum
Perhaps that's fair except he's been working hard on "juxtaposing" science and religion for so long, so it's kind of ironic that he's now at opposite ends.
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 19 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,054,502
@previous (A)
Again, he isn't offering up science as the only source of meaning or inspiration. He is making the case that that the scientific process doesn't reduce the world to a boring series of facts to be memorized by rote. By way of explanation he tries to point to some of the wonder he sees in his work.
He devotes a lot of words to appreciating the poetry of Keats and Wordsworth even as he offers a counterpoint to the sentiment they seem to be expressing. He doesn't put religion on the opposite end of science as far as inspiration goes. He acknowledges that religions have been the traditional pathway to such feelings through human history and laments that scientific inquiry didn't amplify that at all. When he writes "How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'?" he is a little bit confused about why the two are so often set at odds.
Again, he isn't offering up science as the only source of meaning or inspiration. He is making the case that that the scientific process doesn't reduce the world to a boring series of facts to be memorized by rote. By way of explanation he tries to point to some of the wonder he sees in his work.
He devotes a lot of words to appreciating the poetry of Keats and Wordsworth even as he offers a counterpoint to the sentiment they seem to be expressing. He doesn't put religion on the opposite end of science as far as inspiration goes. He acknowledges that religions have been the traditional pathway to such feelings through human history and laments that scientific inquiry didn't amplify that at all. When he writes "How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'?" he is a little bit confused about why the two are so often set at odds.