☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Richard Dawkins, Evolve Thyself
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tejwant Singh" data-source="post: 125253" data-attributes="member: 138"><p><strong>Richard Dawkins, evolve thyself</strong></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2917987&p=1" target="_blank">Richard Dawkins, evolve thyself</a></p><p> </p><p> Why is Richard Dawkins, of all people, acting like a fool? On the subject of evolution, he argues with wondrous self-assurance and a brilliant command of detail. He's established himself as his generation's finest author on the human sciences and (in many opinions) the most effective popular science writer in the world. But he's turned himself into a clown, and damaged his reputation, by supporting the grotesque scheme to have Pope Benedict XVI arrested for "crimes against humanity" when he visits Britain in September.</p><p></p><p> Dawkins of course knows that won't happen. British judges almost always refuse to deal with crimes that, if they existed, happened outside the U.K.'s jurisdiction. It would take a mountain of evidence to produce anything like the "universal jurisdiction" warrant from a Spanish court that led to Augusto Pinochet's arrest in London in 1998. Pinochet was charged with mass murder while dictator of Chile, a rather more impressive crime than the cover-up that the Pope's critics believe they have exposed. Anyway, as a head of state, the Pope has immunity under international law.</p><p></p><p> So the arrest is a publicity stunt to denigrate the Pope and his Church. Dawkins more or less admitted that when he wrote on his blog the other day: "I am optimistic that we shall raise public consciousness to the point where the British government will find it very awkward indeed to go ahead with the Pope's visit."</p><p></p><p> As always, "raising public consciousness" means "manipulating opinion." And that's OK for Christopher Hitchens, the journalist promoting the attempted papal take-down. His exuberant campaign against the Pope follows the pattern of take-no-prisoners hyperbole that has been an essential element in his remarkable journalistic career.</p><p></p><p> But Dawkins? Appealing for justice to a shadowy and mostly theoretical version of a courtroom, he looks no better that those idiots who react to criticism of their beliefs by whining to kangaroo courts maintained by B.C. or Ontario under the name "human rights." Dawkins knows better. In fact, he does better, all the time, by working the beat he knows better than anyone, the detailed relationship between reason and the understanding of evolution. That's a fight against ignorance, well worth anyone's time.</p><p></p><p> A harsh critic will say that he's afflicted by Star Syndrome, the need certain celebrities feel when a day goes by in which their faces don't appear on TV or their names in a headline. My guess is that what he's doing reveals a more serious predicament.</p><p> Dawkins has done his best, after all, to explain that reason should govern all human decisions, and religion should be set aside as a relic from the past that does nothing but hobble progress.</p><p></p><p> Nevertheless, the public has declined to embrace reason as he does, and even occasionally shows signs of backsliding into faith. Can it be that Dawkins fears he's losing the battle against godliness? Could it be that he's losing his faith in atheism?</p><p></p><p> He must have noticed that Jurgen Habermas, the most eminent of contemporary German philosophers, nobody's idea of a believer, has recently been muttering about a blind spot in rationality if it's accepted as a guide to life.</p><p> </p><p style="text-align: left">An Awareness of What is Missing: Faith and Reason in a Post-secular Age (Polity Press) contains Habermas's tentative conclusion that there may be a necessary role for religion in the future. He's made the not entirely original observation that modern societies function best, as human communities, when they have religious traditions they can draw on. If religion disappears, where does that leave the human future? Reason and science have built a devastating critique of religion. But, with religion gone, where will the world go for a critique of reason? Habermas envisions some sort of rapprochment between science and faith.</p> <p style="text-align: left"></p> <p style="text-align: left"></p> <p style="text-align: left"> As well, those committed to the Dawkins point of view have recently been dealing with certain discomfiting suggestions about relations between religion and the brain. God's Brain (Prometheus Books) by Lionel Tiger, the Charles Darwin Professor of Anthropology at Rutgers University, and Michael Mc-Guire, the author of Darwinian Psychiatry, opens up the possibility that faith is rooted in the very structure of the brain. Discoveries in neuroscience suggest that religion should be seen as a natural product of the brain's development, a source of the serotonin that makes life bearable.</p> <p style="text-align: left"></p> <p style="text-align: left"></p> <p style="text-align: left"> As Tiger and McGuire claim, the brain is more comfortable believing than doubting. Richard Dawkins, absorbing that research, must live in dread that one day he will read scientific evidence that religious belief is essential to survival and therefore to, uh, evolution.</p><p style="text-align: left"><span style="color: #000000"></span></p> <p style="text-align: left"><span style="color: #000000">Read more: <a href="http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2917987&p=2#ixzz0lnIllibg" target="_blank">http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2917987&p=2#ixzz0lnIllibg</a></span></p> <p style="text-align: left"><span style="color: #000000"></span></p> </p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tejwant Singh, post: 125253, member: 138"] [B]Richard Dawkins, evolve thyself[/B] [URL="http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2917987&p=1"]Richard Dawkins, evolve thyself[/URL] Why is Richard Dawkins, of all people, acting like a fool? On the subject of evolution, he argues with wondrous self-assurance and a brilliant command of detail. He's established himself as his generation's finest author on the human sciences and (in many opinions) the most effective popular science writer in the world. But he's turned himself into a clown, and damaged his reputation, by supporting the grotesque scheme to have Pope Benedict XVI arrested for "crimes against humanity" when he visits Britain in September. Dawkins of course knows that won't happen. British judges almost always refuse to deal with crimes that, if they existed, happened outside the U.K.'s jurisdiction. It would take a mountain of evidence to produce anything like the "universal jurisdiction" warrant from a Spanish court that led to Augusto Pinochet's arrest in London in 1998. Pinochet was charged with mass murder while dictator of Chile, a rather more impressive crime than the cover-up that the Pope's critics believe they have exposed. Anyway, as a head of state, the Pope has immunity under international law. So the arrest is a publicity stunt to denigrate the Pope and his Church. Dawkins more or less admitted that when he wrote on his blog the other day: "I am optimistic that we shall raise public consciousness to the point where the British government will find it very awkward indeed to go ahead with the Pope's visit." As always, "raising public consciousness" means "manipulating opinion." And that's OK for Christopher Hitchens, the journalist promoting the attempted papal take-down. His exuberant campaign against the Pope follows the pattern of take-no-prisoners hyperbole that has been an essential element in his remarkable journalistic career. But Dawkins? Appealing for justice to a shadowy and mostly theoretical version of a courtroom, he looks no better that those idiots who react to criticism of their beliefs by whining to kangaroo courts maintained by B.C. or Ontario under the name "human rights." Dawkins knows better. In fact, he does better, all the time, by working the beat he knows better than anyone, the detailed relationship between reason and the understanding of evolution. That's a fight against ignorance, well worth anyone's time. A harsh critic will say that he's afflicted by Star Syndrome, the need certain celebrities feel when a day goes by in which their faces don't appear on TV or their names in a headline. My guess is that what he's doing reveals a more serious predicament. Dawkins has done his best, after all, to explain that reason should govern all human decisions, and religion should be set aside as a relic from the past that does nothing but hobble progress. Nevertheless, the public has declined to embrace reason as he does, and even occasionally shows signs of backsliding into faith. Can it be that Dawkins fears he's losing the battle against godliness? Could it be that he's losing his faith in atheism? He must have noticed that Jurgen Habermas, the most eminent of contemporary German philosophers, nobody's idea of a believer, has recently been muttering about a blind spot in rationality if it's accepted as a guide to life. [LEFT]An Awareness of What is Missing: Faith and Reason in a Post-secular Age (Polity Press) contains Habermas's tentative conclusion that there may be a necessary role for religion in the future. He's made the not entirely original observation that modern societies function best, as human communities, when they have religious traditions they can draw on. If religion disappears, where does that leave the human future? Reason and science have built a devastating critique of religion. But, with religion gone, where will the world go for a critique of reason? Habermas envisions some sort of rapprochment between science and faith. As well, those committed to the Dawkins point of view have recently been dealing with certain discomfiting suggestions about relations between religion and the brain. God's Brain (Prometheus Books) by Lionel Tiger, the Charles Darwin Professor of Anthropology at Rutgers University, and Michael Mc-Guire, the author of Darwinian Psychiatry, opens up the possibility that faith is rooted in the very structure of the brain. Discoveries in neuroscience suggest that religion should be seen as a natural product of the brain's development, a source of the serotonin that makes life bearable. As Tiger and McGuire claim, the brain is more comfortable believing than doubting. Richard Dawkins, absorbing that research, must live in dread that one day he will read scientific evidence that religious belief is essential to survival and therefore to, uh, evolution. [LEFT][COLOR=#000000] Read more: [URL]http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2917987&p=2#ixzz0lnIllibg[/URL] [/COLOR][/LEFT] [/LEFT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Richard Dawkins, Evolve Thyself
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top