Intriguing wee piece on the engagement of science and religion...

[mr_jez]

A different take from the 'atheists vs. mainstream monotheists' debate that has been popular of late! ... ;o)

The Neural Buddhists by David Brooks, New York Times, 13th May.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/opinion/13brooks.html?partner=rssnyt

Comments

[mr_jez]

I'd guess that's for each reader to decide for themselves, but I'd be interested in your understanding of what the point is, if you have time to elaborate?

[mr_jez]

Yes, I'd certainly agree that some of the individual points within the article are not in agreement with current scientific understanding, and at points the author clearly makes leaps not supported by his stated evidence, but then, this is a piece by a moderately well-informed cultural commentator, in a major newspaper, it's not a scientific paper.

I found the article intriguing because it is attempting to move away from the pointless polarised slanging match wherein we here endless variations on the, "My God is Right because My Big Book Says So!" vs., "You outdated retards should just get with the program and realise how much you've been holding us all back!" Let's be honest, the bulk of humanity doesn't understand scientific thinking, and probably isn't going to for the forseeable future, so I'm more interested to see steps in potentially productives directions, rather than being unhappy at the lack of perfection in debate.