So I watched the Dawkins show last night which was alrite. Better at least than the last show he did. His synopsis of existing spiritualism is quiet interesting and like one review I read I do think it deserves a series. (It can feel as if you getting the radical conclusion of each argument rather than the whole argument.)
There is though one fatal flaw, what his vision is, luckily the show isn’t based around what he proposes and he largely hints towards it.
His vision seems to be one of utter dedication to fact, reason and science, what he calls the enlightenment period. Now I haven’t actually made any large study of the enlightenment so I but I would suggest that it by referring to human reason they were referring to more than science. Science would be a tool for humans to further themselves but a tool for achieving this poetic project. You can’t help but feel that with Dawkins the Enlightenment is science and that is it.
If we are prepared to use human knowledge on tracing the laws of our physical world, I think we must also trust ourselves to decide what is right and wrong morally this unlike the psychical cannot be simply measured and defined. This point is what Dawkins seems not to grasp and in turns leads to his frustration and lack of understanding for “postmodernism” and New Religious Movements.