Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
Paul, I doubt that you will find many science types who will argue that the humanities are not important. They are very important. For lack of a better word, they make us human.
Is The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock not important? Is it as important as the Polio Vaccine? Probably not. Is it as important as, say, the life cycle of a certain rare butterfly? Probably. It is an important poem, and anyone who can't see its beauty is, in my mind, a little skewed.
I'm not a poet, but I love T.S. Eliot. I really love art. When I travel, I always try to see art museums.
How important is Van Gogh's Starry Night? As important as nuclear fission? How do you even answer that question? I have no idea.
It is easy to paint things with a broad brush, as you said, but we all know that these false dichotomies are usually silly. The average intelligence of most of you who post on this thread is far higher than a random slice of the general American public.
Too bad. Eliot wrote great poems. Dawkins is right, but I don't like how he goes about his work. Dawkins is no T.S. Eliot.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
Better: The liberal arts should not be anti-science.
Best: Science should not be anti religion.
|
|
Bushman
Social climber
Elk Grove, California
|
|
Base, get out of my head...good post BTW.
Paul, you're free to laud and practice religion all you like,
and I'm free to believe it blows.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
Best: Science should not be anti religion.
Paul, please show me where, in a scientific, peer reviewed article, science attacks religion?
I'm not talking about pop books. I'm talking about hard science.
Off hand, I can't think of a single one. I am no doubt pigeon-holed in my own specialty, but I think I would have heard of that one. Someone jump in here if they can think of one. There is probably a lot of philosophy type articles which tackle the topic, but I doubt you will find it in math or physics, or for that matter, any of the physical or life sciences.
Darwin didn't attack God. All he did was look at nature and realize the very successful theory of evolution.
I'm not aware of anything in geology. Nothing important, anyway.
Most Americans don't believe in evolution. Republicans really have a problem with evolution, but here is a slice of the American mind.
I found this Gallup Poll with a little googling:
Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings: 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process; 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process; or 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.
In the most recent poll, done in May 2014, a plurality, 42 percent, said God created humans in their present form, while 31 percent said humans evolved with God's guidance. Just 19 percent said humans evolved with God playing no part in the process, and 8 percent had no opinion.
Now tell me if what people BELIEVE, has anything to do with the TRUTH.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
How important is Van Gogh's Starry Night? As important as nuclear fission? How do you even answer that question? I have no idea.
Ultimately life is terminal. In spite of medical science and all its advancements we all end up in the same place... Question is: how do make something worthwhile out of this rather brief experience, how do we elevate ourselves above mere survival, what is it in life that is worth dying for and more importantly worth living for? How do we find virtue? Even in its most primitive stages humanity has sought to rise above mere existence by ennobling experience, making something "more" out of it through myth and ritual, so that in the face of what is grave and constant in human experience we do find virtue.
Here we are floating around on this tiny dust speck in the middle of eternity and some say this demonstrates our insignificance. I would say just the opposite: nothing demonstrates more the nobility of humanity than how it rises above its difficult and lonely predicament. That humanity has produced a Shakespeare, Dante, Michelangelo and, yes, a Moses and a Christ is a testament to the triumph of human nature. Diminishing these achievements because you don't understand what allegory and metaphor are, or because they can't be literally true is tragic.
Paul, please show me where, in a scientific, peer reviewed article, science attacks religion?
Dawkins? Countless posts on this thread. Huxley... I mean I don't know where to start. Peer reviewed articles not so much, but come on... from Hitchens to you name em the attack on religion uses the club of science to discredit.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
Even in its most primitive stages humanity has sought to rise above mere existence by ennobling experience, making something "more" out of it through myth and ritual, so that in the face of what is grave and constant in human experience we do find virtue
Oh man. Do you want me to type out a tome on human evolution?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Breaking Good NEws!!
Islamic Preacher Anjem Choudary Is Charged in U.K. With Supporting Terrorism
http://www.wsj.com/articles/british-prosecutors-charging-islamic-preacher-anjem-choudary-with-supporting-terrorism-1438784612
Britain’s chief prosecutor in charge of terrorism crimes said Wednesday that a lengthy investigation had resulted in enough evidence to secure a conviction under the Terrorism Act of 2000 for Mr. Choudary and Mohammed Rahman.
The charge against Mr. Choudary follows years of frustration among British security services about how to deal with fundamentalist Islamic leaders who have used the country’s strong laws supporting freedom of speech and religion as a platform to espouse controversial views.
Denied bail.
It's about time.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
Oh man. Do you want me to type out a tome on human evolution?
Yes, how is it that human beings are willing to sacrifice replication of their gene pool for the sake of illuminating their spirit? Why the willingness to violate the evolutionary paradigm?
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
OK, Ben Stiller for Sam Harris. Good choice.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
science attacks religion?
Science never attacks religion.
Only nutcases here and everywhere like Dawkins and fruitcake who know absolutely nothing what religion is.
Just a bunch of stupid mental speculators reading each other idiots mental speculations.
A room full of idiot mental speculators all agreeing together in unison that they are idiots and simultaneously saying they are scientists ....
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
Definitely Charlton Heston for Dawkins as he's played Moses once already.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
DMT:
I didn’t have much time this morning.
*There may be something special about evidence (but not just scientific evidence).
*”What works” (planes, technological contrivances) from an experiential point of view proves only that a person has an experience. That’s everything in my book, not just simply that one particular theory or conceptualization is the truth and nothing but the truth.
*Gravity might itself be a truth, but (i) it would be only one truth interdependent and interactive with other truths, and (ii) we still don’t really know what gravity IS, so what the heck are we talking about, really?
*Solvitur ambulando and argumentum ad lapidem are poor responses from a man of his supposed intellect and capabilities. (Dawkins might as well as said, “. . . Oh yeah? So is your mother!”) His response is an emotional one.
As to the substance of an idea that an experience proves the substance of a theory or definition, should I make the following claim? Electricity is the truth, and if you doubt it, you should put your hands on a high-tension power cable.” (Just what the hell does that really prove?)
What Dawkins seems to be putting on the table is that people should favor scientific facts over other kinds of facts. If he were to do so, one could invoke other conversations that are unconsidered but relevant to: what “facts” are, what specific “objects” are, how one knows either, their relevancies, instrumental usefulness, values, and so forth. (Paul brings up a few of these topics.)
(BTW, I’ll assume Dawkins’ comment was taken out of context—which often calls for more consideration and effort than a Wikipedia definition, Base)
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
In the god-delusion, Dawkins root argument is over morality. He uses the evolutionist speculation of monkeys and how they like to "work together" toward a goal, and "fight together" against other tribes as a sign of morality. Is THAT morality? When Ducks fly in a V formation, is that morality? When Ants go marching one by one, is that morality?
From just The god-delusion, I don't believe Dawkins understands what morality really is. Maybe being a science guy he only understands causation?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
"Solvitur ambulando and argumentum ad lapidem are poor responses from a man of his supposed intellect and capabilities." -MikeL
Except they don't apply to his quote. (Let alone, really, to any of his works.)
Your specialty - innate or learned? - is obscurantism it seems with barely an intermission ever.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
Never considered there was any contridiction. God Vs Science. Both at their best are the search for knowledge. Less than their best doesn't mean much to me.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
How about the claimed (reported) virgin birth, any contradition there?
How about the Assumption of Mary? any contradition there?
These are truth claims about how things of our world work. Are they not?
Never considered there was any contridiction.
So perhaps you should consider it then?
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
Contradiction and hypocrisy are part of life..what is more interesting is how to enjoy it peacefully. Working on that..getting better.
But I hold to the idea that religion and science at their best are looking for the same thing.
Less than their best is what you refer to.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
how to enjoy it peacefully? zone out, that's a strategy... let others like Dawkins bear the work.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
In life one often confronts contradictions, inadequate information, uncertainty, and decisions that must be made irregardless.
In this realm I have found that two things help greatly, a search for knowledge and irrational faith.
Science and Religion.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!