tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post463438938416105215..comments2024-03-27T14:45:28.176-05:00Comments on Adventus: "There He Goes Again...."Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-34435295489129613072013-01-03T12:51:45.383-06:002013-01-03T12:51:45.383-06:00Adding:
I'd love some interviewer to start ou...Adding:<br /><br /><i>I'd love some interviewer to start out a discussion about God with one of these eminent scientists by asking what it was in their study of a very narrow part of the physical universe that they imagined gave them any more insight into that question than your average janitor or nail salon employee. I've known more blue collar and low wage workers with more interesting insight into such things than PhD scientists. </i><br /><br />Yes, exactly.Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-80871221801907261102013-01-03T12:51:02.002-06:002013-01-03T12:51:02.002-06:00Didn't mean to argue with your comment, TC. M...Didn't mean to argue with your comment, TC. More a comment on my inability to stick to my own thesis. I've rather beaten Dawkins' into a very dead horse by now; but it was so easy to rant about the subject I let the focus on Dawkins go.<br /><br />'Course, I should probably let the whole subject go by now. The gap between what is worth discussing and what is commonly discussed is so wide I really should quit complaining about the sun coming up.....Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-56165775918534778382013-01-03T12:37:10.796-06:002013-01-03T12:37:10.796-06:00True, but I had the "first bird to call out&q...True, but I had the "first bird to call out" argument with an arrogant Brit atheist "Ancient Brit" last weekend so it was on my mind and seeing him referred to as an eminent biologist when most of the biologists I know think he's full of soup, if you'll pardon the expression, and I couldn't resist. <br /><br />I'd love some interviewer to start out a discussion about God with one of these eminent scientists by asking what it was in their study of a very narrow part of the physical universe that they imagined gave them any more insight into that question than your average janitor or nail salon employee. I've known more blue collar and low wage workers with more interesting insight into such things than PhD scientists. <br /><br />Apropos of nothing in particular, I dissed John Lennon today.<br /><br />http://zthoughtcriminal.blogspot.com/2013/01/john-lennon-is-dead-his-song-is-stupid.htmlThe Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-58631624990709997712013-01-03T10:37:53.280-06:002013-01-03T10:37:53.280-06:00I went off on Dawkins in this post because he'...I went off on Dawkins in this post because he's such an easy target, but it was really Higgs' comment that got me started. The implicit arrogance of dismissing "dogmatic" thought, as if he knew what dogmatism is (like Americans don't know what "socialism" is, except it's bad!) and as if religious belief were some kind of mildly acceptable form of lunacy, so long as it recognizes its place is well below that of empiricism and positivism.<br /><br />He's entitled to his philosophical/theological ignorance, but please stop parading it as if it were wisdom.Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-38517099917501527552013-01-02T18:54:26.449-06:002013-01-02T18:54:26.449-06:00It is one of the prevalent superstitions, that a l...It is one of the prevalent superstitions, that a life time spent in theoretical speculation about some highly specialized aspect of the physical universe - supposedly, rigorously cutting out information not relevant to that endeavor, none more successfully than considerations of religion - qualifies someone to discuss that one issue rigorously excluded from their field of study. And as proven by Dawkins' TGD, total ignorance is taken as informed discussion of it. <br /><br />I think telling a 7 year old child that their loved grandmother who just died doesn't exist and was never more than the molecules that her body was made of which will now rot into compost, as an atheist couple I know of "comforted" their child, with would have a more traumatizing effect, leading to a life long view of life as ephemeral and unimportant than the possibility that she was in heaven.<br /><br />I don't think I ever suffered much from being told about hell, it wasn't the source of my Irish guilt, which has kept me from being a lot worse than I might have been. I'm very pro-guilty conscience. Dawkins is, he thinks anyone who is an apostate from his vulgar version of Darwinism should be scorned and shamed into conversion. What is the new atheist program except for that kind of brow beating motivation of guilt for believing in God or of shaming people out of talking about it? There was a short period when Dawkins signed onto making it illegal to tell their children about their religious beliefs, until he was guilted into retraction. <br /><br />I just had another go-round with an atheist about Dawkins "first bird in the flock to cry out" bit of evidence, logic and even mathematics defying animal lore. One in which a constantly decreasing percentage of the individuals in a species carrying "altruism genes", nevertheless comes to dominate the species through some inverse operation of Dawkinisian mathematics. Not to mention many other problems with it, including turning visual and auditory acuity into a maladtation. Don't get me started on that though, I've been arguing it for 35 years with Dawkins' admirers, most of whom are atheists of the sciency variety. The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.com