Vince Hart wrote:

LiamToo wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
I don't think Dawkins' militancy holds a candle to that of religious
zealots who believe that the God who has communicated to them through a
magic book wants them to make war on those whose God communicated to
them through a different magic book.

Nor do I think that Dawkins would consider anyone an idiot for thinking
that their might be an intelligent designer. I do think he considers
to be idiots those people who want creationism taught along with (if
not instead of) evolution in public school science classes.

Once upon a time, science did not have an explanation for mental
illness, so people attributed it to demon possession. The fact that
science does not provide a satisfying explanation for some phenomenon
currently does not mean that it is incapable of ever explaining it, or
that a supernatural explanation is necessary or preferable.

Talking about idiots, here's one idiot who said:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
--Albert Einstein

Here's another idiot who said:

"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who
set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is
or can be done." --Sir Isaac Newton

Why would you label either of these men idiots?

Lance *is* an idiot, but he *thinks* he's a genius. Newton *was* a
genius. Einstein *was* a genius. Therefore, Lance thinks that they were
idiots. Simple explanations are often the most apt, in science as in
life.

samsloan wrote:

I received an e-mail from John Donaldson (which he sent to many
players) regarding thoughts on the US Championship. Then I see my reply
was posted here by Sam Sloan without my permission.

I do not know why a response to an e-mail I was sent by someone is
being posted here on this forum. I did not post this here, and I would
ask anything I wrote in private e-mails regarding my opinions on the US
Championship be deleted by the moderator unless I specifically post
them here.

I have no interest in sponsoring or organizing any US Championship, and
never said I was. This makes it seem like I posted something here or
wanted it posted here, when I was simply responding to an e-mail sent
to me by John Donaldson.

Ben Finegold

I'm sorry, why did you post this **** in this thread?

**** off, moron.

Mark Houlsby

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:

My problem with Dawkins is his militancy. Science has not begun to
scratch
the surface of the origins of things. To say everything started with the
big
bang is simply to beg the question of where all this stuff, or that
primordial speck of big-bang matter, originated from.

This is a valid point. A rather large part of the problem is that it is
very nearly impossible for any scientist to secure funding for research
into *any* theory to rival the "Big Bang".

The real problem is the question of ultimate origin can probably never be
answered. Think about it.

Dawkins can't answer
that question any better than could the hairiest prehistoric brute.

Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, not an astrophysicist. Do you
expect Vladimir Kramnik to be a world-class hockey player?

Sorry, I don't see the connection. You don't need to be an astrophysicist to
address these problems.

I can poke fun at religions as well as the next guy.
Saints flying through the air, prophets and miracles, resurrections and
transubstantiation are fair game. Science can prove that people can't fly
or
rise from the dead. But it can't explain where everything came from, and
gains nothing by labeling as an idiot everyone who suspects there might
be
an intelligent origin, or originator.

Science most certainly *doesn't* do that. Rather, it provokes
*investigation* with the intention of making us less ignorant.

Name-calling does not make us less ignorant.

To this end, maybe you should read the book: "Intelligent Thought",
edited by John Brockman...(I take the liberty of assuming, from what
you have written above, that you have not yet done this).

I probably should!

"Vince Hart" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:

Nor do I think that Dawkins would consider anyone an idiot for thinking
that their might be an intelligent designer. I do think he considers
to be idiots those people who want creationism taught along with (if
not instead of) evolution in public school science classes.

Once upon a time, science did not have an explanation for mental
illness, so people attributed it to demon possession. The fact that
science does not provide a satisfying explanation for some phenomenon
currently does not mean that it is incapable of ever explaining it, or
that a supernatural explanation is necessary or preferable.

I should point out that the current theories of mental illness are only
slightly more functional and non-mythical than beliefs of the 19th century.

"Vince Hart" wrote in message
oups.com...

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:


I do not think that the idea of a first cause is delusional although I
do not think that it rises to the level of "proof" of God's existence.

No rational person can claim to have a proof that God exists. But you don't
have to be irrational to believe he does.

On the other hand, I have a huge problem with the idea that everything
in a magic book should be accepted as fact to the same degree as
knowledge derived by application of the scientific method. For many
such believers, I think delusion is the proper description. For
others, I think profound intellectual dishonesty is the culprit.

There are probably many scientists like myself who are also, at some level,
theists who reject everything in "magic books." It is child's play to
demonstrate the fallacy of sacred texts as sources of the ultimate truth. No
serious, rational person believes, for example, that the pathetically human
creature described in the Bible could ever have created the universe.

The real delusion, in my opinion, is the belief that any approach, including
"science," can provide all the answers. When I was a freshly minted PhD
chemist I believed that science, and scientists, were the ultimate
truth-seekers. Now I realize that much of what passes for science,
especially in the field of healthcare, derives from economics-driven
mythology. The agenda of "big science" is as political, and driven by money,
as any other field of human endeavor. Without our myths we are forced to
face bare truth, which is often unbearable.

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
"Vince Hart" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:

Nor do I think that Dawkins would consider anyone an idiot for thinking
that their might be an intelligent designer. I do think he considers
to be idiots those people who want creationism taught along with (if
not instead of) evolution in public school science classes.

Once upon a time, science did not have an explanation for mental
illness, so people attributed it to demon possession. The fact that
science does not provide a satisfying explanation for some phenomenon
currently does not mean that it is incapable of ever explaining it, or
that a supernatural explanation is necessary or preferable.

I should point out that the current theories of mental illness are only
slightly more functional and non-mythical than beliefs of the 19th century.

How does that relate to my point about preferring a natural explanation
to a supernatural explanation?

"LiamToo" wrote in message
ups.com...
Vince Hart wrote:
I don't think Dawkins' militancy holds a candle to that of religious
zealots who believe that the God who has communicated to them through a
magic book wants them to make war on those whose God communicated to
them through a different magic book.

Nor do I think that Dawkins would consider anyone an idiot for thinking
that their might be an intelligent designer. I do think he considers
to be idiots those people who want creationism taught along with (if
not instead of) evolution in public school science classes.

Once upon a time, science did not have an explanation for mental
illness, so people attributed it to demon possession. The fact that
science does not provide a satisfying explanation for some phenomenon
currently does not mean that it is incapable of ever explaining it, or
that a supernatural explanation is necessary or preferable.

Sheldrake asked if the rules for manifestation of the Universe pre-existed
the Big-Bang or did they come into being at the same time. This is
interesting when considering mutations, and the way any new element will
form.

Talking about idiots, here's one idiot who said:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
--Albert Einstein

If religion [re ligio] means 'to join together' [what was sundered], and
science the study of the reunification...

of course, Einstein was very interested in both the part, and the field, and
their cyclicity. Things continuously join together then re-seperate, and
rejoin again. In human culture we call one part of this activity religion
and contrast it with its polar opposite, differentiation or
individualisation.

Here's another idiot who said:

"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who
set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is
or can be done." --Sir Isaac Newton

How many Natures are there? Human nature, 'nature', nature of God? Is this
even conceivable? The Cosmos seems to have one nature, the study of which is
generally called science, and the content is, what is: Whether this content
is apprehended or not, or whatever name it is given, the /scientific/
implication is; as above, so below, and micro- and macro-cosm have the same
Nature, indeed, they/we are Nature!

Phil

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:

My problem with Dawkins is his militancy. Science has not begun to
scratch
the surface of the origins of things. To say everything started with the
big
bang is simply to beg the question of where all this stuff, or that
primordial speck of big-bang matter, originated from.

This is a valid point. A rather large part of the problem is that it is
very nearly impossible for any scientist to secure funding for research
into *any* theory to rival the "Big Bang".

The real problem is the question of ultimate origin can probably never be
answered. Think about it.


Uhhh, I have. What was the first sentence of the section which you
addressed just there?

Here's a clue: the first relevant word is "This" and the last is
"point".

Dawkins can't answer
that question any better than could the hairiest prehistoric brute.

Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, not an astrophysicist. Do you
expect Vladimir Kramnik to be a world-class hockey player?

Sorry, I don't see the connection. You don't need to be an astrophysicist to
address these problems.


Well, you have a go, then....

I can poke fun at religions as well as the next guy.
Saints flying through the air, prophets and miracles, resurrections and
transubstantiation are fair game. Science can prove that people can't fly
or
rise from the dead. But it can't explain where everything came from, and
gains nothing by labeling as an idiot everyone who suspects there might
be
an intelligent origin, or originator.

Science most certainly *doesn't* do that. Rather, it provokes
*investigation* with the intention of making us less ignorant.

Name-calling does not make us less ignorant.


No ****! Why mention this?

To this end, maybe you should read the book: "Intelligent Thought",
edited by John Brockman...(I take the liberty of assuming, from what
you have written above, that you have not yet done this).

I probably should!

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:

"Vince Hart" wrote in message
oups.com...

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:


I do not think that the idea of a first cause is delusional although I
do not think that it rises to the level of "proof" of God's existence.

No rational person can claim to have a proof that God exists. But you don't
have to be irrational to believe he does.


Au contraire, mon petit... a leap of *faith* is, by defintion,
irrational.

On the other hand, I have a huge problem with the idea that everything
in a magic book should be accepted as fact to the same degree as
knowledge derived by application of the scientific method. For many
such believers, I think delusion is the proper description. For
others, I think profound intellectual dishonesty is the culprit.

There are probably many scientists like myself who are also, at some level,
theists who reject everything in "magic books."

Definitely. So what?

It is child's play to
demonstrate the fallacy of sacred texts as sources of the ultimate truth. No
serious, rational person believes, for example, that the pathetically human
creature described in the Bible could ever have created the universe.


Right, but lots of serious, irrational people do.

The real delusion, in my opinion, is the belief that any approach, including
"science," can provide all the answers.

Amen to that.

When I was a freshly minted PhD
chemist I believed that science, and scientists, were the ultimate
truth-seekers. Now I realize that much of what passes for science,
especially in the field of healthcare, derives from economics-driven
mythology. The agenda of "big science" is as political, and driven by money,
as any other field of human endeavor. Without our myths we are forced to
face bare truth, which is often unbearable.

This is undeniably true, and is why I mentioned the problem of securing
funding for research into theories to rival the Big Bang.

Vince Hart wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:


I don't think Dawkins' militancy holds a candle to that of religious
zealots who believe that the God who has communicated to them through a
magic book wants them to make war on those whose God communicated to
them through a different magic book.

Nor do I think that Dawkins would consider anyone an idiot for thinking
that their might be an intelligent designer.

Oh, I rather think that although he may not consider these people to be
idiots, he may consider them to be, at best, deluded. He has argued
vociferously to that effect.

I do think he considers
to be idiots those people who want creationism taught along with (if
not instead of) evolution in public school science classes.


Same response. Not idiotic. Deluded.


My response would not be the same in both cases.

I do not think that the idea of a first cause is delusional although I
do not think that it rises to the level of "proof" of God's existence.


On the other hand, I have a huge problem with the idea that everything
in a magic book should be accepted as fact to the same degree as
knowledge derived by application of the scientific method. For many
such believers, I think delusion is the proper description. For
others, I think profound intellectual dishonesty is the culprit.

That's an interesting distinction, which had not occurred to me.