551. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104503 by phil rimmer on December 28, 2007 at 4:53 pm

Well, you did ask the question.

Well actually it was rhetorical. You see I was explaining that the good Archbishop had already provided the first part of the answer for us and that we should be (a little) grateful for this civility.....

552. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104488 by phil rimmer on December 28, 2007 at 4:04 pm

Phil: How will the religious come to recognize that we atheists are not sad lost, barely moral creatures with a great big God-shaped hole in us?

Kris: Perhaps when "(you) atheists" start saying more about than world than just "God doesn't exist, science proves it, and that's all we're saying"

Ha-hah! So its true! You think we're sad lost, barely moral creatures.

And maybe you actually missed what RW said about RD. Did you read the article? Did you follow my comment?

He likened Professor Dawkins' understanding of the beauty of the world around us with that of St John of the Cross, the 16th-century mystic.

Elegant riposte, Steve.

553. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104352 by phil rimmer on December 28, 2007 at 11:10 am

How is the change going to happen? How will the religious come to recognize that we atheists are not sad lost, barely moral creatures with a great big God-shaped hole in us? Despite claims to the contrary from some religious leaders, this statement regarding RD, marks our (atheist) aesthetic sensibilities as being FULLY intact, at least.

Though the compliment is back-handed it stands and cannot reasonably be retracted. This is a firm step to saying that God is not in here (touches head and heart) but out there (waves arm). From theist to deist from deist to....cured....

554. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104320 by phil rimmer on December 28, 2007 at 10:24 am

He likened Professor Dawkins' understanding of the beauty of the world around us with that of St John of the Cross, the 16th-century mystic.

Progress of sorts. Next we need an admission that he (we) might be as moral.

555. The Pagan Christ

Comment #104301 by phil rimmer on December 28, 2007 at 9:45 am

For krisking might I also suggest

(2003) Science: A History 1543-2001. Gardners Books. ISBN 0-14-029741-3

by John Gribbin.

This is a brilliant read, stuffed with fascinating personal details. The struggle for supremacy of the scientific method in discerning truth is a particular theme.

556. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #104279 by phil rimmer on December 28, 2007 at 9:07 am

AtheistJon.

I guess I'm not saying it right. So I'd better stop. I was not offended by your views. I did not intend personal offense though I admit I may have been offensive in my phrasing. My apologies.

But I did want to move the debate on from the naturalness of otherwise of homosexuality to include the bigger(!) question of how we deal with such personal feelings. Sadly, not to be. Maybe next time.

557. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #104237 by phil rimmer on December 28, 2007 at 7:32 am

AtheistJon

Isn't it their own perogative to have this feeling? It seems to me that having such a feeling is devoid of a moral element. It's the acting on those feelings that is the key here.

Having such feelings and deciding not to ANALYZE them is my beef. How you eventually act on your own feelings will depend on what you decide about them one way or the other. I don't really care which way you decide about them, what dismays me is the absence of any kind of introspection about the matter.

I became a strong atheist after years of lazy agnosticism precisely because I saw that leading a better, more moral, life could only flow from being sceptical about all apparent evidence, first person as well as third person. You offer the evidence of your feelings then flatly refuse to think about it.

My reaction is not necessarily the "correct" reaction nor is it the "incorrect" one... it's merely the one I have.

Questions I would love you to ask yourself are, "Are there any future moral repercussions to my feelings in this instance? Am I just "straighter" than others here? Did my upbringing have any effect on these feelings? Etc., etc."

Your feelings are still your responsibility even though you didn't bid them come. And you acted on your feelings in your earlier posts by choosing the language you did.

For the record I am-

Politically non-lateral
Pro Hitchens but Iraq sceptical
Nominally straight but on the Benway 3^4 scale I have clusters around 35 and 67 (69 is soo passé) with an ambition to try 3 if I can get the insurance.

558. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103978 by phil rimmer on December 27, 2007 at 12:25 pm

phil rimmer (addressed to atheistjon) : I only sought from you the first step on the road to decency, remorse.

Paula Kirby: Have just read this comment. It could be straight out of the mouth of an evangelical. Repent and salvation shall be yours!

Ouch! My worst nightmare. Accused of being no better than an evangelical, AND by someone whose judgment and views I find pretty much faultless. On reflection I have to admit it looks bad, and my attempt at a slick formulation for a much longer argument doesn't do the job I intended.

Mark Smith does a better job in 151. Comment #103649. And al-rawandi suitably finishes the point in 152.

Personally I have no problem with atheistjon feeling disgust. One can imagine a hundred reasons why he might be led to react so viscerally. Equally, I am not greatly concerned with being Politically Correct. I see it as being often condescending and divisive. No. My concern is at the very root of what we are about on this site i.e.- seeking to live the most rational lives we can, given the decidedly Unintelligent Design of our brains.

Do we not seek to rise above our impulses where appropriate? Do we not test our first impressions to see if they are genuinely useful, rational? Often first impressions can be useful and rational, though perhaps not immediately so. But we should always test them, right?

Magical thinking, xenophobia, inappropriate disgust or love, arise unbidden. How we choose to deal with it is the mark of us. All I wanted to hear from atheistjon was, "I know its stupid, but..." as a prefix to what he wanted to say. Or if he could not be persuaded into that, at least begin the debate as to why he feels it may NOT be stupid. To leave the question of the rationality of his response unaddressed is disingenuous.

Much as I enjoyed the exchanges in this thread, no-one has dealt with this issue of the rationality of disgust at homosexuality, only the naturalness of homosexuality itself. I don't even think the latter is an issue. Natural or unnatural my concern is the same.

559. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103503 by phil rimmer on December 26, 2007 at 12:48 am

phil rimmer, disgust isn't always irrational

No! You meant to say disgust isn't always unnatural, to which we could all agree. The issue is entirely about how you choose to deal with natural reactions that are nevertheless irrational. My amygdala naturally streams xenophobic reactions into my brain. My public behaviour, however, is all my own rational doing.

I only sought from you the first step on the road to decency, remorse.

560. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103437 by phil rimmer on December 25, 2007 at 4:18 pm

Paula,

I have irrational disgust over some things. Where this reaction might distress others, were it to be made public, I would be ashamed of this aspect of myself. I have no control over my amygdala, but I can seek to minimise the harm wrought by its primitive outpourings.

Either the disgust someone feels at imagining homosexual acts is rational or irrational. To not acknowledge regret for a personal, irrational response, that distresses blameless others, is a pretty poor show. Unless, of course, in the very omission of regret you intend to imply the response is rational and the offending others are indeed blameworthy if not actually criminal...

561. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103430 by phil rimmer on December 25, 2007 at 3:15 pm

Immaculate lesson, Dr. B.

Today has not been a waste.

(I would have done something crass like point out the Freudian implications of masturbatory fantasies like "Why should everybody be forced to swallow homosexuality..")

562. Blair converts to Catholicism

Comment #102749 by phil rimmer on December 23, 2007 at 2:15 pm

I hate Blair for all the failed promises, the lies and the theft of our open society for entirely self-serving reasons. I love Blair for the successful destruction of a huge swathe of (leftist / rightist) political dogma. No more are our political choices forced on us by a crass assessment of our current political "location". The simple merit of solutions counts for more than it used to. (True Maggie [Thatcher] paved the way by the wholesale slaughter of the trade unions and the political "drag" they represented, but it was Blair that showed a moderately civilized country could be run without the fatuous left/right punch-ups.)

It is my experience that though Roman Catholicism represents a higher level of dogmatism than a cosy Vicar of Dibleyism, its practitioners are often more exciting, well-rounded and naturally sinful individuals, perhaps by virtue of possessing the ultimate "get out of jail free" card, the confessional. If your wife's there already, opting for Dogmatism with an inexhaustible pile of doctor's notes seems an obvious choice for someone so naturally deceptive.

[edit] Oops! Just noticed the very proper reluctance to get into matters of petty politics. I shall stop at once.

563. Christmas with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #102729 by phil rimmer on December 23, 2007 at 1:26 pm

Hyperthermia??

Ah! That'll be from sacrificing them on the bonfire, I guess.

564. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99262 by phil rimmer on December 16, 2007 at 6:19 am

ADH: I love the poem he mentioned by Philip Larkin.

A serious house on serious earth it is,
In whose blent air all our compulsions meet,
Are recognized, and robed as destinies.
And that much never can be obsolete,
Since someone will forever be surprising
A hunger in himself to be more serious,
And gravitating with it to this ground,
Which, he once heard, was proper to grow wise in,
If only that so many dead lie round.

ADH, why?

[edit] removing ad hominem

565. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99255 by phil rimmer on December 16, 2007 at 5:48 am

Diacanu

Thanks for posting the Vanity Fair article link

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/11/hitchens200711

I had thought Hitchens wore his moral responsibilities in the matter of Iraq too lightly. If he did, he clearly doesn't now.

566. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #98979 by phil rimmer on December 15, 2007 at 5:05 am

Josh,

Brilliant job. This is a substantial and useful contribution.

Keith,

I know what you mean about CH. He really can shoot from the lip with inappropriate ease. BUT....here he was a good "devil's advocate" on several occasions, bringing the scientists back from the brink of oversimplification.

[EDIT} Just watched the second hour. The rest of my post turned out to be nonsense. I will delete it to hide my shame...

567. Laugh at Sudan

Comment #98719 by phil rimmer on December 14, 2007 at 6:10 am

A matter of taste I guess, Steve.

I'm mystified by Billy Connolly, f'rinstance.

Hitchens, however, could do a great nightclub act, perched on a bar stool a la Dave Allen or Lenny Bruce, clutching a glass of scotch and wreathed in cigarette smoke.....

568. Laugh at Sudan

Comment #98696 by phil rimmer on December 14, 2007 at 4:28 am

I can't see that much new or interesting about what he is saying.

I think many people here, for instance, re-cycle their thoughts. However, he does have a way with coining new ways of seeing and saying it.

"Thats what happens when little men get hold of big ideas..." sums up perfectly the mindset of the troublemakers. A valuable insight.

569. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98681 by phil rimmer on December 14, 2007 at 3:13 am

Hitchens is right when he says religion will not go away. Somehow, the concentrated poison, that is Islam, needs to be diluted to safer C of E levels. Internal reform seems the only safe long term solution. TGA's "bridge" makes sense. However, it is rickety, and underused.

AHA has the key. Actively condemn medieval behaviour whenever it occurs and legislate for the removal of indoctrination of kids through their education. Future generations will find the bridge for themselves.

TGA knows AHA is right. Appearing to complain about her is a disgraceful attempt to create a fig leaf for his own liberal, PC sensibilities.

(Atran I find worse. He treats humans as a natural phenomenon. A typical post modern social scientist, he believes what people naturally are is what people should be allowed to be. This eviscerates our distinguishing features as a species, free will and moral choice. We and everything cultural we do is the definition of unnatural.)

570. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98660 by phil rimmer on December 14, 2007 at 2:12 am

Zamboro.

Your approach is the only way we can cajole moderate Muslims to undertake the long overdue reform of their own religion. Only by confronting moderates repeatedly with the grizzly texts AND (might I add) the shameful fact that there is NO formal and authoritative modern interpretation, can the reform process begin.

Counter-intuitively for us we must encourage the formation of strong Islamic religious institutions that may have the authority to formalize a moderate position and be able to "excommunicate" the mad, bad and dangerous.

Its a f*****g risk, though.

571. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98650 by phil rimmer on December 14, 2007 at 1:43 am

I think both approaches are valid and they can compliment each other.

Me too. But for that to work TGA has to stop undercutting AHA and effectively ignore her. Good cop, bad cop. (The good cop walks away when the bad cop is working.)

572. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96557 by phil rimmer on December 10, 2007 at 5:51 pm

gr8hands.

Nah! I refuse to cede "holidays" back to the holy. I've never had a vacation in my life. Like most Brits I have holidays. During the winter break I go wassailing (well I get pissed) and have a yule tree to put presents under.

[edit]Besides there is no need for it to be CTVA's holiday. Also you need to remove the "atheists for Jesus" thing before the Prof. sees it. (I believe someone has some incriminating pix.)

573. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96534 by phil rimmer on December 10, 2007 at 5:18 pm

I'm just sorry the sign wasn't a bit more pertinent to the season. If it were more pertinent it would appear less...well, petty, less dismissable.

Perhaps something like...

For real peace this holiday

IMAGINE

[pic]

NO RELIGION

(A holiday wish for all from CTVA)

[Edit]As it is it just comes over as party pooping.

574. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92719 by phil rimmer on December 1, 2007 at 10:07 am

I think it is the moral smugness that makes me want to be rude as much as the forays over Jefferson's Wall.

575. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92630 by phil rimmer on December 1, 2007 at 2:10 am

Steve,

I would have been happier of Pat had specifically targeted preachers, bishops etc.

Agree here, but there are many, many religious pro-active individuals, who would promote creationism in schools, deny access to condoms or good sexual health education, deny gay rights, demand sharia law etc., etc. And Pat really does target precisely the pro-active.

..many people on this planet who want us all to live our lives according to ideas and stories that would embarrass a second rate fantasy novelist.

Many of these people think they automatically have rights conferred on them by their faith. The rude, unapologetic, flat denial of those "rights" is a necessary first step and wake-up call that society has a new political agenda and that all people need to start thinking about that. The Rudeness of likening an anti-contraception stance to the desire for capital punishment for apostasy may be necessary to show there is no limit if religious dogma is to be imposed upon others.

Steve, I am most dismayed when people relentlessly pursue another's belief in God for its own sake. That is fatuous. (I even had a pang of remorse reading David Robertson's "Dark Night of the Soul" in his church magazine, and that was brought on by "Polite" atheist debate. The remorse soon evaporated when he reverted to his [mildly] malign influencing of others.)

So for me-

Polite with private faith.
Robust with intrusion into secular matters. [Edit I am very happy if they receive a bruise walking into Jefferson's Wall.]

576. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92418 by phil rimmer on November 30, 2007 at 1:05 pm

I think its possible we all have someone (or some type) in mind when Pat Condell is describing what he would say to an offending religite.

I have occasionally mentioned here a good friend who is a staunch Roman Catholic. From his conversation, you couldn't tell. When challenged about this he explains the privateness of these matters and adds that it would be ridiculous to argue or discuss matters from a religious perspective with others, because there has to be a common vocabulary and common concepts and plenty enough exist in common parlance. I don't know how, but his brilliant conversation seems utterly without dogma. This is a man Pat Condell himself would treat with respect.

However, I know exactly the sort of person I would be brusque or rude to; the Wee Flea, who comes looking to "mix it", to prove himself and the merit of his ideas. But, always the rude dismissal is to the idea not the man.


PS
As Condell is disinterested in a persons thoughts he can only be concerned with their behaviour.

577. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92372 by phil rimmer on November 30, 2007 at 11:17 am

For example, I would imagine that most people think that 'first person' experiences, such as feelings, dreams etc. can be evidence for God, or the supernatural or whatever. They think they are being reasonable when they try and explain their faith to others. To simply mock them, which is my reading of this video, is inappropriate

But to be fair to Pat, he is targeting Dogma. He doesn't care what people believe. He scorns when others push un-evidenced belief in his face. It is their behaviour he seeks to comment upon.

[edit]Steve, I've just been over to PZ's place to look at the Condell stuff. My Goodness, now they were rude. Gosh, I like here quite a lot too. Maybe in knowing the people around you and being known a little more, saying nuanced stuff isn't such a risk. Maybe when I talk about being impolite, I mean "robust".

578. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92174 by phil rimmer on November 30, 2007 at 2:28 am

Vinelectric.

I have passionate debates with my friends. We respect each other, but we don't respect each others ideas. They spoil their kids. They vote for idiots. AGW's a joke/not a joke. Onlookers are quite aghast. However, we take turns to buy a round of drinks and come back for more next week.

Simply saying we want to be able to debate the role of religion in society and that we want to call you an idiot when the occasion demands it, is part of snatching religion back from self-serving priests and putting it into the hands of individuals so they can decide for themselves. I see no pressing need for politeness per se. Impassioned, earnest, and honest discussion and lots of it is what I crave. How can it be wrong?

579. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92165 by phil rimmer on November 30, 2007 at 2:03 am

Once you've dealt the extremists the verbal fingers they deserve how do you plan to enlighten the masses?

Precisely by showing that religious belief is no more worthy of respect than any other set of beliefs.

580. GOD VS. SCIENCE: A Debate Between Natalie Angier and David Sloan Wilson

Comment #92005 by phil rimmer on November 29, 2007 at 5:11 pm

Or...

With apologies to Natalie, I think there's a kind of a silliness to banging away at people's capacity for murder, when in fact, if you're an evolutionist, the only way you would want to evaluate this is to examine what it causes people to do.

We have now reached a stage in our evolution where we can start to consider transcending our evolutionary heritage. From prehistory through to today we have managed to reduce murder rates by an order of magnitude.

Ah! But its not natural is it?

581. Why debate dogma?

Comment #91989 by phil rimmer on November 29, 2007 at 4:57 pm

"What a waste of an Enlightenment."

Priceless!

There is a deep joy in seeing someone so profoundly sane.

582. A New Flea in Town!

Comment #91974 by phil rimmer on November 29, 2007 at 4:19 pm

Is it really reasonable to refer to these people as 'fleas'?

Yes.


Its like the plethora of Da Vinci Code books that came out. Any sales potential depends on the fact of the existence of the "original".

My experience of the three that I have read so far, and the reviews of the others. is that these are slap-dash and ill-considered ripostes that have been rushed into print. They appear to be surprisingly inattentive to the specifics of RD's arguments. I suspect a number of the atheist and religious people who post to this site could do a better job.

583. Dutch lawmaker planning film criticizing the Quran

Comment #91677 by phil rimmer on November 29, 2007 at 12:51 am

Phill Rimmer, if a man murders another man for whatever reason, what or whom do we need to hold to account - the action of murdering, or the murderer? Think about this.

All murdering individuals are to be held to account for their actions.

Note also that one can only insult people, not ideas.

I can insult both the American Flag and an American. It is true the only possible reaction to the insult resides in another persons mind. But the evil of ideas is the thing to attack.

584. Dutch lawmaker planning film criticizing the Quran

Comment #91571 by phil rimmer on November 28, 2007 at 3:05 pm

FK

I strongly disagree with your phrasing. I've now edited the original post to try and explain what I mean. Hope this helps.

585. Dutch lawmaker planning film criticizing the Quran

Comment #91558 by phil rimmer on November 28, 2007 at 2:43 pm

phil rimmer it is perfectly acceptable to judge people based on their ideological and religious affiliation, especially when it comes to one as transformative as Islam. And especially when a stated policy by Muslims is to use immigration as a weapon to islamize the West.

It is perfectly acceptable to judge the actions of an individual in the light of their ideological and religious affiliation, especially when it as transgressive, fascistic and medieval as Islam. And especially when a stated policy by many vocal Muslims is to use immigration as a weapon to Islamize the West.


[edit] To be clear, if you can agree to the above then we can agree. It is peoples actions I am worried about. That their brain is reduced to jello by believing nonsense, I couldn't give a fig for. I am not the thought police. I feel completely free to attack any and every idea, however, and call ideas for how I see them. Finally, I know some good Muslims, who also know some good Muslims. To say simply "Muslims use immigration as a weapon", is to overstate the case.

586. Pupil defends teacher in Muhammad teddy furore

Comment #91548 by phil rimmer on November 28, 2007 at 2:28 pm

An English mother, who had a child in one of the other classes in Unity, said: "I was just gobsmacked. And when I talked about it to colleagues who were Muslims, they felt the same. They were amazed.

Do we have any idea how many ordinary muslims were offended, compared to how many petty officials? These latter derive much of there power from Islam. Could we expose how much of a power play this all is? Get people angry about being manipulated?

587. Dutch lawmaker planning film criticizing the Quran

Comment #91532 by phil rimmer on November 28, 2007 at 2:02 pm

Muslims must become inured to insult, denigration and blasphemy being heaped on their religion.

Nicely put. But we must be clear, the insult is to Islam and not Muslims. We must police the distinction if our point is not to be lost.

588. Dutch lawmaker planning film criticizing the Quran

Comment #91512 by phil rimmer on November 28, 2007 at 1:28 pm

Comment #91507 by epeeist

They recognise our right to free speech would be sufficient.

Fair enough. I think I misunderstood your intention.

589. Dutch lawmaker planning film criticizing the Quran

Comment #91509 by phil rimmer on November 28, 2007 at 1:24 pm

What seems dangerous about Geert Wilders from these few "quotes" is his inability to distinguish the people from the possible poison in their minds. Comparing parts of the Quran to Mein Kampf is legitimate. A "tsunami" of Islamic immigrants, is wholly unacceptable in my mind. Individuals are not to be judged before you meet them.

[edit] I downgraded Wilders from wicked to dangerous. I can't attribute "wicked" on so little information.

590. Dutch lawmaker planning film criticizing the Quran

Comment #91498 by phil rimmer on November 28, 2007 at 1:06 pm

So, they can have theirs [cultural sensitivities], providing we can have ours.

So, how does that work precisely in the Netherlands, or France or the UK? "They" recognize "our" right to free speech so long as we watch what we say?

591. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #91104 by phil rimmer on November 27, 2007 at 8:28 am

As for Dawkins, after arguing in this 2006 video that religion is the "root of all evil"

For crying out loud, Dianelos! RD hated the title of the video foisted on him by the producers. The best compromise he could get was to have the question mark in.

This has been oft repeated. I am sure you are aware of the fact, as you are aware of your deliberate deception in omitting the question mark in your post above.

Very early on he did the Atheists for Jesus thing and the "gentle" interview with the Bishop of Oxford.

Your thesis is duff.

More likely you just started listening to what these guys were saying instead of merely reacting to it.

592. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90826 by phil rimmer on November 26, 2007 at 1:21 pm

I am not even sure his ideas have that much merit.

Too true. There is only one aspect that I find really attractive. It is only implied in this article and explicitly stated in a single throwaway remark in the Beyond Belief lecture and it is this-

To be free of all "super levitating turtles" we must question all given axioms and laws.

This must count as one of the least dogmatic, most anti-religious mindsets it is possible to have.

593. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90789 by phil rimmer on November 26, 2007 at 11:13 am

What if he is trying not to make religites not scary of the results of science?

Nice thought. But I honestly believe he is addressing his fellow scientists, consciously insulting them with the "F" word and trying to get them to notice him and acknowledge his theories. If he can gain some more Templeton dosh on the way, then so much the better.

His language dishonours the merit of his ideas.

594. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90682 by phil rimmer on November 26, 2007 at 5:49 am

That may be what he is talking about but what he is asserting is that "scientists proceed on faith".

His language is loose and deliberately provocative. burn0gas provides a better formulation substituting Trust for Faith.

Davies' description of how science is done completely fails to show that, in order to work at all, scientists must take certain things on trust to be able to test related ideas. Nor can they work at all levels at once, particularly where opportunities for evidence currently don't exist.

We must be careful, however, to tease out from his work what is valuable to us. That he is able to (legitimately!) tar some scientists with the same brush as religites is a warning that we should be on our guard against lazy thinking. We should be clear, our various "faiths" are empirical, contingent and most likely transient stepping stones to greater knowledge. He actually urges us on.

595. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90652 by phil rimmer on November 26, 2007 at 3:17 am

Davies' article is almost entirely self-serving. By way of damage limitation, I say we should embrace it as an anti-faith piece, pointing out that it is only the side of the scientist that has the tradition, the methodology, and the desire to make progress in the matter.

Is there ever a time to stop asking why?

Religite: "When we've found God."
Scientist: "Never!"

Not only are there known unknowns and unknown unknowns, but our future ability to comprehend is unknown.

596. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90647 by phil rimmer on November 26, 2007 at 2:19 am

gr8hands:If Davies has a problem with physicists saying "the laws just are", then he should equally have a problem with people who say "God created everything, but nobody created God, God always was." Thus far, he's not pointed out how that is illogical. Any guess why not?

Davies from NYtimes article:It seems to me there is no hope of ever explaining why the physical universe is as it is so long as we are fixated on immutable laws or meta-laws that exist reasonlessly or are imposed by divine providence.

[EDIT]To illustrate Steve's point.

In fact, the more I look at what his intentions might have been in writing the article, the more I see it is an anti-faith polemic. His target is a certain set of (what he sees as) lazy thinking scientists. His tone and language have been set to "rankle".

597. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90550 by phil rimmer on November 25, 2007 at 1:44 pm

46. Comment #90536 by Goldy

Best Bill Maher I've seen. Brill.

598. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90546 by phil rimmer on November 25, 2007 at 1:35 pm

As a politician, to talk openly about one's religion, is to state for all to hear that one's moral's are as good as any person's could possibly be. There is no other reason to do so. It is not to engage in arcane discussions about theology. It is to say, morally speaking, I am one of the best.

I have been repeatedly shocked by posts here from religious moderates about their feelings of moral superiority (though often not expressed in such immodest terms).

My good Roman Catholic friend is appalled by such bandying around of religiosity. He does not believe himself morally anyone's superior. He does not believe he has the right to express his views on matters of morality or personal conscience to others in any religious terms at all, as he can't imagine why they might accept that as conferring any merit on them, whatsoever.

Why can't religious politicians understand that it is hugely disrespectful to talk in religious terms to the GENERAL public?

599. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90529 by phil rimmer on November 25, 2007 at 12:29 pm

My only concern with Paul Davies' article was this-

For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence.

This is a disingenuous comment even if his thesis is that some scientists need to loosen up a bit as it were. The magnitudes of the failures are not equal, nor the rate at which those magnitudes are changing. Further, I would have thought that growing numbers of physicists, at least, were "loosening up".

The shock though is that contributors here have been shocked at these ideas (of mutable laws).

Steve. Don't go. Rationality will lose.

600. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90243 by phil rimmer on November 23, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Theists (like Tibor ?) often view atheists as the zombies, and not just as relentless, rabid converters of non-zombies to the faith/non-faith, but more completely zombie-ish, i.e. missing some vital spark of common human decency.

Its why we can't be president of the United States.

Atheists can never be truly self-sacrificing, they believe.

I wonder if such theists secretly take heart from 9/11?