Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Steve Zara


601. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #191897 by Steve Zara on June 12, 2008 at 4:30 am

clearthinker-

If you don't have the time the basic idea is that in order for there to be good. or to know good there has to be an opposite.


I see a bit of a problem with the existence of an afterlife then. Good people spend an eternity in heaven, and it is supposed to be nice. But how then is that possible if there is no nasty there? Don't people have freewill in heaven? Or are there only the kind of people who choose to be nice? If that is the case, why didn't God just make people who choose niceness?

I honestly find this all a bit confusing. I mean, if someone wants to believe in a Trinity, it is probably better to go with the Wyrd Sisters - the Norns - the Fates. I mean, they weren't expected to be nice all the time, so there is no theodicy problem.

602. Hints of structure beyond the visible universe

Comment #191889 by Steve Zara on June 12, 2008 at 4:04 am

Comment #191885 by AtheistJon

A good analogy.

603. Hints of structure beyond the visible universe

Comment #191879 by Steve Zara on June 12, 2008 at 3:37 am

Comment #191874 by the great teapot

Is there an explanation for a speeding up of the expansion? (that can be understood by an idiot.)



No :)

Not because you are an idiot, but because no definite explanation has been found.

Although I suspect the reality of the expansion is itself beyond my comprehension, I live in a strictly 3D world and can't escape.


I think it is actually pretty simple. Space is stretching. This stretching acts like a force on everything. Your body is being pulled apart right now by it. You don't explode because the force is far, far less than those forces keeping you intact. However, you are just a tiny bit taller (and fatter) than you would be if the universe was static.

604. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191870 by Steve Zara on June 12, 2008 at 3:20 am

Comment #191868 by Richard Dawkins

Thank you. Perhaps it might be useful to make this more visible? I suspect that there could be very many users of this site who, like me, are regular users of Amazon but had no idea that we could help the site in this way.

605. Hints of structure beyond the visible universe

Comment #191867 by Steve Zara on June 12, 2008 at 3:10 am

Comment #191827 by qster

It is possible, although the evidence actually points to a speeding up of expansion.

606. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #191851 by Steve Zara on June 12, 2008 at 1:55 am

Alan W - Neither logic nor theology seems to be your forte either. You think that all answered prayer is a miracle? Who teaches that? The funds did appear by some naturalistic agency. That is normally how God works. When I buy my wife some flowers and they are delivered by the flowershop - my wife does not turn round and say that because they were handed over by a van driver I had nothing to do with it. Think about it.


Oh dear. Not much logic here.

If things appear by naturalistic agency, then by definition there has been no intervention, and all natural causal connections can be traced.

If there has been intervention from the supernatural (a meaningless concept in itself), then it is miraculous.

607. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #191846 by Steve Zara on June 12, 2008 at 1:44 am

Have mercy....I have nothing to do with Ken Ham....


Prove it. Make a statement here which states that evolution happened, and that there were natural disasters, diseases and deaths long before humans turned up.

608. Physicist Claims First Real Demonstration of Cold Fusion

Comment #191819 by Steve Zara on June 11, 2008 at 10:30 pm

Cold fusion has met this test.


No, it hasn't.

If cold fusion had been clearly demonstrated, there would be papers in reputable high-impact peer-reviewed journals, like Nature.

Also, people would, by now, actually be using it for industrial energy production.

609. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191813 by Steve Zara on June 11, 2008 at 9:36 pm

which is of course completely asinine. Gloss-overs and canned answers just don't make for an interesting discussion.


So, if we could provide a detailed explanation for sedimentation, then you would change your mind and go "wow! The Bible is wrong"?

Are you serious?

I am still waiting for any reason we should consider your personal incredulity worth listening to as against the whole of modern science.

Come on - you must have some reason not to consider yourself some kind of crank. I do hope you will share it with us.

610. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191657 by Steve Zara on June 11, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Comment #191655 by alan baylis

I agree.

This is why I have, reluctantly, come to the conclusion that fighting them with science alone isn't going to help.

We need to show that they are enemies of reason in all its forms.

Do these people want court cases won based on people saying "God told me the accused was guilty"?

People need to be shown that theism challenges every aspect of their lives.

611. Fleabytes

Comment #191624 by Steve Zara on June 11, 2008 at 10:28 am

Richard M-

What Diacanu said.

612. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191611 by Steve Zara on June 11, 2008 at 10:09 am

Where does Timothy Xavier go after each drubbing we lay apon his skull?


Any evidence that doesn't fit What God Said is the work of the Devil, put there to delude atheist Darwinists.

He is unreachable behind his Supernatural Conspiracy Theory view of the world.

I just want him to be explicit about this, so that anyone reading this thread who might waver about creationism can see how screwed-up his justification is.

613. Fleabytes

Comment #191602 by Steve Zara on June 11, 2008 at 9:36 am

Comment #191550 by al-rawandi

Al-
You are going to have to imagine this said in a Cockney accent (I'll do my best using spelling):

"Leave it aaaht. E ain't worf it."

614. New British Petition: Stop the Nightmares

Comment #191591 by Steve Zara on June 11, 2008 at 9:15 am

Comment #191575 by vertigo25

For there to be any equivalence, you would need to have children living in communities who base their lives on the Chicken Little story. Who have elders who preach the truth of that story once a week. There would need to be schools of Chickeners where every morning, children are read sections of the story, and told how this should effect their behaviour.

615. Hints of structure beyond the visible universe

Comment #191518 by Steve Zara on June 11, 2008 at 5:35 am

Do we really need evidence to assume there was something before our universe. I find it easier to beleive there was something that created our universe(not an intellegent being), than to beleive our universe developed from nothing out of no where. that indeed would take some sort of divine magician.


Imagine the universe shrinking back to it's origin. It gets smaller and smaller, eventually much, much smaller than an atom. As it gets down to the Planck length, it is very likely that quantum gravitational effects are present. Gravity is to do with spacetime, so quantum effects mean that space and time themselves become uncertain. When time is uncertain, causality itself makes little sense, and something coming out of nothing is entirely reasonable.

616. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191503 by Steve Zara on June 11, 2008 at 4:45 am

Comment #191502 by Richard Dawkins

No. I didn't realise. What an excellent system.

EDIT:

Unless I am being dense (which is possible), I can only get to amazon.com, which is not much use to me as I want amazon.co.uk

If someone can explain to me if it is possible to navigate to the UK Amazon site and still provide the rake-off, I will re-order that way.

617. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191494 by Steve Zara on June 11, 2008 at 4:34 am

I have just ordered 4 books from Amazon as a direct result of this site. There should be a discount...

618. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191486 by Steve Zara on June 11, 2008 at 3:42 am

Comment #191480 by epeeist

You can indeed. It gives me an excuse to by a book MPhil recommended.

619. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191478 by Steve Zara on June 11, 2008 at 3:24 am

Comment #191476 by Paula Kirby

You were really heroic for sitting through that quietly.

That was an interesting report. I am increasingly encountering postmodernism in discussions with theists. It does seem a last-ditch defence, as reason and science are proving so successful in revealing the flaws in religion.

620. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191470 by Steve Zara on June 11, 2008 at 2:58 am

What happened to the new Steve With Bite?


I thought Comment #191446 was suitably full of teeth :)

621. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191461 by Steve Zara on June 11, 2008 at 2:46 am

Comment #191454 by hungarianelephant

Absolutely outstanding. Nothing more need be said!

Next theist please....

622. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191446 by Steve Zara on June 11, 2008 at 1:42 am

Comment #191437 by ypostelnik

Some of us have been looking at "the other side" for years, if not decades. My personal view is that you are almost certainly not debating with. You are welcome to prove me wrong.

The reason why I believe you are not worth discussion is because your blog post has to be one of the most ignorant of just about every area of science I have ever seen, and that is saying a lot. It is so bad that I am tempted to see it as a joke, or perhaps a publicity stunt to promote your company (which I see is mentioned after your post).

Your post is precisely equivalent to writing a series of letters (in coloured crayon, I would expect) to Einstein, Hawking, Watson, Crick, and Dawkins) each of which says "I am sorry Professor, but I know better than you. Let me point out where you are wrong".

I don't think you realise what bad publicity this is for you. Not just your ignorance in dealing with science is now known to thousands, but your arrogance in assuming so much of it is wrong is as well.

What you have to do to convince me you are worth discussion is to list what evidence or argument would persuade you to change your mind.

623. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191434 by Steve Zara on June 11, 2008 at 1:03 am

txpiper-

But I do enjoy explaining as best I can, why I don't accept what other people believe.


You haven't explained that.

You have given a list of things that you don't understand. You haven't given any explanation of why you feel able to rate your personal feelings above entire fields of science.

I await that explanation.

624. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #191431 by Steve Zara on June 11, 2008 at 12:32 am

Comment #185335 by Theo

If however, metaphysical supernaturalism connotes metaphysical neutralism i.e. it allows for the possibility of supernatural causes only when phenomena cannot be explained by natural means, then I cannot at this time foresee any negative consequence.


This is a very common sort of statement. It is nonsense. Or, at least, I consider it nonsense until someone comes up with a method for demonstrating that any given phenomenon can never be explained by any kind of natural cause, known or unknown.

"God of the gaps" arguments are considered inappropriate by many religious people, from theologists to popes. Unfortunately, "Supernaturalism of the gaps" is just as flawed.

625. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191419 by Steve Zara on June 10, 2008 at 11:21 pm

txpiper write:

No. I don't like to generalize. But arrogance, like humility, means different things to different people.


Your arrogance is inescapable.

Could you please explain why we should waste time listening to arguments simply because you rate your personal incredulity as a more powerful force for understanding than the entire fields of biology and geology?

You may not realise how stupid and dangerous this is. Would you let someone inexperienced fly a plane you were in because they had a firm inner conviction that they were better than any pilot? The result would be a disaster.

There is a world-wide battle to prevent people like you trying to "crash" science.

So, an explanation of why anyone should take you seriously would be appreciated.

626. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191208 by Steve Zara on June 10, 2008 at 11:38 am

could be a search for positive evidence of Intelligent Design.


I am afraid not. Positive evidence for ID is, in principle, impossible:

http://zarbi.livejournal.com/119104.html

627. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #191186 by Steve Zara on June 10, 2008 at 10:41 am

Comment #191180 by Vaal

Is this the new you? One body blow followed by a right hook and the poor old theists are out for the count. Will they come back for round two?


Yes, this is my new attitude. I have been taking time off, and have been learning a considerable amount from a good friend here who is a philosopher. I have also taken on board what epeeist has said to me, and very wise words from Dr Benway. I have also been debating theists and theologists, and have had comforting victories. I have many new ideas about strategies to deal with those who wish to promote religious ideas in public.

628. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191179 by Steve Zara on June 10, 2008 at 10:26 am

Comment #191172 by sent2null

A wonderful post!

But.. those are still things that happen within our spacetime.

What is truly bizarre are ideas of how our spacetime itself could have arisen from a background that is built of more fundamental units than space and time. I have picked up hints of this work from reading the books of Brian Greene, and there is also the now classic work of Hawking and Hartle.

629. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #191176 by Steve Zara on June 10, 2008 at 10:19 am

Comment #191156 by Shmeezers

Well, not I. But scientism should be honest enough to understand this. It is a faith system, like any other. Science has never proved that God does not exist, nor that God did not intelligently design anything. Rather, it simply excludes such a possiblity from the outset, which naturally leads to its dogmatic adherence to Darwinian evolution.


Nice to see you again.

I have quite a bit of work for you to do. Are you ready?

First, you have to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural. You have to show that certain phenomena are not just beyond our understanding now, but beyond any possible understanding of any future investigation of nature.

Actually no, that isn't enough. You have to show that phenomena aren't just beyond any understanding of nature, but that they definitely don't follow any natural rules.

Having done that, we can now address the matter of God. God is a supreme being, with infinite extent, and infinite knowledge and infinite power. So what you have to do is exclude all possible non-infinite alternatives, even supernatural ones, before your God is acceptable.

I think you might perhaps have some idea of the problem. It isn't science that has excluded God from the outset. It is theology. If you want to talk about a "God" who is natural, and perhaps not terribly bright, then perhaps a conversation could be possible.

Are you prepared to have that conversation?

630. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191163 by Steve Zara on June 10, 2008 at 9:59 am

Comment #191138 by irate_atheist

Excellent post.

What people confuse, I feel, is "faith", with "hope".

"hope" = I have no evidence, but I really want there to be a God.

"faith" = I have this deep inner feeling that there is a God, and that is evidence

Enough "hope", and you start deluding yourself you have "faith".

But, this still isn't the true "belief without evidence" of the theologists. It is something far worse and more dangerous.

631. Complex Synapses Drove Brain Evolution

Comment #191145 by Steve Zara on June 10, 2008 at 9:37 am

Comment #191136 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

A Blank Slate?


Close to it, yes.

However, during development, various parts of the brain will have been stimulated by the various nerves that attach to it, and in the womb the fetus will have experienced warmth, touch, and sound, so not quite blank.

632. Complex Synapses Drove Brain Evolution

Comment #191130 by Steve Zara on June 10, 2008 at 9:16 am

It was an analogy rather than a literal comparison I was making, though there are some point mutations in genomes that are extremely deleterious to the organism. The main advantage that DNA/RNA has over Windows Vista is it's ability to repair damage and errors in it's coding. Computer scientists have started using similar biological techniques to develop resilient software for mission critical apps.


I didn't mean to be too critical, but I don't believe that genome can be anything like the same kind of thing as software. I say this as a programmer with 40 years experience (!). It is far more like a robust recipe.

633. Complex Synapses Drove Brain Evolution

Comment #191116 by Steve Zara on June 10, 2008 at 8:49 am

(Bother. I am addicted. I admit it)

Comment #190929 by Obecalp

That's hardly an argument. For an instance there are only very few genes responsible for making antibodies (the tiny protein fragments which, among other functions, can neutralize a pathogen), but still a human being is able to generate a staggering diversity of 10^18 different (!) antibodies!


But those don't form complex structures. Variety is not complexity.

By the way, are you implying that a newborns brain is NOT extremely complex???


Yes, that is just what I am saying. Brains develop as a result of learing and nerve stimulation.

A potential way to look at a very, very young brain is like a huge disk drive. Vast amounts of the same structures (neurones/magnetic domains), ready to store information, and as a result, contain complexity.

Comment #190944 by Buddha
The Human genome needs to be viewed as a computer Operating System rather than a recipe book. A computer programming language may have only a few dozen instructions, but it's the combination and interaction of those instructions that provide the infinite variety of software applications.


One thing we can be pretty sure that the genome is NOT like is an operating system. Just about all software systems we know are very fragile - change a single character and it is possible to bring the whole thing down. Living systems (including the brain) are robust. Major parts can be damaged and changed, and they carry on.

Comment #191020 by Mozglubov

I just wanted to quickly point out before I head off to work that the infant brain is, in many ways, more complex than the adult brain (I guess it depends on your definition of complexity)


Indeed. What you are describing is simplicity, not complexity. The pruning is one mechanism for introducing complexity, of sculpting the brain.

634. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #191014 by Steve Zara on June 10, 2008 at 5:37 am

I am not in an ethical free for all because I believe in an absolute God who provides the standard for absolute morality.


Inspired by this (and past responses of a similar nature), I have posted a little something based on a response I wrote here some months back.

I humbly hope that it may be found relevant (part of my reason for blogging is to build up resources)...

http://zarbi.livejournal.com/134308.html

635. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190880 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 7:43 pm

Max...

It is no big deal. I am involved in other interesting and hopefully useful ways of promoting reason. I am just not in the mood to deal with that sort of "vigour".

Incidentally, I am about to post the closing statement of a long formal debate (just need a friend to look it over) that has been going on for most of the year (or at least so it feels like). I'll post here when it is done, as some may find it interesting.

636. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190874 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 7:25 pm

Fuck's sake, Steve. This is not on.


Don't worry. I'll take a break from here again. I guess I am not suited right now to the robust nature of discussions here. Maybe I'll try again in the near future.

Back to the blog :)

637. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190869 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 7:17 pm

Comment #190866 by MaxD

I am taking a new approach after much thinking about dealing with creationists. I hope others feel it is complementary to theirs. I think that although describing their scientific errors is extremely valuable (and it has been done superbly on this thread), in the end it is futile in dealing with the individual concerned. Instead, I point out how unethical their attacks on science are: you have added appropriate adjectives - it is certainly dishonest. It is cowardly because all you get from a scientist is a good argument (no condemning you to hell), and it is unbelievably arrogant. If this does not shame an individual into retreat, it may make others question their position, and keep their religious views away from scientific discussions.

This is a far less tolerant approach that I have taken in the past, but I feel it may be necessary.

638. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190863 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 6:47 pm

Comment #190860 by MaxD

Perfectly expressed.

Styer-

Is it the hat or something, or am I somehow just fundamentally annoying? I really am not intending to be, but it is getting a bit tiresome to be picked on whichever thread I happen to be on.

Seriously, if I am being a total ass, I'll shut up for a while - better than winding people up without knowing why.

639. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190861 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 6:45 pm

You may think it is magnificent, I think it is narrow-minded and guarantees absurd and erroneous results:


But to me it is repugnant.


Here you show your incredible arrogance again. Truth does not care about what you find repugnant. No amount of trying to deny evidence and twist the findings of other scientists will change that you are personally claiming to have a more profound knowledge of their subject and how it should be investigated than they do.

If you don't want to accept science, you are entirely free to simply ignore it. However, what you are doing here is not just arrogant, it is obscene. You are trying to interfere with science because you don't like what it says.

You should be truly ashamed.

My beliefs are just a tad more sophisticated than you might think.


Nonsense.

You aren't sophisticated at all. You have beliefs that weren't even respectable in the middle ages.

At least try and act with a bit of dignity. Go back to your holy book and stop trying to act like you have some world-changing knowledge of science. This is frankly embarassing to watch.

640. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190853 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 6:11 pm

It is my view that most believers don't have faith. They think they have evidence. If you have evidence, what is faith needed for?

Nope, for most believers the complexity of the world and the warm fuzzy feeling they get when they think of God, and they listen to the imagined voices of Jesus in their heads.

To most of them, "faith" means little more than "trust the warm fuzzy feeling".

The ones who really have to have faith are the theologists, who know what fragile assumptions their beliefs are based on.

641. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190826 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Comment #190824 by Styrer-

No rudeness intended, and no huff.

However you want to use the term creationist, one can surely consider as truly bizarre the idea that natural disasters are somehow a consequence of sin.

Well, I do anyway :)

I'll stop posting just on this particular thread for a while and let things calm down.

642. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190820 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 4:05 pm

Styrer, Steve, hey chill


I am quite cool, but somewhat bemused at what I have stirred up.

David seems to be a very odd creationist - some hybrid of YEC and Old Earth, in which there was a period before man in which the Earth was somehow a much nicer place. Quite how he imagines the world was free of cancer before humans is puzzling.

Perhaps a better term would be "Old Eden"?

On the other hand, I may simply not have experience at reading religious writings, and am taking things at face value in David's writings that I shouldn't.

Any guidance offered would be appreciated.

643. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190813 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 3:55 pm

Comment #190810 by Styrer-

Sorry, but I have neither the time or inclination for this discussion. You are welcome to call me what you like if you feel it helps the battle for reason in some way. It does not concern me.

For whatever reasons, DR is, and has been, making creationist noises. It is now clear that he has been making noises for some time, but perhaps just to a selected audience. That is both interesting and concerning. I feel we should concentrate on that matter.

644. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190807 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 3:33 pm

Comment #190805 by Styrer-

I don't know why, but I do seem to get you riled up. It is not my intention.

From my point of view, there is more than enough in that single article to label someone as creationist if that is their honest view. No-one who believes in evolution (or geology!) would state that God made the world initially free of death, disasters (even cancer), and those were a result of man's sinfulness. It is hard to see how much more flagging of creationism there could be short of claiming to be a personal supporter of Ken Ham and best fiends of Ben Stein.

However, perhaps best for your temper if you don't engage me in discussion :)

645. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190797 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Comment #190794 by Styrer-

As occasionally happens, I am losing track of what you are saying.

What I meant was that the evidence has been there for years.

I am not exaggerating about that.

Mind you, one has to perhaps be cautious about what the evidence shows. Was DR a creationist, playing at being a creationist, or simply nodding in the direction of creationism to placate some people?

Who knows.

646. We happy hooligans

Comment #190789 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 2:54 pm

So it is with much of theology (that Dawkins is accused of not studying). It's not focused on proving God exists but how we might think about the divine or the supernatural or phenomena science can't explain or give meaning to. (I'm referring to more modern theologians mentioned obliquely or not in the article.)


This is hugely question-begging. It assumes there are divine or supernatural phenomena. This is quite an assumption; in fact, I am personally convinced it is unprovable.

I am not saying science can deal with everything - it clearly can't, and there is an important role for philosophy, for example. But, theology has to first justify that its field of study actually exists.

647. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190767 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 2:27 pm

It is possible to shift the opinion of theists, very occasionally. I would like to report a very small victory in the battle for reason. Today in a thread on Pharyngula Vox Day has conceded that I was right in a criticism of his discussion about Dawkins' discussion of complexity. There are now, apparently, 7 criticisms of Dawkins in this matter, not 8.

It isn't all hopeless. If we can shift even the most vigorous theists even a little, just think of the impression we can make on those watching discussions who are far less certain.

648. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190752 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Comment #190748 by Styrer-

My hindsight is focussing on that article.

649. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190740 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Comment #190729 by Styrer-

Forgive me, I was not clear. Scottishgeologist has posted a link to an article by DR regarding the Asian Tsunami, written in 2005. It is distinctly creationist in flavour:
http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2005/jan05.htm

It implies that human sinfulness resulted in a fall, which brought death and natural disasters into the world.

I am not talking about hindsight in terms of looking at his postings here - this is about looking back at what we now know he has written in the past.

650. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190724 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Comment #190718 by Quine

To follow on from Quine's excellent post, I think it is becoming increasingly clear that there are serious problems even with the term "supernatural". We have discovered physical phenomena that are way beyond anything we imagined possible centuries ago. An example is the time dilation effect of relativity. It seems, therefore, highly problematic for us to label anything we see that is beyond our comprehension as "supernatural".

The concept of the supernatural is as flawed as that of intelligent design. It is a "gap filler" that can never be shown to be correct, as it would be impossible to exclude the range even of conceivable potential natural explanations, let alone those we don't know of yet.

Intelligent Design is understandably held in contempt even by theologists and popes. Unfortunately precisely the same arguments apply to supernaturalism as a whole.

A debate which even involved mention of God is question-begging. Debates should start with the science and philosophy of naturalism, and only if and when the supernatural has been established as a viable concept should discussions about theism proceed, in my view.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 | Next