Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME FORUMS BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Fri Apr 25, 2014 2:35 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Don't give creationists the attention they crave 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membership
Insatiable Reader


Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 2071
Thanks: 345
Thanked: 248 times in 209 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave
The absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.


_________________
“So I hated life, because what is done under the sun was grievous to me, for all is vanity and a striving after wind!” (Ecclesiastes 2:17)


“For it is owing to their wonder that men both now begin to and at first began to philosophize; they wondered originally at the obvious difficulties, then advanced little by little and stated difficulties about the greater matters, e.g. about the phenomena of the moon and those of the sun and of the stars, and about the genesis of the universe. And a man who is puzzled and wonders thinks himself ignorant” (Metaphysics, 350 BC)


Tue Aug 02, 2011 1:06 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Easy Reader

Gold Contributor 2

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 2939
Location: NC
Thanks: 951
Thanked: 1019 times in 760 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave
ant wrote:
The absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.


Ant, I'm guessing you believe in God and you feel threatened by science which is why you seem to want to take science down a peg. But from my perspective, science makes no claims about the existence of God or any other supernatural phenomenon. Science is just a method for exploring our world. Our scientific inquiries are necessarily limited to the physical world. If you believe in something that has no basis in science, no supporting evidence, and especially something that is supernatural, than that is a matter of faith. It really is as simple as that.

This belief of yours may go farther than simple belief in God, however, and maybe that's why you see a conflict with science. Perhaps you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible that says the earth is 6,000 years old. But the vast preponderance of evidence shows that the earth is billions of years old. Is that the nature of your dispute with science?


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Last edited by geo on Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:24 am, edited 1 time in total.



Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:36 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
The Unbound and Learned

BookTalk.org Moderator

Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 3176
Location: Michigan
Thanks: 1198
Thanked: 940 times in 687 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave
Quote:
Science puts the onus on religion to prove the existence of an intelligence that is responsible for the creation if the universe and consciousness. So be it.

However, science has yet to explain the ORIGIN of life. It (science) can only explain in fragments the processes involved in the development of life.

Score:

Religion = 0
Science = 0



Scientists are hot on the trail of the origins of life. It's the study of abiogenesis and you can find a lot of information on it if you give it a go.

I found some excellent videos which go step-by-step on the likely origin of life a while back. I'll see if i can locate them for you.

We have also described, in detail, exactly how animals evolve over time to bring about the dazzling diversity of animal life with methods that are open to the public, repeatable, measureable, traceable, and which provides critical information which cross connects many fields of study.

Check out this thread for further discussion.

yes-evolution-t8939.html

Quote:
However, science has yet to explain the ORIGIN of life.


Religion has yet to explain the origin of anything.

The methods of science are also responsible for literally everything that we can prove we actually know. Engineering, agriculture, medicine, architecture, fabrication, textiles, art, automation, publication, electronics, trans-continental rail and road systems, the assembly line, trans-oceanic telecommunications infrastructure, boats, wheel barrows, hand-axes, satelites, automotives, the calendar, trips to the moon, telecommunications, vaccines, irrigation, sanitation, flight... all of these are only made possible through the use of the scientific method.

Meanwhile the contribution of religion to our understanding of the world? Instances where they can demonstrate that they actually know anything at all about the claims they make? Got any?

Not only have the assertions of religion about our supposed supernatural destinations always and invariably been beyond their ability to certify, a great bit of religious assertions about the things we CAN test have proven to be incredibly wrong-headed and flat out incorrect.

So, a revised scoreboard would more accurately look something like this.

Science = Everything that seperates us from dirt-scratching subsistence gatherers and rat hunters.

Religion = Hot air.

Check here for more discussion:

reason-and-wishes-t10899.html

Welcome to the boards, Ant.


_________________
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.

Have you tried that? Looking for answers?
Or have you been content to be terrified of a thing you know nothing about?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?


The following user would like to thank johnson1010 for this post:
Chris OConnor, Dexter, geo
Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:06 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membership
Insatiable Reader


Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 2071
Thanks: 345
Thanked: 248 times in 209 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave
Quote:
Ant, I'm guessing you believe in God and you feel threatened by science which is why you seem to want to take science down a peg.


I can not say that I believe in a personal God - one who sits in judgment of humans, punishes/rewards, concerns him/herself over situations that are created by man. As for your claim that I wish to take science down a notch, you're actually wrong. I have a great deal of respect for science and its inquisitive nature. Hence, the great majority of my readings are scientific in nature.

There seems to be an arrogant animosity exhibited by people who support science in a dogmatic way, while turning their nose up at people who subscribe to doctrines of faith. This disturbs me. There are limits to language and logic which will (I'm guessing) always prevent us from having a complete understanding of the material world. To presume otherwise is arrogant presumption.



Quote:
Science is just a method for exploring our world.


I agree.


Quote:
This belief of yours may go farther than simple belief in God, however, and maybe that's why you see a conflict with science.


I actually believe both science and religion can be reconciled.

Quote:
Perhaps you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible that says the earth is 6,000 years old. But the vast preponderance of evidence shows that the earth is billions of years old. Is that the nature of your dispute with science?



:lol:

I have no dispute with the practice of science. My dispute is with people that transform science into dogma. They are no better than those lost in religious dogma.


_________________
“So I hated life, because what is done under the sun was grievous to me, for all is vanity and a striving after wind!” (Ecclesiastes 2:17)


“For it is owing to their wonder that men both now begin to and at first began to philosophize; they wondered originally at the obvious difficulties, then advanced little by little and stated difficulties about the greater matters, e.g. about the phenomena of the moon and those of the sun and of the stars, and about the genesis of the universe. And a man who is puzzled and wonders thinks himself ignorant” (Metaphysics, 350 BC)


Tue Aug 02, 2011 11:31 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Easy Reader

Gold Contributor 2

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 2939
Location: NC
Thanks: 951
Thanked: 1019 times in 760 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave
ant wrote:
I have no dispute with the practice of science. My dispute is with people that transform science into dogma. They are no better than those lost in religious dogma.


Very good. We get a few religious trolls here and sometimes you have to feel them out to see where they're coming from. You say science and religion should be reconciled. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by people who transform science into dogma. There are those who are anti-religion, of course.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Tue Aug 02, 2011 12:00 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membership
Insatiable Reader


Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 2071
Thanks: 345
Thanked: 248 times in 209 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave
Quote:
You say science and religion should be reconciled.


Not to quibble with words, but I said I believe science and religion CAN be reconciled, not SHOULD be. :)


_________________
“So I hated life, because what is done under the sun was grievous to me, for all is vanity and a striving after wind!” (Ecclesiastes 2:17)


“For it is owing to their wonder that men both now begin to and at first began to philosophize; they wondered originally at the obvious difficulties, then advanced little by little and stated difficulties about the greater matters, e.g. about the phenomena of the moon and those of the sun and of the stars, and about the genesis of the universe. And a man who is puzzled and wonders thinks himself ignorant” (Metaphysics, 350 BC)


Tue Aug 02, 2011 1:12 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Moderator

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1230
Thanks: 133
Thanked: 476 times in 350 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave
ant wrote:
Quote:
You say science and religion should be reconciled.


Not to quibble with words, but I said I believe science and religion CAN be reconciled, not SHOULD be. :)


If you thought they could be reconciled, why wouldn't you think they should be?

If by reconciliation you mean answering questions about the origin of life or the universe, then if religion could say something about it with any evidence whatsoever, it would cease to be religion -- it would be science.



The following user would like to thank Dexter for this post:
geo
Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:54 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4844
Location: California
Thanks: 546
Thanked: 1211 times in 932 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave
Ant wrote:
There seems to be an arrogant animosity exhibited by people who support science in a dogmatic way, while turning their nose up at people who subscribe to doctrines of faith.


This is an understandable reaction to points that crop up in religious debates. I've seen science attacked in many different ways, many of which boil down to the fact that science does not give absolute answers.

Science embodies trial and error. If we try it and it doesn't fail, we hang on to it until it does fail, or until we can think up something better to try. That isn't absolute, but it's the best we can possibly do. The position of a creationist or literalist is that the divine inspiration given during the authoring of the bible gives access to knowledge unmatched by anything we humans could come up with. Even our methods of reasoning, such as logic, are seen as human creations thus fallible. If logic is in direct conflict with certain beliefs, the person will believe it is logic that has failed, since nothing humans can come up with could match knowledge straight from god.

The belief can be internally consistent, but it has no foundation. It is ultimately founded on faith. Not the simple faith such as what we have in our senses, or the trust in a loved one, but the complex faith of accepting a worldview with vastly insufficient evidence and reasoning. In most cases, zero evidence and reasoning. So the belief that there are absolute answers is defeated by it's own foundation. It's a false position, or at least invalid.

This causes a misunderstanding. The scientist sees the creationist as having zero evidence. Which means, the magnitude of difference is vast. The answers provided by science have an exponentially enormous amount more evidence, so much so that the difference is ridiculous. But the response is always that the fallible answers of science cannot match the absolute knowledge of god. The debate misses the point, as the scientist repeatedly gives testimony of the reliability of scientific answers, and how bright a light it has beamed into the darkness of our universe.

I do not have an "ultimate concern" a la Nietzsche that would equate to a "god". I don't believe there is any intelligence that hasn't evolved, and all would be on par with our human intelligence if there is life elsewhere in the universe. The most recent Scientific American had an article about the limits of intelligence based on the constraints of physics. Not to say some novel physical basis couldn't evolve to be even more intelligent, but that hypothesis would need evidence.

Science isn't my god, but I find myself defending science in debates an unreasonable amount. I would defend philosophy or many other things which come under attack by religious people. It depends on where the weakness in their beliefs lay, and where the most effective counterarguments lay. Which is usually science based. The mention of science is a consequence of the debate rather than a representation of ubiquitous religious devotion to science.



The following user would like to thank Interbane for this post:
ant
Tue Aug 02, 2011 11:05 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membership
Insatiable Reader


Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 2071
Thanks: 345
Thanked: 248 times in 209 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave
If you thought they could be reconciled, why wouldn't you think they should be?

If by reconciliation you mean answering questions about the origin of life or the universe, then if religion could say something about it with any evidence whatsoever, it would cease to be religion -- it would be science.[/quote]



From my personal perspective, I can reconcile the two. Should I? I think I experience personal satisfaction in doing so.
Should you? Should your friend, or spouse, or neighbor? Quite frankly, I don't really care.

No, I don't mean by answering questions related to the origin of life.
Wild guess here, but there are some things that science will never have evidence for. :idea:
If mathematics expresses the natural world, then Kurt Gödel would have something to say about science expecting to have proof about everything in existence. :P


_________________
“So I hated life, because what is done under the sun was grievous to me, for all is vanity and a striving after wind!” (Ecclesiastes 2:17)


“For it is owing to their wonder that men both now begin to and at first began to philosophize; they wondered originally at the obvious difficulties, then advanced little by little and stated difficulties about the greater matters, e.g. about the phenomena of the moon and those of the sun and of the stars, and about the genesis of the universe. And a man who is puzzled and wonders thinks himself ignorant” (Metaphysics, 350 BC)


Fri Aug 05, 2011 11:00 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
The Unbound and Learned

BookTalk.org Moderator

Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 3176
Location: Michigan
Thanks: 1198
Thanked: 940 times in 687 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave
there certainly IS an explanation for and about everything. Will WE know all those explanations? Certainly not.

What i mean to say by that is there is no reason to expect anything would have a supernatural explanation. Everything that is or happens is a result of the natural processes of the universe.

I have heard people argue that the big bang represents a magical 'something from nothing' event. I don't see that being the case. Big bang holds that at one point everything everywhere was in one spot. With everything in one spot there is no information to be had. no room for a binary state. So all that really means is that if there was something before the big bang (which i think is very likely) then we can't know anything about it because there was no information preserved through the singularity.

And there are some natural occurances which may be beyond our ability to grasp in any meaningful way. We are just organisms, after all, with limited intellectual capacity. That doesn't mean we should blame the things we don't understand on magic (not to assert that is what you do, ant. Speaking generally here.).

And though there are very probably some things which we can only wrap our heads around in an abstract way such as the incredible scope of the universe, there may well be other intelligences out there, or in the future, that CAN understand those things, and to whom they will be as simple a concept as basic arithmatic.


_________________
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.

Have you tried that? Looking for answers?
Or have you been content to be terrified of a thing you know nothing about?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?


Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:08 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
The Unbound and Learned

BookTalk.org Moderator

Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 3176
Location: Michigan
Thanks: 1198
Thanked: 940 times in 687 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave
Ant,

here's one of those abiogenesis videos i referenced earlier.

http://dotsub.com/view/720518f1-8879-44 ... a75db27591


_________________
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.

Have you tried that? Looking for answers?
Or have you been content to be terrified of a thing you know nothing about?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?


Fri Aug 05, 2011 2:15 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Easy Reader

Gold Contributor 2

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 2939
Location: NC
Thanks: 951
Thanked: 1019 times in 760 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave
ant wrote:
Wild guess here, but there are some things that science will never have evidence for. :idea:
If mathematics expresses the natural world, then Kurt Gödel would have something to say about science expecting to have proof about everything in existence. :P


I agree that science cannot answer all of our questions. For one thing, we are limited beings with limited imaginations and limited senses. We are well adapted for life on this planet, but our brains were not designed to be able to understand the fundamental workings of the universe. I see science as a light into a vast dark arena. It helps us see only so far into this space, and probably most of this space will forever remain dark to us.

The statement that science cannot tell us all there is to know about the world seems to imply that religion perhaps can shed light into areas that science cannot. But I would agree with Interbane that this is a false premise because religion can only provide a subjective kind of experience while science provides an objective truth. Through science we have learned many things about the physical world that can be demonstrated in real world applciations. For example, we can inoculate against disease, improve the quality of life through technology, calculate movements of planets and stars, and land probes on distant worlds.

The key point is that the information we have discovered through science can be shared with others, and our observations and predictions can be repeated by others and thus demonstrated to be objectively true.

Religion, on the other hand, is only a subjective experience, a kind of metaphoric framework with which to view the world. Religion doesn't provide real world data that can be tested or demonstrated through repeatable experiments. Many religions makes certain claims—i.e. Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected after death—but such claims cannot be verified through objective methods. So religious beliefs have to be based in faith and this is why Muslims or Hindus or Christians have virtually the same claim to truth. Though each one may claim to be the one true religion, there is no objective basis for such a claim.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:16 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4844
Location: California
Thanks: 546
Thanked: 1211 times in 932 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave
Quote:
From my personal perspective, I can reconcile the two.


Something I've learned about beliefs is that the seemingly strongest reason for something could turn out to be false and you wouldn't even know it. I don't believe science and religion are reconcilable. I believe the reasons you use to harmonize them would fail if investigated in more detail. In fact, I nearly guarantee it. It has been the case countless times in countless discussions. The precedent is quite large. Sorry to doubt you, but I don't think you're any different.

Quote:
Wild guess here, but there are some things that science will never have evidence for.


Precisely the same as saying "...there are some things that humanity will never have evidence for."

Quote:
If mathematics expresses the natural world, then Kurt Gödel would have something to say about science expecting to have proof about everything in existence.


Then Kurt would have a mistaken expectation. The description of our world through math still requires axioms. Which have reliance on induction. Which, while reliable, is not an absolute source of answers. The proofs could all be mathematically perfect, yet false, depending on axiomatic integrity.



Sat Aug 06, 2011 11:40 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Easy Reader

Gold Contributor 2

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 2939
Location: NC
Thanks: 951
Thanked: 1019 times in 760 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave
It probably goes without saying that I agree with Interbane about trying to reconcile religion and science. I think it is at best a disingenuous attempt to place both on the same playing field. But they are not equal, at least not with respect to the attainment of knowledge. I attempted to explain religion and science as two completely separate domains of inquiry, referring to them respectively as subjective and objective modes. At any rate, I was reading Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things and I was amazed to come across this passage in which the author really does an outstanding job of describing the scientific process as a progressive pursuit of knowledge.

Shermer wrote:
. . . Science is progressive because its paradigms depend upon the cumulative knowledge gained through experimentation, corroboration, and falsification. Pseudoscience, nonscience, superstition, myth, religion, and art are not progressive because they do not have goals or mechanisms that allow the accumulation of knowledge that builds on the past. Their paradigms either do not shift or coexist with other paradigms. Progress, in the cumulative sense, is not their purpose. This is not a criticism, just an observation. Artists do not improve upon the styles of their predecessors; they invent new styles. Priests, rabbis, and ministers do not attempt to improve upon the sayings of their masters; they repeat, interpret, and teach them. Pseudoscientists do not correct the errors of their predecessors; they perpetuate them.

By cumulative change I mean, then, that when a paradigm shifts, scientists do not abandon the entire science. Rather, what remains useful in the paradigm is retained as new features are added and new interpretations given. Albert Einstein emphasized this point in reflecting upon his own contributions to physics and cosmology: "Creating a new theory is not like destroying an old barn and erecting a skyscraper in its place. It is rather like climbing a mountain, gaining new and wider views, discovering unexpected connections between our starting point and its rich environment. But the point from which we started out still exists and can be seen, although it appears smaller and forms a tiny part of our broad view gained by the mastery of the obstacles on our adventurous way up" (in Weaver 1987, p. 133). Even though Darwin replaced the theory of special creation with that of evolution by natural selection, much of what came before was retained in the new theory—Linnean classification, descriptive geology, comparative anatomy, and so forth. What changed was how these various fields were linked to one another through history—the theory of evolution. There was cumulative growth and paradigmatic change. This is scientific progress, defined as the cumulative growth of a system of knowledge - over time, in which useful features are retained and nonuseful features are abandoned, based on the rejection or confirmation of testable knowledge.

The Triumph of Science

Though I have defined science as progressive, I admit it is not possible to know whether the knowledge uncovered by the scientific method is absolutely certain because we have no place outside—no Archimedean point—from which to view Reality. There is no question but that science is heavily influenced by the culture in which it is embedded, and that scientists may all share a common bias that leads them to think a certain way about nature. But this does not take anything away from the progressive feature of science, in the cumulative sense.

In this regard, philosopher Sydney Hook makes an interesting comparison between the arts and sciences: "Raphael's Sistine Madonna without Raphael, Beethoven's sonatas and symphonies without Beethoven, are inconceivable. In science, on the other hand, it is quite probable that most of the achievements of any given scientist would have been attained by other individuals working in the field" (1943, p. 35). The reason for this is that science, with progress as one of its primary goals, seeks understanding through objective methods (even though it rarely attains it). The arts seek provocation of emotion and reflection through subjective means. The more subjective the endeavor, the more individual it becomes, and therefore difficult if not impossible for someone else to produce. The more objective the pursuit, the more likely it is that someone else will duplicate the achievement. Science actually depends upon duplication for verification. Darwin's theory of natural selection would have occurred to another scientist—and, in fact, did occur to Alfred Russel Wallace simultaneously—because the scientific process is empirically verifiable.

pp. 40-42, Ch. 2


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


The following user would like to thank geo for this post:
Interbane, johnson1010
Sat Aug 06, 2011 7:10 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membership
Insatiable Reader


Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 2071
Thanks: 345
Thanked: 248 times in 209 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave
"Those of us who teach English Composition sometimes worry about getting a "tin ear" by having to read so much writing that is frankly almost never very good and frequently terrible. Some of my fellow adjuncts actually worry about how this may effect their own writing and, indeed, apparently there are studies that back them up. (I haven't seen the studies myself)."


Dont you mean "affect"?


_________________
“So I hated life, because what is done under the sun was grievous to me, for all is vanity and a striving after wind!” (Ecclesiastes 2:17)


“For it is owing to their wonder that men both now begin to and at first began to philosophize; they wondered originally at the obvious difficulties, then advanced little by little and stated difficulties about the greater matters, e.g. about the phenomena of the moon and those of the sun and of the stars, and about the genesis of the universe. And a man who is puzzled and wonders thinks himself ignorant” (Metaphysics, 350 BC)


Mon Aug 08, 2011 1:12 pm
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

BookTalk.org Links 
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Info for Authors & Publishers
Featured Book Suggestions
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!
    

Love to talk about books but don't have time for our book discussion forums? For casual book talk join us on Facebook.

Featured Books






BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSBOOKSTRANSCRIPTSOLD FORUMSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICY

BOOK FORUMS FOR ALL BOOKS WE HAVE DISCUSSED
Science Was Born of Christianity - by Stacy TrasancosThe Happiness Hypothesis - by Jonathan HaidtA Game of Thrones - by George R. R. MartinTempesta's Dream - by Vincent LoCocoWhy Nations Fail - by Daron Acemoglu and James RobinsonThe Drowning Girl - Caitlin R. KiernanThe Consolations of the Forest - by Sylvain TessonThe Complete Heretic's Guide to Western Religion: The Mormons - by David FitzgeraldA Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man - by James JoyceThe Divine Comedy - by Dante AlighieriThe Magic of Reality - by Richard DawkinsDubliners - by James JoyceMy Name Is Red - by Orhan PamukThe World Until Yesterday - by Jared DiamondThe Man Who Was Thursday - by by G. K. ChestertonThe Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven PinkerLord Jim by Joseph ConradThe Hobbit by J. R. R. TolkienThe Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas AdamsAtlas Shrugged by Ayn RandThinking, Fast and Slow - by Daniel KahnemanThe Righteous Mind - by Jonathan HaidtWorld War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War by Max BrooksMoby Dick: or, the Whale by Herman MelvilleA Visit from the Goon Squad by Jennifer EganLost Memory of Skin: A Novel by Russell BanksThe Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. KuhnHobbes: Leviathan by Thomas HobbesThe House of the Spirits - by Isabel AllendeArguably: Essays by Christopher HitchensThe Falls: A Novel (P.S.) by Joyce Carol OatesChrist in Egypt by D.M. MurdockThe Glass Bead Game: A Novel by Hermann HesseA Devil's Chaplain by Richard DawkinsThe Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph CampbellThe Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor DostoyevskyThe Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark TwainThe Moral Landscape by Sam HarrisThe Decameron by Giovanni BoccaccioThe Road by Cormac McCarthyThe Grand Design by Stephen HawkingThe Evolution of God by Robert WrightThe Tin Drum by Gunter GrassGood Omens by Neil GaimanPredictably Irrational by Dan ArielyThe Wind-Up Bird Chronicle: A Novel by Haruki MurakamiALONE: Orphaned on the Ocean by Richard Logan & Tere Duperrault FassbenderDon Quixote by Miguel De CervantesMusicophilia by Oliver SacksDiary of a Madman and Other Stories by Nikolai GogolThe Passion of the Western Mind by Richard TarnasThe Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le GuinThe Genius of the Beast by Howard BloomAlice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll Empire of Illusion by Chris HedgesThe Sound and the Fury by William Faulkner The Extended Phenotype by Richard DawkinsSmoke and Mirrors by Neil GaimanThe Selfish Gene by Richard DawkinsWhen Good Thinking Goes Bad by Todd C. RinioloHouse of Leaves by Mark Z. DanielewskiAmerican Gods: A Novel by Neil GaimanPrimates and Philosophers by Frans de WaalThe Enormous Room by E.E. CummingsThe Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar WildeGod Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher HitchensThe Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco Dreams From My Father by Barack Obama Paradise Lost by John Milton Bad Money by Kevin PhillipsThe Secret Garden by Frances Hodgson BurnettGodless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists by Dan BarkerThe Things They Carried by Tim O'BrienThe Limits of Power by Andrew BacevichLolita by Vladimir NabokovOrlando by Virginia Woolf On Being Certain by Robert A. Burton50 reasons people give for believing in a god by Guy P. HarrisonWalden: Or, Life in the Woods by Henry David ThoreauExile and the Kingdom by Albert CamusOur Inner Ape by Frans de WaalYour Inner Fish by Neil ShubinNo Country for Old Men by Cormac McCarthyThe Age of American Unreason by Susan JacobyTen Theories of Human Nature by Leslie Stevenson & David HabermanHeart of Darkness by Joseph ConradThe Stuff of Thought by Stephen PinkerA Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled HosseiniThe Lucifer Effect by Philip ZimbardoResponsibility and Judgment by Hannah ArendtInterventions by Noam ChomskyGodless in America by George A. RickerReligious Expression and the American Constitution by Franklyn S. HaimanDeep Economy by Phil McKibbenThe God Delusion by Richard DawkinsThe Third Chimpanzee by Jared DiamondThe Woman in the Dunes by Abe KoboEvolution vs. Creationism by Eugenie C. ScottThe Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael PollanI, Claudius by Robert GravesBreaking The Spell by Daniel C. DennettA Peace to End All Peace by David FromkinThe Time Traveler's Wife by Audrey NiffeneggerThe End of Faith by Sam HarrisEnder's Game by Orson Scott CardThe Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time by Mark HaddonValue and Virtue in a Godless Universe by Erik J. WielenbergThe March by E. L DoctorowThe Ethical Brain by Michael GazzanigaFreethinkers: A History of American Secularism by Susan JacobyCollapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared DiamondThe Battle for God by Karen ArmstrongThe Future of Life by Edward O. WilsonWhat is Good? by A. C. GraylingCivilization and Its Enemies by Lee HarrisPale Blue Dot by Carl SaganHow We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God by Michael ShermerLooking for Spinoza by Antonio DamasioLies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them by Al FrankenThe Red Queen by Matt RidleyThe Blank Slate by Stephen PinkerUnweaving the Rainbow by Richard DawkinsAtheism: A Reader edited by S.T. JoshiGlobal Brain by Howard BloomThe Lucifer Principle by Howard BloomGuns, Germs and Steel by Jared DiamondThe Demon-Haunted World by Carl SaganBury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee BrownFuture Shock by Alvin Toffler

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOur Amazon.com SalesMassimo Pigliucci Rationally SpeakingOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism BooksFACTS Book Selections

cron
Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2011. All rights reserved.
Website developed by MidnightCoder.ca
Display Pagerank