| BookTalk.org News |
| Thank you for supporting BookTalk.org with your generous donation, Grim! |
| Regular casual chats are back on the menu! Check out the calendar for the schedule. |
| BookTalk.org Store |
All store merchandise is sold with no markup. BookTalk.org doesn't earn a profit. These items are sold for fun and to promote our community.
|
| Show us where you live! |
 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Penelope 
Stupendously Brilliant
Silver Contributor
Usergroups: None
Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 745
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender: 
Location: Cheshire, England
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:18 pm Post subject:
|
 |
|
Chris O'Connor, Frank, Mr P., Theomantic....
I have just thought.....if you can all be bothered to look at Professor Stephen Hawking.....on the Internet...Oh....Google him do....
Because there you will see the 'grandeur' of the human soul...
Look at HIM, just look at him.....please! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Chris OConnor
Rhodes Scholar
BookTalk.org Owner
Usergroups: None
Joined: 05 May 2002
Posts: 7370
Thanks
Given: 64
Received: 21 in 17 Posts
Gender: 
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:30 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| Science starts with 'a theory' |
Actually, no. Science starts with a hypothesis and ends with a theory. And theories are subject to revision or invalidation. This conversation is difficult because we define basic terms differently. We can be using the same words and having completely different meanings.
I too get tears in my eyes and goosebumps and awe-struck at times. But these are emotional responses that scientists have studied in depth for an exceedingly long time. What to you is a reflection of a "soul" to science is a naturally selected chemical response to external, and sometimes internal, stimuli.
Knowing how human emotions operate doesn't make them any less amazing. Understanding what keeps an aircraft up in the air doesn't deny me the goosebumps and lump I get in my throat when I fly along the beach in an open cockpit biplane. You're assuming that understanding something takes away its beauty and you're simply not right. This is your assumption. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Penelope
Stupendously Brilliant
Silver Contributor
Usergroups: None
Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 745
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender:
Location: Cheshire, England
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 2:05 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Chris says:
| Quote: |
| You're assuming that understanding something takes away its beauty and you're simply not right. This is your assumption. |
No Chris......in fact...I am saying the opposite.....I am saying that some things...we understand....and they are still very beautiful.....The Mathematics which make the music.....I understand....it is still beautiful though, and people throughout many years and throughout many nations are agreed on this. Hallelujah!!!! - (sorry...couldn't resist!!!  ).
Chris says:
| Quote: |
| What to you is a reflection of a "soul" to science is a naturally selected chemical response to external, and sometimes internal, stimuli. |
Well, animals and machines....don't have this response to external stimuli and who is to say that it is not a reflection of the soul. WHAT IS IT otherwise???
Now, that an orgasm...is just a muscle spasm....I can accept!!!!
Chris said:
| Quote: |
| Understanding what keeps an aircraft up in the air doesn't deny me the goosebumps and lump I get in my throat when I fly along the beach in an open cockpit biplane. |
Yesssss.....and a Bumble Bee is aerodymanically impossible.....so the scientists say.....but the bumble bees still fly around!! (That gives me the goosebumps.....).
Having said that.....if I ever come to Florida.....will you take me for a ride in your biplane along the beach???? Or do you hate me too much????
Maybe...you would throw me out from a great height......and I am not aerodynamic!!!!! But I would trust your soul.....with my soul. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris OConnor
Rhodes Scholar
BookTalk.org Owner
Usergroups: None
Joined: 05 May 2002
Posts: 7370
Thanks
Given: 64
Received: 21 in 17 Posts
Gender:
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 2:55 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
I have just thought.....if you can all be bothered to look at Professor Stephen Hawking.....on the Internet...Oh....Google him do....
Because there you will see the 'grandeur' of the human soul... |
Google Stephen Hawking? Surely you jest. Hawking is one of my long time idols. I've read A Brief History of Time and The Universe in a Nutshell multiple times each. I've studied Hawking's life and personal philosophy. And I've started the process of setting up an interview with Hawking here on BookTalk.org.
With that said you've said nothing to indicate Hawking has a "soul." You can't even define or describe the word, let along show it as existing. And Hawking wouldn't argue that he has a soul either, especially when you can't even define the term.
| Quote: |
| Well, animals and machines....don't have this response to external stimuli and who is to say that it is not a reflection of the soul. WHAT IS IT otherwise??? |
Huh?  Animals don't have emotions? They most certainly do. Where did you get this idea? Penelope, you're a bright person. You ought to do some reading in the areas that we're discussing so that some of your "awe" can be converted into knowledge. I bet your awe won't vanish and will actually grow. Don't be afraid of learning a little science. You won't lose what you call your "soul."
| Quote: |
| Having said that.....if I ever come to Florida.....will you take me for a ride in your biplane along the beach???? Or do you hate me too much???? |
I don't personally own a biplane, but a friend of mine did years ago and flying along the Gulf beaches is an incredible experience. And I don't hate you at all. Yes, I get frustrated at times, but it is only when I can't seem to find the words to bridge the gap between our thoughts. So I couldn't take you for a biplane ride, but I'd be happy to have a cup of coffee or two with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris OConnor
Rhodes Scholar
BookTalk.org Owner
Usergroups: None
Joined: 05 May 2002
Posts: 7370
Thanks
Given: 64
Received: 21 in 17 Posts
Gender:
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 3:02 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| Yesssss.....and a Bumble Bee is aerodymanically impossible.....so the scientists say.....but the bumble bees still fly around!! (That gives me the goosebumps.....). |
This is a myth. We understand perfectly well why Bumble Bees are able to fly. http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_045.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Penelope
Stupendously Brilliant
Silver Contributor
Usergroups: None
Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 745
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender:
Location: Cheshire, England
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:47 am Post subject:
|
|
|
A cup of coffee or even two.....isn't the same as a ride in an open-topped plane..... 
This is what I said:-
| Quote: |
| Well, animals and machines....don't have this response to external stimuli and who is to say that it is not a reflection of the soul. WHAT IS IT otherwise??? |
This is what Chris says I said:
| Quote: |
| Huh? Animals don't have emotions? They most certainly do. Where did you get this idea? Penelope, you're a bright person. You ought to do some reading in the areas that we're discussing so that some of your "awe" can be converted into knowledge. I bet your awe won't vanish and will actually grow. Don't be afraid of learning a little science. You won't lose what you call your "soul." |
I didn't say animals didn't have emotions....I said they didn't have the same emotional response as we do....to music or to a beautiful building or scene.....which they don't. And I think you are deliberately misunderstanding or reinterpreting what I am saying.
I actually do quite a bit of reading in these areas.....particularly of Fibonacci Mathematics.......because I can understand what I am reading then, but when I try to read 'A Brief History of Time' I find I am completely baffled, even though I admire Prof. Hawkings to so much and, furthermore, I have spoken to scientists and engineers who say they are quite baffled by Stephen Hawking too and are jealous of his big brain....so you must be a very clever person ineed.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Penelope
Stupendously Brilliant
Silver Contributor
Usergroups: None
Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 745
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender:
Location: Cheshire, England
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:13 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Actually Chris....I have been having these same kinds of discussions/arguments with my 'scientific' husband for most of the 44 years we have been married...and so I am quite used to 'fielding the ball'.
There was once a very famous 'cult' book called 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' which discussed a lot of the problems.
The author said:-
| Quote: |
| There seem to be two kinds of people.....one will look at the motor-cycle and study the working parts of the engine.....and think that is beautiful. Another type of person will look at the whole bike....the whole concept of the bike and the perceive the joy of riding at speed through the open air....and think that it is beautiful........they both get their sense of beauty from different ways of looking. |
I have a way of looking at Prof. Stephen Hawking.......and you have another way. I don't think either way is wrong.
The difference is.......I would fight to the death for your right to vote....and I would never call you a moron..........
Can you say the same?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DWill
Stupendously Brilliant
Usergroups: None
Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 721
Thanks
Given: 1
Received: 11 in 11 Posts
Gender:
Location: Berryville, Virginia
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:08 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Chris OConnor wrote: |
| Name a few things science cannot and will never be able to explain. |
Chris,
Not to be Clintonesque, but it depends (partly) on what "explain" means. It's more than minor semantics, because if we adopt the meaning "to answer all questions", we set a difficult--I would say impossibly difficult--task for science. There are those at-the-bottom-of-it-all questions that many people want to talk about but that science itself recognizes an inability to approach.
If "explain" is taken to mean reducing phenomena to natural law, giving us the ability to show how diverse phenomena respond to the same law, and also allowing us to predict and manipulate based on that law, I would point first to areas of life that depend on emergent properties and say that science cannot and will not be able to reduce these areas to law. Economics and social/cultural change come first to mind. But even an area of more traditional science--evolution and natural selection--may not be reducible to law in all of its aspects because of its emergent properties that cannot be predicted. This question is still being studied. (I might want to add weather prediction to the list.)
Science can be useful even it can't explain. We see this many times. What neuroscientist would claim that we have explained the brain? Yet we can describe some things that it does and use this knowledge to advance our ability to intervene medically. For me, whatever we know about the chemical/electrical properties of the brain does not decrease my wonder of it. It is not just chemicals and impulses, because, really, we can't explain how or why these work. Neuroscientists are unfairly criticized for wanting to reduce our minds to chemical reactions. There is no reduction going on, in my view, because describing is not the same as explaining away.
DWill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Penelope
Stupendously Brilliant
Silver Contributor
Usergroups: None
Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 745
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender:
Location: Cheshire, England
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:49 am Post subject:
|
|
|
How beautifully and succinctly worded - Will.
Some people have the benefit of a really good education.....and are also bright and courageous enough to think for themselves.
In England....I am afraid to say, we have some schools for the monumentally dim. Schools, in which places are gained because of your family background......(Does the father have a tattoo? Is one of the questions which disqualifies a child.)
Schools like Harrow and Eton....are schools which teach these citizens to become our leaders. Now, it is not a child's fault if it is monumentally dim.....but some kids whose fathers have tattoos.....are very bright indeed. The fathers have no money!!
My argument with you Chris.....is not whether either of them deserve an education.....they all deserve to be educated. And I don't know how to build a Utopia where the best able to lead and guide us, get the right sort of education.... (I might add here that I am very pleased at the way your elections are going - God Bless America!)
BUT......We all deserve a vote.....and no one....absolutely no one.....(especially a whole group of people) deserves to be called a moron.
Now I am tempted, often....to call people Morons. There is a certain Mr. Robert Mugabe at the moment....who makes me wonder.......
But, please Chris, I don't think it is right....or even safe....to post things up on this site......calling defenseless, conditioned...ordinary powerless people.....Morons....and to then add that they don't deserve to vote, because that way.....lies Fascism....... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris OConnor
Rhodes Scholar
BookTalk.org Owner
Usergroups: None
Joined: 05 May 2002
Posts: 7370
Thanks
Given: 64
Received: 21 in 17 Posts
Gender:
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:04 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| I have a way of looking at Prof. Stephen Hawking.......and you have another way. I don't think either way is wrong. |
You "seem" to be arguing that Stephen Hawking has a soul. I say "seem" because I am repeatedly misunderstanding your words. So, you "seem" to be arguing that the man has a soul. And based on the common definition of a soul (I am really having to watch my words here) this means there is a part of Stephen Hawking that exists independently of his physical being and this part will live on after he dies. Well, with that said I am definitely arguing that I do not believe Stephen Hawking has a soul and I know that Stephen Hawking doesn't believe he has a soul.
These are called mutually exclusive events. The probability that either is true and that the other is false is NOT 50/50, as some people would attempt to argue, but they are definitely mutually exclusive. Another example of mutually exclusive events would be for a playing card to be drawn from a deck - this card is either red or black. It cannot logically be both at the same time.
So if I am arguing that Stephen Hawking does NOT have a soul and you are arguing that he DOES have a soul, both cannot be true at the same time. Either he DOES or DOES NOT have a soul.
| Quote: |
| I don't think either way is wrong. |
Yes, one of us is wrong. Now you will probably say, "But I didn't say that!" Jesus, then what are you saying? This has become a difficult conversation because of the different ways we use words. I am interpreting your words as saying that you believe Hawking has a soul. I know my words mean that I do not believe he has a soul. Only one of us is right. Both cannot be logically true.
To me this is the biggest problem with the way theists think. The logic is flawed. All thoughts are NOT created equal. All theories are NOT equal. All religious beliefs are NOT equally probable.
Hawking either has a soul or doesn't have a soul. One of us is dead wrong. I would gamble my very life that it is you that is wrong. That is how sure I am that the common beliefs about God, gods, spirits, heaven and hell, an afterlife and a soul are completely and utterly wrong. They are a product of ignorance, poor critical thinking skills, and plain old wishful thinking. Richard Dawkins would add in "delusional" thinking.
But now I run into the problem of offending and hurting feelings or even worse coming across as arrogant and condescending. I long ago gave up on the effort to not be these things because there just is no easy way to tell someone that they are not thinking clearly or logically. I haven't found a soft way of candy coating such a message so I pretty much give up.
To argue that both you and I have equally valid or logically coherent approaches to looking at Stephen Hawking is absurd to me. I'm arguing the default position, which is that souls don't exist, and you are under the impression that an emotional argument for souls is somehow just as reasonable as the default position. To me this is the flaw in "faith" or beliefs. I've heard so so so many theists argue that I need to keep my mind "open" to possibilities. Well, my mind is open, but it is not so open my brain has spilled out on the ground and is no longer capable of assisting me with differentiating between fact and fantasy. I opt to employ my brain fully. I don't sit back and say, "Well, anything is possible. Ya never know!" This is bullshit. Anything is not possible. All arbitrary claims are not equally probable.
Your soul concept doesn't make even a little bit of sense. But the good news is you're not alone in this delusion. It is quite common and many books have been written about the subject. But it is a delusion nonetheless. Of course, this is my opinion. But it is also the opinion of most of the worlds scientists. There is zero evidence for a soul. Let me make that clear. There is not one iota of evidence for the soul. There is NO reason to believe humans live on after death in ANY form. Yet billions of people share this delusion because that delusion helps them through their daily lives.
| Quote: |
| 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' |
We ought to get this book on one of the book suggestion threads. I've read it and have it right here in front of me. Good stuff.
| Quote: |
| The difference is.......I would fight to the death for your right to vote....and I would never call you a moron.......... |
You're assuming that I don't value the right to believe in whatever people want to believe in. Please don't tell me I'm putting words into your mouth. You said, "The difference is," which tends to mean that there is a difference. Right? And you state that you would die for your belief. If you would die for your belief it means you value it. Right? So you would die for a belief, which you obviously value, and based on your statement that you and I are "different" in this regard, you are implying that I don't value the right to believe in whatever people want to believe in.
Well, this isn't a fair argument. Just because I think your beliefs are silly doesn't mean I don't respect your right to believe in them. You can believe whatever you want. I respect your right to believe in unicorns, but I don't respect the actual belief in unicorns.
Truthfully, on a deeper level, I do NOT respect the right to believe in just anything. MOST beliefs are fine with me. As long as your belief doesn't cause me or society much harm then you can have all sorts of delusions and beliefs. Your imagination is yours and yours alone. It so happens that a good chunk of religious beliefs do not remain tucked away in the brains of the believers. Many beliefs manifest themselves in hostility, prejudice and oppression. Should those beliefs be respected?
Long ago I decided that beliefs are not and cannot safely be considered "sacred" in themselves. We should all have the freedom of believing in whatever we like, but when it can be clearly shown that one person or group of people holds a belief that can be readily shown to be dangerous it is the moral obligation of those people that recognize the danger of the belief to try to help eradicate that belief. Beliefs kill.
Your soul belief seems relatively harmless. But what about the Islamic belief that martyrs will be rewarded in heaven with 72 virgins? Can you see how actually sitting back and not challenging this belief could be deadly? I like to use analogies to make points and I hope this simple analogy doesn't elude you. Step outside your beliefs for a moment and think about the general concept:
Beliefs that lead people to cause harm to themselves, society or the environment should not be considered sacred and off limits to critical examination.
This is the general thesis in Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion." Our culture has taught us a hands-off approach to beliefs because beliefs are somehow sacred. This is a horribly dangerous mentality.
So believe in a soul. I can't see much damage coming from such a belief. Yes, it in essence dumbs down the people you influence, but overall I am fine with you having such a delusion. Whoa! Dumb down? Yes, this is exactly what the belief in a soul (or anything that cannot logically be shown to exist) does to those adherents of such beliefs. The person that believes in a soul is naturally going to approach science and the study of various scientific fields differently than the person that doesn't hold such beliefs. The person who is willing to suspend logical thinking, with regards to the human soul myth, is far more likely to allow the poor thinking to bleed over into other areas of their life.
| Quote: |
| Can you say the same? (about calling you a moron) |
I never called you a moron. Do you believe that Benny Hinn is really healing people? Do you believe that the Virgin Mary really appears in festering wounds? if so then I am now teetering on the edge of calling you a moron. This is truly moronic thinking. So I never called you a moron. I called the people in the Benny Hinn audience morons. And I called the lady who thinks she saw the Virgin Mary in her wound a moron.
To me sitting back and not calling a spade a spade is doing society a massive disservice. Watching people flailing about on the ground after Benny Hinn smacks their forehead and pretending that I find this moronic behavior to be acceptable, reasonable and intelligent is not helping those morons. And help is exactly what they need.
I know my words are harsh, but the world needs more honesty. We tolerate stupidity as if it is a precious little baby that needs to be cradled and rocked and nurtured. I refuse to help raise a silly thought into a moronic belief. And that is exactly what happens when silly ideas are not challenged out of fear of touching a "Sacred Belief(TM)."
And I know that the word "moron" is not necessarily ideal for describing the entire group of people that believes in Benny Hinn. Obviously not all of them are genuine morons. But I would bet any sum of money that the average IQ is extremely low. There will be some bright educated people sitting in the revival tent, but these are statistical outliers and not representative of the average or typical Benny Hinn follower/moron.
So can I say that I would never call you a moron? No, no chance. I will call morons morons so that perhaps their moronic nature can be addressed. You cannot fix a problem you are not willing to even address.
Part of the reason I am continually using the word "moron" is emotional. I am a little disappointed that I'm forced to handle your posts all by myself. Years ago BookTalk was quite a different site. I love the growth we've experienced, but the changes have driven off the type of people that would have chimed in here from the start of this thread. I'm a little defensive because I know I'm right. Wow, arrogant. Yes, I sure am. I actually know I'm right. And it is very hard to be in the minority and also know you're right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Penelope
Stupendously Brilliant
Silver Contributor
Usergroups: None
Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 745
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender:
Location: Cheshire, England
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:54 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Chris, I am glad that you are by yourself....talking to me...because I am by myself too.....
Now, I am a half-educated Grandma...who thinks and wonders.....and I am absolutely delighted to be talking to a man in America (albeit Florida!!) about 'What is Fascism?'.
But...we are on the www. The World Wide Web....and so we must be careful what we say.....not because of who the hell is watching us....but because....we must try to speak the truth......because.... whatever we say, is going out there,....
Because I know you are Chris O'Connor (my little fascist friend)....I care about you....and want to talk to you...and because you know....that I am this 'woolley minded liberal' Grandma person.....you might I hope, be gracious enough....to talk to me. This is communication.....and it does matter........it is not important....but it does matter.
 Love from Pen x |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris OConnor
Rhodes Scholar
BookTalk.org Owner
Usergroups: None
Joined: 05 May 2002
Posts: 7370
Thanks
Given: 64
Received: 21 in 17 Posts
Gender:
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:05 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| my little fascist friend |
I'm not little or a fascist. What I am is a clear thinker that speaks the truth and ruffles feathers in the process. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Penelope
Stupendously Brilliant
Silver Contributor
Usergroups: None
Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 745
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender:
Location: Cheshire, England
|
| |
