• In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

Talk amongst yourselves ...

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
Tim OConnor
Getting Comfortable
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2002 11:06 pm
21

Talk amongst yourselves ...

Unread post

www.wired.com/wired/archi...gence.html Edited by: Tim OConnor at: 11/21/02 1:34:31 am
User avatar
ZachSylvanus
Agrees that Reading is Fundamental
Posts: 286
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 4:54 pm
21
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Been thanked: 3 times
Contact:

Re: Talk amongst yourselves ...

Unread post

Again, it seems to be (in a nutshell), "Gee, this is awfully complex, and I don't think I completely understand what's going on here, so there must be some form of higher power to have caused it."It's a continuation of the Great Passoff. Mankind can't possibly be stupid or ignorant, and so the unexplained is the dominion of God.
Drunkenblade of Kay

Re: Talk amongst yourselves ...

Unread post

I agree with Zach, its just God of the Gaps thinking. Religion has a history of trying to win by default.
NaddiaAoC

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Wearing Out Library Card
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 9:30 am
21
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Talk amongst yourselves ...

Unread post

That's very reminiscent of what I've had crammed down my throat all my life. It's frustrating to know that people will read this and believe it. Scientists are taken out of context to make it sound as if the scientific community has come to the realization that natural explanations for the universe are not sufficient so they are now seeking the guidance of theologians. And most people have no clue. They put their trust in their religious leaders to think for them and do their research for them, so they will read that and think that it sounds credible and logical and not even be aware of the bias that saturates the entire article.Cheryl
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17008
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3503 times
Been thanked: 1308 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: Talk amongst yourselves ...

Unread post

The article is biased and completely deceptive. What a shame that many people will read it and actually fall for the twisted and out of context claims. Perhaps I can clean some things up...maybe not.The basic conclusion of the article is:Quote:Ever so gingerly, science has been backing away from its case-closed attitude toward the transcendent unknown.A theist could easily read this and get a sense of elation as they learn that previously deemed irrational beliefs are now becoming accepted by the great scientists of modern times. This is far from true. There is an increasing trend in the world of science to reject the God hypothesis as unnecessary, and not the other way around.For some data on this trend please visit www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm where you will see that 93% of the greatest scientists on this planet do not believe in a personal deity. And this latest study was in 1998 - only a few years ago. And I would venture to say that this figure is understated due to the natural apprehension scientists would have to divulging their lack of faith in the God that seems to underlie the funding/grants for his/her research. Stephen Jay Gould is a classic example of a scientist who consciously avoided the entire topic by creating his silly idea about NOMA, or the notion that science and faith were non-overlapping and that they dealt with completely different realms. Gould adhered to the CYA principle (Cover Your Ass), aggravating much of the scientific world, which to me and many others was a form of intellectual cowardice.Several years ago I attended a talk by Gould and found it amusing that behind the podium, with a standing-room only crowd he avoided the subject. Later that night in a private Q&A session, when the cameras and recorders weren't rolling, Gould was much more candid about his lack of belief. What a shame that mysticism practically shackled a great man like Gould, in that he wasn't comfortable speaking his mind in public.Another completely misleading statement:Quote:The American Association for the Advancement of Science now sponsors a "Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion." Science luminaries who in the '70s shrugged at faith as gobbledygook
the raged

Re: Talk amongst yourselves ...

Unread post

I agree with this quote:Biologist Christian de Duve, also a Nobel winner, points out that science argues neither for nor against the existence of a deity: "There is no sense in which atheism is enforced or established by science."While science may crush certain beliefs held by certain people, it in no way says there is or is not a deity. That is not the purpose of science, and personally, I think that anyone who goes into science with the intent of either proving, or disproving, a deity has a much larger chance of being horribly biased than someone who goes into science to discover why things work like they do. If they come to conclusions about god based on this, fine, as long as they don't go in with the bias of 'intent to prove' - Science isn't here to "prove" anything, but rather to explain.
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”