There is a popular saying that Science (atheistic science) can explain how but not why. Do we believe this to be true?
Asking "why" in that sense is something we only ask of actions of agents. I'm not convinced by the atheists up thread saying that some of these questions only want answers within a monotheistic framework; but "why?" really is a question that presupposes monotheism.
(Also, it's not as if we can we give a more specific answer than the answer Julian of Norwich got - all shall be well.)
Of course, everything is in your own mind. See the famous flag story - monks are arguing over a flag flying in the wind. What is it that moves, the flag or the wind? The abbott has been observing and says, it's your mind.
Hence my new-found love of nature alone. In the moving of ideas from two thousand years ago in Nazareth.
Although many Buddhists would ask, what is this mind, and that can take you on an amazing journey.
And rightly so, I see that presaged by Russell in his deconstruction of Descartes' Je pense donc je suis (Cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am) to 'thought exists'.
Of course, everything is in your own mind. See the famous flag story - monks are arguing over a flag flying in the wind. What is it that moves, the flag or the wind? The abbott has been observing and says, it's your mind.
Hence my new-found love of nature alone. In the moving of ideas from two thousand years ago in Nazareth.
Although many Buddhists would ask, what is this mind, and that can take you on an amazing journey.
And rightly so, I see that presaged by Russell in his deconstruction of Descartes' Je pense donc je suis (Cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am) to 'thought exists'.
Although Buddhist mind is not about thoughts, or in fact, really transcends them.
There is a popular saying that Science (atheistic science) can explain how but not why. Do we believe this to be true? Philosophy goes some way to answering this but not wholly.
What the hell is "atheistic science"? Science is science, whether you're a believer or an atheist.
There is a popular saying that Science (atheistic science) can explain how but not why. Do we believe this to be true? Philosophy goes some way to answering this but not wholly.
What the hell is "atheistic science"? Science is science, whether you're a believer or an atheist.
I meant atheistic scientists.
You might has well say atoothfairyist scientists. By putting the word atheistic in front of the word scientists, it leads one to believe that a disbelief in a god or gods is a formative part of the science that follows.
There is a popular saying that Science (atheistic science) can explain how but not why. Do we believe this to be true? Philosophy goes some way to answering this but not wholly.
What the hell is "atheistic science"? Science is science, whether you're a believer or an atheist.
I meant atheistic scientists.
You might has well say atoothfairyist scientists. By putting the word atheistic in front of the word scientists, it leads one to believe that a disbelief in a god or gods is a formative part of the science that follows.
This makes me think of the effort in the early twentieth century to distinguish between Arische Physik (literally "Aryan physics") and Jüdische Physik ("Jewish physics"). Arische Physik rejected a lot of relativity and quantum mechanics because the pioneers of the field were Jews. Historically this had what most people today regard as beneficial unintended consequences.
Is there any reason to regard distinguishing "atheistic science" from other forms as science as any more of a legitimate distinction than dividing between Arische and Jüdische Physik?
There is a popular saying that Science (atheistic science) can explain how but not why. Do we believe this to be true? Philosophy goes some way to answering this but not wholly.
What the hell is "atheistic science"? Science is science, whether you're a believer or an atheist.
I meant atheistic scientists.
Do atheistic scientists do science differently from theistic scientists? Do they conduct experiments differently, or record observations differently, or predict future events differently? What possible relevance can there be to calling out a scientist's religious belief or lack thereof?
There is a popular saying that Science (atheistic science) can explain how but not why. Do we believe this to be true? Philosophy goes some way to answering this but not wholly.
What the hell is "atheistic science"? Science is science, whether you're a believer or an atheist.
I meant atheistic scientists.
Do atheistic scientists do science differently from theistic scientists? Do they conduct experiments differently, or record observations differently, or predict future events differently? What possible relevance can there be to calling out a scientist's religious belief or lack thereof?
It's come from US Creationism which really does think vast swathes of science is inherently atheistic - life sciences, geology, astrophysics.
Science is not atheistic - it is absolutely by definition agnostic about supernatural entities. It's a bit like asking what colour a database should be.
There is a popular saying that Science (atheistic science) can explain how but not why. Do we believe this to be true? Philosophy goes some way to answering this but not wholly.
What the hell is "atheistic science"? Science is science, whether you're a believer or an atheist.
I meant atheistic scientists.
Do atheistic scientists do science differently from theistic scientists? Do they conduct experiments differently, or record observations differently, or predict future events differently? What possible relevance can there be to calling out a scientist's religious belief or lack thereof?
It's come from US Creationism which really does think vast swathes of science is inherently atheistic - life sciences, geology, astrophysics.
Science is not atheistic - it is absolutely by definition agnostic about supernatural entities. It's a bit like asking what colour a database should be.
Exactly, if you don't put belief and/or fallacy first then you're on the path to Godless atheism, if you can't do YEC how can you do PSA? Funnily enough... And there are appallingly influential fallacious thinkers on the bandwagon in the Bible Belt. Behe (an actual scientist, a biochemist, with Snoke, a physicist), Dembski, Meyer, Coulter, Berlinski, Ruse, Lennox, Flew, Lane Craig, which is not surprising when there have been so many physicists ensnared by 'fine tuning' starting with Hoyle, going through Polkinghorne, Dyson. The cultural drag of theism on the dissemination of science is as bad, as dangerous as it was in Scopes' day.
There is a popular saying that Science (atheistic science) can explain how but not why. Do we believe this to be true? Philosophy goes some way to answering this but not wholly.
What the hell is "atheistic science"? Science is science, whether you're a believer or an atheist.
I meant atheistic scientists.
Do atheistic scientists do science differently from theistic scientists? Do they conduct experiments differently, or record observations differently, or predict future events differently? What possible relevance can there be to calling out a scientist's religious belief or lack thereof?
It's come from US Creationism which really does think vast swathes of science is inherently atheistic - life sciences, geology, astrophysics.
Science is not atheistic - it is absolutely by definition agnostic about supernatural entities. It's a bit like asking what colour a database should be.
Exactly, if you don't put belief and/or fallacy first then you're on the path to Godless atheism, if you can't do YEC how can you do PSA? Funnily enough... And there are appallingly influential fallacious thinkers on the bandwagon in the Bible Belt. Behe (an actual scientist, a biochemist, with Snoke, a physicist), Dembski, Meyer, Coulter, Berlinski, Ruse, Lennox, Flew, Lane Craig, which is not surprising when there have been so many physicists ensnared by 'fine tuning' starting with Hoyle, going through Polkinghorne, Dyson. The cultural drag of theism on the dissemination of science is as bad, as dangerous as it was in Scopes' day.
The main problem is anti-intellectualism and "alternative facts". Of course, distrust of science and scientists driven by Creationists feeds into this. We might have had climate denialism without Creationism preparing the way, but we'd not have had flat earthers.
There is a popular saying that Science (atheistic science) can explain how but not why. Do we believe this to be true? Philosophy goes some way to answering this but not wholly.
What the hell is "atheistic science"? Science is science, whether you're a believer or an atheist.
I meant atheistic scientists.
Do atheistic scientists do science differently from theistic scientists? Do they conduct experiments differently, or record observations differently, or predict future events differently? What possible relevance can there be to calling out a scientist's religious belief or lack thereof?
It's come from US Creationism which really does think vast swathes of science is inherently atheistic - life sciences, geology, astrophysics.
Science is not atheistic - it is absolutely by definition agnostic about supernatural entities. It's a bit like asking what colour a database should be.
Exactly, if you don't put belief and/or fallacy first then you're on the path to Godless atheism, if you can't do YEC how can you do PSA? Funnily enough... And there are appallingly influential fallacious thinkers on the bandwagon in the Bible Belt. Behe (an actual scientist, a biochemist, with Snoke, a physicist), Dembski, Meyer, Coulter, Berlinski, Ruse, Lennox, Flew, Lane Craig, which is not surprising when there have been so many physicists ensnared by 'fine tuning' starting with Hoyle, going through Polkinghorne, Dyson. The cultural drag of theism on the dissemination of science is as bad, as dangerous as it was in Scopes' day.
The main problem is anti-intellectualism and "alternative facts". Of course, distrust of science and scientists driven by Creationists feeds into this. We might have had climate denialism without Creationism preparing the way, but we'd not have had flat earthers.
What intrigues me is how the mathematically savant or prodigious lead themselves and others fallaciously down the garden path.
There is a popular saying that Science (atheistic science) can explain how but not why. Do we believe this to be true? Philosophy goes some way to answering this but not wholly.
What the hell is "atheistic science"? Science is science, whether you're a believer or an atheist.
I meant atheistic scientists.
Do atheistic scientists do science differently from theistic scientists? Do they conduct experiments differently, or record observations differently, or predict future events differently? What possible relevance can there be to calling out a scientist's religious belief or lack thereof?
It's come from US Creationism which really does think vast swathes of science is inherently atheistic - life sciences, geology, astrophysics.
Science is not atheistic - it is absolutely by definition agnostic about supernatural entities. It's a bit like asking what colour a database should be.
Exactly, if you don't put belief and/or fallacy first then you're on the path to Godless atheism, if you can't do YEC how can you do PSA? Funnily enough... And there are appallingly influential fallacious thinkers on the bandwagon in the Bible Belt. Behe (an actual scientist, a biochemist, with Snoke, a physicist), Dembski, Meyer, Coulter, Berlinski, Ruse, Lennox, Flew, Lane Craig, which is not surprising when there have been so many physicists ensnared by 'fine tuning' starting with Hoyle, going through Polkinghorne, Dyson. The cultural drag of theism on the dissemination of science is as bad, as dangerous as it was in Scopes' day.
The main problem is anti-intellectualism and "alternative facts". Of course, distrust of science and scientists driven by Creationists feeds into this. We might have had climate denialism without Creationism preparing the way, but we'd not have had flat earthers.
What intrigues me is how the mathematically savant or prodigious lead themselves and others fallaciously down the garden path.
They're slightly different. But the answer is a priori faith based commitment. Aka finding the evidence to support the conclusion you've already decided on.
There is a popular saying that Science (atheistic science) can explain how but not why. Do we believe this to be true? Philosophy goes some way to answering this but not wholly.
What the hell is "atheistic science"? Science is science, whether you're a believer or an atheist.
I meant atheistic scientists.
Do atheistic scientists do science differently from theistic scientists? Do they conduct experiments differently, or record observations differently, or predict future events differently? What possible relevance can there be to calling out a scientist's religious belief or lack thereof?
It's come from US Creationism which really does think vast swathes of science is inherently atheistic - life sciences, geology, astrophysics.
Science is not atheistic - it is absolutely by definition agnostic about supernatural entities. It's a bit like asking what colour a database should be.
Exactly, if you don't put belief and/or fallacy first then you're on the path to Godless atheism, if you can't do YEC how can you do PSA? Funnily enough... And there are appallingly influential fallacious thinkers on the bandwagon in the Bible Belt. Behe (an actual scientist, a biochemist, with Snoke, a physicist), Dembski, Meyer, Coulter, Berlinski, Ruse, Lennox, Flew, Lane Craig, which is not surprising when there have been so many physicists ensnared by 'fine tuning' starting with Hoyle, going through Polkinghorne, Dyson. The cultural drag of theism on the dissemination of science is as bad, as dangerous as it was in Scopes' day.
The main problem is anti-intellectualism and "alternative facts". Of course, distrust of science and scientists driven by Creationists feeds into this. We might have had climate denialism without Creationism preparing the way, but we'd not have had flat earthers.
What intrigues me is how the mathematically savant or prodigious lead themselves and others fallaciously down the garden path.
They're slightly different. But the answer is a priori faith based commitment. Aka finding the evidence to support the conclusion you've already decided on.
An awful lot of people do that. How many start from a zero base line, without prior ideas, and accumulate evidence?
There is a popular saying that Science (atheistic science) can explain how but not why. Do we believe this to be true? Philosophy goes some way to answering this but not wholly.
What the hell is "atheistic science"? Science is science, whether you're a believer or an atheist.
I meant atheistic scientists.
Do atheistic scientists do science differently from theistic scientists? Do they conduct experiments differently, or record observations differently, or predict future events differently? What possible relevance can there be to calling out a scientist's religious belief or lack thereof?
It's come from US Creationism which really does think vast swathes of science is inherently atheistic - life sciences, geology, astrophysics.
Science is not atheistic - it is absolutely by definition agnostic about supernatural entities. It's a bit like asking what colour a database should be.
Exactly, if you don't put belief and/or fallacy first then you're on the path to Godless atheism, if you can't do YEC how can you do PSA? Funnily enough... And there are appallingly influential fallacious thinkers on the bandwagon in the Bible Belt. Behe (an actual scientist, a biochemist, with Snoke, a physicist), Dembski, Meyer, Coulter, Berlinski, Ruse, Lennox, Flew, Lane Craig, which is not surprising when there have been so many physicists ensnared by 'fine tuning' starting with Hoyle, going through Polkinghorne, Dyson. The cultural drag of theism on the dissemination of science is as bad, as dangerous as it was in Scopes' day.
The main problem is anti-intellectualism and "alternative facts". Of course, distrust of science and scientists driven by Creationists feeds into this. We might have had climate denialism without Creationism preparing the way, but we'd not have had flat earthers.
What intrigues me is how the mathematically savant or prodigious lead themselves and others fallaciously down the garden path.
They're slightly different. But the answer is a priori faith based commitment. Aka finding the evidence to support the conclusion you've already decided on.
An awful lot of people do that. How many start from a zero base line, without prior ideas, and accumulate evidence?
The difference between falling into doing this because, well, human, and having the a priori conclusion explicitly stated from the start.
There is a popular saying that Science (atheistic science) can explain how but not why. Do we believe this to be true? Philosophy goes some way to answering this but not wholly.
What the hell is "atheistic science"? Science is science, whether you're a believer or an atheist.
I meant atheistic scientists.
Do atheistic scientists do science differently from theistic scientists? Do they conduct experiments differently, or record observations differently, or predict future events differently? What possible relevance can there be to calling out a scientist's religious belief or lack thereof?
It's come from US Creationism which really does think vast swathes of science is inherently atheistic - life sciences, geology, astrophysics.
Science is not atheistic - it is absolutely by definition agnostic about supernatural entities. It's a bit like asking what colour a database should be.
Exactly, if you don't put belief and/or fallacy first then you're on the path to Godless atheism, if you can't do YEC how can you do PSA? Funnily enough... And there are appallingly influential fallacious thinkers on the bandwagon in the Bible Belt. Behe (an actual scientist, a biochemist, with Snoke, a physicist), Dembski, Meyer, Coulter, Berlinski, Ruse, Lennox, Flew, Lane Craig, which is not surprising when there have been so many physicists ensnared by 'fine tuning' starting with Hoyle, going through Polkinghorne, Dyson. The cultural drag of theism on the dissemination of science is as bad, as dangerous as it was in Scopes' day.
The main problem is anti-intellectualism and "alternative facts". Of course, distrust of science and scientists driven by Creationists feeds into this. We might have had climate denialism without Creationism preparing the way, but we'd not have had flat earthers.
What intrigues me is how the mathematically savant or prodigious lead themselves and others fallaciously down the garden path.
They're slightly different. But the answer is a priori faith based commitment. Aka finding the evidence to support the conclusion you've already decided on.
An awful lot of people do that. How many start from a zero base line, without prior ideas, and accumulate evidence?
The difference between falling into doing this because, well, human, and having the a priori conclusion explicitly stated from the start.
Aye, my deconstruction took over a quarter of a century. The same as my construction by falling into belief, or actually false knowledge, in my case.
There is a popular saying that Science (atheistic science) can explain how but not why. Do we believe this to be true? Philosophy goes some way to answering this but not wholly.
What the hell is "atheistic science"? Science is science, whether you're a believer or an atheist.
I meant atheistic scientists.
Do atheistic scientists do science differently from theistic scientists? Do they conduct experiments differently, or record observations differently, or predict future events differently? What possible relevance can there be to calling out a scientist's religious belief or lack thereof?
It's come from US Creationism which really does think vast swathes of science is inherently atheistic - life sciences, geology, astrophysics.
Science is not atheistic - it is absolutely by definition agnostic about supernatural entities. It's a bit like asking what colour a database should be.
Exactly, if you don't put belief and/or fallacy first then you're on the path to Godless atheism, if you can't do YEC how can you do PSA? Funnily enough... And there are appallingly influential fallacious thinkers on the bandwagon in the Bible Belt. Behe (an actual scientist, a biochemist, with Snoke, a physicist), Dembski, Meyer, Coulter, Berlinski, Ruse, Lennox, Flew, Lane Craig, which is not surprising when there have been so many physicists ensnared by 'fine tuning' starting with Hoyle, going through Polkinghorne, Dyson. The cultural drag of theism on the dissemination of science is as bad, as dangerous as it was in Scopes' day.
The main problem is anti-intellectualism and "alternative facts". Of course, distrust of science and scientists driven by Creationists feeds into this. We might have had climate denialism without Creationism preparing the way, but we'd not have had flat earthers.
What intrigues me is how the mathematically savant or prodigious lead themselves and others fallaciously down the garden path.
They're slightly different. But the answer is a priori faith based commitment. Aka finding the evidence to support the conclusion you've already decided on.
An awful lot of people do that. How many start from a zero base line, without prior ideas, and accumulate evidence?
The difference between falling into doing this because, well, human, and having the a priori conclusion explicitly stated from the start.
Also count how many times they go, "Oh, that evidence was not what I expected. I guess I was wrong about what I was thinking."
I'm not sure I follow you, @Martin54. I've not heard that Hoyle was 'ensnared by fine-tuning' or led in a theistic direction - unless I've misunderstood what you are saying.
I thought one of the reasons Hoyle maintained his 'steady-state' view against the 'Big Bang' theory was because the latter could more easily be accomodated by those influenced by Genesis.
@Hugal hasn't been on to explain what he means by 'atheistic scientists', although he did respond briefly. I know Hugal is an evangelical charismatic but that doesn't necessarily mean he is a Young Earth Creationist. I'd be surprised if he was, to be honest.
Nor does it follow, that you have to be YEC to believe in PSA. I know people who believe in PSA who don't subscribe to YEC ideas.
I'm not sure I follow you, @Martin54. I've not heard that Hoyle was 'ensnared by fine-tuning' or led in a theistic direction - unless I've misunderstood what you are saying.
I thought one of the reasons Hoyle maintained his 'steady-state' view against the 'Big Bang' theory was because the latter could more easily be accomodated by those influenced by Genesis.
@Hugal hasn't been on to explain what he means by 'atheistic scientists', although he did respond briefly. I know Hugal is an evangelical charismatic but that doesn't necessarily mean he is a Young Earth Creationist. I'd be surprised if he was, to be honest.
Nor does it follow, that you have to be YEC to believe in PSA. I know people who believe in PSA who don't subscribe to YEC ideas.
Indeed. But it's often claimed by YECcies that the whole Christian theology - which to them means PSA - falls apart if death existed before a historical Fall.
I'm not sure I follow you, @Martin54. I've not heard that Hoyle was 'ensnared by fine-tuning' or led in a theistic direction - unless I've misunderstood what you are saying.
I thought one of the reasons Hoyle maintained his 'steady-state' view against the 'Big Bang' theory was because the latter could more easily be accomodated by those influenced by Genesis. *
...
Though Hoyle declared himself an atheist, this apparent suggestion of a guiding hand [panspermia] led him to the conclusion that "a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and ... there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature." ** He would go on to compare the random emergence of even the simplest cell without panspermia to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein" and to compare the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cubes simultaneously. This is known as "the junkyard tornado", or "Hoyle's Fallacy". Those who advocate the intelligent design (ID) philosophy sometimes cite Hoyle's work in this area to support the claim that the universe was fine tuned to allow intelligent life to be possible.
That such great minds are prey to pareidolia, seeing meaning where none exists, and having a disproportionate impact on lesser minds. Including mine of course, for decades.
That such great minds are prey to pareidolia, seeing meaning where none exists, and having a disproportionate impact on lesser minds. Including mine of course, for decades.
Hmmm ... I've heard that there are videos out there online of the late Metropolitan Kallistos Ware giving talks in which he explained how he as a Christian, could not believe in Intelligent Design.
I don't know much about biology, I don't know much cos-mo-logy, I know even less astronomy ...
Sorry, I'll stop the karaoke right there.
I keep coming across earnest young Creationists within Orthodoxy these days and that bothers me. I always used to think of ID as a better alternative to YEC-cie style creationism but later realised there were flaws in that too.
I don't know enough science to comment on these things in detail and sometimes wonder whether the RCC approach for example, is a cop-out. Sure we believe in evolution but we also believe God is at work in it.
I think that 'Darwinism' can feed into fascism - eugenics and so on. But then so can traditional forms of 'Christian nationalism' etc.
That doesn't mean that atheists are all proto-fascists of course, nor that religious people are necessarily heading in that direction either.
I'm not sure I follow you, @Martin54. I've not heard that Hoyle was 'ensnared by fine-tuning' or led in a theistic direction - unless I've misunderstood what you are saying.
I thought one of the reasons Hoyle maintained his 'steady-state' view against the 'Big Bang' theory was because the latter could more easily be accomodated by those influenced by Genesis.
@Hugal hasn't been on to explain what he means by 'atheistic scientists', although he did respond briefly. I know Hugal is an evangelical charismatic but that doesn't necessarily mean he is a Young Earth Creationist. I'd be surprised if he was, to be honest.
Nor does it follow, that you have to be YEC to believe in PSA. I know people who believe in PSA who don't subscribe to YEC ideas.
Indeed. But it's often claimed by YECcies that the whole Christian theology - which to them means PSA - falls apart if death existed before a historical Fall.
Sure and there is a parallel here with Orthodox conservatives who believe there had to be a literal Adam in order for Christ to be the 'Second Adam.'
That doesn't involve PSA in their case, of course, but it follows a similar logic and trajectory.
That such great minds are prey to pareidolia, seeing meaning where none exists, and having a disproportionate impact on lesser minds. Including mine of course, for decades.
Ah. Yes, we’ll of course have to disagree.
So Hoyle was right?
(Also to @Gamma Gamaliel, expanding the context of the above slightly)
"Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
And then all of the other pseudoscience beyond the merely fallacious?
'Hoyle died in 2001 having never accepted the validity of the Big Bang theory'
Rejection of Earth-based abiogenesis
The correlation of flu epidemics with the sunspot cycle
You seem, Martin54, to be sunk permanently in a black pit of despair. I am not clear, from your posts of the various threads to which you have contributed, whether you are seeking companions to join you there, or searching for a hand to help you out. If the former, I can only politely decline the invitation; if the latter, I have to say that my faith, the myth by which I live, is the one thing that prevents me from falling into the darkness with you. I have to hold on to hope. Please do not destroy it, and me.
If I have done you an injustice, forgive me.
You seem, Martin54, to be sunk permanently in a black pit of despair. I am not clear, from your posts of the various threads to which you have contributed, whether you are seeking companions to join you there, or searching for a hand to help you out. If the former, I can only politely decline the invitation; if the latter, I have to say that my faith, the myth by which I live, is the one thing that prevents me from falling into the darkness with you. I have to hold on to hope. Please do not destroy it, and me.
If I have done you an injustice, forgive me.
No probs. I appreciate your beholder's share. But I'm not sure, i.e. I don't know, why you shared it here? I'm not quite at the bottom of the black pit of despair, should be by rights what with all my accumulated losses to date. I'm probably only 20% down on average to be honest. And should be 80. I have elevated anxiety, amusing existential nausea, aches and pains, but I'm a very superficial person, easily distracted. The walk home on the riverbank in the pouring rain was most uplifting. And I'm cheerfully miserable right now. A pretty stable mixed state I suppose.
I have no wish whatsoever, despite misery loving company, for anyone to experience my losses. And there is no helping hand. Apart from hands of friendship, tolerance, discourse.
I envy your faith, the myth by which you live; I need you to hold on. And, although we all make each other, I cannot destroy your hope, and you. When I had what you have, nothing could touch it. You've seen me at my worst in my Hitchensesque critique that God is not Love, and that doesn't touch your myth surely? You hope that he is. You have faith that he is.
And nothing I've said on this thread recently, if at all, in pointing out that greater minds lead themselves fallaciously up the garden path and corrode society with their fascist alt. truths, could be remotely dangerous to you. Could it?
Which specific thing are you asking about whether Hoyle was right about?
Those specific things I highlighted, listed.
Do you mean all of this? (As a side note, since it is a quote, from where?)
'Hoyle died in 2001 having never accepted the validity of the Big Bang theory'
Rejection of Earth-based abiogenesis
The correlation of flu epidemics with the sunspot cycle
Two fossil Archaeopteryx were man-made fakes.
The theory of abiogenic petroleum
Of course I don’t think he was right about any given thing he believed.
I’m disagreeing with at least some of what you said here:
That such great minds are prey to pareidolia, seeing meaning where none exists, and having a disproportionate impact on lesser minds. Including mine of course, for decades.
In context (“seeing meaning where none exists” and affecting your own mind “for decades,” especially given your current rejection of Christian theology), I took you to be referring to things like, well, Christianity, not flu epidemics and sunspots, or Archaeopteryx fossils being fake, etc. If I misunderstood, my apologies.
I think the idea is that Protestantism started the decoupling civil authority from religious authority. Reading Luther's On Secular Authority, and whatever Calvin's similar treatise was, one can see that their views were quite different from what western societies hold now, but were also vastly different from the tight union between church and government that existed before.
Protestantism started with the decoupling of religious belief from community.
Almost the exact opposite. It started with communities deciding they could decide religion. Early Protestant centre were all cities. You can name the cities: Calvin of Geneva, Zwingli of Zurich, Luther of Wittenberg and so on. The only real exception is Knox of Scotland though St Andrew's claims him, and he worked on developing what was a city bound model to a nation. Calvin was invited back to Geneva not by the religious authorities but by the town Burgesses. There are even a project to build links today in the cities of the Reformation.
It is, of course, wrong to think of cities as today's large metropolis' holding millions of people. Thing rather of places with 10s of thousands as St Andrew's is to this day. Urbanisation was taking place but on a small level. In conurbations of this size you still know your neighbours, interact with them and so on. It is small enough to have a single unitary authority albeit one with more beaureacracy than in a village where everything could be settled or not at the local pub. The seeds of modern hyper-urbanisation of today is some two hundred years away from the Reformation. Remember Columbus was only trying to circumnavigate the globe around the time of the Reformation. It is the hyper-urbanisation that I think is at the root of the breakdown between Religion and Community.
By "community" I was not referring to cities and earthly kingdoms, but the community of the Church. All protestantism devolves to "every man a pope."
No that is the enlightenment for you. Yes it comes from the academic circles where the thought of the individual is plied against the tradition of thought. So scientific method actually leads to individualism
Protestantism leads to individualism. Is borne of individualism.
If born in Individualism then it can't be the origin, because then the order is changed around. That which bears something must precede it, so you have a problem with your statement for if Protestantism is born of Individualism then Individualism cannot be born of Protestantism.
Actually questions I expect Atheist not to be able to answer are those that only make sense within a religious context, such as whether angels are pure spirit or have a material existence as well. I do not expect atheists to be interested in answering these questions, many religious are not as well but while they can point out logical inconsistencies because they do not start from the same prepositions believers of that sort to the questions themselves appear pure nonsense.
Which specific thing are you asking about whether Hoyle was right about?
Those specific things I highlighted, listed.
Do you mean all of this? (As a side note, since it is a quote, from where?)
'Hoyle died in 2001 having never accepted the validity of the Big Bang theory'
Rejection of Earth-based abiogenesis
The correlation of flu epidemics with the sunspot cycle
Two fossil Archaeopteryx were man-made fakes.
The theory of abiogenic petroleum
Of course I don’t think he was right about any given thing he believed.
I’m disagreeing with at least some of what you said here:
That such great minds are prey to pareidolia, seeing meaning where none exists, and having a disproportionate impact on lesser minds. Including mine of course, for decades.
In context (“seeing meaning where none exists” and affecting your own mind “for decades,” especially given your current rejection of Christian theology), I took you to be referring to things like, well, Christianity, not flu epidemics and sunspots, or Archaeopteryx fossils being fake, etc. If I misunderstood, my apologies.
My apologies ChastMastr. The stream was turbulent. Outside my head it was too...
Hoyle is the classic example, the epitome, of a great mind cursed with pareidolia. Great physicists seem disproportionately affected by it. They influenced me with their fallacies for decades, muddying the waters of knowledge.
Which specific thing are you asking about whether Hoyle was right about?
Those specific things I highlighted, listed.
Do you mean all of this? (As a side note, since it is a quote, from where?)
'Hoyle died in 2001 having never accepted the validity of the Big Bang theory'
Rejection of Earth-based abiogenesis
The correlation of flu epidemics with the sunspot cycle
Two fossil Archaeopteryx were man-made fakes.
The theory of abiogenic petroleum
Of course I don’t think he was right about any given thing he believed.
I’m disagreeing with at least some of what you said here:
That such great minds are prey to pareidolia, seeing meaning where none exists, and having a disproportionate impact on lesser minds. Including mine of course, for decades.
In context (“seeing meaning where none exists” and affecting your own mind “for decades,” especially given your current rejection of Christian theology), I took you to be referring to things like, well, Christianity, not flu epidemics and sunspots, or Archaeopteryx fossils being fake, etc. If I misunderstood, my apologies.
My apologies ChastMastr. The stream was turbulent. Outside my head it was too...
Hoyle is the classic example, the epitome, of a great mind cursed with pareidolia. Great physicists seem disproportionately affected by it. They influenced me with their fallacies for decades, muddying the waters of knowledge.
Okay, did you believe anything from that list? What great physicists’ pareidolic fallacies do you believe influenced you? Obviously we’re going to disagree about whether specific things are false or not, but I don’t know which ones you mean here.
Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom,
otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule.
A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics,
as well as with chemistry and biology,
and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.
The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.
He meant God in all but name. And even God couldn't do it. God would humbly have to work with the prevenient laws of nature. From forever.
Where in the properties of the carbon atom and in the underlying physics before there was one, for hundreds of millions of years in to the BB, which Hoyle denied, can we point to divine intervention? Where in the four fundamental forces? Which were one in the Planck Epoch. Where is it necessary for God to Om additionally in physics? To fine tune his Omming as the ground of being? Of the eternal infinity of universes? Does he have to Om in the keys of c, e, G, h and then some? (I'd love it if he Ommed in the key of Love).
The fundamental constants have been so since the Planck Epoch ended after 10^−43 seconds. At least. Our eternal ignorance of the other conditions in the Planck Epoch, let alone in the quantum perturbation 'before' it,
in the ekpyrotic collision of two 5D m-branes in even higher dimensional bulk-hyperspace (unless, of course, the 4D (3+T) universe (of matter, and dark matter with its dark energy) contains up to 7, or is it 13?, compacted dimensions),
i.e. the unimaginable, ungraspable strangeness of existence, means that my guess, that the 'constants' (one must make allowance for their not being at the edges) get the values they have in all circumstances, as phase space self tunes, is as good as the cat's. And better than Hoyle's, Dyson's, Polkinghorne's, Flew's.
To say that God did it when something gets complex enough for our feeble minds can only be valid when it looks like Love. Not the Hoyle state.
I think the idea is that Protestantism started the decoupling civil authority from religious authority. Reading Luther's On Secular Authority, and whatever Calvin's similar treatise was, one can see that their views were quite different from what western societies hold now, but were also vastly different from the tight union between church and government that existed before.
Protestantism started with the decoupling of religious belief from community.
Almost the exact opposite. It started with communities deciding they could decide religion. Early Protestant centre were all cities. You can name the cities: Calvin of Geneva, Zwingli of Zurich, Luther of Wittenberg and so on. The only real exception is Knox of Scotland though St Andrew's claims him, and he worked on developing what was a city bound model to a nation. Calvin was invited back to Geneva not by the religious authorities but by the town Burgesses. There are even a project to build links today in the cities of the Reformation.
It is, of course, wrong to think of cities as today's large metropolis' holding millions of people. Thing rather of places with 10s of thousands as St Andrew's is to this day. Urbanisation was taking place but on a small level. In conurbations of this size you still know your neighbours, interact with them and so on. It is small enough to have a single unitary authority albeit one with more beaureacracy than in a village where everything could be settled or not at the local pub. The seeds of modern hyper-urbanisation of today is some two hundred years away from the Reformation. Remember Columbus was only trying to circumnavigate the globe around the time of the Reformation. It is the hyper-urbanisation that I think is at the root of the breakdown between Religion and Community.
By "community" I was not referring to cities and earthly kingdoms, but the community of the Church. All protestantism devolves to "every man a pope."
No that is the enlightenment for you. Yes it comes from the academic circles where the thought of the individual is plied against the tradition of thought. So scientific method actually leads to individualism
Protestantism leads to individualism. Is borne of individualism.
If born in Individualism then it can't be the origin, because then the order is changed around. That which bears something must precede it, so you have a problem with your statement for if Protestantism is born of Individualism then Individualism cannot be born of Protestantism.
I didn't say it was the origin. I said it leads to it. Look this is not hard. Individualism gives rise to Protestantism. Now everyone who encounters Protestantism is lead to Individualism.
To most questions of a metaphysical or spiritual nature, I would comfortably reply I don't know. This is because I don't.
Oooooooh, on knowing eh? Well I now know as much about spiritual matters as I do about fairies at the bottom of the garden. Which is a very level playing field. Less than the cat. As for metaphysics, I know far too little far too late; not enough of Socrates for a start. Un' 'e knew nowt.
I admire it as you know. Envy it, covet it! A thought: I came to the realisation that probably in a neurodivergent way (not diagnosed, but said by all closest female family (with the exception of narcoleptic mother who made me look like an introvert) in particular; mad professor, just plain mad, eccentric, autistic, AD(H)D, etc!), I never had faith. I didn't believe, I knew. And the knowledge was false. Especially in matters of religion. As the false knowledge fell away, my religion improved. Until all the supporting knowledge was gone.
Comments
(Also, it's not as if we can we give a more specific answer than the answer Julian of Norwich got - all shall be well.)
And rightly so, I see that presaged by Russell in his deconstruction of Descartes' Je pense donc je suis (Cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am) to 'thought exists'.
Although Buddhist mind is not about thoughts, or in fact, really transcends them.
I meant atheistic scientists.
You might has well say atoothfairyist scientists. By putting the word atheistic in front of the word scientists, it leads one to believe that a disbelief in a god or gods is a formative part of the science that follows.
This makes me think of the effort in the early twentieth century to distinguish between Arische Physik (literally "Aryan physics") and Jüdische Physik ("Jewish physics"). Arische Physik rejected a lot of relativity and quantum mechanics because the pioneers of the field were Jews. Historically this had what most people today regard as beneficial unintended consequences.
Is there any reason to regard distinguishing "atheistic science" from other forms as science as any more of a legitimate distinction than dividing between Arische and Jüdische Physik?
Do atheistic scientists do science differently from theistic scientists? Do they conduct experiments differently, or record observations differently, or predict future events differently? What possible relevance can there be to calling out a scientist's religious belief or lack thereof?
It's come from US Creationism which really does think vast swathes of science is inherently atheistic - life sciences, geology, astrophysics.
Science is not atheistic - it is absolutely by definition agnostic about supernatural entities. It's a bit like asking what colour a database should be.
Exactly, if you don't put belief and/or fallacy first then you're on the path to Godless atheism, if you can't do YEC how can you do PSA? Funnily enough... And there are appallingly influential fallacious thinkers on the bandwagon in the Bible Belt. Behe (an actual scientist, a biochemist, with Snoke, a physicist), Dembski, Meyer, Coulter, Berlinski, Ruse, Lennox, Flew, Lane Craig, which is not surprising when there have been so many physicists ensnared by 'fine tuning' starting with Hoyle, going through Polkinghorne, Dyson. The cultural drag of theism on the dissemination of science is as bad, as dangerous as it was in Scopes' day.
The main problem is anti-intellectualism and "alternative facts". Of course, distrust of science and scientists driven by Creationists feeds into this. We might have had climate denialism without Creationism preparing the way, but we'd not have had flat earthers.
What intrigues me is how the mathematically savant or prodigious lead themselves and others fallaciously down the garden path.
They're slightly different. But the answer is a priori faith based commitment. Aka finding the evidence to support the conclusion you've already decided on.
An awful lot of people do that. How many start from a zero base line, without prior ideas, and accumulate evidence?
The difference between falling into doing this because, well, human, and having the a priori conclusion explicitly stated from the start.
Aye, my deconstruction took over a quarter of a century. The same as my construction by falling into belief, or actually false knowledge, in my case.
Also count how many times they go, "Oh, that evidence was not what I expected. I guess I was wrong about what I was thinking."
I thought one of the reasons Hoyle maintained his 'steady-state' view against the 'Big Bang' theory was because the latter could more easily be accomodated by those influenced by Genesis.
@Hugal hasn't been on to explain what he means by 'atheistic scientists', although he did respond briefly. I know Hugal is an evangelical charismatic but that doesn't necessarily mean he is a Young Earth Creationist. I'd be surprised if he was, to be honest.
Nor does it follow, that you have to be YEC to believe in PSA. I know people who believe in PSA who don't subscribe to YEC ideas.
Indeed. But it's often claimed by YECcies that the whole Christian theology - which to them means PSA - falls apart if death existed before a historical Fall.
* 1949
** Hoyle, Fred (November 1981). "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections", Engineering and Science, Volume 45:2, pp. 8–12
It's all very sad.
What is?
Ah. Yes, we’ll of course have to disagree.
I don't know much about biology, I don't know much cos-mo-logy, I know even less astronomy ...
Sorry, I'll stop the karaoke right there.
I keep coming across earnest young Creationists within Orthodoxy these days and that bothers me. I always used to think of ID as a better alternative to YEC-cie style creationism but later realised there were flaws in that too.
I don't know enough science to comment on these things in detail and sometimes wonder whether the RCC approach for example, is a cop-out. Sure we believe in evolution but we also believe God is at work in it.
I think that 'Darwinism' can feed into fascism - eugenics and so on. But then so can traditional forms of 'Christian nationalism' etc.
That doesn't mean that atheists are all proto-fascists of course, nor that religious people are necessarily heading in that direction either.
We all have to be on our guard though.
Sure and there is a parallel here with Orthodox conservatives who believe there had to be a literal Adam in order for Christ to be the 'Second Adam.'
That doesn't involve PSA in their case, of course, but it follows a similar logic and trajectory.
(Also to @Gamma Gamaliel, expanding the context of the above slightly)
And then all of the other pseudoscience beyond the merely fallacious?
If I have done you an injustice, forgive me.
No probs. I appreciate your beholder's share. But I'm not sure, i.e. I don't know, why you shared it here? I'm not quite at the bottom of the black pit of despair, should be by rights what with all my accumulated losses to date. I'm probably only 20% down on average to be honest. And should be 80. I have elevated anxiety, amusing existential nausea, aches and pains, but I'm a very superficial person, easily distracted. The walk home on the riverbank in the pouring rain was most uplifting. And I'm cheerfully miserable right now. A pretty stable mixed state I suppose.
I have no wish whatsoever, despite misery loving company, for anyone to experience my losses. And there is no helping hand. Apart from hands of friendship, tolerance, discourse.
I envy your faith, the myth by which you live; I need you to hold on. And, although we all make each other, I cannot destroy your hope, and you. When I had what you have, nothing could touch it. You've seen me at my worst in my Hitchensesque critique that God is not Love, and that doesn't touch your myth surely? You hope that he is. You have faith that he is.
And nothing I've said on this thread recently, if at all, in pointing out that greater minds lead themselves fallaciously up the garden path and corrode society with their fascist alt. truths, could be remotely dangerous to you. Could it?
Which specific thing are you asking about whether Hoyle was right about?
Those specific things I highlighted, listed.
Do you mean all of this? (As a side note, since it is a quote, from where?)
Of course I don’t think he was right about any given thing he believed.
I’m disagreeing with at least some of what you said here:
In context (“seeing meaning where none exists” and affecting your own mind “for decades,” especially given your current rejection of Christian theology), I took you to be referring to things like, well, Christianity, not flu epidemics and sunspots, or Archaeopteryx fossils being fake, etc. If I misunderstood, my apologies.
If born in Individualism then it can't be the origin, because then the order is changed around. That which bears something must precede it, so you have a problem with your statement for if Protestantism is born of Individualism then Individualism cannot be born of Protestantism.
My apologies ChastMastr. The stream was turbulent. Outside my head it was too...
Hoyle is the classic example, the epitome, of a great mind cursed with pareidolia. Great physicists seem disproportionately affected by it. They influenced me with their fallacies for decades, muddying the waters of knowledge.
Okay, did you believe anything from that list? What great physicists’ pareidolic fallacies do you believe influenced you? Obviously we’re going to disagree about whether specific things are false or not, but I don’t know which ones you mean here.
Hoyle in '81,
He meant God in all but name. And even God couldn't do it. God would humbly have to work with the prevenient laws of nature. From forever.
Where in the properties of the carbon atom and in the underlying physics before there was one, for hundreds of millions of years in to the BB, which Hoyle denied, can we point to divine intervention? Where in the four fundamental forces? Which were one in the Planck Epoch. Where is it necessary for God to Om additionally in physics? To fine tune his Omming as the ground of being? Of the eternal infinity of universes? Does he have to Om in the keys of c, e, G, h and then some? (I'd love it if he Ommed in the key of Love).
The fundamental constants have been so since the Planck Epoch ended after 10^−43 seconds. At least. Our eternal ignorance of the other conditions in the Planck Epoch, let alone in the quantum perturbation 'before' it,
To say that God did it when something gets complex enough for our feeble minds can only be valid when it looks like Love. Not the Hoyle state.
I didn't say it was the origin. I said it leads to it. Look this is not hard. Individualism gives rise to Protestantism. Now everyone who encounters Protestantism is lead to Individualism.
Ah, but what if they weren't, or had theistic implications? Again, I can't imagine. 'What in God's name is the matter with you?', something like that?
Oooooooh, on knowing eh? Well I now know as much about spiritual matters as I do about fairies at the bottom of the garden. Which is a very level playing field. Less than the cat. As for metaphysics, I know far too little far too late; not enough of Socrates for a start. Un' 'e knew nowt.
Indeed. Thing is, none of us should be frightened of questions. Even if we can't answer them.
Which I can't.
You and your bloody honest faith. Where am I supposed to go with that?
Faith isn't dependent on knowledge?
But we're all on that spectrum? We all know.
Love allows us to do so.