It sounds to me like you are trying to save me from "one of these assholes". I truly appreciate the gesture, but still, I'd like to hear him speak. I promise not to fall for any "dictator" antics he might try to throw at me. I got my dictator helmet and vest strapped on tight.
In all fairness, you've done a pretty fair job of polarizing. Your attack, which is noticeably made only one way, against what you call leftists, is essentially as insignificant to science as is the intellectually primitive and politically twisted ranting of any righties. Arguing from political agendas, in the end, doesn't define science itself. If it did, then it is not science in the first place. As you say, science is apolitical. What is crazy, dangerous, and wrong are inexorable crusades against reason and rationality. The outright offense against the stuff of real science itself. "But since the devil's bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she's wise..." an unfortunate and pervasive aspect of religious belief. It is about extremes. Extremes like communists which you mentioned, who not only put science under ideological control, but suppressed and victimized intellectuals in general. The extremes of today's religious fanatics, evangelical christians, fundamentalist muslims, creationists, who had they the same control would do no less, but nevertheless, mount their relentless campaigns against reason itself. FT draws attention to that aspect. You are forwarding political points.
With all due respect, stu, FT simply draws attention to his paradoxical claims of having a divine knowledge of the absence of a supreme being.
Other than calling out freethinker here, have I ever made a claim that I was doing it for the sake of advancing science? If I have, then I retract that. OK, so now let's couple that with the observational reality around us. Start with some observational facts that I hope you agree are a common point of refernence: 1. As stalin was supressing quantum mechanics, it was flourishing in a christian dominated west 2. The United States became a technological and scientific powerhouse while dominated by christians. I am not saying that science was a Christian enterprise, I am saying that Christians supported it. 3. Isaac Newton was a Christian and had some other strange beliefs, a good fraction of today's practising scientists are christian. 4. If you can take my word for it, I know the author of this book, which is a highly regarded reference text. http://www.crcnetbase.com/isbn/9780824742430 He is a hardcore creationist, one who happens to hold many useful patents. 5. The elite scientists become strikingly non religious, almost atheistic. I'm talking the Feynmans and Einsteins of the world. They do not see the need to crusade against christians. I conclude that science and christianity are compatible. Outside of evolutionary biology and historical geology, do you disagree? Your comment on the extremes is well taken, however like all generalizations some key ingredients need to be added for a clearer picture of reality. First to note is that entire nations or other large entities often become dominated by the extremes, (are they then extreme anymore?) such as the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), Iran (Islam is already 'extreme' is it not?), the liberal arts academic left, and although I might argue against it- the republicans. If you want a recent campaign against reason itself, read more about the war between science and liberal arts departments. It's quite shocking, they attacked scientific reason in toto, not just earth history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair What's the greater threat to science, universities turning out these anti-intellectual ideological students who will go on to populate more anti-science liberal arts departments, or young earth creationists? To me the picture is quite clear, the former is a far greater danger. Those liberal arts folks turn out the Obama's of the world would would in turn have no problem at all putting political pressure on scientists to make science serve their political interests. More how I guage reality and the level of threat.... 1. Muslims are openly hostile towards non-muslims. If I make a cartoon they don't like, then I might have to go into hiding right here in my own country. A handful of extreme muslims caused a war and massive economic damage to us. They have a stated goal of populating western nations and instituting Sharia. My antenna say that Islam is a far greater threat to science, and my own freedom, than any extreme christian group. 2. Scientists themselves who turn science into a political weapon. Any area such as climate science is always contolled by a dozen or so top scientists. Call them agenda setters. They influence where all the funding goes and what gets published. If the agenda setters have a nonscientific agenda, then corruption is guarenteed. It's not just climate science, medical journals are crap. A good half of all results are overturned in 10 years. 3. Young earth creationists. Let's say they get what they want, say a couple of pages in a high school text. I see no great impact there, I have worked right next to them. The fact is most of science can function just fine with a corruption of earths geological and biological history. I certainly do not want that to happen, but I asses the level of threat to be low. It would not bring down science, civilization, or reason. ..... all right end of rant, I'm not getting paid. End with a quote from Feynman. His entire thesis is well worth your time, but my point is that Feynman is saying that our fellow man needs religion, and of all choices in that regard, Christianity is the best one and is compatible. Are you telling me freethinker knows better? http://amiquote.tumblr.com/post/607099009/richard-p-feynman-on-the-conflict-between-science
In this thread at least, FT does nothing of the kind Hoof. Furthermore, although I've no intention of defending FT, he does a good job of that himself, I've never seen him make any such claims at all. FT said "disseminate the science and eliminate the myth" - that's what he's about. Let me ask you, do you see that as some sort of threat or insult against something you believe? Should it be? On the other hand, do you really not think there is some crazy in a guy who is apparently taking himself seriously in suggesting an imaginary deity is sending terrorists to 'chasen and humble' people whilst he waves a prayer book about the place. If that isn't a christian version of the Taliban then it's a fine attempt at it. Just not enough crazy for Fischer to fail to recognize he can make a great deal of money by promoting ignorant and intolerant superstitions. Do that outside the cloak of religion though and sooner or later the men in white coats get called. In that regard alone, the thread title and FT's comments are warranted.
"the cause is real education, and not polarizing the public." Are you saying you retract that? Then I suggest you would be doing little else but polarizing. Doing something yourself but accusing others of doing it. I'd say more appropriate to state it was flourishing in secular liberal (small 'L') western democracies. That would be more cojent a point. But either way you are politicizing science with religion. You said science is apolitical. Do you retract that too? Christians support it and don't support it. It took something called the Enlightenment which I'm sure you are perfectly well aware of, to advocate the use of reason and individualism in place of an especially prevalent Christian religious tradition and established anti-science doctrine, as no doubt Galileo Galilei would attest. Science despite religion, not because of it. Of course I can take your word, but it's your point which is unreasonable to accept. A Creationist holds useful patents is meant to mean what exactly? That someone can believe in supernatural non-scientific, strange ideas, whilst holding potentially valuable or profitable privileges discovered through science? Well, disagreeing with some crazy religious notions is not really the crusade. Creationists who actively pursue aggressive campaigns against science in the community at large, is more reminiscent of holy warfare. I do disagree Mav. Not compatible because they are not comparable. Glib maybe but, in the end it makes no difference. Non of that extremism IS science. Because people try to politicize science from whatever ends of the spectrum or even from somewhere inbetween, it is still not going to be the thing you mentioned - real science. You'll have to explain how one intended hoax from which eccentric conclusions were whipped up by media in general is an attack on science or scientific reasoning. Another attack on the political left. Again, you said, science is apolitical. Bottom line, there is nothing more that scientists relish than to knock down anti-intellectual ideological pseudo science, with real science. That some get away with things from a political aspect is of no surprise, but it isn't real science and it gets shown up and called out. I respectfully suggest you retune your antenna. The reason why yours and my own freedom is in tact is because of secular democratic law which defies resolutely, extreme islamics, Sharia theocracy, and extreme christian groups or any other form of religious domination. Then there you are! Science, real science, is self correcting. People of all kinds will try to corrupt anything for all sorts of reasons. That gets overturned, shown up and called out. Of course it would bring down reason! You are advocating something which you've been railing against through out. Corruption of science. How can you possibly teach non-scientific, un-scientific Young Earth Creationism as the real science you talk of. One minute you're outraged at the corruption of science by a political left, next you are supporting it by a bunch of anti-science extremists often formed by the political right who want everything put down to make believe by the supernatural. With respect you're all one sided here. And you can't have anti-science not ok, anti-science is ok! Good rant, worth every penny As you mentioned it, in your link to Feynman, there is only the very strong suggestion from what he says that indicates not only does Freethinker have a point, but that there is conflict between science and religion, one which is in my view, and I'm being prompted by Feynman, instigated and defined by religion, but from which religion has had to be obliged to invariably retreat from. In addition to that, to accept only via the secondhand route of christianity or other religious frameworks that people are able to follow certain sets of moral or ethical codes, I suggest in every respect, is defunct as any sort of an intellectual argument and has been for many years.
Stu, There are only three ways in which FT could have come to the conclusion, or belief, that this man is crazy, as he states. 1. FT is the true supreme being, or God, if you will, and therefore has the certain knowledge he claims to have. Or 2. Certain knowledge has been given to him by God. FT would therefore have certain knowledge that the Christian man he speaks of is indeed ill-minded in his way of thinking, and is wrong about the true nature and intent of God. FT therefore concludes the Christian man is spreading myth, instead of truth. Or 3. FT has certain knowledge that there is no supreme being. Therefore the man in which he speaks of has to be ill-minded by default. As FT has admitted in the past to having no such certain knowledge of God's true nature and intent, and having no such certain knowledge given to him by God, we therefore have to eliminate the first two possibilities, leaving us with the only other option. So, in order for FT to have certain knowledge that this Christian man is ill-minded and spreading myth, FT would also have to have certain knowledge of the absence of a true supreme being. That certain knowledge could only be divine by nature, and would therefore be paradoxical. Let me ask you, do you see that as some sort of threat or insult against something you believe? [/QUOTE] No. Should it be?[/QUOTE] Let me ask you, Why are you asking me a question to which the answer could only be of divine nature? On the other hand, do you really not think there is some crazy in a guy who is apparently taking himself seriously in suggesting an imaginary deity is sending terrorists to 'chasen and humble' people whilst he waves a prayer book about the place.[/QUOTE] This has the guise of being a question, although it lacks the proper punctuation. It also is a question in which it seems as if you are trying to trick me, and therefore I will not attempt to answer it. If my answer is either yes or no, I would still be acknowledging that the Christian man is indeed suggesting an imaginary deity has sent terrorists to do the will of said imaginary deity. I have no claim or belief as to whether or not the Christian man is crazy or lying. Such a claim would require certain knowledge of a divine nature to have been given to me, in regards to the subject. If that isn't a christian version of the Taliban then it's a fine attempt at it. Just not enough crazy for Fischer to fail to recognize he can make a great deal of money by promoting ignorant and intolerant superstitions. [/QUOTE] You certainly have proven that you have the ability and free will to not only speculate, but you also perhaps have the desire to transfer your own cynical views onto others. Do that outside the cloak of religion though and sooner or later the men in white coats get called. In that regard alone, the thread title and FT's comments are warranted. [/QUOTE] I have no doubt that the title to his thread was warranted. If nothing else it serves to expose FTâs paradoxical belief, in which he feels compelled to impose upon others. who farted
What exactly are you saving us from? I've never felt threatened by modern Christianity. Why don't you save us from the Bernie Madoffs and John Corzines of the world? Seems to me they could have used a little religion. Look around you, man. You think the country is getting better by the systematic assault on religion? Greed and narcissism are rampant and increasing. As an atheist you are your own God. Whose ethics do you follow? Your own? That's what one of my atheist friends told me. He is his own God and will play by his own rules. He determines what is ethical and what isn't. I'm glad he isn't a powerful political leader. We've seen too often thoughout history how that's worked. Religion is manipulated to the greed and desires of power by unethical men. The good that comes from it should not be forgotten because of those who abuse it for their own selfish reasons. There are many believers who have no problem with science and religion side by side.
Have you not considered that perhaps the best action to take is neither? You claim to be a free thinker by your very pseudonym , yet you seemed to have not only limited your own possibilities, in regards to the choices you have to make, but you are also suggesting that others should narrow their thought, and decide between the only two choices you have given.
Have you not considered that perhaps the best action to take is neither? You claim to be a free thinker by your very pseudonym , yet you seemed to have not only limited your own possibilities, in regards to the choices you have to make, but you are also suggesting that others should narrow their thought, and decide between the only two choices you have given. Afterthought. FT, I think I may understand what you are trying to say, and do. I also hope you realize that by trying to coax others into seeing your point of view, which is that other's belief's are foolish, what you are also doing is attempting to suppress religious freedom. You get enough people to see it your way, then next thing you know, people are being persecuted, and locked up or drowned for having beliefs that differ from yours. The end game for your cause is religious persecution. The good news is people stopped putting up with it along time ago, and most of those who advocate in its behalf are relegated to the ranks of social network pages, where bored individuals, such as my self come to chat about such things. Sincere Hoof