Friday, March 28, 2008
Ben Stein (sort of) helps the skeptics
The 83rd Skeptics Circle is off and running. Where the time go? Besides work, family reunion, etc.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A discussion of skepticism, logic, math, intelligent design creationism, board games, the Utah Jazz, marriage, having three children on the autism spectrum and two that not on the spectrum, being a DBA, teaching, the St. Louis metro area, my health since being diagnosed with ALS, and anything else that comes to mind.
About Me
- One Brow
- Metro-East St. Louis, Illinois, United States
- I'm a father of five, happily married since June 1989, former student of mathematics, currently full-time software engineer and retired part-time math teacher. You can reach me at one(underscore)brow(at)yahoo(dot)com.
Places I go to learn things
Webcomics
Other fun places
- Ask Greg Weisman - Responses
- The Daily Cartoonist
- Metro East Gamers
- The St. Louis Board Game Meetup Group
- Stonemaier Games
- TalkieToaster's Board Games Blog
- 18xx Concordance
- BoardGameGeek
- Poker Chip Forum
- Living and Dying by the Jazz
- Jazz Basketball blog
- Salt City Hoops
- SLC Dunk
- Jazz section of the Deseret News
- Jazz section of the Salt Lake Tribune
- JazzFanz
- Daily Nous
- The Skeptics' Annotated Bible Discussion Board
- Snopes.com: What's New?
Recent Comments
Get this Recent Comments Widget
Labels
- ADHD (3)
- ALS Status Update (4)
- Board Games (7)
- Chess (1)
- Creationism (5)
- Denialism (13)
- ID and Science (15)
- Local stuff (4)
- Logic (13)
- Math (10)
- pdd-nos (16)
- Philosophy (33)
- Pleasant Surprises (2)
- Politics (10)
- Questionable Interpretations (16)
- Quote of the Week (21)
- Race (5)
- Skepticism (47)
- Skeptics' Circle (30)
- Social Justice (5)
- Teaching Math (6)
- The Last Superstition (13)
- Utah Jazz (4)
- Vanity (4)
Retired Webcomics
Posts
Isaiah 1:18
Come now, and let us reason together
HRG, on CARM (paraphrased with his approval)
With formal systems, such as mathematics, you can have certainty and demonstrability, but not reality.
With science, such as physics, you can have reality and demonstrability, but not certainty.
With belief systems, such as Christianity, you can have reality and certainty, but not demonstrability.
G. K. Chesterton, in St. Thomas Aquinas
After the great example of St. Thomas, the principle stands, or ought always to have stood established; that we must either not argue with a man at all, or we must argue on his grounds and not ours. We may do other things instead of arguing, according to our views of what actions are morally permissible; but if we argue we must argue "On the reasons and statements of the philosophers themselves."
Bertrand Russell, in The Analysis of Mind
Any habitual action, such as eating or dressing, may be performed on the appropriate occasion, without any need of thought, and the same seems to be true of a painfully large proportion of our talk.
2 comments:
It seems to me that those who devote large amounts of time to "disproving" religion have a personal ax to grind. Perhaps they resent being "fooled" into accepting religious beliefs at an earlier time in their lives and/or being "forced" to accept it by their parents, I don't know.
Personally, I don't accept the basic premises of any western religion. It's really not even a "question" for me. It's nothing worth debating about from my perspective.
That said, I think it is quite presumptous for one to start believing that the "truth" is that the entire universe is entirely devoid of any design, any "intelligence," or any "supernatural" forces that give some direction to events that occur (I mean, generally, not on an ad hoc basis).
Would I claim to know anything about the nature of such an "intelligence." No, not for one second. Would I have any recommendations about how one should live his life in order to best fulfill his "purpose." Nary a one.
It seems to me that the hard-core atheists are just as devout and irrational in their pretense to knowledge about such things as religious fundies. But, once again, I tend to think their sense of certainty is really just a determination to oppose their "enemies" (religious types).
To me, ridiculing religious fundies is about as challenging and cheap as ridiculing the intelligence level of a 10-year old retarded child. What's the point? What is the goal being sought? What is the motivation?
That said, I think it is quite presumptous for one to start believing that the "truth" is that the entire universe is entirely devoid of any design, any "intelligence," or any "supernatural" forces that give some direction to events that occur (I mean, generally, not on an ad hoc basis).
When I see evidence that might lead to design, I'll end my disbelief in the lack of design.
It seems to me that the hard-core atheists are just as devout and irrational in their pretense to knowledge about such things as religious fundies. But, once again, I tend to think their sense of certainty is really just a determination to oppose their "enemies" (religious types).
I agree that the so-called stong atheists, who make a positive claim for non-existence, have no evidence to back their claim.
To me, ridiculing religious fundies is about as challenging and cheap as ridiculing the intelligence level of a 10-year old retarded child. What's the point?
Politics. Fundamentalists are not shy about getting political power, nor about their desire to use this power to enforce their mindset on others. Ridicule can be a powerful weapon in politics.
What is the goal being sought?
Marginalization of political ambitions.
What is the motivation?
Preventing theocracy.
Post a Comment