From: Jonathan Davis (jonathan.davis@lineone.net)
Date: Tue Sep 02 2003 - 16:22:44 MDT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Hermit
Sent: 02 September 2003 20:24
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Re:virus: Fred Reed on Religion...
[Jonathan] This is simply wrong. He wrote, "We live in a wantonly
irreligious age-at least at the level of public discourse." "Wantonly"
modifies "irreligious" which could mean, amongst other things: "We are
playfully irreligious" or "Unrestrainedly excessive in our irreligiousness"
or "We live in an undisciplined irreligious age". [
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wanton ].
[Hermit] So Fred was bitching because we are "playfully irreligious". I'm
sure this somehow makes sense to somebody, somewhere.
[Jonathan 2] Nah, it was Fred's opening sentence. There was no bitching in
the whole piece.
[Jonathan] Adopting the language of Marxism will not help. We are not
oppressed and the constitutional protections remain firm.
[Hermit] I've researched this. Have you?
[Jonathan 2] An appeal to your own authority :-) I have no need to research
such matter when you kindly research them for the community (and
consequently me). I do not have time to wade through your findings though,
so any summaries presented here are welcome.
SNIP
[Jonathan] He simply offered some examples. You ought to know better than to
attack an example. His point still holds - many brilliant, great men have
been religious. This is simply true.
[Hermit] And many brilliant, great men have been non-religious and
antireligious. This is simply true.
[Jonathan 2] Indeed it is!
[Jonathan] I cannot think of a single Renaissance master who was not
avowedly religious. Even St Darwin is alleged to have seen the light at the
very end :-)
[Hermit] I can think of many who were not religious - but as those who
avowed this tended to end up as the centerpiece of bonfires, they didn't
typically make a noise about it.
[Jonathan 2] I suspect there were crypto-sceptics, but do you know of any?
[Jonathan] Your see presumptions where there are none. Yes, there may be
fairies too.
[Hermit] The presumption is that it takes belief to reject an idea for which
strong evidence tending to disallow it exists.
[Jonathan 2]
[Jonathan] [Hermit] This is the same argument used by Theists! It is not
that God does not exist, but our nature is too limited to comprehend
him/it/her. I am not satisfied with the evasion "Your too limited to
understand the concept of pre-Big Bang", either the answer exists within our
conceptual abilities or it is..dare I say it...in the realm of the religious
and otherworldly (or othermindly).
[Hermit] I said no such thing!!!
[Jonathan 2] In that case I withdraw it and file under "misunderstanding".
[Hermit] Sheesh! There is nothing about our nature which limits our
comprehension of the BB or the Universe. Please read the link
(http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=32;action=display;threadid=284
97;start=0) before you make statements which run counter to the well
accepted consensus position (or become abusive).
[Jonathan 2] With sincere respect H, I do not have the time to do so. I base
what I write on what I interpret you as saying. I am happy to withdraw
claims me in error, but I reply on you to clarify your own position.
[Hermit] Spacetime was instantiated in the Big Bang. Thus there was no
"time" before the Big Bang. So any assertion of prior causation - just like
an assertion of causation for detectable quantum fluctuation (particle
instantiation and evaporation) is meaningless and must fail.
[Jonathan 2] This appears to be a handy cop out. "Before" refers to
time/space and since time/space only started at Big Bang, there can be no
"before" Big Bang. Only that is the very problem: From whence/what comes
space/time?
SNIP
[Jonathan] Unless they never appealed to authority in the first place.
<snip> Fred Reed not being such...[appeal to popularity]
[Hermit] "I note however that over millennia people of extraordinary
intellect and thoughtfulness have taken religion seriously." is not a
simultaneous appeal to popularity and authority? What is then?
[Jonathan] He asks no direct questions.
[Hermit] I remind Jonathan:In the essay Fred asked tough, insightful
questions with humility
[Jonathan 2] Fred *indirect* questions were "why we are here", "what should
[we] do", "why do we die" and "where did we [come] from".
[Jonathan] He did not make negative statements about scientists, he simply
pointed out scientists are limited. This is not an insult, but a fact. He
warns against smugness and overconfidence. He argues for humility and
respect. I agree with these sentiments.
[Hermit] Fred can reply to this:
FRED SNIPPED
[Jonathan 2] Nowhere does he say anything unfair about scientists.
[Hermit]To me, more invidious even than his attacks on atheists etc, is
this:[Fred] The following seems to me to be true regarding religion and the
sciences: Either one believes that there is an afterlife, or one believes
that there is not an afterlife, or one isn't sure-which means that one
believes that there may be an afterlife. Where it is quite clear that Fred
"believes*" that there is no quantitive or qualitive differences between the
reasoned evidence based scientific weighing of a matter, and the acceptance
through faith evidenced by the religious. Of course, you appear to be saying
something similar.
[Jonathan 2] How do you support the assertion that "Fred "believes*" that
there is no quantitive or qualitive differences between the reasoned
evidence based scientific weighing of a matter, and the acceptance through
faith evidenced by the religious"?
He does not. Neither do I.
[Jonathan] After reading you state that "we know enough to be able to state
that the question, "But where did that come from" is an illusion caused by
our nature, not an attribute of the Universe", I think you ought to consider
a name change to Hermit Risik :-)
[Hermit] Yet causation is an illusion, which our brains create for us. This
is not a matter of speculation, it is a matter of very solid fundamental
physics (think Bell inequalities, spooky action and Heisenberg). When you
have read the expansion and links above, and if needed done additional
research (Weinberg and Feynman are good starting points on the physics
aspects), I'll be expecting your apology.
[Jonathan 2] Expect away, it will not be forthcoming Herr Risik :-)
Good work on your rebuttal and thanks for the discussion.
Kind regards
Jonathan
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 02 2003 - 16:23:11 MDT