I’ll call Collounsbury’s “tedious and obnoxious” and raise him “fatuous in the extreme”. I’m quite content to call myself an atheist. Atheists calling themselves “Brights” is the most laughably ego-inflating nonsense I’ve heard since the Pre-Raphaelite circle that called themselves the Souls.
So what? Any controversial book will have a smattering of bad reviews. I cited to other sources as well, one of which was apparenlty accurate enough for the Australian Skeptics Society. And I agree that Rowland goes a bit too far in his argument: in my view, Galileo’s mistake was not claiming that there was a single explanation for natural phenomena, but rather his claiming that he had proved his single explanation was necessarily the correct one when, in fact, he hadn’t.
As I’ve said, the Galileo affair was not a shining moment in church history; the church’s conduct was in many ways shameful. But it isn’t as simplistic or as black and white as the children’s story version makes it appear.
Dude, it was your cite. Is any of this getting through? Your own cite contradicts your position. :rolleyes:
Now, do you have any citations for what you asserted in the above-quoted paragraph?
Dude, no it doesn’t.
That cite says that the Church would not permit the presentation of a heliocentric model as the truth. I’ve read many accounts that quite clearly stated that the Church would tolerate the theory – and those who held it – as long it was presented as a method for calculating the motions of the planets only and not as a meaningful claim about the solar system.
That’s it – I’m starting a thread.
Dewey, I don’t agree with your characterization of Randi’s essay. To repeat the same excerpt from it that I used to start this thread:
I think Randi would agree that we can’t prove that gods don’t exist. I think he is saying that rational people should apply the same logic, investigation and skepticism to religious matters as they do to science in general. The science that is responsible for all that is good (and bad) in the world today.
So by “religious matters” I don’t mean to include topics that are philosophical/theological only, beyond the realm of science, like “Does God exist?” But there are numerous questions that CAN and SHOULD be examined scientifically, but rarely are, at least by religious organizations. And non-religious orgs, like CSICOP, seem to politely shy away from such examination.
Example: the Long Day of Joshua. If you accept it as just a myth, of course no testing is possible other than an anthropogical inquiry as to where the story came from. But there are serious people who claim it actually happened. Now we enter the world that science can tackle – doesn’t this story imply the earth suddenly stopped spinning, then started again, and if so, what is the evidence for that and how likely is it to have happened?
Another example. The bible gives the ages of many patriarchs as much greater than people live today (Abraham, Methuselah). If you believe these numbers are intended to be accurate, science can tackle the veracity of those claims: do we have any other evidence that people lived that long, based on bones, mummies, external historical references, etc.?
Without the scientific examination of religion, we have only faith to support religious tenets. Pretty much the same situation as astrology, dowsing, ESP and Heaven’s Gate.
You contradict yourself between these two paragraphs. If scientists (religious skeptics, really, since many scientists are, after all, religious) believe the world is more than what we can sensorily percieve, then they are abandoning materialism. But if they only believe in things that demonstrably affect the world in a physical way, then they do not believe in what they cannot sensorily percieve. **
To which I can only respond “not necessarily.” Again, it all boils down to the degree of credibility you give subjective experience. The existence of God cannot be proven, but it can be felt – religious discourse is less about materialistic empiricism and more about shraed spiritual experience. **
You can’t have it both ways. If religion cannot claim the arts and culture because other factors were at work, then neither can religion be saddled with atrocities because other factors were at work there as well. Randi is aburdly inconsistent on this point. **
The point is that religion has served to advance the boundaries of mankind’s knowledge, and that it has served to protect that knowledge from destruction, when others were disinclined to do so. That much is incontrovertible. **
No, I’m just answering Randi’s parade of horribles **
Any institution can be (and have been) put to good or ill. That doesn’t mean all institutions are worthless. **
Randi deserves my pity. Anyone who isolates joy in a child’s smile to a few chemical reactions in the brain really is living in a cold and sterile (but not dull) world. Human beings are more than just animals that can build stuff; reducing things like joy and beauty and love to mere biology misses much of the point.
The review raises issues. Your dismissal with this is not terribly enlightening.
I think you take an overly charitable view towards Randi’s essay. He clearly dislikes religion in all its forms, and clearly is opposed to anything that can’t be materialistically proven. His essay is not just an attack on religious claims of supernatural influence on the material world, but an attack on the very concept of faith itself.
FTR, I am no fundamentalist, I agree that much of the Bible (particularly the Old Testament) is metaphor designed to teach particular lessons rather actual history, and I support investigation into Biblical events to determine the degree to which they comport with the historic and scientific record.
The review doesn’t contradict anything that has been said in this thread. Perhaps you’d like to make a specific point rather than vague allusions?
No, I have other axes to grind. I found your discussion inadequate, however I am not moved to engage it.
Why even bother to post then? :rolleyes:
Granted. But you say that as if it’s a bad thing.
Faith didn’t design the computer you are sitting in front of.
I introduced the reference, my sole other comment was a brief one on your reply, I found it inadequate. Mere passing commentary. I should say I am sorry if it offends you, but I am afraid that would be a lie.
That’s about the quality of argument I’ve come to expect from you.
I can’t perceive radio waves with any of my senses. I can only perceive certain effects that are consistent with the existence of such waves. Scientists have no problems accepting that the universe is full of things their senses can’t detect, but they can detect their effects on things we can detect.
If a hypothetical phenonemon doesn’t affect things we can detect at all, how can it be said to exist? It can’t – it’s not needed to explain anything, and it makes no difference to our universe at all.
There’s no contradiction – it’s only that your understanding is too limited.
** I agree – it’s a social construct, like cultural traditions. And, of course, since the human mind is part of the universe, things that exist in the human mind exist in the universe. But we have no reason to believe that these human beliefs have anything to do with the set of all things that interact with each other and us.
** Others were disinclined to protect knowledge during the Dark Ages because western European civilization had sunk into a morass of superstition, religious dogma, and ignorance.
** What do you mean, “worthless”? Aren’t we debating the validity of faith as a means of knowing, not whether religious people feed hungry orphans?
But it is biology. Just as it is physics, and chemistry, and psychology.
[sigh]
Gee, that’s ever so helpful. Thank you for that useful and meaningful contribution to the discussion. :rolleyes:
“I think you’re wrong, but I’m not going to tell you why.”
He’s already told you why. You ignored the explanation.
Dewey, you’re not a Catholic by any chance, are you?
Oh, bullshit. I understand that there are plenty of physical phenomena that can’t be observed directly. But the fact remains that there are physical means of indirectly observing them. That secondary observation counts as sensory perception.
In short, you’re doing an end run around my point by reading “sensory perception” to narrowly mean only direct observation. Grow up. **
I disagree, but as I’ve noted I can’t prove it empirically. God can’t be proven but can be felt. Either you feel religious stirrings or you don’t. Simple as that.
If you believe empiricism is the only road to truth, then there is little point in discussing spiritual matters with you. **
Right. It’s all religion’s fault. That whole “crumbling of the Roman Empire and devolution into squabbling fiefdoms” had nothing to do with it. :rolleyes:
Point of fact: but for the church, much knowledge would have been lost during the Dark Ages. If the church had not existed, mankind would be worse off today. **
Randi seems to think it appropriate to note where religious people have slaughtered their enemies. I think it equally appropriate to note in response where religious people have fed hungry orphans.
No, he didn’t, and no, I haven’t. He said “here’s a book review that raises issues, and I disagree with you.” I noted the review did not contradict anything in this thread, and asked him to be a bit more specific. He declined. He hasn’t specified any particular issue for dispute. He’s just said he thinks I’m wrong without bothering to tell me why. **
No, I am not.
** Very well. So is God part of the material universe or not? Humans are part of the material universe, and if God affects humans (and presumably other things), then subjective perception is also sensory perception.
Which way do you want it? Does faith go beyond the “material” world or not?
** You seem to be unable to take these principles and derive conclusions from them. See above.
Then God can’t be part of the world, or it wouldn’t matter whether one person perceived it or not.
Who brought up belief? Empiricism is just the name for examining the universe, which is what we’re trying to find the truth about, right?
** The religious empires (including the Byzantine and Holy Roman) were just so helpful, weren’t they?
I believe Randi was discussing the ways in which religious people justify their actions – specifically, that it’s inherently opposed to the methods of science. Religion is used as an excuse and justification for whatever people want to do – pseudoscience is used as an excuse and justification for whatever people want to believe.
** Did you read the review? Did you not notice the implications about the book’s claims?
Huh.