[Message Deleted]
-
Problem I
'Oh-oh. Albert Einstein himself believed in God - I better change my attitude and stop sinning henceforth!!!!!!'
Problem II
Albert Einstein showed some great presistence thinking out of the box about oddities in physics, but had a bad choice in hairdressers. Newton thrust forward math and physics of his period, but was an egomaniac. So what makes them particulary useful in an Ad Verecundiam argument about religion? Even more, both erred on important concepts of physics. At least in the most prominent case allegiance to the existance of god was presented as a cause.
Problem III
Pick any two of them, put them into a room and drop the word "god". Watch as they tear into each other fighting the image of god the other guy represents. What makes their view, their idea of "god" relevant to yours or mine?
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighist -
Problem I
'Oh-oh. Albert Einstein himself believed in God - I better change my attitude and stop sinning henceforth!!!!!!'
Problem II
Albert Einstein showed some great presistence thinking out of the box about oddities in physics, but had a bad choice in hairdressers. Newton thrust forward math and physics of his period, but was an egomaniac. So what makes them particulary useful in an Ad Verecundiam argument about religion? Even more, both erred on important concepts of physics. At least in the most prominent case allegiance to the existance of god was presented as a cause.
Problem III
Pick any two of them, put them into a room and drop the word "god". Watch as they tear into each other fighting the image of god the other guy represents. What makes their view, their idea of "god" relevant to yours or mine?
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighist -
The list is wrong. Einstein never advocated belief in (or believed in) god. Neither did some of the others, for that matter. Their association with god is incorrect.
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
Are you denying that they may have had some insights on the matter?
I'd love to argue with him, so I guess I expect some insight. But the list, as such, is at most useful for the possibility of coexistence of science and belief without throwing cotton balls. Being "smarter" is relative, and - according to my
The Grand Negus wrote:
I'm proving, by example, that not everyone who believes in God is an imbecile or a savage; that's all. For that limited purpose, a list like that might have merit. However, many people in history and current times continue to prove that you can be a genius at one thing, and an imbecile savage on another.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighist -
The Grand Negus wrote:
But many of the most noble minds in human history have reached the conclusion that God exists - and the various arguments that persuaded these men are the ones that should be considered.
Einstein didn't believe in God in any conventional sense.
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html[^] The more fundamental point regarding most on your list, however, is that if you go back a couple of centuries and question some of history's most famous people on, say, the morality of slavery or, say, the role and rights of women, then you will find that they generally reflect the prejudices of their age. When almost everyone in a society believes in God, so will many of its leading thinkers. What is more interesting is a comparison of the beliefs of leading thinkers and the beliefs in society at large. An article on "Scientists and Religion in America" by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham, published in Sept 1999 in Scientific American reports the following survey evidence: Among members of the (US) National Academy of Science just 7% believed in a personal God (restrictively defined, it must be conceded) and only 7.9% believed in personal immortality. For scientists in general, the figure was 40% for both questions --- way below the figures for the population at large.
The Grand Negus wrote:
An interesting paper describing the the common thread in the thinking of all these men can be found here
"[Scientific]Law implies a law-giver." "If the law is rational, which scientists assume it is, then it is also personal." Pure sophistry.
John Carson
-
No use argueing with these people on religion. Their commitment to its eradication is unconditional. It is much more effective to require them to define an alternative. Ultimately, all they have is the inane "well, all of us have a moral code. Its in our genes. We don't need no stinking religion!"
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
But many of the most noble minds in human history have reached the conclusion that God exists - and the various arguments that persuaded these men are the ones that should be considered.
Einstein didn't believe in God in any conventional sense.
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html[^] The more fundamental point regarding most on your list, however, is that if you go back a couple of centuries and question some of history's most famous people on, say, the morality of slavery or, say, the role and rights of women, then you will find that they generally reflect the prejudices of their age. When almost everyone in a society believes in God, so will many of its leading thinkers. What is more interesting is a comparison of the beliefs of leading thinkers and the beliefs in society at large. An article on "Scientists and Religion in America" by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham, published in Sept 1999 in Scientific American reports the following survey evidence: Among members of the (US) National Academy of Science just 7% believed in a personal God (restrictively defined, it must be conceded) and only 7.9% believed in personal immortality. For scientists in general, the figure was 40% for both questions --- way below the figures for the population at large.
The Grand Negus wrote:
An interesting paper describing the the common thread in the thinking of all these men can be found here
"[Scientific]Law implies a law-giver." "If the law is rational, which scientists assume it is, then it is also personal." Pure sophistry.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Among members of the (US) National Academy of Science just 7% believed in a personal God (restrictively defined, it must be conceded) and only 7.9% believed in personal immortality. For scientists in general, the figure was 40% for both questions --- way below the figures for the population at large.
So you admit that the scientific community has been hijacked by anti-christian zealots. I suspected as much.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
since he was clearly smarter than most of us
In your opinion. Just because some historical characters believed in your god is not proof that god exists. Bottom line, you simply can't prove god exists and, even if you could, so what? Is your god so feeble that it requires worship to make it feel like a god whilst it allows children to die of starvation or causes floods to wipe out thousands of innocent people? That is not a god, should it be proved to exist, that will ever gain my respect; it's certainly done nothing to deserve it. Further, I would never worship the unseen: how foolish and childlike: anything worthy of worship should have the courage and wit to show itself.
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
since he was clearly smarter than most of us
In your opinion. Just because some historical characters believed in your god is not proof that god exists. Bottom line, you simply can't prove god exists and, even if you could, so what? Is your god so feeble that it requires worship to make it feel like a god whilst it allows children to die of starvation or causes floods to wipe out thousands of innocent people? That is not a god, should it be proved to exist, that will ever gain my respect; it's certainly done nothing to deserve it. Further, I would never worship the unseen: how foolish and childlike: anything worthy of worship should have the courage and wit to show itself.
digital man wrote:
anything worthy of worship should have the courage and wit to show itself.
In your opinion.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
John Carson wrote:
Among members of the (US) National Academy of Science just 7% believed in a personal God (restrictively defined, it must be conceded) and only 7.9% believed in personal immortality. For scientists in general, the figure was 40% for both questions --- way below the figures for the population at large.
So you admit that the scientific community has been hijacked by anti-christian zealots. I suspected as much.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
So you admit that the scientific community has been hijacked by anti-christian zealots. I suspected as much.
No, there was no hijacking. People have risen to the top of the scientific community on merit and those people overwhelming reject Christianity --- also on its merits.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So you admit that the scientific community has been hijacked by anti-christian zealots. I suspected as much.
No, there was no hijacking. People have risen to the top of the scientific community on merit and those people overwhelming reject Christianity --- also on its merits.
John Carson
So, of course, there is absolutely no possibility that those who have gained control of the decision making authority in the scientific community define merit, at least in part, as the rejection of and open hostilitiy towards Christianity, and promote from within accordingly. Because we all know that a community as refined and intelligent as the scientific community could never suffer from precisely the same drift towards intellectual inbreeding that all other such insular communities suffer from.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
So, of course, there is absolutely no possibility that those who have gained control of the decision making authority in the scientific community define merit, at least in part, as the rejection of and open hostilitiy towards Christianity, and promote from within accordingly. Because we all know that a community as refined and intelligent as the scientific community could never suffer from precisely the same drift towards intellectual inbreeding that all other such insular communities suffer from.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, of course, there is absolutely no possibility that those who have gained control of the decision making authority in the scientific community define merit, at least in part, as the rejection of and open hostilitiy towards Christianity, and promote from within accordingly.
"In part"? So it has a weight of 1/2 of 1 percent in decision making? Maybe. However, in the physical sciences (unlike in, say, sociology or English literature), the premium on analytical brilliance is too high for personal idiosyncrasies to count for much.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Because we all know that a community as refined and intelligent as the scientific community could never suffer from precisely the same drift towards intellectual inbreeding that all other such insular communities suffer from.
Check out the national and ethnic diversity in top ranking US university departments. They are open to anyone who is brilliant.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, of course, there is absolutely no possibility that those who have gained control of the decision making authority in the scientific community define merit, at least in part, as the rejection of and open hostilitiy towards Christianity, and promote from within accordingly.
"In part"? So it has a weight of 1/2 of 1 percent in decision making? Maybe. However, in the physical sciences (unlike in, say, sociology or English literature), the premium on analytical brilliance is too high for personal idiosyncrasies to count for much.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Because we all know that a community as refined and intelligent as the scientific community could never suffer from precisely the same drift towards intellectual inbreeding that all other such insular communities suffer from.
Check out the national and ethnic diversity in top ranking US university departments. They are open to anyone who is brilliant.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Check out the national and ethnic diversity in top ranking US university departments. They are open to anyone who is brilliant.
Or hard working, or honest, or dedicated - as are all walks of American life, and is ultimately the source of our greatness. But that is not something that necessarily will be reflected in the academic bureaucratic infrastructure in which they work. It reamins an insular community. Once a certain intellectual orientation becomes invested in its leadership the community itself will always tend to reflect that orientation. If he knows it might negatively impact his employment opportunities, even the most brilliant scientist might be as reluctant to confess a belief in God as he would to admit to seeing a UFO even if one actually landed in his backyard. It is preicsely the same phenomenon that occurs in Hollywood, an industry that has adopted a homosexual centric intellectual world view. Homosexuality may be a very small percentage of the customer base or the workers, but that orientation nevertheless becomes a dominant theme of their product. I think most of the institutions that define western civiliation have, in fact, become flagrantly anti-christian more as a by-product of the dynamics of internal population migration than because of any social revolution in the actually culture. -- modified at 9:55 Saturday 7th April, 2007 -- modified at 9:56 Saturday 7th April, 2007
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
No use argueing with these people on religion. Their commitment to its eradication is unconditional. It is much more effective to require them to define an alternative. Ultimately, all they have is the inane "well, all of us have a moral code. Its in our genes. We don't need no stinking religion!"
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
But like homosexuality, atheism is repugnant to most people. Both doctrines are perverse and sterile; they will notm triumph, in the end, for those very reasons.
Absolutely. Regardless of all reasoned arguments to the contrary, you simply cannot surgically remove religion from civilization as though it were some kind of vestigial organ no longer of any use. It is a vital part of any healthy cultural entity.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
since he was clearly smarter than most of us
In your opinion. Just because some historical characters believed in your god is not proof that god exists. Bottom line, you simply can't prove god exists and, even if you could, so what? Is your god so feeble that it requires worship to make it feel like a god whilst it allows children to die of starvation or causes floods to wipe out thousands of innocent people? That is not a god, should it be proved to exist, that will ever gain my respect; it's certainly done nothing to deserve it. Further, I would never worship the unseen: how foolish and childlike: anything worthy of worship should have the courage and wit to show itself.
God doesn't care what you think. Having said that, human's mistakes and sufferings are our and natures all part of life. Just because you do not think life is fair and disagree with what you see, does not negate God's existence.
There are II kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who understand Roman numerals. Web - Blog - RSS - Math
-
John Carson wrote:
Check out the national and ethnic diversity in top ranking US university departments. They are open to anyone who is brilliant.
Or hard working, or honest, or dedicated - as are all walks of American life, and is ultimately the source of our greatness. But that is not something that necessarily will be reflected in the academic bureaucratic infrastructure in which they work. It reamins an insular community. Once a certain intellectual orientation becomes invested in its leadership the community itself will always tend to reflect that orientation. If he knows it might negatively impact his employment opportunities, even the most brilliant scientist might be as reluctant to confess a belief in God as he would to admit to seeing a UFO even if one actually landed in his backyard. It is preicsely the same phenomenon that occurs in Hollywood, an industry that has adopted a homosexual centric intellectual world view. Homosexuality may be a very small percentage of the customer base or the workers, but that orientation nevertheless becomes a dominant theme of their product. I think most of the institutions that define western civiliation have, in fact, become flagrantly anti-christian more as a by-product of the dynamics of internal population migration than because of any social revolution in the actually culture. -- modified at 9:55 Saturday 7th April, 2007 -- modified at 9:56 Saturday 7th April, 2007
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
But that is not something that necessarily will be reflected in the academic bureaucratic infrastructure in which they work.
My understanding of academic selection processes in the US (I can only speak with real knowledge concerning economics departments, but I suspect that it is true across the board) is that, unlike in many other countries, it is a very democratic process of selection by the academic staff. The "academic bureaucratic infrastructure" doesn't get much of a look in.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Once a certain intellectual orientation becomes invested in its leadership the community itself will always tend to reflect that orientation. If he knows it might reflected negatively on his employment opportunities, even the most brilliant scientist might be as reluctant to confess a belief in God as he would to admit to seeing a UFO even if one actually landed in his backyard.
From what I have seen of academic life, most academics just don't care what your religious beliefs are. What they care about is how well you do your job. Most aren't religious and may regard those who are as a little strange, but being a little strange in one respect or another is normal in academic life.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is preicsely the same phenomenon that occurs in Hollywood, an industry that has adopted a homosexual centric intellectual world view. Homosexuality may be a very small percentage of the customer base or the workers, but that orientation nevertheless becomes a dominant theme of their product.
Interesting. A documentary has just aired on Australian TV on how being openly gay is a real drag on the career of a man, exhibit A being Rupert Everett. Going back a little, why was Rock Hudson in the closet his entire career? A "homosexual centric intellectual world view"? A tiny percentage of Hollywood films have homosexuals as lead characters. What does seem to be true is that homosexuals are disproportionately represented among creative people. Industries that depend on creative people (which includes the software industry) tend to be more tolerant toward homosexuals than are other industries.
John Carson
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
The eradication of religion does appear to be on the agenda. But like homosexuality, atheism is repugnant to most people. Both doctrines are perverse and sterile; they will not triumph, in the end, for those very reasons.
Beware of overgeneralising based on your own back yard:
According to recent findings by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, sponsored by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 59 percent of Americans identified religion as an important part of their lives. In contrast, 11 percent of the French, 14 percent of Russians and 33 percent of Britons said religion was important to them.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200307%5CCUL20030716b.html[^]
John Carson
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
The eradication of religion does appear to be on the agenda. But like homosexuality, atheism is repugnant to most people. Both doctrines are perverse and sterile; they will not triumph, in the end, for those very reasons.
Beware of overgeneralising based on your own back yard:
According to recent findings by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, sponsored by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 59 percent of Americans identified religion as an important part of their lives. In contrast, 11 percent of the French, 14 percent of Russians and 33 percent of Britons said religion was important to them.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200307%5CCUL20030716b.html[^]
John Carson