Monday, June 30, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
Voltaire got it right
Voltaire
French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Mark Twain Quotes
“It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.”
A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows.
What God lacks is convictions — stability of character. He ought to be a Presbyterian or a Catholic or something — not try to be everything.
Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer.
“In God We Trust.” I don’t believe it would sound any better if it were true.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Monday, June 16, 2008
What Barack Obama Could Not (and Should Not) Say
"...But Obama's candidacy is also depressing, for it demonstrates that even a person of the greatest candor and eloquence must still claim to believe the unbelievable in order to have a political career in this country. We may be ready for the audacity of hope. Will we ever be ready for the audacity of reason?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/what-barack-obama-could-n_b_92771.html
Friday, June 13, 2008
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Monday, June 9, 2008
Thursday, June 5, 2008
The only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject
Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---
(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)
Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?
(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)
Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!
Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.
Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!
Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!
Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!
Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.
Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!
Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.
source: http://abstractfactory.blogspot.com/2005/10/only-debate-on-intelligent-design-that.html
(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)
Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?
(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)
Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!
Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.
Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!
Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!
Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!
Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.
Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!
Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.
source: http://abstractfactory.blogspot.com/2005/10/only-debate-on-intelligent-design-that.html
Interesting comment I stumbled across today
I found the following comment on a site where a creationist is debating a true scientist. I especially like this explanation for why some highly intelligent and educated scientists can't shake their religion: "...strong prior non-intellectual commitment...". It's true that religion attacks the young and most are not able to shake it. So thanks Mike, whoever you are.
It's easy to come up with lots of special ad hoc arguments for why God would have done things this way or that way. Someone who is educated and intelligent, but has a strong prior non-intellectual commitment can come up with a hundred rationales for why their view is not disproven - they can read the bible dozens of different ways.
These rationales turn into an elaborate structure, completely dependent on the original core and unchangeable (as your correspondent admits) religious assumption.
But they've given up on the core essence of scientific thinking: science isn't about coming up with arguments to justify your own way of thinking, it's about coming up with evidence to persuade your skeptical self and your peers (who come from many different religious/non-religious/cultural backgrounds).
So the question for these creationists is "You may believe the earth was created 10,000 years ago, but why should anyone else who doesn't share your religion believe it?"
Mike
It's easy to come up with lots of special ad hoc arguments for why God would have done things this way or that way. Someone who is educated and intelligent, but has a strong prior non-intellectual commitment can come up with a hundred rationales for why their view is not disproven - they can read the bible dozens of different ways.
These rationales turn into an elaborate structure, completely dependent on the original core and unchangeable (as your correspondent admits) religious assumption.
But they've given up on the core essence of scientific thinking: science isn't about coming up with arguments to justify your own way of thinking, it's about coming up with evidence to persuade your skeptical self and your peers (who come from many different religious/non-religious/cultural backgrounds).
So the question for these creationists is "You may believe the earth was created 10,000 years ago, but why should anyone else who doesn't share your religion believe it?"
Mike
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)