tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post6001026472478596716..comments2023-06-24T01:15:34.627-07:00Comments on The Skeptic Zone: im-skepticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-40345216052582910532015-07-28T12:47:58.375-07:002015-07-28T12:47:58.375-07:00"I had no idea until now that I was conversin..."I had no idea until now that I was conversing on line with a person so intellectually poverty stricken that he had not read the single greatest achievement by any one human being since the Dawn of Time ..."<br /><br />Sorry, but I don't have time to read every bit of superstitious hokum out there. <i>The Divine Comedy</i> is no doubt a fine piece of science fiction for the time it was written, but there is much better science fiction these days, because modern authors are better informed about the cosmos and about physics.<br /><br />And speaking of who has credibility at the adult table, as long as you persist in pushing superstition that has been thoroughly debunked, your own credibility is limited. I know there are many like you who believe this superstitious nonsense, and you can join them in discussing your fantasies and your invisible friends with super-powers. But please don't try to mix that up with the real world.<br /><br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-59975253125374282662015-07-28T11:20:08.350-07:002015-07-28T11:20:08.350-07:00Good Grief! I had no idea until now that I was con...Good Grief! I had no idea until now that I was conversing on line with a person so intellectually poverty stricken that he had not read the single greatest achievement by any one human being since the Dawn of Time, Dante's <i>The Divine Comedy</i>. There is <b>no</b> excuse for any person who claims to be the least bit educated in today's world to have not read this poem. <br /><br />Stop trying to run in home, when you have not touched second (or even first) base. You need to stop whatever you are doing, put down whatever book you might be reading, turn off your computer and swear off the internet, until you have satisfied this most basic, mandatory requirement for anyone hoping to be counted amongst the ranks of Civilized Man, and read <i>The Divine Comedy</i> - all of it, slowly - and actually think about it. <br /><br />You will have zero credibility at the Adult Table until you have done so.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-24207887300760342002015-07-28T10:55:53.491-07:002015-07-28T10:55:53.491-07:00None of that changes the FACT that Dante's con...None of that changes the FACT that Dante's conception of the cosmos was one of concentric spheres, with earth at the center. Even today, we speak about up and down with respect to the earth. Dante's "bottom of the universe" was nothing other than the center of the earth. If your understanding of Dante is anything beyond shallow, you should understand that.<br /><br />I admit that I haven't read his book, just as there are thousands of other religious texts that I haven't read. But there is a wealth of material to draw from, and there are plenty of people who have read it, and who describe what Dante depicts, and they ALL disagree with you. Read the material I cited.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-79783348011304285952015-07-28T09:53:47.376-07:002015-07-28T09:53:47.376-07:00If I had rhymes as harsh and horrible
As the hard ...If I had rhymes as harsh and horrible<br />As the hard fact of that final dismal hole<br />which bears the weight of all the steeps of Hell,<br /><br />I might more fully press the sap and substance<br />from my conception; but since I must do<br />without them, I begin with some reluctance.<br /><br />For it is no easy undertaking, I say,<br />to describe <b>the bottom of the Universe</b><br /><br />(<i>The Inferno</i>, CantoXXXII, lines 1-8, John Ciardi Translation)<br /><br />My eyes went back through the seven spheres <b>below</b>,<br />and I saw this globe, so small, so lost in space,<br />I had to smile at such a sorry show.<br /><br />Who thinks it <b>the least pebble in the skies</b><br />I most approve. Only the mind that turns to other things may truly be called wise.<br /><br />(<i>The Purgatorio</i>, Canto XXII, lines 133-138, John Ciardi translation)<br /><br />And many other places as well, too numerous to cite. <br /><b>My emphasis.</b>planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-63175987544657354192015-07-28T08:59:41.996-07:002015-07-28T08:59:41.996-07:00If you didn't bother to look at the informatio...If you didn't bother to look at the information I cited, perhaps you should.<br /><br />Here's more.<br />http://www.leeds.ac.uk/arts/info/125127/paradiso/1743/2_dantes_idea_of_paradise_and_the_cosmos<br />http://urthona.com/literature/the-five-storied-palace/<br />http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/07/dantes-universe/<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-45225229890653113792015-07-28T04:53:50.201-07:002015-07-28T04:53:50.201-07:00I've read Dante more than a dozen times in 4 d...I've read Dante more than a dozen times in 4 different translations (there are 3 on my bookshelf right now), plus having read several books of commentaries on his work. I've even visited his house in Florence. I know what I'm talking about.<br /><br />If Dante is too difficult for you without the pictures, then read <i>The Discarded Image</i> by C.S. Lewis.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-91476571531035094102015-07-27T18:59:53.393-07:002015-07-27T18:59:53.393-07:00Dante's cosmos consisted of spheres with the e...Dante's cosmos consisted of spheres with the earth at center. Read your Dante, and look at the pictures.<br />https://thescholarsblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/26/dantes-cosmos/<br /><br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-74914709508610032802015-07-27T18:34:13.150-07:002015-07-27T18:34:13.150-07:00Don't go there, im-skeptical, or we'll hav...Don't go there, im-skeptical, or we'll have to bring up the <b>tens of millions</b> of Christians persecuted and murdered by atheist regimes in the 20th Century. It would take longer than your lifetime just to read through the entire list of victims.<br /><br /><i>man's long-assumed privileged place</i><br /><br />It is painfully obvious with comments like these that you really have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. Did you get all your "knowledge" from Wikipedia? Prior to Copernicus, Man did not occupy any "privileged" place in the cosmos. The Earth was not the Center of the Universe - it was the <b>bottom</b> of the universe, the <i>least</i> desirable spot. Read your Dante. (And not some summary - the whole thing. Read either the Dorothy Sayers or the Mike Musa translation for the best English version.)<br />planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-49335676621680122592015-07-27T17:37:50.620-07:002015-07-27T17:37:50.620-07:00You did say: "if ever such a time actually ex...You did say: "if ever such a time actually existed, outside of the imagination of atheists"<br /><br />But don't think that the church suddenly changed its tune at the start of the Renaissance, either.<br /><br />"The European Renaissance of the 15th to 17th Centuries did much to expand the scope of freethought and skeptical inquiry, although criticisms of the religious establishment (such as those of Niccolò Machiavelli, Leonardo da Vinci, Bonaventure des Périers and François Rabelais) usually did not amount to actual atheism. As the scientific discoveries of Copernicus and Galileo became increasingly accepted, man's long-assumed privileged place in the universe appeared less and less justifiable. Progressive thinkers like Giordano Bruno, Lucilio Vanini and Galileo Galilei, bravely battling against the odds, were all savagely persecuted by the powerful Catholic Church of their time. Among those executed (often after torture) for the crime of atheism were Étienne Dolet in 1546, Lucilio Vanini in 1619, Kazimierz Lyszczynskiin 1689 and Jean-François de la Barre as late as 1766. " - http://www.argumentsforatheism.com/history.htmlim-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-89698451652122173742015-07-27T17:06:02.612-07:002015-07-27T17:06:02.612-07:00during-the-Middle-Ages
Not one of the persons I l...<i>during-the-Middle-Ages</i><br /><br />Not one of the persons I listed lived during the Middle Ages.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-82608127376899130602015-07-27T14:09:55.778-07:002015-07-27T14:09:55.778-07:00"I can now safely discount anything you have ..."I can now safely discount anything you have to say about Galileo from this point on."<br />- How about what history (not Catholic revisionism) tells us? Copernicus' work was declared heretical. Galileo was tried by the Inquisition. His books were banned by the church. Etc, etc.<br /><br />"Not one of the people I listed ever lived in such a time (if ever such a time actually existed, outside of the imagination of atheists)."<br />http://www.quora.com/Was-there-atheism-or-freethinking-during-the-Middle-Ages<br /><br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-60609260794069503202015-07-27T13:16:38.342-07:002015-07-27T13:16:38.342-07:00You really need to clear your head of all the lies...You really need to clear your head of all the lies and nonsense you've "learned" about Galileo. Before you ever say or write another word about him, I suggest you listen to <a href="https://www.nowyouknowmedia.com/homepage/galileo.html" rel="nofollow">this</a>.<br /><br />Sadly, knowing you almost certainly won't, I can now safely discount anything you have to say about Galileo from this point on.<br /><br /><i>Being anything other than a Christian usually resulted in death or severe persecution.</i><br /><br />Not one of the people I listed ever lived in such a time (if ever such a time actually existed, outside of the imagination of atheists).planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-8408611383855996742015-07-27T12:46:04.111-07:002015-07-27T12:46:04.111-07:00"Oh, I could go on and on - that's just a..."Oh, I could go on and on - that's just a sampling, but you get the point.<br />Perhaps we should label astronomy "Christianity with lipstick""<br /><br />Yes, I know. You've said this so many times already, I'm getting tired of hearing it. Let's concede that there were (and are) many Christian scientists. And let's not forget that there was a time when they were all Christians (in Europe), because that's all that was allowed. Being anything other than a Christian usually resulted in death or severe persecution. As I said earlier, " A key consideration is whether they can separate their science from their religious beliefs."<br /><br />You refer to Galileo as "devout Catholic", but you fail to mention that he (and others) had to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair" rel="nofollow">fight against church dogma</a> in the pursuit of their scientific investigations. So let's cut the crap, and admit that the church only accepted modern astronomy after being dragged, kicking and screaming, out of the dark ages by people who rejected their dogma.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-77340688913106340972015-07-27T11:58:05.104-07:002015-07-27T11:58:05.104-07:00You could say that modern astronomy is just "...<i>You could say that modern astronomy is just "atheism with lipstick"</i><br /><br />Oh, my gosh. Where to begin? Where to begin?<br /><br />Maybe with:<br /><br />Copernicus - Catholic Bishop and astronomer<br />Tycho Brahe - Devout Christian and astronomer<br />Galileo - Devout Catholic and astronomer<br />Johannes Kepler - Devout Christian and astronomer<br />Gassendi - Catholic Priest and astronomer<br />Newton - Devout Christian and astronomer<br />William Herschel - Devout Christian and astronomer<br />Cassini - Devout Catholic and astronomer<br />Piazzi - Catholic priest and astronomer<br />Lagrange - Devout Catholic and astronomer<br />LeMaitre - Catholic priest and astronomer<br />Guy Consolmagno - Jesuit monk and astronomer<br /><br />Oh, I could go on and on - that's just a sampling, but you get the point.<br />Perhaps we should label astronomy "Christianity with lipstick"<br />planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-5378390443756940142015-07-26T17:40:08.644-07:002015-07-26T17:40:08.644-07:00FURTHER READING<a href="http://www.religiousstudiesproject.com/podcast/gods-mind-your-mind-and-theory-of-mind/" rel="nofollow">FURTHER READING</a>Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-70561784618754568552015-07-26T17:34:10.628-07:002015-07-26T17:34:10.628-07:00Yes, scientists like Collins and Miller can do sci...Yes, scientists like Collins and Miller can do science and still cling to their religious beliefs. It is what is called: compartmentalisation. "Compartmentalization is an unconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person's having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves." One of the oft used strategies to mitigate the dissonance is to imagine compatibilism between science and religion, "Everywhere I look I see God's handiwork". The question is, which god? Jesus, Baphomet, Ganesha, Shiva, or the giant Water Serpent of the Australian Aborigines?<br /><br />It seems you, Miller and Collins either reject or have not read too widely on the various branches of cognitive science and philosophy of mind that explores the field now broadly termed, <a href="http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/12/believe.aspx" rel="nofollow">THEORY OF MIND</a>.<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow">FURTHER READING</a>, <br /><a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16725-theory-of-mind-could-help-explain-belief-in-god/" rel="nofollow">OR HERE</a><br /><br />The sciences in this area of investigation are still pretty much in their infancy but continue to rapidly emerge, develop and grow. There is little doubt that the exponential growth of our knowledge and understanding about the whys and hows of religious belief will continue to expand, and why and how the religious impulse is formed and propagated. We as a species are evolutionarily primed to generate such belief, not because supernatural is true or factual but rather it is adaptive to our need to project intentionality, purpose and meaning during our great period of ignorance about the mind and brain. <br /><br />The factual data and intellectual inferences and conclusions drawn from this research is not going to go away if we simply shut our eyes to it Victor. You may choose to do so. That is your choice. But the emerging facts, proofs and evidence will not be going away with the blink of an eye. Religious belief is pretty much now known to be a cognitive function rather than an explanation of the reality of the natural world.<br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-34381735702967946292015-07-26T15:12:41.881-07:002015-07-26T15:12:41.881-07:00Right. I had Stephen Meyer on the brain, and was ...Right. I had Stephen Meyer on the brain, and was confused. I know nothing of PZ Myers' scientific accomplishments. As with Collins and Miller, I can't say much about it. For what it's worth, I am no defender of Myers, either. The point I was making, though, is that religious or metaphysical beliefs need not be an impediment to genuine scientific understanding. You have to be able to separate them. And the folks at Discovery Institute fail to make that separation. Their ID "science" is thoroughly infused with and driven by religious belief. What they do is not science.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-39900872786394467642015-07-26T14:31:23.332-07:002015-07-26T14:31:23.332-07:00I was referring to P. Z. Myers. I was referring to P. Z. Myers. Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-18009852808373518312015-07-26T12:25:06.531-07:002015-07-26T12:25:06.531-07:00I have said before that there are, and have always...I have said before that there are, and have always been scientists who have religious beliefs. A key consideration is whether they can separate their science from their religious beliefs. Myers can't do that. His "work" is thoroughly infused with religious belief, and so it is not guided by scientific method, but by a religious motivation that causes him to deviate from the path of scientific investigation. I don't know anything about Collins and Miller. If they actually follow scientific method, then I'd say they are legitimate scientists. Myers is not.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-20304738127972284092015-07-26T12:07:44.833-07:002015-07-26T12:07:44.833-07:00That's right, Victor. Those things are all su...That's right, Victor. Those things are all subjective beliefs. How do we know this? For one thing, because of the fact that there are people who have different (subjective) opinions about them. And I guarantee that some of those who have different opinions are just as certain as you are that theirs are absolutely, objectively true, because that's what God thinks.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-49387317263895115942015-07-26T11:40:15.270-07:002015-07-26T11:40:15.270-07:00If morality is subjective, then the belief that it...If morality is subjective, then the belief that it is wrong, always and everywhere to believe anything for insufficient evidence is also subjective. That I should care about truth as opposed to comfort is also subjective. That I should treat gay people as equal to straight people and not discriminate against them is also subjective. Or that I should treat black people as equal to white people and not put up "Whites Only" signs in my restaurant is also subjective. That I should care about the poor and the oppressed is also subjective. That I should want slaves to be freed from bondage is also subjective. That the Holocaust was despicable is also subjective. That 9/11 was morally wrong is also subjective. Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-80790500864496888102015-07-26T11:19:21.922-07:002015-07-26T11:19:21.922-07:00By your account major evolutionary biologists, peo...By your account major evolutionary biologists, people like Collins and Miller who do real evolutionary biology, and a lot more of it than Myers and Dawkins, are creationists. Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-66093257931691870842015-07-25T08:01:59.650-07:002015-07-25T08:01:59.650-07:00"As Crude pointed out over on DI, by the exac..."As Crude pointed out over on DI, by the exact same standards, evolution (the way it is currently "taught") is just atheism with lipstick."<br /><br />So we should teach that the earth is at the center of the universe and the firmament is a dome with little stars fixed to it. That was the religious belief before science showed us otherwise. You could say that modern astronomy is just "atheism with lipstick", the same as evolution. Crude is saying that to teach science, when it conflicts with superstition, is tantamount to "teaching atheism". He may have a point. Although a science class may not make any metaphysical claims, having an understanding about how things actually work in our world leads to the inevitable conclusion that supernatural forces play no observable role in the things we see. This is not an issue of "teaching atheism". It's about teaching science.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-65688277554650979842015-07-25T04:08:15.169-07:002015-07-25T04:08:15.169-07:00Plank talks theological nonsense, dressed as philo...Plank talks theological nonsense, dressed as philosophy. For centuries philosophy was mired by Christian-soaked pablum as to render it indistinguishable from the pablum. That is, until science swept away the mind shackles of theology, providing a new fresh and exciting alternative in explaining the natural world, and as the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy explains so eloquently, "accounting for a wide variety of phenomena by appeal to a relatively small number of elegant mathematical formulae, promot[ing] philosophy (in the broad sense of the time, which includes natural science) from a handmaiden of theology, constrained by its purposes and methods, to an independent force with the power and authority to challenge the old and construct the new, in the realms both of theory and practice, on the basis of its own principles. "<br /><br />Therein lies the slow and inexorable disintegration within contemporary philosophy of the form of religious-fueled metaphysics so enamoured by Plank and like, founded as it is on supernatural superstition. The Fesers and Plantingas of the world are the dinosaurs, the dodos of modern philosophy. This brand of metaphysics has largely been relegated to curry favour only within religious circles, with an ever lessening impact in the world of modern philosophical scholarship. <br /><br />The trend is palpable and a resurgence of religious thinking based on newfound or empirical discoveries into the future is unlikely in the extreme. The transition of Christianity from normative everyday function to interesting historical relic is unstoppable. Creationism has in large part already transited beyond the break-even point.<br /><br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-35468354090140687242015-07-24T20:15:47.458-07:002015-07-24T20:15:47.458-07:00jdhuey,
As Crude pointed out over on DI, by the e...jdhuey,<br /><br />As Crude pointed out over on DI, by the exact same standards, evolution (the way it is currently "taught") is just atheism with lipstick.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.com