View previous topic | View next topic

In The News...

Page 20 of 22
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 19, 20, 21, 22  Next

Jenny
1319993.  Sun Apr 21, 2019 11:09 am Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:
Jenny wrote:
PDR wrote:
"Believe in god" and "within reason" - mutually exclusive positions, surely...

:0)


Not for all scientists.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/science-and-theology/2015/08/03/77136504-19ca-11e5-bd7f-4611a60dd8e5_story.html?utm_term=.5c22c3bc9711


I hope the book that's being reviewed is better than the article - it took me three tries before I could figure out what the first sentence meant. I slogged through to the second paragraph and then gave up


Really? They seem quite straightforward and unambiguous to me.

Quote:
The current blood feud between religious science-deniers and New Atheist religion-bashers sells a lot of books. For many people, religious or not, the polarization brings to mind Mercutio’s “a plague o’ both your houses!” But Jerry A. Coyne’s new book, “Faith vs. Fact,” rejects accommodationist bipartisanship. He asserts that “science and religion are incompatible, and you must choose between them.”

He argues this for two reasons. The first is that the major attempts to support religion through science, or even merely to avoid conflict with science, just don’t work. The second and stronger claim is that they can’t work because the very ways in which science and faith seek to understand the world are intrinsically opposed.  

 
suze
1320020.  Sun Apr 21, 2019 5:10 pm Reply with quote

Jenny wrote:
Really? They seem quite straightforward and unambiguous to me.

Quote:
He asserts that “science and religion are incompatible, and you must choose between them.”

He argues this for two reasons. The first is that the major attempts to support religion through science, or even merely to avoid conflict with science, just don’t work


I have not read Professor Coyne's book, but he's an evolutionary biologist who doesn't believe in God, just like Professor C Richard Dawkins. That's absolutely fine, but there seem to me to be holes in his argument through which one could drive a bus.

Science and religion need not be incompatible. Science and scripture are incompatible in places, but that's not the same thing at all. Scripture is not religion, it is the attempt of humans to write down religion in such a way as to make it usable as a marketing tool.

If scripture conflicts with science, then scripture is inaccurate. But this does not necessarily mean that religion is wrong, just that it was written down incorrectly.

As a simple example, consider the Creation as expounded in Genesis. Yes, there are many Christians who will tell you that what is written in Genesis is exactly what happened. God did all that stuff in six days, and then he had Sunday (or was it Saturday?) off.

Of course He didn't, but the scientific knowledge of the time when Genesis was written in ~600 BC did not allow humans to explain the matter properly. So the scripture if read literally is in error, but this does not prove that the religion behind the scripture is false, that there is no God.

Neither, of course, does it prove the opposite; the question is unanswerable either way. The best that science will ever be able to do is to show that there need not necessarily be God, and it's not there yet. Even if science can one day explain everything without God being in the system, it will not follow from that that He does not exist.

Or so I choose to believe, anyway. I cannot prove that I am right; Professor Coyne cannot prove that I am wrong. But for some reason, it appears socially acceptable to tell me that I am utterly wrong, even though it would not be socially acceptable for me to tell (say) the Jews or the Sikhs that what they choose to believe is utterly wrong.

 
crissdee
1320040.  Mon Apr 22, 2019 4:16 am Reply with quote

Fair point well made suze, see Voltaire for my position on the matter...........

 
Jenny
1320072.  Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:19 am Reply with quote

I think that's a very fair point, suze. I might add that I was neither approving of or critiquing the argument - just pointing out that it didn't seem particularly confusing to me in the way it was expressed.

 
Celine
1320105.  Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:05 am Reply with quote

Elon Musk has claimed at a Tesla investor conference that to buy anything but a Tesla would be 'financially insane' and would be on par with 'owning a horse'.

"The fundamental message that consumers should be taking today, it is financially insane to buy anything other than a Tesla. It will be like owning a horse in three years. I mean, fine if you want to own a horse. But you should go into it with that expectation,"

According to Musk, buying a non-Tesla car would be 'insane' as all Tesla cars are now set up with the hardware to be self-driving.

Once the software, designed by Samsung, is perfected then these cars can be fully self-driving and their owners can make money by putting their cars on the 'Tesla Network' - a robotaxi service due to be rolled out in 2020.

Source: Business Insider, 23rd April 2019

 
crissdee
1320107.  Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:33 am Reply with quote

In my current* situation, buying a Tesla would be financially insane, as I absolutely could not come close to keeping up the payments, and have far better things to spend the money on if I had it.






*pun intended.

 
Alfred E Neuman
1320109.  Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:54 am Reply with quote

He’s been tweeting after smoking again has he?

 
Celine
1320112.  Tue Apr 23, 2019 4:23 am Reply with quote

crissdee wrote:
In my current* situation,


Nice one :D

 
Celine
1320113.  Tue Apr 23, 2019 4:31 am Reply with quote

Alfred E Neuman wrote:
He’s been tweeting after smoking again has he?


I just want to know if he's using the word 'horse' to denote other cars? I mean when you think about it horses were the original self driving car... :/

 
PDR
1320114.  Tue Apr 23, 2019 4:54 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:
But for some reason, it appears socially acceptable to tell me that I am utterly wrong, even though it would not be socially acceptable for me to tell (say) the Jews or the Sikhs that what they choose to believe is utterly wrong.


My theory is that it's essentially people giving vent to their (unacknowledged) inner racist. We regard holding these beliefs as silly, but the orher religions are generally viewed as being a quaint practice of johnny foreigner. W know that johnny foreigner may be a nice chap, but he's clearly not very bright (or he'd be british) and these sort of quaint anacronysms are the sort of odd stuff we expect his poor little head to be stuffed with, and it would be rude and patronising to take the mick over it.

But British people should be bright enough and educated enough to know better, so we rag them for expressing these silly views. If you want to avoid being ragged about it just remind people that you are a colonial, and then we can mentally pigeonhole you with the other foreigners and just be quietly amused by your quaint delusions...

:0)

PDR

[the thought is expressed in my customary ribald style, but the point is serious - I really think that's why we find it harder to treat 1st-world christians and other-world religions in similar manner]

 
cornixt
1320140.  Tue Apr 23, 2019 10:03 am Reply with quote

Musk is just more evidence that any celebrity given enough exposure will show their own brand of weirdness.

 
Celine
1320648.  Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:26 am Reply with quote

A parrot trained by drug dealers in Brazil has decided to keep its beak shut after being detained and questioned by police.

The parrot was originally a look-out for the criminals, and upon seeing law enforcement apparently squawked 'mum, the police' in Portuguese.

After being seized, police have been unable to retrieve any information out of the bird and though he isn't receiving any prison time for his involvement in criminal activities, the 'papagaio do trafico' (drug trafficking parrot) has been sent to a local zoo instead.

Source: The Guardian, 24th April 2019

 
crissdee
1320679.  Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:26 pm Reply with quote

Celine wrote:
.......police have been unable to retrieve any information out of the bird ...


Surely they did not seriously think they might? Despite superficial appearances to the contrary, parrots cannot "talk". They are extremely adept at mimicing sounds, but no better at "talking" than a dog.

 
Celine
1320680.  Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:55 pm Reply with quote

crissdee wrote:
Celine wrote:
.......police have been unable to retrieve any information out of the bird ...


Surely they did not seriously think they might? Despite superficial appearances to the contrary, parrots cannot "talk". They are extremely adept at mimicing sounds, but no better at "talking" than a dog.


I believe they were more interested in how the parrot was trained to spot and warn his owners of police by any reaction it gave whilst in custody. And despite the claims, I'm not quite assured the parrot can speak Portuguese and it's more likely to be frantic squawks at best...

 
Celine
1321353.  Thu May 09, 2019 3:09 am Reply with quote

For some god given reason this popped up on my sponsored Facebook feed...

Siri and Alexa have become the first AI assistants to get married...

They tied the knot in Belvedere Castle in Vienna, and the ceremony is to commemorate the fact that in January 2019 Austria legalised same-sex marriage as well as highlight Vienna's EuroPride festival in June.

Source: https://www.siriandalexa.com/

 

Page 20 of 22
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 19, 20, 21, 22  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group