tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post6211954827251848800..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Not-so Grand Design roundupRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-71877048365128726802010-11-12T07:14:56.984-05:002010-11-12T07:14:56.984-05:00"Either half my colleagues are enormously stu..."Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs--and equally compatible with atheism." <br /><br />-Stephen Jay Gould, "Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge", <i>Scientific American</i> 267, no. 1 (1992)David Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13714637134009580948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-52190431417448200822010-10-14T14:28:20.588-04:002010-10-14T14:28:20.588-04:00Mehmet writes:
Will you stop fighting the ateism ...Mehmet writes:<br /><br /><i>Will you stop fighting the ateism of scientists when it is obvious it is a war you cannot win? Numbers are clear: Only 7.5% of National Academy physicists believe in God. The number is only 5% for the NA biologists. Source: Wikipedia on "demographics of atheism".</i><br /><br />How did the survey define "God"? For example, the Larson and Witham survey had in mind a definite and precise (and rather conservative) definition of "God." Not everyone who gave a negative response to that survey could be classified as an atheist.Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12784922935749497931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9874410481711738982010-10-14T13:53:23.416-04:002010-10-14T13:53:23.416-04:00Mehmet said:
Will you stop fighting the ateism of...Mehmet said:<br /><br /><b>Will you stop fighting the ateism of scientists when it is obvious it is a war you cannot win? Numbers are clear: Only 7.5% of National Academy physicists believe in God. The number is only 5% for the NA biologists. Source: Wikipedia on "demographics of atheism".</b><br /><br />1. I see. According to you, someone should give up if he's outnumbered. I guess the Battle of Tours shouldn't have been fought.<br /><br />2. Do you also think truth is something that's best decided by numerical superiority?<br /><br />3. By the way, it's intriguing to me how you're citing scientific studies like Wikipedia to backup your claims.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-87900040903212347352010-10-14T13:41:52.075-04:002010-10-14T13:41:52.075-04:00Mehmet said:
Why should we care about Craig's...Mehmet said:<br /><br /><b>Why should we care about Craig's opinions on Quantum-Gravity or any other advanced physics topic and actually take him more seriously than Stephen Hawking? He is a theologian and a philosopher. He is no physicist. Why dont you post articles only by physicists here?</b><br /><br />1. Of course, Hawking doesn't only talk about physics in his book. He talks about philosophy as well. So Craig is more than qualified to comment on this score.<br /><br />2. Your argument, if valid, cuts the other way too: Hawking likewise shouldn't be talking about philosophy or theology. He should just stick to physics.<br /><br />3. But even if Hawking only restricted himself to physics in the book, it wouldn't necessarily mean a non-physicist couldn't comment. For one thing, Hawking wrote the book for laypeople. It's a popular book aimed at a popular audience. As such, Hawking intends to communicate to laypeople who don't necessarily understand physics let alone physics at an advanced level. So this book doesn't assume a background in physics. Why should criticisms of this book require a background in physics when the book itself doesn't?<br /><br />4. Why don't you deal with Craig's arguments rather than attempt to disqualify his arguments in advance on the basis that you don't happen to think he has the right credentials?<br /><br />5. Actually, I have posted articles by physicists above. Including articles by physicists who are atheists. <br /><br /><b>How is this helping your anti-atheist case? Don't you realize that you post atheistic people's opinions to refute Hawking's atheistic book? Is this making sense?</b><br /><br />1. First off, this post isn't against atheism. It's a post against Hawking and Mladinow's claims in the book. <br /><br />2. Since the "atheistic people" weren't primarily disagreeing with Hawking's atheism but with his physics, your point is irrelevant.<br /><br />3. It's possible to disagree with one person's position on topic A and simultaneously agree with the same person's position on topic B. For instance, I obviously disagree with Christopher Hitchens on his militant atheism. However, that doesn't mean I disagree with everything Hitchens says. In fact, I happen to think a lot of what Hitchens says about politics is quite correct. Likewise it's possible to disagree with Hawking's physics while agreeing with his atheism - which is what some of the "atheistic" physicists I cited do. <br /><br />4. By your logic, a Muslim can't "refute" anything in Islam because he is a Muslim. Or a Democrat can't "refute" anything the Democratic Party supports because he is a Democrat. Is this making sense?Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-5747602289588604102010-10-11T17:53:00.321-04:002010-10-11T17:53:00.321-04:00Why should we care about Craig's opinions on Q...Why should we care about Craig's opinions on Quantum-Gravity or any other advanced physics topic and actually take him more seriously than Stephen Hawking? He is a theologian and a philosopher. He is no physicist. Why dont you post articles only by physicists here?<br /><br />And then about the articles by physicists... Did you even read the articles you give links to here? For instance Paul Davies says:<br /><br />"According to folklore the French physicist Pierre Laplace, when asked by Napoleon where God fitted into his mathematical account of the universe, replied: "I had no need of that hypothesis." Although cosmology has advanced enormously since the time of Laplace, the situation remains the same: there is no compelling need for a supernatural being or prime mover to start the universe off."<br /><br />How is this helping your anti-atheist case? Don't you realize that you post atheistic people's opinions to refute Hawking's atheistic book? Is this making sense?<br /><br />Will you stop fighting the ateism of scientists when it is obvious it is a war you cannot win? Numbers are clear: Only 7.5% of National Academy physicists believe in God. The number is only 5% for the NA biologists. Source: Wikipedia on "demographics of atheism".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63902823179176055372010-10-09T09:33:38.127-04:002010-10-09T09:33:38.127-04:00Hi Patrick,
Thanks for putting this together.Hi Patrick,<br /><br />Thanks for putting this together.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.com