Just more twisted Christian logic.

"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:1154730464.040250.189410@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

http://pblosser.blogspot.com/2006_07_01_pblosser_archive.html#115255944708150126


Why some scientists accept patent absurdity


Harvard population biologist, Richard Lewontin, an atheist who thinks
that matter is all there is, writes in the New York Review of Books:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common
sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between
science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of
the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure
to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in
spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated
just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to
materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science
somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal
world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our own a priori
adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation
and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, not matter
how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a divine
foot in the door."

Again, the well-known philosopher, Thomas Nagel writes in his book, The
Last Word that much of contemporary subjectivism may be due to "fear of
religion," citing his own fear of religion as a case in point:

"I speak from experience being strongly subject to this fear myself: I
want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the
most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious
believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally,
hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I
don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that
.... My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare
condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and
reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the
ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about
life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern
secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by
apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning and design as
fundamental features of the world."
There's some disarming honesty about atheists not being honest with
themselves! If Nagel is right, then those who say that theism is a
crutch have got it backwards, at least for certain sectors of our
intellectual culture. For these portions of contemporary intellectual
culture, it's atheism that serves as a crutch!

[Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," New York Review
of Books 44:1 (January 9, 1997): 28-32; The Last Word (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1996), 130-131; cf. J. Budziszewski, What We Can't
Not Know, pp.62-64.]


# posted by Pertinacious Papist : 3:02 PM

Just more twisted Christian logic.

"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:1154730464.040250.189410@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

Just more twisted Christian logic.

On 4 Aug 2006 15:27:44 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> wrote:


http://pblosser.blogspot.com/2006_07_01_pblosser_archive.html#115255944708150126


Why some scientists accept patent absurdity


Harvard population biologist, Richard Lewontin, an atheist who thinks
that matter is all there is, writes in the New York Review of Books:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common
sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between
science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of
the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure
to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in
spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated
just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to
materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science
somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal
world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our own a priori
adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation
and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, not matter
how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a divine
foot in the door."

Again, the well-known philosopher, Thomas Nagel writes in his book, The
Last Word that much of contemporary subjectivism may be due to "fear of
religion," citing his own fear of religion as a case in point:

"I speak from experience being strongly subject to this fear myself: I
want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the
most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious
believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally,
hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I
don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that
.... My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare
condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and
reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the
ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about
life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern
secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by
apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning and design as
fundamental features of the world."
There's some disarming honesty about atheists not being honest with
themselves! If Nagel is right, then those who say that theism is a
crutch have got it backwards, at least for certain sectors of our
intellectual culture. For these portions of contemporary intellectual
culture, it's atheism that serves as a crutch!

[Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," New York Review
of Books 44:1 (January 9, 1997): 28-32; The Last Word (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1996), 130-131; cf. J. Budziszewski, What We Can't
Not Know, pp.62-64.]


# posted by Pertinacious Papist : 3:02 PM


Your post is, in fact, patent absurdity.

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:27:44 -0700, Sound of Trumpet in
<1154730464.040250.189410@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> wrote:

http://pblosser.blogspot.com/2006_07_01_pblosser_archive.html#115255944708150126


Why some scientists accept patent absurdity


Harvard population biologist, Richard Lewontin, an atheist who thinks
that
matter is all there is, writes in the New York Review of Books:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common
sense
is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and
the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent
absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill
many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the
tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so
stories,
because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is
not
that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept
a
material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that
we
are forced by our own a priori adherence to material causes to create an
apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material
explanations, not matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying
to
the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot
allow a divine foot in the door."

Well, Lewontin is wrong. Not to mention a Marxist.

Accepting scientific claims that are "against common sense" is because we
follow the evidence where it leads. It's also how we built nuclear power
plants, nuclear weapons, and the computer you're using.

Quantum physics is totally counter-intuitive and violates "common sense"
with abandon. But you may argue with a nuclear warhead about that if you
wish.

I bet the nuke would have the final word...