Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Observer columnist says Popeís visit reduced Dawkins to Ďa rambling and wild-eyed madmaní
Protect the Pope ^ | 1/2/2010

Posted on 01/02/2011 3:43:53 PM PST by markomalley

Kevin McKenna’s  review of 2010 in The Observer newspaper includes his assessment of Richard Dawkins behaviour during Pope Benedict’s visit to the UK:

‘ The Pope’s visit was great but tinged with sadness because it reduced that once-great biologist Richard Dawkins to a rambling and wild-eyed madman hurling foam-flecked adolescent insults at the Roman holy man. I trust someone is giving the scientist his soup and caramelised biscuits as he recuperates. I even hear of a Richard Dawkins care fund. Could someone forward me the address?’

Protect the Pope comment: Couldn’t agree more! It was a relief that the BBC cut away from their coverage of the anti-Catholic jamboree, Protest the Pope, just as Prof. Dawkins was about to froth at the mouth, to show Pope Benedict leaving the Papal Nuncio’s residence to travel to the residential care home. Sadly, video of Dawkins making an embarrassment of himself spread around the web like a virus.  It is sad to see a man of obvious intellect reduced to this gibbering rant of hate.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/02/kevin-mckenna-look-back-at-year


TOPICS: Catholic; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: antitheism; atheism; benedictxvi; bxvi; christophobia; dawkins; misotheism
Lulz
1 posted on 01/02/2011 3:43:55 PM PST by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Dawkins should stay in his philosophical space.

When he leaves science he just makes scientists look bad.


2 posted on 01/02/2011 3:46:53 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Nothing sharpens the mind like not being able to get a job. /Nonstatist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

When Dawkins goes on a public rant against Islam then I will have at least some respect for him. Attacking Christians is easy, they won’t kill or maim you for it, or your family and pets.


3 posted on 01/02/2011 3:56:54 PM PST by HerrBlucher ("It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged." G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Could someone forward me the address?’

I'd like it too. I'll send a valentine from "Mrs. Garrison".

4 posted on 01/02/2011 3:59:07 PM PST by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher
When Dawkins goes on a public rant against Islam then I will have at least some respect for him.

Richard Dawkins - Islam is a "Great Evil"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhYus6TiGEE

5 posted on 01/02/2011 4:03:40 PM PST by Abin Sur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Begging the question of whether it was a pre-existing condition.


6 posted on 01/02/2011 4:04:49 PM PST by RichInOC (Jesus is coming back soon...and man, is He ticked off. (I'm trying to keep it clean.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Can’t say I am that surprised.


7 posted on 01/02/2011 4:10:31 PM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Barry Young, our local morning talk-show guy says when he sees the atheist hospitals, schools, care homes, etc. then he will have respect for atheists.

One time a dorky caller asked, “We need abortion clinics! Christians are hypocrites - they never help pregnant girls!”

Barry interrupted him and asked if he had the yellow pages, and the guy went to find it. When he got back, Barry asked him, “What’s the first listing in the book, just ahead of Abortion Providers?”

The caller literally would not or could not read the heading for Abortion Alternatives. He finally hung up without answering the question.

I’ll be forever grateful to Mr. Young for that revelation.

As a bonus, Barry Young will be emceeing Governor Jan Brewer’s second inauguration gala this week!

By the way, be in prayer for our Egyptian Christian brothers and sisters. May their martyred loved ones be with our beloved Savior today.


8 posted on 01/02/2011 4:13:01 PM PST by TenthAmendmentChampion (Darwinism is to Genesis as Global Warming is to Revelations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur

Thats nice and something anyway, but a rally such as he held when the Pope arrived, conveying equal vitriol towards Islam is what I had in mind.


9 posted on 01/02/2011 4:14:10 PM PST by HerrBlucher ("It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged." G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher
"When Dawkins goes on a public rant against Islam "

Leftists never will carry on about ISLAM for 2 reasons:

1. Radical Islamofacist Muslims will kill you while Christians won't.

2. The left has too much in common with Radical Islam in that they both hate the western world and all of its symbols such as Christianity and Limited Constitutional Government.

Dawkins is just Michael Moore, Bill Mayer and Rosie O'Donnell with a PHD!!!

10 posted on 01/02/2011 4:14:16 PM PST by wmileo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

If he was such a great biologist, why didn’t we ever hear about him until he became a proselytizing “atheist”?


11 posted on 01/02/2011 4:14:32 PM PST by Tax-chick (The gifts we have, we are given to share.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wmileo
Dawkins is possessed. His demon(s) already know who's behind Islam ~ that's why he can tell you with a straight face that it's evil.

The only question here is whether the Pope should have called in an exorcism squad or just left this guy alone.

There's probably some reason he has demons, and it's not nice. He could well be deserving.

12 posted on 01/02/2011 4:18:39 PM PST by muawiyah (Hey,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Dawkins may be a good lab technician, but it is utterly beyond me what his appeal as some sort of “philosopher” could possibly be.

A sadly shallow man, driven by dark demons of anger (metaphorically, of course.....,then again.....)


13 posted on 01/02/2011 4:21:08 PM PST by cookcounty (Why does Obama HATE the Honduran Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Ohh boy. Wait until Hawkins meets the Pope’s Boss.


14 posted on 01/02/2011 4:24:32 PM PST by exit82 (Democrats are the enemy of freedom. Sarah Palin is our Esther.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
reduced that once-great biologist Richard Dawkins to a rambling and wild-eyed madman hurling foam-flecked adolescent insults at the Roman holy man.

Which proves Dawkins is possessed by a demon.

15 posted on 01/02/2011 4:26:16 PM PST by dragonblustar ("... and if you disagree with me, then you sir, are worse than Hitler!" - Greg Gutfeld)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; a fool in paradise

16 posted on 01/02/2011 4:29:29 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Let us prey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!

That’s Richard DAWSON.


17 posted on 01/02/2011 4:37:53 PM PST by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dragonblustar
Which proves Dawkins is possessed by a demon.

Wouldn't it be better to attribute what the man says to his own philosophy and mindset rather than invoke the supernatural to explain it?

18 posted on 01/02/2011 4:48:05 PM PST by Abin Sur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Thanks for the link, every once in awhile the British press has an article that gives me a good laugh. Love them or hate them, they have a way with words.


19 posted on 01/02/2011 5:19:19 PM PST by Triton42
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur

Like “aliens seeded the earth”? The guy is a nut and irrational, yet he is so deluded he projects his irrational beliefs on others.

Atheism is more irrational than Christianity....Way more. The fact that all his science can not prove there is no God is hilarious. So he “believes” there is no God without scientific proof. And with more intellectual discovery, we see such intricate design in even the tiniest cell, yet he believes an “accident” can design something so perfect and ordered. LOL.

To think something can come from nothing is bizarre, especially in our scientific world. To disregard the metaphysical and actually “believe” man can “know” everything is the height of all arrogance. Atheists are some of the most illogical people on earth where natural law means nothing.


20 posted on 01/02/2011 5:19:47 PM PST by savagesusie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur

***Which proves Dawkins is possessed by a demon.

Wouldn’t it be better to attribute what the man says to his own philosophy and mindset rather than invoke the supernatural to explain it?***

Don’t even think of invoking Occam in a theological/philosophical discussion.

;-)


21 posted on 01/02/2011 5:20:40 PM PST by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher
Good point. . .we will never hear Christopher Hithcens take on Allah and/or Muslim believers either. Nor, for that matter, all those who now hold themselves far aloft the common mind; and who offer themselves up - ridiculously so - as Religion critics; save when it comes to that which even they, let remain, unnamed. (Include comedians; talk-show hosts, Hollywood elitist, MSM et al.)

Except when they grovel eloquently, on Islam's behalf; or just on behalf of any Muslim terrorist; or Imam. . .or mosque.

22 posted on 01/02/2011 6:13:05 PM PST by cricket (Osama - NOT made in the USA. . .and Obama, not made in the USA either.. .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cricket
we will never hear Christopher Hithcens take on Allah and/or Muslim believers either.

As per: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens

The September 11, 2001 attacks strengthened his internationalist embrace of an interventionist foreign policy, and his vociferous criticism of what he called "fascism with an Islamic face."

As per: http://www.conservapedia.com/Christopher_Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens became an activist against Islam when Ayatullah Kohmeini declared a fatwa against his personal friend Salman Rushdie. The event has led him to become very vocal in his support of the war in Iraq and heavily critical of Muslim society and ethics.

23 posted on 01/02/2011 6:39:18 PM PST by Abin Sur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur
Richard Dawkins - Islam is a "Great Evil"

Dawkins clearly believes that the Roman Catholic Church is a far greater "evil" than islam. Like most anti-Christian bigots, Dawkins only makes token attacks on islam, and practically none on other faiths.

This guy doesn't even have the balls to stand by an "Allah is fake" bus advertisement campaign. Once he becomes an equal opportunity offender regarding religion, I might think of him more than just a carnival sideshow.

24 posted on 01/02/2011 7:00:21 PM PST by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

I don’t believe Dr. Dawkins needed the help of the Pope to be reduced to a rambling and wild eyed madman. That is already his natural state.


25 posted on 01/02/2011 7:06:06 PM PST by conservative_crusader (The voice of truth, tells me a different story. The voice of truth says do not be afraid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Well, Il Papa is a man of God. What can we conclude that Dawkins is a man of?


26 posted on 01/02/2011 7:13:09 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur
The event has led him to become very vocal in his support of the war in Iraq and heavily critical of Muslim society and ethics.

My bad for not thinking more critically here. Am aware of his split w/Left; at least per his post 9/11 awakening and have seen only a little of his criticism of things Islamic. Did not think these protestations nearly matched his years per anti-God/Christianity declarations.

Whatever the case, was thinking it doubtful, that we would see a popularized book by Christopher, called "Allah is NOT Great". Nor the many perjorative paragraphs per all things Allah; like those he continues to offer on behalf of the book he chose to share: "God is Not Great".

That said; remain a fan of the writer, Christopher Hitchens; albeit, agreeing with him; is my last consideration and reason for reading him (it does, however; feel like a bonus, when it happens. . .)

27 posted on 01/03/2011 7:49:30 PM PST by cricket (Osama - NOT made in the USA. . .and Obama, not made in the USA either.. .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur
The event has led him to become very vocal in his support of the war in Iraq and heavily critical of Muslim society and ethics.

My bad for not thinking more critically here. Am aware of his split w/Left; at least per his post 9/11 awakening and have seen only a little of his criticism of things Islamic. Did not think these protestations nearly matched his years per anti-God/Christianity declarations.

Whatever the case, was thinking it doubtful, that we would see a popularized book by Christopher, called "Allah is NOT Great". Nor the many perjorative paragraphs per all things Allah; like those he continues to offer on behalf of the book he chose to share: "God is Not Great".

That said; remain a fan of the writer, Christopher Hitchens; albeit, agreeing with him; is my last consideration and reason for reading him (it does, however; feel like a bonus, when it happens. . .)

28 posted on 01/03/2011 7:49:30 PM PST by cricket (Osama - NOT made in the USA. . .and Obama, not made in the USA either.. .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur

Which is to assume that the man is rational about this subject.


29 posted on 05/16/2011 11:53:00 PM PDT by RobbyS (Pray with the suffering souls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Which is to assume that the man is rational about this subject.

What makes you think he's not?

30 posted on 05/17/2011 5:40:48 AM PDT by Abin Sur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur
Because he behaves like an Appalachian snake-handlerin this video? ;-) Because his opinion is based firmly on his own opinion? Still I am reminded of Emile Zola, who came to visit Lourdes and was shown evidence of a miracle. Miracles, according to his view were the product of hysteria, either on the part of the healed or on the observers. He was shown the file on a man, not particularly pious, whose shin bone had seemingly instantaneously reconstituted itself, or at least between the taking of x-rays in his home town and those taken at Lourdes. Shown the evidence, Zola promised to report on it. Instead he wrote a novel, mocking religious women. He subscribed to the dogma: miracles cannot happen. The inexplicable is simply what science cannot explain. This is scientism, not science.
31 posted on 05/17/2011 9:25:22 PM PDT by RobbyS (Pray with the suffering souls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Because he behaves like an Appalachian snake-handlerin this video?

I just read the article in the original post, I didn't see a video or a link to one...perhaps I missed it?

Still I am reminded of Emile Zola, who came to visit Lourdes and was shown evidence of a miracle.

That would be this Lourdes, yes?

http://www.skepdic.com/lourdes.html

So he helped expose the absurd flim-flam of faith healing?

http://www.skepdic.com/faithhealing.html

Good for him.

32 posted on 05/18/2011 6:17:41 AM PDT by Abin Sur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur

Zola didn’t expose anything. He ignored hard evidence because it didn’t fit his worldview. And Zola and most modern “skeptics” are not classical skeptics, but naturalists. They assume that everything has a natural explanation if only we can find it. It is their version of “god of the gaps.”This causes a problem when they look at the nature of man, because basically we see what we see in the mirror.


33 posted on 05/18/2011 7:14:27 AM PDT by RobbyS (Pray with the suffering souls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Zola didn’t expose anything. He ignored hard evidence because it didn’t fit his worldview.

I freely admit to not being familiar with M. Zola and his experience at Lourdes. Was the alleged "miracle" that he was presented with was documented to the point that fraud could be eliminated?

In any case, when supernatural claims are investigated today with sufficient rigor to eliminate cheating, they evaporate like a puddle of water on a hot day. It's notable that out of the hundreds of people who've tried to demonstrate magical & psychic powers in hopes of claiming Randi's million dollar prize, not one has succeeded in demonstrating any paranormal abilities.

Might there be something to all this supernatural wackiness? I suppose so...maybe out there someone really can levitate, read minds, or magically heal through faith. Maybe there really are aliens in UFOs, Bigfoot, angels, and the Loch Ness Monster. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Until someone can actually produce verifiable evidence that holds up under scientific scrutiny, it's perfectly reasonable to have the default position that these sorts of things are so much bunk.

34 posted on 05/18/2011 8:21:36 PM PDT by Abin Sur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Richard Dawkins is a big left wing world government moron who slobbers about a lot of things.

Most of all little Dickie really hates all that traditional America has been about for hundreds of years because has been based upon the Creator.

This being demonstrated by his arogance for decades, little Dickie may well use his last gasping breath to spew his anger at a reality that refuses to line up to his cock sure omnipotence.

35 posted on 05/18/2011 8:39:09 PM PDT by Old Landmarks (No fear of man, none!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur

In the Christian experience, the supernatural proper has nothing to do with “spiritual” ormparanormal phenomenoa, such as gained wide interest among agnostics after they lost faith in Christinaity and Judaism. The particular event at Lourdes, like all other miracules events was ,in a way, just as natural as any other healing. In one x-ray, in fact a succession of x-rays, the man lackesd several inches of leg-bone. Then he didn’t. As I rember the description, there was even appearance of a healing, as if the bone had been broken and then healed. Apparently Zola simply just didn’t think they were telling him the truth. Not trusting the wirnesses, and in the firm conviction that such things could not happen, he simply disbelieved. As to your “rigorous investigation,” How does one investigate a singular event? Padre Pio is associated with reports of bilocation. How does one investigate such reports. or even a ‘natural:” event that can not be replicated? Generally, the evidence has to be taken on trust. Sort of like trusting a witnesses description of a face.


36 posted on 05/18/2011 9:28:57 PM PDT by RobbyS (Pray with the suffering souls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
In the Christian experience, the supernatural proper has nothing to do with “spiritual” ormparanormal phenomenoa, such as gained wide interest among agnostics after they lost faith in Christinaity and Judaism.

"Ormparanormal"? I don't think that's a real word...

As to your “rigorous investigation,” How does one investigate a singular event? Padre Pio is associated with reports of bilocation. How does one investigate such reports. or even a ‘natural:” event that can not be replicated? Generally, the evidence has to be taken on trust. Sort of like trusting a witnesses description of a face.

Let me get this straight...you actually think that believing someone's description of a person's appearance and believing an account of someone magically being in two different locations at the same time require similar levels of trust?

That's absurd.

37 posted on 05/19/2011 8:14:57 AM PDT by Abin Sur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur

Sorry about my typing. I said don’t assume that what I mean by supernatural includes stuff like the paranormal. The latter being a result of a movement called spiritualism and having to do what we call the occult. As for bilocation, for instance, how does one deal with a reports of such a phenomenon?


38 posted on 05/19/2011 11:29:34 AM PDT by RobbyS (Pray with the suffering souls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Sorry about my typing.

I didn't know it was a typing error, I thought perhaps you were using a (possibly) made-up term for a subtype of paranormal phenomena that I'd never heard of.

I said don’t assume that what I mean by supernatural includes stuff like the paranormal. The latter being a result of a movement called spiritualism and having to do what we call the occult.

Spiritualism was certainly popularized in 18th Century Europe by Swedenborg and Mesmer, and in the mid-19th Century in America. That being the case, there were still allegations of various supernatural and occult practices before then.

The main difference being that being accused of them back then could get you burned as a witch...and still can in Africa.

As for bilocation, for instance, how does one deal with a reports of such a phenomenon?

In the course of normal events, by dismissing it out of hand...just as I dismiss accounts of faith healing, demonic possession, witches flying on brooms, and miracles in general.

That's not to say that I couldn't be persuaded otherwise, but it would take a lot of evidence, and the elimination of the possibility of fraud. At the risk of repeating myself...extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

39 posted on 05/19/2011 3:35:22 PM PDT by Abin Sur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur

You mean if you haven’t seen it, it didn’t happen? Lots of things fit into that category, including most of the things in the history books. Inlcuding what happens inside of a given atom, which are unseeable. Or put it anothing way, anything that challenges your world view is to be dismissed—out of hand.


40 posted on 05/19/2011 4:49:08 PM PDT by RobbyS (Pray with the suffering souls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
You mean if you haven’t seen it, it didn’t happen?

When did I say that, or anything which you lead you to think that I believe such a thing?

Lots of things fit into that category, including most of the things in the history books. Inlcuding what happens inside of a given atom, which are unseeable.

The properties of the inside of an atom can be deduced from various scientific instruments. One need not use visible light. As for history, it depends on the history in question. If the consensus of historians is that the Roman Empire existed 2,000 years ago, that's perfectly plausible, wouldn't you agree? On the other hand, if Erich von Däniken says the aliens built the pyramids...not so much.

Or put it anothing way, anything that challenges your world view is to be dismissed—out of hand.

So I'm too close-minded, is that it? Ok...let's see just how open-minded you are! I'll give you a short list of 10 items (aren't pop quizzes fun?). Please tell me if you deny the existence of any of them. Not as in, "Oh, I suppose it might be true...there's no way to know, really", but as in "Oh, give me a break...how can any rational adult give credence to that?"

1) The Egyptian pyramids were built by aliens.
2) Witches can actually spells...that work.
3) Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker really existed in a galaxy far, far away.
4) The continent of Atlantis really existed.
5) Telekinesis is real.
6) Crystal healing works.
7) Geocentrism.
8) Perpetual motion can work.
9) Dowsing works.
10) Ghosts are real.

Surely you're not going to dismiss any of these out of hand?

On a side note, when these sorts of things come up I'm always reminded of a scene in Ghostbusters:

Janine Melnitz: Do you believe in UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster and the theory of Atlantis?
Winston Zeddemore: Ah, if there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say.

41 posted on 05/19/2011 5:36:12 PM PDT by Abin Sur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur

Let;s stick to epistomology. how anyone knows anything. Probably there is no such thing as bilocation, just as probably there are no space aliens. But men are famous for entertaining ‘hypotheses,” which are part of our survival gear. And what is the source of all these speculation, these imaginings of alternatives to what we “know.:? What is the mind? A ghost in the machine, or a product of the workings of the machine, and how is is to that it does have the ability to extrapolate far beyond what we see, hear, taste and smell? What is the nature of mathematics?Is it part of the machine, ot is to a product of the mind? And how is it that it seems to corrolate with our common perception of the world? And what is this world beyond the things we bump into right now? And, of course, how is it that we are the only animals who think, who have this power of abstraction and detachment, so that even the savages have a “sense” of the immaterial?


42 posted on 05/19/2011 8:45:56 PM PDT by RobbyS (Pray with the suffering souls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Let;s stick to epistomology. how anyone knows anything. Probably there is no such thing as bilocation, just as probably there are no space aliens.

I wouldn't go that far...the universe is big, and it's becoming increasingly evident that planets are common. I would guess that sentient life is prevalent throughout the universe, although I have no way to assign a probability. But that's doesn't mean they've ever come here. The distances are just too vast.

But men are famous for entertaining ‘hypotheses,” which are part of our survival gear. And what is the source of all these speculation, these imaginings of alternatives to what we “know.:? What is the mind? A ghost in the machine, or a product of the workings of the machine, and how is is to that it does have the ability to extrapolate far beyond what we see, hear, taste and smell? What is the nature of mathematics?Is it part of the machine, ot is to a product of the mind? And how is it that it seems to corrolate with our common perception of the world? And what is this world beyond the things we bump into right now?

I've never been that intrigued by questions of this nature...if it's not falsifiable, what's the point? One good engineer is worth a hundred philosophers!

And, of course, how is it that we are the only animals who think, who have this power of abstraction and detachment, so that even the savages have a “sense” of the immaterial?

That one's easy. Homo Sapiens in the most intelligent animal to ever evolve on this planet. Previous to our existence, animals simply didn't have the cognitive ability to think in this manner.

43 posted on 05/20/2011 7:10:29 AM PDT by Abin Sur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur

I think it pretty clear that we have only an inkling of what the whole universe is like. Relatively speaking, not that much more than what Ptolemy did. The pure positivism that Popper delineated gives us not much to deal with. As for falsifrication, the problem with evolution theory is that beginning with Darwin himself, it has been adopted as a kind of “theory of Everything.” It certainly can’t handle the basic question: how does intelligence look at itself?


44 posted on 05/21/2011 12:09:42 AM PDT by RobbyS (Pray with the suffering souls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
I think it pretty clear that we have only an inkling of what the whole universe is like. Relatively speaking, not that much more than what Ptolemy did.

Compare our current knowledge of the nature of (for example) the Solar System to that of Ptolemy's. Are you seriously arguing that we only know a bit more than he did about this subject?

As for falsifrication, the problem with evolution theory is that beginning with Darwin himself, it has been adopted as a kind of “theory of Everything.” It certainly can’t handle the basic question: how does intelligence look at itself?

Since that question has nothing to do with the TOE, why should it?

45 posted on 05/21/2011 5:54:55 AM PDT by Abin Sur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur
One has to distinguish between Darwin's theory--which was that of a trained naturalist based on his detailed observations and "natural selection"that was immediately applied to every aspect of human life. One does not realize how faddish evolution became immediately until one looks at the literature of the day.If one could google in the time, the number of hits under "evolution" would have increased enormously between 1860 and 1870. Social Darwinism, of course, owed almost nothing to Darwin, but people thought it did so it had great influence for twenty years or so. People seem to think that being told that they were nothing more than "enlightened' brutes was liberating. Huxley himself was nonplused by the evident corruption of morals owing to the diminution of the Victorian morality, which was owed so much to evangelical and the Liberal Christian (called Gnostics BTW) beliefs among the middle classes. Freud invented the term "superego" to refer to this God substitute. One cannot blame Darwin or even the Darwinist for the likes of Hitler and Lenin, but they were the products of the Zeitgeist in which a half-understood Darwinism was common currency. Ironically, the best guides are Nietzsche and Kierkegaard each with his own startlingly clear insights.
46 posted on 05/21/2011 10:06:47 AM PDT by RobbyS (Pray with the suffering souls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

Those are very good points you just brought up; lots of people have been misapplying (and misunderstanding) the TOE from the moment it was published.


47 posted on 05/22/2011 7:41:03 AM PDT by Abin Sur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson