book review

[videoreverend]

Hey, y'all. Just linking to the NYT review of a book that sounds interesting. I just might place a hold on this title at my local library... if they don't burn it first.

Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/books ... X/NkdxezeQ

On page two of the review, the reviewer, Paul Bloom, takes issue with the author's assertion that, in fact, there might really be something that could be (paraphrasing) "usefully called divine," which is a hedge against saying there might actually be a "god" -- he doesn't go that far -- but admitting room for some kinds of unknowable, mysterious forces that may even be rooted in our physiology.

I dunno. I think there's just a lot of stuff we don't know and still haven't explained. But those explanations will come eventually.

I believe in science!

[charlou]

Why the desire to call anything unexplained 'divine'? It really harks back to ignorant pre science superstition, doesn't it? For me, the unexplained is just ... yet to be explained.

Yep, science ftw.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I don't believe in science.

I happen to think that the scientific method is the best tool for making sense of the world we have yet come up with, based on the observable results of employing it.

Belief is something completely different. Believing is accepting something is right without, or in spite of, the evidence. That is anti-science - there is no belief in science.

Sorry to be picky - I agree with everything you say Rev, except the choice of words. I just hate it when xtians start blathering on about me having faith in science - it really annoys me having to explain to their glazed-over faces that I have no such thing for the umpteenth time.

[videoreverend]

I don't believe in science.

I happen to think that the scientific method is the best tool for making sense of the world we have yet come up with, based on the observable results of employing it.

Belief is something completely different. Believing is accepting something is right without, or in spite of, the evidence. That is anti-science - there is no belief in science.

Sorry to be picky - I agree with everything you say Rev, except the choice of words. I just hate it when xtians start blathering on about me having faith in science - it really annoys me having to explain to their glazed-over faces that I have no such thing for the umpteenth time.

Don't apologize. I appreciate precision in language, and I understand the point you're making.

Personally, it's a colloquialism that doesn't push any of my buttons. (And, trust me, I have lots and lots of buttons!) I'm comfortable saying I believe in science, or even that I have faith in science. And by using those terms I'm not suggesting I worship at an altar of science, or have anthropomorphised a petri dish. I'm merely bringing to bear language that suggests an anticipated outcome of future events that, by dint on not having happened yet, are not entirely knowable. And that's a kind of faith and/or belief. But the big difference is that rather than believing there will be some sort of second coming of a 100-foot Jesus who will have lightning bolts coming out of his fingertips (or whatever), and basing that on a literary work that I consider to be primarily fiction, I'm basing my hoped-for outcomes for the future on the very solid historical output of scientific inquiry... that it will make known things that are, right now, unknown. I can't be sure it will happen, but, based on an overwhelming body of reliable evidence, I believe it will.

In fact, it's highly probable that somebody invented cold fusion while I tried to peck out this response. I believe it's nap time!

[Transgirlofnofaith]

I don't believe in science.

I happen to think that the scientific method is the best tool for making sense of the world we have yet come up with, based on the observable results of employing it.

Belief is something completely different. Believing is accepting something is right without, or in spite of, the evidence. That is anti-science - there is no belief in science.

Sorry to be picky - I agree with everything you say Rev, except the choice of words. I just hate it when xtians start blathering on about me having faith in science - it really annoys me having to explain to their glazed-over faces that I have no such thing for the umpteenth time.

Don't apologize. I appreciate precision in language, and I understand the point you're making.

Personally, it's a colloquialism that doesn't push any of my buttons. (And, trust me, I have lots and lots of buttons!) I'm comfortable saying I believe in science, or even that I have faith in science. And by using those terms I'm not suggesting I worship at an altar of science, or have anthropomorphised a petri dish. I'm merely bringing to bear language that suggests an anticipated outcome of future events that, by dint on not having happened yet, are not entirely knowable. And that's a kind of faith and/or belief. But the big difference is that rather than believing there will be some sort of second coming of a 100-foot Jesus who will have lightning bolts coming out of his fingertips (or whatever), and basing that on a literary work that I consider to be primarily fiction, I'm basing my hoped-for outcomes for the future on the very solid historical output of scientific inquiry... that it will make known things that are, right now, unknown. I can't be sure it will happen, but, based on an overwhelming body of reliable evidence, I believe it will.

In fact, it's highly probable that somebody invented cold fusion while I tried to peck out this response. I believe it's nap time!

Gee, you may like pouring gas on yourself, but do you have to light matches afterwards, too?

[videoreverend]

Gee, you may like pouring gas on yourself, but do you have to light matches afterwards, too?

Um... what?

[Transgirlofnofaith]

(I was trying to say you're really asking for a lambasting, you dolt.)

[charlou]

Namecalling is a no-no, MoNF even in tiny text ... unless you're joking and the rev is okay with it.



I can see both arguments have some merit here and will elaborate later.

rev, do you mind if I move this thread to the serious discussion forum?

[Transgirlofnofaith]

Namecalling is a no-no, MoNF even in tiny text ... unless you're joking and the rev is okay with it.



I can see both arguments have some merit here and will elaborate later.

rev, do you mind if I move this thread to the serious discussion forum?

I was kidding. My point was, he's leaving himself open to severe ridicule for no apparent reason and I was just trying to zap him out of his self-flagellation. So sorry for caring. I like the rev so far, but it just bewilders me to see him juggling grenades without the pins. We do enough roasting without giving people ammunition.

*GGhhhhhhyyyayhhhhcccckkkk.... excuse me, furball.*

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I don't see anything wrong with the Rev's answer. He politely said that he doesn't have a problem with using words like belief and faith with respect to science and explained why. I think he's wrong to do that, for reasons already given, but I am not about to jump down his throat over it.

I think he's on a hiding to nothing if he uses such terms in discussion with a fundie though - but I doubt anyone here is going to chew him up over it.

[videoreverend]

Namecalling is a no-no, MoNF even in tiny text ... unless you're joking and the rev is okay with it.



I can see both arguments have some merit here and will elaborate later.

rev, do you mind if I move this thread to the serious discussion forum?

I was kidding. My point was, he's leaving himself open to severe ridicule for no apparent reason and I was just trying to zap him out of his self-flagellation. So sorry for caring. I like the rev so far, but it just bewilders me to see him juggling grenades without the pins. We do enough roasting without giving people ammunition.

*GGhhhhhhyyyayhhhhcccckkkk.... excuse me, furball.*

Charlou, feel free to move this wherever you like. Who knew I would ever have a "serious discussion?"

As for my alleged doltishness, or that I'm immolating myself, or opening myself to ridicule: Bring it. I'll stand by my point. Especially since, A) I like this forum, and B) the people on it are all coming from the same non-religious starting point, so we're really talking about a pretty simple issue of semantics, not something many orders of magnitude more onerous such as what the universe is expanding into or some such.

"I believe that..."; synonymous for "I think that..." in colloquial use? Or always implying some sort of worship or ascription to magic? I vote for the first one, and I'm willing to discuss it with anyone who agrees or disagrees, and we can all still be friends at the end. Not sure why ridicule would be in order, but to each his own.

[Feck]

You are right Rev , I think the problem is that If you say 'I have faith that.......' then fundies jump up and down thinking they have scored a point.

If I say 'I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow' then you could say that I BELIEVE in some thing that I do not KNOW (which is a faith) or get pedantic and say the sun doesn't rise , the earth rotates . But let's face it even us (?) atheists use common expressions . I reserve the right to post OMG without being snapped at for my "Faith"

[Pappa]

Namecalling is a no-no, MoNF even in tiny text ... unless you're joking and the rev is okay with it.



I can see both arguments have some merit here and will elaborate later.

rev, do you mind if I move this thread to the serious discussion forum?

I was kidding. My point was, he's leaving himself open to severe ridicule for no apparent reason and I was just trying to zap him out of his self-flagellation. So sorry for caring. I like the rev so far, but it just bewilders me to see him juggling grenades without the pins. We do enough roasting without giving people ammunition.

*GGhhhhhhyyyayhhhhcccckkkk.... excuse me, furball.*

Charlou, feel free to move this wherever you like. Who knew I would ever have a "serious discussion?"

As for my alleged doltishness, or that I'm immolating myself, or opening myself to ridicule: Bring it. I'll stand by my point. Especially since, A) I like this forum, and B) the people on it are all coming from the same non-religious starting point, so we're really talking about a pretty simple issue of semantics, not something many orders of magnitude more onerous such as what the universe is expanding into or some such.

"I believe that..."; synonymous for "I think that..." in colloquial use? Or always implying some sort of worship or ascription to magic? I vote for the first one, and I'm willing to discuss it with anyone who agrees or disagrees, and we can all still be friends at the end. Not sure why ridicule would be in order, but to each his own.

I agree. For the most part, we put out 'faith' in the scientist being right. We trust that they are honest and reliable, and we 'believe' the scientific method will provide us with truths and weed out mistakes.

[charlou]

rev, I like your style.

Charlou, feel free to move this wherever you like. Who knew I would ever have a "serious discussion?"

Not necessarily heavy serious, but hopefully derail free serious.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I consciously fight against using words like believe, faith, or phrases like OMG. If I get into the habit of using them, then there is a chance I will come out with one of them in the middle of a religious argument - xtians don't half love jumping on those little lapses - they don't like Freud at all until they hear an atheist say "God knows" then it's all Freudian slips - bastits!