Creationism
The Sanity Inspector
their "scientific" and "philosophical" points, they would be helpless
and a laughing-stock if that were all they had. It is religion that
recruits their squadrons. Tens of millions of Americans, who neither
know nor understand the actual arguments for--or even
against--evolution, march in the army of the night with their Bibles
held high. And they are a strong and frightening force, impervious
to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason.
--Isaac Asimov, 1981
Whatever additional factors may be added to natural
selection--and Darwin himself admitted that there might be others--the
theory of an evolution process in the formation of the universe and of
animated nature is established, and the old theory of direct creation
is gone forever. In place of it science has given us conceptions far
more noble, and opened the way to an argument from design infinitely
more beautiful than any ever developed by theology.
--Andrew Dickson White, 1896
I have said that the man of science is the sworn interpreter
of nature in the high court of reason. But of what avail is his
honest speech, if ignorance is the assessor of the judge, and
prejudice the foreman of the jury?...And there is a wonderful tenacity
of life about this sort of opposition to physical science. Crushed
and maimed in every battle, it yet seems never to be slain; and after
a hundred defeats it is at this day as rampant, though happily not so
mischievous, as in the time of Galileo.
--T.H. Huxley, 1860
--
bruce
As falls Wichita, so falls Wichita Falls.
--Pat Metheny
ampa...@usa.net
the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance;
he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final
rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for
centuries."
Robert Jastrow,
God and the Astronomers, page 116
I love the turn of phrase: "by his faith in the power of reason"...
best,
Nate
---
http://surf.to/quotes
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
The Sanity Inspector
>"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason,
>the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance;
>he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final
>rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for
>centuries."
>
>Robert Jastrow,
>God and the Astronomers, page 116
To believe in things that can't be proved is faith. To
disbelieve in things that have been proved is obstinance.
--Yr Obt Svt
The Gaia hypothesis, as with other arguments from design,
amount to meteorologists deciding that the faces they see in the
clouds really are faces, after all.
--Ibid
Graham Weeks
>
> However much the creationist leaders might hammer away at
> their "scientific" and "philosophical" points, they would be helpless
> and a laughing-stock if that were all they had. It is religion that
> recruits their squadrons. Tens of millions of Americans, who neither
> know nor understand the actual arguments for--or even
> against--evolution, march in the army of the night with their Bibles
> held high. And they are a strong and frightening force, impervious
> to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason.
> --Isaac Asimov, 1981
>
Not wanting a quote war, only some balance, I offer
Nearly all the "skulls," out of which Missing Links and Monkey Men have
been made, have been only bits of bone. I do know that even of these
bits of bone there are only about two or three in the whole world. But
as long as those bits of bone were supposed to point, like the pebbles
in the fairy-tale, along a particular path, a very gradual upward path
of evolution, a scientific progress, nobody dared to suggest that such
evidence was rather slight. Nobody ventured to complain that one skull
was insufficient, or that one scrap of one skull was insufficient. Any
minute bit of any mouldy bone was good enough for the purpose, so long
as the evolutionists recognised it as a good purpose. Anything proved
anything, so long as it proved the proper, progressive, really
evolutionary thing.
G K Chesterton {"Outlines of History," The Illustrated London News, 13
January 1923}
It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for
an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and
then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself
into anything.
G K Chesterton {Saint Thomas Aquinas, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image,
1933, p. 174}
--
Graham J Weeks
http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/
http://www.grace.org.uk/churches/ealing.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another day over. Objectives fulfilled. Deadlines met. Pigs fed and
ready for take off.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel P. B. Smith
>amount to meteorologists deciding that the faces they see in the
>clouds really are faces, after all.
> --Ibid
McGuffey's New Fourth Eclectic Reader contains a lesson in two parts,
XVIII and XIX, entitled simply "Story about Washington." It's not what
you think! Like the rest of the selections, it is unattributed, although
it's tempting to suppose that this, too, is from Parson Weems, who must
have really believed that it was OK to tell lies...
George Washington's father one day prepared a bed of earth in the
garden, near George's favorite walk.
In this he wrote with a small stick the name of his son, "George
Washington," at full length, and filled the letters with cabbage-seed.
This being done, he carefully smoothed over the bed, and waited for the
seed to come up....
"Why, my name, father, here, growing in this bed, so green. How came
this so?"
"May be, by _chance,_ George."
"No, no, father, it could not have come by chance. I never _heard_
of such a thing...."
...."I told you they might have come by chance; this did not satisfy
you; can you tell me why?"
"Because," said George, I think somebody had a _design_ in it..."
...."Now then, George, look around. You see this beautiful world.
You see how nicely all things are _contrived;_ what marks of design
there are! We have fire to warm us when we are cold; water to drink
when we are thirsty; teeth to eat with, eyes to see with, feet to
walk with. In a thousand things we see design. There must have
been a _designer;_ some one who formed these things for a _purpose,_
for some _end._
"Ah!" said George, "I know who you mean, father."
"Whom, my son?"
"GOD ALMIGHTY. Do you not?"
....
George now became silent, and appeared for a time lost in the
reflections of his own mind. A good impression had been made. He
seemed to feel the force of his father's remarks. From this time,
it is believed, he never doubted that there was a God, the author
and proprietor of all things.
EXERCISES--Who did George Washington think had planted the seed in the
ground? What did Mr. Washington intend to teach George by it? What do we
see around us giving evidence of a Creator? Do not all things prove the
goodness of God?
In the last sentence, which are the pronouns? What is a pronoun? What
does the word _pronoun_ mean? See Pinneo's Primary Grammar, page 14, Art.
12.
--
Daniel P. B. Smith
dpbs...@world.std.com
The Sanity Inspector
>I find faith in "mere reason" rather inadequate.
>Not wanting a quote war,
You don't? Oh come on! Just a sec, where's my Stephen Jay Gould
book.... >:^)
ScottH9999
>From: ampa...@usa.net
>Date: Wed, Nov 25, 1998 09:09 EST
>Message-id: <73h31t$pbi$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>
>"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason,
>the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance;
>he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final
>rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for
>centuries."
>
>Robert Jastrow,
>God and the Astronomers, page 116
>
>
>best,
>Nate
>---
>http://surf.to/quotes
The fallacy in this line of argument comes from not recognizing that the word
'faith' is commonly used in two different senses: 1) belief based on rational
expectations that what has happened before will continue to happen under the
same conditions ("induction"); and 2) irrational belief in something despite
the lack of evidence and good reasons, and even in the face of good evidence to
the contrary.
In the first sense of the word we talk about having faith in our friends
(because they have come to our aid in the past and can therefore be counted on
doing so in the future); having faith that my living room floor will not give
way when I walk across it today (since it never has in the thousands of times
I've walked across it before, and has given no indication of potential
failure); and the like. It is POSSIBLE that such expectations ("faith") will be
disappointed, but it is generally rational to have such expectations or faith
nevertheless.
In the second sense we have examples such as religious faith and faith in other
forms of superstition which--far from being based on good reasons and
evidence--are defended despite the lack of good reasons, and even against
reason and evidence. This is often openly proclaimed, such as in the following
quotes:
"I believe because it is absurd." --Tertullian, "the father of Latin theology",
defending his faith in Christianity.
"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding." --Martin
Luther, quoted in "Peter's Quotations", by Laurence J. Peter (1979), p. 180.
"Faith is believing in things when common sense tells you not to." --Line from
the movie "Miracle on 34th Street" (1947).
Many people over the centuries have criticized this type of irrational
religious faith. Here are a few quotes:
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove
anything." --Friedrich Nietzsche
"There are those who scoff at the schoolboy, calling him frivolous and shallow.
Yet it was the schoolboy who said, 'Faith is believing what you know ain't
so.'" --Mark Twain, quoted in "The New Book of Unusual Quotations", ed. by
Rudolf Flesch (1966), p. 112.
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without
knowledge, of things without parallel." --Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's
Dictionary" (1911).
Because such faith is held in opposition to science and rationality in general,
it must inevitably try to restrict the sphere of science and rationality; i.e.,
rule it out of bounds whenever it comes into conflict with such faith. This has
been a major impetous to reactionary philosophy, as can be seen in Kant's
remark that:
"I had to set limits to knowledge in order to make place for faith." (Quoted in
"Peter's Quotations", p. 180.
Jastrow, though he was a good electrical engineer, was not much of a
scientist--in fact his role has been to defend religion "within" science. So he
is way off base when he uses phrases such as "by his faith in the power of
reason" to try to imply that everyone has faith, scientists and religious
people alike, and thus that religious faith is equally respectable and
legitimate as "rational faith". It just ain't so; they're completely different
animals. Rejecting rationality can never be on a par with basing your views and
expectations on rationality and scientific evidence.
--Scott Harrison
"Faith condones, Courage despises, Fate."
--Samuel Hofenstein, "Rhymed Observations" (one line), "CPSH", p. 343.
Jason Q.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Freethinkers reject faith as a valid tool of knowledge. Faith is the
opposite of reason because reason imposes very strict limits on what
can be true, and faith has no limits at all. A Great Escape into faith
is no retreat to safety. It is nothing less than surrender.
Dan Barker
Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist
Faith is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy. If the only way you
can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it
can't be taken on its own merits.
Dan Barker
http://www.generationterrorists.com
*************************************************
Kenneth S.
Interesting points. I don't want to start a flame war, and I
know we're in alt.quotations, not some discussion group about
religion. However, I am curious. Are the scientists who insist on
rationality, and who reject the idea of faith, capable of appreciating
aesthetic things like music?
If these scientists like -- let's say -- Beethoven's Fifth
Symphony, how do they explain it in rational scientific terms? After
all, it's just a cacophony of noise produced by people blowing through
brass things, scraping strings against each other, hitting tightly
stretched animal skins, and so on. Do they allow for the possibility
that Beethoven's Fifth Symphony has a dimension -- its most important
dimension in fact -- that cannot be explained by an account of its
physical characteristics?
And, to bring this back to alt.quotations' proper subject
matter, does anyone have a quote that talks about how you cannot
reduce music to its physical characteristics?
LTD
(Jason Q.) wrote:
>Faith: not wanting to know what is true.
> Friedrich Nietzsche
>Freethinkers reject faith as a valid tool of knowledge. Faith is the
>opposite of reason because reason imposes very strict limits on what
>can be true, and faith has no limits at all. A Great Escape into faith
>is no retreat to safety. It is nothing less than surrender.
> Dan Barker
> Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist
>Faith is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy. If the only way you
>can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it
>can't be taken on its own merits.
> Dan Barker
Then Jesus told him [Thomas], "Because you have seen
me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not
seen and yet have believed."
--The Bible, John 20:29 NIV
We live by faith, not by sight.
--The Bible, 2 Corinthians 5:7 NIV
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain
of what we do not see.
--The Bible, Hebrews 11:1 NIV
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek
not to understand that thou mayest believe, but believe
that thou mayest understand.
--Saint Augustine (354-430)
Numidian-born Christian convert, Bishop of Hippo
_In Ioannis Evangelium_
It is the heart which experiences God, and not reason.
This, then, is faith: God felt by the heart, not reason.
--Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
French mathematician, philosopher
_Pensees [1670], #424
Who has ever seen an idea? Who has ever seen love?
Who has ever seen faith? The real things in the world
are the invisible spiritual realities. Is it so difficult then,
to believe in God?
--Charles Templeton
_Life Looks Up_
Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never
comes to the aid of spiritual things, but--more
frequently than not--struggles against the divine Word,
treating with contempt all that emanates from God.
--Martin Luther (1483-1546),
Father of the Reformation
_Table Talk_ [1569]
Lou
ampa...@usa.net
> Faith: not wanting to know what is true.
> Friedrich Nietzsche
-snip-
"That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no
more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would
fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy."
--Jonathan Swift
"To be an atheist requires an indefinitely greater measure
of faith than to receive all the great truths which atheism would deny."
--Joseph Addison
God b[e with ]ye,
Nate Thompson
Leslie Paul Davies
book... "Clams / Worms":
"The only universal attribute of scientific statements resides in
their potential fallibility. If a claim cannot be disproven, it
does not belong to the enterprise of science."
"Evolution is an inference from thousands of independent sources,
the only conceptual structure that can make unified sense of all
this disparate information ."
"Theory and fact are equally strong and utterly interdependent; one
has no meaning without the other."
"Honorable errors do not count as failures in science, but as seeds
for progress in the quintessential activity of correction."
"The equation of evolution with progress represents our strongest
cultural impediment to a proper understanding of this greatest
biological revolution in the history of human thought."
"Evolution has encountered no intellectual trouble; no new
arguments have been offered. Creationism is a home-grown phenomenon
of American sociocultural history-- a splinter movement . . . who
believe that every word in the Bible must be literally true,
whatever such a claim might mean."
"In 1525, thousands of German peasants were slaughtered (with
Luther's approbation)..."
"I am not, personally, a believer or a religious man in any sense
of institutional commitment or practice. But I have a great respect
for religion, and the subject has always fascinated me, beyond
almost all others (with a few exceptions, like evolution and
paleontology)."
GL
--
Paul W2SYF/4 Ft Lauderdale
"Heisenberg may have slept here... "
Leslie Paul Davies
lpda...@bc.seflin.org
The Sanity Inspector
> Interesting points. I don't want to start a flame war, and I
>know we're in alt.quotations, not some discussion group about
>religion. However, I am curious. Are the scientists who insist on
>rationality, and who reject the idea of faith, capable of appreciating
>aesthetic things like music?
Why certainly; they are as diverse a group of people as can be
found in any other profession. Our image of scientists is adversely
colored by pop culture stereotypes: scientists as cold fish or
cackling fiends out to destroy the world from hubris.
> If these scientists like -- let's say -- Beethoven's Fifth
>Symphony, how do they explain it in rational scientific terms? After
>all, it's just a cacophony of noise produced by people blowing through
>brass things, scraping strings against each other, hitting tightly
>stretched animal skins, and so on. Do they allow for the possibility
>that Beethoven's Fifth Symphony has a dimension -- its most important
>dimension in fact -- that cannot be explained by an account of its
>physical characteristics?
Check out Lewis Thomas' _Late Night Thoughts on Listening to
Mahler's Ninth Symphony_. It is an early '80s nuclear freeze
artifact, and has dated badly in its positing of moral equivalence
between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Yet you would come away
persuaded that this scientist ( a cellular biologist) certainly knew
his music.
I half remember a quote by a science writer--it may have been
Carl Sagan--who said that scientists were quite frequently interested
in knowing more about the arts, and felt diminished if they did not
know as much as they should. The converse was not true, however;
artists were not ashamed of knowing little of science, and in many
cases were proud of it.
Here's a Lewis Thomas quote, cribbed from amazon:
"Only two centuries ago, we could explain everything about everything,
out of pure reason, and now most of that elaborate and harmonious
structure has come apart before our eyes. We are dumb..... We have
discovered how to ask important questions, and now we really do need,
as an urgent matter, some answers. We now know that we cannot do this
any longer by searching our minds, for there is not enough there to
search, nor can we find the truth by guessing at it or by making up
stories for ourselves. We cannot stop where we are, stuck with today's
level of understanding, nor can we go back. I do not see that we have
any real choice in this, for I can see only the one way ahead. We need
science, more and better science, not for its technology, not for
leisure, not even for health and longevity, but for the hope of wisdom
which our kind of culture must acquire for its survival."
> And, to bring this back to alt.quotations' proper subject
>matter, does anyone have a quote that talks about how you cannot
>reduce music to its physical characteristics?
ScottH9999
>From: nim...@erols.com (Kenneth S.)
>Date: Sat, Nov 28, 1998 09:09 EST
>Message-id: <36600167...@news.erols.com>
<Big snip of my response to "ampatriot's" quoting of Robert Jastrow to the
effect that religious faith is just as good as scientific "faith"...>
> Interesting points. I don't want to start a flame war, and I
>know we're in alt.quotations, not some discussion group about
>religion. However, I am curious. Are the scientists who insist on
>rationality, and who reject the idea of faith, capable of appreciating
>aesthetic things like music?
>
> If these scientists like -- let's say -- Beethoven's Fifth
>Symphony, how do they explain it in rational scientific terms? After
>all, it's just a cacophony of noise produced by people blowing through
>brass things, scraping strings against each other, hitting tightly
>stretched animal skins, and so on. Do they allow for the possibility
>that Beethoven's Fifth Symphony has a dimension -- its most important
>dimension in fact -- that cannot be explained by an account of its
>physical characteristics?
>
> And, to bring this back to alt.quotations' proper subject
>matter, does anyone have a quote that talks about how you cannot
>reduce music to its physical characteristics?
You seem to be implying that rationality precludes emotion, aesthetic feeling,
etc. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that. On the contrary, there can
be no rational behavior of any kind unless the person acting has some interests
and desires he or she wishes to satisfy. IF you have a goal, THEN you can act
either rationally or irrationally in attempting to achieve it. If you have no
goal, no desires, no interests at all--not even the desire to keep on living or
avoid pain--then it doesn't matter what you do or how you go about doing it.
There is, in that case, no grounds for declaring your behavior either rational
or irrational. (Except from the point of view of others who DO wish to live,
avoid pain, etc., who will of course consider your activity which is not
conducive to those ends to be irrational.)
Faith, especially religious-type irrational faith, has nothing at all to do
with aesthetics or aesthetic appreciation, as far as I can see. I love Frans
Hals's paintings of ordinary people enjoying life. What has that got to do with
"faith"? I am moved to ecstacy by Sidney Bechet's recording of "Sleepy Time
Down South". That is neither rational nor irrational, but merely a fact about
what I really like in music. Given that I like Sidney Bechet so much it is
rational for me to play that song frequently, and it would be irrational for me
to avoid it, but how I came to have those peculiar aesthetic interests is an
accident of my personal history.
So, yes, the most rational of people (scientists and others) ARE quite capable
of emotion, aesthetic enjoyment and the like. To say that music is just a type
of noise is to fail to understand that certain types of "noise" are quite
pleasing to many human beings. That is a fact about human beings, and indicates
(in general) nothing about how rational or irrational they are.
If it is true that there things about the human appreciation of music which can
not yet be explained scientifically (and it probably is still true), then it is
just a matter of time. But knowing the full scientific explanation will in no
way diminish the enjoyment.
I could go on at length on this topic, but since this is not a philosophy
discussion group, I'll proceed to post a few quotes on rationality and related
themes:
"Why should I be rational? That is like asking, 'Why should I breathe?' And on
answer to THAT is: 'It's harder than you might think to stop--and stupid to try
if one isn't tired of living.' (There are less painful ways of committing
suicide.)"
--Max Black, American philosopher, "The Prevalence of Humbug and Other
Essays" (1983), p. 35.
"Reason--the devil's harlot." --Martin Luther, "Peter's Quotations", ed. by
Laurence J. Peter (1979), p. 446.
(I love the frankness of that quotation. Unfortunately MOST religious people
try to fool themselves and others into thinking that reason and "faith" are not
opposed.)
"Two extremes: to exclude reason, to admit reason only." --Blase Pascal,
"Pensées", sect. 253.
(If Pascal had meant by this that human sentiments and emotion are as necessary
as reason to the makeup of a decent human being, it would be hard to disagree.
But he adduced this principle in the course of a long series of ramblings in
favor of Christianity. Unfortunately, he is arguing that irrational faith must
have a place along side reason; and that sometimes it must displace reason.
This is no doubt the sad result of the failure of even such a brilliant thinker
to find sufficient rational arguments to support his religious beliefs.)
"I can stand brute force but brute reason is quite unbearable. There is
something unfair about its use. It is like hitting below the intellect."
--Oscar Wilde, quoted by Max Black, ibid., p. 19.
"Nothing has an uglier look to us than reason, when it is not on our side."
--Lord Halifax, quoted in "The New Book of Unusual Quotations", ed. by Rudolf
Flesch (1966).
"Reason: The arithmetic of the emotions." --Elbert Hubbard, "The Roycroft
Dictionary"
(Hubbard meant this as a cynical attack, but actually it is quite correct in
the sense I meant in my first two paragraphs above.)
"David Hume said that reason was the slave of the passions, but the desire to
be reasonable may itself be a 'passion,' able to contend with other passions
and sometimes to curb them." --Max Black, ibid., p. 55.
(Indeed it is not only possible, but good, to be passionate in the defense of
rationality.)
"Emotion has taught mankind to reason." --Vauvenargues, "New Book of Unusual
Quotations", p. 99.
(Again, Vauvenargues is suggesting that reason is a REACTION against the
problems that unguided emotions cause--which is certainly true enough. But the
remark is also true in the sense that BECAUSE we have emotions and desires, we
therefore need reason to help us achieve what we desire.)
--Scott Harrison
Katz's law: "People and nations will act rationally when all other
possibilities have been exhausted."
--Presumably the comment of somebody named Katz
Graham Weeks
>
> "Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding." --Martin
Has anyone the primary source for the above?
"Dr. Henning asked: "Is reason to hold no authority at all with
Christians, since it is to be set aside in matters of faith?"
The Doctor replied: Before faith and the knowledge of God, reason is
mere darkness; but in the hands of those who believe,
`tis an excellent instrument. All facilities and gifts are pernicious,
exercised by the impious; but most salutary when
possessed by godly persons."
Martin Luther (1483-1546), Table Talk, LXXVI. [1569]
Daniel P. B. Smith
>>
>> And, to bring this back to alt.quotations' proper subject
>>matter, does anyone have a quote that talks about how you cannot
>>reduce music to its physical characteristics?
"The study of musical sound is important only because music is important,
and because the quality of sound is important to music."
--John R. Pierce, _The Science of Musical Sound_
Arlene Usui
> ... --Isaac Asimov, 1981
> ... --Andrew Dickson White, 1896
> ... --T.H. Huxley, 1860
FYI: I haven't started reading it yet, but you might be interested to know
of a book called "The Physics of Immortality" by Frank J. Tipler. He has
a Ph.D. in global general relativity and is a professor of Mathematical
Physics. The book purports to prove the existence of God by means of
logic and physics. There should be a good quote somewhere in there. :-)
-arlene
---------------------------------
"Curse my metal body!"
Juan Rodriguez
Arlene Usui <au...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>choll...@mindspring.com (The Sanity Inspector) wrote:
>
>> ... --Isaac Asimov, 1981
>> ... --Andrew Dickson White, 1896
>> ... --T.H. Huxley, 1860
>
>FYI: I haven't started reading it yet, but you might be interested to know
>of a book called "The Physics of Immortality" by Frank J. Tipler. He has
>a Ph.D. in global general relativity and is a professor of Mathematical
>Physics. The book purports to prove the existence of God by means of
>logic and physics. There should be a good quote somewhere in there. :-)
By publishing that book and stressing that he pas a PhD in physics Tipler
has achieved quite a few things at once; and one of them is to take away
some respect for such a degree.
Physics is, by definition, falsifiable; a god (please note the lower case
g) based on physics would be a falsifiable god; a very puny god indeed.
I, for one, would never be satisfied with such a god.
Juan Antonio Rodriguez-Sero; ja...@halcyon.com
Lake Forest Park, WA 98155-2940, USA
------------------------------------------------------
As a man can drink water from any side of a full tank,
so the skilled theologian can wrest from any scripture
that which will serve his purpose.
Bhagavad Gita
Arlene Usui
>> Arlene Usui <au...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> ... a book called "The Physics of Immortality" by Frank J. Tipler.
>Does the jacket blurb happen to say what university faculty he is on?
>Does it happen to say what university granted him his degree?
He's a professor at Tulane University. The book doesn't mention an
alma mater.
Martin Julian DeMello
: In article <3665a645...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
: Arlene Usui <au...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: >FYI: I haven't started reading it yet, but you might be interested to know
: >of a book called "The Physics of Immortality" by Frank J. Tipler. He has
: >a Ph.D. in global general relativity and is a professor of Mathematical
: >Physics. The book purports to prove the existence of God by means of
: >logic and physics. There should be a good quote somewhere in there. :-)
: By publishing that book and stressing that he pas a PhD in physics Tipler
: has achieved quite a few things at once; and one of them is to take away
: some respect for such a degree.
: Physics is, by definition, falsifiable; a god (please note the lower case
: g) based on physics would be a falsifiable god; a very puny god indeed.
: I, for one, would never be satisfied with such a god.
I'm not too sure what you mean by 'falsifiable'. Certainly, a god based on
physics would be bound by the laws of this universe, and would, as such,
be an unlikely candidate for its creator.
Note, though, that Arlene said 'prove the existence of God by means of
logic and physics' - that needn't necessarily imply a god bound by the
laws of either system. I haven't read the book either, but I think it more
likely that the arguments would be of the form "God's existence is not
incompatible with the laws of physics" or "God's existence is still
required to explain the universe" (I'm thinking of Hawking's statement
that his model of a universe closed in time as well as space removes the
need for God, since without a beginning, you do not need a first cause.
Given Tipler's background in global general relativity, he may well be
trying to show that such models do not preclude the need for a creator.)
ObQuote: "The first god almost certainly created himself; later ones were
less powerful" -- Larry Niven, _The Magic Goes Away_
--
Martin DeMello
Remove the sep_field from my address to reply
Graham Weeks
snip
>
> Here's a Lewis Thomas quote, cribbed from amazon:
>
> "Only two centuries ago, we could explain everything about everything,
> out of pure reason, and now most of that elaborate and harmonious
> structure has come apart before our eyes. We are dumb..... We have
> discovered how to ask important questions, and now we really do need,
> as an urgent matter, some answers. We now know that we cannot do this
> any longer by searching our minds, for there is not enough there to
> search, nor can we find the truth by guessing at it or by making up
> stories for ourselves. We cannot stop where we are, stuck with today's
> level of understanding, nor can we go back. I do not see that we have
> any real choice in this, for I can see only the one way ahead. We need
> science, more and better science, not for its technology, not for
> leisure, not even for health and longevity, but for the hope of wisdom
> which our kind of culture must acquire for its survival."
> >matter, does anyone have a quote that talks about how you cannot
> >reduce music to its physical characteristics?
>
labelled as irrational and religious. It is certainly not evidential.
(Not that I agree with Scott's analysis.)
Obquote
With most people unbelief in one thing is founded upon blind belief in
another.
G. C. Lichtenberg
Graham Weeks
> > Faith, especially religious-type irrational faith, has nothing at all to do
> with aesthetics or aesthetic appreciation, as far as I can see. I love Frans
> Hals's paintings of ordinary people enjoying life. What has that got to do with
> "faith"?
You cannot divorce Hal's painting's, or those of any other, from their
worldview. Hals was AFAIK a man of the reformation in Holland. It was
that Christian worldview which led him to believe that ordinary people,
ordinary life, was worthy of artistic representation. This was not the
case before.
Obquote
Man is a reasoning rather than a reasonable animal.
Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804)
Graham Weeks
snip
> Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never
> comes to the aid of spiritual things, but--more
> frequently than not--struggles against the divine Word,
> treating with contempt all that emanates from God.
> --Martin Luther (1483-1546),
> Father of the Reformation
> _Table Talk_ [1569]
>
obquote
I began revolution with 82 men. If I had [to] do it again, I'd do it
with 10 or 15 and absolute faith. It does not matter how small you are
if you have faith and plan of action. Fidel Castro (1927-____) N: In
"New York Times," 22 Apr. 1959.
The Sanity Inspector
>You cannot divorce Hal's painting's, or those of any other, from their
>worldview. Hals was AFAIK a man of the reformation in Holland. It was
>that Christian worldview which led him to believe that ordinary people,
>ordinary life, was worthy of artistic representation. This was not the
>case before.
If it's still in here, have a look at my batch of quotes on
Dutch Art.
Paul Malin
(Arlene Usui) wrote:
> FYI: I haven't started reading it yet, but you might be interested to know
> of a book called "The Physics of Immortality" by Frank J. Tipler. He has
> a Ph.D. in global general relativity and is a professor of Mathematical
> Physics. The book purports to prove the existence of God by means of
> logic and physics. There should be a good quote somewhere in there. :-)
I guess that takes care of all of us, then - True Believers and doomed
heathens alike:
"...'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies
faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
"'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It
could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore,
by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
"'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes
in a puff of logic." -- Douglas Adams, (The Hitchhiker's Guide to the
Galaxy)
Paul M.
--
Paul Malin
A.V.H.P
<mailto:ma...@thuntek.net>
Tom
curve:
Some of the most beautiful & moving music written for the Christian liturgy
in this century was the work of Gerald Finzi--a Jewish atheist.
Whether faith is a necessary ingredient for appreciating music, I wouldn't
venture to say, but clearly it isn't necessary for creating it, even for
the church.
Tom Parsons
--
--
t...@panix.com | What we call luck is the inner man
| externalized. We make things happen
http://www.panix.com/~twp | to us. --Robertson Davies
Graham Weeks
apparently anti-reason quotes. It is from the section of his tabletalk
on baptism.
The anabaptists pretend that children, not as yet having reason, ought
not to receive baptism. I answer: That reason in no way contributes to
faith. Nay, in that children are destitute of reason, they are all the
more fit and proper recipients of baptism. For reason is the greatest
enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but
- more frequently than not - struggles against the Divine Word, treating
with contempt all that emanates from God. If God can communicate the
Holy Ghost to grown persons, he can, a fortiori, communicate it to young
children. Faith comes of the Word of God, when this is heard; little
children hear that Word when they receive baptism, and therewith they
receive also faith.
Martin Luther (1483-1546), Table Talk CCCLIII [1569] .
Kenneth S.
is that it's difficult to maintain that everything in life has to be
susceptible to scientific analysis. If this is true of music, then it
may well be true of other things such as religion.
If you try to explain music scientifically, in terms of the
physics of musical notes, or how the sounds are produced, you miss the
whole point. I don't why this wouldn't also be true for religion.
The Sanity Inspector
has appeared in the last 1900 years.
--William Jennings Bryan, 1923
Religion and politics are mightily mixed these days.
Preachers will take a larger part in the campaign than usual this
season, and politicians will misquote more of the Bible than ever
before.
--Archibald Johnson, 1926
ScottH9999
contains only 1 or 2 quotations of the sorts most people are looking for in
this newsgroup. Please skip to the next item if you are not interested in this.
***
>Subject: Re: Creationism
>From: Graham Weeks <wee...@dircon.co.uk>
>Date: Mon, Nov 30, 1998 17:04 EST
>Message-id: <366316...@dircon.co.uk>
>
>ScottH9999 wrote:
>> > Faith, especially religious-type irrational faith, has nothing at all to
do
>> with aesthetics or aesthetic appreciation, as far as I can see. I love Frans
>> Hals's paintings of ordinary people enjoying life. What has that got to do
>> with "faith"?
>
>You cannot divorce Hal's painting's, or those of any other, from their
>worldview. Hals was AFAIK a man of the reformation in Holland. It was
>that Christian worldview which led him to believe that ordinary people,
>ordinary life, was worthy of artistic representation. This was not the
>case before.
>
>Obquote
>
>Man is a reasoning rather than a reasonable animal.
> Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804)
>
>--
>
>Graham J Weeks
>http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/
>http://www.grace.org.uk/churches/ealing.html
Some quick research confirms my opinion that Hals what not what most people
would consider a religious painter. It is true that he did a series of 4
portrait paintings of the 4 evanagelists, Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. I
believe these are the ONLY pictures of religious subjects that he is known to
have painted--which for that age is highly unusual, even in Holland. One expert
on Hals has this to say:
"Between the brusque genre depictions and the elaborate, detailed portraits of
dignitaries, there is a third kind of painting that resists the familiar
descriptions and classifications. It is of historical interest that the Dutch
representations of evangelists are fundamentally depictions of common people,
not dignitaries (as opposed to the images of the Virgin Mary of the late Middle
Ages, which usually had sumptuous settings).
"Hals's evangelists are seen as bold male figures. His "St. Mark" speaks
of a sober conception of history: the religious themes are referred to history,
which is perceived through the eyes of a contemporary visiting the earthy,
rough figures of the Bible. Consequently, Hals invested the historical figures
with the reflected lights and cast shadows on his models' faces. The result is
a look at solemn historical characters on a theartrical stage."
--Claus Grimm, "Frans Hals: The Complete Work" (1990), p. 224.
As Grimm indicates, almost all of Hals's paintings are either the formal
portraits that he was paid to produce, or the wonderful genre paintings of
ordinary people (such as Malle Babbe) whose "painterly" style made his
reputation, and explain why he is still remembered today.
You suggest that it was Hals's "Christian worldview" that led him to believe
that ordinary people are worthy of artistic representation. I suppose that Hals
probably considered himself a Christian, but the scarcity of religious themes
in his works shows that he was not much concerned with it. It may come as a
shock to you to learn that many non-Christians in all centuries have also been
very interested in the life of ordinary people. Moreover, few painters of
strong Christian faith have been much interested in representing the ordinary
people, at least up to and well beyond the time of Hals. Most of them focused
very strongly on Bible themes.
So I reject your comments about Hals.
However, even if you were correct about Hals, you would still have missed my
point. Contrary to what you seem to be saying, it is quite possible to
appreciate works of art from points of view other than those of the artist. In
some cases we have little or no clue as to what the artists were even
attempting to do, as with the prehistoric cave art of France and Spain. But I,
and lots of other people, consider many of those paintings to be magnificent.
Specifically, even if Hals was some kind of Christian fanatic, who only painted
ordinary people out of some peculiar concept of Christian devotion, this has
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with my appreciation of his works. For me, at least,
his possible "faith" is totally irrelevant to aesthetic appreciation.
Aesthetic appreciation, by the way, depends on two main things: a STYLE of art
that interests you, and the artist's good job (as far as you are concerned) in
meeting the standards of that style. That's really all there is to it.
Religious considerations, or ethical or political considerations--even Marxist
ones--may be very important to a person, or even override aesthetic values, but
they are religious and political values, NOT aesthetic values. Here's a
limerick pair ("Aesthetics") I wrote on this topic once:
An aesthetical evaluation
Of a work of artistic creation
Depends all the while
On standards of style,
Which vary, but form the foundation.
But aesthetics is only a good start
To an all-rounded critique of fine art.
Goodness also depends
On political ends,
And morality too in the first part.
It is even possible to appreciate works of art aesthetically while despising
them ideologically.
I feel this way about Mahalia Jackson's gospel singing. Musically I love her
work, ideologically I find it enslaving and pathetic. A Jewish friend of mine
feels similarly about Wagner.
--Scott Harrison
"An objet d'art creates a public that has artistic taste and is able to enjoy
beauty--and the same can be said of any other product." --Karl Marx, "A
Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy"
The Sanity Inspector
judgements. Anyone who tries to draw moral lessons from the laws of
nature is on very dangerous ground. Evolution in particular seems to
suffer from this. At one time or another it seems to have been used to
justify Nazism, Communism, and every other -ism in between. These
justifications are all completely bogus. Similarly, anyone who says
"evolution theory is evil because it is used to support Communism" (or
any other -ism) has also strayed from the path of Logic.
--Paul Johnson, sci.skeptic FAQ
--
bruce
The dignified don't even enter in the game.
--The Jam
LUE42HGG
>judgements. Anyone who tries to draw moral lessons from the laws of
>nature is on very dangerous ground. Evolution in particular seems to
>suffer from this. At one time or another it seems to have been used to
>justify Nazism, Communism, and every other -ism in between. These
>justifications are all completely bogus. Similarly, anyone who says
>"evolution theory is evil because it is used to support Communism" (or
>any other -ism) has also strayed from the path of Logic.
> --Paul Johnson, sci.skeptic FAQ
>
>
An argument to this statement is that evolution also aloud for the quick demise
of nazism. But then, there is an argument for everything.
Truth is mysterious, elusive, always to be conquered.-Albert Camus
Jesse