Comments by Nuclearman
Comment #94166 by Nuclearman on December 5, 2007 at 12:00 am
I enjoyed this read.
Robert Maynard: A couple of links for you regarding Epicurus and atoms. There was a school of thought along those lines in Greece; it wasn't only the purview of Democritus. See the following:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/ and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism
Cheers.
2. Suffering, Evil and the Existence of God
Comment #85698 by Nuclearman on November 6, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Is this not the same philosopher Flew who, in a previous article here, was shown to have had his declining state of mind preyed upon by the religionist wolves in sheep's clothing?
This should be kept thoroughly in mind while reading this article.
3. CBC Atheism and Humanism Documentary
Comment #77187 by Nuclearman on October 8, 2007 at 5:37 pm
The voice over some of you complained about is not just some "at random" voice they have chosen; it is the voice of the interviewer seen early on in the first video clip. When the theologian is interviewed, one sees the black reporter in a chair opposite of him.
The accent on the voice is clearly Jamaican, or something similar, and that matches the ethnicity of the aforementioned reporter.
Call it annoying if you must, but I prefer to look at it as an example of Canada's diversity reflected in the CBC's journalists and journalism.
Ciao.
Comment #69348 by Nuclearman on September 11, 2007 at 12:44 am
NMcC,
Last time I checked, these forums weren't for the purpose of self-aggrandizement and blowing one's trumpet.
For a person whose words go to great lengths to paint oneself as some sort of prim and proper member of the intelligentsia, you instead resound like a pompous ass who has a razor sharp burr up it besides.
A few milliliters of common sense would have revealed that JemyM's first language is not English; thereby rendering your tirade about his/her grammar almost laughable were it not such a boorish affront to civilized discourse -- to say nothing of its ad hominem nature.
Really, do you think behaving like a juvenile school yard bully, hurling personal insults at a person who, by your own words, you know nothing of, is the best means to encourage JemyM to read any books about socialism, as when you make the following suggestion and recommendations:
...to 'understand socialism' you only have to read a few works by socialist writers. For a no-nothing like JemyM, a good start would be Frederick Engels' pamphlet 'Socialism, Utopian and Scientific' for the historical and philosophical ideas, or Marx's Value, Price and Profit or Wage Labour and Capital for the economics of the subject.
Does the word, "disingenuous" come to mind?
(By the way, it would be "know-nothing", but then, you already knew that, right?)
Of course, JemyM is, like the vast majority of us on here, an atheist who, like the vast majority on here, is seeking an outlet for sharing ideas and opinions, in addition to making some allies along the way. That he/she, along with the rest of us, be world experts on the innards of socialistic doctrine and theory was not, so far as I know, a requirement for being in these forums. Moreover, sir, from what reading I have made of your responses to JemyM, you sound as much a "foaming at the mouth" socialism idealogue as the Bible thumpers we all so disdain.
I suggest you read your own posts again. Whilst reading the vindictive of your words, it takes no stretch of the imagination to caricature someone foaming at the mouth as they smash on their keyboard.
Perhaps, being the smart guy you tout yourself to be, you could try firing off future cannonades JemyM in his/her native language and, thereby, learn from EXPERIENCE (rather than theory) the challenges of communicating, with 100% accuracy, the concepts and ideas of the mind in a tongue that is not your own. It is clear you have never lived outside the confines of your own nation (and, I suspect, you probably hate the idea of such with every fiber of your being if your rants here paint your personality with any degree of accuracy).
In sum: knock off the prissy school yard bullying: it's insulting to us all, and it does nothing but undermine your own integrity.
5. Police plea on genital mutilation
Comment #55440 by Nuclearman on July 11, 2007 at 5:25 am
Mutilation involves the partial or total removal of external female genitalia for cultural reasons.
Smacks of religious deference and apologetic gymnastics, to me. Is it possible for the media to acknowledge that this practice is *not* for "cultural reasons" but is, in fact, entirely the result of *religious* reasons!
6. What I Think About Evolution
Comment #46623 by Nuclearman on May 31, 2007 at 9:16 pm
I am wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man's essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos.
For starters, Brownback (anyone notice the ironic similarity of his name with Brokeback, as in Brokeback Mountain? *giggle*), evolution isn't simply a theory. It is an indisputable FACT.
I firmly believe that each human person, regardless of circumstance, was willed into being and made for a purpose.
Does anyone else see the brazen hypocrisy and temerity of this statement? You don't have to look very far. I'm sure, after all, Brownback voted and still backs the Iraq war. A conflict started, unprovoked, by his nation, with his approval. Innocent Iraqi civilians and, most particularly, children have been vaporized in Iraq by his nation's bombs: bombs that HE voted to have rain down on them.
My question, then, to this charlatan, would simply be: were the innocent people, vaporized by the bombs of your armed forces, willed into being for the purpose of serving as targets in this conflict you voted for? Were they "willed into being" so that they could serve, at some future date, as collateral damage for the weapons you have chosen to drop down on their heads?
These people are mendacious and their "logic" is capricious. How can a person make an argument for human dignity, argue further that we were willed into existence for a purpose, while he authorizes his nation's armed forces -- by way of free vote -- to decimate the culture, infrastructure, and children of another nation that was of no threat whatever to him, his family, or his country. How can his mind escape the necessary conclusion of his "reasoning" that the "purpose" of the innocents killed in Iraq was that they, among other things in the course of their lives, would be eventual targets USA bombs and, moreover, that Brownback's "purpose" was to eventually vote in favour of dropping bombs on innocent people.
Is that *really* what this guy *wants* to have as the underlying "order" of the universe? He cannot escape this conclusion if he wants to camp in the tent of the "willed into being for a specific purpose" argument!
These people are snake oil peddlers.
7. Atheism isn't the final word
Comment #32349 by Nuclearman on April 16, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Regarding the trophy claims to John Paul II and M. Teresa, and if their is an atheist equivalent... I can put forward a name, but I have no idea if he is atheist or not: Donald A. Henderson. For those of you not familiar with the name, he was the medical doctor who lead the WHO world wide program to eradicate small pox from the face of the planet. The work of this man, and those who worked under his charge, have collectively saved more lives in the last 3 decades than any the Church can make claim to.
Now, what remains is to determine if he is atheist or not, and on that score I emphasize -- again -- that I do not know. Internet searches I attempted turned up nothing on this question. Would be VERY interesting if, like most scientists, he is a non-believer. :)
Comment #29660 by Nuclearman on April 3, 2007 at 11:41 pm
I would like to submit a possible definition for PM that probably is worse than any of the others, and this one is taken from a readily accessible location; namely, the lyrics to Don Henley's song, "They're Not Here, They're Not Coming". To wit:
Well it's a cold, cold, cold, cold cold, cold, cold, cold, post, postmodern world,
No time for heroes, no place for good guys
No room for Rocky the flying squirrel.
Or, alternatively, later on in the song we have:
Well it's a cold, cold, cold, cold cold, cold, cold, cold, post-post modern world,
No authenticity, no sign of soul
The radio won't play George and Merle
Or, finally, it might be:
Well, it's a cold, cold, cold, cold, cold, cold, cold, cold
Post, postmodern world
No place for sentiment, no room for romance
Bring back the Duke of Earl
Personally, since PM seems to posit that there or no absolutes, and nothing is real, I'll take all 3 of these as a starting point. Hell, at least they rhyme.
Comment #29417 by Nuclearman on April 2, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Comment to september, who said:
For all your silly comments [,Richard,] against postmodernism (which I agree ended not long ago), have you done much study of Derrida, or any of the other postmodernists? Your lack of education, and then your thrust of it, shocks me. Irresponsible, unprofessional, and dogmatic.
Could you please explain to us how the study of sheer nonsense, and to then go the extra step of doing further researches on the lead espouser of such stupefying nonsense, would be a form of "education". Most rational people would consider such an exercise a waste of their precious time at worst; an exercise in sardonic amusement at best.
By analogy, would not already knowing, at length, the old arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin be considered a lack of education?
Then you have the audacity to suggest that, to not know such nonsensical things in all their splendid details but to instead be unapologetic in calling them out on their intrinsically obvious stupidity, is "unprofessional" and "dogmatic"?
Truly, the boggling mind violently reverberates in the brain-case in trying to understand where you are coming from.
10. Gimme That Old Time Religion (Bashing)
Comment #27360 by Nuclearman on March 24, 2007 at 8:26 am
The legitimacy of this article went out the door for me when the author wrote,
He [Harris] explains:
Within every faith one can see people arranged along a spectrum of belief. Picture concentric circles of diminishing reasonableness: At the center, one finds the truest of true believers-the Muslim jihadis, for instance, who not only support suicidal terrorism but who are the first to turn themselves into bombs; or the Dominionist Christians, who openly call for homosexuals and blasphemers to be put to death.
In taking this view, Harris adopts as legitimate, the claim of jihadists and dominionists that they embody the True Religion. There is no basis for his claim. Islam and Christianity are quite diverse, historically rich and there are few theologians who are not jihadists or dominionists themselves who would place such controversial groups at the center of their traditions. And certainly no independent scholars would agree with Harris that dominionists and jihadists represent the core of their respective faiths.
When I read the Harris article, I never construed his concentric circles picture as a figurative hierarchal structure of the tenet and follower system of the church. The concentric circles picture is only meant, as the description Harris provides makes intrinsically clear, to demonstrate that the nut-jobs are
Nowhere -- not once -- by direct wording, or through suggestive implication -- does Harris imbue with the circles the notion that the lunatic fringe is considered by the masses to be at the core of their belief system!
Clarkson is either a downright moron, or mendaciously disingenuous to suggest otherwise. From this point, his article lost any credibility.
11. Faith
Comment #23212 by Nuclearman on February 26, 2007 at 9:50 pm
I had looked into getting a copy of Hitchen's book. That is, until a read the Wiki page about him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens
I don't think I'll financially support a guy whose reason so easily abandoned him in favour of the flag of nationalistic conservatism. This is a guy who fervently supported the Iraq war ie., the attack and bombardment of innocent people in a land that had nothing whatever to do with the 911 attacks.
No, sir. I will not give a cent of my income to support a person so easily bamboozled by political propaganda and outright stupidity.
12. In praise of Darwin this Sunday ... in hundreds of churches!
Comment #21984 by Nuclearman on February 12, 2007 at 3:47 am
Macho Nachos: See for yourself. Ken Ham's webpage here.
Like I said: deranged.
13. In praise of Darwin this Sunday ... in hundreds of churches!
Comment #21964 by Nuclearman on February 12, 2007 at 1:56 am
Could there be a more inane, circuitous line of reasoning? I'll leave out all the argument pointing out the fallacies he goes through to connect Dawkin's dots to conclude, for example, that RD was stating that Christians are equivalent to the 911 bombers. There's also the mendacity expounded in,
Dawkins and other prominent evolutionists are using the airwaves time and time again to aggressively attack Bible-believing Christians.
Dawkins hasn't attacked anyone. He has, however, vociferously attacked the unfounded doctrines of Bible-believing Christians. And rightly so.
But here is a guy who ends his article with the following,
Christians need to communicate a positive message to the world that the Bible is true from the very first verse.
And in so doing, proves the point that these people are truly deluded. In fact, some are not only deluded; this specimen also sounds deranged. Delusion, in the case of Richard's TGD refers to the non-thinking exercise of "faith". But any person who would claim that the Bible is "true from the very first verse" is -- let's not mince words here -- deranged.
Can there be a greater irony in a post by a person who wants to hold fast to the belief that the Bible is "true from the first verse" while simultaneously acknowledging, without refutation, Dawkin's quote, in reference to God,
...an ethnic cleanser urging His people on to acts of genocide.
This writer lets that claim go totally unchallenged (as he must, since the Bible is replete with example of just this sort of thing), and also wants to maintain that the Bible is completely true.
So, what we have here, in essence, is a person who does accept that the being he worships has urged its worshipers to acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing. Not only is that, in my view, a clear case of a deranged mind, it is also something that every sane person should wake up and take notice of.
This is, for all to see, a clear example of the dangerous irrationality that pure faith generates.
Even deluded individuals would want to distance themselves from the worst of the Biblical accounts; this deranged person embraces it all. And these people seek to "teach" children.
It makes the mind recoil in shock and horror to imagine the poisons these persons infect the minds of children with.
14. The questions science cannot answer
Comment #21848 by Nuclearman on February 11, 2007 at 7:54 am
...what I am looking to conclude is that religion is useful to society, even if not necessarily essential...
FortunaAdiuvatForte, can you provide an example of where you think religion is useful to society as a whole. I draw attention to the distinction of "society as a whole" versus the individual.
15. The questions science cannot answer
Comment #21837 by Nuclearman on February 11, 2007 at 7:12 am
In Comment #21816 by FortunaAdiuvatForte on February 11,
Intrestingly you included Russia in your statistics, a nation which while nominally orthodox is in practice very atheistic and by your statistics is a hotbed of crime...
Yes, why not include the Russian stats? I did a direct copy-and-paste from the Google Answers page. I'm well aware of the atheistic aspects of Russian society and, as you point out, the social problems there are obvious to all, hence, no need to expound upon that matter. And you are honest enough to acknowledge that fact. I attempt to be as intellectually honest as I can; to have willfully removed the Russian stats would have been, at least, disingenuous on my part.
...the fact that they do preach still provides a moral framework which people SHOULD act uopn even if they do not. There is no comparable alternative for atheists.
So you acknowledge that there is a moral framework that some Judeao-Christians (JCs) aren't following. You then make the point that atheists have no moral framework.
Alright, so from this, what are you attempting to conclude?
Atheists, as a group, are not an organized body of persons. Therefore, it only stands to reason that they do not have a proclaimed set of moral codes by which they "all" follow.
But the Japanese society also shows that a proclaimed set of religious-based moral strictures, such as those of the JCs, is not required for orderly living: godless societies without explicit moral strictures can exist and perform more admirably than those societies that worship a god and have explicit religious-based moral strictures.
If you are attempting to argue that it is vital for a society to have a set of religious-based moral strictures to be decent and law abiding, the case of Japan, I think, shows this to be false.
16. The questions science cannot answer
Comment #21806 by Nuclearman on February 11, 2007 at 6:17 am
Taken from Google Answers at this link.
Murders per 100,000.
1. Russia Federation 18.07
2. United States 6.32
3. Malaysia 2.73
Taiwan 1.17
Spain 1.08
Japan 0.58
Which simply goes to show, once again, that Christianity is not a necessary condition for a civilized society.
You are right, FortunaAdiuvatForte, in saying that for the specific case of Japan, there can be no counterfactual evidence. To obtain such evidence would require turning back time and "starting all over again". Nevertheless, the fact remains that we still have an atheistic society that has the lowest homicide rate in the world. Might it be lower still with the inclusion of Christianity here? That's a question we can't answer, since it's an experiment we cannot do.
However, the closest we could come to doing such an experiment would be to find societies with similar demographics, incomes, etc, etc, and then compare. I don't know if such a study is really feasible or possible.
My point in all of this is simply the glaring fact that we have a nation of 120 million atheists (no small number of people, I will add) and their homicide rate is lowest in the world. So too are the rapes, assaults, robbery/theft, as the stats on the link I provide above show.
The task of a theologian, in my view, would be to explain how a nation full of godless atheists can have a homicide rate 2 times lower than Spain -- a nation that has historically been deeply immersed in Christianity for the past 500 years or so.
If the theologian wants to argue that religiosity isn't the only prerequisite to low crime, of course I would agree. Education, income, lack of oppression, freedom of will, and so on are also required for low crime. But for those theologians and bible-thumpers who insist that belief in God is essential for "moral behaviour", my response is the reality of Japan's society and culture. It exists, it has done so without Christianity, and its crime stats make the Judeao-Christian societies appear like they truly don't practice what they preach.
17. The questions science cannot answer
Comment #21791 by Nuclearman on February 11, 2007 at 5:36 am
From Comment #21781 by FortunaAdiuvatForte on February 11
What Nuclearman said implied that people don't need religion for crime rates to be low, his example was a good one, but I was pointing out was that it is not an absolute example as there are other possibilities.
I will go further. I think that Japan is probably one of the only refuges on Earth that has gone relatively untouched by Christianity. The southern hemisphere has got it on all continents: Australia, Africa, and Latin South America. In the northern hemisphere we have it throughout Mexico, USA, Canada, Europe, Indian sub-continent, Philippines, Malaysia, S. Korea, and so on. Historically, Japan is the only modern democracy in which Christianity hasn't made a dent in the social fabric. It is a non-entity here.
This means we have an ongoing social experiment of 120 million people, living in a first world democracy with the lowest crime rates in the world, in which negligibly few subscribe to the belief in Christ.
And what does that mean (to me at least)? It means that, of the myriad of necessary conditions required to have a law abiding, free-willed, educated, 1st World democratic society, organized religion is NOT one of them.
Yes, FortunaAdiuvatForte, as you suggest, there are other possibilities for crime in society. On this we agree. But the living social experiment of Japan's society PROVES that organized Judeao-Christian religion is NOT a necessary condition for reduced crime.
18. The God Delusion
Comment #21780 by Nuclearman on February 11, 2007 at 4:35 am
In Comment #21765 by FortunaAdiuvatForte on February 11 we have,
Human beings are on a quest for knowledge, but not only scientific knowledge, as that cannot help them in their daily relationships necesarilly (sic). For example why do we not kill people indiscrimnately (sic)?
Any look at history shows that we can, and have done, just this. And it has been done in the name of some sort of ideology (religious, political, or both). We also have a minority of individuals in the population who do kill indiscriminately; serial killers being one that comes to mind.
As a species, we do not engage in this activity on a regular basis for an incredibly straightforward reason: if we did, we would not be here to discuss the matter. Any species that habitually engages in indiscriminate and systematic killing of its own members would run itself to its own extinction in short order.
19. The questions science cannot answer
Comment #21764 by Nuclearman on February 11, 2007 at 2:52 am
In Comment #21760 by FortunaAdiuvatForte on February 11 is stated,
There are other surveys which show that the relaxing of religion leads to an increase in ncrime. "When people lose God they don't believe nothing, they believe anything"- hence the rise of paganism in Europe and the US and arguably the rise in crime. Some of the highest crime rates in Europe are in the former Soviet Republic of Macedonia, a state that has been officially secular for almost 60 years
FortunaAdiuvatForte, do these surveys connect cause and effect? Correlation does not imply causation. And to treat this subject of crime fully, one must also factor in all social causes for crime; one, in particular being poverty. Macedonia isn't exactly one of the wealthiest nations in the former Republic. And it is already well known that poverty and marginalization within societies tends to be a precursor to higher crime.
My point about Japan is simply this: Christianity has never been introduced to this island nation. Attempts to do so did occur, but it was promptly snuffed out during the Tokugawa period by the deportation of the missionaries, or their execution. This nation has 3000 years of feudal history (think Samurai and Shoguns), and during all that time they also had Shinto and Buddhism. Yet, they have "evolved" into the modern era, beyond the warrior-feudal system, into an atheistic society that has one of the lowest crime rates in the world, hands down. And they did this in spite of their feudal past and in the complete absence of any Judeao-Christian philosophies.
Let a theologian counter this living experiment in Japan: an entire nation of 120 million atheistic people with a crime rate that is the envy of the world. How does a theologian reconcile this demonstrable fact when it is complete odds with their ongoing assumption that one must follow Jesus/God in order to be a moral, decent person.
Well, there are 120 million of them over here who don't follow Jesus, or anything remotely similar to him, and they make the societies of Judeao-Christian nations look like barbarians in terms of the relative crime rates.
Let a theologian explain to me how 120 million godless people can form an essentially crime-less society that is actually a living model of what theologians think would exist were everyone to believe in God.
Alistair??? [crickets chirping]
20. The questions science cannot answer
Comment #21763 by Nuclearman on February 11, 2007 at 2:34 am
Comment #21762 by Will in Aus on February 11
"Could the moderator(s) please stop posting articles from this McGrath asswit? He's a complete waste of space."
Seconded.
Oh, come on you guys/gals. Never mind the obfuscatious rhetoric of McGraw. Look on the brighter side: the posting of his "rebuttals" has generated a good, and healthy, amount of discussion and debate in these comments. That, in itself, makes it worth posting his articles.
21. The questions science cannot answer
Comment #21742 by Nuclearman on February 10, 2007 at 9:28 pm
In response to the Comment #21703 by FortunaAdiuvatForte on February 10, 2007:
FortunaAdiuvatForte said, in response to a claim that theologians take God as a given:
Theologans challenge the perception of God, even if they take God as a given I cannot see how such an action is unhelpful as they are reaching an understanding of what millions of people believe
How did the millions come to believe the idea in the first place? Because, simply put, the virus was put into their heads by the ongoing, unbroken, historically proven, actions of theologians. These people have created a lineage of people -- generation after generation -- who have grown up immersed in social settings, family settings, school settings, community settings, and so on, where their minds have been inundated with the concept of a God figure. Those who have perpetuated these teachings have been the theologians.
The millions still believe because they have been taught, by authority figures, who themselves are either taught by, or are themselves, the theologians.
I'm a Canadian ex-pat living in Japan. What strikes me here is what a complete and total non-issue all aspects of Christian monotheism here. These people, 120 million of them, are all essentially atheists. Yes, some subscribe to Shinto, others to Buddhism, but less than a fraction of a fraction of 1% subscribe to Christianity.
Now why is that? Because, in this country there are no Christian theologians teaching people the concepts of Christianity and monotheism. And, interestingly enough, this country has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. There are 120 million people on this island, densely packed, and the total number of homicides per year is usually not more than what you can count on two hands.
I sometimes marvel at the ego-centric attitudes of those of us from the western cultures who take it as an almost a priori assumption that this mindset of monotheism pervades "all corners" of the world. It doesn't. It only does where the theologians have gained a foothold to spread their poison to the masses.
The Japanese, by our definitions, are an atheistic society. They have one of the lowest crime rates in the world in spite of high population density. They also do not steal. To forget a camera on a train is not to automatically lose it forever. They are most often returned to the station house, or simply "ignored" on the chair until a conductor finds it. Ditto for laptops.
Can any theologian explain to me these demonstrable facts within their simplistic moral view?
There needs to be done more studies of Christianity, and its claims, taking into context a comparative view of world societies that have adopted it and those who have never adopted it. Japan, in my view, challenges EVERY notion that the Christians put forth than one can only be a decent moral person if one accepts God into their lives.
Nay, "millions" don't believe in this tripe simply because it's somehow innate. They believe in it because they were exposed to it during impressionable times in their lives and their minds have clung to it.
22. Ancient boy's skeleton sparks evolution debate
Comment #21615 by Nuclearman on February 10, 2007 at 6:23 am
Comment #21193 by Mrs. Trellis states,
The cure is education education education. Only no one has the cash.
in reference to educating the masses of Africa.
Really? What's the present tally for the cash spent thus far by the USA and UK on dropping bombs on innocents in Iraq? Must be getting close to a trillion dollars by now, I should think.
How many could have been educated with the money spent per day dropping bombs on the people of Iraq?
The colonial powers had the cash at one point to invade Africa, carve it up into colonies, and rape the land of its resources.
I'm not the least bit convinced that the cash isn't there. The reality is, us "luckies" in the 1st world nations are sloth to use it to lift the lot of our brethren.
23. Meet the Relatives. They're Full of Surprises.
Comment #21611 by Nuclearman on February 10, 2007 at 5:43 am
Great stuff, with this exception:
In a corner of the hall, several scientists are shown in video interviews professing the compatibility of their evolution research with their religious beliefs.
Sounds like the apologists get to make their token nods to the religious extremists.
The video could have been put to better use having interviews of scientists in the field SHOWING how they do a dig, or showing a moment of discovery.
It is a museum of science; leave the religious apologists out of it. Let science speak candidly and honestly for itself, thanks very much.
24. The questions science cannot answer
Comment #21585 by Nuclearman on February 10, 2007 at 2:40 am
Great dissection, Janus.
McGrath's arguments, this being the 2nd or 3rd article I've read by him, are truly unconvincing and either reduce down to appealing to authority, as Janus has aptly elucidated, special pleading, straw men and begging the question.
I find this line of reasoning particularly vacuous:
But what of that greater question: what's life all about? This, and others like it, Medawar insisted, were "questions that science cannot answer, and that no conceivable advance of science would empower it to answer". They could not be dismissed as "nonquestions or pseudoquestions such as only simpletons ask and only charlatans profess to be able to answer". This is not to criticise science, but simply to calibrate its capacities.
Great. So we all understand that science has limitations. Atheists and RD have never claimed that science has the answers to every possible question that could ever be contemplated. It has answered many that were once thought unanswerable, however. At one time it was thought that epileptics were possessed by demons by the same Church that McGrath so staunchly defends. Science has since shown it to be an affliction thoroughly rooted in natural causes.
The question of the purpose/meaning of life (Ok, McGreth calls it, "What is life all about?") is, in itself, not a scientific question in the first place. Whose life? Mine? Yours? A fish? A microbe? All? Meaning and purpose are subjective attributes and values that are functions of personality, upbringing, culture, historical context, education, trends and fads, personal biases, prejudices, and our known abilities (the list could go on forever). For this question to even attempt to be in the realm of scientific study, a rigorous definition for "purpose/meaning" must be posited. Only from that starting point can science then attempt posit theories and gather the evidence to put together a cohesive explanation.
But McGrath, like so many others before and after, fails to grasp that the answers to ill-defined philosophical questions is not the domain of science. And so, it is vacuous for him to set up this straw man of a thought experiment and then proclaim that, "Ah ha, science can't answer this, ergo, science has limitations". Yes, of course it does. Its entire epistemological foundation first requires a precise statement of the problem to be analyzed. Posit precisely what "purpose/meaning" means and then we can determine what science can/cannot do to answer the question.
He goes on, concluding with,
In the end, as Gilbert Harman pointed out decades ago, the real question is which offers the "best explanation" of things. And as there is no general agreement on how to decide which of these explanations is the "best", the argument seems certain to run.
Which offers the best explanation for things? Well, if you want to understand how life arose, does one turn to Genisis for a sensible explanation, or does one turn to Darwin? If one wants to determine the "best explanation" for Quantum Mechanics, does one turn to Feynman, Schroedinger, Heisenberg; or does one turn instead to the "Dancing Wu Li Masters"?
Ultimately, where one turns should be where the evidence, explanations/theories, and predictive power, all converge. When there is a concomitance of these 3 things on one's reason, then one has most likely found the "best (available) explanation".
McGrath's personal insistence that the "argument on this matter seems certain to run" is most likely the result that he, and his ilk, continues to turn to sources where: 1) evidence in favour of his cherished doctrines is wholly absent 2) the theories/explanations posited by said doctrines fly in the face of known, demonstrable results, 3) predictive power becomes what one wants to be true, rather than what is demonstrably known.
Finally, how can there ever possibly be any "general agreement" for the "best explanations of things" between those who look at the world around them through scientific, critical, curious outlooks, and those who appeal to musty relics from centuries past, eyes wide shut to what occurs about them in the present reality of the here and now?
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
