Great Issues Forum: What Is Religion?
The Graduate Center, CUNY- Info
- Bio
- Full Program
- Highlights
- Transcript
- Download
- More
Bio
Daniel Dennett - Born in Boston, Dr. Daniel Dennett received his B.A. in Philosophy from Harvard University in 1963, and earned his Doctorate in Philosophy at Oxford University in 1965. After teaching at U.C. Irvine for six years, Dennett joined the faculty at Tufts University in 1971, where he is now a Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University.
Dennett has written extensively about the mind, consciousness, and evolution. He published his first book, Content and Consciousness, in 1969 and is perhaps best known for his 1995 book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, which explores the implications of natural selection on humanity's place in the universe. He has also published more than one hundred scholarly articles in professional journals, ranging from Behavioral and Brain Sciences to Poetics Today.
Dennett, an avid sailor, sculptor and farmer, lives with his wife north of Boston. He has two children and one grandson.
Dennett has written extensively about the mind, consciousness, and evolution. He published his first book, Content and Consciousness, in 1969 and is perhaps best known for his 1995 book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, which explores the implications of natural selection on humanity's place in the universe. He has also published more than one hundred scholarly articles in professional journals, ranging from Behavioral and Brain Sciences to Poetics Today.
Dennett, an avid sailor, sculptor and farmer, lives with his wife north of Boston. He has two children and one grandson.
John Haught - John F. Haught (Ph.D. Catholic University, 1970), is Senior Fellow, Science & Religion, Woodstock Theological Center, Georgetown University. He was formerly Professor in the Department of Theology at Georgetown University (1970-2005) and Chair (1990-95).
His area of specialization is systematic theology, with a particular interest in issues pertaining to science, cosmology, evolution, ecology, and religion.
His area of specialization is systematic theology, with a particular interest in issues pertaining to science, cosmology, evolution, ecology, and religion.
William P. Kelly - William P. Kelly was appointed president of the Graduate Center of the City University of New York on July 1, 2005. From 1998 through June 2005, he served as the Graduate Center's provost and senior vice president, a tenure that was marked by the recruitment of a remarkable cadre of internationally renowned scholars to the school's faculty.
A distinguished American literature scholar and an expert on the works of James Fenimore Cooper, Dr. Kelly's books include Plotting America's Past: Fenimore Cooper and the Leatherstocking Tales (Southern Illinois University Press), and a work in progress, Exhibiting Nature: Scientific Culture and The American Museum of Natural History.
His numerous articles and reviews have appeared in a broad range of publications including the New York Times Book Review, The American Scholar, and the Journal of Western History, and he is the editor of the Random House edition of The Selected Works of Washington Irving and the Oxford University Press edition of The Pathfinder.
Dr. Kelly graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University in 1971, where he won the David Bowers Prize in American Studies. He was named Outstanding Graduate Student in English at Indiana University, where he received his Ph.D. in 1976. Dr. Kelly also holds a diploma in intellectual history from Cambridge University and in 1980 received a Fulbright Fellowship to France, where he subsequently became visiting professor at the University of Paris.
He was also executive director of the CUNY/Paris Exchange Program and, in 2003, was named Chevalier dans l'Ordre des Palmes Academiques by the French Ministry of Education in recognition of his contributions to Franco-American educational and cultural relations.
A distinguished American literature scholar and an expert on the works of James Fenimore Cooper, Dr. Kelly's books include Plotting America's Past: Fenimore Cooper and the Leatherstocking Tales (Southern Illinois University Press), and a work in progress, Exhibiting Nature: Scientific Culture and The American Museum of Natural History.
His numerous articles and reviews have appeared in a broad range of publications including the New York Times Book Review, The American Scholar, and the Journal of Western History, and he is the editor of the Random House edition of The Selected Works of Washington Irving and the Oxford University Press edition of The Pathfinder.
Dr. Kelly graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University in 1971, where he won the David Bowers Prize in American Studies. He was named Outstanding Graduate Student in English at Indiana University, where he received his Ph.D. in 1976. Dr. Kelly also holds a diploma in intellectual history from Cambridge University and in 1980 received a Fulbright Fellowship to France, where he subsequently became visiting professor at the University of Paris.
He was also executive director of the CUNY/Paris Exchange Program and, in 2003, was named Chevalier dans l'Ordre des Palmes Academiques by the French Ministry of Education in recognition of his contributions to Franco-American educational and cultural relations.
Gustav Niebuhr - Gustav Niebuhr is an associate professor of Religion and the Media, director of the Religion and Society Program, director of the Carnegie Religion and Media Minor, and co-director of the Luce Project in Religion, Media, and International Relations at Syracuse University.
Over a twenty-year career in journalism, most recently at the New York Times and, prior to that, at the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the Atlanta Journal/Constitution, Gustav Niebuhr has established a reputation as a leading writer about American religion. He is a frequent guest blogger on the Washington Post's "On Faith" column, and he also does occasional commentaries on religion for the National Public Radio program "All Things Considered."
His most recent book, Beyond Tolerance: Searching for Interfaith Understanding in America, will be published in August.
Over a twenty-year career in journalism, most recently at the New York Times and, prior to that, at the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the Atlanta Journal/Constitution, Gustav Niebuhr has established a reputation as a leading writer about American religion. He is a frequent guest blogger on the Washington Post's "On Faith" column, and he also does occasional commentaries on religion for the National Public Radio program "All Things Considered."
His most recent book, Beyond Tolerance: Searching for Interfaith Understanding in America, will be published in August.
David Sloan Wilson - David Sloan Wilson uses evolutionary theory to explain all aspects of humanity in addition to the rest of life, as he recounts for a general audience in Evolution for Everyone: How Darwin's Theory Can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives (Bantam 2007). He is a distinguished professor of biology and anthropology at Binghamton University, part of the State University of New York.
He publishes in anthropology, psychology, and philosophy journals in addition to his mainstream biological research. His academic books include Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior (with Elliott Sober, Harvard 1998), Darwin's Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society (Chicago, 2002), and The Literary Animal: Evolution and the Nature of Narrative (co-edited with Jonathan Gottschall, Northwestern 2005). Wilson also directs EvoS, a campus-wide program that uses evolutionary theory as a common language for the unification of knowledge.
He publishes in anthropology, psychology, and philosophy journals in addition to his mainstream biological research. His academic books include Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior (with Elliott Sober, Harvard 1998), Darwin's Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society (Chicago, 2002), and The Literary Animal: Evolution and the Nature of Narrative (co-edited with Jonathan Gottschall, Northwestern 2005). Wilson also directs EvoS, a campus-wide program that uses evolutionary theory as a common language for the unification of knowledge.
Save this program for later
Watch or listen to it later on your computer or mobile device.
Select your connection speed to see approximate download times:
-
Audio (mp3)
40 MB 10 min
-
Video (mp4)
224 MB 55 min
Chapters
-
Watch Full Program
01 hr 15 min 52 sec
- 01.
-
CUNY Welcome
06 min 03 sec
- 02.
-
Moderator Introduction
01 min 13 sec
- 03.
-
Defining Natural Selection
01 min 48 sec
- 04.
-
Defining Religion
03 min 01 sec
- 05.
-
A Conflict Between Religion and Science?
04 min 10 sec
- 06.
-
Why Science Should Analyze Religion
07 min 53 sec
- 07.
-
Where Science and Religion Overlap
01 min 59 sec
- 08.
-
Cultural Evolution: Advantage to Being Religious?
06 min 38 sec
- 09.
-
Is Religion Adaptive?
05 min 40 sec
- 10.
-
Religion After Darwin
05 min 10 sec
- 11.
-
Can Science Provide Meaning?
03 min 45 sec
- 13.
-
The Ecological Approach to Religion
04 min 55 sec
- 14.
-
Combating Literalism
04 min 06 sec
- 15.
-
Science Under Attack and Scientism
04 min 09 sec
- 16.
-
Science as a Religion
03 min 17 sec
- 17.
-
What Should We Be Studying?
07 min 22 sec
-
Watch Full Program
01 hr 15 min 52 sec
FORA.tv Editors bring you The Big Ideas:
-
Daniel Dennett on Pastors Teaching Intelligent Design
04 min 40 sec
-
An Ecological Approach to Eradicating Fundamentalism
02 min 10 sec
-
The Religion of Science: Worshiping at the Altar of Truth
01 min 06 sec
-
Watch Full Program
01 hr 15 min 52 sec
- Partner:
- CUNY
- Location:
- City University of New York
NYC - Event Date:
- 11.17.09
- Speakers:
- Daniel Dennett,
- John Haught,
- William P. Kelly,
- Gustav Niebuhr,
- David Sloan Wilson
- Summary
-
The Forum's year-long exploration of religion launches with a program featuring distinguished philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett and noted evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson.
They are joined by additional participants to discuss questions such as: What is the nature and purpose of religion? Is it a product of our evolution and something we can now do without? Is it a system of belief and practice that humans require in order to build communities and construct meaning for their lives? What in human make-up renders religion possible? How has religious belief developed and changed over the years, and how does it continue to do so?
There is no transcript for this program
18 Comments
Subscribe to this Conversation 
I actually disagree with them in the part 14. I think that fundamentalists can be convinced out of their fundamentalism if they are surrounded by people who do not believe the same as them, in this century the amount of communication technology has already gone from telephone and basic internet and email (i think email was around in 2000) to things like twitter facebook and texting. Emailing and calling have become competently portable and people all around the word have access to communication with every one else, and I think that this will only become more so in the future. Wireless internet is become more available, cell phones are in very poor parts of the world owned by poor people. What I'm saying is that people are starting to communicate with other groups where as before a fundamentalist Islamic person would likely have had little positive interaction or even access to interaction with anyone who did not thing alike with them, and this would have probably been true through most of history, and all these guys study what we can see rather than making predictions.
I think that there is enough reason to think that spending time around different beliefs, mostly through the internet right now (but the "global community" will probably do this is in more ways to do with business, entertainment and news but this is obviously impossible to really predict) has had a negative effect on religion. Also it has had a positive effect on atheists, for a long time atheists in places like the bible belt had no atheists to talk with but since the internet (particularly things like forums, youtube and chat rooms. It gives them some one who they feel belonging with, and people are obviously drawn to being accepted. I use the internet as a reference, but I think that is only because it probably the best communication tool of our time for the job, thats not to say is always will be or even still is, even the definition of the computer is changing, cell phones are for example becoming more powerful than earlier computer more and more so and now are getting to a point where they can use blogs or in particular micro blogs.
In remember a quote or at least a paraphrase "technology at it's peak not when its invented originally, but when its accessible by more and more people." As the internet ages it is only being more and more used and more every year, it is at least linear if you look at from between 97-07 the number of per capita internet users has gone from 2 to 22. This is 11 times in 10 years, and at that 2006 and 2007 had more increase than any other years. http://www.line.co.uk/news_views/img...sers_graph.gif so looking at this we could estimate the world will have internet by 2017 a couple years give or take.
Giving the entire world access to atheism is something that has never even been imagined. The differences of atheism vs theism i think really show through on the internet, the facts are there, and the internet right now has a sort of "tea pot atheism" as I've herd it called happening. The concept of yes god is capable of all of these things but it is impossible to prove a god completely untrue because omnipotence is a great tool to make explanations with.
I think this highlights the point then of peoples wanting to and choosing to be religious deciding god exists rathen than, through legitimate, emotionally bias choice. As an atheist I really do have to say that I can understand living as a theist to be or at least appear to be a better more full lifestyle. Lefts face it religion has been ignored even (/esspecially) by those who preach it. A holy war is a contradiction in that part of what they are defending forbids them from doing it with war. This is an example of people twisting religion based on their interpretations that are convenient. At that point religion is based on what people want to believe.
But as far as changing what people want, knowing you will be accepted for it is a HUGE motive, and the opposite is also true. The internet now, but communications as a whole lets people communicate share ideas, and also know that there are others that think similarly to themselves, when older communications would not.
Religion is based on essentially ignoring knowledge, but also not having access to knowledge. Communications do both of those things and the internet, youtube and other video sites in particular are an amazing way of distributing ideasfree to the entire world. Imagine 20 years ago trying to make a video available to the entire world! Now people carry access to almost all of this in their pockets. Eventually even smart phones will become affordable and when something like this happens there will be consequences (I dont think any one can really say what they are,positive ones hopefully), NEVER have humans or any other animal ever had an opportunity anything close to this there is. The sheer magnitude of potential of any person being able to share knowledge(in more ways, more quickly, more easily and more of the time) is like nothing ever before, how can we say fundamentalism will survive against something like the internet which we have never seen before? I'm not saying this will be quick, but I wont say that I think it will take too too long either. Or I could be wrong :P
I think that there is enough reason to think that spending time around different beliefs, mostly through the internet right now (but the "global community" will probably do this is in more ways to do with business, entertainment and news but this is obviously impossible to really predict) has had a negative effect on religion. Also it has had a positive effect on atheists, for a long time atheists in places like the bible belt had no atheists to talk with but since the internet (particularly things like forums, youtube and chat rooms. It gives them some one who they feel belonging with, and people are obviously drawn to being accepted. I use the internet as a reference, but I think that is only because it probably the best communication tool of our time for the job, thats not to say is always will be or even still is, even the definition of the computer is changing, cell phones are for example becoming more powerful than earlier computer more and more so and now are getting to a point where they can use blogs or in particular micro blogs.
In remember a quote or at least a paraphrase "technology at it's peak not when its invented originally, but when its accessible by more and more people." As the internet ages it is only being more and more used and more every year, it is at least linear if you look at from between 97-07 the number of per capita internet users has gone from 2 to 22. This is 11 times in 10 years, and at that 2006 and 2007 had more increase than any other years. http://www.line.co.uk/news_views/img...sers_graph.gif so looking at this we could estimate the world will have internet by 2017 a couple years give or take.
Giving the entire world access to atheism is something that has never even been imagined. The differences of atheism vs theism i think really show through on the internet, the facts are there, and the internet right now has a sort of "tea pot atheism" as I've herd it called happening. The concept of yes god is capable of all of these things but it is impossible to prove a god completely untrue because omnipotence is a great tool to make explanations with.
I think this highlights the point then of peoples wanting to and choosing to be religious deciding god exists rathen than, through legitimate, emotionally bias choice. As an atheist I really do have to say that I can understand living as a theist to be or at least appear to be a better more full lifestyle. Lefts face it religion has been ignored even (/esspecially) by those who preach it. A holy war is a contradiction in that part of what they are defending forbids them from doing it with war. This is an example of people twisting religion based on their interpretations that are convenient. At that point religion is based on what people want to believe.
But as far as changing what people want, knowing you will be accepted for it is a HUGE motive, and the opposite is also true. The internet now, but communications as a whole lets people communicate share ideas, and also know that there are others that think similarly to themselves, when older communications would not.
Religion is based on essentially ignoring knowledge, but also not having access to knowledge. Communications do both of those things and the internet, youtube and other video sites in particular are an amazing way of distributing ideasfree to the entire world. Imagine 20 years ago trying to make a video available to the entire world! Now people carry access to almost all of this in their pockets. Eventually even smart phones will become affordable and when something like this happens there will be consequences (I dont think any one can really say what they are,positive ones hopefully), NEVER have humans or any other animal ever had an opportunity anything close to this there is. The sheer magnitude of potential of any person being able to share knowledge(in more ways, more quickly, more easily and more of the time) is like nothing ever before, how can we say fundamentalism will survive against something like the internet which we have never seen before? I'm not saying this will be quick, but I wont say that I think it will take too too long either. Or I could be wrong :P
Recommend this comment [ 1 ]
Intelligent design was invented, it didn't fly, and so it went away, at least I haven't heard of it since. what will they invent next?
Recommend this comment [ 0 ]
A good discussion. It has long been beneficial to be a part of the mainstream religous belief of a comunity, but I will carry on being a sceptic.
Recommend this comment [ 0 ]
"Should pastors be teaching intelligent design".
Pathetic...he never answered the question put to him.
Pathetic...he never answered the question put to him.
Recommend this comment [ 1 ]
Science or Religion ?
Some ‘True’ Physical and Religious fables and fantasies
Religion tells us nothing but fables and fantasies!
That is the truth.
For example: God created woman from Adam’s rib,
using physical laws. So, what is Religion?
Religion is the poor man's philosophy.
Modern Physics tells us nothing but fables and fantasies!
That is the truth.
For example: One Galaxy can eat another Galaxy.
1
Cosmic cannibalising:
Images show one galaxy engulfing another
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...r-1780652.html
2
The Discovery of one Galaxy "Attacking" Another
http://www.astronomyexpert.co.uk/the...g-another.html
3
Milky Way Grew by Swallowing Other Galaxies
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi...#comment-block
4
Black hole destroying star epic
http://vodpod.com/watch/1719087-blac...ying-star-epic
. . .. etc
So, what is Physics?
Physics is the poor man's philosophy.
== .
What to do?
I think we must answer to the simple classic question:
what did come first the chicken or the egg ?
If somebody didn’t understand this question, I will ask it simpler:
What was before Vacuum or Gravity ?
Does Gravity exist in Vacuum or vice versa?
Why I ask these questions.
Because the Universe ( as a whole ) is Two- Measured,
there are two Worlds: Vacuum and Gravity.
=== .
Some more ‘ true’ Physical fables and fantasies.
=== .
1.
The Big Bang.
Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter
(all elementary particles and all quarks and their
girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks, all kinds of
waves: electromagnetic, gravitational, muons…
gluons field ….. etc.) – was assembled in a ‘single point ‘
=== .
I don’t agree with the ‘big bang’ theory because nobody
knows how the ‘ big bang’ can change into ‘single point ‘
if Hawking’s radiation from ‘ black hole’ doesn’t give it
to happen.
2.
Most of elementary particles were got in artificial way,
using accelerators. This way, in my opinion, is mistaken.
=== .
In the Ancient Egypt people believed in many gods with
human body and animal’s head. They thought they really
existed. For me these new discovered elementary artificial
particles are similar to Egyptian’s gods because we cannot
meet them into any atom, in any physical, chemical, biological
processes on our Earth.
In the Ancient Greek the people believed that sphinxes and
centaurs really exist. Maybe now some geneticists can create
a centaur, but it will be Devil’s work. I am sorry to tell that,
but it seems to me, physicists, creating such elementary
artificial particles look like those ‘some geneticists’.
( The mad CERN’s way.
http://www.spacekb.com/Uwe/Forum.asp...CERN-s-project )
=========== .
3.
Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, there was ‘ bin bang’.
And every particle appears with its own spin as derivative from
the Big Bang.
== .
I think the spin of quantum particle doesn’t come from
big bang, but it comes with ‘ virtual particle from Dirac’s sea’.
Why?
We have the real particle – electron. Nobody doubts
it is a real particle. But a strange thing happens when it
interacts with Vacuum. All its physical parameters become
infinite. Why? Is it possible? What is the reason?
#
The conditions of the ocean permitted to create different kinds
of fish. The terrestrial’s conditions permitted to create different
kinds of animals. And the ‘mixed’ conditions of water, earth
and air on Earth permitted to create, for example, birds, which
live and act in these three conditions.
And if we take Universe as a whole, it is Two- Measured:
close by Material ( Gravity) World exists Infinite Vacuum World.
The conditions in these two Worlds are different.
And when electron moves from Material (Gravity) World to the
Infinite Vacuum World its physical parameters changes.
" The law of conservation and transformation energy / mass"
is connected with electron’s transformation.
We know the electron is very important particle in our live.
It acts in Maxwell’s electrodynamics.
It acts in the atom.
But how electron acts in cell and in Outer space we don’t know.
We need time to understand this fact.
=== .
P.S.
Tell me what an electron is and I'll then tell you everything.
/ Somebody./
==== .
Another ‘ true’ Physical fables and fantasies:
The time that stretches and space that expands,
dark matter, dark energy, Higgs boson, quarks, gluons
and tachyons, axions and partons, qravitino ,
‘ method of renormalization ‘ . . etc.
========== .
P.S.
" One thing I have learned in a long life:
that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive
and childlike - and yet it is the most precious thing we have."
/ Einstein./
This quote is correct, because, at last, only Physics can
logically explain us the Ultimate Nature of Reality.
==========.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
Some ‘True’ Physical and Religious fables and fantasies
Religion tells us nothing but fables and fantasies!
That is the truth.
For example: God created woman from Adam’s rib,
using physical laws. So, what is Religion?
Religion is the poor man's philosophy.
Modern Physics tells us nothing but fables and fantasies!
That is the truth.
For example: One Galaxy can eat another Galaxy.
1
Cosmic cannibalising:
Images show one galaxy engulfing another
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...r-1780652.html
2
The Discovery of one Galaxy "Attacking" Another
http://www.astronomyexpert.co.uk/the...g-another.html
3
Milky Way Grew by Swallowing Other Galaxies
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi...#comment-block
4
Black hole destroying star epic
http://vodpod.com/watch/1719087-blac...ying-star-epic
. . .. etc
So, what is Physics?
Physics is the poor man's philosophy.
== .
What to do?
I think we must answer to the simple classic question:
what did come first the chicken or the egg ?
If somebody didn’t understand this question, I will ask it simpler:
What was before Vacuum or Gravity ?
Does Gravity exist in Vacuum or vice versa?
Why I ask these questions.
Because the Universe ( as a whole ) is Two- Measured,
there are two Worlds: Vacuum and Gravity.
=== .
Some more ‘ true’ Physical fables and fantasies.
=== .
1.
The Big Bang.
Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter
(all elementary particles and all quarks and their
girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks, all kinds of
waves: electromagnetic, gravitational, muons…
gluons field ….. etc.) – was assembled in a ‘single point ‘
=== .
I don’t agree with the ‘big bang’ theory because nobody
knows how the ‘ big bang’ can change into ‘single point ‘
if Hawking’s radiation from ‘ black hole’ doesn’t give it
to happen.
2.
Most of elementary particles were got in artificial way,
using accelerators. This way, in my opinion, is mistaken.
=== .
In the Ancient Egypt people believed in many gods with
human body and animal’s head. They thought they really
existed. For me these new discovered elementary artificial
particles are similar to Egyptian’s gods because we cannot
meet them into any atom, in any physical, chemical, biological
processes on our Earth.
In the Ancient Greek the people believed that sphinxes and
centaurs really exist. Maybe now some geneticists can create
a centaur, but it will be Devil’s work. I am sorry to tell that,
but it seems to me, physicists, creating such elementary
artificial particles look like those ‘some geneticists’.
( The mad CERN’s way.
http://www.spacekb.com/Uwe/Forum.asp...CERN-s-project )
=========== .
3.
Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, there was ‘ bin bang’.
And every particle appears with its own spin as derivative from
the Big Bang.
== .
I think the spin of quantum particle doesn’t come from
big bang, but it comes with ‘ virtual particle from Dirac’s sea’.
Why?
We have the real particle – electron. Nobody doubts
it is a real particle. But a strange thing happens when it
interacts with Vacuum. All its physical parameters become
infinite. Why? Is it possible? What is the reason?
#
The conditions of the ocean permitted to create different kinds
of fish. The terrestrial’s conditions permitted to create different
kinds of animals. And the ‘mixed’ conditions of water, earth
and air on Earth permitted to create, for example, birds, which
live and act in these three conditions.
And if we take Universe as a whole, it is Two- Measured:
close by Material ( Gravity) World exists Infinite Vacuum World.
The conditions in these two Worlds are different.
And when electron moves from Material (Gravity) World to the
Infinite Vacuum World its physical parameters changes.
" The law of conservation and transformation energy / mass"
is connected with electron’s transformation.
We know the electron is very important particle in our live.
It acts in Maxwell’s electrodynamics.
It acts in the atom.
But how electron acts in cell and in Outer space we don’t know.
We need time to understand this fact.
=== .
P.S.
Tell me what an electron is and I'll then tell you everything.
/ Somebody./
==== .
Another ‘ true’ Physical fables and fantasies:
The time that stretches and space that expands,
dark matter, dark energy, Higgs boson, quarks, gluons
and tachyons, axions and partons, qravitino ,
‘ method of renormalization ‘ . . etc.
========== .
P.S.
" One thing I have learned in a long life:
that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive
and childlike - and yet it is the most precious thing we have."
/ Einstein./
This quote is correct, because, at last, only Physics can
logically explain us the Ultimate Nature of Reality.
==========.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
Recommend this comment [ 0 ]
I think some Christians/Creationist are posting comments on this page acting like folks who trust science...There are a couple long & wacky comments!
Science=Good
Religion=Bad
ATHEISM=Loving the human experience.
Judaism/Christianity/Islam=Hating the human experience.
I am still shocked that the majority actually believes these Bronze Age Myths in the 21st Century like children do in Santa...It is like living in the "Twilight Zone"!
Science=Good
Religion=Bad
ATHEISM=Loving the human experience.
Judaism/Christianity/Islam=Hating the human experience.
I am still shocked that the majority actually believes these Bronze Age Myths in the 21st Century like children do in Santa...It is like living in the "Twilight Zone"!
Recommend this comment [ 1 ]
1) Comparisons between Christ and Santa reflect naivete about Christianity. It is as naive and inadequate as reductive materialism. Love is just a chemical in the brain, consciousness is just behavior devoid of any "subjective" dimension, morality is an insubstantial invention, a mere human preference with no objectively binding force--these are hopelessly inadequate accounts of humanity, blitzkrieged by an empirialist scientism that cannot build up what it destroys, that cannot speak outside of the third-person, that cannot answer any of the ultimate questions in life like meaning and morality. A more honest and successful account will account for the subjective and objective aspects of humanity.
2) Presumptions that Science is radically distinct from religion are naive about both science and religion. I've never met a scientist who failed to exercise faith in the method, function, and effectiveness of science. And likewise, many religious people are competent scientists precisely because their religious faith is indeed rationally and empirically informed.
3) There are few generalizations more sweepingly oversimplified and misinformed than the above "Atheism=loving the human experience" and "Judaism/Christianity/Islam=Hating the human experience." Read up on LaVeyan satanism and see just how religious your notion of "atheism" really is.
4) Is it a scientific claim to say that, "only Physics can logically explain us the Ultimate Nature of Reality?" No, the domain of all the sciences is defined by philosophy and or theology, not by the natural sciences themselves. And so, ultimate claims about a given science are not statements within that science. In other words, Israel Sadovnik, you are making a philosophical claim about how physics is the only logical explanatory field for reality. You defeat yourself.
5) It is a scary and hateful ad hominem to say, "Pastors should be teaching their flock how to commit suicide Jim Jones style." This does nothing productive to make your case for non-religion (or non-Christianity at least), but only makes you look like a bully and foster abuse and oppression.
6) The claim that "Intelligent design was invented, it didn't fly, and so it went away, at least I haven't heard of it since. what will they invent next?"--This is misinformed about the history of Intelligent Design. Though the name is young, the notion is much older than modern science. It is no more "invented" than the concept of "sufficient causality" is invented. It operates on the basic inference that any effect will have a sufficient cause behind it. And what looks like design, seems like design, is best explained as design, is defensibly interpreted as design, its probably design. And design most naturally implies a designer. Hence, design is a reality. I'm not here defending Intelligent Design, just indicating that this is nothing new, nor is it old news. And saying, "I haven't heard of it since" is more of a testimony of personal ignorance than of any grand-scale changes in the world of science. What you don't know says nothing about knowledge entire, but only about you.
2) Presumptions that Science is radically distinct from religion are naive about both science and religion. I've never met a scientist who failed to exercise faith in the method, function, and effectiveness of science. And likewise, many religious people are competent scientists precisely because their religious faith is indeed rationally and empirically informed.
3) There are few generalizations more sweepingly oversimplified and misinformed than the above "Atheism=loving the human experience" and "Judaism/Christianity/Islam=Hating the human experience." Read up on LaVeyan satanism and see just how religious your notion of "atheism" really is.
4) Is it a scientific claim to say that, "only Physics can logically explain us the Ultimate Nature of Reality?" No, the domain of all the sciences is defined by philosophy and or theology, not by the natural sciences themselves. And so, ultimate claims about a given science are not statements within that science. In other words, Israel Sadovnik, you are making a philosophical claim about how physics is the only logical explanatory field for reality. You defeat yourself.
5) It is a scary and hateful ad hominem to say, "Pastors should be teaching their flock how to commit suicide Jim Jones style." This does nothing productive to make your case for non-religion (or non-Christianity at least), but only makes you look like a bully and foster abuse and oppression.
6) The claim that "Intelligent design was invented, it didn't fly, and so it went away, at least I haven't heard of it since. what will they invent next?"--This is misinformed about the history of Intelligent Design. Though the name is young, the notion is much older than modern science. It is no more "invented" than the concept of "sufficient causality" is invented. It operates on the basic inference that any effect will have a sufficient cause behind it. And what looks like design, seems like design, is best explained as design, is defensibly interpreted as design, its probably design. And design most naturally implies a designer. Hence, design is a reality. I'm not here defending Intelligent Design, just indicating that this is nothing new, nor is it old news. And saying, "I haven't heard of it since" is more of a testimony of personal ignorance than of any grand-scale changes in the world of science. What you don't know says nothing about knowledge entire, but only about you.
Recommend this comment [ 0 ]
ATHEISM=Loving the human experience.
Judaism/Christianity/Islam=Hating the human experience.
I am still shocked that the majority actually believes these Bronze Age Myths in the 21st Century like children do in Santa...It is like living in the "Twilight Zone"!
What a huge unsubstantiated claim -- great bumper sticker, totally ineffectual discourse.
Explanation of a Bumper sticker: A ridiculously broad statement, often fallacious that invokes great fist pumping emotion from those who are part of the audience that would already agree with it. A bumper sticker also is meant to needle and evoke a sense of challenge to those of opposing viewpoint. The utility of a bumper sticker other than to cheer lead a particular point of view is basically nil. So where are we hmm. On the internet at a forum for civil discussion of an educational presentations on the great issues of mankind. Is this discussion board a place for rooting? Is it a place for provocative inflammatory statements directed at any who disagree with your particular point of view? Is this a football game? Um no.
You know, Just because we are free to Open our mouth does not always mean that we should. Abraham Lincoln has a famous quote that I believe is instructive here: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." I am not calling you fool I want to be clear on that point. I do think your comment is reflective of a glib, reactionary and most importantly, intellectually lazy point of view that is common in prosperous liberal democracies. It is the kind of point of view that could only come from a young privileged person in a free society where the last generation or two have had their freedom given to them at little or no personal cost. It is great that you did not grow up during a time of a great world war, or in a country with a draft and a poor or immature civil and judicial system. Like many still do now in the "21st century" the few billion or so you forgot about. It is great that your daily reality is so physically and legally safe that you feel totally free from consequence for publicly speaking about others spiritual beliefs in such an intentionally inflammatory and broadly disrespectful way.
What is sad to me is that, It is precisely your population, a population of young adults that grew up like yourself, in the warmth of a safe, free, and plentiful society, that have become so intellectually lazy and glib about such big and important questions. Despite your implied tone, there are not any simple or easy consensus answers here. That is why this topic area is labeled " The Great Issues." Not because its great like when paris hilton says something "hot" I hope you do get that now. Ask yourself Are you living up the promise of freedom that I can guarantee you if you are an American, that one of your great grandfathers fought for in WW II for. Or are you being shallow, lazy and glib about really serious questions that have people fighting wars over what will be the dominant answer in a given region, right now. Does that strike you as using your freedom well by choosing to be so lazy in your respect for others and so shallow in the level of thought your public comments reflect? I can tell you one thing if your physical safety or status as a citizen in good standing were at stake you would not be hurling such social thought grenades around so cavalierly. I am not asking you to become an expert, just merely shut up if you do not have something thoughtful and respectful to say. And use your freedom better some in your family died to insure you have it.
This is a forum for ALL people to come together and discuss their thoughts on the video... RESPECTFULLY. I am taking for granted that you are aware of how sweeping, arrogant and aggressive your statements were. But I dunno if you realize that in a forum for public discourse they nothing better than cheer leading that at its most harmful is a form of intellectual tyranny because it discourages open respectful discussion and debate.
Your comments, Even at their best, are noise, useful only in that it shows how the Group thinkers in the PC crowd are likely to spout off and even then it is so offensive it is still a conversation breaker. Who wants to talk to someone who so openly exudes the air of arrogant possession of all the answers on what for others are complex timeless and unresolved question. Not many people would; Is that really what you want to accomplish? If not then ask yourself were you being terrifically foolish thinking that your comment would not provoke some one? go ahead nod your head yes, you know your common sense is telling you too. Did you really want people to just gloss over the fact that you attacked the metaphysical point of view huge segment of the world population many of them highly educated and brilliant? Its ok take a moment and let that one sink in along with the implications.
In discussion threads of serious topics like this you, you need to offer more than parroting what you think would be a good "right on, you go girl" statement to what you perceive as the obvious popular "in" crowd that you want to pander to and obtain approval from. I think you might have thought it made you sound like a good sophisticated progressive. and it did show people where you are likely getting your marching orders from but thats not the same as coming off as thoughtful and respectful. And then your add of AJ say, "Science=Good and Religions=Bad" that was just unintentionally comical as you later went to reference bronze age thinking after giving us such a dazzling display of careful bronze age value equation I mean if that was not reading cave man thought then I dunno what is. I am sure you are a great guy and are much smarter than you come off in this post but please do think a bit more if you are going to comment or just stay quiet. I say this because even though its easy to type it, Discussion threads lose value if they are full of thoughtless noise and I am sorry but your special value equations qualifies as noise and not just noise but offensive noise to many.
Why man is here and what is the point of him being here are not simple questions with simple answers. Thus the category "The great Issues forum". That is why folks with bumper sticker answers are really just offensive noise. So for folks about to spout off really offensive bumper sticker platforms realize this is exactly how discussion forums become useless and degraded. I am not even necessarily religious, I just respect the subject and my fellow man's right to have a very different point of view.
Cheers and have a happy holiday season.
I hope to find your next pose much more thoughtful and not just another piece of gib noise that I have to take the time to partially read and skip over lest I get a head ache. And I think I have beat this horse to death. I am sorry about that folks Mindless and really vocal really set me off, especially when I am sure the person is better than that.
Judaism/Christianity/Islam=Hating the human experience.
I am still shocked that the majority actually believes these Bronze Age Myths in the 21st Century like children do in Santa...It is like living in the "Twilight Zone"!
What a huge unsubstantiated claim -- great bumper sticker, totally ineffectual discourse.
Explanation of a Bumper sticker: A ridiculously broad statement, often fallacious that invokes great fist pumping emotion from those who are part of the audience that would already agree with it. A bumper sticker also is meant to needle and evoke a sense of challenge to those of opposing viewpoint. The utility of a bumper sticker other than to cheer lead a particular point of view is basically nil. So where are we hmm. On the internet at a forum for civil discussion of an educational presentations on the great issues of mankind. Is this discussion board a place for rooting? Is it a place for provocative inflammatory statements directed at any who disagree with your particular point of view? Is this a football game? Um no.
You know, Just because we are free to Open our mouth does not always mean that we should. Abraham Lincoln has a famous quote that I believe is instructive here: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." I am not calling you fool I want to be clear on that point. I do think your comment is reflective of a glib, reactionary and most importantly, intellectually lazy point of view that is common in prosperous liberal democracies. It is the kind of point of view that could only come from a young privileged person in a free society where the last generation or two have had their freedom given to them at little or no personal cost. It is great that you did not grow up during a time of a great world war, or in a country with a draft and a poor or immature civil and judicial system. Like many still do now in the "21st century" the few billion or so you forgot about. It is great that your daily reality is so physically and legally safe that you feel totally free from consequence for publicly speaking about others spiritual beliefs in such an intentionally inflammatory and broadly disrespectful way.
What is sad to me is that, It is precisely your population, a population of young adults that grew up like yourself, in the warmth of a safe, free, and plentiful society, that have become so intellectually lazy and glib about such big and important questions. Despite your implied tone, there are not any simple or easy consensus answers here. That is why this topic area is labeled " The Great Issues." Not because its great like when paris hilton says something "hot" I hope you do get that now. Ask yourself Are you living up the promise of freedom that I can guarantee you if you are an American, that one of your great grandfathers fought for in WW II for. Or are you being shallow, lazy and glib about really serious questions that have people fighting wars over what will be the dominant answer in a given region, right now. Does that strike you as using your freedom well by choosing to be so lazy in your respect for others and so shallow in the level of thought your public comments reflect? I can tell you one thing if your physical safety or status as a citizen in good standing were at stake you would not be hurling such social thought grenades around so cavalierly. I am not asking you to become an expert, just merely shut up if you do not have something thoughtful and respectful to say. And use your freedom better some in your family died to insure you have it.
This is a forum for ALL people to come together and discuss their thoughts on the video... RESPECTFULLY. I am taking for granted that you are aware of how sweeping, arrogant and aggressive your statements were. But I dunno if you realize that in a forum for public discourse they nothing better than cheer leading that at its most harmful is a form of intellectual tyranny because it discourages open respectful discussion and debate.
Your comments, Even at their best, are noise, useful only in that it shows how the Group thinkers in the PC crowd are likely to spout off and even then it is so offensive it is still a conversation breaker. Who wants to talk to someone who so openly exudes the air of arrogant possession of all the answers on what for others are complex timeless and unresolved question. Not many people would; Is that really what you want to accomplish? If not then ask yourself were you being terrifically foolish thinking that your comment would not provoke some one? go ahead nod your head yes, you know your common sense is telling you too. Did you really want people to just gloss over the fact that you attacked the metaphysical point of view huge segment of the world population many of them highly educated and brilliant? Its ok take a moment and let that one sink in along with the implications.
In discussion threads of serious topics like this you, you need to offer more than parroting what you think would be a good "right on, you go girl" statement to what you perceive as the obvious popular "in" crowd that you want to pander to and obtain approval from. I think you might have thought it made you sound like a good sophisticated progressive. and it did show people where you are likely getting your marching orders from but thats not the same as coming off as thoughtful and respectful. And then your add of AJ say, "Science=Good and Religions=Bad" that was just unintentionally comical as you later went to reference bronze age thinking after giving us such a dazzling display of careful bronze age value equation I mean if that was not reading cave man thought then I dunno what is. I am sure you are a great guy and are much smarter than you come off in this post but please do think a bit more if you are going to comment or just stay quiet. I say this because even though its easy to type it, Discussion threads lose value if they are full of thoughtless noise and I am sorry but your special value equations qualifies as noise and not just noise but offensive noise to many.
Why man is here and what is the point of him being here are not simple questions with simple answers. Thus the category "The great Issues forum". That is why folks with bumper sticker answers are really just offensive noise. So for folks about to spout off really offensive bumper sticker platforms realize this is exactly how discussion forums become useless and degraded. I am not even necessarily religious, I just respect the subject and my fellow man's right to have a very different point of view.
Cheers and have a happy holiday season.
I hope to find your next pose much more thoughtful and not just another piece of gib noise that I have to take the time to partially read and skip over lest I get a head ache. And I think I have beat this horse to death. I am sorry about that folks Mindless and really vocal really set me off, especially when I am sure the person is better than that.
Recommend this comment [ 0 ]
Well John you beat me to it. though I responded to the silly comment as well. The other one I did not respond to. it is simply flagged as what it is, hate speech and should soon disappear. If not FORA will need to work on moderating its discussion groups more quickly and effectively. Anyway here is to you for also taking on absurdity where you see it.
Cheers and happy holidays my friend.
Cheers and happy holidays my friend.
Recommend this comment [ 0 ]
Advertisement
Related Programs
Browse Programs by Tag
Arts
Books
Climate Change
Conflict
Credit Crunch
Defense
Democratization
Economic Policy
Education
Election 2008
Emerging Markets
Energy
Entertainment
Entrepreneurship
Environment
Film
Food
Globalization
Health & Wellness
Healthcare
History
Internet
Investing
Journalism
Law
Medicine
Music
Muslim World
Natural Sciences
New Media
Personal Technology
Philanthropy
Religion
Social Issues
Social Sciences
Sustainability
Terrorism
The Bailout
U.S. Foreign Policy
White House 2009
Advertisement
Line 1
Line 2
Line 3
Line 2
Line 3
