In Reply to: Re: Emotional investment posted by Thinker on April 25, 2008 at 07:58:59:
Sorry, wasn't in a hurry to reply...am more outdoors than indoors, as the weather becomes more suitable...winter is almost like a "posting-season" to me ; )
Anyway...the whole arrogance line is not directed against anyone here on the boards, but rather directed against the spirit permeating the various boards I've already been on
& judging by the books and magazines I came across since leaving TF.The most obnoxious, loud and arrogant atheist to my knwoledge, is at the moment at least ,
Dawkins...there is an author who has apparently similar sentiments than me: Alister McGrath in: The Dawkins Delusion , which I bought a little while ago in a bookshop,
McGrath is a Professor for historical Theology at Oxford University, but was before working on his PHD in molecular Biophysics...& changed then to studying theology.
You think I am a bit too much in awe about people with a lot brains & research papers & pubs proving it?I don't know...I just have a whole lot of respect.The wheel which got invented scores of generations ago, doesn't have to be invented again.If people would just listen a bit more to the many wise-cracks, they wouldn't voice so much rubbish
as e.g. also Dawkins does...I deliberately downplay his little biology degrees, because biology is the easiest of all the nature-faculties, unless you zero in on math/stats in biology, biophysics etc. which I think Dawkins didn't do...he is more of a science philosopher than anything else I think.
I am not sure, whether in the thread you mentioned, the incompleteness theorem of Gödel was opened in the best way "the stage"...that theorem is very important but to be viewed apart from the "proof" of the possible existence of God...I gave for both enough links & won't repeat it here...only I want to show again my surprise, how many scientists seem to disregard Gödel's findings.In a set/system of comparable strength & size as the natural integer numbers, ("infinite", by the way) it is possible to formulate,
produce, set up rules/laws, by the which you can make statements which can neither be proven nor be disproved within that system....that is quite a finding of Gödel, which shoots a hole IMO in the endeavours of many people to explain about everything on earth & beyond, just with many nice formulas...on top of that you have quantum physics doing the rest...all to say, man is not that omniscient as he sometimes imagines or wishes to be.But that hasn't sunk in with many of those rather proud and arrogant fellow citizens....really that should make us humble...by seeing the limits of science...by the way, they are still not decided, whether the universe is an open or closed system...
See, the believer has no problem there...he "knows" it 's got to be a closed one...simple
By the way, I don't think I am on the way to man worship, just because I give credit, where credit is due...my faith also tells me, that people wouldn't be that smart & gifted, if it wasn't given to them, why should I "invent a wheel", which is around already for thousands of years, likewise I don't have to study quantum physics to boost my faith.But I listen to those who did & all that surprises them...
Yes, I am fond of quoting mostly that, which is kind of my own opinion just in the words of more eloquent, known and learned people.It helps me to know, that others have similar thoughts.Why should I quote people, who have very different opinions than me....the internet is full of weird stuff...wouldn't be nice to spread it here...sometimes I make a point, by quoting the weirdness, just to show, where things are going to.But usually I make efforts to show, where I am personally at, ...that is my attitude...I like openess & clarity as much is due & possible
In the past I did have some problems with Perry's posts, for I had had rather his comments, what he thought of an article, cause articles I find & read in the internet by the thousands, but I like to hear what others think of it...I guess I got used to it...