Rus Bowden posted some comments (below) that I think are worth including in the post:
P.Z. Myers has been coming up too much in this thread, and I do not like to give him any more PR or press than he seeks for himself on this matter anyway, but a refutation of his thinking is in order here.
He stated, "Scientists, if you're not an atheist, you're not doing science right." (http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2012/11/27/why_strict_atheism_is_unscientific_106413.html)
If right off the bat you're not shaking your head asking, what the hell does science have to do with atheism or theism, then let me take this one step further with quotes from more reputable scientists, people who took care of their science business and did not concern themselves with being dogmatic evangelists for some ism.
From that same article, here's what Carl Sagan said, a scientist famous for being a scientist:
"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed".
From that same article here's what another reputable scientist said, Albert Einstein:
"The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly."
Nicely done article.
For extra credit, here's an article out this week that I found via Frank Wilson's blog: (http://booksinq.blogspot.com/2013/04/someone-tell-richard-dawkins.html). Here's the article: Richard Feynman on How Scientists Can Believe in God: http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/04/richard-feynman-how-scientists-can-believe-in-god.html
One of TED's guideposts to TEDx organizers could easily be that if P.Z. Myers sends you input on a TEDx talk, beware of pseudoscience posing as real science. Their guideposts do not put forth a consistent way of determining a good talk from an overly flawed one. It's just a bunch of, if you see this happening, go that way, and if you find that happening, go this way. For now, however, we can only surmise that, while the TED people have been trying to soar above some tricky terrain, they have flown right into the spider's web.
Post bumped.
Hi Frank,
ReplyDeleteThis relates to how the TED blog conversation has been going recently. I just posted the following in response, referring to the article about Feynman that you link to:
Open for discussion: Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake from TEDxWhitechapel:
~~
P.Z. Myers has been coming up too much in this thread, and I do not like to give him any more PR or press than he seeks for himself on this matter anyway, but a refutation of his thinking is in order here.
He stated, "Scientists, if you're not an atheist, you're not doing science right." (http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2012/11/27/why_strict_atheism_is_unscientific_106413.html)
If right off the bat you're not shaking your head asking, what the hell does science have to do with atheism or theism, then let me take this one step further with quotes from more reputable scientists, people who took care of their science business and did not concern themselves with being dogmatic evangelists for some ism.
From that same article, here's what Carl Sagan said, a scientist famous for being a scientist:
"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed".
From that same article here's what another reputable scientist said, Albert Einstein:
"The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly."
Nicely done article.
For extra credit, here's an article out this week that I found via Frank Wilson's blog: (http://booksinq.blogspot.com/2013/04/someone-tell-richard-dawkins.html). Here's the article: Richard Feynman on How Scientists Can Believe in God: http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/04/richard-feynman-how-scientists-can-believe-in-god.html
One of TED's guideposts to TEDx organizers could easily be that if P.Z. Myers sends you input on a TEDx talk, beware of pseudoscience posing as real science. Their guideposts do not put forth a consistent way of determining a good talk from an overly flawed one. It's just a bunch of, if you see this happening, go that way, and if you find that happening, go this way. For now, however, we can only surmise that, while the TED people have been trying to soar above some tricky terrain, they have flown right into the spider's web.