Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
Selena Gomez is doing a much better job with her transition into adulthood.
Good for Miley!
Albert Einstein on Religion and Science
Yeah! We all know about Christianity's hate for theoretical physics. Next strawman,please.
It's possible to love both, of course.
That's an awesome quote by Lawrence Kraus. Science is beautiful.The Romantic poets knew this too.William Blake didn't. I'll give you that.* * *For anyone that doesn't click through and scroll down, the quote is:Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements– the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution and for life– weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way for them to get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today.– Lawrence Krauss
Dichotomies are most mischevious when they arbitrarily separate parts of a highly interrelated and complex system.”― David W. Ehrenfeld
This has more to do with stupid people not reading and taking things out of context.The partial quote is, "At the beginning of time, they (the elements that make up life) were created in stars. So forget Jesus. Stars died so you could live."It's obvious in context that Krauss is comparing the "sacrifice" of stars to Jesus's sacrifice, and finding beauty in the former. He's not calling for people to "forget Jesus" and become atheists.All the idiot fundamentalists taking issue with the quote are hurting their own cause.
How can people...bring hate into religion so easily?Ah, but love and hate are intertwined! The opposite of love is not hate, its indifference. When you love somebody, its natural to respond with anger and hatred when they are attacked.Attack a mom's kids and see how quickly maternal feelings can become hateful. Christianiy teaches us to love our enemies, including the people who hate on Christ. But it's an unnatural and very difficult lesson, and one all Christians struggle to master.
John Lennon said something similar.The question of who is/was smarter is one for the ages.rcommal said...It's possible to love both, of course.Many do. I think the ones who say they love only science seem incapable of grasping that.PS The "Brights", for all their smugness, are very insecure.
So, just so we are straight here -- the idea that we are supposed to snark at as completely laughable and scientifically absurd is the idea that dust (from millions and billions of miles away) came here and magically self-animated, complete with the capacity for thought and autonomous action? That a bunch of dirt just decided one day to get up and walk around?That is what we are snorting about here, right?
I can see Rush Limbaugh asking a similar question. "How can people take the love out of sex and bring hate into liberalism so easily?"Maybe we should boycott her for her bad words. Definitely she should be forced to apologize.And of course her hateful words will make Obama think of his religion. And so he'll call the Pope to see if he's doing okay.And then at his next press conference, we can ask Obama if he feels like Miley has apologized sufficiently. I think we should all discuss this for at least a week. Maybe two or three. And it definitely should be an issue in November.
bender the problem with science it can tell us from the instant of creation to the present what forces and principles lead to our creation but it can't tell us what came before to set the chain of events in motion. until then God is just as good as an explanation than anything science can currently offer.
Is there anyway we can get scientists to stop talking about religion? They don't to know much about it, and a BS doesn't make you an expert in Philosophy or Religion.Same with entertainers. Just sing and dance. Otherwise, shut up.
"Take the love out of science?"What the hell does THAT mean?
And God couldn't have had anything to do with making those stars in the first place, right?
"So forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today."This quote is a lot like the Darwin Fish: Superficially scientific and yet totally ignorant of religion.The heavy elements needed for life formed from supernovas, sure. But the stars didn't die so we could be here, they just obeyed the laws of physics. And Jesus willingly died so that we could live forever.
Well, that's a couple of minutes this conglomerant of stardust can never get back. Nothingburgers for everyone!Incidentally, I think hate is getting a bad rap. I pity those who can't hate, just as I pity those that can't love. Have some passions, and make some judgements - it's a human thing to do.
"We are stardust. We are golden. We are billion year old carbon, and we've got to find our way back to the garden"And Miley, it's possible to love both. You just happened to step out when there's a war against people of a certain faith, and your high visibility, coupled with your recent photos licking a cake shaped like a penis and balls, in contrast with your wholesome image lead people to assume certain things. You made the bed, babe, sadly, after all your promises not to head down the Lindsey Lohan path. My kids used to like you - they're now pretty disgusted - but your words still have power, Use them wisely. And they CAN be misinterpreted against the broader backdrop.
There's an equation that explains it all. All you have to do is accept the existence of 17, 28, or 34 dimensions, most of which can't be conceived by the human mind--much less explained.That's right. We're the silly lot.
And Krauss is only partly correct - those hydrogen atoms in your body most likely came from the Big Bang, not from some grubby, tiny star.
Miley is seeking answers. That is a good thing.But atoms/dust are not the basics. The neutrons, protons and electrons are there first. And then there are the muons and many other collider exposed "particles." But those seem to be encoded forces rather than actual materials.In the end the Word creation spoken by a code giver Logos that says He "holds all things together in Him" seems to be where the final answer resides.
Stars died?I thought they had to live before they died. Is Kraus channeling Aristotle, for whom the stars are indeed animate?If one wants to get all gooey about matter in motion, well, that's your business. Just remember 2 things:1) Your gooeyness is itself not science, and can never be.2) While you may care about the universe, the universe takes no care for you or for anything or anyone else.
He's not calling for people to "forget Jesus"when he says "forget Jesus". He wrote a book that featured an afterword by Richard Dawkins and was to have a foreword by Christopher Hitchens, arguably the two most prominent atheists of the 21st century, and he was a speaker at a conference entitled "Beyond Belief", which according to another (agnostic) participant devolved into an examination of the question, "Should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?", and he has been quoted as saying "forget Jesus", but that doesn't have anything to do with an advocacy of atheism, you stupid fundamentalists.
"The stars died so that you could be here today."The loggical error occurs in his use of the word "so", which directly implies intent.The correct word is "and".Correlation is not causation, and Post hoc is not propter hoc.
But "The stars died and partly as a result you are here today." isn't very sexy.He's selling a different religion of course.
"He wrote a book that featured an afterword by Richard Dawkins and was to have a foreword by Christopher Hitchens"Ha. Hitchens and Dawkins. Two of the smartest people, ever. Ever.Just ask Rebecca Watson.
These tweets illustrate an important moral lesson. If you are a celebrity, don't hire a physics major to handle your tweets. You'd think that such nerdy and needy people would never say anything controversial, but their rumpled appearance can fool you. They've got tons of toxic opinions. Stick with laid-off SNL writers for your witty observations. In any event, our bodies are just a passing imaage of eternity.
If you're going to be an obnoxious atheist, it seems like you could tweet "suck it, Muhammad" once in a while.
If you're going to be an obnoxious atheist, it seems like you could tweet "suck it, Muhammad" once in a while.Only if stupid and obnoxious.
Jesus died so scientific minds could conclude he was a Jewish apocalypticist.
Don't argue with Dave van Ronk. Don't argue with teenage girls. Don't argue with the mentally ill. Don't argue with anyone who has to take it personally.
Only if stupid and obnoxious.But how is it smart to attack Christianity? "Let's attack the tolerant religion"? Explain that to me.
"Let's attack the tolerant religion"? Explain that to me.Asked and answered! They're tolerant, so they're safe to attack. It has frequently been fashionable among the "smart set" to attack religion. I believe C. S. Lewis was writing about that decades ago, and I'm sure one can find other examples dating back as far as we have substantial written records. I'm willing to bet that throughout the history of Islam there have been few in Islamic countries that have taken to attacking their religion and prophet, although there have been some.
He's not calling for people to "forget Jesus" and become atheists.Actually, yes he is. Regularly."Take the love out of science?"What the hell does THAT mean?Ha ha. I thought exactly the same thing.
Miller Williams already wrote an actual poem about this called Six Lines Probably in F-Minor.
This is something like that standing between two mirrors effect again.Krauss is philosophically shallow. (Not based on this quote or his being an atheist. A whole other matter, but I'll not digress.)Cyrus makes a shallow tweet.Everyone freaks out, shallow.People are following Mylie Cyrus on Twitter and care deeply about what she tweets. Shallow.These days you can wade all around culture without so much as rolling up the cuffs of your pants.
That is a very astute question she asked. My favorite part is where she whips off the wig and it's like OMG! you're not a blond!
And my other favorite part is where her dad comes in and it's like OMG! you're a famous country singer.
"Take the love out of science?"What the hell does THAT mean?Lawrence Kraus was being provocative and evocative. He wanted to evoke a sense of awe and wonder and provoke Christians. Miley transformed the awe she felt from the quote to "love" to contrast with the "hate" she was getting from the provoked Christians. When you mix emotions and religion into science, you get quotes like that. Also environmentalism.
"Let's attack the tolerant religion"? Explain that to me.Krauss is attacking the Unitarians now? He's gone too far!I kid, sort of. Honestly, though, it gets a little tiresome to see Christians pat themselves on the back for not being as intolerant as Muslims.The whole thing reminds me of Chris Rock's routine about people expecting credit for doing stuff decent people just do normally. "I don't cut off people's heads" -- and you expect brownie points for this WHY?
Maybe Miley is outsmartig us all. Is this a very clever way of restating the theory of Intelligent Design?
It is difficult to cleverly restate a "theory" that is all of three words long to begin with. :)
VIs this a very clever way of restating the theory of Intelligent Design?ID is what you get when you start with religion and try to mix in some science. We'd be so much better off if scientists stuck to explaining the physical world and religion stuck to guiding us in the moral and spiritual one. Does it really take a rocket theologian to figure that out?
it gets a little tiresome to see Christians pat themselves on the back for not being as intolerant as Muslims.Not half as tiresome as atheists attacking Christians because Muslims make them wet their pants.
Intelligent Design a religious theory? I don't think so. It doesn't posit a divine being as the cause of the design it claims can be demonstrated by probability theory. The question of cause is left open.To be sure, religious people may jump to the conclusion that the cause must be divine in nature. But that's not part of ID theory It's a philosophical theory, no more and no less.
The "stardust" thing really is beautiful.But the quote itself is hardly the only time an atheist scientist has specifically and deliberately tried to make the argument that science can give you all the spirituality and love that religion can give, that you don't *have* to give anything up by giving up religion.Carl Sagan was big on that, too.I haven't a problem with the wonder and beauty in science, but I think that exchanging one faith for another is sort of... well, why? Why not just keep the one, if that's what you're wanting? The point of spiritual evangelicalism focused on science, is to draw people away from their faith. But if there is something wrong with their faith, isn't there something also wrong with spiritual evangelicalism built around science.I doubt poor Miley even noticed that last line. She was probably all impressed by the stardust and had no idea what hit her.Because stardust *is* beautiful.
"It's obvious in context that Krauss is comparing the "sacrifice" of stars to Jesus's sacrifice, and finding beauty in the former. He's not calling for people to "forget Jesus" and become atheists.All the idiot fundamentalists taking issue with the quote are hurting their own cause."Obvious?Maybe I'd think so if I didn't read Carl Sagan for several pages going on explicitly about how the wonder and spirituality of science is such that a person *can* abandon religion without having to give up the spiritual fulfillment.To say it's *obvious* that this fellow wasn't talking about that, is suggesting that he doesn't know about Sagan and isn't familiar with the argument, and that's absurd.In fact, minimal google, and it looks like he writes frequently against religion. It is irrational to think that he was not calling on people to abandon Jesus when he said "forget Jesus."
Freeman,Forget rolling up your pant legs.You need hip waders.
Not half as tiresome as atheists attacking Christians because Muslims make them wet their pants.Which would worry you more:1. Learning that your next-door neighbor was a convicted burglar.2. Learning that there was a mass murderer living six thousand miles from you.The answer, for most people, is 1, even though murder is a far worse crime than burglary. People worry about things that are likely to affect them and ignore things that aren't.American atheists complain about Christian bullshit more than Muslim bullshit because the Christian bullshit happens in the cities we live in, and the Muslim bullshit mostly happens somewhere 3 continents away in Lower Goatfuckistan.It certainly isn't because we're "afraid" of Muslims. Anyone living in America who fears Muslim reprisal for his speech needs to see the head doctor -- it isn't a significant problem.
I haven't a problem with the wonder and beauty in science, but I think that exchanging one faith for another is sort of... well, why?I don't think Sagan saw it as exchanging one faith for another. He saw it as exchanging a faith-based sense of wonder for a fact-based sense of wonder.Most scientists are driven by curiosity and a desire to see how things work. Most non-scientists aren't, and don't see a reason for preferring fact to faith if they both yield the same result. De gustibus non est disputandum.
Most non-scientists aren't, and don't see a reason for preferring fact to faith if they both yield the same result. If by “non-scientist” you mean those people who eschew reason, then your statement is trivially true. If by “non-scientist” you mean those not employed in a field of scientific inquiry, then it is oversimplistic and almost certainly false. Reason and faith are not mutually exclusive in “most” people.
Intelligent Design a religious theory? I don't think so. It doesn't posit a divine being as the cause of the design it claims can be demonstrated by probability theory. The question of cause is left open.You are right about this, of course. However, as ID is non-falsifiable, it is not normally considered a valid scientific theory. I don't think it has a serious following outside of the religious.
Reason and faith are not mutually exclusive in “most” people.I didn't say they were.I explained why a fact-based sense of transcendent wonder wasn't seen as preferable to a faith-based sense of transcendent wonder by most of the population, that's all.
It doesn't posit a divine being as the cause of the design it claims can be demonstrated by probability theoryAlso known as the argument from personal incredulity, or more famously as the argument from ignorance fallacy. :)
Post a Comment