Comments on: The Triumph of Reason over Rhetoric at the PandaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Thumb

By: Ride a Century

Ride a Century — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 23:39:46 +0000

Ride a Century…

[...]A thorough test for oil leakages should be done along with checking the oil [...]…

By: Ride a Century

Ride a Century — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 23:28:22 +0000

Ride a Century…

[...]out for cuts and scrapes on the tire, replacing them sooner rather than[...]…

By: Training for Century

Training for Century — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 12:31:43 +0000

Training for Century…

[...]a tear in your tyre, as can often happen with a big puncture one [...]…

By: Training for a Century

Training for a Century — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 12:08:20 +0000

Training for a Century…

[...]ride. By doing this your experiences will[...]…

By: Training Century

Training Century — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 11:56:08 +0000

Training Century…

[...]encounter the unexpected on your rides. Always carry some[...]…

By: Century Rides

Century Rides — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 11:44:07 +0000

Century Rides…

[...]of spare inner tubes, tyre levers and either a small air[...]…

By: PaV

PaV — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 20:05:27 +0000

I remember being at a talk by Fr. Stanley Jaki at Cal-Tech in Pasadena. It was the year he won the Templeton Prize. He’s the author of “The Savior of Science.” One of the things that sticks out is that he said the beginning of modern science traces itself back to a commentary on Genesis made in the 12th Century. The commentator noted that since Genesis says that God created the sun, the moon, and the stars, that the motion of the moon and stars had to have been brought about by God as well, and that since it was God who had first ‘moved’ these objects, that these objects continued in motion by themselves (he used the term ‘inertia’ to describe this) and that it had to be an ordered type of motion. This led to a study of the stars/planets using as a ‘first principle’ the conviction that since God ‘orders’ all things, that the motion of the planets must be ‘ordered’ as well. It is not by coincidence, then, that modern science came about in the Christian west.

And, btw, the next time PZ Myers dresses up for graduation, he should consider that the cap and gown that he wears comes from the tradition of having a Graduation Mass at the end of the academic year. The cap and gown are left-overs from the “choir-robes” of the monks at these Masses. (Yes, PZ, “universities” developed from seminaries. That’s been true from the time of the Sorbonne to Harvard itself.)

By: PaV

PaV — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 19:20:43 +0000

When PZ Myers says that to believe that Jesus died to save mankind is not ‘rational’, he, more or less, means that the mind, working on what is visible, or discoverable, in the world, cannot DEDUCE this reality. It can’t reach this conclusion. That’s the atheist’s understanding of being ‘rational.’

Yet, we can use reason in an INDUCTIVE way, as well. The so-called ‘proofs’ of God’s existence are, indeed, ‘inductive’ arguments, starting with the world as we see it, and proceeding (logically) to the conclusion that God exists. Atheists reject this kind of argument. They have thus delimited what is clearly a part of our rational being. (Inductive arguments are standard fare in the sciences.) What is their justification for doing so? Is there some logical basis for it, or is it simply some passionate rejection of certain conclusions that create a psychological disturbance within their being? Thus, who is being ‘irrational’, and who not?

Further, if “survival of the fittest” is not just an intuition, but a demonstrably provable “fact”, then ‘deductively’ we should CONCLUDE that all the less ‘fit’ members of our species should be ‘eliminated’ so that humankind might improve. (Isn’t that what NS is supposed to do? Btw, many of those who secure abortions are already using this strategy.) If Myers is unwilling to support the ‘elimination’ of the ‘unfit,’ living members of our society, then isn’t he guilty of being ILLOGICAL??

As they say, people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Myers would be advised to examine just how, and in what ways, he is being ‘rational.’

By: tb

tb — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 10:12:24 +0000

It looks like that they have something against people with spiritual tendency, maybe they should start building death camps! MHHH does History repeats itself? And what moral values are promoted through Darwinism Humanism and Atheism again? Ohh you say there is none? Well that is strange! PT thanks for mutating into such a wonderful example, using random moderation and natural sincerity of what science should look like MUAHHAHAHA

By: Charlie

Charlie — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 06:26:40 +0000

PZ, setting minds at ease and solving problems:

Your conclusion doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t address the problem. If fear of what they (the religious) donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know is the problem we have to confront, and they are afraid their kids will become atheists, then we should let them get to know atheists

Toward that end

Science and religion are not compatible.

They still have to believe wacky things. Christians, for instance, will believe that Jesus was the son of God whose death saved the world. No problem, go ahead and believe that silly stuff, but itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not rational.

I say religion has no power at all, that in its benign forms it is a harmless superstition.

Science eroding religion is an empirical observation. …
I wish people wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t project their strange ideas of what atheism means on me. Nowhere did I say that atheism is a necessary consequence of science education. I explicitly denied it. …
Science eroding religion is an empirical observation.

Excellent introduction, glad to have gotten to know you.