Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The New Atheists Are Still Gulping

Expand Messages
  • Nils K.
    Dear Don, dear All! Don: It seems to me that the most eminent scientists such as Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and many others, have been without
    Message 1 of 17 , Feb 22, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Don, dear All!

      Don:
      It seems to me that the most eminent scientists such as
      Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and many others, have been without religious belief.

      NKO:
      You are totally wrong, Don, because
      Schroedinger was extremely religious.
      Heisenberg was very far from being an "atheist". There are several
      woderfully expressed quotes by him, quotes that even a Pope cannot
      compete with. The Heisenberg quote that you ridiculed, Don, is
      one of the most beautiful and deepest. It absolutely rejects that
      science results are supporting true atheism.
      Einstein was very angry each time he was misused by atheists.
      Don, you are not informed about this very subject. You are still
      intelectually dishonest.

      Dirac was claimed, by atheists, to be an atheist. But his wife did
      inform the journalists (after his death) that he was not an atheist,
      he was even a churchgoer. But in a great meeting among almost all top
      physicists of the world, Dirac repetedly during the meeting expressed
      atheist thoughts. No one of the other great minds did like his
      statements. He was a bore. One of the great names then suddenly said
      in clear and strong voice: "Yes, there is no God, and Dirac is His
      prophet." Laughter followed, and Dirac never repeated his ideas. He
      started thinking. This event reminds me about the famous Dawkins
      scandal when Dawkins debated (TV) with a philosophically trained high
      ranking religious mind, and became logically trapped to the degree
      that he had to admit that he was NOT an atheist. That this scandal
      was at all possible stems from Dawkins and Co's bad philosophy, a
      fact that I've explained many times on this group in earlier messages.
      Dawkins' equation: Evolution exists equals God does not exist, is
      logically wrong. That this biologist not even does understand that
      humans do have a religion instinct is horrific. That he ends his book'
      The Selfish Gene by concluding that our brain is a blank slate brain
      is tragic. That he is confusing Catholicism and religion in general
      is thoughtless. Wasting his life fighting worldwide cultures that are
      thousands of years old is pointing to mental illness --
      Aspergers, ADHD, whatever. Reasonable people do not fight windmills
      and the ten moral rules of Christendom.

      Best,
      NKO
    • Steve Corsini
      Define what YOU mean by God? SJC From: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jacob mack Sent:
      Message 2 of 17 , Feb 23, 2013
      • 0 Attachment

        Define what YOU mean by God?

         

        SJC

         

        From: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jacob mack
        Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013 8:21 AM
        To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [evol-psych] The New Atheists Are Still Gulping

         

         

        Sooo true!!!!!

         


        From: Nils K. <n-oeij@...>
        To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 5:18 PM
        Subject: [evol-psych] The New Atheists Are Still Gulping

         

         

        Hi All!

        "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn
        you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is
        waiting for you."
        ¯ Werner Heisenberg

        NKO

         

      • Steve Corsini
        Nils 1) The Heisenberg to which John referred was not the philosopher, but a character in a television series - Breaking Bad - The lead character in
        Message 3 of 17 , Feb 23, 2013
        • 0 Attachment

          Nils

          1)      The Heisenberg to which  John referred was not the philosopher, but a character in a television series – “Breaking Bad” – The lead character in this fictional tale is a high school chemistry teacher, diagnosed with a brain tumour, who finances his medical expenses by manufacturing methamphetamines, which involves him in a downward spiral.

          Hence the subsequent comment about

          evolutionary psychology having an explanation for how morally-oriented human beings can become so engrossed in following the path of an initially moral man who becomes, in stages, morally ambiguous then amoral and then a pathological monster. 

           

          To which I answer, At one level it’s an indictment against the US medical system. It’s also a warning to not make and sell drugs.

          The hypothetical situation makes you question his actions and tests your own sense of morality. How would you act in THESE situations.

          partly it’s a morality tale a warning of what happens when you make poor choices.

          It’s also a well written and well-made piece of drama.

           

           

          2)      Please define God

           

          sjc

           

          From: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nils K.
          Sent: Saturday, 23 February 2013 8:53 AM
          To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [evol-psych] Re: The New Atheists Are Still Gulping

           

           



          Dear Don, dear All!

          Don:
          It seems to me that the most eminent scientists such as
          Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and many others, have been without religious belief.

          NKO:
          You are totally wrong, Don, because
          Schroedinger was extremely religious.
          Heisenberg was very far from being an "atheist". There are several
          woderfully expressed quotes by him, quotes that even a Pope cannot
          compete with. The Heisenberg quote that you ridiculed, Don, is
          one of the most beautiful and deepest. It absolutely rejects that
          science results are supporting true atheism.
          Einstein was very angry each time he was misused by atheists.
          Don, you are not informed about this very subject. You are still
          intelectually dishonest.

          Dirac was claimed, by atheists, to be an atheist. But his wife did
          inform the journalists (after his death) that he was not an atheist,
          he was even a churchgoer. But in a great meeting among almost all top
          physicists of the world, Dirac repetedly during the meeting expressed
          atheist thoughts. No one of the other great minds did like his
          statements. He was a bore. One of the great names then suddenly said
          in clear and strong voice: "Yes, there is no God, and Dirac is His
          prophet." Laughter followed, and Dirac never repeated his ideas. He
          started thinking. This event reminds me about the famous Dawkins
          scandal when Dawkins debated (TV) with a philosophically trained high
          ranking religious mind, and became logically trapped to the degree
          that he had to admit that he was NOT an atheist. That this scandal
          was at all possible stems from Dawkins and Co's bad philosophy, a
          fact that I've explained many times on this group in earlier messages.
          Dawkins' equation: Evolution exists equals God does not exist, is
          logically wrong. That this biologist not even does understand that
          humans do have a religion instinct is horrific. That he ends his book'
          The Selfish Gene by concluding that our brain is a blank slate brain
          is tragic. That he is confusing Catholicism and religion in general
          is thoughtless. Wasting his life fighting worldwide cultures that are
          thousands of years old is pointing to mental illness --
          Aspergers, ADHD, whatever. Reasonable people do not fight windmills
          and the ten moral rules of Christendom.

          Best,
          NKO

        • Don Zimmerman
          ... DWZ: Immanuel Kant observed that two things fill the mind with wonder: The starry heavens above and the moral law within. If that sentiment is taken to be
          Message 4 of 17 , Feb 23, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Nils K." <n-oeij@...> wrote:

            > You are totally wrong, Don, because
            > Schroedinger was extremely religious.
            > Heisenberg was very far from being an "atheist". There are several
            > woderfully expressed quotes by him, quotes that even a Pope cannot
            > compete with. The Heisenberg quote that you ridiculed, Don, is
            > one of the most beautiful and deepest. It absolutely rejects that
            > science results are supporting true atheism.
            > Einstein was very angry each time he was misused by atheists.
            > Don, you are not informed about this very subject. You are still
            > intelectually dishonest.


            DWZ:
            Immanuel Kant observed that two things fill the mind with wonder: The starry heavens above and the moral law within. If that sentiment is taken to be the gist of religion, then many scientists today would probably consider themselves religious. A lot of them might have some doubts about the "within" part and look to society "without" for the origin of the moral law.

            Religious sentiment itself evolves, and today it may be more appropriate to say, "Two things fill the mind with wonder: The multiverse and the ability of the human species to construct a society based on moral law and promotion of the good and well-being of everyone."

            Somehow I suspect that many religious people would not believe that is enough. They want organization, churches, hierarchies of the faithful, and involvement with politics. For example, the Religious Right of modern times might think the second part smacks too much of big government and not enough big church.

            Best regards,

            Donald W. Zimmerman
            Vancouver, BC, Canada
            dwzimm@...
            http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
          • Nils K.
            Dear Steve, dear All! ... Define what YOU mean by God? NKO: The basic concepts of mathematics and theoretical physics are NOT defined. They are in principle
            Message 5 of 17 , Feb 24, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Steve, dear All!

              --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Corsini" <sjcarc@...> wrote:
              Define what YOU mean by God?

              NKO:
              The basic concepts of mathematics and theoretical physics are
              NOT defined. They are in principle not possible to define.
              Additionally definitions here would be unscientific since it would
              mean infinite regress. It would equal the death of science. (See
              Dawkins' scandal in this respect.)

              Browse GRT and QT and learn that the basic elements: time, space,
              mass, energy, etc are all UNDEFINED. They are ONLY specific letters
              in the differential equations: t = time, m = mass, etc.

              God (if there is a creator at all, we can never ever know) is
              similar to Das Ding An Sich (See: Kant) or similar to Mathematics
              which is non-physical (a kind of spiritual object) having no time,
              space, matter, energy, etc). Mathematics is independent of our
              Universe.

              It's laughable and thoughtless, Steve, to ask for a definition of
              God in this World where we not even know what time and space is.
              A World where the great minds of physics and cosmology state that
              we do not understand anything (in the deepest sense). We only have
              rhetoric and have discovered math relations between events. We do
              not UNDERSTAND why the realations are the way they are, etc.
              We do not understand why there are waves and particles.
              Etc. Etc.

              Moreover, Steve, definitions are not enough. Having produced a
              definition we must show that the defined object does exist.
              That's the most difficult part of the project.

              The philosophy of religion and the philosophy of QM and cosmology
              are filling many volumes. I'm an amateur here. This is hobby for me.

              My own speculations on these subjects are orbiting around logic and
              theoretical physics (including chemistry) in addition to
              biology/genetics/evolution.

              My speculation about "creator candidates" (or "God candidates")
              is probably not totally new and totally original in the world of
              philosophy. My best "creator candidate" is the Singularity of the
              BB because the BB is a perfect CREATION. It is not possible to
              imagine a more perfect CREATION. Note that CREATION is possible to
              observe. And note that we see that the Singularity is the most
              complex "thing" we can imagine. (Complexity measured as order.)

              Steve, science is extremely limited compared to the mysteries of the
              Universe, and the mystery of Existence. The more we observe ("know")
              the more mysteries we meet. We are trapped. Our definitions are not
              of much help for us. But undefined objects have been successful in
              the hard sciences. Religious books are using symbolic rhetoric, but
              atheists childishly believes they are talking about the real thing.
              Don't try to develop definitions when you not first do have the real
              thing. Historically a successful definition comes AFTER the real thing
              Avoid rhetoric.

              Best,
              NKO
            • Nils K.
              Dear DWZ, dear All! DWZ: Immanuel Kant observed that two things fill the mind with wonder: The starry heavens above and the moral law within. If that sentiment
              Message 6 of 17 , Feb 25, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear DWZ, dear All!

                DWZ:
                Immanuel Kant observed that two things fill the mind with wonder: The starry heavens above and the moral law within. If that sentiment is taken to be the gist of religion, then many scientists today would probably consider themselves religious. A lot of them might have some doubts about the "within" part and look to society "without" for the origin of the moral law.

                Religious sentiment itself evolves, and today it may be more appropriate to say, "Two things fill the mind with wonder: The multiverse and the ability of the human species to construct a society based on moral law and promotion of the good and well-being of everyone."

                Somehow I suspect that many religious people would not believe that is enough. They want organization, churches, hierarchies of the faithful, and involvement with politics. For example, the Religious Right of modern times might think the second part smacks too much of big government and not enough big church.
                ¨
                NKO:
                You are hiding things, DWZ.
                You are hiding that Kant was a non-atheist.
                You are boycotting/avoiding the religion instinct.
                You are boycotting/avoiding "little church" only mentioning "big
                church". Religious activites are 99.99 percent taking place in
                small local communities, local church buildings.
                You are boycotting/avoiding the Religious Left which is just as large
                as the Religious Right. ) Exampel: The cancer stricken leftist leader
                returning home from Cuba these days is a 100 percent religious guy.
                You are boycotting how diverse the world is when it comes to
                religious activities. You are painting with only black and white
                paint. You remind me of the black and white painter and atheist
                prophet in the UK, namely mr. Dawkins.
                Religious people love small church, not big church, you boycotted
                that fact too, DWZ.
                In Norway, as well as in the US, say, religious people do help people
                who need help. They want the government to do more for these unlucky
                ones. Every week, in Norway, leaders of religious help-organizations
                are reporting on increasing poverty, and increasing need for help,
                and are trying to motivate the government to be "bigger" in this
                part of political work. They want bigger "big governent" not smaller
                government, in this respect.

                Best,
                NKO
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.