Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is PZ Myers the Future of Secular Humanism?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

UD moderator Clive Hayden referred UD readers to an article at SuperScholar.org titled “The Future of Secular Humanism.” The article itself focused on a rift between the secular humanism old guard, represented by Paul Kurtz, and the new guard, represented by Ron Lindsay, who apparently ousted Kurtz from the various humanist organizations he had founded. The rift was over the place of religion in society and whether secular humanism should take a harsh line against it.

Hayden sees this rift as representing a deep-seated internecine conflict, with the implication that such conflict will undercut the effectiveness of secular humanism as a cultural force (though he doesn’t draw that implication explicitly). My own view is that secular humanism is being co-opted by the new atheism and that Kurtz’s humanist vision is on the way out.

Paul KurtzI’ve been party to at least two debates that Kurtz organized and have met him personally. He’s a gentleman and sees civility as a prerequisite to free and open discussion. As a humanist, he values humanity.  The problem is that he views religion as irrational and counterproductive to society, so it’s hard to justify civility vis-a-vis religion (is it possible to have a civil discussion with a holocaust denier?). And without religion, it’s hard to justify a high view of humanity — humans, in that case, become merely evolved animals.

PZ MyersAnd so, Kurtz, who’s in his 80s, passes the baton to his spiritual son … PZ Myers, who’s a generation younger and in a better position to follow out the logic of Kurtz’s vision. Actually, I could have chosen any number of younger humanists/atheists, but Myers is emblematic of what we are seeing and can expect to see. Instead of Kurtz, who established Prometheus Press to get a fully articulated secular humanist vision before the public, Myers has the blog Pharyngula, in which he trades in sound-bites and insults.

In a Facebook/Twitter culture where people’s attention span is down to zero, Myers’ blog represents the new face of secular humanism, or perhaps I should say the new atheism. Indeed, I have to wonder how long the phrase “secular humanism” will be around. If it stays, it will be through inertia, because the new generation of humanists/atheists divides humanity into us and them — the enlightened vs. the idiots — and despises the outsiders. They take pleasure in hatred. Paul Kurtz didn’t.

By the way, here are the YouTube videos referred to on the SuperScholar.org site in which Kurtz is lectured on why he was shown the door. It’s not often that we see the other side’s dirty laundary (or our own side’s, for that matter). It’s 20 minutes and some of it requires wading through, but it has some high points and is quite instructive:

Comments
further note: Study suggests precognition may be possible - November 2010 Excerpt: A Cornell University scientist has demonstrated that psi anomalies, more commonly known as precognition, premonitions or extra-sensory perception (ESP), really do exist at a statistically significant level. Psi anomalies are defined as "anomalous processes of information or energy transfer that are currently unexplained in terms of known physical or biological mechanisms." http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-precognition.html In The Wonder Of Being Human: Our Brain and Our Mind, Eccles and Robinson discussed the research of three groups of scientists (Robert Porter and Cobie Brinkman, Nils Lassen and Per Roland, and Hans Kornhuber and Luder Deeke), all of whom produced startling and undeniable evidence that a "mental intention" preceded an actual neuronal firing - thereby establishing that the mind is not the same thing as the brain, but is a separate entity altogether. http://books.google.com/books?id=J9pON9yB8HkC&pg=PT28&lpg=PT28 “As I remarked earlier, this may present an “insuperable” difficulty for some scientists of materialists bent, but the fact remains, and is demonstrated by research, that non-material mind acts on material brain.” Eccles "Thought precedes action as lightning precedes thunder." Heinrich Heine - in the year 1834 A Reply to Shermer Medical Evidence for NDEs (Near Death Experiences) – Pim van Lommel Excerpt: For decades, extensive research has been done to localize memories (information) inside the brain, so far without success.,,,,Nobel prize winner W. Penfield could sometimes induce flashes of recollection of the past (never a complete life review), experiences of light, sound or music, and rarely a kind of out-of-body experience. These experiences did not produce any transformation. After many years of research he finally reached the conclusion that it is not possible to localize memories (information) inside the brain.,, In trying to understand this concept of mutual interaction between the “invisible and not measurable” consciousness, with its enormous amount of information, and our visible, material body it seems wise to compare it with modern worldwide communication.,,, http://www.nderf.org/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm This following experiment is really interesting: Scientific Evidence That Mind Effects Matter - Random Number Generators - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4198007 I once asked a evolutionist, after showing him the preceding experiment, "Since you ultimately believe that the 'god of random chance' produced everything we see around us, what in the world is my mind doing pushing your god around?" note of caution: It should be noted: All foreign, non-Judeo-Christian culture, NDE studies I have looked at have a extreme rarity of encounters with 'The Being Of Light' and tend to be very unpleasant NDE's save for the few pleasant children's NDEs of those cultures that I've seen (It seems there is indeed an 'age of accountability'). The following study was shocking for what was found in some non-Judeo-Christian NDE's: Near-Death Experiences in Thailand - Todd Murphy: Excerpt:The Light seems to be absent in Thai NDEs. So is the profound positive affect found in so many Western NDEs. The most common affect in our collection is negative. Unlike the negative affect in so many Western NDEs (cf. Greyson & Bush, 1992), that found in Thai NDEs (in all but case #11) has two recognizable causes. The first is fear of 'going'. The second is horror and fear of hell. It is worth noting that although half of our collection include seeing hell (cases 2,6,7,9,10) and being forced to witness horrific tortures, not one includes the NDEer having been subjected to these torments themselves. http://www.shaktitechnology.com/thaindes.htmbornagain77
November 30, 2010
November
11
Nov
30
30
2010
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT
LarTanner, you might have a basis for your complaint of 'bullying' if, and only if, atheism were possibly true, which as you admit you have not even made a case for, nor does it seem that you are aware of the necessity for you to do as such to make your inference for 'bullying',,, But on the other hand, the tenets of Theism are rigorously true, as our best science does compellingly, and repeatedly, infer to the purpose and design of the universe and of life in it, and 'science' even offers compelling and repeatable, evidence for life after death,,, The Scientific Evidence for Near Death Experiences - Dr Jeffery Long - Melvin Morse M.D. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4454627 ,,, Thus LarTanner you have insisted that we take your conclusion of 'bullying' as valid when you have in fact offered no empirical support for your foundational premise of no life after death in the first place. So please tell me LarTanner, what is more cruel, to unintentionally deceive a distraught person that they will never again see a cherished loved one who as passed away, as you insist on doing, or to truthfully comfort a bereaved person with the assurance that they will once again see their loved one, as the Christian does, and as the best 'scientific evidence says we have full right in proclaiming??? As to which one is hideously more cruel LarTanner, and WRONG, the answer is not even close!!! Your answer is clearly based on your ignorance of the true state of reality, moreover it seems that your 'wrongness' in this matter is reinforced by the arrogance that you think you somehow know better than we in this matter even though it is clear you do not even know how to properly defend, scientifically, a position that you claimed to be true in the first place. Further note: In The Presence Of Almighty God - The NDE of Mickey Robinson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045544 The Day I Died - Part 4 of 6 - The Extremely 'Monitored' Near Death Experience of Pam Reynolds - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045560 Blind Woman Can See During Near Death Experience (NDE) - Pim von Lommel - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994599/ Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper (1997) conducted a study of 31 blind people, many of who reported vision during their Near Death Experiences (NDEs). 21 of these people had had an NDE while the remaining 10 had had an out-of-body experience (OBE), but no NDE. It was found that in the NDE sample, about half had been blind from birth. (of note: This 'anomaly' is also found for deaf people who can hear sound during their Near Death Experiences(NDEs).) http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_1_64/ai_65076875/ Miracle Of Mind-Brain Recovery Following Hemispherectomies - Dr. Ben Carson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994585/ Removing Half of Brain Improves Young Epileptics' Lives: Excerpt: "We are awed by the apparent retention of memory and by the retention of the child's personality and sense of humor,'' Dr. Eileen P. G. Vining; In further comment from the neuro-surgeons in the John Hopkins study: "Despite removal of one hemisphere, the intellect of all but one of the children seems either unchanged or improved. Intellect was only affected in the one child who had remained in a coma, vigil-like state, attributable to peri-operative complications." http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/19/science/removing-half-of-brain-improves-young-epileptics-lives.html Quantum Consciousness - Time Flies Backwards? - Stuart Hameroff MD Excerpt: Dean Radin and Dick Bierman have performed a number of experiments of emotional response in human subjects. The subjects view a computer screen on which appear (at randomly varying intervals) a series of images, some of which are emotionally neutral, and some of which are highly emotional (violent, sexual....). In Radin and Bierman's early studies, skin conductance of a finger was used to measure physiological response They found that subjects responded strongly to emotional images compared to neutral images, and that the emotional response occurred between a fraction of a second to several seconds BEFORE the image appeared! Recently Professor Bierman (University of Amsterdam) repeated these experiments with subjects in an fMRI brain imager and found emotional responses in brain activity up to 4 seconds before the stimuli. Moreover he looked at raw data from other laboratories and found similar emotional responses before stimuli appeared. http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/views/TimeFlies.htmlbornagain77
November 30, 2010
November
11
Nov
30
30
2010
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
Neil Rickert: With respect to the "vicious and ugly things" Christians say about unbelievers: proof, please. Give me some links and examples.Barb
November 30, 2010
November
11
Nov
30
30
2010
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT
BA77 (62) -- You are offended, obviously, but please read what I write. I express my personal opinion that John's stated approach is highly immoral. I'm not arguing the 'truth' of atheism because that's not the issue. The issue is, as I say, that John's approach is to "bully [Steve the unbeliever] into religious conformity through the use of a dead loved one, at a time of [Steve the unbeliever's] greatest grief and turmoil." I still think that this approach is sick and offensive. Now if Steve were to ask John about religious belief B, C, I or J, that would be a different matter. But if John thinks it's right and proper to initiate a proselytizing campaign on a suffering non-believer, then I cannot agree with that. I have a hard time imagining that anyone would consider such an approach to be moral.LarTanner
November 30, 2010
November
11
Nov
30
30
2010
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT
LarTanner, It is very funny that you offer no positive proof for atheism to be true, other than your 'educated' opinion that it is true, and yet you have the gall to say John's approach is sick??? I'm sure John will respond very eloquently, but I just want to lay my two cents out that you are completely out of line as far as what you have thus far established empirically to be true for your atheistic position, which is zero empirical evidence!!!bornagain77
November 29, 2010
November
11
Nov
29
29
2010
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT
John, I must return to my real life and work, but I must say that I find your approach to unbelieving Steve sick and offensive. You are basically trying to bully him into religious conformity through the use of a dead loved one, at a time of his greatest grief and turmoil. And then you have the gall to blame him for possibly being cynical and angry at God should your plot fail. I don't share either your view that theism offers anything positive or that atheism offers nothing positive. Atheism, in my opinion, offers an honest approach to reality. That's positive. I'm not asking you to agree with me or with all/any of my opinions. However, I will ask you to acknowledge that there are many people like me who feel that atheism can and does offer something positive (over and above being, well, right). Please re-consider what you have posted. Be well, all.LarTanner
November 29, 2010
November
11
Nov
29
29
2010
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
Zeroseven:
That is an odd comment. You should be an atheist if you do not believe there are any gods. Its got nothing to do with how nice the people are.
To me the strongest evidence for God is how people of real faith really live their lives. But it is more than being nice. It is demonstrating the love of God in their lives by truly loving other people. I’ve met people like that. Have you? After meeting those kind of people I cannot believe there is not a God.john_a_designer
November 29, 2010
November
11
Nov
29
29
2010
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
Well LarTanner, please keep my testimony as an 'ace in the hole',, i.e. when you find yourself in a tight spot, or when you are at your wits end, remember that just maybe, just maybe. that crazy ole BA77 was telling you the complete truth about Christ coming to you in times of need.bornagain77
November 29, 2010
November
11
Nov
29
29
2010
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT
LarTanner:
Encouraging a suffering friend to accept my arguments seems rather distasteful beside the point.
If you don’t have anything positive to offer, I can see how that would be true.
Would you encourage your suffering friend to become a believer? That seems rather immoral and opportunistic to me.
How so? Let’s take the same scenario but replace believing Steve with a hypothetical unbelieving Steve. Everything else about the story is the same except rather than struggling with doubt and unbelief Steve has some questions about what his daughter believed. Remember Stephanie was a Christian, she believed that this life was not all there was. She believed that if she died that her soul, her real self, would live on. You don’t think I wouldn’t tell Steve about that and why we, especially his daughter, believed that to be true? That’s something good and positive, isn’t it? I believe Steve would see his daughter again if he was willing to accept what she believed. Of course, if he was cynical and angry at God there isn’t much that I could do there except be with him and console him as a friend. I said earlier, Larry, that the basic problem that I have with atheism is that it has nothing positive to offer, because it is not a belief, it is unbelief. If I were an atheist and really honest with myself I think the best thing I could is to leave the beliefs of other people alone. Unbelief has no answers.john_a_designer
November 29, 2010
November
11
Nov
29
29
2010
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT
BA77, Thanks for sharing. Your Google docs story reminds me (if I remember correctly) of a similar experience reported by St. Augustine of Hippo. Please don't think my atheism was the result of "I took a class and that was it." I'm a 40 year old man who has reflected a good deal on these issues. I've asked the questions I've had and come to (provisional) answers that seem to me closest to right. I don't despise humanity at all, and I don't think life is meaningless with or without gods. And I don't think it's morally right for folks--but especially folks who are not themselves atheists--to speak for or on behalf of the atheist.LarTanner
November 29, 2010
November
11
Nov
29
29
2010
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT
LanTanner, my view of the Bible is completely different from yours. You see, I was in a real bad spot in my life because of drug use, and had lost a real good job because of my erratic behavior from that drug use. That evening after getting home, from losing my real good job, in desperation, I opened up my Bible, and the Bible, completely to my surprise, and for only a brief instance, literally became alive and the written words of the Bible spoke directly into that specific situation in my life. But perhaps LarTanner, you will say I was just imagining that an inanimate object spoke words of comfort into my hopeless situation at that particular time due to my being so distraught?!? Well, I struggled with those same doubts about my sanity over this issue as well for a few years FOR INANIMATE OBJECTS SIMPLY CANNOT SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO OUR LIVES!!! Yet a few years later the Bible once again came alive, only this time the Bible came alive in the presence of another man,,, Strange But True - Miracle Testimony https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfNTNocmRjZGtkdg&hl=en ,,, thus I had a witness for the miraculous, and I laid to rest the doubt that I was imagining that moment years earlier!!! And I've seen many more 'little miracles' throughout these years (if there is truly anything as a 'little' miracle),, In fact I'm a bit uncomfortable if it has been more than a little while that I've seen the Lord move in a small tangible way in which I can notice His hand in my life. The point being LarTanner is that I have not come to the lord by someone else 'educating' me to know that God is real (or being educated that God is not real as your case seems to be),, You see LarTanner I KNOW FOR A FACT that my Redeemer lives because I have personally seen Him move in my life, and have in fact seen Him move in other people's lives! Job 19:25-27 I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God; I myself will see him with my own eyes--I, and not another.,,, Nicole C. Mullen - My Redeemer Lives - Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpCaNBhK4S0 If you don't mind a helpful suggestion Lartanner, to get over some of this 'higher criticism' of the Bible you've seem to have ingested, You may want to focus on prophecy,,, The Bible: The Word of God? Extraordinary Claims Demand Extraordinary Evidence - video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5539836792491778083 particularly this one The Precisely Fulfilled Prophecy Of Israel Becoming A Nation In 1948 - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041241 further notes: 1 Corinthians 2:9-10 But as it is written, Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for them that love him. But unto us God revealed them through the Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. Real Life Miracles - Blind See; Dead Raised; Deaf Hear - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4596829 etc.. etc.. etc..bornagain77
November 29, 2010
November
11
Nov
29
29
2010
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT
tgpeeler (52) -- I have been asked this question many times. The honest, direct answer is that we don't know with perfect certainty if something is true. I hope this qualifies as an unambiguous response. However, I think there's an important aspect of knowledge that we should address, and that is that knowledge is something we produce. If you read below my comments to BA77, you'll see that I am saying that ancient biblical interpreters and modern biblical scholars produced different knowledge related to the Bible. The ancients re-made biblical texts into a mysterious treasure containing all the world's secrets. The moderns re-made the same texts into a window on the religion of ancient Israel. In this sense, tgpeeler, the truth of what we know is true is not the whole story. Explanatory power is, for lack of a better expression, the name of the game. The perspective offering the greatest number of sufficiently robust explanations for the greatest amount of data "wins." So, how do we know something is true? We don't know for certain but if we have a perspective with continuously tested and refined explanations for wide swaths of data, then we are justified in placing confidence in that perspective. BA77 (54) -- Thanks. I listened to a few of the podcasts. I think Prof. Ordway is a Donne scholar. If so, I think it helps to be religious! Both former-atheists seemed mostly to be atheists by default. Nothing wrong with this, of course, but I have no particular reaction to their stories because my experience was somewhat the reverse. I was kind of a theist by default, and came to identify as an atheist much later. When I was doing my graduate work in the early medieval period, I learned a lot about Judaism, early Christianity, and early Islam. By necessity, I also learned about scholarship on the Torah and its commentaries, from the books of biblical Israel's history to the Talmud. One running theme throughout all of that is that our understanding of the Bible--whether as a book of divine inspiration given to holy prophets or as a collection of stories and laws assembled to speak to concerns contemporaneous with the collectors--has been indelibly shaped by its interpreters. Much of what we think we know about the Bible and "what it says" is the result of the creativity and brilliance of its early and late interpreters. Ancient interpreters resolved apparent inconsistencies and contradictions. Modern scholars put the entire Bible under the microscope to extract clues about the world that made the Bible. This learning did not make me an atheist, but it demystified the Bible for me in a way that is probably irrevocable. Atheism today, in my opinion, is not only an intellectual position but also a political one. Maybe "political" isn't quite the best word, but I mean something like identifying oneself as part of a larger constituency. Ultimately, I think this is a good thing.LarTanner
November 29, 2010
November
11
Nov
29
29
2010
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT
LarTanner this is of related interest for defining 'ultimate' reality - worldviews. The podcast is by a former 'academic' atheist: Why Naturalism Is False, and Why It Matters – Part 1 http://www.hieropraxis.com/2010/11/why-naturalism-is-false-and-why-it-matters_part_/ Part 2 http://www.hieropraxis.com/2010/11/why-naturalism-is-false-and-why-it-matters-part-2/ Here is a picture that captures the heart of the atheistic worldview: Outside the box http://www.crystalinks.com/outsidebox.jpgbornagain77
November 29, 2010
November
11
Nov
29
29
2010
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
john_a_designer @ 20 Indeed.tgpeeler
November 29, 2010
November
11
Nov
29
29
2010
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT
Hey LarTanner, here's a question for you. How do you know if something is true?tgpeeler
November 29, 2010
November
11
Nov
29
29
2010
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
BiPed, I have asked for sources, not a debate. You have none. It's OK, but I just wanted to know. To recognize that there is no ultimate meaning or ultimate reality (whatever that means) is not to deny reality altogether. I don't much care how much you are -whelmed by reality, but I do resent your statement that I have not engaged you honestly--especially as you have hypocritically avoided the most basic request of mine. But here's an olive branch: Ask a direct question and I'll answer as honestly as I can. No agendas. No debates. Ask a serious question and I'll give you a serious question. Ask about birds and I'll give you the bird.LarTanner
November 29, 2010
November
11
Nov
29
29
2010
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
Lars, I am moments away from making the 4 hour trip back from the Lake to the City. Perhaps on that trip I will give your post some thought, but I must tell you I probably won't. As much as I might try to convince myself otherwise, I have little room for debating a man who thinks that there are no ultimate realities. A reality (in terms of a description of it) is that which faithfully corresponds to what is. For there to be no ultimate realities (and the adjective is hardly necessary) then there must not be anything that is. Why not just gather yourself together and say "My ultimate reality is that there are no ultimate realities" and allow us to watch as you chase your tail? Really, why not? What would be the purpose of a conversation? Up to this point, you have not honestly engaged a single thing I have said. Instead, you have tacked on a materialist' positioning piece to my every comment and then asked me respond to your set up. You then have to cajones to call me evasive. Forgive me for being underwhelmed. /smirkUpright BiPed
November 29, 2010
November
11
Nov
29
29
2010
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
BiPed (48), I’m asking for you to cite sources. It’s not a trap. It’s not a diatribe. I’m asking for more information. Yes, I said that ultimate realities are a fantasy. Death is not an ultimate reality, if you mean death a separate state or dimension in which a person continues to exist. Meaning, too, is not an ultimate reality (and how many ultimate realities are there?). It does not exist independently of interpretants, and there’s no final or superior authority to stabilize and fix meaning. When we generally talk about meaning, as in the meaning of a sentence, we refer to an agreed-upon definition of words/phrases in a language system. These definitions are always changing, as are their pronunciations, sentence (syntax) uses, and cultural cache. Mainstream cognitive science and linguistics agree on these previous points. There's also the field of biosemiotics, which takes the same position but stresses the reality of sign processes--that is, it asserts that all terrestrial life forms engage in sign processes. However, the reality of sign processes is not a claim for the reality of meaning floating free in nature all by itself, which is what I think you are claiming. If you, BiPed, are saying that meaning has a separate existence--like an atom or a rock--then you are saying something quite interesting. My natural question to you is simply what is your position based upon? Specifically, what research and data are you using to establish your view? I’m sorry if this seems like an outlandish or hostile request to you. And what’s with the bird? Are you trying to ask whether I’m a social constructionist? The answer is that I am, although I’m not radical about it. I’m aware of recent studies that indicate pre-linguistic brain activity, but most everything we humans know and think is mediated by language. Even our recognition of that bird as a “bird.” Now, please stop evading. Either give me some of the research and data on this independently existing meaning (for which I’ll thank you) or tell me you have none or show me how I’ve misunderstood your claims.LarTanner
November 29, 2010
November
11
Nov
29
29
2010
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
Legitamate!? You mean you want me to respond to your set up? First you said that ultimate realities are a fantasy. I then gave you one you could hardly argue with (once you were made to understand it). Then I ask you to consider one of the important remaining realities we draw from direct observation and common logic. You then go on a diatribe, and ask "where's the beef" concerning the existence of semiotic realities. Instead of answering my question, you are now pondering what you think I think. Cut the crap. If you do not have a bird in your head, then welcome to the world of semiotic realities. I suggested there are three varieties. Get out of your head, and deal with them. :)Upright BiPed
November 29, 2010
November
11
Nov
29
29
2010
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
You first, please. Besides, I don't understand what you are asking. You could mean a mental representation or you could mean a literal bird. Or you could mean something else entirely. You've claimed that meaning (as opposed to birds) is an observed reality. Please explain where this view comes from. I'll be happy to continue the discussion after you fairly respond to my legitimate request that I gave you first.LarTanner
November 29, 2010
November
11
Nov
29
29
2010
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
Answer the question. Do you have a bird in your head?Upright BiPed
November 29, 2010
November
11
Nov
29
29
2010
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
Upright, that's not answering my question. I'll ask again: Where's the beef?LarTanner
November 29, 2010
November
11
Nov
29
29
2010
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
Lars, when you see a bird flying over, do you then have a bird in your head?Upright BiPed
November 29, 2010
November
11
Nov
29
29
2010
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
BiPed (41)
Lars, as you quest through these realities which you submit are fantasy, be sure to deal with the observed reality of semiotic content (meaning, purpose, symbolism, information, representations) in the Universe.
OK, so you are claiming that meaning, purpose, symbolism, information, and representations are all apprehend-able/detectable features of the world. Meaning exists independently of communication, language, and thought. Meaning is not only a shared/negotiated understanding of a sound between a human speaker and human listener, but a fixed and unchangeable interpretation authorized exclusively by a transcendent "speaker" and definitively deciphered by our priests and our scientists. Now, is this a view established by looking at the world in a certain way or is it a view established by interpretation of available data? Or is there a different foundation for this view? In other words, "where's the beef" on this view of yours that is so obvious to all except poor me who is "so caught up." I never tire of the smug epithets I get for pointing out that the proverbial emperor still has no clothes. I guess I am "spiritually blind," "anti-supernaturally biased," and "foolish" too. But I eagerly await the substance behind your views--published paper(s), book(s), and so on. Claude Shannon doesn't count. Let me see your specific view being expounded and substantiated in a disciplinary way. Show me the specific view being matched to data. Otherwise, we are just telling stories.LarTanner
November 29, 2010
November
11
Nov
29
29
2010
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
BA77 (40) - Thanks for the references, most of which are familiar to me. What I find interesting about the Bible, especially at Ch. 1, is that it sets out a whole way of perceiving. The account of the six-day creation of the world is founded on the powerful assertion that the world is fundamentally God's. Everything in the world, including us, was made by God. So, we're talking both origins and authority here. Does Genesis describe the development of our universe and its structures? That's a different matter, of course. I think it takes a very liberal reading to get this, but as I said, I will consider it further (and not for the first time).LarTanner
November 29, 2010
November
11
Nov
29
29
2010
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
#39 You are so caught up that you miss the obvious. Death is one of the ultimate realities. Lars, as you quest through these realities which you submit are fantasy, be sure to deal with the observed reality of semiotic content (meaning, purpose, symbolism, information, representations) in the Universe. As far as I can tell there are three distinct varieties. The first is the reality of semiotic content that living organisms use to communicate and relate to one another. The second is the semiotic content that is created when higher organisms (particularly humans) perceive the world around them, the third is the that which is at work in creating/mantaining living organisms themselves. Good luck.Upright BiPed
November 29, 2010
November
11
Nov
29
29
2010
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
LarTanner, perhaps this will help you 'consider' the matter: As well as the universe having a transcendent beginning, thus confirming the Theistic postulation in Genesis 1:1, the following recent discovery of a 'Dark Age' for the early universe uncannily matches up with the Bible passage in Job 38:4-11. Job 38:4-11 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched a line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who shut in the sea with doors, when it burst forth and issued from the womb; When I made the clouds its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band; When I fixed my limit for it, and set bars and doors; When I said, ‘This far you may come but no farther, and here your proud waves must stop!" History of The Universe Timeline- Graph Image http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/CMB_Timeline.jpg For the first 400,000 years of our universe’s expansion, the universe was a seething maelstrom of energy and sub-atomic particles. This maelstrom was so hot, that sub-atomic particles trying to form into atoms would have been blasted apart instantly, and so dense, light could not travel more than a short distance before being absorbed. If you could somehow live long enough to look around in such conditions, you would see nothing but brilliant white light in all directions. When the cosmos was about 400,000 years old, it had cooled to about the temperature of the surface of the sun. The last light from the "Big Bang" shone forth at that time. This "light" is still detectable today as the Cosmic Background Radiation. This 400,000 year old “baby” universe entered into a period of darkness. When the dark age of the universe began, the cosmos was a formless sea of particles. By the time the dark age ended, a couple of hundred million years later, the universe lit up again by the light of some of the galaxies and stars that had been formed during this dark era. It was during the dark age of the universe that the heavier chemical elements necessary for life, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and most of the rest, were first forged, by nuclear fusion inside the stars, out of the universe’s primordial hydrogen and helium. It was also during this dark period of the universe the great structures of the modern universe were first forged. Super-clusters, of thousands of galaxies stretching across millions of light years, had their foundations laid in the dark age of the universe. During this time the infamous “missing dark matter”, was exerting more gravity in some areas than in other areas; drawing in hydrogen and helium gas, causing the formation of mega-stars. These mega-stars were massive, weighing in at 20 to more than 100 times the mass of the sun. The crushing pressure at their cores made them burn through their fuel in only a million years. It was here, in these short lived mega-stars under these crushing pressures, the chemical elements necessary for life were first forged out of the hydrogen and helium. The reason astronomers can’t see the light from these first mega-stars, during this dark era of the universe’s early history, is because the mega-stars were shrouded in thick clouds of hydrogen and helium gas. These thick clouds prevented the mega-stars from spreading their light through the cosmos as they forged the elements necessary for future life to exist on earth. After about 200 million years, the end of the dark age came to the cosmos. The universe was finally expansive enough to allow the dispersion of the thick hydrogen and helium “clouds”. With the continued expansion of the universe, the light, of normal stars and dwarf galaxies, was finally able to shine through the thick clouds of hydrogen and helium gas, bringing the dark age to a close. (How The Stars Were Born - Michael D. Lemonick) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1376229-2,00.htmlbornagain77
November 29, 2010
November
11
Nov
29
29
2010
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
BA77 (36) --
the ancient Hebrews were the only ones who got the transcendent origin of the universe right.
A reader of the Bible needs to bring several assumptions to the text (and history) to get this interpretation.
perhaps it is just your bias (emotion) against God that makes you want to try to confuse matters so much of what is so clear?
Perhaps. I have nothing against "God" as you seem to use the word, so far as I know. But I promise to consider the matter. BiPed (38) -- I will try an be braver. My statement, "ultimate realities are a fantasy" is not just an assertion, as I have tried to back it up with specifics. If you read the material I wrote on my site, can you tell me what you think? In the end, I find no good reason to consider "ultimate meaning" as anything more than theoretical. I'd be interested to hear your take (over at my blog, if we don't want to clog this thread). Finally, I'm interested in why you dismiss postmodernism. I know it's fashionable in both scientific and religious circles to do so. It's the one thing the two sides seem to agree upon. What I like about postmodern thinking is its attention to language use and power. Look, for example at the bullying tactic you used earlier when you said "Your concept as to the fantasy of ultimate realities should prove interesting as you take your last breath," which both alludes to the "no atheists in foxholes" myth and indulges in preemptive schadenfreude. From a pomo perspective, the invocation of life tapering off into uncertainty is very interesting, particularly as a move to try persuading me that there is or may be an "ultimate reality."LarTanner
November 29, 2010
November
11
Nov
29
29
2010
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
#35 "Uh…OK. Sorry, but I don’t get the “obvious error”... Yes, that was demonstrated when you made your statement about ultimate realities and gave yourself permission to ignore them. It is quite obvious that ultimate realities exist, the question is what are they. You might need to boost your intellectual bravery in order to pursue that question. Post-modern Euro-American Academic garbage like "ultimate realities are a fantasy" will likely not do.Upright BiPed
November 29, 2010
November
11
Nov
29
29
2010
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
OT: Sperm Whale Hunts Giant Squid Using Echolocation - complete video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5570473bornagain77
November 29, 2010
November
11
Nov
29
29
2010
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply