|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 08/01/2003 : 04:29:34
|
Got home from the hospital yesterday, got on line and found this:
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0703/30special_klavan.html
It's interesting in that it shows a little of how 'Joe Average' thinks about science -- he's fine with it as long as it casts no doubt upon his core beliefs. Then, he becomes skeptical and doesn't want to wait on the research, nor even wants to hear about it.
The author describes himself as: "spirtual but not religious".
Kind'a silly, really, even for the Atlanta Journal and Constitution. Must be they needed a filler.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 08/01/2003 : 11:01:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And more important -- to me anyway -- nothing science has come up with challenges our inner experiences of the divine. Most scientific arguments against these experiences boil down to the mistaken idea that if the mechanics of an internal phenomenon -- the mind, say, or religious ecstasy -- can be detailed, the phenomenon itself has been explained away. That is, if the "mind" is caused by the behavior of brain cells, then our experience of our selves is an illusion. If religious ecstasy can be photographed in a scan, then there's nothing real to be ecstatic about.
The above quote from the article begs the question. For example, the classic near death experience delusions can be induced. If oxygen depravation is all it takes to see the tunnel and the light there is no reason to consider a more spiritual explanation. At the very least, the spiritual explanation is thrown in to doubt. He might be correct if other, more plausible explanations for these occurrences do not exist. But they do. It isn't just a matter of observing the behavior of brain cells. If the observed phenomenon can be explained in other ways that can be demonstrated, that should cast doubt on spiritual explanations, plain and simple. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2003 : 12:34:24 [Permalink]
|
Klavan doesn't seem to understand what he's criticizing. Of course, the funniest thing is that Klavan is a crime novelist, and so it appears that he is "like a movie actor pronouncing on politics."
And it's not "skepticism in reverse," filthy, since skepticism welcomes skepticism. But Klavan only appears to have a sheen of skepticism, while deeper down, he doesn't want science stepping on his beliefs. He doesn't appear to have skeptically examined any of the things he's talking about. Otherwise, he probably would realize that Dawkins isn't arguing about the origin of life, or even the question of "why is there life?" Klavan has misinterpreted Dawkins to be pronouncing about those things with his declaration that "The evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design," but he's not, in reality.
So, rather than there being "reverse skepticism" in the article, there's actually a lack of skepticism, and a willingness to assume things that aren't in evidence. I do, however, agree with the sentiment that there are problems with today's media when it comes to science and religion, but Klavan is one of the problems. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
