|
Post by bapu on Jul 28, 2009 9:25:28 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Human Nature on Jul 28, 2009 9:32:26 GMT -6
A gentle Youtube section until the next nurse's shift and then: YOU ARE ON MEDS 30 DOLLARS A PILL YOU FREAKING SICKO HOW DARE YOU GET ILL???!!!
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on Jul 28, 2009 10:01:13 GMT -6
Wow, a whole page of GR-hater posts as a reaction to the Sam Harris article? Why? I enjoyed that article by the way. I've been out of the loop regarding the Francis Collins story but it was a very enjoyable read with some excellent points made. Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett are the "Four Horsemen" of the "New Atheist Apocalypse" as have been touted by some, as they have published the four main books that have given rise to the active discussion of religion in the public sphere. I never went further than Dawkins and Hitchens although I have the books of the other two, I guess I that was enough for me. But one thing that bothers me is how too many people focus on their views and not give enough credit for who they are in their real lives. For example it has always annoyed me how people easily criticise Dawkins (admittedly his critique of religion was sloppy in places) for his anti-religious views but fail to give him any respect for his superb publications on evolutionary biology, what to speak of acknowledging that he is one. An evolutionary biologist, I mean. It may be me but I like to now a little bit about the person who speaks as well as what they are speaking. So also with Sam Harris. Just coincidentally and unrelated to his Collins piece, 2 weeks ago I found out that Harris was a neuroscientist. He speaks my language. This suddenly makes him look very interesting to me and makes me want to pick up his book a little quicker in my reading queue. I won't be holding my breath for any interesting neuro bits because I never heard anything such in the reviews, but you never know. PZ Myers has given a boisterous review of Collins at his blog here: Monday must be Pick On Francis Collins Day!, in turn referencing articles from Jerry Coyne, US News and Russell Blackford. Good stuff.
|
|
|
Post by WTH on Jul 28, 2009 10:08:03 GMT -6
Ekantin, if you can't tell a hate message from a non hate message then how reliable is your perception of scientists or of anybody, really? Just raising the point... I enjoyed very much reading the last page here and I don't see hate, perhaps some irreverence, but not hate.
You're supposed to be a psychologist, right?
Do you have any interest in knowing Francis Collins, the person, btw?
|
|
|
Post by Coollins on Jul 28, 2009 11:36:18 GMT -6
Researches yet to be made will prove that interactive sites such as this actually cure people. Although reasearches already made have shown that youtube AND twitter makes most healthy people irreversibly sick.
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on Jul 29, 2009 11:27:27 GMT -6
Ekantin, if you can't tell a hate message from a non hate message then how reliable is your perception of scientists or of anybody, really? Just raising the point... I enjoyed very much reading the last page here and I don't see hate, perhaps some irreverence, but not hate. You're supposed to be a psychologist, right? You should rely on my perception about as much as I should rely on your perception, with a grain of salt. It's pretty clear that I wasn't referring to literal hatred, but a usage of "hater" in popular slang. Having a degree in psychology doesn't exclude me from having subjective opinions you know. My views aren't suddenly infallible. Sure. He's a geneticist from what I can gather and has worked on the stupendous Human Genome Project. It's not my field but interesting nevertheless. I have an interest in neurogenetics, as I rather excelled in that component of my Masters course, but I wouldn't know much about 'straight' genetics. For that, I recommend Razib Khan. If you're asking me what I think about Collins' synthesis of his religious beliefs with his science, I don't necessarily have a problem with that either. His personal beliefs are his own affair. By all accounts he seems to do fairly well at his job and is qualified for it. His actions ought to be scrutinised as much as anyone else with high office. Perhaps his actions will be even more scrutinised than normal because of his religious interests, but that can only be a good thing. My thoughts on the wider issue of synthesising religion and science, I think it is an utterly foolish endeavour.
|
|
|
Post by Motley Fool on Jul 31, 2009 15:13:11 GMT -6
Yes, for the most part, it has been a foolish pursuit by many a fool for many years. There is a huge void, which is one of serious philosophical discourse by current day philosophers (not pseudo-philosophers of the arm chair garden variety) on the subject. The underlying questions are still there, but the most recent scientific research has cast new light on them from many different directions, hence the challenge that is greater than it has been in the past.
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on Jul 31, 2009 19:44:58 GMT -6
I've been following the 3-part debate (finished today) in the Los Angeles Times about the Collins nomination, between Michael Shermer and Francisco J. Ayala. The topics: (1) Francis Collins: fit to head the NIH?, (2) Do Science & Religion Conflict?, and (3) Did we evolve to be religious and believe in God? I thought it was a very interesting exchange. I don't think Shermer did well in Part 1, he comes across as very petty by pointing out that Collins might be a religious nutball when there isn't any history or evidence that it ever interfered in his work. However it seems that Ayala was very weak in Parts 2 and 3, where he repeats long-defeated canards and ends up essentially agreeing with Shermer, adding that the fear of death is the reason why people are religious. So we're back to the 'consolation' argument, that people believe in belief because it shields them from the harsh realities of life. A 2-1 win to Shermer, I think. I think Newsweek has the best appraisal of the Collins affair.
|
|
|
Post by puddinhead on Jul 31, 2009 20:26:34 GMT -6
Mr. Ekantin:
I have read several of your posts and I have concluded that you are an intelligently serioius and seriously intelligent individual. You seem to have a very mature outlook on life and possess the rare ability to balance logic and rationality with spirituality while dismissing foolish sentimentality, fanatacism and unfounded so-called scientific argument. I salute you.
|
|
|
Post by Debabadung on Jul 31, 2009 20:46:00 GMT -6
Me too. I dream of a better world as well. Where roadkills are illegal. And where chickens don't lead one another astray.
|
|