In my previous posting I pointed out that, in the Dawkins-Pell Q&A session, George Pell thought that non-randomness is equivalent to "having a purpose". Here are some more of his blunders. He claimed that:
The discussion was full of such gems. It's a video worth watching. I'll leave it at that. If you spot more blunders, let me know.
- Humans evolved from Neanderthals. When Dawkins pointed out to him that this is not correct, because Neanderthals are more like our cousins, Pell defended his position by saying that this cannot be true because he does not see any Neanderthals around. Then Dawkins told him they are extinct.
- Jews were not intellectually equal of the Egyptians and Persians. He also said that Jews were shepherds, stuck between great powers, and are still stuck. Here, Pell confuses the term "intellectual" and "great power". He seems to be implying that, because the Persians had a mighty empire, that automatically implies that they were the intellectuals of the day too.
- Germans [during or after WWII] suffered more than the Jews [during the Holocaust]. Pell mentioned this as a response to a question on suffering. Yes, Jews suffered, but god arranged so that Germans suffered too, he, more or less said, just as much. (He subsequently issued a statement clarifying his comments and insisting he did not intend to offend the Jewish community.)
- During holy communion, the wafer and the wine turns, literally, into the body and blood of Christ. So that whoever received holy communion actually consumes flesh and blood. I know this is a cliche among Catholics, they actually believe that, but it is funny to hear it from an "authority". His explanation for this miracle is: Jesus said so. (End of story. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.)
- Science cannot give us the reason why we are here. Correct. But he does not understand that this is a silly statement. Why should there be a reason in the first place? (See previous posting on Lennox too.) Equivalent statements are the following: Astronomy cannot give us the reason for the existence of rings of Saturn. No, George, science is not so petty to deal with this. Science will give you the process for the formation of the rings, not their teleological property which, after all, is a product of projection of human behaviour to nature.
- One of our problems is that we don't understand why suffering exists, but it is a much greater problem for atheists to explain why there is goodness and truth and beauty. This is related to the last one.
The discussion was full of such gems. It's a video worth watching. I'll leave it at that. If you spot more blunders, let me know.
Yeia sou Taki,
ReplyDeleteI notice, with compassion, that you are yet another raging atheist who is imprisoned in this irrational theistic society and fighting for liberation from stupidity. Way to go.
You are very bloggative too. Perhaps you also think you are a scientist (I was not able to find what exact science you do - theoretical physics, maths?)
It is hard to follow all the blogs, but ".. Houston, we have a problem.." You surely do not expect to be taken seriously with comments such as the one below.
%%
Science cannot give us the reason why we are here. Correct. But he does not understand that this is a silly statement. Why should there be a reason in the first place? (See previous posting on Lennox too.) Equivalent statements are the following: Astronomy cannot give us the reason for the existence of rings of Saturn. No, George, science is not so petty to deal with this. Science will give you the process for the formation of the rings, not their teleological property which, after all, is a product of projection of human behaviour to nature.
%%
You correctly put the limits of science, which is to explain the "how" and not the "why". Rational science never claimed to have proven the "existence" of anything (starting from quarks, gauge fields, electrons up to humans). Once the material world "exists" science tells us how it works. Why it exists, is a question that has haunted humanity for ever. And it haunt it forever of course. This is the fundamental question that humans - as persons - answer one by one, independently of the other. Answering this question has *nothing to do with reason or rationality*. If it had, then science would be able to prove existence theorems - which is άτοπον from the above. This is the question which is answered (in various ways) by religion. Make your choice, but once you choose reason and rationality you and your laborious blog have nothing to say about religion - you are blind and irrelevant to it. I am sorry for that..
I could find nothing about you either, since you don't have the courage (?) not to be anonymous. By the way, which religion are you referring to? Religion, for the vast majority of people, is not a , but an accident of birth.
ReplyDeleteSo, both of us being unknown to each other makes the discussion even more interesting. I only know your name. If you want a name from my side you can call me anything you want.
ReplyDeleteI am referring to religion in general - any religious belief. Or more precisely, any affirmative answer to the question "is there is meaning to MY existence?"
From what I gather, you answer NO to the above question for YOUR existence. Hmm, let me dwell onwhat to make of it..
I don't like speaking to anonymous people. I am eponymous. Click on my professional Web page, if you wish. You've also seen my blog posts, etc. I can't answer the question you pose. First, I don't know you, and second, γνώθι σ'αυτόν. (You seem to understand some Greek, or google it.) If you choose to remain anonymous, I won't continue this.
ReplyDeleteHmm, I have just seen your bio and googled a few things. I happen to know some people at Patras Polytechnic and I can judge the level. Low, very low. But certainly you stand up. Research on communication networks is not quite basic science, but lets say you are entitled to make some good points.
ReplyDeleteSince we are on completely different universes (i.e. my life has a meaning, yours apparently not...) I doubt that discussing further makes any sense. Consider this as a random trol, and live happily promoting with rage and fervour your rational evangelism..
hasta la vista..
Anonymous, you are still hiding behind anonymity. Let me reply to you, in two parts (because this site has problems with posting long replies). I will point out all your irrational points.
ReplyDeletePART 1
You can see that your phrase "I only know your name. If you want a name from my side you can call me anything you want. If you want a name from my side you can call me anything you want" is irrational, as you have proved yourself: "I have just seen your bio and googled a few things. Are you suggesting that I google "Anonymous" to find about you? Funny.
Second. Indeed, I was at the University of Patras for 2.5 years, as a Professor of Maths; not the Polytechnic. You are right. In general, the level was very low, although I had some outstanding students and excellent colleagues. They were, however, the minority. Since you are interested in knowing about me, the reason that I went there was because my parents were getting old. During these years they died. This, together with the fact that I could not stand the low level, made me leave.
You also found part of my research interests, but not everything. Nevertheless, your statement "lets [sic] say you are entitled to make some good points" is again irrational. The points I usually make on my blog (not all, but many of them) are elementary. Anyone with a basic sense of logic can make and follow them. It has nothing to do with my qualifications (or the lack of them). For example, in judging John Lennox, it doesn't take much to see that his arguments are silly. (Read my post on his aunt Matilda!)
As for the meaning of life, and your comment that yours has one but mine does not, again, it is irrational. You do not know at all what the meaning of my life is. Apparently, your meaning of life depends on a deity. But this does not prove that the absence of deities make one's life meaningless.
Your fourth irrational point is this: you asked me to tell you what the meaning of your life is!
Finally, your belief, stated in your first comment,
" Why [the material world] exists, is a question that has haunted humanity for ever. And it haunt it forever of course. This is the fundamental question that humans - as persons - answer one by one, independently of the other. Answering this question has *nothing to do with reason or rationality*. If it had, then science would be able to prove existence theorems - which is άτοπον from the above. This is the question which is answered (in various ways) by religion."
is irrational and inconsequential. The answer will follow in Part 2.
PART 2
ReplyDelete1) As I pointed earlier, wanting the existence of the material world to have a meaning is a byproduct of your brain. Yes, we wish it did. It would be nice. But what if it does not? You are anthropomorphizing the Universe, and so did many others before you. Just as John Lennox wants to "prove" the limitation of science by saying that science cannot answer the question of why his aunt (Matilda) baked a cake, so you too want to "show" that science has limits by asking why the material world exists. There is no doubt that science cannot do this, but where both Lennox and you are mistaken is that you believe that the question ought to be asked.
2) OK, so you ask the question, and (correctly) point out that science cannot answer it. But then you suggest that religion can:
your laborious blog have nothing to say about religion - you are blind and irrelevant to it.
At this point, one asks: Which religion? Because different religions give different answers. One religion says that there are myriads of cycles of births and deaths of humans. Another religion says that humans die once and then they go to some special place. Religions also differ in their explanations about the existence of the Universe. So, if I were to choose a religion in order to find an answer to the question of the meaning of life and the meaning of the existence of the material world, which one should I choose?
Therefore, a religion is a totally illogical concept. As long as someone agrees on that, and as long as he or she does not try to prove that their choice is rational, then I don't mind. Some people choose to take drugs because it makes them feel good. Their choice. But if they argue that they take drugs in order to understand the meaning of their existence then you and I would find that amusing and, certainly, not promote it further.
Stick to your religion if it makes you happy, feel that you have the answers you want, but, if you have any kind intelligence (and I suspect you do, despite the fact that you do not have the courage to reveal your identity), observe that one person's answer may be different from another's and that, therefore, they cannot be both correct.