Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

W.L.C. Debate Feb. 1st

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 9:51:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't expect this science-gives-me-boners guy to win. Science hasn't progressed far enough to explain the things which Rosenberg claims it can currently explain. I expect Craig to roundly censure his "scientism."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's a review of Rosenberg's book The Atheist's Guide to Reality that really surprised me:

As someone who believes the odds of there being a God come to maybe .00000000000000001, I wanted to love this book. I wound up hating it, and hating it intensely at that.

There has been a trend in this scary 21st century for science to get dangerously close to becoming a religion. For example, many physicists seem to be saying, "If the math implies something -- then it's true!" Well, math has been great so far in revealing some secrets of the Universe, but how do we know it hasn't reached its limit? It seems to me if the math implies that bubbles on foam pop into new Universes every split second in the Multiverse, and one then says, "Therefore THAT'S TRUE," without the least shred of actual evidence, then one is dealing in faith, and how is that different from all the other religions?

Alex Rosenberg is a high priest in the new religion. He puts all his faith in science. He presumes that because science has given us many wonderful things so far, it's all that matters.

He spends many pages telling us that our brain deceives us -- that everything's an illusion -- that it's impossible to know anything for certain -- and then he proceeds to tell us that science tells us the truth about the Universe?! I kept waiting for him to reconcile these seemingly contradictory stands, but it never happened.

Where he really loses me is when he says there's no such thing as morality. Does he think this simply because it's something his beloved science can't deal with? He says Nazis weren't immoral. I guess if one person spends the day torturing children, and another spends the day collecting money to feed starving children, the two are absolutely equal in the eyes of science, because there's no such thing as good or evil. Well, that keeps things simple!

I can tell you this much. I KNOW stealing and killing, to name two things, are bad, and do you know HOW I know this? Because I know I wouldn't want anyone to steal from me or kill me -- and I assume almost everyone feels the same way. Therefore we can proclaim these things to be evil, even if science has nothing to say on the matter. Only someone who thinks science is the only thing that matters (like the author of this rancid book) could even think that someone who murdered him isn't a bad person, just a person doing what he couldn't help doing as his fermions and bosons compelled him. (At least Rosenberg admits these concepts can be dangerous. You think?)

He's an extremist, as extreme in his views as the most rabid religious screwball is in his. I'd like to believe that the truth (whatever that is!) lies somewhere in between. I honestly believe there's something going on in this Universe that's beyond the techniques of science (and certainly religion!) to understand at this point in our evolution. The answers certainly don't lie in the far past, as religion would like us to believe. We're certainly not there yet, as Rosenberg seems to believe. Maybe the answers lie in the future. It may take millions of years of evolution before we really begin to understand this weird Universe in which we find ourselves. Rosenberg is as arrogant in his views as the religious nuts are in theirs. I really resent having wasted time on this book.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 10:00:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 9:51:09 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I don't expect this science-gives-me-boners guy to win. Science hasn't progressed far enough to explain the things which Rosenberg claims it can currently explain. I expect Craig to roundly censure his "scientism."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's a review of Rosenberg's book The Atheist's Guide to Reality that really surprised me:

As someone who believes the odds of there being a God come to maybe .00000000000000001, I wanted to love this book. I wound up hating it, and hating it intensely at that.

There has been a trend in this scary 21st century for science to get dangerously close to becoming a religion. For example, many physicists seem to be saying, "If the math implies something -- then it's true!" Well, math has been great so far in revealing some secrets of the Universe, but how do we know it hasn't reached its limit? It seems to me if the math implies that bubbles on foam pop into new Universes every split second in the Multiverse, and one then says, "Therefore THAT'S TRUE," without the least shred of actual evidence, then one is dealing in faith, and how is that different from all the other religions?
Except it's based in math... Faith isn't based in anything that can be trusted.

Alex Rosenberg is a high priest in the new religion. He puts all his faith in science. He presumes that because science has given us many wonderful things so far, it's all that matters.

He spends many pages telling us that our brain deceives us -- that everything's an illusion -- that it's impossible to know anything for certain -- and then he proceeds to tell us that science tells us the truth about the Universe?! I kept waiting for him to reconcile these seemingly contradictory stands, but it never happened.


If you trust I think therefore I am and extend that to our senses, then you can see that logic and science are the best tools we have to understand the universe.
Where he really loses me is when he says there's no such thing as morality. Does he think this simply because it's something his beloved science can't deal with? He says Nazis weren't immoral. I guess if one person spends the day torturing children, and another spends the day collecting money to feed starving children, the two are absolutely equal in the eyes of science, because there's no such thing as good or evil. Well, that keeps things simple!
Objective morality doesn't exist. If you do not use a subjective system of morality then yes, they are equal.

I can tell you this much. I KNOW stealing and killing, to name two things, are bad, and do you know HOW I know this? Because I know I wouldn't want anyone to steal from me or kill me -- and I assume almost everyone feels the same way. Therefore we can proclaim these things to be evil, even if science has nothing to say on the matter. Only someone who thinks science is the only thing that matters (like the author of this rancid book) could even think that someone who murdered him isn't a bad person, just a person doing what he couldn't help doing as his fermions and bosons compelled him. (At least Rosenberg admits these concepts can be dangerous. You think?)
I'm a determinist who doesn't believe in free will so...
Things don't have to be completely objective to be useful.

He's an extremist, as extreme in his views as the most rabid religious screwball is in his. I'd like to believe that the truth (whatever that is!) lies somewhere in between. I honestly believe there's something going on in this Universe that's beyond the techniques of science (and certainly religion!) to understand at this point in our evolution. The answers certainly don't lie in the far past, as religion would like us to believe. We're certainly not there yet, as Rosenberg seems to believe. Maybe the answers lie in the future. It may take millions of years of evolution before we really begin to understand this weird Universe in which we find ourselves. Rosenberg is as arrogant in his views as the religious nuts are in theirs. I really resent having wasted time on this book.

We've given you proof. You have to discredit it. Saying "ladeda I don't like what you're saying" is dumb.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 12:48:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 9:51:09 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Because I know I wouldn't want anyone to steal from me or kill me -- and I assume almost everyone feels the same way. Therefore we can proclaim these things to be evil

No.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."