It's great seeing a philosopher pretend to be an expert in biology and human-psychology (ego never gets in the way of pseudo-intellectualism). He assumes that God exists, then looks for God in everything. I wrote a poem a while ago that describes his way of perceiving the world perfectly.
ever look at the clouds?
stare up at them?
so many things to see
all sorts of objects
practically all of them
they work so hard
constantly creating
so many faces
so many boats
do they want credit?
it is impossible to know
Any philosopher that believes God is a good explanation for the universe should find the nearest time machine and go back a few hundred years. All intelligent philosophers are atheist, or at the very least agnostic.
At the moment, there is no information to suggest the existence of God; therefore the idea of a God is apparently as man-made as a flat earth, and sin-causing disease. If something cannot be known to exist, then obviously there is no way to know about it. Atheism is a respectable position if the human psychology is understood and taken into account. We should be asking ourselves not whether or not there is a creator, but why we are asking the question when there is no valid reason to suppose there is one. We should understand the forces behind the way we process information (and not assume we process information correctly). If science has shown us anything, it is that we humans should not trust our intuition.
"If science has shown us anything, it is that we humans should not trust our intuition." This presumes that intuition has no place at all as a way to acquire knowledge about ourselves and the world, or even the universe. The statement also implies that human imagination has no value at all--ignoring the fact that humans have always relied on intuition and imagination to make some very useful discoveries... from the benzene ring to the airplane, etc. Not to mention the usefulness of intuition and imagination to art, culture an civilization. To mistrust imagination and intuition also means the devaluation of all poetry. Perhaps, you used science to write your poem?
ReplyDelete"If science has shown us anything, it is that we humans should not trust our intuition."
ReplyDeleteEinstein would disagree with that:
"For Einstein, insight did not come from logic or mathematics. It came, as it does for artists, from intuition and inspiration. As he told one friend, "When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come close to the conclusion that the gift of imagination has meant more to me than any talent for absorbing absolute knowledge." Elaborating, he added, "All great achievements of science must start from intuitive knowledge. I believe in intuition and inspiration.... At times I feel certain I am right while not knowing the reason." Thus, his famous statement that, for creative work in science, "Imagination is more important than knowledge" (Calaprice, 2000, 22, 287, 10)."
Arguments are not EVIDENCE. Has Ward seen this deity? Has it personally appeared before him and spoken to him, come over for tea and crumpets? If so, then it can certainly find time to visit me for beers and accept my invite to drag it on to the Oprah show to demonstrate to the world that it actually exists, and do some magic tricks to prove itself a true deity: say, conjure a new planet between us and the Moon for long enough for us to send out a shuttle to look it over, kick the tires, declare it Uhmurika's 51st State, and decide that, well, yeah, this deity actually does exist.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, Ward is just engaging in mental masturbation and running yet another shell game in a long line of shell games. I just finished reading his book"Is Religion Irrational", and I recommend it to everyone as a perfect example and practical demonstration of just how irrational his clinging to religion and superstition really is. The book is a joke that backfires right in his face, even though he is too ignorant and self-delusional to realize it.
Roger, you said: "The problem with many philosophers is that they get too hung up on "feelings"...", The problem I see with "philosophers" -- I haven't seen a one who isn't a Sophist, so I prefer to call them "philosophists" -- is that they start with a presupposition and proceed to rationalize it, rather than looking at the available data, forming a hypothesis, and then gathering evidence to falsify that hypothesis. Even a casual perusing of Ward's book reveals that he is shockingly ignorant of science, biology, evolutionary theory, cosmology, rationality and reason -- ALL of which answer directly to evidence, which he apparently has no regard for whatsoever. I am astounded that anyone outside of the superstition-mongering community gives him a second look, other than to make short work of trouncing his moronic claims.