tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post5908742266094668247..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: Michael Shermer sounding transhumanistRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-38875978149309474712009-09-18T02:05:48.913+10:002009-09-18T02:05:48.913+10:00The universe may not have had a creator. It might ...<i>The universe may not have had a creator. It might have created itself ...<br /><br />Huh? If it created itself it had a creator ... and one that does not operate by what we consider to be "natural law." There is a word for that but it slips my mind ... <br /><br />... or it may have erupted from another universe. <br /><br />... which came from where? That is only pushing the problem back one step.</i><br /><br />That's pretty deep thinking there, luckily invoking a creator does not push the problem back one step.The Loraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361004494346338824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-52401741978094773512009-09-18T00:15:56.890+10:002009-09-18T00:15:56.890+10:00However, there are no behavioral agnostics--one be...<i> However, there are no behavioral agnostics--one behaves in a way that presumes one either believes or does not believe in God, and in this sense I am an atheist.</i><br /><br />Eh? By that definition, wouldn't nearly everyone be an atheist? After all, when's the last time anyone prayed for manna instead of going to the grocery store? When's the last time anyone called God in an emergency, instead of the police?<br /><br />I would argue that despite many people claiming to be theists, almost none of them act as if there were a God <i>when it matters</i>. They'll take chemotherapy over church and firetrucks over faith. Sure, most people will do both - but we all know that when your house is burning down, it's the firetrucks that are the critical element.Tacroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12456857058875070697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-3276675865338139122009-09-17T15:09:30.756+10:002009-09-17T15:09:30.756+10:00"The so-called "new atheists" who i..."The so-called "new atheists" who insist on being snide, abusive and obnoxious could learn from Schermer's emotional maturity and good humor. Only a social retard would..." ...would put those two sentences back to back?CWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-21656122724501587352009-09-17T10:49:04.904+10:002009-09-17T10:49:04.904+10:00Re a transhuman future: I can hear the howls of th...Re a transhuman future: I can hear the howls of the Luddites already . . .Parrhesianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-3639088231441899482009-09-17T10:44:54.821+10:002009-09-17T10:44:54.821+10:00Anonymous, you forgot to mention that the "so...Anonymous, you forgot to mention that the "so-called New Atheists" are STRIDENT and SHRILL. Get the buzz words right, damn you.Parrhesianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-43849978402297082742009-09-16T22:22:27.152+10:002009-09-16T22:22:27.152+10:00I've always had a deep respect and a fondness ...I've always had a deep respect and a fondness for Michael Schermer. As an avid reader of the Skeptic, I've always enjoyed his columns even when disagreeing with them. He is a perfect gentlemen and a perfect example of how to disagree without being disagreeable.<br /><br />The so-called "new atheists" who insist on being snide, abusive and obnoxious could learn from Schermer's emotional maturity and good humor. Only a social retard would consider such tactics to be useful or productive (and atheists wonder why they have a public image problem). <br /><br />Schermer is "NPR", the new atheists are "Jerry Springer".<br /><br />Having said that, I must disagree with him concerning his claim that God can be explained away by the fact that humans are pattern seekers, seeing intent and organization in random tea leaves, cloud formations, etc.. That may be true, but it is beside the point. How humans perceieve patterns is completely irrelevant to whether or not God exists. To claim otherwise is to commit a serious Genetic Fallacy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-66498423978828883442009-09-16T22:06:53.966+10:002009-09-16T22:06:53.966+10:00The multiple universe (or "many worlds")...The multiple universe (or "many worlds") scenario is a nonfalsifiable and unscientific faith statement. It's about as scientific as claiming God did it. <br /><br />For another universe to be truly parallel, we could never visit or observe it. If we could, it would merely be another region of the same space time. From the point of view of being non- falsifiable, "God" and "parallel universes" are equally valid explanations (even Schermer admitted as much in "Why We Believe"). God and multiple universes are therefore equally metaphysical and unscientific, but of the two God is the simpler explanation. I recommend Martin Gardner's essay "Multiverses and Blackberries" for an succinct shooting down of the Many Worlds concept. <br /><br />Lastly, the many worlds hypothesis is is not "elegant", as most successful physical theories are. Its a crude blunderbuss approach requiring a near infinity of universes to explain a few basic forces and characteristics. It's blatant epistemological over kill. God is a much simpler explanation. Oddly enough, in this case, Occam's Razor works in God's favor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-38598675265334796052009-09-16T19:05:37.067+10:002009-09-16T19:05:37.067+10:00The universe may not have had a creator. It might ...<i>The universe may not have had a creator. It might have created itself</i> ...<br /><br />Huh? If it created itself it had a creator ... and one that does not operate by what we consider to be "natural law." There is a word for that but it slips my mind ... <br /><br /><i>... or it may have erupted from another universe</i>. <br /><br />... which came from where? That is only pushing the problem back one step.<br /><br /><i>However, there are no behavioral agnostics--one behaves in a way that presumes one either believes or does not believe in God, and in this sense I am an atheist</i>.<br /><br />There is an infinite set of possible gods. It is incredibly easy to act as if some of them may exist ... in fact, it's hard to imagine acting in a way that is incompatible with the existence of <i>some</i> version of god. Shermer is, I suspect, assuming a certain cultural <i>milieu</i>. It is possible, however, to think outside that box. I think I am a behavioral agnostic ... which does not require me to think the entirety of the infinite set is equally likely.John Pierethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17336244849636477317noreply@blogger.com