Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: BashfulAnthony on November 20, 2015, 10:33:09 PM
-
Interesting quote from the professor, discussing his new tv series. Asked about his views on God, he replied, "There is naivety in just saying there’s no God; it’s b------s,” he says. “People have thought about this. People like Leibniz and Kant. They’re not idiots."
-
Argument from authority, that's called.
Shame; you'd think he'd know better.
P.S. That quote is an old one - nothing to do with any "new" TV series which I think you'll find is now rather old.
-
The full quote is “Philosophers would rightly point out that physicists making bland and sweeping statements is naive. There is naivety in just saying there’s no God; it’s b------s. People have thought about this. People like Leibniz and Kant. They’re not idiots. So you’ve got to at least address that.” So he's saying not really saying that to say there is no God is b-------s but to just say there is no God is b-------s.
-
Cox is an atheist so the most likely explanation for his comment is the oldest: diplomacy when dealing with the general public (and especially when dealing with journalists, who twist, distort, slant and misrepresent more easily than they breathe). Darwin, much more critical of religion in private than usually supposed, took this to a fairly extreme degree. The first accomodationist, as it were.
-
To try and invoke Prof Brian Cox as in any way at all a supporter of religious belief is really clutching at straws, I think.
-
There is an article about him here, with an interview
http://www.avclub.com/article/professor-brian-cox-59892
He describes himself as: (below is part of the interview with the question he was asked to give it context.)
AVC: The series opens with your visit to Shiva’s temple in Kathmandu. You start there with this notion from the Hindu religion that from destruction comes life. It is why they have an elaborate cremation ceremony, to feed into this notion of the cycle of life, to return the body and the soul to earth in order for it to be reborn, in a way. You then say, in passing, that this ancient belief “touches on a deeper truth about how the universe works.” This is an extremely roundabout way to get to a simple question: Do you believe in God?
BC: No. [Laughs.] But I’m not an atheist in the form of Richard Dawkins. And I know Richard and I like him a lot. But there’s kind of an antagonistic atheism, which I don’t support, although I don’t believe in God at all. Sagan wrote a very famous essay called “Religion And Science: An Alliance,” where he pointed out that really what you want in the world is a coalition of people of goodwill to move things forward. He was thinking, at the time, about nuclear disarmament, because in the ’70s that was the great threat. Now, you’ve got threats to the climate, you’ve got threats with conflicts, which are in part driven by clashes of civilizations and clashes of extremist religions. So I think you can be quite pragmatic about it and say, “Even if I thought it was a good idea, I’m not going to convince everybody in the world that they should give up religion.” It’s not going to happen.
I have a good friend who is a Dean of Guildford Cathedral—that’s kind of the highest religious position in the U.K. I don’t share his particular beliefs, but we do share a vision that sensible people could come together to make progress, to build a more tolerant world. So that’s my view.
Whilst I’m not religious at all, I do not have an issue what I will call “moderate religion.” I do have a big issue with things like Young Earth creationism, because it’s shit. I have no patience at all for people who think the world is 6,000 years old. It isn’t. The universe is 13.73 plus or minus 0.12 billion years old, given our data at the moment and our understanding of the way it evolved. And that’s it! But the thing is, in Britain anyway, most—what I will call “sensible” religious people—don’t think that their particular religion has anything to say about the age of the Earth. I’ve pointed to some writing by St. Augustine, a venerated Christian theologian from many years ago, he pointed out that once you begin to read the Bible literally then you open it to ridicule and ultimately that’s the path to the downfall of the religion. It is. Because it’s not a textbook. St. Augustine knew that. It’s not as if this is new thinking. It is a statement of the obvious.
👍
-
To try and invoke Prof Brian Cox as in any way at all a supporter of religious belief is really clutching at straws, I think.
I find the reactions that have come so far on this thread to be pretty moronic. Susan, your suggestion that BA is invoking 'Prof Brian Cox as in any way at all a supporter of religious belief' is perhaps even more crass than what you are accusing BA of.
Shaker's
Argument from authority, that's called.
Shame; you'd think he'd know better.
seems to forget that if this is an argument from anything, its an argument from breadth, as opposed to 'from authority' (something that he himself seems to rely on, despite appearing to criticise here).
From my point of view, its nice to hear an eminintly sensible scientist, albeit an atheist, actually backing up what most scientists who are Christians say - that the Young Earth Creationist position has no validity - and using Christian documentation as well as scientific documentation to support that view.
-
His position is not a million love songs away from mine though I would add in evolution to the whole statement against YECs
-
Shaker's ... seems to forget that if this is an argument from anything, its an argument from breadth, as opposed to 'from authority' (something that he himself seems to rely on, despite appearing to criticise here).
Wrong. An argument from authority is lazily throwing in some big names and expecting the spectator to be impressed not with the strength of the arguments - the clarity and logical rigour of the thinking - but the mere fact that they're big names.
Clearly there are some occasions in life when not authority but expertise is a perfectly right, proper and valid thing to invoke - the former flows from the latter, not vice versa. In "debating" with a creationist the knowledge of an evolutionary biologist is what you need; when trying to make the perfect sponge cake you'd be better off with Mary Berry than Steve Jones. That's not relying on authority because the worth of such people isn't predicated on eminence but on expertise - people who achieve eminence in their respective fields do so on the basis of that expertise and not vice versa, which is precisely where the argument from authority gets it arse-backwards. Nobody, no matter how eminent, has any expertise in gods. Certainly there are some forlorn individuals who have expertise in the non-subject known as theology (currently being discussed on another thread), but that's merely "expertise" in other people's beliefs and opinions about gods ... a fatuous and forlorn endeavour indeed.
From my point of view, its nice to hear an eminintly sensible scientist, albeit an atheist
That's the vast majority of them by a long way, then ;)
-
His position is not a million love songs away from mine though I would add in evolution to the whole statement against YECs
Yes he strikes me as being very sensible.
I like the way he says he isn't into "antagonistic atheism".
I think it is why I'm not keen on the BHS and the NSS. ( my perception is they are, very much so)
I wish they came across as well as Prof Brian Cox, I think they would get more support and would be more representative of what they claim to support.
-
Yes he strikes me as being very sensible.
I like the way he says he isn't into "antagonistic atheism".
Amazing how low the bar is set for "antagonism" (see also: militancy) when it comes to criticising baseless beliefs, isn't it?
-
I'd have to say that for as long as even relatively moderate religious people would really like to have direct access to our young, impressionable and easily influenced children during their education so as to proselytise then I've no problem with robust atheism.
I don't see why, when encountering say those of the YEC variety, I should need to diplomatically dance around their intransigent and ill-informed idiocy.
-
Yes he strikes me as being very sensible.
I like the way he says he isn't into "antagonistic atheism".
I think it is why I'm not keen on the BHS and the NSS. ( my perception is they are, very much so)
I wish they came across as well as Prof Brian Cox, I think they would get more support and would be more representative of what they claim to support.
I am not really sure what antagonistic atheism is. As Shaker refers to the word militant gets thrown about very easily. There is a poisoning of the well here
-
I am not really sure what antagonistic atheism is.
I think it's when somebody is an atheist and says so and explains why ::)
-
I'd have to say that for as long as even relatively moderate religious people would really like to have direct access to our young, impressionable and easily influenced children during their education so as to proselytise then I've no problem with robust atheism.
I don't see why, when encountering say those of the YEC variety, I should need to diplomatically dance around their intransigent and ill-informed idiocy.
I don't see the YEC variety as being moderate, do you?
Relatively moderate religious people seem to be more concerned about being given some say in what their children are taught in school and that they have the opportunity to pass on their own values, rather than those of anti religious antagonists.
-
I think it's when somebody is an atheist and says so and explains why ::)
No it's a form of aggressive evangelical Atheism.
-
... which in practice amounts to precisely what I've already said.
-
I don't see the YEC variety as being moderate, do you?
Relatively moderate religious people seem to be more concerned about being given some say in what their children are taught in school and that they have the opportunity to pass on their own values, rather than those of anti religious antagonists.
They can do so as regards their own children of course, but unless they opt for private education then they can do so in their own time. It took intervention to keep them away from mine while my kids were in primary school.
If acts of religious observance were on an opt-in basis then fine; but that wasn't the case.
-
Dear Me,
I am not really sure what antagonistic atheism is. As Shaker refers to the word militant gets thrown about very easily. There is a poisoning of the well here
I think it's when somebody is an atheist and says so and explains why
No it's a form of aggressive evangelical Atheism.
... which in practice amounts to precisely what I've already said.
:o :o :o :o
Gonnagle.
-
To try and invoke Prof Brian Cox as in any way at all a supporter of religious belief is really clutching at straws, I think.
Yes but he has been invoked and your brand of outraged atheism has been exposed for what it is.
-
Dear Santa, ( bah humbug )
Angry atheist.
Arrogant atheist.
Antagonistic atheist.
Aggressive atheist.
And that's only the A's.
Gonnagle.
-
Cox is an atheist so the most likely explanation for his comment is the oldest:
Yes Dawkins had the ear of the public and a post to promote the reasonableness of science. He fucked it up by banging on about God and religion and queered the pitch for others in the public awareness of science business.
That's what you really meant to say, isn't it Shaker?
-
No. I find that generally what I mean to say is what I actually say, being fortunate enough not to suffer any interruptions between cognition and motor skills.
-
To try and invoke Prof Brian Cox as in any way at all a supporter of religious belief is really clutching at straws, I think.
If you are referring to me, then kindly quote where I said any such thing. I simply quoted what I heard him say, about the Big Bang. So, don't put words and meanings into what I say: it's scurrilous.
-
If you are referring to me, then kindly quote where I said any such thing. I simply quoted what I heard him say, about the Big Bang. So, don't put words and meanings into what I say: it's scurrilous.
What indicates that he was talking about the Big Bang?
If he was doing so, why did you post a quote of his which included God, Leibniz (he of the nice biscuits, presumably) and Kant, instead of something like the cosmic microwave background or the Hubble constant?
-
What indicates that he was talking about the Big Bang?
He finished his programme by saying: "the Big Bang: either it happened, or it didn't."
-
He finished his programme by saying: "the Big Bang: either it happened, or it didn't."
The man's a genius, I tell you!
In next week's episode, A. J. P. Taylor delivers the annual Robert McLaren Memorial lecture on: "World War Two: Either it happened or it didn't."
-
Dear Santa, ( bah humbug )
Angry atheist.
Arrogant atheist.
Antagonistic atheist.
Aggressive atheist.
And that's only the A's.
Gonnagle.
Fair point, Gonners, if I get your drift correctly. When are you going to start on the Ts(theists, that is)? ;)
-
Which reminds me - next week BBC Radio 4 from12:0 to 12:15p.m. a series of programmes about James clerk-Maxwell. I don't like Will Self's voice much and I've read a lot about the famous mathematician, but I shall try to listen to them.
-
Amazing how low the bar is set for "antagonism" (see also: militancy) when it comes to criticising baseless beliefs, isn't it?
By the same token there are many many antagonistic religionists.
-
By the same token there are many many antagonistic religionists.
Indeed, except that their antagonism frequently seems to amount to a good deal more in the real world harm stakes than writing books and appearing on YouTube.
-
I don't see the YEC variety as being moderate, do you?
Relatively moderate religious people seem to be more concerned about being given some say in what their children are taught in school
That sounds highly antagonistic of them.
and that they have the opportunity to pass on their own values, rather than those of anti religious antagonists.
I bet most of your values are very similar to Richard Dawkins'.
-
That sounds highly antagonistic of them.I bet most of your values are very similar to Richard Dawkins'.
In some matters very likely.
-
The man's a genius, I tell you!
In next week's episode, A. J. P. Taylor delivers the annual Robert McLaren Memorial lecture on: "World War Two: Either it happened or it didn't."
.......Or the universe could be like the moon landings......done in a studio.
-
Indeed, except that their antagonism frequently seems to amount to a good deal more in the real world harm stakes than writing books and appearing on YouTube.
Damn.....Shakers gone nuclear........quick......push the Stalin button.
-
Wrong. An argument from authority is lazily throwing in some big names and expecting the spectator to be impressed not with the strength of the arguments - the clarity and logical rigour of the thinking - but the mere fact that they're big names.
Oh, I see, now it's a suggestion that Cox is lazy and therefore his argument is invalid.
Clearly there are some occasions in life when not authority but expertise is a perfectly right, proper and valid thing to invoke - the former flows from the latter, not vice versa.
Someone like Brian Cox is known as an expert in a number of aspects of science and especially physics. Anyone reading/listening to that interview is therefore likely to be aware of this. As such, the good Dr. doesn't have to (re-)establish his credentials every time he does an interview. He can, instead, use a wider frame of reference than someone like Dawkins chooses to use and reference people who might not be commonly associated with his pov, without invalidating that pov and his argument.
Nobody, no matter how eminent, has any expertise in gods. Certainly there are some forlorn individuals who have expertise in the non-subject known as theology (currently being discussed on another thread), but that's merely "expertise" in other people's beliefs and opinions about gods ... a fatuous and forlorn endeavour indeed.
Obviously, you have absolutely no evidence to back-up these assertions, so it might be best if you made it clear that what you have stated is your own opinion, rather than anything more definitive.
-
Oh, I see, now it's a suggestion that Cox is lazy and therefore his argument is invalid.
Nobody is accusing Brian Cox of using argument from authority. Where did you get that idea from?
Someone like Brian Cox is known as an expert in a number of aspects of science and especially physics. Anyone reading/listening to that interview is therefore likely to be aware of this. As such, the good Dr. doesn't have to (re-)establish his credentials every time he does an interview. He can, instead, use a wider frame of reference than someone like Dawkins chooses to use and reference people who might not be commonly associated with his pov, without invalidating that pov and his argument.
Obviously, you have absolutely no evidence to back-up these assertions, so it might be best if you made it clear that what you have stated is your own opinion, rather than anything more definitive.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
-
Oh, I see, now it's a suggestion that Cox is lazy and therefore his argument is invalid.
Someone like Brian Cox is known as an expert in a number of aspects of science and especially physics. Anyone reading/listening to that interview is therefore likely to be aware of this. As such, the good Dr. doesn't have to (re-)establish his credentials every time he does an interview. He can, instead, use a wider frame of reference than someone like Dawkins chooses to use and reference people who might not be commonly associated with his pov, without invalidating that pov and his argument.
Obviously, you have absolutely no evidence to back-up these assertions, so it might be best if you made it clear that what you have stated is your own opinion, rather than anything more definitive.
Don't forget that Cox has violated 'honour amongst atheists here. He has questioned the absolute rightness of his inner philosophical naturalist thus his science must, So the dogma goes, must suffer. Pretty much in the same way that Snow White wouldn't have fluffy animals fluttering around her if she lost her virginity.
-
Oh, I see, now it's a suggestion that Cox is lazy and therefore his argument is invalid.
In a nutshell, although the AfA originally was BA's.
Someone like Brian Cox is known as an expert in a number of aspects of science and especially physics. Anyone reading/listening to that interview is therefore likely to be aware of this. As such, the good Dr. doesn't have to (re-)establish his credentials every time he does an interview.
Except that as you've just pointed out, his credentials are in physics (and forgettable, minor charts-bothering pop music). Anyone reading/listening to that interview is likely to be aware of this, but vastly less likely to know what Leibniz and Kant said about God, if their arguments are any good and why - or even if - their names are in any way relevant. Bashers claims that Cox was discussing the Big Bang, despite the fact that there was no indication of this in the OP, just an unsourced quote; what we actually got were a few not tremendously interesting thoughts on God and a bit of wholly pointless name-dropping possibly designed to make it look as though The Toothsome One has heard of Leibniz. It's not setting my world alight, frankly.
Obviously, you have absolutely no evidence to back-up these assertions, so it might be best if you made it clear that what you have stated is your own opinion, rather than anything more definitive.
When you start taking your own advice in this regard I'll start taking unsought advice slightly more seriously. For example: a day ago you said that the explanation of the universe I espouse is "not a real one." I asked you for evidence for this assertion ("Changing our mind" on General Discussion)*. Answer came there none, surprise surprise.
One example from a list which is expanding faster than the observable universe.
* If you missed that post, you've seen this one.
-
In a nutshell, although the AfA originally was BA's.Except that as you've just pointed out, his credentials are in physics (and forgettable, minor charts-bothering pop music). Anyone reading/listening to that interview is likely to be aware of this, but vastly less likely to know what Leibniz and Kant said about God, if their arguments are any good and why - or even if - their names are in any way relevant. Bashers claims that Cox was discussing the Big Bang, despite the fact that there was no indication of this in the OP, just an unsourced quote; what we actually got were a few not tremendously interesting thoughts on God and a bit of wholly pointless name-dropping possibly designed to make it look as though The Toothsome One has heard of Leibniz. It's not setting my world alight, frankly.
When you start taking your own advice in this regard I'll start taking unsought advice slightly more seriously. For example: a day ago you said that the explanation of the universe I espouse is "not a real one." I asked you for evidence for this assertion ("Changing our mind" on General Discussion)*. Answer came there none, surprise surprise.
One example from a list which is expanding faster than the observable universe.
* If you missed that post, you've seen this one.
Sorry Shaker.......1....2...3
Nothin' you can say can tear me away from my Bri......My Bri.
Npthin' you can do cos i'm stuck like glue to my Bri....My BriyeeIeei.
-
It's not setting my world alight, frankly.
That doesn't surprise me; after all, what he says doesn't fit very well with your world-view, so obviously you're going to dismiss it if you can.
-
He's not offering anything in particular to dismiss.
And given that Cox is an atheist and a scientifically-minded man, his worldview and mine are not likely to be ever so far apart as you have implied. The only difference is that as a public figure frequently accepting the greasy coin of a bastion of the establishment he presumably feels it's incumbent upon him to say bland, anodyne, non-pot-stirring platitudes about religion when the subject crops up, which I don't have to. Attenborough suffers from this same syndrome also but to a lesser degree than Highly Smiley Bri - he's prepared to be a fair bit more critical and cutting. Great age, a stellar career of several decades behind him, the respect and affection of the nation and no doubt a still considerable amount of clout with The Firm give him latitude that way.
Or I should say certain kinds of religion - Cox is still perfectly happy to call creationism "bollocks," for example. It's a matter of degree; there are only a few creationists, in the UK especially, so, being a tiny demographic, he must feel perfectly safe in abusing them and their deeply-held and sincere science-sodomising religious beliefs thusly. Religious believers who are not overt young-earth creationists are a somewhat larger constituency (though still very small indeed over all in the UK - huge in the US of course) so he leaves them alone in spite of the fact that as a trained and working scientist and science communicator he knows perfectly well that these represent beliefs which debauch the scientific endeavour every bit as much as does young-earth creationism.
Now: about your evidence for your assertion on the "Changing our mind" thread on General Discussion - how's that shaping up?
-
Don't forget that Cox has violated 'honour amongst atheists here. He has questioned the absolute rightness of his inner philosophical naturalist thus his science must, So the dogma goes, must suffer. Pretty much in the same way that Snow White wouldn't have fluffy animals fluttering around her if she lost her virginity.
Honour amongst atheists - you do have some funny ideas.
-
He's not offering anything in particular to dismiss.
And given that Cox is an atheist and a scientifically-minded man, his worldview and mine are not likely to be ever so far apart as you have implied. The only difference is that as a public figure frequently accepting the greasy coin of a bastion of the establishment he presumably feels it's incumbent upon him to say bland, anodyne, non-pot-stirring platitudes about religion when the subject crops up, which I don't have to. Attenborough suffers from this same syndrome also but to a lesser degree than Highly Smiley Bri - he's prepared to be a fair bit more critical and cutting. Great age, a stellar career of several decades behind him, the respect and affection of the nation and no doubt a still considerable amount of clout with The Firm give him latitude that way.
Or I should say certain kinds of religion - Cox is still perfectly happy to call creationism "bollocks," for example. It's a matter of degree; there are only a few creationists, in the UK especially, so, being a tiny demographic, he must feel perfectly safe in abusing them and their deeply-held and sincere science-sodomising religious beliefs thusly. Religious believers who are not overt young-earth creationists are a somewhat larger constituency (though still very small indeed over all in the UK - huge in the US of course) so he leaves them alone in spite of the fact that as a trained and working scientist and science communicator he knows perfectly well that these represent beliefs which debauch the scientific endeavour every bit as much as does young-earth creationism.
Now: about your evidence for your assertion on the "Changing our mind" thread on General Discussion - how's that shaping up?
I'd say Brian Cox has a more balanced view than a few other prominent atheists.
-
I'd say Brian Cox has a more balanced view than a few other prominent atheists.
If that indicates that he makes it sound as if believers are right in their beliefs in anyway, then I disagree.
How would you define this 'more balanced view' you think he has?
-
He's not offering anything in particular to dismiss.
And given that Cox is an atheist and a scientifically-minded man, his worldview and mine are not likely to be ever so far apart as you have implied. The only difference is that as a public figure frequently accepting the greasy coin of a bastion of the establishment he presumably feels it's incumbent upon him to say bland, anodyne, non-pot-stirring platitudes about religion when the subject crops up, which I don't have to. Attenborough suffers from this same syndrome also but to a lesser degree than Highly Smiley Bri
I think you are mistaking antitheism with emotional incontinence and attention seeking of Shaker-like proportions there, old boy.
-
Dear enki,
Fair point, Gonners, if I get your drift correctly. When are you going to start on the Ts(theists, that is)
I was wondering why ( I am always wondering why ::) ) I mean is it a kind of poetry, both names begin with A.
Any students of poetry on here, or do I need a student of the English language.
Or is it :o :o simply, that the adjectives fit the bill, our Shaker has more or less admitted it's true!!
Theist is a bit more difficult ( or maybe I am just lazy ) but Christian, carnaptious Christian ( apparently it's a good Scottish word ) cantankerous Christian, crusty Christian, crazy Christian :o
Anyway what's this thread about, oh yes, Vlads second favourite pin up boy, argument from authority has been mentioned.
My thrupence worth ( feeling generous today ) I have often been accused of using argument from authority when I quote wee Albert, on the subject of God, what does Einstein know about God.
What does anybody know about God.
Throughout his life Einstein was hounded with questions about religion, from both sides of the divide, but more importantly Einstein was a scientist, probably the greatest and I can't help but think that men like Einstein or even Cox, when they try to unravel the mystery's of the universe that thoughts of God do surface, after all, thoughts of God is a human trait.
So quoting Einstein or Cox is not a false argument, especially on the subject of God, science, ripping the mask of nature to reveal the face of God.
Francis Bacon.
A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion.
Gonnagle.
-
If that indicates that he makes it sound as if believers are right in their beliefs in anyway, then I disagree.
How would you define this 'more balanced view' you think he has?
He doesn't make out opinions are facts or that facts are opinions.
He shows he has looked at both sides without being prejudiced, and puts his own POV without being scornful of others.
He's fairly moderate and prefers non judgmental language.
He looks to unite people with different beliefs rather than be divisive and force his beliefs on other people.
He hasn't got some chip on his shoulder, and appears to choose his battles wisely.
I like the way he shares his sense of awe at the universe, rather than spend the whole time bitching at people who believe in God.
He isn't antagonistic.
Pity more scientists in the lime light don't take a page out of his book.
-
Indeed, except that their antagonism frequently seems to amount to a good deal more in the real world harm stakes than writing books and appearing on YouTube.
Shaker, I'm not sure that you get much 'higher' on the 'real world harm stakes' (whatever they might be) than ISIS do on YouTube and social media. I've also seen some pretty vicious postings from non-religious people on sites like Facebook, Twitter and internet discussion boards.
-
He doesn't make out opinions are facts or that facts are opinions.
He shows he has looked at both sides without being prejudiced, and puts his own POV without being scornful of others.
He's fairly moderate and prefers non judgmental language.
He looks to unite people with different beliefs rather than be divisive and force his beliefs on other people.
He hasn't got some chip on his shoulder, and appears to choose his battles wisely.
I like the way he shares his sense of awe at the universe, rather than spend the whole time bitching at people who believe in God.
He isn't antagonistic.
Pity more scientists in the lime light don't take a page out of his book.
Have you got his picture on your wall as well, Rose?
-
Shaker, I'm not sure that you get much 'higher' on the 'real world harm stakes' (whatever they might be) than ISIS do on YouTube and social media.
That's what I was referring to in #30. The higher is the harm they do to real people who are not sitting behind a keyboard scrolling through Facebook. Shooting them or blowing them up, for example.
I've also seen some pretty vicious postings from non-religious people on sites like Facebook, Twitter and internet discussion boards.
Hm, because that's a fair comparison with ISIS, isn't it?
-
Have you got his picture on your wall as well, Rose?
;D
No, I think my hubby would object ;)
I like the way he says what he thinks, but isn't anti religion.
Einstein saw God as a useful metaphor, saying that physics helped man know the mind of God, but Richard Dawkins criticises this use of the word as it has too much cultural baggage. Where does Cox stand?
“I’m more practical about it. There is a lot of goodwill toward scientists among the religious communities in this country. I met the Dean of Guildford Cathedral when I was an atheist on a panel and we got on well. After that I took him to Cern and we became good friends. I also recently got invited to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s house because he liked Wonders of the Solar System.”
And? “Rowan Williams is a very thoughtful man. If you want to move society forward in a more rational direction, religious leaders can be useful because they share that view. Setting yourself up as anti-religion is not helpful. You can set yourself up as anti-maniac, that’s different. So it’s OK to say that if you believe the world was created 6,000 years ago, as the Creationists do, then you are an idiot. There is nothing wrong in saying that because you are an idiot. But setting yourself up as an atheist who is against all religion is not a battle that needs to be fought.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/8330863/Brian-Cox-Im-not-anti-religion.-Im-anti-maniac.html
I like him, 👍🍷
-
Rose
Thank you for your reply. He certainly does not confuse facts with unsubstantiated opinions - it would be a compromise with truth, and he does not do that!
I have had another chapter of his 'Human Universe' read to me this afternoon* and it was about whether we are alone in the universe; superbly written and facts from start to finish.
*by my older son.
-
Rose
Thank you for your reply. He certainly does not confuse facts with unsubstantiated opinions - it would be a compromise with truth, and he does not do that!
I have had another chapter of his 'Human Universe' read to me this afternoon* and it was about whether we are alone in the universe; superbly written and facts from start to finish.
*by my older son.
I might get that :)
I like his approach and enthusiasm
-
That's what I was referring to in #30. The higher is the harm they do to real people who are not sitting behind a keyboard scrolling through Facebook. Shooting them or blowing them up, for example.
So, you regard radicalisation, acheived through social media and other such feeds as of less importance or seriousness than being shot at/blown up,etc. Surely, they are eqwually serious, just in different spheres of reality?
Hm, because that's a fair comparison with ISIS, isn't it?
Yup; they were posts and comments by terrorist groups and other comparable groups. One site I used to belong to was hacked and we were 'treated' to anti-capitalist rhetoric and threats to the safety of the countries that the hackers believed we lived in (it turned out to be some ultra-radical US-based anti-capitalist organisation that I'd never heard of, but one or two of the Americans on the site had).
I have also see posts on Facebook that I've been told, by those in the know, are from Indian extremist left-wing groupings - generally claiming to be more Maoist in nature than anything else - who have been threatening the lives of people of both religious and non-religious persuasion. It's what comes of having a number of my Facebook friends based in the sub-continent.
-
So, you regard radicalisation, acheived through social media and other such feeds as of less importance or seriousness than being shot at/blown up,etc.
Yes. A radical has a chance of changing his mind. Corpses stay dead.
-
I have had another chapter of his 'Human Universe' read to me this afternoon* and it was about whether we are alone in the universe; superbly written and facts from start to finish.
Are there any 'facts' in this area, Susan?
-
Yes. A radical has a chance of changing his mind. Corpses stay dead.
Do you know how many Western Muslims, who have been radicalised before travelling to the Middle East, have changed their minds either before travelling or once they get there? I believe that there have been some, but not many - especially amongst those who have already arrived in the Middle East. Its partly why radicalisation is so serious - changing one's mind isn't often considered.
-
Do you know how many Western Muslims, who have been radicalised before travelling to the Middle East, have changed their minds either before travelling or once they get there? I believe that there have been some, but not many - especially amongst those who have already arrived in the Middle East. Its partly why radicalisation is so serious - changing one's mind isn't often considered.
Not many things are as serious as being dead.
-
Do you know how many Western Muslims, who have been radicalised before travelling to the Middle East, have changed their minds either before travelling or once they get there? I believe that there have been some, but not many - especially amongst those who have already arrived in the Middle East. Its partly why radicalisation is so serious - changing one's mind isn't often considered.
How would we know how many changed their mind before travelling.
-
Brian Cox supported Tim Hunt so what does he know?
-
Brian Cox supported Tim Hunt so what does he know?
Quite a lot actually!
Good for him!
👍
Destroying 72 year old men's careers for making politically incorrect jokes is OTT IMO.
It shows how vindictive some people can be ..............
Universities are well known it seems for being OTT
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/political-correctness-debate-over-whether-it-has-gone-too-far-rages-at-universities-from-cambridge-a6734086.html
-
Brian Cox supported Tim Hunt so what does he know?
An ad hom this early in the morning?
-
An ad hom this early in the morning?
It's a man!
Supporting another man!
Therefore in some eyes it qualifies ;)
Oh! I forgot radical feminists don't call them men now, it's " a person without a uterus"
-
It's a man!
Supporting another man!
Therefore in some eyes it qualifies ;)
Oh! I forgot radical feminists don't call them men now, it's " a person without a uterus"
ironically, that too reads like an ad hom
-
ironically, that too reads like an ad hom
It's a critique ;)
-
I've started a thread on feminism, so this one doesn't get derailed :D
Back to Brian Cox ;)