Brian Cox

[BashfulAnthony]

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."

[Shaker]

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."

[Enki]

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)? 

[SusanDoris]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[jeremyp]

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'.

[Bubbles]

That sounds highly antagonistic of them.I bet most of your values are very similar to Richard Dawkins'.

In some matters very likely.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Hope]

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. 

[Shaker]

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?

[Maeght]

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.

[Bubbles]

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.

[SusanDoris]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Gonnagle]

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 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

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.

[Bubbles]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[BashfulAnthony]

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?