About

This is an example of a WordPress page, you could edit this to put information about yourself or your site so readers know where you are coming from. You can create as many pages like this one or sub-pages as you like and manage all of your content inside of WordPress.

Advertisements
  1. #1 by Kurt Kish on February 10, 2012 - 10:19 pm

    “…:a Spiritual Autopsy of Science and Religion…) The very FIRST word (that isn’t an article- “a”) immediately invalidates anything that follows- “Spiritual.” spiritual, philosophical obscurantism- aka nonsense

    • #2 by Buddha is an Atheist on February 11, 2012 - 11:45 am

      Maybe you should take it up with these fellows.

      “Certain things constitute a spiritual world” – Sir Arthur Eddington (attained first-hand evidence of general relativity).

      “We should postulate an order of the cosmos distinct from the world of appearances” – Linus Pauli (won 2 solo Nobel prizes).

  2. #3 by Kurt Kish on February 11, 2012 - 2:07 pm

    Newton practiced astrology, so quotes from smart people doesn’t validate a concept like “spiritual”. I think people use the word spiritual when they want there to be more than there is- as if what there is isn’t astounding and awe inspiring enough. In a way, there like children who have everything and are screaming “I want more. more, more”. Just my thoughts on the subject.

  3. #4 by Buddha is an Atheist on February 11, 2012 - 7:16 pm

    I appreciate your comments and willingness to discuss the issue, rather than attack. As an atheist, that is my principal beef with new atheism – it is pretty close-minded.

    Now – saying that things are ‘astounding and awe-inspiring’ verges on the spiritual. The quotes simply point out (as you did with Newton) that not all scientists are in agreement with disposing of the spiritual. Many prominent ones (David Bohm, Einstein – they seem to be physicists) believe in a spiritual domain – if we allow a wide enough latitude for that word. Non-material existence is perhaps a working definition.

    Science has not disproven it, only certain scientists reject it. That is what I feel you may be doing – issuing what’s called a ‘bald assertion.’ Spirituality does not and cannot exist. But this is unproven – in fact, unprovable.

    My definition of the spiritual is to attain a powerful focus of mind, summon compassion, and seek truth directly, no matter if it’s painful or different than what one believes. If one believes that science is the highest possible truth – Can you prove that?

    Thank you for having decent manners – they are sorely lacking in these debates. (I was called a moron by a Christian today on youtube for not believing in God).

    If you get a chance, check out my post Physics needs Metaphysics – http://wp.me/p29kG3-F and Natural Laws are Metaphysical – http://wp.me/p29kG3-1U.
    I just want to discuss these ideas like adults without name-calling. Thanks again.

  4. #5 by Kurt Kish on February 11, 2012 - 11:23 pm

    “Now – saying that things are ‘astounding and awe-inspiring’ verges on the spiritual.”- I couldn’t disagree more. We’ve (humans) come to actually know through science is astounding and awe inspiring, period. I don’t see why that borders on spiritual

    Einstein (to my knowledge) didn’t believe in a spiritual domain. He was of the opinion that if the some of all of the information of the natural world is considered god by some, then he would believe in that god. But that just seems to me to be playing with words to placate the disgruntled population that felt threatened by so much information that perhaps shrunk their belief system.

    “Science has not disproven it…” First of all, describe exactly what “it” means. If you can come up with a respectable hypothesis then the scientific method will give it a go. But don’t forget, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    “My definition of the spiritual is to attain a powerful focus of mind, summon compassion, and seek truth directly, no matter if it’s painful or different than what one believes. If one believes that science is the highest possible truth – Can you prove that?”- This is why we can’t really go any further with a meaningful dialog. Science doesn’t care about “your” definition of the word spiritual at all. There needs to be a concrete definition unanimously agreed upon for any serious discussion about “it”.

    “…attain a powerful focus of mind, summon compassion, and seek truth directly…”- though poetic, that is a jumbled, vague combination of words that could mean different things to different people. Even though there are no absolutes, science works with a certain level of certainty that is the result of as much knowledge as we have. AND, if there is not a level of certainty that satisfies the entire scientific method, then it’s wise and humble to just say “we don’t know”.

    The idea of “seek truth directly” is awfully condescending. Do you feel that science seeks truth indirectly?

    And finally- “…new atheism – it is pretty close-minded.”- Perhaps there’s a misunderstanding here, but could you give some examples of what you mean by new atheists (I guess I’m one) being pretty close minded? I strive to be open minded.

    In closing, I’ll say that I found your link because two people recommended it on RichardDawkins.net.

    New Atheists are as varied as any other group of people. Some close minded- some not. Some name call and are abrupt- some are as easy going as could possible be.
    If you haven’t been there yet (RD.net) I highly suggest you do. Just pick an article that seems appropriate to your many interests you’ve listed on your site and jump in and start commenting.

  5. #6 by Mark Thibodeau on July 26, 2013 - 6:29 pm

    BiaA, I recommend walking away from this particular argumentative quantum entanglement. There can be no winning. People take from a work of art or literature what they are capable of taking. That sound you hear is the cracking Kurt Kish’s swinish teeth on the pearls that you have sown before him. Your book is fantastic… a masterpiece. I believe it will be read for generations to come, and if I can play a part in having this happen, I will, by promoting and praising it to the heavens (once I’m finished my second, very close reading). Congratulations. You should be proud.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: