Quote of the day: "Mind over matter, it really don't matter if the street's idle chatter turns your heart strings to tatters" - Materialist
Greg Graffin: Punk-Rock Ph.D.
Home > News from the front
Posted by: admin | 08/02/2007 at 10:15
| 1282 views
The frontman of legendary punk outfit Bad Religion stalks a much different stage nowadays. But even though he finds religion and science incompatible, he?s still finding a way to mix science and rock, work and pleasure.
Greg Graffin?s lecture on the evolution of eukaryotes is about to begin, and I can?t find the damn lecture hall on the UCLA campus. suddenly a student on a skateboard glides by wearing a Bad Religion backpack, and I scurry after him, squeezing past the knees of lissome coeds into a seat just as Graffin begins. ?Today we?re going to talk about the eukaryotes,? he says, ?which form a huge group of organisms with characteristic synapomorphies.?
[...]
Over coffee in the faculty club after his lecture (Graffin is a visiting lecturer but gets the privileges of a professor), he free associates on his favorite songs from the new album. ?Fields of Mars? speculates that humans may someday outgrow war and view it as an odd aberration of our species? adolescence. ?Grains of Wrath? ? in classic Bad Religion style ? warns against big oil?s lust for ethanol. ?We have all these conglomerates that have essentially raped us, and now they have their eyes on the most fertile soil in the world,? Graffin says.
The song that seems to inspire him most is ?The Grand Delusion,? which examines the idea that human morality is something that could come only from a supernatural source. ?We delude ourselves into believing that morality comes from somewhere else whereas in reality we behave as we?ve been told to behave.?
[Read full article here]
Greg Graffin?s lecture on the evolution of eukaryotes is about to begin, and I can?t find the damn lecture hall on the UCLA campus. suddenly a student on a skateboard glides by wearing a Bad Religion backpack, and I scurry after him, squeezing past the knees of lissome coeds into a seat just as Graffin begins. ?Today we?re going to talk about the eukaryotes,? he says, ?which form a huge group of organisms with characteristic synapomorphies.?
[...]
Over coffee in the faculty club after his lecture (Graffin is a visiting lecturer but gets the privileges of a professor), he free associates on his favorite songs from the new album. ?Fields of Mars? speculates that humans may someday outgrow war and view it as an odd aberration of our species? adolescence. ?Grains of Wrath? ? in classic Bad Religion style ? warns against big oil?s lust for ethanol. ?We have all these conglomerates that have essentially raped us, and now they have their eyes on the most fertile soil in the world,? Graffin says.
The song that seems to inspire him most is ?The Grand Delusion,? which examines the idea that human morality is something that could come only from a supernatural source. ?We delude ourselves into believing that morality comes from somewhere else whereas in reality we behave as we?ve been told to behave.?
[Read full article here]
Reported by: Not specified
Tags: No tags defined
Tags: No tags defined
|
08/08/2007 at 08:58
"Have you heard of Moore's Paradox?"
No, but reading that Wiki entry lead me to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Faith_and_rationality Enough philosophy for today, I need my head for more simplistic things now... |
|
08/08/2007 at 06:33
One thing I like about atheism is that it pushes you to re-evaluate your notions of truth, belief, knowledge and proof (basically epistemological notions). I'd be suprised to see an average religious person as educated toward those notions as most of you people are. Well I guess being part of any minority pushes you to re-evaluate intellectual notions, and that's what I like about punk.
|
|
08/08/2007 at 03:54
Belief and knowledge are an indissoluble dichotomy.
Have you heard of Moore's Paradox? http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Moore%27s_paradox |
|
08/08/2007 at 01:27
Again, watch the Daniel Dennett interview, the origins of religion are part of the discussion:
http://video.google.com/ videoplay?docid= 5640093862168820605 And as for: "I am not denying the possibility that a god may exist, I am simply waiting for proof." As soon as a (scientifically) verifiable proof of something exists, the belief ceases to exist - the supernatural turns into something factual. You don't 'believe' in electricity after all, or do you? Belief and knowledge are an indissoluble dichotomy. |
|
08/07/2007 at 15:36
Can't post in detail because I'm at work right now, but to everyone involved in this discussion so far: if you're interested in where the concept of deities came from, you'd probably be very interested to learn about Julian Jaynes' theory of the origin of consciousness. Check out the wikipedia article about his book, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind: http://tinyurl.com/87dnp ... Jaynes' theory is also discussed to some extent in Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion which you should definitely read if you haven't yet! It's a disputable theory to be sure, but keeping Occam's Razor in mind, it seems a lot more probable than god actually existing!
|
|
08/07/2007 at 14:45
To quote Dave Allen
An atheist is having a debate with the pope about the existence of god. The debate starts off quite civilised but after a while things get a bit heated and the pope says, "You are like a blind man in a darkened room trying to find a cat that is not there," "Well, we're not that different, you and I," says the atheist. "How so?" "You are also like a blind man in a darkened room trying to find a cat that is not there, the only difference is you've found it." It's not word for word, but I thought I'd bring it up cos it's quite interesting. |
|
08/07/2007 at 14:39
Comments by Bigbang from Global Citizen on 2007-08-07 @ 04:57
As for when did the notion of deity first appeared, I believe there is no sufficent data to provide a clear or fixed date in time. Even the earlier historical data (meaning during the early developement of writings, which happened nearly 3,000 years B.C.) show evidence of deities ; think about ancient egyptian culture or Ancient Greece. I believe it would coincide with a further development of spoken language, from which derived the possibility of abstract thinking. I know ancient cultures started burying deceased corpses about 30,000 years ago, but that doesnt really provide a clue whether it was because they considered corpses as "sacred" or it was just more convinient to do so. Well the evidence there is suggests the first deities were goddesses such as the venus of willendorf (http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Venus_of_willendorf), but I'm not sure these were considered as cellestial beings. |
|
08/07/2007 at 08:42
Comments by simian from United States on 2007-08-06 @ 03:29
Simple. Because you are a non-believer in *everything* that you have no concept of. ... I get what you're saying, but this still does nothing to disprove my first statement. Irreligion as described by wikipedia: Irreligion has at least three related yet distinct meanings: * absence of religion (either due to not having information about religion or to not believing in it) * hostility to religion * behaving in such a way that fails to live up to one's religious tenets The first point of this would be referring to what I'm talking about. A child that is just born doesn't have information about religion hardwired into their brain, so therefore they don't "have" a religion. That was all I was saying in the first place. So then assuming that Atheism is seen as a religion a child wouldn't be born atheist. But on the other hand, if you argue that atheism isn't a religion I can see what you're saying. |
|
08/07/2007 at 04:57
As for when did the notion of deity first appeared, I believe there is no sufficent data to provide a clear or fixed date in time. Even the earlier historical data (meaning during the early developement of writings, which happened nearly 3,000 years B.C.) show evidence of deities ; think about ancient egyptian culture or Ancient Greece. I believe it would coincide with a further development of spoken language, from which derived the possibility of abstract thinking. I know ancient cultures started burying deceased corpses about 30,000 years ago, but that doesnt really provide a clue whether it was because they considered corpses as "sacred" or it was just more convinient to do so.
|
|
08/07/2007 at 04:41
Comments by the anechoic nebula from Global Citizen on 2007-08-07 @ 02:24
"I've a feeling it has something to do with anthropomorphisising natural phenomena by personifying it in attempt to explain it." I agree this could be a good way to explain it. More specifically, personifying natural phenomenons induces the notion of intention, a notion particular to human beings (or "intelligent" mammals), thus explaining the various observable phenomenons from a human point of view. |
|
08/07/2007 at 02:24
Comments by simian from United States on 2007-08-06 @ 23:26
Imagine a child raised by atheist parents who never taught her that there was even such a concept as god. Can that child be considered an atheist too, by the "belief/doctrine" definition? Not really. I agree with you here. You can't be adamant in the nonexistence of something you have no concept of. I think the child would have to be considered as a nontheist. Another thing, where does the concept of a deity come from? At what point in our human history did we become religious? I've a feeling it has something to do with anthropomorphisising natural phenomena by personifying it in attempt to explain it. Well this goes some way to explaining polytheism but I'm not an anthropoligist or a theologian so don't quote me on it. |
|
08/06/2007 at 23:48
Therefore the second scenario is the most probable one. Thats basically the core of my agnostism-atheism, saying that the absence of a God is not a certainty, only it is a lot more possible scenario than its antithesis. Religious people see the first scenario as the most possible one, or simplest one, probably because they have very little knowledge about human psychology, biology or history. So to them, it seems "simpler" to proclaim that there is a God than to narrowly investigate social science.
|
|
08/06/2007 at 23:39
I'd also like to thank Mr. A for putting this highly interesting wikipedia article, which in fact coincide with many of my epistemological thoughts. For those who havent read it, it basically states that the simplest scenario regarding epistemological statements is most certainly the best one, or the most probable one. This actually consists of one of my main argument to proclaim God's inexistence. No matter what you think about God, you must admit that either one of those two scenario is true : 1. God exists as stated by traditionnal religion. 2. God does not exist, but the concept of God is still proeminent in almost all culture, and probably derives from human psychological nature. To me the second statement is the simplest one (as pointed in Mr.A's link), the one that finds the most evidences, basically investigating human nature and finding that the concept of God would exist even without a so-called God, mainly because it provides answers toward metaphysics and morality.
|
|
08/06/2007 at 23:26
It's agnostic atheism, which is the disposition of most atheists. You'd be hard pressed to meet an atheist who says hshe knows with 100% certainty that there is no such thing as a deity. It's just that the theists are the ones making extraordinary claims, so they are the ones with the burden of presenting the evidence for those claims.
|
|
08/06/2007 at 23:26
BigBang, your points are well taken. The Anechoic Nebula, you need to define theism as well to understand what atheism really is. You may see atheism defined in some places are a belief or doctrine that there is no god, but if you use that definition, what do you call people who have no concept of god? Imagine a child raised by atheist parents who never taught her that there was even such a concept as god. Can that child be considered an atheist too, by the "belief/doctrine" definition? Not really. So I think that definition is really faulty, because implies an active rejection of the god concept. The fact remains that I am doing nothing religious by being an atheist. I am not denying the possibility that a god may exist, I am simply waiting for proof.
|
|
08/06/2007 at 23:06
I'd be curious to hear what people here hold as their beliefs towards God, the supernatural, and universal viewpoints. Anyone interested to share? I consider myself an agnostic atheist, meaning that I dont think there is any God or supernatural forces that created the universe, or interact with any earthly phenomenon or human beings, but that this viewpoint is more founded on personnal evidences than any great proof that would convince everybody of God's nonexistence. I find it quite wicked that most religions define their God as having no defined shape, form or color, or no physical attributes whatsoever, and have no clear or direct interaction with nature as we know it. To me their definition of God perfectly fits my definition of what does not exist. Strange isnt it?
|
|
08/06/2007 at 19:14
So it is. Well it's hard to keep up with a debate that's been going on this long.
|
|
08/06/2007 at 14:54
Comments by the anechoic nebula from Global Citizen on 2007-08-06 @ 13:55
"To understand atheism I think we need to understand the difference between the belief in the non-existence of a deity and the lack of belief in a deity, which I think are two distinct thoughts." That's exactly what I stated earlier.  And as for: "For example, you could ask yourself if the monitor you're currently looking at is really there (maybe supranatural forces push you to think its there?), and the statement "there is a monitor on my desk" would be a belief. Maybe its not there...just maybe?" Occam's razor: http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Occam%27s_razor |
|
08/06/2007 at 13:55
To understand atheism I think we need to understand the difference between the belief in the non-existence of a deity and the lack of belief in a deity, which I think are two distinct thoughts.
|
|
08/06/2007 at 13:55
from wikiepdia:
Sociologists and anthropologists tend to see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. For example, in Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought? it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.?[4] According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions. By this definition atheism is a religion. Also to class atheism as irreligious ignores the fact that buddhists are technically atheists in that they don't have a god. |
|
08/06/2007 at 09:57
Borrrrrring. I'd rather watch the Smurfs than read another like that.
|
|
08/06/2007 at 09:54
Also, speaking epistemology, you could basically say that every statement is in fact a belief, and that proof really doesnt exist. And I mean it. For example, you could ask yourself if the monitor you're currently looking at is really there (maybe supranatural forces push you to think its there?), and the statement "there is a monitor on my desk" would be a belief. Maybe its not there...just maybe? Sorry for freaking out those going to sleep :(. Epistemology is in fact pretty creeppy.
|
|
08/06/2007 at 09:18
Now, that doesnt mean I see no ressemblance or similiraties between atheism and religion. It is in fact pretty obvious that both provide a way to explain one's surrounding (the Universe). I guess everybody with normal mental capabilities seek truth about the unexplained and sensory unreachable, so in that vein, atheism, or scientific knowledge, could be considered a replacement for religion. Greg Graffin stated that in similar form in a radio interview I've heard : "To me religion is a human behavior, its a mental behavior, a mental process. Religion is something that is particular to human beings, no matter where you come from, if you're a human there's gonna be some elements of relious belief. Im sure I have a lot of elements of it, but I guess my religion is confonded by science. So really, my faith, my belief is science."
|
|
08/06/2007 at 08:58
Really to me the root of atheism is not about denying the presence of supernatural beings ; it is about denying the fact that beliefs can be accepted as universal truths. The denial of God occurs later in this sense of purpose, as denying beliefs as truths necessarely implies denying God, the concept of God being itself a belief. I remember reading Graffin stating that an atheist really doesnt have to prove any of his tenents, because he is not actually proposing any statement (ie. There is a God), and that proving an unstated statement (sounds funny?) is a non-sense. So in a way, the "proof of atheim", if you will, is the absence of any proof granted by religions. So I dont believe atheism has anything to do with any religion, because it really has nothing to do with beliefs. Religious people tend to mislead atheists by saying atheism is a belief like any other, but I simply dont think it is.
|
|
08/06/2007 at 08:25
Holy shit. This thread is getting as interesting as the article...
In my opinion, the whole debate regarding whether atheism is a religion or not is truly a debate about defining the word (or concept) "religion". Does religion necessarely involve a God or supernatural being? Does it always propose a prescribed set of truths or values shared among a population, or can personnal viewpoints and stances also be accepted as "religions"? The dictionnary I have in hands defines religion as follow : "1. Set of beliefs and dogmas defining the relation between man and the sacred. 2. Set of practices and rites regarding each of these beliefs." In regard to that definition, its pretty obvious to me that atheism cannot be considered as a religion in the traditionnal sense ; it neither evokes the concept of "sacred" (it in fact rejects it), or prescribe any rites, and it is not founded on any belief or dogma. |
|
08/06/2007 at 03:29
Comments by pcgamer58 from United States on 2007-08-05 @ 09:48
Also another reason to support my statement is how can you have a non-belief in god if you don't even know there is such thing as a god in the first place? Simple. Because you are a non-believer in *everything* that you have no concept of. You have to have a concept of something to believe in it. You don't have to have a concept of something to NOT believe in it. That's a pretty simple epistemological truth - I don't get why it evades people so often. |
|
08/05/2007 at 11:25
Because, like I said, you're creating a bigger problem when answering "a higher being" to an unanswerable question. Before the question was ever asked, we never knew of the idea of a higher being. So, when you give that answer, you can let your mind stray, and begin creating even worse problems for yourself (and others) when you apply that idea to other subjects.
|
|
08/05/2007 at 09:48
Also another reason to support my statement is how can you have a non-belief in god if you don't even know there is such thing as a god in the first place?
|
|
08/05/2007 at 06:47
Simian, actually it would be everyone is born irreligious, without religion and a set of "rules". Once you have the belief that god doesnt exist and you follow that is when you become atheist. That's how I see it. But then again you don't have to classify yourself as an atheist anyways, I like to see myself as irreligious rather than atheist.
|
|
08/05/2007 at 02:07
And good point HomerSapien. It's the problem of infinite regression. Well, then, what created god? What created the thing that created god? And so on ad infinitum.
I prefer to think that some questions cannot be answered YET, and that we must be honest with ourselves about the plausibility of our answer once we find it. In the case of answering "god," there is just no good evidence that supports that conclusion. |
|
08/05/2007 at 02:03
I have a bone to pick with those of you arguing that atheism is a religion somehow. Everyone is born as an atheist. All atheism means is the LACK of a belief in a personal god. You only cease to be an atheist when you are taught to believe that god exists. You could make the case perhaps that naturalism (which does involve some assumptions about how the world works) is a sort of religion, but even that is a stretch. Not all philosophies are religions too.
"I'm materialist! I ain't no deist! It's there for all to see, so don't talk of hidden mystery with me." |
|
08/04/2007 at 20:39
There are some questions that can't be answered, but it's only creating a problem when your answer to something like that is "a higher being".
|
|
08/04/2007 at 19:54
Or maybe it's irrelevant to explain all of life, irrelevant to belief in any such concepts, when our attention is best used making the most of our limited time on earth.
|
|
08/04/2007 at 10:10
Comments by atheist peace from Italy on 2007-08-04 @ 03:26
And the reason why we can't explain a lot of things about life, is just due to the fact that the human being is still in the process of developing a proper set of abilities. Or maybe we'll never be able to explain them, cause our brain is too limited. Exactly. A fly hitting a lucent window pane can't comprehend what actually happened - and we humans may never be able to fully understand what "happened" before the Big Bang because of our narrowness. But the point is, if a physicist believes in a deity as the creator of the Big Bang, this belief doesn't really intervene in my personal (everyday) life and I can accept his faith in a "makeshift" god. But if a creationist wants to teach my children or grandchildren that the world was created only several thousand years ago or that Darwinism is a lie or that the universe revolves around the earth, then I have to speak up against his "faith". |
|
08/04/2007 at 10:07
Comments by the anechoic nebula from Global Citizen on 2007-08-03 @ 17:13
All beliefs are convictions Sure? Maybe it's just a question of hermeneutics of language (different meaning of "belief" and "conviction" in german) here, but I don't think every belief is a conviction. You don't need to be convinced (in a rational way) by something in order to believe in it. Look at the article: ?I?d call myself a provisional deist,? says Gurewitz, who splits the songwriting with Graffin. ?I don?t believe in a God who does much. But I do believe in God, for some reason that I can?t explain.? And vice versa, you certainly don't have to believe in something in order to be convinced by it (in a rational, verifiable way). |
|
08/04/2007 at 03:26
As for atheism, to me it's a "non-belief". It's simply a materialistic way of dealing with facts of life, stating that you can't "feel/see" the presence of a higher being, that there's no real evidence of eventual "supernatural"interventions, and that everything that's happening will be (or maybe not) eventually explained through human instruments and logic. And the reason why we can't explain a lot of things about life, is just due to the fact that the human being is still in the process of developing a proper set of abilities. Or maybe we'll never be able to explain them, cause our brain is too limited. Who knows? This is my interpretation of atheism
 From my point of view, people can believe what they want, and interpret life the way they want, but not if this pushes them towards a lack of care towards THIS life (while they dream about an eventual second one). Sorry if i didnt make things too clear, but its late here, and i'm not exactly in top form 
|
|
08/04/2007 at 02:50
...atheist or agnostic. I'm sure there are a lot of "believers", but thoughtful ones, and i believe that one of the reasons why BR are great is that they can reunite people of any race/age/religion, who, most of the times, are willing to discuss and question what they believe in!
|
|
08/04/2007 at 02:44
Great article!
By the way, I think it's great how people here discuss about religion in a pacific way. If you have a look on some sites on the net, you'll see that a lot of people just can fight, when talking about such things. It's really sad, and I think it simply shows that people are scared to deal with such important questions in life, and they defend themselves by attacking who makes them think. I respect who believes in a higher being and will express this belief in total serenity. The bad thing is that some people who consider themselves "catholic", "muslim", or whatever, are totally insecure whether they really believe or not, and this results in fear and discontent. I mean, if you feel fine with your set of beliefs, then why showing such anger, even when you're simply expressing the way you feel about faith? Anyway, it would be interesting if there could be a poll, or something like that, on this site, asking people what they believe in. I'm sure not everyone here is... |
|
08/03/2007 at 17:13
All beliefs are convictions
|
|
08/03/2007 at 13:15
Atheism is not a belief, it's a conviction (for me).
|
|
08/03/2007 at 12:52
Atheism is a belief, but I think it would need to be more dogmatic to be considered a religion, though. I don't think atheists are any better than people who believe in god if they think that they're right and everyone else is wrong. That's quite a religious belief.
|
|
08/03/2007 at 12:22
most likely leaving room for doubt, if i took that literally, which fits if your an agnostic, but i know what you meant. i still stand by what i meant as atheism requiring some type of faith in the absence or non-existence of god. i think it makes far more logical sense to realize the concept of god is meaningless than to bicker over whether said concept exists or not.
Taking your example that humans make this concept up: just because humans did doesn't necessarily give it any meaning, much like an emotion/feelings or a dream. A dream doesn't have any meaning, and neither do really emotions or feelings. I apologize if i'm making less sense, it's 6am and i should go to bed and stop watching cool world. |
|
08/03/2007 at 10:20
"lol, I could've worded it better, I admit, but I still think athiesm requires a leap of faith to say one is against the existience of God, as well as a set of beliefs."
There is a difference between "I belief there is no god" and "I don't belief there is a god" - meaning: "After the falsification of countless ecclesiastic dogmas during history and the self-development of the human individual as autonomous being as the result of the enlightenment, I came to the personal conclusion that there is most likely no god, that the concept of deities is a human construction and the question wether there are supernatural powers is irrelevant for my set of convictions." If you can spare an hour of your time, watch this AMAZING Bill Moyers interview with the atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett. Believe me (haha!) it is worth every second: http://video.google.com/ videoplay?docid=5640093862168820605 |
|
08/03/2007 at 09:37
IMO, ultimately, Atheism & Agnosticism wouldn't be religious if they both didn't accept god as a proposition. I view both "God does exist" & "God does not exist" equally meaningless :3.
|
|
08/03/2007 at 09:10
I actually went through this in my head as I was trying to get to sleep last night, oddly enough, and I say that Atheism is not a religion. Religion basically has a set of rules and practices that must be followed, but I guess you can say the rule to become an Atheist is to believe that there is no god. However, there are no rituals, practices, and no common goal to achieve among Atheism. That's the best way I could put my views on the subject in a post written at 2:00 am... so, stay tuned?
|
|
08/03/2007 at 08:19
well yes Atheism does differ from many religions in the fact that you aren't worshiping or following a leader or god, but instead denying the existence of one. I guess that qualifies as a set of beliefs though which in turn qualifies it as a religion.
I hope you get what I'm saying. Even though it is a religion technically speaking I still wouldn't really count it as a true religion anyways. But seeing how it is setting a specific way to think that makes it a religion. |
|
08/03/2007 at 08:09
lol, I could've worded it better, I admit, but I still think athiesm requires a leap of faith to say one is against the existience of God, as well as a set of beliefs.
|
|
08/03/2007 at 07:57
Saying you're an atheist is like saying you're a non-astrologer. The only difference is that there are a lot more non-astrologers than there are atheists.
|
|
08/03/2007 at 07:54
Atheism is a religion in the fact that it follows a set of beliefs, the beliefs here being that God doesn't exist.
|
|
08/03/2007 at 05:43
SC = SeanChristian? Aren't you the one in the podcast? I am just downloading it now.
|
|
08/03/2007 at 04:38
good point simian... and while Lose as Directed isnt rare, thats a funny podcast
|
|
08/03/2007 at 04:27
Comments by Jau_Peacecraft from United States on 2007-08-02 @ 23:49
I'd imagine athiests would have a problem with ignosticsm (which, since reading more on it, I've come to the conclusion that while athiesm is noble, it in itself is a religion since it suppose the abscence of said being), So if I suppose that there aren't any monsters under my bed, that's my religion? Atheism is a religion like "off" is a TV channel. |
|
08/03/2007 at 02:04
Lose As Directed isn't rare. Everyone has it.
|
|
08/03/2007 at 01:38
You know www.MOTD.tk the message of the Day site? They just got a new podcast and they put a rare BAD RELIGION song on their very first episode!
It's called Lose as Directed and is very good, Listen for if you like BAD RELIGION because I had never heard song before and is very good I don't remember how to get to the podcast page but there's a link on the main site... www.motd.tk |
|
08/02/2007 at 23:49
Although, I would be interested to hear what Graffin thinks about ignosticsm, which is the stance that god is a non-verifiable, meaningless concept outside the arguments pertaining to the various definitions of God (god is irrelevant, in short). I'd imagine athiests would have a problem with ignosticsm (which, since reading more on it, I've come to the conclusion that while athiesm is noble, it in itself is a religion since it suppose the abscence of said being), but I think naturalists would be able to find some common ground, hmm... *_* :drinks the rest of coffee: |
|
08/02/2007 at 23:49
he wrote 2 books thus far: one was his dissertation, which analyzed findings of a questionnaire, and another which questioned if the belief was good bad or irrelevant (ha ha ... the title). I haven't finished either, but from what I've read thus far and read outside of the books, it doesn't say anywhere he said they were compatible in the first place.
I agree that compatibilism with one's beiliefs and a profession in science would lead to self-censoring & comproimise with possible conflicts between religion & science, mainly due to the political nature of science nowadays (science being politicized even more by both "sides", left & right). |
|
08/02/2007 at 23:40
Very good. And I was surprised to see my hometown mentioned where his great-grandfather died.
|
|
08/02/2007 at 19:49
I thought Graffin wrote a book/essays on why religion nd science ARE compatible?
|
|
08/02/2007 at 17:33
That was fucking great
|
|
08/02/2007 at 16:19
Good stuff, good stuff.
|
|
08/02/2007 at 13:40
That was a nice read indeed.
|
|
08/02/2007 at 11:45
Very good article on Graffin, especially regarding his take on the opinions of evolutionary biologists.
|
|
08/02/2007 at 11:02
Well, that was a good read.
|
