Your idea is very old. Somebody said my best thoughts were stolen by the ancients. We’re just rediscovering what philosophers in the past have already thought of. The ancient Greek natural philosophers believed nothing can come from nothing 2,300 years before modern science formulated the law of conservation of mass and energy. Aristotle thought god is the ultimate cause of the universe. Hume thought god is unnecessary in explaining the universe because god is more inexplicable than the universe. This is not to dismiss the possibility of god. To quote Shermer’s Last Law: “any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence would be indistinguishable from god.” I like his ‘theory’ but I’m reminded of Mintzberg’s caution ‘theories aren’t true but they’re useful’ and ‘we don’t discover theories (that’s truth) we invent them.’ Certainly we have not discovered ET and I don’t know what’s the use of Shermer’s ‘theory’ other than I like it. Isn’t belief in god like that too?

“It is difficult to have any sort of logical discussion with an individual as yourself when it seems your entire foundation is rooted in philosophical nothingness.”

more precisely – it is difficult to have any sort of logical discussion when you don’t even try. even more difficult when you can’t even have a discussion without first misrepresenting the other participant.

Philosophical nothingness? Philosophy is the first and foremost science – in fact, it is the only real science in that it deals primarily with the one and only verifiable fact in the universe – the existence of the self.

But the very first act of science is to abandon the principles of its own methods – at the very outset, it *assumes* the existence of an objective universe even though this is impossible to verify. In other words, it assumes god exists. Do i give a shit? No – because if it didn’t just assume this and get on with figuring out the self-consistent underlying mechanisms of this dream, then we wouldn’t have computers and stuff. And fuck knows where we’d be without computers and stuff. Dead, I’d say.

“Shayne’s just doing what so many others do – condemning science for not being useful to them as a religion.”

*Sigh* It would make discussion a lot easier IF YOU STOPPED PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I did not condemn science. I pointed out that it can not – and NEVER SHOULD – replace religion. If science wants to replace religion, science can just fuck off. But that’s just what *you* want it to do. You, and the other two I quote in this post, are fanatics. You are just as irrational and immune to reason as are creationists and these RTB folks. I have a big appetite for science – real science, not woo or creationism. i love quantum physics most of all … general and special relativity blow my mind.

“i’m wondering if shayne actually read the entire article, particularly that last part with the questions shermer posed.”

um, i’m wondering why you think you have the right to ask me anything when it is obvious you haven’t read or tried to understand a single thing i’ve written … are you actually assuming that i think the bible has scientific relevance? are you actually assuming that i believe religion has all the answers and science has none? are you REALLY assuming that i am somehow “against” science and “for” religion? if so, go back and read what i’ve written as slowly as your brain needs for you to understand where i’m coming from. if not – what claims have i made that are incorrect or not reasonable?

but, to put your mind at rest – it was his questions and the very last paragraph that actually inspired my posts … i mean, he actually acknowledges his less than scientific aims and intentions:

“no scientific evidence would ever dissuade believers from their belief. Why? Because such beliefs are not based on science in the first place.”

… um, so what were you trying to do there? i can tell you – for some fucked-up psychological reason. one that makes people on both sides of this idiotic “debate” feel the need to “win” the argument of “who sucks more – god or science?” … it’s a total waste of time perpetuated by both sides so that their respective teams can pat each other on the arse and congratulate each other on showing how retarded the opponents are. i am on neither side, nor do i see the need for sides. science would probably call this objectivity – you may resort to your snide “eastern” label, if that helps you.

i bow at the feet of michael shermer! oh wait, no – that makes it look like i’m worshiping him in a frenzy of “science religion”. ;)

i HEART michael shermer! no, too girlie-fan juvenile.

i am heartened at michael shermer’s persistent attempts to take on the people who need to hear what he has to say the most, but saddened at the fact that they probably aren’t really listening.

much better.

i’m wondering if shayne actually read the entire article, particularly that last part with the questions shermer posed.

It is difficult to have any sort of logical discussion with an individual as yourself when it seems your entire foundation is rooted in philosophical nothingness.

Good Day.