RJT
09-25-2005, 03:05 AM
Actually the real subject of this post is exactly the opposite:
Sklanksy is right.
I just thought, I would resort to a “National Enquirer” type of attention-getting headline. Who has more readers - the Enquirer or all scientific journals combined?
Plus, I figured I’d give David a jolt out of his chair, just for fun. Even better, maybe make a believer out of him: I can picture David after, he read my subject title, throwing his keyboard against the wall saying: Please God, what is wrong with some of these people? Give them at least an iota of intelligence.
Anyway, enough with my attempt at humor.
This and the next two posts of mine are meant to be read as reli-fiction. Reli-fiction is a term I thought of to describe these three posts. It is used like the term sci-fiction. (Reli is obvious a reference to religion. I actually like the term philo-fiction better, but not sure if that works properly.)
***********
Part I
When I first read David S.’s theory regarding geniuses and their beliefs and ergo one should error on the side of those more intelligent (see what they think, they are probably right) , I thought “That make sense, I’ll bite.” Then I thought, “Ok, it makes sense, but does it have a practical application viz a viz the observer’s personal view of his own God/religion/atheism.” That is, if the genius can’t necessarily make the next step from there and say - therefore x religion must be ignored - or something similar, then what good does it do us? Then I thought, “There must be more we can do with this theory”.
Some scientist say “I do not believe a god exists.” Asimov says, “… I don’t want to waste my time”. Other geniuses might say: I am so certain that I ,almost, have an obligation to warn people they are wasting their time - I will try to convince believers of their folly. The other choice a scientist could make is to say - I am not sure, I know with almost certainty no god or x religion’s God is wrong; I cant’ prove either, so I will allow for other possibilities, move on.
Then you have geniuses like David S. , who is fairly (my word, not his) certain of no god, but grants the option of some type of god to those who care, but most assuredly not the type of God how most (all) religions view Him. Plus, he is willing to discuss the topic and has some spare time on his hands to post here.
What I just summarized is why I say: Sklansky is right. (He is most probably right about his theory, too; but I‘ll let those more qualified decide.) It is in discourse that the germination for proof or disproof of God will come.
With David S.’s basic theory (need to name it David), we have the start of something to take somewhere. It is an important (interesting) enough a theory to not let dangle, like that card in Omaha, or to not let atrophy. It needs to be explored now.
I have a few ideas where we might be able to take it. If my idea isn’t a good start, then that is fine. But some idea is (might be) out there to be discovered about how we can use this theory for practical purposes; to not let the notion end as it would if we choose Asimov’s own personal decision.
So in order to take this theory further we simply have to prove or disprove the existence of God.
Continued on next post…
Sklanksy is right.
I just thought, I would resort to a “National Enquirer” type of attention-getting headline. Who has more readers - the Enquirer or all scientific journals combined?
Plus, I figured I’d give David a jolt out of his chair, just for fun. Even better, maybe make a believer out of him: I can picture David after, he read my subject title, throwing his keyboard against the wall saying: Please God, what is wrong with some of these people? Give them at least an iota of intelligence.
Anyway, enough with my attempt at humor.
This and the next two posts of mine are meant to be read as reli-fiction. Reli-fiction is a term I thought of to describe these three posts. It is used like the term sci-fiction. (Reli is obvious a reference to religion. I actually like the term philo-fiction better, but not sure if that works properly.)
***********
Part I
When I first read David S.’s theory regarding geniuses and their beliefs and ergo one should error on the side of those more intelligent (see what they think, they are probably right) , I thought “That make sense, I’ll bite.” Then I thought, “Ok, it makes sense, but does it have a practical application viz a viz the observer’s personal view of his own God/religion/atheism.” That is, if the genius can’t necessarily make the next step from there and say - therefore x religion must be ignored - or something similar, then what good does it do us? Then I thought, “There must be more we can do with this theory”.
Some scientist say “I do not believe a god exists.” Asimov says, “… I don’t want to waste my time”. Other geniuses might say: I am so certain that I ,almost, have an obligation to warn people they are wasting their time - I will try to convince believers of their folly. The other choice a scientist could make is to say - I am not sure, I know with almost certainty no god or x religion’s God is wrong; I cant’ prove either, so I will allow for other possibilities, move on.
Then you have geniuses like David S. , who is fairly (my word, not his) certain of no god, but grants the option of some type of god to those who care, but most assuredly not the type of God how most (all) religions view Him. Plus, he is willing to discuss the topic and has some spare time on his hands to post here.
What I just summarized is why I say: Sklansky is right. (He is most probably right about his theory, too; but I‘ll let those more qualified decide.) It is in discourse that the germination for proof or disproof of God will come.
With David S.’s basic theory (need to name it David), we have the start of something to take somewhere. It is an important (interesting) enough a theory to not let dangle, like that card in Omaha, or to not let atrophy. It needs to be explored now.
I have a few ideas where we might be able to take it. If my idea isn’t a good start, then that is fine. But some idea is (might be) out there to be discovered about how we can use this theory for practical purposes; to not let the notion end as it would if we choose Asimov’s own personal decision.
So in order to take this theory further we simply have to prove or disprove the existence of God.
Continued on next post…