Dr. Sokal handily misrepresents belief in God (i.e. any religion) as an inherently absurd position. Relying upon his authority as a physicist, and employing a large vocabulary, he may very well convince naive viewers that his bold assertions are really facts. All religions do not give the same evidence for their purported veracity, and the essential ideas of the world's major religions are few enough in number that they can be considered individually.
"Most of those who believe evolution by NS to be true do not practice physics / chemistry etc. They are gadfly philosophers with an aversion to religion." Most people who accept evolution are religious believers. Try again.
"Read with an OPEN mind my other responses and you will see my point." I don't see "your point". Am I close-minded now?
The evidence based world view is clearly limited in what it is capable of containing.
The Universe exists.
Two alternatives follow.
It has always existed.
It came into existence at some point in time.
Dare I say either alternative produces insoluble epistimological problems for an evidence based world view
Criticism of the epistimology of orthodox religion may be easy., Dickie Dorkins does it all the time, but explaining existence of matter space and time is not.
You mean your worldview is not based on evidence??
As far as I can tell, you're presenting an argument from ignorance: Atheists can't explain x, therefore x was done by Allah, Brahman, etc. How does that follow?
If a scientist wants to disprove a hypothesis, she isn't obliged to present an alternative hypothesis. She only has to show that the initial hypothesis is wrong.
And if you want to use fancy words, please spell them right: "epistEmology".
"You clearly have not understood what I said." Projection is unbecoming.
Regarding human consciousness and abiogenesis, again, you are making an argument from ignorance. Just because we currently can't explain that, doesn't mean Ahura Mazda exists or its existence becomes more likely. The same goes for your "dilemma".
"Belief in evolution is no more than a non theistic religion." Oh brother. Sure, whatever.
"What I am trying to get you to understand is that fact will never be explained" How do you know that?
"It follows there must have existed something that transcends the human intellect but not the imagination to conceptualise." How?
"That entity is called God." If all you believe in is some deistic being and don't really bother anyone with "what it wants", I would have no problem with that.
Respond to this video... Nearly ALL of the arguments used to debunk religion concentrate on the diverse and somtetimes odd moral teachings of the major religions.
The underlying principle that gave birth to religious thought is that life is the most profound of mysteries which in fact is no nearer to being explained now than ever it was.
Nowhere is it experienced that purposefull complexity can create itself.
The scientific method is limited in its grasp whatever anyone may believe.
Time is a property of the universe and it makes no sense to speak of "before the universe". Please note that this is not the same as "It has always existed" except in a trivial way.
An equivalent conundrum would be "Either the universe is infinite in size or it must have finite boundaries" The third possibility would be a finite but borderless universe, like the surface of the earth ... which is finite in area but without a beginning or an end.
I said 'the surface of the earth' is unbounded but finite, not the earth itself. The difference is in the number of dimensions. Imagine 2D flatlanders wandering on the earth's surface, unaware of any other dimensions. They would never be able to find a border, while reamining very much limited to a finite space. Over time they might be able to detect this too, but that's all.
Which mysteries are you talking about ? The age of the universe ? The size of the universe ? We have made progress on so many things that were once considered unknowable, and have no reason to believe that these questions cannot be answered either.
More importantly, even if these answers were unknowable ... how would "God " be the answer to anything at all ? It is like saying ... "I have no way of knowing how big is Poland. Ergo, it must be divine !"
The bottom line is that there is no evidential support for religious claims about reality (or that any support that exists is minute relative to the strength of these claims).
I suppose that one way to avoid this topic and still appear intellectual when one has nothing of substance to say is to declare the detractor of religion ignorant, and name-drop a few theologians and philosophers who anyone, in any discussion of religion, is required to mention.
Simple-minded trash. No mention of Schliermacher, Tillich, or even Spinoza. The awesome ignorance of Sokal; a religious experience in itself. He clearly lacks the intellect to separate "religion" from "superstition".
@simulachra and why should we believe your claims here? just because you said so? or because you have evidence for your claim that "He clearly lacks the intellect to separate "religion" from "superstition""?
His Hoax paper was an enjoyable and outrageously funny peace of comedic writing though...
truthspeaker3and1 4 months ago
Dr. Sokal handily misrepresents belief in God (i.e. any religion) as an inherently absurd position. Relying upon his authority as a physicist, and employing a large vocabulary, he may very well convince naive viewers that his bold assertions are really facts. All religions do not give the same evidence for their purported veracity, and the essential ideas of the world's major religions are few enough in number that they can be considered individually.
truthspeaker3and1 4 months ago
The many are bamboozled by the tremendous success achieved as a result of applying the scientific method to investigate nature
Most of those who believe evolution by NS to be true do not practice physics / chemistry etc.
They are gadfly philosophers with an aversion to religion.
They select their evidence and omit the really difficult stuff because they know it undermines their position. eg DNA / protein synthesis
Read with an OPEN mind my other responses and you will see my point.
divvy1400yam600 4 months ago
@divvy1400yam600
"Most of those who believe evolution by NS to be true do not practice physics / chemistry etc. They are gadfly philosophers with an aversion to religion." Most people who accept evolution are religious believers. Try again.
"Read with an OPEN mind my other responses and you will see my point." I don't see "your point". Am I close-minded now?
wimsweden 4 months ago
The evidence based world view is clearly limited in what it is capable of containing.
The Universe exists.
Two alternatives follow.
It has always existed.
It came into existence at some point in time.
Dare I say either alternative produces insoluble epistimological problems for an evidence based world view
Criticism of the epistimology of orthodox religion may be easy., Dickie Dorkins does it all the time, but explaining existence of matter space and time is not.
divvy1400yam600 4 months ago
@divvy1400yam600
"The evidence based world view"
You mean your worldview is not based on evidence??
As far as I can tell, you're presenting an argument from ignorance: Atheists can't explain x, therefore x was done by Allah, Brahman, etc. How does that follow?
If a scientist wants to disprove a hypothesis, she isn't obliged to present an alternative hypothesis. She only has to show that the initial hypothesis is wrong.
And if you want to use fancy words, please spell them right: "epistEmology".
wimsweden 4 months ago
@wimsweden You clearly have not understood what I said.
For example: what evidence would you supply to explain human consciousness or intelligence?.
I will answer for you...you havent got any.. You may only interpret adduce or make inferences.
Likewise with the existence of life.
Belief in evolution is no more than a non theistic religion.
How about trying to address the epistemological dilemma I raised re the origin of the universe ?
Assuming you understand it of course.
divvy1400yam600 4 months ago
@divvy1400yam600
"You clearly have not understood what I said." Projection is unbecoming.
Regarding human consciousness and abiogenesis, again, you are making an argument from ignorance. Just because we currently can't explain that, doesn't mean Ahura Mazda exists or its existence becomes more likely. The same goes for your "dilemma".
"Belief in evolution is no more than a non theistic religion." Oh brother. Sure, whatever.
wimsweden 4 months ago
@wimsweden I am not projecting I am deducing from your inability to explain.
One of the arguments that led to the manipulation of the atom is that energy may be neither destroyed nor created.
The universe exists and contains oodles of energy.
What I am trying to get you to understand is that fact will never be explained
It follows there must have existed something that transcends the human intellect but not the imagination to conceptualise.
That entity is called God.
divvy1400yam600 4 months ago
@divvy1400yam600
"What I am trying to get you to understand is that fact will never be explained" How do you know that?
"It follows there must have existed something that transcends the human intellect but not the imagination to conceptualise." How?
"That entity is called God." If all you believe in is some deistic being and don't really bother anyone with "what it wants", I would have no problem with that.
wimsweden 4 months ago
Respond to this video... Nearly ALL of the arguments used to debunk religion concentrate on the diverse and somtetimes odd moral teachings of the major religions.
The underlying principle that gave birth to religious thought is that life is the most profound of mysteries which in fact is no nearer to being explained now than ever it was.
Nowhere is it experienced that purposefull complexity can create itself.
The scientific method is limited in its grasp whatever anyone may believe.
divvy1400yam600 4 months ago
@divvy1400yam600
There is a third alternative.
Time is a property of the universe and it makes no sense to speak of "before the universe". Please note that this is not the same as "It has always existed" except in a trivial way.
An equivalent conundrum would be "Either the universe is infinite in size or it must have finite boundaries" The third possibility would be a finite but borderless universe, like the surface of the earth ... which is finite in area but without a beginning or an end.
wrichik 4 months ago
@wrichik To say the earth has no borders is incorrect. It is possible to fly off into outerspace via a border.
The infinitude or otherwise of space is, as you say, a conundrum.
It clealy exposes the problem I have been trying to highlight.
It is not possible for humans to unravel these mysteries.
They are too profound for human intellect.
You intrinsically recognise that difficulty when you say'..it makes no sense etc...'
divvy1400yam600 4 months ago
@divvy1400yam600
I said 'the surface of the earth' is unbounded but finite, not the earth itself. The difference is in the number of dimensions. Imagine 2D flatlanders wandering on the earth's surface, unaware of any other dimensions. They would never be able to find a border, while reamining very much limited to a finite space. Over time they might be able to detect this too, but that's all.
wrichik 4 months ago
@divvy1400yam600
Which mysteries are you talking about ? The age of the universe ? The size of the universe ? We have made progress on so many things that were once considered unknowable, and have no reason to believe that these questions cannot be answered either.
More importantly, even if these answers were unknowable ... how would "God " be the answer to anything at all ? It is like saying ... "I have no way of knowing how big is Poland. Ergo, it must be divine !"
wrichik 4 months ago
"the universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists", first line of the google result.
surementpas 8 months ago
Describe: "Universe". Can you? Now, make it. You can't? Epistemology fails.
finishstrongdoc 8 months ago
Videos like this one should be taught in schools!
TsekourasS 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
why would they mention them? Are you suggesting that someone has to debunk everyone who has any view on God to be an atheist?
"The awesome ignorance of Sokal; a religious experience in itself. He clearly lacks the intellect to separate 'religion' from 'superstition'."
If you are saying these things to undermine his argument, then you just committed at ad hominem.
OrderoftheWhiteHand 1 year ago 5
@OrderoftheWhiteHand
Well put.
The bottom line is that there is no evidential support for religious claims about reality (or that any support that exists is minute relative to the strength of these claims).
I suppose that one way to avoid this topic and still appear intellectual when one has nothing of substance to say is to declare the detractor of religion ignorant, and name-drop a few theologians and philosophers who anyone, in any discussion of religion, is required to mention.
Escuerd 1 year ago
Simulchra: "religion' is simply organised "superstition": one critique will often does for both, as here.
Kimbirley1 1 year ago 3
@Kimbirley1 well said.
ZeroTheHero88 1 year ago
Simple-minded trash. No mention of Schliermacher, Tillich, or even Spinoza. The awesome ignorance of Sokal; a religious experience in itself. He clearly lacks the intellect to separate "religion" from "superstition".
simulachra 1 year ago
@simulachra and why should we believe your claims here? just because you said so? or because you have evidence for your claim that "He clearly lacks the intellect to separate "religion" from "superstition""?
xpressivist 11 months ago
@simulachra Separating religion from superstition is like separating bullshit from cow-shit.
Adamalgorithm 6 months ago 4
This guy is awesome!
KuraiMax10 1 year ago
k lol at the astrology comment, more people need to listen to this guy.
mawhar 1 year ago
Nice!
DoctorE0 2 years ago