Hey. Just wondering why you constantly refer to so many others podcasts / articles / books etc.? I

There lives a small Harald Rønneberg in all of us, and he comes happily selexion forward when we move outside our own field. As an extension of that, it's ... interesting ... how any sovereign scientists sounds like elementary school children when they try to use the authority of their own fields to make a statement about something you obviously have not done any research on.
Neil deGrasse Tyson is the next example selexion of it when he gets attempts on religion and philosophy at the forefront of the new television series Cosmos: A Space Odyssey Time, a continuation selexion of Carl Sagan in the 90s. Tyson is brilliant in all respects as astrophysicist and author, and also evident naturalist / agnostic. It is therefore selexion a pity that he uses his high respect within naturalist environment to dumb down whole debate and spreading delusions. It demands selexion respect to fine realize their limitations for failing and comment on such but it shameful is that he does it anyway. Thrown in public. In addition she is sensational bastant.
I do not have the habit of recommending William Lane Craig. Although he is a very talented contemporary philosopher and debattør, and a substantive Christian gentleman without equal in the face of the arrogant and non-arrogant opponents, I share that thomist neither Craig's selexion God arguments, philosophy or theology much. Many atheists hate supposedly selexion Craig and calls him "an incompetant hack," but I have yet to see solid reasons. The best reason selexion must be that he has challenged own heroes like Hitchens and Harris. selexion
But in the last clip on the weekly podcast Reasonable Faith river he Tyson into pieces in a readily comprehensible manner. Everything from Tyson's surprisingly poorly reasoned god-of-the-gaps-argument (which he is in good company with our own Lars Gule), the fabrication selexion of biblical interpretation, Sir Isaac Newton, psychological explanations and God bearded man or personal feeling , further to reveal his low understanding of philosophy and metaphysics. People who are not trained in philosophy has no scientific selexion credibility when it comes to comment on outer realities. That people like Tyson is willing to sink so low to criticize God, does not bode well for his ability to defend their own understanding of reality (especially when his predecessor and Carl Sagan's version of materialism is deeply incompatible with science).
God is clearly understood in the classical tradition, and is not part of nature. He hears therefore still at home in philosophy home, and is equally applicable regardless of scientific advances past centuries (ref. Picture top). I have previously written a little about the "fight" between faith and science:
A crash course in critical thinking is perhaps at his place until you hear Tyson's "critique of religion". The same critical thinking that would get Tyson to understand that his naturalistic principle is far from obvious. All arguments have both a logical and rhetorical content. Logos, the logical / sensible content, considering whether the terms your are durable, and the conclusion selexion follows from the premises. Pathos, selexion the rhetorical content, is often used to give the argument a nice wrapping and addressing feelings of listeners. If the person only uses pathos, without logos, you quickly see that she / he will most likely have no idea what he is talking about, want to use rhetoric to cover for this, and is more interested in likes, retweets, cheers, self-boost or pats on the back, than truth. Lite admirable!
Hey. Just wondering why you constantly refer to so many others podcasts / articles / books etc.? I read this blog to try and understand your view on matters and things, but feel very much becomes clear when I just see a lot of references.
The best answer is well that this is a personal blog and not a book. Records selexion managed a bit of daily fitness and my time and what is in the media. These issues selexion are complex, and I try to keep the records in a legible size.
There are many people who have taught selexion me a lot, so I put out some references, and hope that they can help with special interests. Many of the references are also to my own records where I lay out things selexion in greater detail, as in those of faith and science. My vision is not really my own at all, but they are adopted from some of world history's most accomplished thinkers and systematized. This is precisely why they are credible. Until I get enough experience to write books myself, I take things step by step.
Yes, people like Hawking and Krauss is a fun course. The worst thing is that I see people everywhere refer to them to show that it is "easy to show that nothing has been to the universe," and accuse us philosophically interested for being "bigoted". Top of irony must be when a scientistisk doctrine causes people to call others bigots. :)
Contact: mail @ daniel joachim. org Last Post Comic - This is ...