Bill Maher's final comment from Religulous
Bill Maher's final comment from Religulous, which is of grave importance to the society in which we exist. Maher suggest that atheists must come together... Growing up, IMO, means we must all move beyond even the religion of atheism (and agnosticism). We must all come together, and help the world move on, so that a safer future can be insured for ourselves and for our children.


posted by Skids33
Write in Guestbook
posted by Skids33
Write in Guestbook
posted by derguy
Write in Guestbook
posted by feywon
abominably toward others.
For some people 'scientific thought' becomes their 'religion', tho it is no less dogmatic than 'faith'.
Have you read "God's Debris: A Thought Experiment" by Scott Adams (yes,the creator of 'Dilbert')? It is less than 140 pages and i'm about 2/3rds of the way thru because it's the kind of book you want to savor: To read a chapter or two and then let them digest before you go on to the next. It puts forth some interesting ideas about religion and the nature of humanity and reality.
Write in Guestbook
posted by Skids33
The complete text for God's Debris can be found at:
view link
Write in Guestbook
posted by emmablue
There is so much complexity that is lost to him. Example: how many kinds of scientific thought are there? how many kinds of "atheism"? there are those who call me an atheist because I do not anthropomorphize the Deity... there are those who call atheists "believers" if they seek to explain the apparent design of the universe....
It is all very fluid but Maher is frozen solid.
Write in Guestbook
posted by Skids33
We label something "complex" when we use a great number of symbols to describe it. But, surely, the choices we make (regarding the number of symbols we use) teach us nothing about complexity, a real phenomenon!
Perhaps complexity and simplicity are not related at all, either quantitatively, or qualitatively. Perhaps complexity is not simply more simplicity. Perhaps there is no organizational principle tying them to one another. Complexity is often an emergent phenomenon, not reducible to simplicity.
The third possibility is that somehow, perhaps through human intervention, complexity yields simplicity and simplicity yields complexity (via pattern identification, the application of rules, classification, and other human pursuits). This dependence on human input would explain the convergence of the behaviors of all complex systems on to a tiny sliver of the state (or phase) space (sort of a mega attractor basin). According to this view, Man is the creator of simplicity and complexity alike but they do have a real and independent existence thereafter (the Copenhagen interpretation of a Quantum Mechanics).
It would seem that a complexity theory formalism can accurately describe both ambiguity and vagueness:
Language can be construed as a self-organizing network, replete with self-organized criticality.
Language can also be viewed as a Production System (Iterated Function Systems coupled with Lindenmeyer L-Systems and Schemas to yield Classifiers Systems). To use Holland's vocabulary, language is a set of Constrained Generating Procedures.
"Vague objects" (with vague spatial or temporal boundaries) are, actually, best represented by fractals. They are not indeterminate (only their boundaries are). Moreover, self-similarity is maintained. Consider a mountain - where does it start or end and what, precisely, does it include? A fractal curve (boundary) is an apt mathematical treatment of this question.
Indeterminacy can be described as the result of bifurcation leading to competing, distinct, but equally valid, meanings.
Borderline cases (and vagueness) arise at the "edge of chaos" - in concepts and predicates with co-evolving static and chaotic elements.
(Focal) meanings can be thought of as attractors.
Contexts can be thought of as attractor landscapes in the phase space of language. They can also be described as fitness landscapes with optimum epistasis (interdependence of values assigned to meanings).
The process of deriving meaning (or disambiguating) is akin to tracing a basin of attraction. It can be described as a perturbation in a transient, leading to a stable state.
None of this, nor your example, minimizes Maher's conclusion. Religion is nothing more than a series of steps representing dead ends. Evolution experiments with numerous dead ends before it yields a single adapted biological entity. DNA is far from optimized: it contains inordinate amounts of junk. Our bodies come replete with dysfunctional appendages and redundant organs. Religion is little more than inordinate amounts of junk. Lightning bolts emit energy all over the electromagnetic spectrum. Pulsars and interstellar gas clouds spew radiation over the entire radio spectrum. The energy of the Sun is ubiquitous over the entire optical and thermal range. No intelligent engineer - human or not - would be so wasteful.
It is easy to understand why we would want some sense of intelligent design until we've reached that point where we could comprehend intelligent engineering ourselves. It should also be "as easy" to take that step beyond our need for that external intelligent resource. Once there, it should be equally apparent that there is no need to assume the position of an absolute agent.
Write in Guestbook
posted by Skids33
Can we make this transition? Yes. Will we? In all probablity. In time? Depends... For most of us here and now, probably not. What does that mean? There will be hell to pay !!!
Write in Guestbook