Thursday, November 10, 2011

Man needs God at Yale

William F. Buckley


From Peter Berkowitz:



God and Man at Yale Turns 60 

By Peter Berkowitz

Yesterday the William F. Buckley Jr. Program, a fledgling student run organization at Yale University, held a one-day conference and gala dinner featuring distinguished conservatives—including a keynote address by William Kristol and remarks by Henry Kissinger, James Buckley, Priscilla Buckley, and Christopher Buckley—to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the publication of God and Man at Yale. This unusual happening suggests that much has changed at Yale since 1951 when the brash and brilliant twenty-five year old Buckley burst upon the national scene with his eloquent polemic against his alma mater’s educational policy. It also reveals how little has changed.

Buckley's seminal book laid bare the leftist and atheist indoctrination of students at Yale in the middle of the 20th century. He was quite specific, naming names, naming professors who took a hammer to Christianity and to traditional values of intellectual freedom and respect for reasoned discourse. The problem has certainly worsened since then, and of course not just at Yale.


At Columbia (my alma mater), the hard left/atheist ideology is still very much the default worldview. I was fortunate to have several wonderful humanities professors who took a balanced view of things, but a serious Christian (which I was not at the time) would have had quite a difficult time if he expressed his views in class. I was mocked in class for expressing conservative views (I was a serious conservative)-- my view that it was not morally right for Romans to kill sickly newborns was met with laughter from my classmates, and I was called "Rockefeller" for suggesting that the use of money was preferable to a barter system. This mockery of course came from students with trust funds. I was attending college on the G.I. Bill.


I can only imagine what the response would have been to a student who professed his faith in Jesus Christ, or who made an argument from an explicitly Christian viewpoint.


Berkowitz:
At the same time, it is a measure of how far liberal education at Yale must still be reformed that the Buckley program is entirely a student organization, that if it weren’t for Noble and a few other undergraduates, conservative voices would remain hard to hear on campus and conservative ideas would still be difficult to find in Yale’s curriculum.


Like their predecessors in 1951, the Yale faculty and administration in 2011 have been derelict in their duty to present students a well-rounded view of economics, morals, politics, culture, and religion. “The problems raised by God and Man at Yale, “as Buckley wrote in 1976 in the Introduction to the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary edition, “are most definitely with us yet.”


Those problems, then as now, stem from Yale’s promulgation of an overweening but unacknowledged progressive orthodoxy. It is entrenched in the curriculum, promoted by unwritten but strictly enforced norms concerning what may and must not be said, and inscribed in the rules and regulations governing student life.


Much like Yale today, the young Buckley’s Yale was a place where it was easy to elicit outrage by proclaiming barely right-of-center conservative opinions, and difficult to raise eyebrows even by vociferously championing fringe left-wing claims and causes.


For contending that liberal education at Yale should be devoted to advancing the principles and practical foundations of liberty, Buckley was accused by his elders of fascism, compared with the Ku Klux Klan and Stalinists, and generally regarded as subversive by the Yale establishment. Inasmuch as he wished to overturn the established order at Yale, this last charge contained an element of accuracy.


Buckley’s critique of academic orthodoxy at Yale was all the more powerful—and all the more baffling to the zealous guardians of Yale’s academic orthodoxy—for his defense of freedom. How could one who condemned the relentless atheism of the curriculum, who lamented that “the University does not recognize religion as an indispensable field of study for an educated man,” and who wanted the university to sympathetically expound Christianity be anything but a religious reactionary?


And how could one who found in the Yale economics and political science departments a dogmatic commitment to collectivism or the centrally planned economy, who regarded the devotion to Keynes and the omission from the curriculum of Von Mises and Hayek as evidence of spectacular one-sidedness, and who believed that Yale had an obligation to teach appreciation of the achievements of capitalism and limited government be seen as other than an apologist for fat cats and an enemy of progress?


Nor did those exhaust Buckley’s sins against Yale’s academic orthodoxy. He deeply offended faculty sensibilities by insisting that alumni should play a major role in academic affairs, envisaging them as “ultimate overseers of Yale’s educational policy.” According to Buckley, Yale alumni—who, as they do today, footed a good deal of the cost of Yale—had the right, the power, and the duty to ensure that Yale lived up to liberal education’s proper goals.


Buckley knew that he would be accused of ignorance of or disdain for academic freedom. His powerful reply remains powerful today. A “laissez-faire education” that allowed professors to teach whatever they wished and students to study whatever they wanted, he declared, represented an abdication of standards. And the inculcation of secular and progressive values under the guise of the openness to all ideas constituted educational fraud.


Academic freedom, according to Buckley, was not license to do as one pleased in the classroom but liberty in the pursuit of the truth and in the attainment of an education for freedom. The pillars of freedom in America, he believed, were the free market economy, which encouraged industriousness and self-reliance by protecting private property, and Christianity, which provided the only secure foundation for belief in the dignity of the individual.

Buckley's masterpiece provides as much insight today as it was 60 years ago. We are further down the road of liberalism socialism progressivism and atheism in academia, and in many ways the fight to restore good traditional education is even more difficult. But conservatives and Christians are taking more focused and organized measures to improve education, and we owe much to Buckley for his eloquent plea.

This is a literary and ideological anniversary to celebrate. 

35 comments:

  1. this is realy digusting, athiests are so evil, why do they hate god??? i say we kill them all. ill laugh when their in hell

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm with you here. When I teach statistics I always urge students to be sufficiently conservative, i.e. compute p-values corrected for multiple testing.

    But I can see why it is annoying to conservatives that the allegedly most intelligent segment of the population tends to be liberal. Makes them feel more stupid, doesn't it? Could those smart liberals be seeing something that I have missed?

    ReplyDelete
  3. If conservatives can't be bothered to go into academia, whose fault is it?

    ReplyDelete
  4. @troy:

    [Could those smart liberals be seeing something that I have missed?]

    You've missed a lot, so, yep, could be.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The responses of the atheist dupes, the web-village idiots of the 21st century are amusing.

    troy says, "Makes them feel more stupid, doesn't it? "

    That response is so devoid of brain that it deserves a hardy ROTFLMAO.

    In reality, I always feel a sudden swell of genius flowing up within me whenever a liberal dimwit like you enters the room.

    I am grateful for this troy, really.

    It feels great knowing one is orders of magnitude smarter than a liberal twit.

    I suspect it has something to do with atheists emitting "dumb" pheromones, or something similar.

    I also suspect most other common sense folks feel the same elation whenever an atheist opens his mouth and starts drooling codswallop all over himself.

    Truth is theists, desists -and probably even agnostics shake- their heads in sheer disbelief at the ever growing imbecility of atheists such as yourself.

    "Could those smart liberals be seeing something that I have missed?"

    I admit it. Such a question may occur in the conservative mind once say in a lifetime, then, when the moment of folly subsides, sanity returns and laughter ensues.

    But, let us ask rather, how could you idiot liberals be so blind as to miss reality with such raving abandon?

    Ah yes, I almost forget, "nothing created everything" in your feckless world-view.

    ReplyDelete
  6. true american, noone is bying yur fake christian act

    as such dey asume yur a nonothing ateist bigut

    ReplyDelete
  7. Another fine comment by Gary H that can easily be paraphrased “I’m rubber and you’re glue”. Proof positive that you can grow your vocabulary while maintaining a child-like intellect. I wouldn’t be surprised if he is actually rolling on the floor laughing his ass off like some totally deranged mad-man.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  8. KW Anonymouse once again said ...

    "yada yada
    ugga wugga wigwam
    diatribe ..."

    Lets just say that when people start claiming that nothing is something, they are already due for the psychiatric ward.

    Kw claims nothing is something and created the universe

    Not so long ago anyone seriously arguing that nothing is something that created the universe would have been diagnosed as mentally perturbed at the least.

    Ergo, that's your style of atheism - a voluntary mental illness.
    Caused by willful blindness and acute cognitive dissonance.

    I really wish I could help you Kw, really. Unfortunately your mind is on hold.
    ---------------

    ReplyDelete
  9. No Gary, I argued that the fact that there is something rather than absolute nothingness precludes the existence of absolute nothingness. I could elaborate, or you can simply reread my previous comments. If it still sounds like “yada yada ugga wugga wigwam”, try slowing down and sounding-out the words. Concentrate real hard, and just maybe, it won’t fly over your head this time.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous said...

    " No Gary, I argued that the fact that there is something rather than absolute nothingness precludes the existence of absolute nothingness."

    No you did not. Trying to revise your own statements to make them sensible?

    And if you had really argued that, or argued it somewhere I didn't see, you've still gotten nowhere at all anyway.

    There is something.
    Where did it come from?
    What made it?
    How does atheism account for it?

    Truth is atheism cannot account for the universe at all. Not even close.

    Ergo, "Nothing created everything" is your only possible position. Now you're denying it again! Yet you have nothing to fill the gap.

    The atheist cosmologists I quoted say so in no uncertain terms -and sadly seem to believe themselves, and without a shred of evidence.

    Listen to Einstein,
    "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

    Or how about astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle,
    "Because the old believers said that God came out of the sky, thereby connecting the Earth with events outside it, the new believers were obliged to say the opposite and to do so, as always, with intense conviction.

    Although the new believers had not a particle of evidence to support their statements on the matter, they asserted that the rabbit producing sludge (called soup to make it sound more palatable) was terrestrially located and that all chemical and biochemical transmogrifications of the sludge were terrestrially inspired.

    Because there was not a particle of evidence to support this view, new believers had to swallow it as an article of faith, otherwise they could not pass their examinations or secure a job or avoid the ridicule of their colleagues.

    So it came about from 1860 onward that new believers became in a sense mentally ill, or, more precisely, either you became mentally ill or you quitted the subject of biology, as I had done in my early teens.

    The trouble for young biologists was that, with everyone around them ill, it became impossible for them to think they were well unless they were ill, which again is a situation you can read all about in the columns of Nature [magazine]."
    (Hoyle, The Mathematics of Evolution,1987

    Clear enough and obvious enough.

    Atheism is an empty metaphysical escape from reality. A religion in its own right, and lame to the core. It is unsupported by any evidence at all.

    ReplyDelete
  11. “Ergo, "Nothing created everything" is your only possible position. Now you're denying it again! Yet you have nothing to fill the gap.”

    Another possible position, and the only truly honest one as far as I can tell, is “I don’t know”.

    Having said that, observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation support the notion of a flat universe that resulted from the collapse of an inflation field. In a flat universe, by definition, the gravitational attraction of all matter and energy cancels out all mass energy of the universe’s constituents resulting in a universe with precisely zero energy.

    That a flat geometry is observed despite the fact that the expansion of the universe is acceleration provides further observational evidence that the overall energy of the universe is zero (If the energy of the universe was anything other than zero, its current expansion would result in space with a negative curvature).

    Quantum physics predicts, and observations have confirmed, the existence of virtual particles that pop into and out of existence all the time. The more energy contained in these virtual particles, the shorter their lifetime. If a particle or field with zero overall energy pops into existence there is no limit to how long it can survive. If this virtual particle spawns an inflation field, it can continue to grow in size because the increase in the gravitational potential energy of its constituents precisely cancels out the mass energy of their existence.

    Atheist cosmologists let out a cry of joy when the WMAP results flashed up on the big screen because it supported their public conjectures and private beliefs that the universe could indeed be the ultimate free lunch. These results showed that whatever “preceded” the multiverse, it had, at a minimum, the property of allowing quantum fluctuations. In other words, it was not “nothing”.

    So, as you can see, my atheistic views are far more sophisticated than your stereotype, and they’re not only in line with modern science, but supported by modern science. Instead of quote mining and arguing against the straw man of what you say I believe, try educating yourself and arguing against what I actually believe, otherwise you will just continue to embarrass yourself.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  12. @KW:

    [These results showed that whatever “preceded” the multiverse, it had, at a minimum, the property of allowing quantum fluctuations. In other words, it was not “nothing”.

    So, as you can see, my atheistic views are far more sophisticated than your stereotype}

    You're kidding, right? The cosmological argument (Aristotle's Prime Mover, Aquinas' 1,2,3 Way] are logical proofs for the need for a supernatural Cause for the universe at every moment in time. It is logical, and does not depend on the latest finding in physics. It can be disproved, but only by logic, not by empirical data.

    The multiverse (or whatever) was most certainly not "nothing". Atheism cannot logically explain its existence. Theism can.

    Theism wins.

    ReplyDelete
  13. anon said ...

    "the overall energy of the universe is zero"

    This is a not a good way of explaining it. I don't care who says so.

    When we say the overall energy is zero we're talking primarily of mathematical equations.
    We need to be careful because otherwise the layman gets the impression that there's no energy in the universe -which is ludicrous.
    Saying two forms of energy cancel each other out is not the same as no energy or "nothing" (as Krauss et al. pretend).

    "Quantum physics ... virtual particles that pop into and out of existence all the time."

    No, quantum physics has not confirmed the "pop in and out of existence" interpretation.

    The fact is that no one knows where they come from.
    The atheist physicists love to employ terms that denote their metaphysics - deceiving people.

    The so-called "virtual particles" appear and disappear or arrive and leave - a very different thing from exist and not exist.

    Like I said, the Copenhagen interpretation of the quantum observations is dead wrong. And that's what you're statements are based on.

    "Atheist cosmologists let out a cry of joy when the WMAP ..."

    I know enough of WMAP thank you.

    Umm, you're quite sure only the atheists huh? Its all in the interpretation of the data.

    Oh and WMAP is not the perfect platform. The time dimension gets no say in it.

    " it supported their public conjectures and private beliefs that the universe could indeed be the ultimate free lunch."

    No, it didn't. They like to think it did but their enthusiasm is premature.
    As always atheists interpret data based on their metaphysics.
    Theist cosmologists see it differently.

    So you're barking up the wrong tree and prematurely declaring your empty world view to be supported. It isn't.

    "These results showed that whatever “preceded” the multiverse, "

    Here you go again! Erroneously speaking as though the "multiverse" was real.
    Bad news, there is not one scrap of evidence of any other universe than our own.

    Atheists are very fond of speculation and conjecture based on their metaphysics - i.e. their religion - indeed, we see little else in the whole realm of Darwinian evolutionary bio.

    "it had, at a minimum, the property of allowing quantum fluctuations. In other words, it was not “nothing”."

    Well gee, last week you were practically screaming that it was nothing, now you're saying the opposite. Duh.

    But this is worse for you. Now you have to explain what this "not nothing" was and what caused it.
    Again, atheism cannot.

    "So, as you can see, my atheistic views are far more sophisticated than your stereotype,"

    Sounds like the statement of a 15 yr old punk trying to impress his buddies.

    Lol, and no not at all. Nothing has changed. You still fit the exact "stereotype" of the average web forum atheist.

    Stop congratulating yourself on having picked up bits and pieces, here and there around the web and pasted them here.

    ReplyDelete
  14. ... continued ...


    "Instead of quote mining "

    Oh shut up for petes sake. Goodness but you are a bore!
    If you get any more standard atheist clap trap you'll bore us all to death.

    You wouldn't recognize a quote mine if it bit your in the face.
    Worse that's all you've been doing yourself - you just fail to print the sources.

    "and arguing against the straw man"

    Can you ever get anything right? Apparently not.
    No strawman - atheists are all the same and your inane "beliefs" have the same logical conclusions. Whether you fail to see or understand those conclusions is something else.

    And indeed that you do - fail to see that is.

    "try educating yourself and arguing against what I actually believe"

    I honestly don't care what you "believe".

    The facts however speak for themselves. I.e. Atheists have no option other than nothing creating everything whether they deny it, preach it or ignore it. And we see all of the above depending on which one we're talking to!

    " otherwise you will just continue to embarrass yourself."

    Well I'm certainly embarrassed for you.

    You still have no clue what you're talking about. Copy/pasting from other atheist sites isn't making you right.

    Perpetual denial of reality - atheism in a nut shell - and you are truly a stereotypical example that one can find on every discussion forum on the web.

    Sorry anon, I've been doing this for many many years and you're no different at all than the rest of the deniers and God haters.

    Same old arguments, same old denials, same old pseudo-science or science badly interpreted.

    You need to repent.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Truth is atheism cannot account for the universe at all. Not even close.

    Neither can your religion.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous said...

    GH: "Truth is atheism cannot account for the universe at all. Not even close."

    Neither can your religion.

    The existence of a super being, supremely intelligent, omnipotent and having personhood does indeed explain everything.
    And, it does so perfectly well.

    "Religion" per se has nothing to do with it.

    Religion is not God. God is not a religion.
    No more than you are a religion.

    Briefly:

    * Whatever made the universe and life, had to be alive. Only life creates life.

    "DNA did not create life; life created DNA", Barry Commoner, senior scientist of the "Critical Genetics Project"

    * There is no such thing as an event without a cause, but the universe is a stupendous series of events.
    Ergo, it was caused by something.

    * Whatever made all things had to be omnipotent - the cause be must at least equal to the effect.

    Necessarily, whatever created time and space had to be external to both - i.e. supra natural or exo-natural if you will.

    * You cannot find God by looking for him in the universe any more than you can find Shakespeare by reading his creations.
    You will never find the author of a book inside the book.

    * God can be inferred - as Mike keeps repeating here - intellectually through reason and logic by making valid inferences upon the data perceived in the universe we can observe.

    * Humans are incapable of observing or knowing all things.
    Sight, hearing, taste, smell etc, are only physical and extremely limited.

    As J.B. Phillips once said, "God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job."

    "I believe in God as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." -C. S. Lewis

    * Until men begin to lay down the weapons of their rebellion against this ultimate reality and move forward to accept this as the quintessential axiom, they will never find peace or true freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  17. HURRRRR DURRR SUMTHING CANT COM FROM NUTHIN, THEREFORE THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED BY A GUY WHO CAME FROM NOTHING

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anon KW is truly pathetically entrenched in the religion metaphysical naturalism, i.e. atheism.

    * God does not "come from" anywhere.
    He is.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Gary H.,

    Atheism is not a religion. I'm sure people told you a thousand times, but apparently you don't get it.


    * God does not "come from" anywhere.
    He is.


    Really? I thought everything had to come from something. Do you know the words "special pleading"?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous said...

    " Atheism is not a religion. I'm sure people told you a thousand times, but apparently you don't get it."

    Wrong. Atheism is a religion whether you admit it or not and whether any atheist admits it or not.

    There is no difference between secular humanism and atheism.
    And Secular Humanism is a religion.
    Atheists try to hide this or don't understand the meaning of the word religion.

    The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the United States held that atheism is a religion and therefore it cannot be promoted by a public school.

    Yet it is preached in all government schools - without using its name of course. BTW, thats called "deceit".

    You ought to read this.

    And this

    And this too.

    You may begin to realize how brainwashed you are after reading that.

    " Really? I thought everything had to come from something."


    By definition God cannot "come from", like I already said.
    Didn't get it huh.
    Your theology is as bad as your ideology.

    God is not an event. Nor is he a material thing.
    The universe is.

    Never heard of "necessary existence" I see.

    Atheists themselves say that the idea of god cannot be proved because it cannot be disproved.

    Atheism is thus, by its own admission, untenable in logic since it cannot prove anything, either for or against!

    So why does it exist?

    The answer :poor reasoning, bad logic, misunderstanding of "God", the existence of evil, hypocrisy in religion, stupidity in religion, and a feigned lack of evidence.

    Everything that exists can be used to back up to a supreme being with infinite intelligence, power and personality.

    Nothing that exists can be used to support atheism. Nothing.

    Thus you're still stuck in "Nothing made everything" huh. No wonder, atheism gives you no other choice.
    ***************

    ReplyDelete
  21. Gary H.,

    Your godbot babble makes absolutely no sense. You make me want to bang my head against a wall.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Headdesk said...

    Your godbot babble makes absolutely no sense. You make me want to bang my head against a wall.

    Be my guest. It might just knock some sense into that head.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Gary H.: "Like I said, the Copenhagen interpretation of the quantum observations is dead wrong."

    Which part of the standard QM is wrong, specifically? Don't be shy, enlighten us with you vast knowledge, Gary.

    ReplyDelete
  24. oleg said...

    " Which part of the standard QM is wrong, specifically? Don't be shy, enlighten us with you vast knowledge, Gary."

    Oleg, your smug attitude here - all while virtually never having any valid argument for atheism (or anything else much) - reveals much about your religion.

    A major fault among the "new atheists", including you, is failing to even understand their own position and the arguments of their opponents fully.
    You and most others have revealed that incredibly well here.

    Thus, I'm not interested in getting into this with you.

    And I'm not claiming to be an expert.

    I couldn't care less what you think, given your obsession with denial of all reality pointing to a supreme being.

    But just to point you in the right direction:
    Go HERE

    Get the book, read it.

    Unwin is a PhD in theoretical physics from the University of Manchester - research for his in the field of quantum gravity.

    You might learn something you don't want to learn.

    You may want to read this intro on Q interpretations:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

    Here too

    Hint: They can't all be true concurrently.

    Seeing how I doubt you'll actually read anything, I quote:
    "Furthermore, the process of measurement may play an essential role in quantum theory - a hotly contested point."

    The Copenhagen interpretation is in agreement with positivism.
    But positivism (the new atheists position) is wrong and has been demonstrated to be so long ago.

    "These interpretations [copen. and consistent histories] propose that actual definite properties of a physical system "do not exist" prior to the measurement; and the wavefunction has a restricted interpretation, as nothing more than a mathematical tool used to calculate the probabilities of experimental outcomes, hence in agreement with positivism in philosophy as the only topic that science should discuss."


    "Einstein liked to say that the Moon is "out there" even when no one is observing it."

    In short, what is called "standard" QM theory isn't settled for ever as your response seems to imply.

    Atheist scientists ought to be obliged to study the philosophy of science much more deeply. They are always putting their feet in their big mouths due to sheer absence of understanding.

    You're far too sure of yourself and your ideas, Oleg, and without reason to be.

    Atheism truly sucks and has no logical or scientific validity at all.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Gary,

    I asked you a simple question: what is wrong with standard QM (that's what you refer to as the Copenhagen interpretation). In response, you blasted atheism and posted a few links. I don't need to read those links, Gary. I know quantum mechanics well enough to teach it to grad students. I want to know what you think is wrong with it.

    So don't deflect. Explain what you think is the problem with Copenhagen. No links. No quotes. Just your own words.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Atheism truly sucks and has no logical or scientific validity at all.

    Are you kidding? How is "I don't believe in extraordinary claims that don't even have a single piece of evidence" illogical and not scientifically valid?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dear Mr. Oleg,

    No deflection.

    Your own response is itself a mere deflection of the very simple point I made on copen. & positivism -that you just proved you don't get.

    For someone who claims to be competent to teach quantum physics, you nevertheless don't understand the logical, philosophical implications of quantum interpretations.

    No understanding => you yourself deflect.

    No surprise there, atheists teach all kinds of sciences - just as do theists - yet atheists tend to be the worst at perception of the logical implications of what they teach.

    That's also the main reason Darwinism still thrives (besides blatant religion backing it up from A-Z).
    Atheists, on average, are immune to logic.

    This has been the conclusion of many - and they are all right.
    One read of Dawkins - or all the other high priests of "new atheism" -is all it takes to confirm this salient fact.

    I gave a hyper simple point, you missed it -as usual.

    Atheism cripples the mind to reason.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Gary H.,

    If derp da derp, then, derp da derp ta tittily tum?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Gary says “When we say the overall energy is zero we're talking primarily of mathematical equations. We need to be careful because otherwise the layman gets the impression that there's no energy in the universe -which is ludicrous.”


    Of course the idea of a zero energy universe is derived from mathematical investigation of cosmology. It’s a scientific hypothesis by cosmologists who‘s detailed predictions where subsequently observed to be correct. It’s not the sort of thing the flat earthers who wrote the Bible or the ignorant Aquinas could even imagine, never mind measure.

    Of course you find the notion of a zero energy universe ludicrous because you don’t know what you’re talking about. The existence of virtual particles has nothing to with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and everything to do with the uncertainty principle. When you say “quantum physics has not confirmed the "pop in and out of existence" interpretation.” you betray your ignorance because there is no such interpretation. All interpretations of quantum physics must include virtual particles as a direct result of the uncertainty principle and their effects being predicted and confirmed to an astonishing degree of accuracy.

    Gary, I’ve been closely following cosmology since I was a kid. I told my fifth grade class that I wanted to be a cosmetologist, and few years latter I understood my teacher’s concerned look when I found out what a cosmetologist was. My first real expose to the subject was reading school reference books that where so out of date that I believed the Steady State vs. Big Bang debate was alive and well. Over the years I’ve watched this fascinating science unfold. I don’t see these hypotheses and observations as sterile scientific facts. I see them as part of an incredible human story of discovery. This is stuff that even 100 years ago, nobody imagine. If the science conflicts with your logic it is your logic that needs to change. I’m sure Aquinas would be in awe, for he has been surpassed many times over. Get with the Program.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  30. Gary,

    You can't make a coherent argument. I'm done with you.

    ReplyDelete
  31. So oleg, you're admitting you lost?


    Checkmate atheists, your religion is the dumbest religion, we don't come from monkeys.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Oleg responds,

    "You can't make a coherent argument. I'm done with you."

    I.e. Oleg doesn't understand a simple and coherent argument that most others have.
    So, he's leaving it either embarrassed or just mad.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous said...

    You still don't get it or refuse to admit it.
    So you must post a truly ridiculous statement,
    "It’s not the sort of thing the flat earthers who wrote the Bible ..."

    The bible does not teach a flat earth, on the contrary it teaches that earth is a globe - which you'd know if you had a clue on the subject.

    " Of course you find the notion of a zero energy universe ludicrous because you don’t know what you’re talking about."

    Nice try.
    However, on the contrary, I understand quite well the concept - I would bet far more than you do - which is why you don't get most of the logical arguments I presented.

    " The existence of virtual particles ... When you say “quantum physics has not confirmed the "pop in and out of existence" interpretation.” you betray your ignorance because there is no such interpretation."

    Betray ignorance? Again on the contrary, you are betraying your own ignorance in this.

    You also reveal glaring inconsistencies, since you are the one that stated "pop in and out of existence". Why do you think it was in quotes?

    You missed the logical implications of the various interpretations of quantum phenomena and therefore respond with more irrelevance.

    "All interpretations of quantum physics must include virtual particles as a direct result of the uncertainty principle ..."

    This has absolutely nothing to do with what I actually posited!

    "...If the science conflicts with your logic it is your logic that needs to change."

    This is precisely my point with you atheists. Logic cannot conflict with science, if it does the science is wrong. Get it?
    Any scientific hypothesis that contradicts the laws of logic is wrong.

    Logic isn't optional, it isn't changeable with the weather. It doesn't change over time.
    Its precise and true if it's laws are followed.

    "I’m sure Aquinas would be in awe, for he has been surpassed many times over."

    Um gee, Aquinas was not a scientist. He was a theologian and a philosopher.
    You should avoid making such irrelevant statements.

    " Get with the Program."

    Yes please do, the program called logical reasoning. Because thats not what you're doing here.

    You're obviously a proponent of that most heinous beast known as "consensus science".
    A true plague in these days of political correctness, yet now we have "scientific consensus correctness".

    You and Oleg are fervent disciples of this inane methodology.
    You'd both feel right at home a few centuries ago under the scientific consensus of the flat earthers you mentioned.
    Both of you would also have been mockers and persecutors of men like Galileo.

    Hint: If its consensus it isn't science. If its science it has nothing to do with consensus.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Gary,

    Your ramblings are not worth the deciphering effort. So long.

    ReplyDelete
  35. oleg said...

    " Your ramblings are not worth the deciphering effort. So long."

    It's rather incredible that simple logical arguments are called ramblings by atheists who are supposed to be highly intelligent.

    In the words of our host blogger, "A notable and peculiar characteristic of scientism is the arrogant Luddism of its half-educated practitoners."

    I leave off this subject with a pertinent quote from a few centuries back that is evidently true today, "I prefer the company of peasants because they have not been educated sufficiently to reason incorrectly." - Michel de Montaigne

    ReplyDelete