Re: MD Science vs. Theism: Where's The Beef?

From: ian glendinning (
Date: Thu May 05 2005 - 08:20:05 BST

  • Next message: ian glendinning: "Re: MD Science vs. Theism: Where's The Beef?"

    Hi Mark,

    First a major caveat,
    My blog style is "unfettered" by any rules or convention (other than
    my own). I am happy not to make coherent sense, provided I have logged
    something I can come back to later myself. One reason I post thoughts
    there, has always been I know I could not explain them here - easily.
    One aspect of that - not just incoherent-sense, but jargon too - just
    suit my mood as I brain dump the thoughts - so I'm not worried about
    those aspects of your "criticism" - honestly.The only rule on my blog
    is that I thought it significant, and I thought I knew what I mean at
    the time. Some slightly more coherent points appear also in the
    Enlightened Caveman thread referred to an linked earlier.

    That said - I'm glad Ant pointed MoQ-Discuss at a post I wouldn't have
    made to this forum directly. Because I do sincerely mean what the
    central point says I believe - and any help to (a) articulate it, or
    (b) deny it, is genuinely welcome.

    And if anybody "offended" by it wants to respond - please start
    knowing I knew it would be "offensive", ans say as much a couple of
    times in the post, but that was simply secondary to my more important
    aim. Offence acknowledged, but not aimed deliberately at anybody.
    Breaking eggs, is the expression.

    The main point lest it was missed - in plain words - is quite simply ...

    I do not see (never did see) any point or obligation to argue
    "against" theistic arguments.

    Sorry - not running scared - just focussing my attention where I
    believe it will be most productive to a higher quality future for the


    On 5/5/05, Mark Steven Heyman <> wrote:
    > Hi all,
    > Ant quotes from Ian's blog:
    > "Oh my god, this is truly awful. The logical positivist memeplex
    > reinforces the religious memeplex. Science has unwittingly been it's
    > own worst enemy."
    > msh says:
    > Although I know Ian prefers physics to religion for pure explanatory
    > power, this quotation is to me a great example of how, by using
    > exotic terminology, someone might, to an ear less skeptical than
    > mine, come across as being profound when all they are being is at
    > best provincial, at worst obscure. The quote seems to suggest that
    > LP and religion are equally useful systems of investigation, that
    > science has been caught in its own lie and is hoist by its own
    > petard. This obvious falsehood is given an aura of truth by the use
    > of the sophisticated sounding "memeplex." Must I really run to
    > Dawkins in order to understand a sentence that, with slightly more
    > effort, could have been written using plain ol' English?
    > Apropos to this thread, there is a huge difference between the
    > epistemological foundations of science and religion, and to suggest
    > otherwise is, as I like to say, pure confusion.
    > Just my fiftieth of a dollar, and I don't expect any money back.
    > Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
    > --
    > InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
    > Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
    > Web Site:
    > "Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why,
    > why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he
    > understand." - Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle
    > MOQ.ORG -
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    > MD Queries -
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 05 2005 - 08:25:38 BST