Summary of: Stephen Meyer—Return of God Hypothesis

This review is for the video discussion between Michael Shermer and Stephen Meyer
at this link. 
Title of video:
"Stephen Meyer—Return of God Hypothesis: 3 Scientific Discoveries Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe"

--------------------------


 There's simply never going to be a need for anyone to get creatively unique and complex ... when pointing out a simple factual error, logical error, or a simple absurdity.

Nor does anyone need to prove their fairness and reasonability by showing token respect to clinically narcissist religiosity. --- In any event, ... Meyer keeps: * appealing to Magic and Magic-Man, * pretending those are "scientific" theories, * willfully mispresenting the actual science, (ie. trying to mislead his audience, by claiming that: * primary cosmological theories and competing cosmological theories agree on a true beginning of our universe (including all that it consists/subsists of). And * falsely inferring that there is a consensus among biological and cosmological scientists that those respective systems are definitely "fine tuned"; - in order for Meyer to: * create a NEED for a "fine tuner", * so that he can then offer to SATISFY that fabricated need), (also) * repeatedly committing the fallacy of Argument from Ignorance (we don't know how these cosmological and biological systems initially formed, therefore we can't prove they can form without a Magic-Man, therefore Magic-Man), (same EXACT way Abrahamic fundamentalists used to reason about diseases of the body and the brain/mind. "Therefore demons"), * lending himself the appearance of being a peer to actual scientists by being able to correctly paraphrase philosophers speaking ABOUT the sciences they don't have credentials in, * while he speaks as an authority about specific sciences he himself doesn't have credentials in. -------- It's disgusting. Also, "intelligent design" is known throughout the scientific community as "pseudoscience"; which has been proven repeatedly in high level courts, when I.D.-creationists fought and LOST their battles to get their Religious Fundamentalist ~Genesis Creation Mythology~ taught in science classrooms. ----- In closing, ... I'll let Dr Josh Bowen quote/agree with other actual historians about Meyer's disingenuous klan of pseudo-intellectuals. Starting at 22:38 (link) "Fundamentalism is incompatible with scholarship (any and all actual scholarship)":

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gods Exist; As A Way Of Thinking And Speaking That We Can Grow Past

Image
[Version 3.0 Please pardon the typos and other "wonk". This is a work in progress. Feedback would be greatly appreciated. But even if all you do is read it, I'll still be very grateful.  Thanks] ====== Some people worship actually-existing things; like the Sun.  Some Sun worshippers proceed without assuming the Sun is sentient.  They have that relationship to the Sun, as a brilliant, live-giving, and sometimes punishing power.  It's a humbling awe. It's also an idea that informs them of who they are. They are a recipient of life from a personified life-giver.  They are a subject to the threat that anyone who dares stare too long at the Sun may be struck blind. They are subject to limits and consequences, if they spend too much or too little time in the Sun's presence.  The Sun blesses us caretakers and sharers of the abundant life that the Sun imparts.  The Sun makes sure the lakes and sky share their life giving waters. It directly helps ~shape~ ever Sun-wors
Read more

Responding to "HOW DO YOU KNOW?" that (any) historical issue is a settled issue(?)

Image
This blog was inspired by a discussion happening in a forum on Facebook. Specifically, the issue on the table was: "Did the writers of Matthew, Mark, and Luke/Acts think that Jesus was either part of a Triune-Godhead, or at least the same "God" as the patriarchal deity of 2nd Temple Judaism?" Predictably, a Trinitarian religious fundamentalist said "yes". Predictably, an enabler of unspecified background has rushed in to support that fundamentalist. In context, it's really obvious to me that the enabler was raised in that same ideological culture; no matter how religious they may-or-may-not-be currently. So when I pointed out what actual scholars say about it, I also pointed out that this is a settled issue. In reply, he insisted: There are never any truly settled issues among qualified scholars. Both a real scholar and an honest (and minimally intelligent) laymen would realize this. [Note: this is just a variation of the stunt being
Read more

Christian-Fundamentalism's Relationship To Racism

Image
For now, I'll just start with a few key issues; in no particular order. 1. Atheism isn't a worldview or a values system. It's like being a non-astrologist, or a non-Leprechaun-ist. If someone doesn't believe in leprechauns in general, or if they more specifically don't believe in "The Eternal King of the Leprechauns", this really doesn't inform their personal views and values. 2. For context, I don't identify as an "atheist". The term "atheist" means "not a theist". The term "theist" means "believes in a god". The term "god" means: whatever the invoker wants it to mean. Therefore, the term "atheist" fails to make any meaningful distinction, because the term "god" fails to provide its own meaning. However, ... 3. Once a god-word-invoker does clarify their meaning, then (in that context) the term "atheist" can be contextually meaningfu
Read more