I like to think of myself as (I’ve even been branded) a “sophisticated atheist” and, as an “open-minded scientist”, I’ve been a fan for several years of Brian Josephson; staunch Nodel-laureate defender against bad knee-jerk science.
Feb 2009 article here from Brian, about the case last year where Michael Reiss (a Theist) came to “step down” from his position as director of education for The Royal Society after making a speech at the British Association for the Advancement of Science.
Interesting that what Reiss said was perfectly reasonable, yet atheistic fundamentalists (including Harry Kroto) succeeded in making his position impossible. Doubly interesting : a “brownie point” for arch-atheist Dawkins as a reasonable voice on the side of good sense in this case. And after posing some tough questions to The Royal Society, how about this for a conclusion ?
I think it very likely that … those attacking religion per se will be proved wrong by science.
Brian Josephson.
Good article, which highlights a disturbing trend, but I wouldn’t agree with his conclusion.
Sam, you really do have the problem meme embodied in you. All you see is arguments 😉
I din’t agree with the conclusion either … but agreeing or disagreeing is the least of our interests here surely.
The disturbing trend is an old one.
The interesting point is surely support for reversing the trend ?
Ian it is possible that I have the problem meme embedded in me. It is also possible that you have the patronising meme embedded in you (ref: the last 8 or 10 replies on your blog and mine) 😛
Absolutely … however, you said you liked the pace in the other thread … one small point at a time … the style deliberate and can be changed ?
Couple of asides …
I’m very self-effacing about the “patronising” style when I turn it on. Recall the MacIntyre thread. “Superior, with smart-ass dismissals (pot & kettle)etc.” I’m using it with you because we know and trust each other and are working hard on a specific problem.
I used the word embodied because you made an issue of it. You have switched it back to “embedded” here, twice – that doesn’t confer the same / right meaning in practice in my book ? Let’s focus on the other “meme” thread.
In the Josephson paper the “conclusion” was an aside a conceptual hopeful opinion. The “embodied semantic” (the things that meant anything for the foreseeable future) was in the questions posed directly to the RS.
But apologies if it causes offence (yes I did see the laughy / smiley) 😉
Not a smiley – it was me sticking my tongue out at you :~
And that smiley didn’t come out right – I’ll have to explore the HTML
OK Gotcha … anyway … back to the matter in hand …