Home| Letters| Links| RSS| About Us| Contact Us

On the Frontline

What's New

Table of Contents

Index of Authors

Index of Titles

Index of Letters

Mailing List


subscribe to our mailing list:



SECTIONS

Critique of Intelligent Design

Evolution vs. Creationism

The Art of ID Stuntmen

Faith vs Reason

Anthropic Principle

Autopsy of the Bible code

Science and Religion

Historical Notes

Counter-Apologetics

Serious Notions with a Smile

Miscellaneous

Letter Serial Correlation

Mark Perakh's Web Site

Discussion

You can read and reply to the existing discussion threads related to the article, or create a new thread:

Your name *:
Your email *:
Security question *: 17 + 18 =
Related article(s):
Subject *:
Message *:
     Length: (max.: 3000 characters)

 

Title Author Date
They know nothing about religion C, David Aug 28, 2006
The authors of this article are speaking to a topic they don't understand: religion.

There is nothing in their comments that indicated they know there are different "god-hypotheses" for instance.

What do they know of the history of religions? Of comparative mythology? Of the philosophy of religion? As far as I can tell the answer to all these questions is absolutely nothing.

For that matter, their discussion on the philosophy of science was exceedingly shallow.

If they want to talk about implications of natural science and religion for one another, then they should get really serious about about the philosophies of these to human activities. Blathering about randomness versus providence and claiming that somehow gods violate the laws of thermodynamics (how?) doesn't cut it?

And if they don't want to seriously study these things, then they should shut the hell up on science versus religion!

 

Title Author Date
? Ryan Jul 29, 2006
I feel there is a great deal of circular reasoning in this article. Observational science and historical science are not the same thing. The Cambrian Explosion; where is all the fossil evidence for evolution.
How many thousands of generations of evolution and all the fossils of the so-called "links" of human evolution can fit in a small box. Who is misinterpreting data? Open your mind. Look objectively at the evidence as a whole. You have a great deal of faith in what you believe because your facts (data) were severely lacking.
Before the universe was nothing, not a quantum vacumn...nothing...absolute nothing. "Anything that exists has a cause that has brought it into being". Stop being so obstinate.

 

Title Author Date
religion and skepticism... Mattern , John Aug 19, 2004
good day i am a self taught philisophical theorist of naturalism. i know that sounds contradictory but, it works for me. i have spent some years observing and inferring from the "oracle" known as television and have discovered many truths of both human nature and what humans do with that nature. recently i stumbled upon the talk... websites and have been absorbing as much knowledge from them as is objectively possible. i must thank you all for these websites, i have learned quite a bit. i am currently working my way through the talkreason site and have come accross a paper "religion and skepticism: can (and should!) skeptics challenge religion?". i have discovered many interesting concepts in my travels through human consciousness but, have never been so inclined to write and comment. albeit, i'm only thirty and have still much to learn, i believe i've learned enough to say that this paper is one of the most enlightened and enlightening i've ever read. i would like to express my appreciation to the website for carrying it and the authors, Norman and Lucia hall, for having the strength to stand up and put into words that which most of us realize yet still deny. though i do disagree with a few statements in the paper, i feel that the overall intent and message are what count. from one seeker of knowledge to another, thank you and have a good day. john

 

Title Author Date
Thermodynamics and information Meeker , Brent Jan 07, 2004
I enjoyed Lucia Hall's address. It was an excellent summary and call to arms. However it includes a small mistake. It is asserted that there is a 'no increase of information' principle related to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Information can be increased by random processes, as in quantum events. See Vic Stenger's book "Has Science Found God?" he has a whole chapter on it in his critique of Dembski.