I learned from BBC today, that CERN has invited philosophers and theologians to debate the origins of the universe, following the discovery of the Higgs boson (or something of the sorts). Now, I can see how some philosophers can potentially contribute to certain questions regarding the origins of the universe, humanity, consciousness, morality etc. No problems there. They can ask some good questions and pave the way for science to find the answers. They may even provide some quasi-answers as well I guess.
Ken Ham is this very gifted guy, the leader of Answers in Genesis, an organization that promotes open thinking and science-based methodologies. Ken has recently made some fresh, highly intelligent and accurate comments. [/sarcasm]
Amongst a very large number of apparent “designs” in nature that certainly won’t compete for any efficiency awards, the laryngeal nerve of many mammals is a magnificent piece of bad engineering. The extreme case of a giraffe is discussed in this video by Richard Dawkins -and would make a great souvenir for Michael Behe‘s living room.
Last night I was watching a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Frank Turek, on the question: “What best explains reality: theism or atheism?“. I could not help but notice that the same arguments were presented yet again by some religious apologist. Nevertheless, some of them I found interesting not in their argumentative prowess, but in that while they seem intuitively wrong, sometimes I am hard pressed to express my opinion on the subject. Therefore, I am writing this post mostly to document my thoughts, and hope to generate some discussion or provoke some thinking in my numerous (three to be precise) audience.
Can science answer questions about morality, what is good or bad, or how we perceive good and bad? See Sam Harris, the author of “The End of Faith” and “Letter to a Christian Nation“, discussing his views on this TED talk.
I am looking forward to the Pope’s visit in the UK in September. His holiness, with his unbounded wisdom, will enlighten us with his views, or rather his Gods views since he is his representative, on morality. Of course, his holiness is the most suitable person to discuss morality since he is a man of God and well, this is where they have their expertise!
So the Church of England has “decided” that science and religion are apparently compatible (a vague, loosely defined word in this context, but nevermind…) at a general synod in London. Schizophrenia!
Yesterday, I was shocked to hear such comments from the Pope, a well known bastion of equality, supporter of human rights, and devoted to promoting tolerance towards every human being -having been created after all by God himself in his image.