Here’s an article from Physics Web (via 3 Quarks Daily) that seems appropriate, in the context of the last two posts. Here’s the conclusion of the article: But the image of the book of nature can haunt us today. One reason is that it implies the existence of an ultimate coherent truth – a complete…

Comments on the last post make it clear that my use of the label “scientism” is far from clear. It does not mean a rejection of science, or its methods (though I do have to roll my eyes when someone talks of the scientific method), within their sphere. It’s not, for example, a rejection of…

When science replaces religion, it becomes more and more like religion, and in the minds of its worshipers, can justify the same sorts of inhumanities. Witness Richard Dawkins, todays leading worshiper of science, calling for deposed dictators to be used as guinea pigs, rather than executed (via John Hawks). He writes: But perhaps the most…

In lieu of an effortful post on cognitive science while I’m relaxing for the holidays, I thought I’d say a few things about religion and Dawkins again. If you hang around ScienceBlogs, you’ve probably noticed the spat between the two biggest (traffic-wise) SBers, PZ Myers and Ed Brayton. Ed criticized Dawkins for signing a petition…

OK, the last two posts with quotes from philosophers were at least remotely relevant to recent discussions on this blog. These quotes will be completely irrelevant, but they’ve stuck with me since I first read them at least a decade ago, and have been on my mind recently, so I thought I’d post them. They’re…

Here are two pretty lengthy passages from two Ortega y Gasset essays, both published in History as a System (one of my favorite books), and translated by Helene Weyl. I’m posting them because I think they’re relevant to our recent discussion on religion and science. Specifically, I think they’re relevant to the attitude towards science…

Since it’s come up a lot, here’s a recent discussion of Anselm’s Ontological Argument in the philosophical literature (via OPP). Millican, P. (2004). The one fatal flaw in Anselm’s Aagument. Mind, 113, 437-476. Anselm’s Ontological Argument fails, but not for any of the various reasons commonly adduced. In particular, its failure has nothing to do…

I posted these long ago on the old blog, but I was reading Studies in Pessimism, and when I came across them, I decided to post them again. The parables are all from the last chapter of the book. At the end is one of his “Psychological Observations,” which is from the fifth chapter. A…

In a comment at the end of the Religion and Science post, Brandon of Siris mentions Peter King as a source for discussions of Anselm’s ontological argument. If you’re interested, here’s a link to his encyclopedia entry on Anselm, and this paper discusses the logic of the argument in more detail. Readers of this blog…

One more short post before we return to your regularly scheduled long-winded cog sci stuff. Greece vs. Germany on the soccer field. Enjoy.