Its Ed, the 2nd atheist billboard caller, I couldn’t agree more that talk radio is not the place to hash this out. I will take this opportunity to invite you down to one of our “Coffee clutches” to get your Aquinas’ rooted philosophy answered properly.
To go back on my addition to your show, I think one of our issues as a social species is that we dislike the long accurate answer. When I went into the mechanics of lightning in my description, you (quite correctly due to the radio format IMHO) called me out for “Nerding out”. This further reinforces that we feel comfortable with the easy quick answer regardless if it is full or accurate.
Truth in its very nature is an objective thing, however as a condition of the human experience we are forced to view it from a subjective viewpoint. This inherent personal subjectivity leads us to share information, and thus the progression of knowledge must travel down two clearly separate and distinctive paths. Either your willing to do the time to get a suitable amount of evidence to explain and reconfirm what you have; or your willing to take what you have and assume the rest. The first path is the path layed out by the scientific method, which is the golden standard in knowledge generation. The other path leads to disinformation and assumption, which I fear is harming humanity by using a “Zeus” as a lightning source instead of fostering the development of knowledge over time to fully understand and eventually master the natural phenomenon.
Anyhow Joe, I see you follow Penn Jilette on twitter and know who Carl Sagan is. Might I suggest adding “Unraveling the rainbow” by Richard Dawkins to your reading list as well. Like I said, I have zero intention to “convert you” as I respect your choices, but wish to answer your questions to the best of my ability.
Hey Joe,
Its Ed, the 2nd atheist billboard caller, I couldn’t agree more that talk radio is not the place to hash this out. I will take this opportunity to invite you down to one of our “Coffee clutches” to get your Aquinas’ rooted philosophy answered properly.
To go back on my addition to your show, I think one of our issues as a social species is that we dislike the long accurate answer. When I went into the mechanics of lightning in my description, you (quite correctly due to the radio format IMHO) called me out for “Nerding out”. This further reinforces that we feel comfortable with the easy quick answer regardless if it is full or accurate.
Truth in its very nature is an objective thing, however as a condition of the human experience we are forced to view it from a subjective viewpoint. This inherent personal subjectivity leads us to share information, and thus the progression of knowledge must travel down two clearly separate and distinctive paths. Either your willing to do the time to get a suitable amount of evidence to explain and reconfirm what you have; or your willing to take what you have and assume the rest. The first path is the path layed out by the scientific method, which is the golden standard in knowledge generation. The other path leads to disinformation and assumption, which I fear is harming humanity by using a “Zeus” as a lightning source instead of fostering the development of knowledge over time to fully understand and eventually master the natural phenomenon.
Anyhow Joe, I see you follow Penn Jilette on twitter and know who Carl Sagan is. Might I suggest adding “Unraveling the rainbow” by Richard Dawkins to your reading list as well. Like I said, I have zero intention to “convert you” as I respect your choices, but wish to answer your questions to the best of my ability.
Religion - a topic that will always stimulate comments and high passion. Regards Jim