It really kills me to see an article as narrow-sighted as this on an otherwise good blog. For every intelligent observation in this article, Elizer assumes “rational” airs as misguided and irrational as a fundamentalist’s preception of science.
What the hell is he typing about when he ponders the “purpose” of evolution from the perspective of a “God” trying to accomplish something in terms of making a single species successful? I hope anyone reading this can see the multiple ways this is a limited and backwards way to think about this “issue”, but if not consider if “God’s purpose” was to make a good simulation.
Then when he asserts that “Religionists are waiting for science to discover God” and that “Science has already discovered God” the whole article looks like a retarded athiest argument rather than an article on overcoming bias.
I’m not defending “Religionists”, but I am attacking shoddy ridiculous thought presented as objective logic.
It really kills me to see an article as narrow-sighted as this on an otherwise good blog. For every intelligent observation in this article, Elizer assumes “rational” airs as misguided and irrational as a fundamentalist’s preception of science.
What the hell is he typing about when he ponders the “purpose” of evolution from the perspective of a “God” trying to accomplish something in terms of making a single species successful? I hope anyone reading this can see the multiple ways this is a limited and backwards way to think about this “issue”, but if not consider if “God’s purpose” was to make a good simulation.
Then when he asserts that “Religionists are waiting for science to discover God” and that “Science has already discovered God” the whole article looks like a retarded athiest argument rather than an article on overcoming bias.
I’m not defending “Religionists”, but I am attacking shoddy ridiculous thought presented as objective logic.