"98% of public intellectuals are bullshit"

[Petr]

Originally Posted by wintermute

That, and the "golden mean", I notice you constantly trying to present as Christian or Jewish wisdom, but it is not.

Are really so myopic as to think that Hellenes had some sort of copyright to such common God-given wisdom?

Proverbs 30:7-8:

Two things have I required of thee; deny me them not before I die:

Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me:

And anyways, what do you think that "straight and narrow" road that Jesus Christ spoke about is? Road is a thing that is bordered by two extremes.

Neither did Jesus learn about the afterlife or the soul from the Jewish tradition, ignorant of both.

Simply propagandistic nonsense.

Your references to Roman wisdom here, and to hubris and Nemesis, above, remind me of Julian's question to the Christian bishops: given that Christ suffices for salvation, why is that you Galileans are always found filling your buckets at the Hellenic well?

Going on with copyright issue again?

Winnie, three guesses on who said this:

"Only Chaldees and Hebrews wisdom found
In the pure worship of a self-born God."

Or this:

"But these Jews are in part god-fearing, seeing that they revere a god who is truly most powerful and most good and governs this world of sense, and, as I well know, is worshipped by us also under other names."

The point of my post is that empty human pride is not being put down in your posted article, but instead genuine inquiry of the highest order. Dismissing Roger Penrose's work as something 'for grandmothers with their new age crystals' is an irresponsibile and indefensible position. Indeed, it is Penrose that checks the hybris of the 'strong AI' crowd, who expect to create living, conscious, machines any day now. He showed how and why the human brain - and more importantly, consciousness itself - was outside the grasp of their current models, and he has become a hate figure for large parts of the scientific community who find their materialist worldview threatened by him and his work.

Well, I don't know that much about Penrose, and naturally I cannot vouch for every single line of that article - I was mostly amused on what it said about Drexler and Dawkins.

You certainly didn't score any points on me there.

But of course I did. I showed that in many instances you simply had no idea on what you were so confidently pontificating about.


Petr

[Hippias]

Originally Posted by wintermute

I also dislike the implied tone of Petr's post - the Christian hatred of all that is upright, noble, well-formed, and excellent and the corresponding desire to exalt everything broken, bothched, leprous, ugly, and ill-favored is quite evident in his obvious glee in launching a turd in the direction of honest investigation of the divine order of the cosmos by minds of a high caliber.

Well, Petr may hate all that is upright, noble, etc, and exalt everything that is ugly, but is this something Christians are generally disposed to? Is hatred of these higher qualities consistent with, or prescribed by, Christian doctrine? Elaborate, please.

What the Christian enjoys is seeing the beautiful or the noble or the elevated ruined.

That's not something I personally enjoy witnessing. Should I? Am I, as a Christian, making an unprincipled exception?

Excellence is assumed to be an affront to God, as if Penrose' math or Beethoven's music were even comparable in complexity or beauty to the innumerable natural phenomena that surround us, when it is actually only an affront to spiritually deformed beings.

What Christian assumes this? C.S. Lewis argued that aesthetic value experienced in a classical composition had a divine basis, not that it was an afford to God. Pardon my dimness, but I'm not following the tenor of this segment of your post.

[Ahknaton]

Originally Posted by Petr

Well, I don't know that much about Penrose, and naturally I cannot vouch for every single line of that article - I was mostly amused on what it said about Drexler and Dawkins.

Just as I suspected. You only posted the article for the 1-paragraph take-down of your pet punching-bag Richard Dawkins. More than being "unable to vouch for every single line" of that article, I suspect you are on shaky ground about the majority of the figures presented. Have you read any of Hoftstader's books? What about Hawking & Penrose? Why you would post a hit-piece on these intellectual figures, these three in particular who are actually hold-outs against the "hard materialism" of guys like Dawkins and Daniel Dennett is mystifying. You are scoring an own goal here, attacking your own side. However when you take into account your obsession with Dawkins it makes more sense.

[Donny the Punk]

Originally Posted by Ahknaton MMXII

Just as I suspected. You only posted the article for the 1-paragraph take-down of your pet punching-bag Richard Dawkins. More than being "unable to vouch for every single line" of that article, I suspect you are on shaky ground about the majority of the figures presented. Have you read any of Hoftstader's books? What about Hawking & Penrose? Why you would post a hit-piece on these intellectual figures, these three in particular who are actually hold-outs against the "hard materialism" of guys like Dawkins and Daniel Dennett is mystifying. You are scoring an own goal here, attacking your own side. However when you take into account your obsession with Dawkins it makes more sense.

Agreed on this count. Though the topic of the thread - as opposed to its contents - reminded me of Jacques Barzun's The House of Intellect.

[Angler]

Originally Posted by Ahknaton MMXII

The purpose of these "tearing down idols" articles is to make the average mediocre individual feel less stupid than they actually are in comparison to intellectuals at the top of their fields.

Well said! But in the case of certain Christians who yearn for days long past -- when religious dogma could retreat much more deeply into the shadows of human ignorance -- I think the desire to ridicule great thinkers (and the list above includes at least a couple, e.g., Hawking) simply stems from a fear of their ideas. It's the same motive that drove the Christians of the Middle Ages to threaten Galileo with the stake until he recanted. Christians fear the truth. They need to believe in their dogma and will do whatever it takes to convince themselves that the reality that conflicts with that dogma isn't reality at all.

[Petr]

Originally Posted by Angler

Well said! But in the case of certain Christians who yearn for days long past -- when religious dogma could retreat much more deeply into the shadows of human ignorance -- I think the desire to ridicule great thinkers (and the list above includes at least a couple, e.g., Hawking) simply stems from a fear of their ideas. It's the same motive that drove the Christians of the Middle Ages to threaten Galileo with the stake until he recanted. Christians fear the truth. They need to believe in their dogma and will do whatever it takes to convince themselves that the reality that conflicts with that dogma isn't reality at all.

How does it feel to be such a walking, talking bunch of cliches?


Petr

[Petr]

Originally Posted by Ahknaton MMXII

Just as I suspected. You only posted the article for the 1-paragraph take-down of your pet punching-bag Richard Dawkins. More than being "unable to vouch for every single line" of that article, I suspect you are on shaky ground about the majority of the figures presented. Have you read any of Hoftstader's books? What about Hawking & Penrose? Why you would post a hit-piece on these intellectual figures, these three in particular who are actually hold-outs against the "hard materialism" of guys like Dawkins and Daniel Dennett is mystifying. You are scoring an own goal here, attacking your own side. However when you take into account your obsession with Dawkins it makes more sense.

I do not regret making this post, and I don't need people like Hawking as my allies.


Petr

[Petyr Baelish]

Originally Posted by Petr

I do not regret making this post, and I don't need people like Hawking as my allies.


Petr

Indeed, you see more eye-to-eye with these fellows:

[Angler]

Originally Posted by Petr

How does it feel to be such a walking, talking bunch of cliches?


Petr

You tell me. Or did you invent all this dogma you're constantly spouting? You know, about "fallen mankind" and the like?

By the way, have you found any evidence yet for the existence of this God of yours? Let's see it. Otherwise, you're still begging the question every time you speak as though God's existence were a settled matter.

[Angler]

Originally Posted by Timothy Leary

Indeed, you see more eye-to-eye with these fellows:

LMFAO!

"Now put your hand against mine on your television screen and pray with me..."