Scott Adams Keeps Talking about I.D.
His thoughts on Intelligent Design, Part 3.
He actually makes some decent points here, and to my simple mind they're a bit easier to discern. His main point seems to be that this is one hum-dinger of a polarizing topic. He's sure as hell right about that one. People take their beliefs really, really seriously, most of the time.
The second part, a weird analogy about lightning and god defacing national monuments, is also interesting. How would a religous person answer? How would a die-hard atheist answer? How would a skeptic answer? I've seen plenty of thought experiments like that one before, and usually they wind up with the religious sorts saying that it would be proof of god, the atheists saying it wouldn't be proof of god, and the skeptics (in my humble opinion the ones who don't give a knee-jerk reaction to this type of thing) would only be able to conclude what the evidence gives you: Someone or something can deface national monuments with lightning and claims to be god, claims to have made us, and claims to think Darwin is a nut.
It may or may not actually be god. Hell, it could just be drunk aliens fucking with us hairless monkeys out of boredom. It's funny what people wind up concluding from events and how it lines up with their preconceptions, and what they're actually justified (logically) in concluding. ... Reading the comments he gets is a gas though. So many people, so many opinions, so much defensiveness. It makes me wonder how much people actually think about what they say and believe. Like Heinlein said, if you can't express it in numbers, it's just an opinion.
He actually makes some decent points here, and to my simple mind they're a bit easier to discern. His main point seems to be that this is one hum-dinger of a polarizing topic. He's sure as hell right about that one. People take their beliefs really, really seriously, most of the time.
The second part, a weird analogy about lightning and god defacing national monuments, is also interesting. How would a religous person answer? How would a die-hard atheist answer? How would a skeptic answer? I've seen plenty of thought experiments like that one before, and usually they wind up with the religious sorts saying that it would be proof of god, the atheists saying it wouldn't be proof of god, and the skeptics (in my humble opinion the ones who don't give a knee-jerk reaction to this type of thing) would only be able to conclude what the evidence gives you: Someone or something can deface national monuments with lightning and claims to be god, claims to have made us, and claims to think Darwin is a nut.
It may or may not actually be god. Hell, it could just be drunk aliens fucking with us hairless monkeys out of boredom. It's funny what people wind up concluding from events and how it lines up with their preconceptions, and what they're actually justified (logically) in concluding. ... Reading the comments he gets is a gas though. So many people, so many opinions, so much defensiveness. It makes me wonder how much people actually think about what they say and believe. Like Heinlein said, if you can't express it in numbers, it's just an opinion.
Comments
Post new comment