ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Christianity is more scientific than New Atheism

And it's not hard to conclusively prove it. Shadow to Light shines a big spotlight on the intrinsic absurdity of the New Atheist attacks on religion in general and Francis Collins in particular:
Coyne has accused Collins of being an “embarrassment to the NIH, to scientists, and, indeed, to all rational people” and an “advocate of profoundly anti-scientific beliefs.” Myers calls him a “creationist dupe arguing against scientific theories” and “an amiable lightweight” who doesn’t know how to think like a scientist.

You would think that when these three biologists dish out their smug vitriol, it would come from a foundation of having generated more scientific knowledge than the religious guy. But alas, such is not the case.

Recall that Collins has published 384 scientific papers from 1971 to 2007. I’m sure he has published since 2007, as that is where the CV on the web ends. In fact, by searching through PubMed, a database that contains millions of scientific articles, it looks like he has published 483 papers. But we’ll stick with 384 since there could be other “Collins FS” authors out there mixed in with the PubMed search results.

Again using PubMed, I was able to determine that Jerry Coyne has published a very respectable 88 papers from 1971 to 2011. For Myers, I found only ten papers from 1984-1999. For Harris, I did not bother with PubMed. I used his own site where he promotes himself and his publications.

He has published two papers since 2009.
In other words, it's obviously not Christianity that hinders science. Collins has not only produced considerably more science than his critics, he has published more than twice as many papers as Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, and Sam Harris combined. He has published infinitely more scientific papers than the late Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Michael Shermer, all of whom have nevertheless made similarly false claims about the incompatibility of Christianity and science.

As is so often the case, the atheist argument is based entirely on incorrect logic and not on the empirical evidence that they claim - also falsely - to value so highly.

Labels: ,

60 Comments:

Blogger mmaier2112 April 18, 2012 7:54 AM  

But all of those papers by Collins were funded by Rightist, Oil Baron Creationists, I'm sure.

Wow, how utterly pathetic and embarrassing. Well, if these folks HAD a sense of shame it would be, anyway.

Sort of like how Obama published nothing while Editor of Law Review at Harvard, but folks still call him a Constitutional scholar.

Anonymous DrTorch April 18, 2012 8:09 AM  

As is so often the case, the atheist argument is based entirely on incorrect logic and not on the empirical evidence that they claim - also falsely - to value so highly.

A thorough and succinct blog entry.

What's left to say but, "Yup"?

PS Entries I make while using Firefox don't appear. Anyone else familiar w/ this?

Anonymous The Great Martini April 18, 2012 8:10 AM  

I agree Collins is a good scientist, but let's be fair about things. The reason Collins has more papers to his name is because he has been in control of vastly greater funds than the others combined and the process of scientific bureaucracy dictates that grant holders get billing, often top billing, even when they actually play a very oblique role in research.

Blogger Vox April 18, 2012 8:10 AM  

Entries I make while using Firefox don't appear. Anyone else familiar w/ this?

You probably have third-party cookie permissions turned off.

Blogger Vox April 18, 2012 8:13 AM  

The reason Collins has more papers to his name is because he has been in control of vastly greater funds than the others combined and the process of scientific bureaucracy dictates that grant holders get billing, often top billing, even when they actually play a very oblique role in research.

Irrelevant. According to Harris and the others, his Christianity is sufficient to prevent him from producing any science, regardless of his advantages, by virtue of what they claim to be his inherently non-scientific thinking. After all, look at how, in three years as the head of the NIH, he has transformed it from a secular scientific agency into a militant arm of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Anonymous Starbuck April 18, 2012 8:16 AM  

I agree Collins is a good scientist, but let's be fair about things. The reason Collins has more papers to his name is because he has been in control of vastly greater funds than the others combined and the process of scientific bureaucracy dictates that grant holders get billing, often top billing, even when they actually play a very oblique role in research.

So what?! What does that have to do with anything? The point the "scientists" were trying to make is that Collins was inferrior because he did less science, so his christianity got in the way... i.e. He is wearing his "God-Glasses". Turns out they shot off their big mouths before doing any research and made themselves look like fools. This is typical of most atheists.

Do you have proof this Collins fellow just watched someone else do the science? That he just sat around like a typical christian would? That he is a poser?

Athiests and their BS gets under my skin because they are full of lies... Well, maybe not all atheists, but the mouthy ones for sure.

Anonymous RedJack April 18, 2012 8:26 AM  

They are not talking about Science the method, but Science the Religion.

So in that sense, they are correct. A Christian can not be a memeber of a non Christian religion.

Anonymous 691 April 18, 2012 8:33 AM  

Might this suggest, given the almost 90% unreliability of scientific papers you cited yesterday, that Collins has committed, in absolute terms, vastly more junk, deceptive, fraudulen, flawed or incorrect science than Coyne and the troupe of New Atheists?

Anonymous Wendy April 18, 2012 8:35 AM  

Heh. I like the last pie chart.

Anonymous daddynichol April 18, 2012 8:54 AM  

Your metric also means Collins STILL had more correct papers than the others. The New Atheists still suck.

Try again.

Anonymous Paul Sacramento April 18, 2012 8:57 AM  

The website that was started by Collins (and a few others) is an excellent source for opinions on how one can reconcile ( is that the word?) science and religion.
biologos.org

Some very interesting articles and essays from scientists and biblical scholars.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 April 18, 2012 9:20 AM  

Why is it that people always assume that science and religion conflict? Both are two entirely separate forms of knowledge, where science answers questions that begin with "how" and religion answers questions that begin with "why".

Well, that is the dumbed down version of how I see it. This is why I regard the evolution vs. creation debate as irrelevant and a huge waste of time.

This all, of course, assumes that scientists practice real science. In reality, it appears that most scientists are Naturalist in that they don't believe that the material world can be viewed by anything other than scientific inquiry. Of course, in order to do that you have to distort the meaning and practice of science, like telling people that "theory" means "fact" and so forth. No other usage of the word "theory" in the English language comes remotely close to that.

Anonymous jack April 18, 2012 9:39 AM  

Testing Foxfire comments entry....

Anonymous Rantor April 18, 2012 10:01 AM  

While there are numerous examples of successful Christian scientests, my favorite is the Christian who came up with the theory that allowed him to build the MRI. Dr. Damadian, who rejects Darwinian Evolution and is a Creationist, was among the leading scientists who developed the ideas and patented the technology of the MRI.

Obviously he was able to develop a scientific theory and prove it true by helping to develop the technology that proved it. Of course there are some scientists, far less visionary or capable, who no doubt attack him for his religious views.

Anonymous TMQ Fanboy April 18, 2012 10:10 AM  

The reason Collins has more papers to his name is because he has been in control of vastly greater funds than the others combined and the process of scientific bureaucracy dictates that grant holders get billing, often top billing, even when they actually play a very oblique role in research.

Irrelevant. According to Harris and the others, his Christianity is sufficient to prevent him from producing any science, regardless of his advantages, by virtue of what they claim to be his inherently non-scientific thinking. After all, look at how, in three years as the head of the NIH, he has transformed it from a secular scientific agency into a militant arm of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.


The reason his name is on so many publications is because he created such a useful depository of scientific knowledge. Anyone who did more "science" with that data was obliged to include him as an author. So, while the paper count may not be indicative of his writing prowess, it is not an unreasonable surrogate for his contribution to the body of knowledge.

Anonymous Josh April 18, 2012 10:15 AM  

I eagerly await the atheists to start asserting that science does not mean science...

Anonymous Kyle In Japan April 18, 2012 10:16 AM  

Jerry Coyne is such a whiner. He had an absolutely awful article in USA Today about 'science and religion' something like two years ago.

It's also amazing how these guys un-self-consciously refer to things like the "scientific worldview" that reveal much of their thinking is not based on science but pseudo-pscientific* philosophical assumptions.

*pscience, perhaps we can use this to refer to the philosophical worldview supposedly based on science.

Anonymous Stickwick April 18, 2012 10:32 AM  

TMQ Fanboy: The reason his name is on so many publications is because he created such a useful depository of scientific knowledge. Anyone who did more "science" with that data was obliged to include him as an author. So, while the paper count may not be indicative of his writing prowess, it is not an unreasonable surrogate for his contribution to the body of knowledge.

Excellent point. Another measure of a scientist's "prowess" is how many citations his papers get. One paper with hundreds of citations is scientifically more valuable than ten papers with just a few citations. I'm not sure how to discover Collins' citation count, but I'll wager it's a LOT higher than those of any of his adversaries.

Also, looking at Collins' CV you'll notice page after page of professional awards and page after page of membership in professional societies and service in committees and administrations. Sideshow PZ calling him an amiable lightweight is farce.

Anonymous 691 April 18, 2012 10:34 AM  

First, it's Vox's metric, not mine. I would never use number of published papers to determine someone's contribution to science. And 400+ papers in a career seems comically high.

Secondly, who's defending the New Atheists? Collins's apparent fraud exists independently of them.

Anonymous VD April 18, 2012 10:55 AM  

Might this suggest, given the almost 90% unreliability of scientific papers you cited yesterday, that Collins has committed, in absolute terms, vastly more junk, deceptive, fraudulen, flawed or incorrect science than Coyne and the troupe of New Atheists?

Only if you don't understand statistics and or believe the unreliability of scientific papers is randomly distributed. Since there are an estimated 1.486 million peer-reviewed papers published each year, Collins's 384 papers all could very well be among the 5,884,560 reliable papers that were published over the 36 years he was publishing. The fact that Collins is so highly honored would tend to indicate that this is more likely the case than not.

Anonymous Mr. B.A.D. April 18, 2012 11:00 AM  

It must be hard for the atheists to publish scientific papers, what with all the sneering and hand waving about religion that they do...which is obviously more important because of how dangerous religion is.

Anonymous Paul Sacramento April 18, 2012 11:03 AM  

The issue really is the "new atheist mantra" that science ( and in their view by default, critical thinking) and religion are incompatible.
Collins and others ( of which he is the most visible) show that "mantra" to be incorrect and ridiculous.
They show that science and religion can co-exist very well and make great gains for the world ( as has been shown over the centuries much to the chagrin of atheist with lack of historical knowledge).

Anonymous Randy M April 18, 2012 11:19 AM  

[quote]Irrelevant. According to Harris and the others, his Christianity is sufficient to prevent him from producing any science, regardless of his advantages, by virtue of what they claim to be his inherently non-scientific thinking. After all, look at how, in three years as the head of the NIH, he has transformed it from a secular scientific agency into a militant arm of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.[/quote]

Well, it looks like the 'scientists' made a prediction, performed and experiement (even if unwillingly) and recieved data which disproved that hypothesis. Let's see if, like true scientists, they either change their theory or at least repeat the experiment.

Anonymous BillB April 18, 2012 11:35 AM  

O.T.

Received this this am:

http://nationaljuggernaut.blogspot.com/2009/09/this-cartoon-seemed-far-fetched-in-1948.html


Please take a look.

Anonymous physphilmusic April 18, 2012 11:53 AM  

First, it's Vox's metric, not mine. I would never use number of published papers to determine someone's contribution to science. And 400+ papers in a career seems comically high.

This is similar to the shameless comments made by gnu atheists after seeing hard statistics contradicting their cherished views. No, unless there is significant evidence that the majority of Collins' papers are fraudulent, or contribute significantly less scientific knowledge than the average published paper, WHILE at the same time there is evidence to suppose that most of the papers authored by Dawkins and Myers are extremely highly cited, golden masterpieces of science, you cannot conclude anything other than that Collins has contributed more to science than any of these atheistic frauds.

It's laughable to see atheists attempting to dance their way out of this hard truth, seeing how they have made fun of how ID proponents rarely publish peer-reviewed articles. Suddenly they depart from their alleged empirically-based thinking to armchair reasoning about the conflict between science and religion. Some idiot at dangerousidea.blogspot.com has even desperately suggested that it is more valid to compare the number of Collins' scientific papers to the number of Dennett's philosophical papers.

Anonymous Daniel April 18, 2012 12:05 PM  

Be fair. The reason why atheists don't publish science is because they are transmitting their findings via telepathy and simply waiting for the singularity when everyone else evolves to the point where they are able to receive the transmissions.

Those atheists are patient, if nothing else. They developed that virtue waiting for all those missing links to show up...

Anonymous paradox April 18, 2012 12:15 PM  

I read not to long ago atheist were arguing that all of Donald Knuth's work in computer science/algorithms should be ignored because he's a Lutheran. Atheist are so rational.

Anonymous VryeDenker April 18, 2012 12:46 PM  

I read not to long ago atheist were arguing that all of Donald Knuth's work in computer science/algorithms should be ignored because he's a Lutheran. Atheist are so rational.

I'm sorry, but if Knuth is of the Faith, the debate is over.

Anonymous bix nood April 18, 2012 1:30 PM  

I'm sorry, but if Knuth is of the Faith, the debate is over.

Knuth works in a more formal, mathematical field. I've noticed that the people in those areas aren't so hung up on the whole science v. religion thing, and a few of them are devout believers. Just speculating, I can think of many reasons why is this so: 1. Their research doesn't require as much funding and has a very high ROI with a positive impact in engg. and tech; 2. Their research results are, epistemically, on a higher level -- proofs are proofs, and they are almost always incontrovertible; and 3. They are aware of the limits of their field, so they avoid drawing any metaphysical conclusions from their results (I guess Platonism is an exception, but it isn't unpopular among them).

Anonymous 691 April 18, 2012 2:05 PM  

Only if you don't understand statistics and or believe the unreliability of scientific papers is randomly distributed. Since there are an estimated 1.486 million peer-reviewed papers published each year, Collins's 384 papers all could very well be among the 5,884,560 reliable papers that were published over the 36 years he was publishing. The fact that Collins is so highly honored would tend to indicate that this is more likely the case than not.

It's certainly possible that less than 90% of Collins's papers are reliable and correct. But is that ratio significantly better than the corresponding ratio for Coyne and the NAs? That is the relevant comparison. Unless Collin's percentage of reliable papers is significantly better than Coyne, Dawkins, et al, then it would still be true he has contributed, in absolute terms, much more junk than they have. And I doubt that their relevant reputations could lead us to conclude there is such a significant difference.

I have a problem more with your argument than with your conclusion. I dislike using number of published papers as a metric of scientific contribution. Of course, I am a mathematician and we are prone to respect producing one great paper in ten years more than producing one good paper a year for ten years. It's important to figure out what percentage of his paper count is of high quality and of course we can use Collins's reputation to help narrow in on this question.

Importantly, I find the number 450 comically high and to be inherently unreliable unless we know more about his work. If, as someone suggested, he gets cited for producing data that others use, then he deserves credit for advancing science. But it could still be an apples to oranges comparison with the others' work.

At any rate, I find summing up papers published and comparing the two numbers to be a suspect statistical operation. It's doing calculations because you can, not because they really capture what is going on.

Anonymous 691 April 18, 2012 2:07 PM  

Correction: *"are unreliable and incorrect"

Anonymous VryeDenker April 18, 2012 2:22 PM  

Engineers and programmers also tend to appreciate the Inteligent Design argument.

Anonymous vandelay April 18, 2012 2:28 PM  

Brayton misses Vox:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/04/18/bigot-defends-bigot/

Blogger Spacebunny April 18, 2012 2:30 PM  

@ 691

As a self proclaimed mathematician I would expect you to use fewer logical fallacies in your attempted rebuttal. Red herrings and arguments from incredulity are not worth addressing.

Blogger Crude April 18, 2012 3:28 PM  

You should have a look at his followup post, where he responds to some of the defenses made of Dawkins and company.

My favorite one was along the lines of "This is pointless, because Coyne, Dawkins, Harris and Myers are not really scientists. They are public advocates. It's unfair to compare them to a scientist." I want to stress this was supposed to be an atheist *defending* this group.

Anonymous bw April 18, 2012 4:02 PM  

an embarrassment to the NIH

Indeed. Of course, the light shining in the evil, dark, propaganda, enslaving darkness tends to become such - you know, to the very evil, dark, propaganda, enslaving darkness .... as it relates to seekers of truth and free souls.

Anonymous Anonymous April 18, 2012 4:58 PM  

Francis Collins was the head of the Human Genome Project, is currently the Director of the NIH, edits some of the most prestigious journals in biology and has a mountain of honours under his belt (including the National Medal OF Science). Despite this, '691' thinks it likely that he is actually a fraud.

Let that sink into your mind for a minute. These are the kinds of free 'thinkers' that Dawkins & Co attract.

Anonymous Wright April 18, 2012 5:05 PM  

Collins is only one example. You've also got folks like Sir John Polkinghorne from Cambridge, Owen Gingerich from Harvard and Allan Sandage, FRS. I suppose their faith means that they're sub-par scientists.

Anonymous PC Geek April 18, 2012 5:17 PM  

Collins is only one example. You've also got folks like Sir John Polkinghorne from Cambridge, Owen Gingerich from Harvard and Allan Sandage, FRS. I suppose their faith means that they're sub-par scientists.



And of course you have such lightweights from the past like Blaise Pascal and Issac Newton.

It is hard to believe that the linked article in the post isn't simply comedy or a hoax intended to make the new atheists look retarded, but they really are that stupid. But nonetheless, it is real, and PZ and co are really that stupid.

How and why does anyone take these people seriously? I simply cannot wrap my mind around this. I suppose that their hatred and rejection of the Creator (the source of wisdom and their ability to reason in the first place) has simply cut them off from all sense and rationality. These type of articles are freaking unbelieveable, but as I said earlier, nonetheless, they are real...

Back when I was in undergrad I have read math books where the author will acknowledge their genius and give a snicking aside against their faith in the same sentence...as if those authors could hold a candle to those two men.

Blogger JohnG April 18, 2012 5:28 PM  

Why is it that people always assume that science and religion conflict? - Swiftfoxmark2

Uninformed. Amazing how many people spout off opinions without knowing anything about what they are talking about. I was arguing a point with one of my relatives and adding citations - he finally said "I don't care about your citations" and insisted that he was right regardless. Frustrating really, but then there is the saying about not arguing with fools.

Anonymous Wright April 18, 2012 5:53 PM  

@PC Geek:

Well, yeah. But so many people nowadays have chronological blinders on that it does no good to cite people from centuries past, as they'll just sneer and say, "Oh, they just didn't know what we know now." Pure horse hockey, of course, but I've grown tired of killing annoying little flies with a cannon that they refuse to acknowledge until they've been blown to smithereens by it. Hence the more recent examples. Polkinghorne is an especially good example, as the whole reason that he was given a knighthood is because of his important contributions to theoretical physics. Kinda hard to write him off as a hack.

And I swear, that entire thread is a living embodiment of Poe's Law...

Anonymous Jimmy April 18, 2012 6:25 PM  

"Why is it that people always assume that science and religion conflict?"

That's because Evolution has no basis in fact and somehow atheists latched on to the theory as proof that there is no God.

To me, the Evolution theory has no basis in fact and the whole thing depends on not believing in God with the assertions of random chance, billions of years, and nothing to something without a trigger mechanism. Yet somehow the irony of the Big Bang Theory is supposed to be the answer to that last assertion. Then we go into the Origin of Man, which is an even more ridiculous assertion.

Blogger R. Bradley Andrews April 18, 2012 7:19 PM  

Even more astounding is those who claim some faith, yet bow before the religion of particles-to-people evolution....

Anonymous PC Geek April 18, 2012 8:22 PM  

@John G.
Uninformed. Amazing how many people spout off opinions without knowing anything about what they are talking about. I was arguing a point with one of my relatives and adding citations - he finally said "I don't care about your citations" and insisted that he was right regardless. Frustrating really, but then there is the saying about not arguing with fools.

Truer words are rarely spoken - out of curiosity, which particular 'don't argue with fools' quotation were you thinking of. There are several good ones! :-)

On the 'arguing with fools front' I used to argue all the time with atheists on the internet (and some political stuff with retarded liberals and true believer republitards) before I realized that MPAI and quite frankly, facts, evidence, and logic literally do not matter one bit whatsoever to the vast majority of people. It is frustrating, but people keep making the same retarded arguments, spouting off random shit about things they know nothing of. My official stop to debating came when I coined the '5 minutes google rule'. Basically, if your assertion could easily be refuted by 5 minutes on google (such as the totally retarded religion causes war claim) then it is simply not worth talking about. I will try to use the time that God gave me on this planet wisely, and not cleaning up the intellectual vomit of the mental midgets that inhabit most of the internet (present company definitely excluded!) and most of the people that I see day to day. Why should I have to argue that religion does not cause war for the 328423904839th time to someone who has clearly never researched the issue for literally 5 minutes and has some vaguely remembered publik high skool indoctrination as his only basis for all his thoughts and opinions?

*end rant*

Anonymous PC Geek April 18, 2012 8:24 PM  

@Wright
But so many people nowadays have chronological blinders on that it does no good to cite people from centuries past, as they'll just sneer and say, "Oh, they just didn't know what we know now." Pure horse hockey, of course,

You made an excellent point - as MPAI, there is no need to add yet another dimension (chronological snobbery, as Lewis called it) for potential atheidiot retardation to act upon.

Blogger mojo.rhythm April 18, 2012 10:42 PM  

(1) If a Christian publishes more scientific papers than an atheist, Christianity is more scientific than atheism
(2) Francis Collins, a Christian, publishes more scientific papers than Jerry Coyne, an atheist
(C) Therefore, Christianity is more scientific than atheism

Anonymous Wright April 18, 2012 11:20 PM  

Your first premiss is virtually unjustifiable. The most that would follow is that particular Christian is more scientific than that particular atheist. You could reverse the places and get the opposite result. And you can find examples of both situations, so that logic is clearly somewhat flawed.

Anonymous physphilmusic April 18, 2012 11:43 PM  

No, the original charge was that being a Christian hinders "scientific thinking". The existence of a Christian scientists who produces far more science than all these accusers combined is a significant piece of evidence against that notion.

Anonymous RichardTHughes April 19, 2012 12:02 AM  

Inferring from a data set of 3. Okay.

Blogger mojo.rhythm April 19, 2012 1:52 AM  

@Wright
Your first premiss is virtually unjustifiable. The most that would follow is that particular Christian is more scientific than that particular atheist. You could reverse the places and get the opposite result. And you can find examples of both situations, so that logic is clearly somewhat flawed.

I know. I was being somewhat facetious.

@physphilmusic

No, the original charge was that being a Christian hinders "scientific thinking". The existence of a Christian scientists who produces far more science than all these accusers combined is a significant piece of evidence against that notion.

I was responding to the outrageous, hyperbolic title.

Blogger mojo.rhythm April 19, 2012 1:56 AM  

@Starbuck

Turns out they shot off their big mouths before doing any research and made themselves look like fools. This is typical of most atheists.

It is typical of most human beings, not just atheists.

Anonymous kh123 April 19, 2012 3:21 AM  

"It is typical of most human beings, not just atheists."

But quite unusual in this particular scenario, since a). Morlocks tend to grunt, and b). they make up most of the biology dept. at any given Uni.

Anonymous FrankNorman April 19, 2012 6:58 AM  

Sounds like these people's hatred of Christianity clouds their minds. They throw words like "Science" or "Reason" around, but those are just code for "believing the same as meeee!"

Anonymous Frankie April 19, 2012 8:19 AM  

"It is typical of most human beings, not just atheists."

But you must concede that this is a particularly embarrassing admission for atheists (particularly the ‘new atheist' breed) because (unlike most people) they scream constantly about how rationally superior they are to the rest of us.

Anonymous Lotus Notes Development April 19, 2012 11:28 PM  

good to see you’re posting again!

Anonymous Price per Head April 20, 2012 7:05 AM  

Very nice to be visiting your blog again, it has been months for me. Well this article that I've been waited for so long. I need this article to complete my assignment in the college, and it has same topic with your article. Thanks, great share.

Anonymous Anonymous April 20, 2012 7:30 PM  

The traditional metric is a combination of # of publications, the journal of publication, and number of citations. With number of citations being the weightiest factor, followed by journal of publication, followed by number of publications.

Ideologically I'm on Vox's side in this debate, but the truth is that "# of publications" is a terribly misleading metric. And more than 10 publications per year for more than 30 years is simply asinine. Nobody who has ever done serious research would for one second believe that even a quarter of those publications had any serious contribution to scientific knowledge. It takes a year or more to complete and prepare research results for publication (much more, depending on the experiment). A journal publication might be turned into an article aimed at a slightly different audience and might also be tweaked to find its way into a book chapter - all based on the same research data - but the idea that someone is turning out a serious contribution just about every month for 30 years is simply stupid. Only a simpleton would believe something so incredibly inane.

Again, I believe Vox is correct, but this idiotic comparison is not evidence in favor of our argument. The atheists famously bring up make-believe and incongruent data in support of theoretically invalid claims. Could we please stick to the truth on our side. No more of this.

- ChevalierdeJohnstone

Anonymous Anonymous April 23, 2012 11:02 PM  

Father Georges Lemaitre - Father of the Big Bang Theory

Blogger mojo.rhythm April 28, 2012 4:14 AM  

@Frankie:

But you must concede that this is a particularly embarrassing admission for atheists (particularly the ‘new atheist' breed) because (unlike most people) they scream constantly about how rationally superior they are to the rest of us.

Might be, but its completely irrelevant to what I said. Unless people specialize in learning about technical rationality (visit LessWrong.com for a nice entree into this topic), they will have many cognitive biases, heuristic errors, and periods of hopeless akrasia.

Anonymous Assignment Help September 17, 2012 12:10 PM  

Good Info. I like it

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts