/lit/ - Literature

The board could do without this thread

>>11652083
Shut up elitist cunt, Dawkins is a hero and has achieved more in his life than you ever will. You will never match up with such a deep thinker as Dawkins. Beat it ya cunt.

>>11652089
Yikes

Read pic to cure your Dawkins-tier atheism.

>>11652078
>What's your idea of God?
Dionysius's.

>>11652110
Give the basic rundown.

>>11652078
>>11652110
bad
>>11652113
good

Supernatural god is indistinguishable from dualism, and dualism is garbage philosophy. Natural god is something that can be discovered by science, and it won't look anything like what we would expect it to.

>>11652083
uninteresting and useless comment. Please see yourself out

Against his "hurr you're an atheist with respect to 99% of gods, I just go one further lmao" argument.

>>11652078
I can't find any holes in Spinoza's arguments, and I've read A LOT of works by his critics. If Dawkins is considering pantheists atheists then I guess I'm an atheist too.

>>11652136
Welcome to the club. Hang your fedoras on the coat hanger in the hallway to the left, we don't want our ladies to feel intimidated.

>>11652110
>proof
>philosophy
those are mutually exclusive words

>>11652149
Prove it.

>>11652115
Fine tuned universe.
Spitzer giving a lecture on fine tuning in physics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQcFstKzgaA

Summary:
https://bcooper.wordpress.com/2017/07/02/the-inexplicable-fine-tuning-of-the-foundational-forces-in-our-universe/

>>11652149
The book is mostly arguments from physics, see above.

>>11652078
Dawkins doesnt understand the noumenous, therefore he cannot comment on religion

>>11652345
Explain in less pretentious terms :^)
(no but seriously, explain noumenous)

>>11652078
The big problem with Dawkins is he doesn't seem to understand what he's critiquing. All his arguments are either tired or ill concieved. He writes about 5-10 pages critiquing Aquinas where he basically gets all the arguments totally wrong and then acts like he just BTFO one of the greatest christian writers who ever lived.

>>11652486
Numinous is the experience of the sacred.

>>11652083
cringe
>>11652089
cringe
>>11652100
based

>>11652512
>Aquinas
>one of the greatest christian writers who ever lived.
i don't know why people think aquinas is something special. i think it's mainly because you already agree with his viewpoint and it's a kind of confirmation bias.
you know aquinas believed in literal witches, right? flying on broomsticks, familiars, when shall we three meet again, suckling on the tit of satan, all that? if he was alive today you'd dismiss his as a nutjob.

>>11652679
Haha those people back in history were so wacky! They believed in so much crazy wacky stuff LOL!

>>11652626
Aka mental illness

To be fair, believing in a prime mover should be the base belief of any non brainlet.

The true point of contention is if God intervenes. Even if one assert this God is bad, or whatever shit it is in gnosticism , it should still count as theism.

>>11652679
he's special because his arguments are literally bulletproof and not a single person has disproved them.

>>11652730
Sustaining existence is intervention. Deism is materialist garbage.

>>11652679
Witches and demons are real you absolute pleb.

>>11652307
cringe & reddit

>>11652723
based & redpilled

>>11652648
>based yikes
cringe

>>11652838
>not sure if low quality bait or actually retarded

>>11652838
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93aPfV8I2PA

>>11652868
>crowd possessed by demons to believe in fraud

>>11652868
Dawkins BTFO

I'm a pantheist and I believe the ontological argument proves that everything is god. "a being than which none greater can be imagined" must be the sum of all beings.

A sum is a being, because there ARE sums.
They do being.

>>11653480

>They do being.

What fuck am I reading

>>11653517
They don't think it become like it being, but it do.

>>11652307
The possibility of a multiverse basically throws the fine tuning argument in the trash.

>>11653950
Ignoring the fact there is zero evidence for a multiverse, if it is true that we live in a multiverse not only does our universe still beg for a designer but so does the multiverse. You're only going one more turtle down. There's a number of legitimate reasons to reject fine-tuning but the possible multiverse is not one of them.

>>11652083
FPBP

>>11652078
/lit/ is a Catholic board. More seriously: I am a born again Catholic. Was raised in it as a child, stopped attending after Confirmation like many kids do. Dawkins is a brainlet who either doesn't understand metaphysics or is unwilling to give an argument against it (because he can't, and doing so would cut into his business as a professional atheist). If you want to be better informed, read: Aristotle, Plato, Aquinas.

>>11652078
Yes ,also read the whole book before posting

>>11652831
unironically based and redpilled

>>11653950
>muh Occam's razor
>unironically proposes infinite unobservable extra universes to get around evidence that makes you queasy
your brain on stemism

>>11653480
Anon...
there is a finite amount of energy in our universe. By definition our universe and everything in it cannot be god then.
If Spinoza is really the best you guys can do, yikes...

>>11653950
The absolute state of modern physics. Whew. I can imagine Sir Newton's disgust.

>>11655886
>there's finite energy in the omniverse I also happen to believe in but didn't mention here
you greasy sat*noids are slippery but none too bright

>>11655957
>his beliefs are based on comic book tropes
Anon. Get your act together bucko. You need to start actually reading.

>>11655905
newton was apparently a pretty unpleasant chap but he was a good scientist. he would be fascinated by the current state of the sciences.
he was also apparently devoutly religious but that was the time he lived in. as a good scientist he would weigh up the evidence for and against the existence of god and would probably change his viewpoint.

>>11653950
No it magnifies the fine-tuning of low-entropy starting conditions. Leaving aside the failure to provide effieiecnt, material, and formal causes; a multi-verse requires extremely low starting entropy conditions, fine-tuned lower than an ordinary big bang model.

>Taking Richard "I don't know what epistemic means" Dawkins seriously.

>tfw none of you understand the fundamentals of religion, in particular Christianity

Shame

>>11656132
>science has made the existence of a god less likely
elaborate newfriend.

>>11656132
You're such a fucking retard. Newton wasn't just a great scientist. He took "science" and made it into something. Classical Mechanics is just Newtonian Mechanics. On top of that, he (and Leibniz) came up with Calculus. He wasn't just some random scientist who happened to believe in God. He studied all the early Church Fathers, interpreted various scriptures, and would probably be considered a heretic by most Churches of his day and of our time. He's not some go-along-to-get-along faggot, he was brilliant, unorthodox, and completely unconcerned about the ideals of the people around him. So no, he would not have probably changed his viewpoint.

>>11652078
Dawkins completely fails to understand actual conceptions of metaphysical faith. This book is based entirely on world religions, which, of course, are two entirely different things. The audacity he has to deny the possibility of a power or even 'anything' higher than ourselves when it is an empirical impossibility to know is simply hilarious. Once we all meld in the infinite-afterlife and become a single totality I will certainly be giving him a piece of my mind.

>>11656152
But everyone in the right in that is actually correct in their assessments. Does anyone that posts it just thinks that it says something meaningful?

>>11656152
Hot Christ Degrasse Tyson is just the worst

>>11652078
read dis

>>11656232
>dude why are you thinking

Why is he famous?

>>11656232
Magic negro.

>>11656242
He talks about basic scientific ideas with a loud voice and "swagger" so he appeals to 110 IQ normies who think they're being enlightened by learning about macro-evolution for the 400th time.

>>11656224
Modern day "science spokesmen" dance around philosophy as if it pales in significance to raw scientific understanding about the universe. The great minds a century and even two centuries ago were clearly well-versed in everything philosophy as they understood that science in no way detracted from its significance.
Stop fanboying and you'll think more clearly.

>>11656242
because of his astute observations

>>11656242
>Ayo why u thinking whiteboi?

>>11656242
"If I threw this shoe with enough force, it would just keep going on forever and ever."
*stoner-like "woahhhs"*
"Now, there's a name for this. This phenomena is known as escape velocity, and..."

etc.
entertainment for the masses

>>11656269
Neither Bye nor Dawkins are really commenting of philisophy as a field, just asserting fairly mild opinions that the vast majority of philosophers wouldn't had a issue with.
Strauss, meanwhile, is actually correct that much of modern(in the historical sense) philosophy can be very incestuous and self-defeating, and Tyson is also right that philosophy can be mastubatory and prone to dismiss scientific thought.

>>11652078
I love Dawkins as an evolutionary biologist, but as an atheist he is retarded. It is far more rational that there is a creator of the universe than it is that there is not a creator.

I've read all of the new atheists: Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens
They all fail to make any 'rational' arguments, all they can talk about is how stupid you have to be to believe there is a god. Like, after all the pedophiles in the church and all the other religions thinking their god is the one, how can you believe in a great big man in the sky?!??!

Want to get rational arguments on religion?

Try Aquinas, Dennis Prager, Augustine

Yes, faith must exist to believe God is good. But God's existence is only rational.

>>11656358
Fuck off name- dropping cunt

>>11656383
not an argument

>>11656383
he's correct you simpleton. you can't actually talk about metaphysics if you don't believe they exist. stupid.

>>11656099
I've never even read a comic but you just exposed yourself as having done so and no amount of reading can really scrub that stain sorry.
>>11656224
go nosedive off a cliff reddit

>>11656358
>I love Dawkins as an evolutionary biologist
He's wrong there too, see Eco-Devo.

>>11656358
>But God's existence is only rational.
Only if said "God" isn't really how God is defined basically anywhere in the history of men. Basically is necessary to create a "1st event"->"creator of 1st event"->"creator with will"->"God" connection.

>>11656358
The problem you are experiencing is the problem with theism. The idea that there is a god is one you cannot prove with evidence, and therefore you must believe that a god exists. This is fine. I do not really care about if there is or is not a god. The problem people have with those that believe are institutionalized religious structures that prefer their particular type of believing in god over other peoples particular type of believing in god. These issues of one mode of belief versus another mode of belief leads to wars and leads to doctrine that halts the progress of humanity, the sciences, and political structures All the arguments from your name dropping are trite particulars after you make the assumption of god. There is no point to discuss them if you do not believe the fundamental presupposition of a god existing. These arguments for a god don't effect society like religious fundamentalists who vote, lynch, deus volt, burn at the stake, murder, rape, stone, and all the other wonderfully brutal things such fundamentalism brings forth.

I never met a biologist I respected as an intellectual. They are the dumbest people in academia.

>>11656358
To add: all ideologies require faith. Also see Norman Geisler.
>>11656383
You really changed my viewpoint anon :)
>>11656332
Examples as to when or how philosophy has been dismissive of scientific thought? Philosophy isn't science and therefore is not responsible as a field to produce the """progress""" scientific fields do. But if certain branches of philosophy actually ignore scientific truths, that would be big, and I'd like to be informed.

>>11656391
Ok? You didn’t make one either. I’m just commenting on your comment
>>11656396
>he’s correct
Sure he is. I happen to agree with what he asserted. He’s still a name- dropping cunt

>>11656415
Define evidence

religion is fucking gay i'm only into it for the social network

>>11656425
Are you fucking kidding me. Define define.

>>11656431
To define is to explain what you mean. To define evidence would be to explain precisely what counts as evidence. I'm asking you to explain this because I think to say there's no evidence of God you would have to define evidence in such an unreasonably narrow way that would also exclude logical proofs or mathematics.

>>11656427
Social networks are fucking gay. I’m only in it for the mysticism

>>11656420
>Examples as to when or how philosophy has been dismissive of scientific thought? Philosophy isn't science and therefore is not responsible as a field to produce the """progress""" scientific fields do. But if certain branches of philosophy actually ignore scientific truths, that would be big, and I'd like to be informed.
Marxism is an example of that. It depends on fundamental assumptions about human nature and of the general inner working of human society, and it actually caused to actual scientific theories to actually be dismissed with soviet union for a time. There is other ones, but this one is the biggest.

>>11656399
>having knowledge can automatically invalidate you
>>11656415
>I do not really care about if there is or is not a god.
"I don't care about the one thing that could make everything not purposeless."
>These arguments for a god don't effect society like religious fundamentalists who vote, lynch, deus volt, burn at the stake, murder, rape, stone, and all the other wonderfully brutal things such fundamentalism brings forth.
Amazing. Did you even read
>Like, after all the pedophiles in the church and all the other religions thinking their god is the one, how can you believe in a great big man in the sky?!??!
>>11656427
>t. deep down thinks he is god

>>11656460
And whichever philosophers were responsible for that would rightfully be laughed at by any philosopher worth their salt.

That would be like discrediting the entire field of science because pseudo-scientific quacks exist, to be honest.

>>11656470
>giving a shit about purpose


WEWLAD

>>11652868
holy

>>11656415
>deus volt
lol

>>11656493
stemfags who refuse to learn have to go back.
>>>/sci/

>>11656484
Certain strains of feminism and post-colonial theory would like to have a word with you. Either way, my point is that it can be prone to dismiss scientific thought. Also, it is rare to see pseudo-scientific quacks to actually teach in relatively respected institutions.

>>11656460
Orthodox Marxism is a better example of a defunct branch of scientism not unlike the classical mechanistic determinism of Laplace that was superseded by the quantal picture, combined with a millenarian faith that was justified scientifically. Marxists felt they had completed philosophy's purpose and were antiphilosophical in outlook even though its later more eclectic Western bourgeois apologists would again draw from philosophy for their "Theory" they generally explicitly held themselves apart from it.

>>11656517
I'm a lawyer, that stem stuff is tooooooooo mathy for me.

>God
God is the Creator
>Religion
Christianity
>Supernatural
I myself have experienced supernatural phenomena, both the normal definition (ghosts, strange dreams and figures) and the not-as-widespread definition (choked by a demon, saw an angel) that would be considered a psychological slip before people would call it supernatural. Yes.

>>11656526
Except that "scientism" is actually a form a philosophical thought, and Marxism, while dismissive of philosophies other than itself, is/was ultimately a philosophical school of thought, being regarded and regarding itself as so.

>>11656531
Ah, soulless. Thanks for clarifying.
>>11656540
"My kinks made me find God."

>>11656563
Not sure what you're on about, if you're gonna ad hominem you should use a language the object of your attack can understand

>>11656540
>choked by a demon, saw an angel
>I didn't chew my food and I had a stroke

>>11652850
Unironically yikespilled

>>11656518
>Also, it is rare to see pseudo-scientific quacks to actually teach in relatively respected institutions.
This is also true of academic philosophers in complete honesty. There's probably only a handful of legitimate nutjobs out there in philosophical academia these days. The rest are genuinely well-read and all have good arguments to back up their positions, even if not everyone will agree with them.

This is not even pointing out the problem of associating "modern philosophical academia" with philosophy in its entirety. That would be like associating Bill Nye with the entirety of science.

>>11656573
It was a joke my presumably bilingual friend :)
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilLawyerJoke

>>11656573
Well it goes back to "DEFINE _______" if we define soul as simply consciousness then it would be fine. But really he's just making the lawyer joke everyone always makes.

>>11656562
>scientism is a form of philosophical thought
I don't disagree. Philosophical thought properly considered is inescapable and so scientism insofar as it is a generally antiphilosophical worldview is contradictory.

>>11656595
Academic philosophers tend to be absolute ass and are a part of the problem of societal stemfaggotry, their ineffectual whining having no effect is on them.

>>11656612
How many academic philosophers have you read over the last few years?

>>11656601
You want a definition of a soul? It's you, describe yourself

>>11656470
You do not need a personal god to have purpose for life, just ask the Continentals like Nietzsche and Camus.

>>11656647
If Nietzsche didn't need purpose then why did he try so hard to find it without God?

>>11656625
Dozens and I know plenty. Look at OOO, what a fucking cringe circus.

>>11656647
Clarification: objective purpose.
"Being the best subjective version of yourself" is an idea NPCs seem to really get behind but very few people here could deceive themselves so.

>>11656415
The existence of God is proven by the need for formal, efficent, and material causes of the universe. The fact of being proves God.

>>11656450
Based anchorite.

>>11656694
Oh look, I have the perfect image for this reply.

>>11656711
Saying "I" is not an argument.

>>11656711
>Opinion daycarted

Is this image made by a moron?

>>11656711
Life really is too complicated to not have some design. Put a fly in a box and give it 1000 years and it will just be a dead fly. The cycle of birth is amazing enough, getting to the solar level of things really puts human life in perspective. It's rare, complicated, fragile. Without being protected by something, anything, a comet should have destroyed us by now. Also grass, grass is complicated. Continue with your futile efforts to disprove what you do not know

>>11656724
>he doesnt throw his trash in the day cart

wew lad

>>11652512
I'm interested in Aquinas. Could you recommend me some books to understand his theological arguments?

>>11656921
Summa of the Summa. At least twice as digestible as Summa Theologica.
After that you can pick anything.

>>11656962
Go big or go home
https://www.amazon.com/Summa-Theologica-Thomas-Aquinas-Volumes/dp/0870610635

>>11656731
>Put a fly in a box and give it 1000 years
What you described is Lamarckism; the idea that organisms can pass on characteristics they acquire during their lives. That meme died with Stalin.

>Without being protected by something, anything, a comet should have destroyed us by now.
There have already been five mass extinctions that we know of.

I worship the God of Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Al-Farabi, Averroes, and Descartes, not the God of Yeshua ben Yosef, St. Paul, Muhammad, Al Ghazali, or St. Thomas Aquinas.

>>11656921
I'm not him but Ed Feser has quite a few books and all of them are good. his Introduction to Scholastic Metaphysics is probably my favorite. Other than him check out The Thoughts of Thomas Aquinas by Brian Davies for a good systematic overview and the I've heard really good things about the One and the Many by Norris Clarke but I haven't got to it myself.

>>11657007
nice

>>11656921
Old Testament -> Plato (Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Meno, The Republic, Parmenides, Timaeus) -> Aristotle (Organon, Nicomachean Ethics, On the Soul, Metaphysics) -> New Testament -> St. Augustine (Confessions, City of God) -> St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Contra Gentiles, either the Briefer Summa or the Summa Theologiae).
Note: There's lots of other philosophers and theologians who stand between Aristotle and St. Augustine (most importantly the Church Fathers, the Stoics, and the Neo-Platonists), and also between St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas (like Boethius, Dionysus the Areopagite, Avicenna, St. Anselm of Canterbury, Averroes, and Al Ghazali), but they have very little to say which wouldn't be equally well explained by either St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas, or which hadn't already come up in either Plato or Aristotle's writings.

>>11657090
You have no idea what you're talking about and of all the random shit you've listed you've left out the most important work for really understanding Aquinas, the Physics. What the hell would you need to know from the Republic or Apology for reading Aquinas? He is not that difficult to read and aside from some language inherited from Aristotle his work stands on its own.

This idea that you have to read every philosopher that ever existed before touching Aquinas is completely retarded and it only serves to discourage people from actually interacting with the text. Maybe that is your goal, I don't know.

>>11652078
I've wondered if Dawkins was a smart guy who just came to a really wrong conclusion (and the editor picked the title to sell copies), or if this is pretentious fedora-core bullshit.

>>11657134
For starters, Plato's Apology of Socrates is a great introduction to Plato's dialectic method, and allows its reader to meet Socrates as a character, and the basic formula which all Socratic dialogues follow. Aristotle's dialectic is a slightly more systematic version of this method. Crito, Meno, Phaedo, and The Republic are extremely important to knowing the relationship between the individual's soul and ethical behaviour, two key issues which Aristotle and the Neo-Platonists (most notably Plotinus) developed in their writings. Even though the Bible (mostly the Old Testament) lists quite a few dos and don'ts which are said to come from God, Christian theology descends from Stoic philosophy (in regards to virtues and providence) and Neo-Platonism (in regards to the relationship between God, humans, and matter). If you'd read any of St. Augustine, St. Gregory of Nyssa, or Dionysus Aeropagitus' writings, you would know that Neo-Platonism heavily influenced the way ancient/medieval Christians understood basic concepts from Christian doctrine.
Plato's writings are good background knowledge for understanding Aristotle, and practically all Western philosophy that came afterwards.
If you think of the Republic not as the governance of cities, but rather as the rule of the soul, you will understand the connection between him and religion. Timaeus is mostly outdated pseudo-scientific beliefs, just like Physics, but what little it does have of value is its descriptions of God as the creator of the universe.
Theology should not be read as natural science. It should be thought of as the way in which people come to understand their place in the universe by the means of the divine.

>>11657156
Both

>>11656731
A comet literally came and destroyed the dinosaurs. it's only a matter of time bru

>>11657156
Dawkins never once actually talked to a medieval scholar about Aquinas' five ways or anything related to classical Christian thought. He believed that the argument from motion meant movement through space but rather it was ontological motion from the potency to act. He believed the fith way was creationism(a position Aquinas Disagrees with in his Summa) rather then Telos in human nature.

I could go on but New Atheists are basically tards who don't tap into their own tradition. Same goes for Theistic Personalists.

>>11657561
Telos in nature*

Fuck me that's an important typo to fix because i just mistyped a huge part of Aquinas' argument.

>>11656921
Edward Fesser:
Aquinas: A beginners guide
Scholastic Metaphysics: A contemporary introduction

Good place to start. Check out Summa of the Summa by Kreeft because he breaks down Aquinas pretty damn well. He has other books as well. Other people include: Gilson, Maritain. They're french neo-thomists.

Good luck bro.

>>11657134
>>11657275
Rare to see an actual BTFO on this board, but here we are.

Dawkins is the fanny pack of atheism. He makes you look stupid, but if you need him to hold your drugs, than whatever.

>>11656517
Why shouldn't one be a stemfag? What makes philosophy important vs science?

>>11656152
Einstein wasn't religious, the quote is out of context. He merely used God as a poetic metaphor for all that is and basically subscribed to pantheism (which Dawkins considers to be atheism).

>>11656663
>NPCs
I hate using the word cringe because i find it cringy itself but damn dude.
Also you got a better idea? I dont see how people would have a problem "decieving" themselves with that idea here.

>>11656205
He is agnostic, but the same agnosticism which he has for leprechauns in his garden.

>>11656540
has a health professional ever asked if you have a family history of mental illness?

was your answer yes?

>>11653950
Can someone explain to me what this means?

>>11652078
>Spinoza
>atheist
I’d be interested to read this book just to hear this explanation tbhwyf.

>>11656731
are you fucking serious
jesus fuck the absolute fucking state of this board

>>11653950
There is absolutely no evidence that multiverses exist. It's just a theory someone came up with to explain quantum physics, because quantum physics itself doesn't make sense yet.

1. There is nearly no 'truth' in the strictest sense. All we know is that we exist in some way, and even that is debatable. All else we take on faith, because we have good reason to believe it.
2. 'Truth' is therefore best defined as "what we have good reason to believe."
3. We have *excellent* reason to believe in God(s), because without one, we are devoid of meaning, purpose, morality, etc.

So yes, I believe in God on pragmatic grounds, the same grounds on which I believe everything.

>>11658004
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj8qUx9Vzns

listen to all of this. Spitzer is a Jesuit, and he lays out the concept of fine tuning in this talk. it's nearly 5 in the morning and i can't be arsed to find the exact times.

basically it's this: the conditions (ie, universal constants) for creating reality as we understand it from the Big Bang were extremely, extremely, *extremely* unlikely. there are way too many scenarios where if entropy was a little different, or if particles didn't interact in exactly the way they do now, or if the atomic weights of particular elements were not exactly what they are, then it is apparent that Creation would have fallen apart at birth and returned to a mass of inert matter or nothingness. i'm not a physicist. the argument is these "fine tuned" constants are evidence for a Creator. personally I don't know. I am convinced that Spitzer is convinced. but I don't *know*. also it seems to me kind of inevitable that these conditions would exist, so it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. kind of like how the only reason i'm on 4chan is because i was created and a soul was put into me and now i experience phenomena. if those things had never happened, i would never have known anything because there would be no 'I' to experience. is it possible the universe restarted from many many bangs until one caught on? i don't know. scientifically, we're now in the realm of metaphysics. there is no definite answer yet, and may never be. these things are taken on faith.

>>11658177
I see where you are going with your argument but you should refine it a bit, for example the last point, God is a bridge to get what you want, but you can justify anything with this. I want to imagine im 6'7 because it makes me more dominant

>>11657879
It could make sense of everything, and many argue it already has—you have to determine that yourself. Philosophy is the synthesis of all things.

>>11658154
there is absolutely no evidence that god exists.

Dawkins literally shits on god in this book.
You don't need God when you have science. All you people do is trying to twist and fit God into the ever shrinking spaces of unknown.

The starting point is not "there is a god, now try to prove it wrong" but "try to prove that we need a supernatural being"

I plan to read Steven Pinker but still haven't begun
I think if you are interested in RD you might want to share what you think about SP

>>11658978
I picked this book up and put it down several times. Don't really want to change my reading list.

But I have a feeling that C P Snow is right about the Two Cultures, and I am ignorant about the science side, and that I must change my reading list

Wait until tomorrow maybe.

>>11659001
This book

>>11658177
>I believe in God on pragmatic grounds
no you don't. you might think you do, but really you don't
faith is never pragmatic
also your other statements are just stupid

Blocks your path

>>11657833
Really? I wouldn't know because I rolled my eyes and stopped reading when he said you needed to read the Apology to understand Aquinas because it introduces Socrates as a character.

I'm now convinced this board has the lowest average IQ of all the boards

>>11659261
Psychological speculation is the weakest form of debate

>>11658209
You could very well believe that you are 6'7, and you appear to have good reason to. However, you probably have *better* reason to believe that you aren't, as the 6'7 belief would violate the perceptual belief, which would make your perception invalid in all other matters.

>>11654186
>I am a born again Catholic.
cringe and christcucked

I am less concerned with the faith part because the way I see it there are some ways to reconcile it after I understand the viewpoint

The biggest problem I have is that I found myself ignorant of what scientists are doing and why they view god and faith that way.

BuT WHo mAdE GoD?

>>11661650
If everything needs a mover then who moved god? Checkmate theists.

>>11661693
God breaks the law of thermodynamics?