Yes, emotion. Zero about evidence, not even philosophical arguments - just pure emotion. What is neglected in that interview, but he writes about in his book, is that on his hiking tour he saw a frozen waterfall with something like three frozen streams of water, and it was so beautiful it must have meant the holy trinity of christianity was true.

There's also some stuff about him not feeling he had anything to say to people who were dying, which he met over the course of his research in cancer.

So basically a need for placeholders and some weird emotional experience.

*sigh*

"Confusing science with answering why questions"

Patient: Why is my nose running?
Doctor: Sorry, science doesn't answer that question!

Lol

Rumraket wrote:Yes, emotion. Zero about evidence, not even philosophical arguments - just pure emotion. What is neglected in that interview, but he writes about in his book, is that on his hiking tour he saw a frozen waterfall with something like three frozen streams of water, and it was so beautiful it must have meant the holy trinity of christianity was true.

There's also some stuff about him not feeling he had anything to say to people who were dying, which he met over the course of his research in cancer.

So basically a need for placeholders and some weird emotional experience.

*sigh*

Actually, he alludes to a moral argument for God's existence in that very interview.

Mick wrote:

Rumraket wrote:Yes, emotion. Zero about evidence, not even philosophical arguments - just pure emotion. What is neglected in that interview, but he writes about in his book, is that on his hiking tour he saw a frozen waterfall with something like three frozen streams of water, and it was so beautiful it must have meant the holy trinity of christianity was true.

There's also some stuff about him not feeling he had anything to say to people who were dying, which he met over the course of his research in cancer.

So basically a need for placeholders and some weird emotional experience.

*sigh*

Actually, he alludes to a moral argument for God's existence in that very interview.

All of which reduce to an appeal to emotional revulsion at moral relativism.

Rumraket wrote:

Mick wrote:

Rumraket wrote:Yes, emotion. Zero about evidence, not even philosophical arguments - just pure emotion. What is neglected in that interview, but he writes about in his book, is that on his hiking tour he saw a frozen waterfall with something like three frozen streams of water, and it was so beautiful it must have meant the holy trinity of christianity was true.

There's also some stuff about him not feeling he had anything to say to people who were dying, which he met over the course of his research in cancer.

So basically a need for placeholders and some weird emotional experience.

*sigh*

Actually, he alludes to a moral argument for God's existence in that very interview.

All of which reduce to an appeal to emotional revulsion at moral relativism.

That's a question begging assumption.

Mick wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

Mick wrote:

Rumraket wrote:Yes, emotion. Zero about evidence, not even philosophical arguments - just pure emotion. What is neglected in that interview, but he writes about in his book, is that on his hiking tour he saw a frozen waterfall with something like three frozen streams of water, and it was so beautiful it must have meant the holy trinity of christianity was true.

There's also some stuff about him not feeling he had anything to say to people who were dying, which he met over the course of his research in cancer.

So basically a need for placeholders and some weird emotional experience.

*sigh*

Actually, he alludes to a moral argument for God's existence in that very interview.

All of which reduce to an appeal to emotional revulsion at moral relativism.

That's a question begging assumption.

No, that's what experience has taught me.

Rumraket wrote:

Mick wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

Mick wrote:

Actually, he alludes to a moral argument for God's existence in that very interview.

All of which reduce to an appeal to emotional revulsion at moral relativism.

That's a question begging assumption.

No, that's what experience has taught me.

Oh, so there's an argument behind this? Well, let's hear it.

Mick wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

Mick wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
All of which reduce to an appeal to emotional revulsion at moral relativism.

That's a question begging assumption.

No, that's what experience has taught me.

Oh, so there's an argument behind this? Well, let's hear it.

"They'll be on my blog some time in the future".

Mick wrote:"Confusing science with answering why questions"

Patient: Why is my nose running?
Doctor: Sorry, science doesn't answer that question!

Lol

Got something other than infantile caricature to offer here, Mick?

Because even without professional medical knowledge, I can answer this one.

Patient: "Why is my noise running?"

Me: "The coronaviruses that generated your cold symptoms, resulted in the death of some of your epithelial cells in the mucous membranes of your nose, and the resulting immune response to non-programmed cell death stimulated the remaining epithelial cells (in particular the Bowman's glands in the nasal mucosae) to secrete copious quantities of mucins and IgA, the latter compound itself being an immunoglobulin helping to protect the mucosae against further pathogenic attack. Your runny nose is the visible sign of this increased secretion."

Can't watch the video now, but that look like Francis Collins. Warm spot in my heart for him since he did a lot to try to help Hitch fight the cancer. Hitch had kind words for him.

Rumraket wrote:

Mick wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

Mick wrote:

That's a question begging assumption.

No, that's what experience has taught me.

Oh, so there's an argument behind this? Well, let's hear it.

"They'll be on my blog some time in the future".

I'm actually almost finished it.

Calilasseia wrote:

Mick wrote:"Confusing science with answering why questions"

Patient: Why is my nose running?
Doctor: Sorry, science doesn't answer that question!

Lol

Got something other than infantile caricature to offer here, Mick?

Because even without professional medical knowledge, I can answer this one.

Patient: "Why is my noise running?"

Me: "The coronaviruses that generated your cold symptoms, resulted in the death of some of your epithelial cells in the mucous membranes of your nose, and the resulting immune response to non-programmed cell death stimulated the remaining epithelial cells (in particular the Bowman's glands in the nasal mucosae) to secrete copious quantities of mucins and IgA, the latter compound itself being an immunoglobulin helping to protect the mucosae against further pathogenic attack. Your runny nose is the visible sign of this increased secretion."

you missed the point. If science can't answer the why questions, then it can't answer my question, the one about the runny nose. But of course it can, to some degree or other.

Of course, it could be equally LOL-some if the doctor replied, "Forsooth! It is the work of daemons! They did plan it upon you for evil reasons."



ETA

You know, like, if the 'why' question was taken to mean asking for a reason, some purpose beyond the biological mechanisms. Yeah... because, 'why' is imprecise in our everyday language and all that. So... yep. Glad we got that sorted.

Calilasseia wrote:

Mick wrote:"Confusing science with answering why questions"

Patient: Why is my nose running?
Doctor: Sorry, science doesn't answer that question!

Lol

Got something other than infantile caricature to offer here, Mick?

Because even without professional medical knowledge, I can answer this one.

Patient: "Why is my noise running?"

Me: "The coronaviruses that generated your cold symptoms, resulted in the death of some of your epithelial cells in the mucous membranes of your nose, and the resulting immune response to non-programmed cell death stimulated the remaining epithelial cells (in particular the Bowman's glands in the nasal mucosae) to secrete copious quantities of mucins and IgA, the latter compound itself being an immunoglobulin helping to protect the mucosae against further pathogenic attack. Your runny nose is the visible sign of this increased secretion."

Yes, but why the runniness and the nose? What is the telos of snot?

Yes, the telos! Science cannot provide the telos of snot. lol.

Mick wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:

Mick wrote:"Confusing science with answering why questions"

Patient: Why is my nose running?
Doctor: Sorry, science doesn't answer that question!

Lol

Got something other than infantile caricature to offer here, Mick?

Because even without professional medical knowledge, I can answer this one.

Patient: "Why is my noise running?"

Me: "The coronaviruses that generated your cold symptoms, resulted in the death of some of your epithelial cells in the mucous membranes of your nose, and the resulting immune response to non-programmed cell death stimulated the remaining epithelial cells (in particular the Bowman's glands in the nasal mucosae) to secrete copious quantities of mucins and IgA, the latter compound itself being an immunoglobulin helping to protect the mucosae against further pathogenic attack. Your runny nose is the visible sign of this increased secretion."

you missed the point. If science can't answer the why questions, then it can't answer my question, the one about the runny nose. But of course it can, to some degree or other.

Your semantic wibbling used to be less retarded.

Edit: fixed typo

Mick wrote:"Confusing science with answering why questions"

Patient: Why is my nose running?
Doctor: Sorry, science doesn't answer that question!

Lol

You really think you got me with this silly analogy don't you?
A scientist doesn't examine why a nose is running, but how.
And if I am really to understand you didn't get that with why I was referring to subsjective reasons and not objective cause-effect, you've sunk even lower with regards to my expectations of you.

LucidFlight wrote:Of course, it could be equally LOL-some if the doctor replied, "Forsooth! It is the work of daemons! They did plan it upon you for evil reasons."



ETA

You know, like, if the 'why' question was taken to mean asking for a reason, some purpose beyond the biological mechanisms. Yeah... because, 'why' is imprecise in our everyday language and all that. So... yep. Glad we got that sorted.

I see Lucid beat me to it.

Some interesting hits if one Google's "natural law mucus". Including this odd fellow -
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Ehret
And lots of stuff about family planning, Catholic style.