They are. When Einstein was described as "reckless," the "High Priest" of physics, Max Planck, defended him by saying, "[T]hat he may sometimes have missed the target in his speculations, as, for example, in his hypothesis of light quanta, cannot really be held too much against him."
Not how...
Maybe you should read some of his books. True, he doesn't suggest that God is a valid theory and in fact would like to get away from the word entirely, but he sees a cosmic meaning and purpose as something more significant that our own creation.
So what? As the authors of Quantum Enigma said...
Right on, Rocketman! And he's not alone. Some even go further and flat-out denounce the larger scientific community's unscientific reluctance to entertain anything but materialist bottom up causation.
I read a lot of books written by scientists. Just taking their word for it. ;)
That's the point. Materialist science wants to keep it that way. With the anthropic principle and quantum mechanics threatening to put a deanthropomorphized "God" back on the radar, some feel it necessary to offer...
And all your pleading is from the infantile, self-indulging, self-pitying and undisciplined mindset whose values are derived from the very values you protest.
I trust that in time you will get tired of the merry-go-round and step outside the system. ;)
I only wanted to point out that the multiverse idea is the result of two things: the anthropic principle (weak and strong) and the inability to isolate the observer from the observed. Together, these things made God a strong possibility (although it virtually destroys the God of dualism). This...
Maybe it is a weak argument, but it is stronger and more realistic than the egalitarian ideal. But even if I cited some examples, like the disconnect between sex and parenting seen in at least one study, you would still want something more. You would dismiss indications of social disintegration...
It just occurred to me that another thing that should be considered is that your approach is extremely dualistic in that its concern is with the individual while mine is more holistic, concerned with the whole.
No need to. All what you say comes from within the tangled hierarchy: the values you employ arise from the value-system (society) that inform you. You're whole world is a merry-go-round.
Homosexual marriage does not have to affect any one directly in order to affect the whole over a period of...
I find the exaggerated claims of the scientists comical, if not a bit childish.
Don't get me wrong. Evolution is a fact as far as I'm concerned. Most scientists just have too much invested in neo-Darwinism to see things objectively.
My dear Tex, before you dismiss what I said as nonsense, you should know it is consonant with Gödel’s theorem and dynamic systems theory. The first is illustrated by an atheist who tries to show the immorality of Christianity by using the same sense of morals that are ultimately derived...
Viewed from within the tangled hierarchy they have been quite sound and valid.
However, to be stuck in a tangled hierarchy is to be stuck in a closed, self-referring system. Although society giving a homosexual union the same recognition it affords a man/woman union appears to be progressive...
I also use the terms "unintended consequences," implying unknown, and "long term," implying generations. However, I don't expect someone living in an age of instant anything to understand.
Of course you can't see the paradox. Like Draka above, you are stuck in a "tangled hierarchy," like one...
Why? I thought you were a great believer in Occam's razor: don't multiply entities more than necessary. Why should society burden itself with the self-indulgent, i.e., homosexuals who want to raise children?
You never were much for consistency of thought.
So what? You appeal to social justice in a free society in order to justify same-sex marriage, but like the institution of marriage, they, too are human constructs. It creates a paradox, like the Cretan saying, All Cretans are liars.