Wilson Poon

Morbert

I'm curious as to what people think of his views on the relationship between science and religion.

His website can be found here: http://www.ph.ed.ac.uk/~wckp/

If anyone want's me to explain some of his views (or at least what I think his views are) I'll be happy to try.

Yossie

He gave a talk out there in Maynooth the other week, from which I heard the report that he's "madder than a March hare" - gave most of the talk hopping, apparently.

Morbert

Yossie wrote:

He gave a talk out there in Maynooth the other week, from which I heard the report that he's "madder than a March hare" - gave most of the talk hopping, apparently.

Yup... I was there...

He wasn't "mad" per se. But I found a lot of what he said dubious.

It seemed more like an exercise in the redefenition of faith.

Son Goku

I find his argument completely lame.

Any proposal that resorts to the "for all we know we could be in the matrix" argument isn't worth anybody's time.
He redefined faith in a way that could be applied to anything and removed the importance of actual faith.
Also, I don't think he really says anything about the relationship between them at all. All he did was say:

1. We can't prove anything a priori.
2. Therefore everything is faith.

He said this made Science a faith, but it also makes plumbing and roof tiling faiths.

So, pfff!, essentially.

robindch

> He gave a talk out there in Maynooth the other week, from which I
> heard the report that he's "madder than a March hare" - gave most
> of the talk hopping, apparently.

Hey, let us know when guys like these come to town. A bit of time spent away from earnest scientists, or mutton-headed creationists, is good, as Ecclesiastes points out (NIV for the KJV-averse).

BTW, my monitor lost vertical hold on Poon's website and he'd do well to spend some time in a dark corner with a book on HTML. And, with a name like Poon, I can't help but wonder what happens when he turns up in Thailand.

Yossie

robindch wrote:

Hey, let us know when guys like these come to town

Will do.



Was there anybody there making a case against him? My source said there wasn't much discussion.

Morbert wrote:

I was there...

Son_Goku wrote:

He said.....

Who would have thought that Maynooth, the centre of catholic Ireland, was such a hot-bed of atheist fervor

Last time I was out there it wasn't even bishops I spotted, but instead I noticed some Xian fruits growing at the bus stop, namely some group called the maynooth community church - think they may have even been presbyterians!

archdukefranz

Son Goku wrote:

I find his argument completely lame.

Any proposal that resorts to the "for all we know we could be in the matrix" argument isn't worth anybody's time.
He redefined faith in a way that could be applied to anything and removed the importance of actual faith.
Also, I don't think he really says anything about the relationship between them at all. All he did was say:

1. We can't prove anything a priori.
2. Therefore everything is faith.

He said this made Science a faith, but it also makes plumbing and roof tiling faiths.

So, pfff!, essentially.

roof tiling requires a lot of faith

I don't think his goal was to tell you that we might be living in the matrix
but rather than believing in God isn't a blind out of the blue assumtion anymore than any other thing we hold to be evidence based theory/fact is

Son Goku

archdukefranz wrote:

I don't think his goal was to tell you that we might be living in the matrix
but rather than believing in God isn't a blind out of the blue assumtion anymore than any other thing we hold to be evidence based theory/fact is

The thing is, besides a few very ardent atheists, we know that. Very few people think belief is some arbitrary "dumb" thing.
That's what I found stupid about the whole talk, my reaction to the entire thing was "Eh, well, duh".

My comment about the matrix was a reference to the fact that he had to use Thompson's "total metaphysical spring cleaning" argument, which although a correct one, it doesn't really say anything outstanding or worthwhile.

Science is based on extrapolations and assumptions and so is religion was his point. Again I say, so what? Everything is.
There was nothing new in his talk, just the same hackney-eyed metaphysics, which doesn't really address science or religion.

Excelsior

Yossie, don't call me a fruit. Us Presbyterians are the kind of Christians who are most likely to offer you a good debate after all...

Morbert

archdukefranz wrote:

roof tiling requires a lot of faith

I don't think his goal was to tell you that we might be living in the matrix
but rather than believing in God isn't a blind out of the blue assumtion anymore than any other thing we hold to be evidence based theory/fact is

The irony of it all is that if Richard Dawkins himself were to sit down and listen to his talk, he would agree with 99% of what was being said.

As Son Goku has already mentioned, his talk amounted to little more than "We are not God, therefore we have faith in everything" which completely sidesteps the real issues regarding the nature of science and religion.

Yossie

Excelsior wrote:

Yossie, don't call me a fruit. Us Presbyterians are the kind of Christians who are most likely to offer you a good debate after all...

I thought you once told me you were not pro-presbyterian

I was originally going to call them (ye - as I now know) "flowers" but settled on fruits instead, 'cos I thought flowers sounded too nice and encouraging and the last thing we atheists should be doing is encouraging you christians.;)

As regards debating with presbyterians, I tend to find that they only "give good book" and hence can only see things through the bible prism. Also, even down south they tend to be northern or american centric and quite anti-catholic. My maynooth source has told me that your group there ran a "burn the pope" campaign a few years ago. I'd support your campaign as long as we can burn the bible with him.

Having said that, rest assured, I'll respect your wish around the christian forum, but resevre the right eslewhere.

Excelsior

Oh no! Scurrlious. I was responsible for commissioning the aforementioned posters which have gone down in dark infamy. Somehow now, 5 years later, memory has it that the uni's CU had posters that said "Burn the Pope". What we actually had was an open forum discussion called "Grill A Christian". The poster had a Bishop action figure roasting on a bbq spit in a fairly useful bit of early Photoshop. The CU was and is to this day about Christian Unity and is not in the least bit sectarian. I guess the idea that Christians might be witty escapes some.

As far as the Presbyterian Church in Maynooth is concerned, 70% of members are baptised Catholics. There is not a hint of sectarianism there. We work strongly with the local parish priests.

I may be a member of the Presbyterian church but I don't think I would be pro-presbyterian. I certainly wouldn't ever unironically identify myself as Presbyterian. There is too much sectarianism to justify it.

As far as the bible-prism is concerned, I guess it is a subjective question about whether that makes good debate. The heavy emphasis on reason and intellect that the church brings to reading and studying the scriptures tends to make them the most interesting of the Protestants to debate with. The Scriptures, whether you think them fascinating like me or tedious like Robin, are the heart of the matter. More convincingly, the fact that the church holds its slogan to be "Reformed and ever reforming" means they should in theory anyway, always be up for batting ideas about.

I hope the moderator doesn't call me up on this off-topicedness.

Yossie

Excelsior wrote:

Oh no! Scurrlious. I was responsible for commissioning the aforementioned posters which have gone down in dark infamy.

It's a small world:D

Excelsior wrote:

Somehow now, 5 years later, memory has it that the uni's CU had posters that said "Burn the Pope". What we actually had was an open forum discussion called "Grill A Christian".

If this is an example of the change over fives years imagine what the distortion would be like over 2000
years:p As REM might say "maybe these maps and legends have been misunderstood".

Excelsior wrote:

I guess the idea that Christians might be witty escapes some.

Probably something to do with how easily they take offence, present company excluded;)

Excelsior wrote:

As far as the bible-prism is concerned, I guess it is a subjective question about whether that makes good debate. The heavy emphasis on reason and intellect that the church brings to reading and studying the scriptures tends to make them the most interesting of the Protestants to debate with.

Imho, all the subjection is on your own part. You're still wearing the bible prism goggles, no amount of "heavy emphasis on reason and intellect" can make up for the grand assumption that the book, is divinely inspired. A much stronger rational and intellectual analysis than given presbyterians, without this assumption is out there.

Excelsior wrote:

The Scriptures, whether you think them fascinating like me or tedious like Robin, are the heart of the matter.

Robin is the nearest thing to god around here:)

Excelsior wrote:

More convincingly, the fact that the church holds its slogan to be "Reformed and ever reforming" means they should in theory anyway, always be up for batting ideas about.

Just to reassure you, I don't have a particular axe to grind with your church. Btw, that sounds amazingly similar to Trotsky’s idea of permanent revolution.

Excelsior wrote:

I hope the moderator doesn't call me up on this off-topicedness.

Ditto;)