New Scientist's God Issue

Zombrex

This weeks edition of New Scientist has a couple of articles on religion and the scientific understanding of it.

Nothing particularly new in it for regulars of this forum, the same themes come up, humans are pre-disposed to accepting general religious ideas, science is actually counter-intuitive (as is theology, which is different to what they call "natural religion", or the vague nice ideas of religion before you get into trying to work out exactly what all of it means), it is foolish to think that science will replace religion.

New Scientist isn't the most popular popular science magazine around these parts, so I'm not saying anyone should go buy it (don't want to start a flame war), but heck if you have 6 euro burning a hole in your pocket and 30 minutes to spare it is an interesting read.

It would probably be far more value to theists with atheist tendencies, who sort of know theism is nonsense but looking for an introduction to the rational behind scientific based atheism.

But I'm probably too scared to post this in the Christianity forum :P

oldrnwisr

Zombrex wrote: »

But I'm probably too scared to post this in the Christianity forum :P

Sonics2k

Zombrex wrote: »

But I'm probably too scared to post this in the Christianity forum :P

Dades

At the very least, when you've read it you could roll it up and use it to beat Jehovah's Witnesses who call to the door.

Delirium

Dades wrote: »

At the very least, when you've read it you could roll it up and use it to beat Jehovah's Witnesses who call to the door.

Or drop it through the letter box of Alive! HQ :pac:

robindch

Dades wrote: »

At the very least, when you've read it you could roll it up and use it to beat Jehovah's Witnesses who call to the door.

I've a special pair of underpants I wear when they call to the door.

Dades

robindch wrote: »

I've a special pair of underpants I wear when they call to the door.

I can only assume they go over your pants?

legspin

Dades wrote: »

I can only assume they go over your pants?

Wibble.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

I can only assume they go over your pants?

Over? Nope. Instead of.

magicbastarder

Zombrex wrote: »

New Scientist isn't the most popular popular science magazine around these parts

at the risk of starting a flame war, is this because of the general tone of the magazine, or issues with specific articles in the past?

Zombrex

magicbastarder wrote: »

at the risk of starting a flame war, is this because of the general tone of the magazine, or issues with specific articles in the past?

I think it is because they tend to place sensationalist covers and statements over the hard science in order to make the magazine more appealing.

Personally I much prefer Scientific American (which I always confuse with American Scientist, a different magazine)

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

Over? Nope. Instead of.

On your head.

Turtwig

*Looks around cautiously and silently.*

I NewScientist.


*Flees thread.*

Muppet Man

FWIW- I'm a big fan of "FOCUS" magazine myself. Science and technology for non-scientists and technological wannabes. Terminology and concepts are well explained, with some kick ass graphics and photo's.

HUNK

Muppet Man wrote: »

FWIW- I'm a big fan of "FOCUS" magazine myself. Science and technology for non-scientists and technological wannabes. Terminology and concepts are well explained, with some kick ass graphics and photo's.

Wait... http://focusmagazine.org/ OR http://sciencefocus.com/

I'm assuming its the latter :pac:

Muppet Man

Wow.... LOL, yes, very definitely the latter

Cheers
Muppet Man

MisterEpicurus

Zombrex wrote: »

This weeks edition of New Scientist has a couple of articles on religion and the scientific understanding of it.
if you have 6 euro burning a hole in your pocket

Nice sales pitch, didn't know you worked for 'em