.

Dear George,

.

You are quite right. We have to adopt a common definition of what we are talking about, otherwise we will never get anywhere.

I am quite happy to accept your dictionary's definition of a sweeping statement. I now fully understand what you have in mind when you employ that term.

As you have obviously realized, that is not at all what I have in mind. I propose we call what I have in mind, a simple statement, in order to avoid all future confusion.

I trust you will find this satisfactory.

Turning, now, to your four negative examples of sweeping statements, I agree that many people are capable of expressing all sorts of stupid, insulting and unacceptable ideas and opinions. However, sweeping statements are, by no means, the only form of expression for such ideas and opinions.

Each example you indicate could be the subject of a 500 word thesis and still be just as stupid, insulting and unacceptable.

But how right you are in observing that "there is a difference between simple and simplistic".

Simplicity is the essence in all its pureness, uncontaminated and undistorted.

Simplism is an oversimplification and a misrepresentation.

I felt it was necessary to add that it is not because a statement is short and simple that the message it conveys is incomplete, less precise, or less important than a more complex and detailed work.

I tried to warn against the all too common error of considering that simplicity is easy, requires very little intellectual effort, and is done in no time. Whereas, far more complex and voluminous works require much greater intellectual input and considerably more time.

The work of "simplifying" is not a substitute for the more complex, detailed analysis etc. It is additional work which commences once the complex work has been completed and approved.

I used as an example, General Bigeard apologetically presenting his voluminous report to his boss with the words "Excuse us, my General, we did not have time to make it simple".

I hope I found the right words this time.

.

.

OOPS ... !

.

Yes, I meant a 500 page thesis ...

.

Dear George,

Thanks.

I try to externalise science not only the study of theism. For example, I am cautious about the possibility of 10 to 32nd power universies required to permit a universe were measurement is allowed to transition from a quantum state to a classical state. Although, I don't dismiss that proposition outright.

I happy to be called an atheist but a sceptic would be a better description. I am willing to revisit and re-test propositions I now deem unlikely. On the other hand, I would feel such an analyical process should be systematic: e.g., is there a creation agent. Yes, No? If yes, is that agent, God? Yes/No? If God, which god? I put, there is a serial order to be applied. We need to line up our ducks in the correct sequence.

Perhaps, the question is not, "Does god exit?", rather, (what was the initial measurement process (observation)? which first collapsed superposition to permit classical phenomena, "closed by the irreversible act of amplication" (Bohr)? Although, I would not agree to the notion the phenomena (calssical physics/physical reality) sets an absolute limit.

Rather from science, we can learn from understanding the collapse of wave functions and quantum superposition. Where QM and theology might meet is not in the Bible, instead, the first observation of supposition. If I were a thesist, checking for a god, I would look here, not scripture.

"If" a god is to play a role, it that of the first observer (more aligned to the classical world than QM)to create (big scale)phemonena. Even if one accepts such a theistic supposition, it is a long way from having the gods of the scriptures being manifestations of the measurement agent (observer) which amplifies (Bohr) QM phenomena into the classical world or resolves Schodinger-like gasanken at the beginning of the univserse.

A sceptic can "cross-over", and hypothetically work the "outside/otherside". However, I don't see runner, Sells or OUG et al. willing to do the same. I suspect many sceptics have read, studied and considered scriptures, yet, feel a stronger pull towards non-religious accounts of creation.

"..., I am cautious about the possibility of 10 to 32nd power universies required to permit a universe were measurement is allowed to transition from a quantum state to a classical state. Although, I don't dismiss that proposition outright."

Ooops. 20 to 32nd power universes.

I come to this thread very late, and so haven't read any of the comments, so sorry if I'm repetitive, though I doubt it.
Despite the author's stated intentions, the article strikes me as condescending; the overall tone is like a civilised anthropologist making first contact with a lost tribe; the religious community is welcome to join the scientific congregation as long as they toe the line.
The author, without doubt, is buying into the Habermas line--all thought is inclusive as long as it's 'enlightened'. Which is what eactly? According to Witgenstein, an analytic philosopher, just another language game; and based on dodgy premises at that: the premise that reality is as we perceive it, or as language describes it (which amounts to the same thing). But even if we concede that science offers an "incredibly powerful way of understanding the natural world" (one wonders at the need of the adverb, tantamount to 'miraculous'?), what then? What do we do with this 'incredible' tool? What does science say about how we should live, for instance? And is it wise to give science free reign to use its 'power,' when it evinces no sense of responsibility? I'm happy for the scientists that glory in their incredibly powerful way of understanding the world, but what of the scientifically 'illiterate' (poor benighted souls); the new philistines?

,

Those "new philistines" can catch up, that's what they can do.

Hard work hasn't killed those of us who have learned some biology. Facts of biology differ in no way from those of steam. Those who learn and work with it and apply it do useful things and those who "don't like it" can watch, slack jawed.

Alternatively they can start *demonstrating* miracles rather than claiming that fiction written decades to centuries after the alleged events is in some manner equivalent.

Or, as the fundies actually *are* doing, just fade into irrelevance, however bitterly.

Rusty