>>A charming fairy story, the point of which was more important than the details<<

Well duh :). I think I read somewhere that Aquinas wrote stuff about Biblical stories like Noah and the flood being charming fairy stories where the point was more important than the details. More than 700 years later: we still have fundamentalist wackos telling us that all the fossils were made during the flood. Makes you think, don't it?

Cheers,

Tony

Luciferase (only once - take it easy),

>>Detractors would say they "dispute" his nothing rather than "redefine" it<<
Had you written this at the beginning we would not have this silly controversy. From what you wrote it indeed follows that these detractors (whoever they are) disputed Krauss’ metaphysical concept of “unstable nothing”, as meaningless. They might or might not be right - I am not a philosopher - but that was not the point.

So, for the fifth time: Krauss - who prominently quotes Leibniz’s question in the title of his book, and answers it by using a definition of “nothing” that Leibniz could not have had in mind - is the one who does the redefining, irrespective of whether he is an expert in physics (which he obviously is) or philosophy (which he apparently is not). And not those who - for whatever reasons - stick to the meaning of the word as it has been understood over centuries.

To me the Leibniz question, looked at from a 21st century perspective, does not make much sense, but, as said, I am not a philosopher. Krauss could have taken the same position, but then he would not have a metaphysical ax to grind.

George,

You define Krauss' concept as "metaphysical". All nothing is the same to him, for the purpose of his claim. He says there is only one kind of nothing (and it is unstable). His detractors (...whoever they are? Google the multitude) say there are two kinds.

Defining Krauss' nothing as metaphysical presumes to make it untouchable by physics, but not to Krauss' mind.

Read the book, George, as there's a lot of other interesting stuff in there too, and take your fight up with Krauss

Yabby,

I looked at the article too and it does seem bizarre that Catholic prohibitions are enforced in a publicly-funded hospital!
I think it's even more bizarre to have public/private apartheid in hospitals and schools; it's fascinating to me that we just accept this kind of thing as a given. As I've said before, one of my kids is a very promising musician, but we're finding that virtually all support for this falls away in public schools as she progresses in high school and instrumental music becomes more and more an elite and expensive vocation we can't afford to fund.

Luciferase,
surely it's obvious I'm not talking about specific "knowledge"? In latter Homo Sapiens there's putatively a "cultural" component to evolution. In our deconstructive age the self is "decentred" (has "no" centre in the individual) and draws its illusions of integrity, free-will, "knowledge" etc., from the host culture. Here's an example of empiricism pegged to the status quo; it continues to support the illusions of liberal individualism. If we accept these premises, how can knowledge be anything but derivative and a mere "construction on reality"? Indeed according to post-structuralism even our tactile/sensuous experience is preconditioned rather than spontaneous--which would be miraculous. In the "absurd" universe Ditchkins dis/ingenuously evokes, our foundation narratives are strictly meaningless, or at best necessarily thread-like in an infinite spectrum of narrative possibility--multiple universes if you like. By narrative I'm saying that according to Dawkins' evocation all knowledge is derivative and developmental, rather than meaningful, conclusive and teleological. Yet he's a Western progressive; a partisan liberal rationalist!
Unfortunately Dawkins doesn't get taken to task in-depth on his "book-launches", which seems really all he's about, and the public stage is not the place to do it anyway--where it's all too easy for him to respond to puerile questioning with his stock-standard "common sense". There are infinitely more rigorous challenges to his simplistic ideas in journals that he can simply ignore, since they have no popular currency anyway. Thus is the whole debate nothing more than an empty advertising/proselytising campaign aimed at the credulous masses.
tbc

cont..

You have no such luxury here and yes, you are reading me incorrectly, I can't help but think wilfully, notwithstanding that my elucidations have been far more substantial than your evasions. You've said nothing in behalf of the New Atheism, or yourself, and my questions pertaining to it. You seem content to dismiss what I say as mystification, without, apparently, even considering it, yet I'm being far more rigorous and demanding in my scepticism and atheism than Ditchkins and the New Atheists put together. Doesn't this back-up my view that the New Atheists are kin to the very inflexible zealots they seek to demonise?
Ditchkins are patronising the popular "public sphere" just as shamelessly as televangelists do.
The "public sphere" is an invocation of Jurgen Habermas' (among others), wherein political/social norms and movements are critiqued. Unfortunately, the postmodern public sphere is a realm of pastiche, saturated in redundant and poorly understood knowledge, but worse, colonised and commodified by private interests so that it has no more integrity than neoliberalism's pathetic "individuals"--the ultimate dupes.
This is why it's such a shame to see the internet, a new hope, commercialised.
You can consider all this my puny effort to buck the trend of "popular reason" and "common sense" (it's also a mode of procrastination, alas ).

But clearly you don't want to respond to any of the material I've raised, and that's consistent with the other New Atheists I've tried to debate; the barriers of indignation are quickly thrown up.
It must be nice to live in such a rational world and universe, where one can be confident in one's Weltanschauung and look forward to the final few creases in reality being ironed out presently.
I'm afraid I remain benighted in ignorance.

I'd have to disagree with you, Squeers. Govt funding is limited and so
it should be. Govt should provide basic health care and education,
that is all that can be expected. If people want deluxe health care or
education, they should be free to fund it themselves. If you want
your kids to have the best, only have as many as you can afford.
Music is a bit like religion or golf, its an extra. If your daughter
is musical, buy her the latest Korg Kronos, she'll have a ball.

I was fortunate enough, in my late teens, to spend a couple of years
living in Paris. Like others with a sense of curiostiy about what
makes the human animal tick, I spent endless hours listening to
philosphers, reading Freud, Jung etc and in endless discussions.
It all sounded impressive, the language used was impressive, but it
did not add up to what I saw in nature. So I focussed on improving
my understanding of biology and neuroscience instead and I've never
looked back. Understand a bit more about how the brain works and
there is not alot left to be puzzled about. Rational thought is only
one part of the brain, but in the end, the mind is what the brain does.

So philosophise all you want, feel good about it, but frankly I think
that I am years ahead of you:)