George,

Thank you. Interesting comment.

George, haven't you heard - 70 is the new 50!

You are right, I obviously haven't had as much time to read up on all of this as you have. I am intrigued by philosophy though, I was studying it at a basic level before starting med. Maybe I can go back and finish the degree one day.. here's hoping; after all there is plenty of room for it in medicine these days in bio-ethics etc.

So anyway, I won't try and cross swords with you, you have given me some interesting perspectives to read up on. Thanks.

From time to time in this thread I've read the term 'religious vacuum'. This I find annoying as there is no such thing as a 'religious vacuum'.

This phrase is used by Muslims and Christians because they arrogantly assume in their tiny minds that non-religious people live a life that is completely empty. I can assure them that this is not the case. Life is bigger, better, more fruitful, and more moral without having to carry around the burden of religious superstition.

Hence, we can also say that Muslims do NOT fill the religious space supposedly left by a secularised Western society. What Muslims have done in Western societies is introduce a superfluous foreign 'meme'. This 'meme', or mind-virus, demands that those who are infected spend lots of money to build lots of Mosques in order to perpetuate the mind-virus. This way the mind-virus ensures that the infection spreads to the next generation.

It is the job of enlightened free-thinking individuals to ensure that the minds of the public are inoculated against this incursion of more religious viruses as one brand of monotheistic virus, namely Christianity, is already more than a civilised society can bear.

TR, “This I find annoying as there is no such thing as a 'religious vacuum'. … Muslims and Christians … arrogantly assume in their tiny minds…”

Don’t you think that there are people on this forum – Christians, Muslims, secular humanists, those who would agree with what you are trying to say, as well as those who disagree – who find the WAY you express yourself about others’ world views also annoying?

Otherwise, thank you for providing evidence for my remark to stickamn, that there are intolerant people not only among Christians and Muslims, but also among those who do not see themselves associated with any religion.

George,

Greetings.

"The reason for the choice of the name [string] was that the mathematics of the model somehow resembles the mathematics of the workings of a string that everybody understands what it is."

A model of a model. :)

Appreciate that a model is not always correct first time, as with your example of the atom. Likewise, I have read an interesting essay [Olivier Darrigol] on the Einstein-Poincare connection*, wherein some posit Henri Poincare's [1898-1900] contribution to understanding Relativity is not fully appreciated, perhaps, being held-back by Poincare maintaining the idea of the "ether".

[*Both assumed the speed of light constant measured in different inertial frames and both argued the different inertial systems were related through Lorentz transformations.]


Crossing-over to a paradigm [Kuhn]is hard: Actually, its a never ending investigation, towards which, commitment can be made, but always held with forensic suspicion. As has been said before, on the topic of quantum chromodynamics, "the last word is not Whitten" :).

With religions, if I were a theologian, I would worry about syncretions and accretions. I not a theologian, and I am

Dear George,

Before 9/11 I wouldn't have dreamed of being overly critical of religion. However, the rules of engagement have changed. In fact everything has changed since 9/11.

It is now of vital importance for sceptics to hold religion to account. Indeed, monotheism MUST be lampooned, criticised, ridiculed, and kicked in the shins at every available opportunity. It is for the long-term good of society.

Lest we all be slowly strangled to death by the literalists and the fundementalists