How curiously serendipitous that I should be be reading this this afternoon, for the first time--a somewhat jaundiced Sigmund Freud:
"The common man cannot imagine this providence [the consolation of the concept of faith in God] otherwise than as an immensely exalted father. Only such a being can know the needs of the children of men, be softened by their pleas and propitiated by signs of their remorse. All this is so patently infantile, so remote from reality, that it pains a philanthropic temperament to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above such a view of life. It is still more embarrassing to learn how many of those living today, who cannot help seeing that this religion is untenable, nevertheless seek to defend it, bit by bit, in a pathetic rearguard action. One would like to mingle with the believers, in order to confront those philosophers who think they can rescue the God of religion by replacing him with an impersonal, shadowy, abstract principle, and to remind them of the principle: 'Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.' If some of the greatest spirits of the past did the same, we cannot appeal to their example here, for we know they had to". Freud goes on to quote he says not who: "Whoever possesses science and art also has religion; whoever possesses neither of these, let him have religion!" ("Civilization and its Discontents" 13-14).
What do you say to this, Sells? You are clearly called by this synchronicity to address the matter.

Religion in action:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2010/01/2010181572087252.html

All in the name of the psychopath in the sky Sellick

Tap-dancing in this context, relda, is a form of avoidance.

>>Pericles, Good tap-dancing is an art form<<

The metaphor relies for its impact, not on the "discipline and dexterity" involved, but the image of dancing around, as opposed to confronting directly.

Far from "judging you poorly", I consider you one of OLO's masters of the craft. And that's some pretty stiff competition, right there.

And you are kidding here, right?

>>The ambiguity of history is illustrated by the fact that the church was scientifically correct in saying that Galileo had no proof that Earth moves through space, i.e. he had ‘tacit knowledge’.<<

Scientifically correct, mein Arsch.

Galileo arrived at his conclusions after some very carefully recorded observations. However you may wish to describe that process, only the church could conclude it to be "tacit knowledge".

We know, of course, that they tried to squeeze it into this category by limiting Galileo's public argument to a form of trite dialogue. Another, unsuccessful, example of tap-dancing.

>>The ‘cat story’ is a metaphysical exercise and here’s the conncection:...<<

There you go again.

There is no metaphysical content in the cat experiment. Not a jot. From the earliest exchanges of correspondence with Einstein on the topic to its publication in Naturwissenschaften, it is pure quantum mechanics.

The quotes you provide bear no relation to the Cat. They are simply the philosophical musings of a highly intelligent individual.

Unless of course, you are smart enough to draw parallels between the Cat experiment, and Schroedinger's appreciation of Brahman.

That would be a fine use of your intellect, to join the theory of quantum mechanics with Brahman, "the infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this Universe" (thank you Wikipedia)

But I suspect you would prefer to stick with tap-dancing.

Pericles,
I’m not kidding at all – you’d go beyond mere superficial argument if you read a little more widely and perhaps more deeply. Galileo came to advocate the new Copernican heliocentric cosmology instead of Ptolemy’s geocentric system through far more than mere observation. His observations certainly challenged the ancient myth that heavenly bodies were perfect spheres made of “ether,” in contrast to the imperfect and corrupted earth. Tycho Brahe however, the great astronomical observer, never accepted the Copernican system because he couldn’t 'observe' the stellar parallax caused by Earth’s motion around the sun. Galileo’s argument that the tides result from the Earth’s rotation turned out to be correct. At the time, however, and bound by their ‘observations’, no one knew enough about gravity and centrifugal forces.

Galileo’s scientific creativity confirmed new ideas, which conflicted with geocentric cosmology - he had the courage to create and not merely observe. As Paul Tillich says, “it is disastrous for theology if theologians prefer one scientific view to others on theological grounds... This ill-conceived resistance of theologians from the time of Galileo to the time of Darwin was one of the causes of the split between religion and secular culture in the past centuries.” Incidentally and importantly Galileo, although deeply hurt by his conviction at age 69, never lost his faith or his courage.

That one of the two major paradoxes of the quantum mystery is illustrated by Schroedinger's Cat certainly doesn’t make it by definition “pure quantum mechanics”. Your allusion to defining 'Schroedinger’s cat' is therefore quite misleading. In a sense the cat is a red herring. The paradox is merely an illuminating way of thinking about the consequences of radioactive decay being totally random – it is just a thought experiment, metaphysical if you like.

Interestingly, Einstein never accepted Quantum Mechanics. He summarised his objections by saying "God does not play at dice with the universe." It was Bohr who responded with, "Quit telling God what to do!"

My quotes illustrate that Schroedinger went beyond his mere intelligence. Perhaps go beyond yours also – and sharpen your pencil a little.

boxgum, yes sellick and his pompous band of fans are particularly aggravating. they're hardly the most evil of religious adherents, but they are bloody irritating. what gets up my nose is their presumption of intellectual and moral superiority, their refusal to honestly engage any criticism. given the very, very thin ice of religious belief, this presumption is mind-numbingly arrogant. as for the suggestion of sellick being a "prophet", maybe so: overwhelmingly, prophets are loons.

relda, you claim to address my first and second points, but it is obviously merely pretence. the fact that you are willing to argue with sellick, on your tightly proscribed terms, does not negate your blatant and snide dismissal of others who are more critical of sellick.

secondly, as always, you ignore the elephant fact that sellick absolutely refuses to engage here with his genuine critics. any of them.

>> I believe [sellick] is quite accurate when he says,
>> “Religion is seen as such an easy target that no effort at all is required to pull it down”

yes, we KNOW you believe it. what you haven't done is given any argument for WHY religion is NOT an easy target. pompous appeals to authority definitely don't cut it.

>> Schroedinger states: Science cannot tell us a word about why music delights us ...
>> Sells has said something similar – do you lump he and Schroedinger into the same camp?

what are you saying? what do you think schroedinger is saying? that we have to buy religious mumbo jumbo in order to enjoy music? does it have to be christian religious mumbo jumbo, or would any religious mumbo jumbo suffice?

More tapdancing, relda?

>>Galileo came to advocate the new Copernican heliocentric cosmology instead of Ptolemy’s geocentric system... His observations certainly challenged the ancient myth... Tycho Brahe however, the great astronomical observer... Galileo’s argument that the tides result from the Earth’s rotation...<<

We can all read Wikipedia, you know.

But you completely forgot that it was your glib assertion...

>>The ambiguity of history is illustrated by the fact that the church was scientifically correct in saying that Galileo had no proof that Earth moves through space, i.e. he had ‘tacit knowledge’.<<

...that was under discussion.

You presumably chose to ignore the challenge, in favour of a distracting cramp roll.

>>Galileo’s scientific creativity confirmed new ideas, which conflicted with geocentric cosmology - he had the courage to create and not merely observe.<<

What did he "create", relda, over and above that which he observed? And how old were the "new ideas" that he confirmed.

More side shuffles.

>>That one of the two major paradoxes of the quantum mystery is illustrated by Schroedinger's Cat certainly doesn’t make it by definition “pure quantum mechanics”.<<

Oh yeah? Where, in any of the material produced by Schroedinger while developing the thought experiment, was anything discussed that was extrinsic to quantum mechanics? Where, in other words, did metaphysics intrude?

Thought not.

>>My quotes illustrate that Schroedinger went beyond his mere intelligence<<

I have absolutely no problem with that, and won't even dispute the condescending insertion of "mere".

What is at issue, though, is your conflation of his philophical musings with the cat.

You may choose to interpret them in any way that suits you. But it is pretty arrogant to assume that Schroedinger would have shared your particular conclusions.

Especially in the absence of any evidence.