Home| Letters| Links| RSS| About Us| Contact Us

On the Frontline

What's New

Table of Contents

Index of Authors

Index of Titles

Index of Letters

Mailing List

subscribe to our mailing list:


Critique of Intelligent Design

Evolution vs. Creationism

The Art of ID Stuntmen

Faith vs Reason

Anthropic Principle

Autopsy of the Bible code

Science and Religion

Historical Notes


Serious Notions with a Smile


Letter Serial Correlation

Mark Perakh's Web Site


[Write a Reply] [Letters Index]

Title Author Date
They know nothing about religion C, David Aug 28, 2006
The authors of this article are speaking to a topic they don't understand: religion.

There is nothing in their comments that indicated they know there are different "god-hypotheses" for instance.

What do they know of the history of religions? Of comparative mythology? Of the philosophy of religion? As far as I can tell the answer to all these questions is absolutely nothing.

For that matter, their discussion on the philosophy of science was exceedingly shallow.

If they want to talk about implications of natural science and religion for one another, then they should get really serious about about the philosophies of these to human activities. Blathering about randomness versus providence and claiming that somehow gods violate the laws of thermodynamics (how?) doesn't cut it?

And if they don't want to seriously study these things, then they should shut the hell up on science versus religion!
Related Articles: Religion and skepticism: can (and should!) skeptics challenge religion?

Title Author Date
They know nothing about religion TalkReason , Aug 28, 2006
Dear David C:

Thank you for your letter. Please note that posting it, we took the liberty of removing the profanity in the title provided by you. If you intend to submit more letters to Talk Reason, please avoid such expressions.

Regarding your critique of Dr. Hall's and Lucia Hall's post wherein you disparage their article for the absence of a discussion of philosophy of religion and of some other matters, you are right: they indeed do not delve into all those topics you listed. Likewise, they do not discuss how to grow oranges, or the validity of Perelman's proof of Poincare's conjecture, or the prospects of a 3rd world war. It hardly makes their argument related to the actual subject of their discourse a failure. Although it is your privilege to form any opinion of the Halls' article, your clearly supercilious approach to their piece, wherein you seem to be mostly concerned with showing your erudition rather than addressing the specific points which the Halls do discuss, hardly makes your opinion on that particular matter more convincing.

Best wishes,

Talk Reason
Related Articles: Religion and skepticism: can (and should!) skeptics challenge religion?