O'Reilly vs. Dawkins shows why I'm churchless

A friend of mine is fond of saying, "No one's life is ever completely wasted. He can always serve as a horrible example for others."

This adage came to mind as I watched a video of Bill O'Reilly showing his ignorance in an interview with Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins is an eminent scientist who has just published a well-reviewed book about evolution, "The Greatest Show on Earth." O'Reilly is a right-wing talk show host who is fond of mangling facts.

And, in this case, making up facts when they are lacking.

The fundamentalist mindset is on display beautifully at the beginning of the interview. O'Reilly says that since science isn't sure about how life began on Earth, he embraces Christianity -- which does provide an answer to this question.

Dawkins is appropriately incredulous.

He can't understand why a gap in human knowledge has to be filled by make-believe. Why not just leave the gap as it is, while working to fill it?

O'Reilly demonstrates the true believer's fear of uncertainty.

It's just too damn scary not to know what happens after death, how the universe came to be, or what led life to arise from inorganic matter.

Science, as Dawkins points out, has made great strides in expanding the horizons of human knowledge, especially in the past century. There's no reason not to think that this will continue, likely at an ever-increasing pace.

Biologist Craig Venter is working on creating artificial life. If he and his team succeed, this will help to fill the gap with facts that O'Reilly wants to have Christianity plug up with mythology.

Here's the interview.

Comments

[Tao]

Science and Christianity are each others anti-thesis so the argument wont go away. Interestingly they both agree on a "beginning to all this", some kind of start point.

I would say that that is the error I find in both and that only science can escape that trap: Christianity being eternally stuck with their view and science slowly adapts to new ideas as old ones are ripped from under them.

I feel that it is this linear idea, "it started then and so shall end" is the failure in both concepts and that truly when we look at life there are cycles and no real time. Certainly no linear creation path be it big bang or God.

So no God for sure, and science has much further to go than any of them can even see.

Just note that if you split a tiny thing it ends up being made of smaller parts. And when you find a big thing, it is always contained in something bigger.

Infinity though, has no time, how could it? So linearity fails.

With no linear path then Science has far far to go to explain that - and Christianity is bunk.

[Jen]

Is it obligatory to believe in EITHER creationism OR science?

Its not necessary to agree with the religious belief systems of the world but we can be open to the theory of some form of intelligence, which may be just pure consciousness, in conjunction with evolution via natural selection.

[Bob]

Tao,

I think you may be correct about the "linear" issue. But, it may be centuries before we understand the cylic nature of the universe.

But, this I highly suspect - if anyone discovers it, it won't be the Roman Catholic Church but someone or something within the realm of science.

The RCC is still stuck in the dark ages and moving faster in a pre-Vatican II direction with the current Vatican leadership.

Regarding a higher power, I honestly don't know - maybe a subtle energy force of some sort. But, again, I don't know. But, I am certainly open to the possibility.

Now, when I studied the whole cycle of water to water - photosynthesis through respiration in college - I was more convinced of a higher power than all my years in Catholic Church!

But, then again, I don't know shit! And, it's quite liberating to admit it after prancing around as an all-knowing satsangi for so many years!

[Jen]

So happy I didn’t have a religious upbringing and agree with Bob, it is liberating to not be an “all-knowing satsangi” and to now have more of an open mind… never did any prancing though… ;)

[tAo]

I am having to post this notice because someone else has used my name/pseudonym.

Readers please be informed that I (tAo) did NOT post this message:

Posted by: Tao | October 11, 2009 at 05:56 PM

So thereforem please do not attribute that message or its content to me, or to my views.

Also. Brian is able to check the IP address of commenters, and so he is able to know and verify that that individual who posted that message it not the same as me.

Whomever has posssted that message should be informed of this as well, and they should admit it and clarify that they are not me (tAo), and also please change their name/id to something different so as to avoid any future confusion.

Thank you.

-- tAo

[Blogger Brian]

tAo, the other commenter is "Tao." So there shouldn't be any confusion. Nobody owns the word "tao," just as I don't own the word "Brian."

The only problem with people using similar screen names is when there is a purposeful attempt to masquerade as another commenter. Such didn't occur in this case, so I don't see any reason for concern.

[Just Curious]

If you read the article carefully, Biologist Venter in NOT creating new life from scratch in the lab but is trying to make a artificial lifeform by transfering synthetic genomes into a host cell! I've seen some other misleading and inaccurate headlines by bullshiting journalists claiming Dr. Frankensteins are only one step away from creating tits in a testtube but researchers admit they're not even close.

[George]

all i know is that bill o'reilly appears to be an objectionable narrow-minded man, who if he gave his mouth a rest and engaged his brain instead of trying to shout others down, he might actually learn something.

[Blogger Brian]

Just Curious, it's true that Venter is working on creating an artificial life form, not life itself -- since DNA is being inserted into an existing cell.

But science proceeds step by step. If Venter succeeds, this will be a big step toward the creation of life from scratch, as this article says:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/06/genetics.climatechange

"The new life form will depend for its ability to replicate itself and metabolise on the molecular machinery of the cell into which it has been injected, and in that sense it will not be a wholly synthetic life form. However, its DNA will be artificial, and it is the DNA that controls the cell and is credited with being the building block of life."

Here's another more recent story on efforts to create artificial life;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1161434/Artificial-life-created-FIVE-years-experts-claim.html

"Every research team that has embarked on the quest for synthetic life reports good progress and the goal of creating a living being from non-living chemicals is now less a vague possibility than a definite target with clear roadmaps leading to it.

So science certainly seems to be homing in on creating artificial life. When this happens, this will raise a lot of interesting religious and philosophical questions. What happens to the notion of a "soul" if human beings can create a living entity from scratch?

(I suspect true believers will still say, "God made them do it, so this is still part of God's creation and God's plan.")

[tAo]

Brian,

You are wrong. I never tried to say, nor did I wish to imply that I 'owned' "the word tao". You are distorting the intent and purpose of my comment.

What you indicated was not the import or the purpose of my comment.

I was simply making it very clear that I did not post that previous message, of which the poster used the name "Tao". Period.

As you more or less pointed out, I always use the spelling of "tAo", which is different than "Tao".

However, I strongly disagree with you, because even though I use a capital "A" in the middle, it is a fact that quite often amn many many times other people have referred to me and my comments by using "Tao" or "tao" or "TAO".

And in this case (even though you may not think so), I am sure that others did assume and thought that that previous comment (posted by "Tao") was made by me. But it wasn't. So that's why I felt that I had to give notice that it was not made by me.

I never claimed or even implied that the word "tao" belogs to me. I merely suggested that, since there is such a very close similarity, that some readers will no doubt inevitably confuse the two, and think that it is me, when in fact iit is not me. That was the only reason for my suggestion to choose another name. Its not at all because I feel that I "own" the word 'tao'.

Furthermore, if this poster wishes to use the name "Tao", then they can certainly do so... but some readers (especially new readers who are unfamiliar with the difference) will most likely attribute many or all of my old comments in the archives to the commenter who has now choosen to call himself/herself "Tao".

So therefore Brian, I definitely must disagree with you where you said: "the other commenter is "Tao." So there shouldn't be any confusion."

-- There is indeed a significant likelyhood of confusion, and I do not wish to be confused with this new commenter who uses "Tao", or with any of the comments that they have posted or may post in the future.

So, since you are not concerned that that might happen, I am hereby now giving notice to all that I am no longer going to use the name/pseudonym of "tAo", or "tao" or "Tao", or any variation of upper or lower case spelling. I am hereby terminating my use of the word 'tao' as a name. And if I do post any firther comments from now on, I will be using another name/id.

But... from now on, whoever wishes to use the name 'tao' (or any variation of it), will run the risk of being associated with all of my prevuious comments in the archives. But that will be their problem, not mine.

So to make this very very clear, to you and to all readers:

Henceforth, I will no longer use any variation of the word 'tao' as my name/id in any comments that I may post on this blog.

That being said, I would like to add a ferw more comments to your statements. You said:

"The only problem with people using similar screen names is when there is a purposeful attempt to masquerade as another commenter."

-- Yes, and I happen to firmly believe that that was what was intended in this case here. Whoever used the name "Tao" was mostly likely trying to appear as me, imo.

"Such didn't occur in this case, so I don't see any reason for concern.

-- Again Brian, I just don't agree with you about this. How can you be so sure that this poster, this other commenter was not trying to purposely "attempt to masquerade as" me? How do you know that? Why are you so sure that that was not the intent? You may be right, but you may also be wrong. And the point for me was not whether this other commenter was masquerading, but simly that other readers would very likely not pay attention to the difference in capitalization betweeen the two names. So tthey would assume that the comments was made by me. To my knowledge, this other paoster who calls themsellf "Tao" has not made it clear the difference, that they are not me. So that is why I felt compelled to make that clear and known. And I have now done that, so there is nothing more for me to say. As I have indicated, I am nonlonger going to use any form of the word 'tao' as a name. That will solve the pproblem for me.

In closing, I have to think that you would feel the very same way as I do, if someone were to go and use the name "Blogger Brian". You would not want yourself being confused with someone elses's comments. So
that is my position here as well. I also probably will not be commnting all thatt much anymore. And if I do, from NOW ON I will definitely be using a different name/id. The use of "tAo" is finished for me.

The name "tao" (or any variation) is now up for grabs... but use at your own risk.

[Blogger Brian]

tAo, the guy who commented as "Tao" has a Blogger profile with this screen name:
http://www.blogger.com/profile/01123753659706310015

If you click on his name, on the comment he left above, you'll be led to a "Tao Wow" blog:
http://www.taowow.blogspot.com/

So Tao happens to be someone who admires the Tao, and chose that screen name. I don't see any evidence that this commenter was trying to masquerade as you. If he was, he'd use your screen name, "tAo."

[tAo]

Alright thanks for pointing that out, but as I said, my emphasis was not on the iussue of masquerading, but rather that I did not wish regualr readers to assume that that commenter was me.

You were more the one who brought up the notion of masquerading. It wasn't the primary issue for me. I was only concerned that people would assume that the comment or comments of this other poster "Tao" was me, regardless of his/her Taoism website.

So now we are clear about who is who and what is what... which was my sole intention in the first place.

[Tao (the one with the Tao Wow blog and not the camel caps]

By cyclic I do not mean big long cycles that we as yet do not know the full motion of, as they are too a linear view. Just linear view placed on a circle so big that we can call it a circle but it is a line all the same.

Cyclic I mean is in cycle as just emerging constantly. Constantly being now, not coming from or going to (linear) but being.