(September 11, 2015 at 11:25 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:(September 11, 2015 at 10:56 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: What? His name was Georges Lemaître. And he was not a child molester.
They're pulling your chain, Cath! Get it? "big bang?"
If you read the article, Krauss is pretty clear why he says what he says, and it's not that he thinks it should be required in the dictatorial sense of the term, like some kind of exclusive club. It's that when you do science, it's methodological naturalism, so God isn't required at any point in the work. Thus, he says, it's a pointless thing, even for those scientists who still hold beliefs in the supernatural outside of the realm of science. Despite all the "bomb-throwing", it's actually a fairly unremarkable article, and I think you would be less offended by the jokes here if you read it to get full context.
God is not "required at any point in the work" for most fields lol.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
