<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Stephen Hawking and Amateur Philosopher Syndrome (APS)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/stephen-hawking-and-amateur-philosopher-syndrome-aps/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/stephen-hawking-and-amateur-philosopher-syndrome-aps/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=stephen-hawking-and-amateur-philosopher-syndrome-aps</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2014 03:41:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Beresowski</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/stephen-hawking-and-amateur-philosopher-syndrome-aps/comment-page-1/#comment-5339654</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Peter Beresowski]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Dec 2013 22:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=186806#comment-5339654</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[posted on the Internet. let that sink in]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>posted on the Internet. let that sink in</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jose</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/stephen-hawking-and-amateur-philosopher-syndrome-aps/comment-page-1/#comment-5310255</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jose]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=186806#comment-5310255</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Called a multiverse ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Called a multiverse </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roy</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/stephen-hawking-and-amateur-philosopher-syndrome-aps/comment-page-1/#comment-5271130</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Roy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Sep 2013 13:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=186806#comment-5271130</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ok I am very mad at the moment after reading some provocative statements by a prominent physicist and I personally think science should tone down the authoritarian voice and start doing whatever they are good at (like collecting facts).

So science tells us that 70% of our universe is made up of dark energy (remaining 30% = 26% dark matter and only 4% ordinary matter). We don&#039;t know what it is neither we can detect it through scientific experiments. From all the evidence and astronomical sightings we can tell it is there.

To put it into perspective, it is like living on the surface of the earth and not knowing what water is. We are like a lizard in the Atacama desert. Even the lizard has more understanding of water than we have of Dark Energy. This is the realm of Philosophy and Spirituality. Beyond science and surely beyond our senses and common logic. 

It is not about knowing it all but it is all about being aware. Hopefully one day fundamental science will catch up with the bigger ideas ;-) to me, awareness and wisdom is not about collecting and making a pile of facts (like science does) but trying to make a complete understanding out of whatever knowledge we already have. Of course we should try to gather facts but we should always emphasize on making a complete understanding from whatever facts we have already gathered.

A famous quote

“The more we learn about the world, and the deeper our learning, the more conscious, specific, and articulate will be our knowledge of what we do not know; our knowledge of our ignorance. For this indeed, is the main source of our ignorance - the fact that our knowledge can be only finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite.”
-Karl Popper

Why would (Stephen Hawking) one of the most intelligent humans alive say such provocative things like &quot;philosophy is dead&quot; and &quot;Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.&quot;

According to Hawking, the conversation about the truth of the world rests in the hands of elite physics professors funded by multinational corporations and national governments.

After all these fundings and use of such brilliant minds the best theory they came up with is Multiverse (a sea of infinite universes). If there are an infinite number of universes with different laws governing each one of them, then one of them will definately have Harry Potter in it. I think it takes a lot less faith to believe that the world was created in 7 days.

I personally think just like religion should not interfere with science, science itself should not intefere with subjects like theology, spirituality and philosophy and make provocative comments to grab attention.

Another famous quote

&quot;Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must seem humble&quot;.
- Albert Einstein

Besides we all know Philosophy &gt; Science. As a human being we are philosophers first and then some of us decide to or forced to damage our brains beyond repair and become scientists. To me it is almost equally wrong to name a bunch of people astronauts, put them in a tight compartment, name it a space shuttle, fill it up with highly explosive rocket fuel, light it up and then sit in the ground control fingers crossed in the name of science compared to sending a man strapped with a bomb to his chest in the name of Jihad.

Philosophy is more basic to human being or shall I say life. Each one of us at some point of our life looked up to the night sky and wondered about the universe. Maybe we came up with an understanding from whatever knowledge we had. Right or wrong doesn&#039;t really matter. The understanding can change as our knowledge increases but how many of us actually think that we can control and predict the universe by some mathematical laws. Unless you are a super control freak and put a lot more faith on Mathematics than a religious person puts in his God, it is highly unlikely that you can be a successful scientist.

Most importantly we should always have an open mind and ready to accept whatever the truth is. Making provocative comments and insulting each other is not going to help. When it comes from such a prominent scientist I think it is even more shameful.

If the truth is God you have to accept God and if the truth is Harry Potter then you have to accept Harry Potter. There is nothing you can do about it.

A final quote

&quot;When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.&quot;
- Sherlock Holmes]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ok I am very mad at the moment after reading some provocative statements by a prominent physicist and I personally think science should tone down the authoritarian voice and start doing whatever they are good at (like collecting facts).</p>
<p>So science tells us that 70% of our universe is made up of dark energy (remaining 30% = 26% dark matter and only 4% ordinary matter). We don&#8217;t know what it is neither we can detect it through scientific experiments. From all the evidence and astronomical sightings we can tell it is there.</p>
<p>To put it into perspective, it is like living on the surface of the earth and not knowing what water is. We are like a lizard in the Atacama desert. Even the lizard has more understanding of water than we have of Dark Energy. This is the realm of Philosophy and Spirituality. Beyond science and surely beyond our senses and common logic. </p>
<p>It is not about knowing it all but it is all about being aware. Hopefully one day fundamental science will catch up with the bigger ideas <img src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif" alt=";-)" class="wp-smiley" />  to me, awareness and wisdom is not about collecting and making a pile of facts (like science does) but trying to make a complete understanding out of whatever knowledge we already have. Of course we should try to gather facts but we should always emphasize on making a complete understanding from whatever facts we have already gathered.</p>
<p>A famous quote</p>
<p>“The more we learn about the world, and the deeper our learning, the more conscious, specific, and articulate will be our knowledge of what we do not know; our knowledge of our ignorance. For this indeed, is the main source of our ignorance &#8211; the fact that our knowledge can be only finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite.”<br />
-Karl Popper</p>
<p>Why would (Stephen Hawking) one of the most intelligent humans alive say such provocative things like &#8220;philosophy is dead&#8221; and &#8220;Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.&#8221;</p>
<p>According to Hawking, the conversation about the truth of the world rests in the hands of elite physics professors funded by multinational corporations and national governments.</p>
<p>After all these fundings and use of such brilliant minds the best theory they came up with is Multiverse (a sea of infinite universes). If there are an infinite number of universes with different laws governing each one of them, then one of them will definately have Harry Potter in it. I think it takes a lot less faith to believe that the world was created in 7 days.</p>
<p>I personally think just like religion should not interfere with science, science itself should not intefere with subjects like theology, spirituality and philosophy and make provocative comments to grab attention.</p>
<p>Another famous quote</p>
<p>&#8220;Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must seem humble&#8221;.<br />
- Albert Einstein</p>
<p>Besides we all know Philosophy &gt; Science. As a human being we are philosophers first and then some of us decide to or forced to damage our brains beyond repair and become scientists. To me it is almost equally wrong to name a bunch of people astronauts, put them in a tight compartment, name it a space shuttle, fill it up with highly explosive rocket fuel, light it up and then sit in the ground control fingers crossed in the name of science compared to sending a man strapped with a bomb to his chest in the name of Jihad.</p>
<p>Philosophy is more basic to human being or shall I say life. Each one of us at some point of our life looked up to the night sky and wondered about the universe. Maybe we came up with an understanding from whatever knowledge we had. Right or wrong doesn&#8217;t really matter. The understanding can change as our knowledge increases but how many of us actually think that we can control and predict the universe by some mathematical laws. Unless you are a super control freak and put a lot more faith on Mathematics than a religious person puts in his God, it is highly unlikely that you can be a successful scientist.</p>
<p>Most importantly we should always have an open mind and ready to accept whatever the truth is. Making provocative comments and insulting each other is not going to help. When it comes from such a prominent scientist I think it is even more shameful.</p>
<p>If the truth is God you have to accept God and if the truth is Harry Potter then you have to accept Harry Potter. There is nothing you can do about it.</p>
<p>A final quote</p>
<p>&#8220;When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.&#8221;<br />
- Sherlock Holmes</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mr. Polly</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/stephen-hawking-and-amateur-philosopher-syndrome-aps/comment-page-1/#comment-4622383</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mr. Polly]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Apr 2013 01:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=186806#comment-4622383</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Even if the universe always existed it still needed to be created.&quot;  It&#039;s impossible to make sense of that statement. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;Even if the universe always existed it still needed to be created.&quot;  It&#039;s impossible to make sense of that statement. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/stephen-hawking-and-amateur-philosopher-syndrome-aps/comment-page-1/#comment-4594939</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 22:31:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=186806#comment-4594939</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Given the context of this article, I find the comments of Theo Prinse particuarly ironic. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Given the context of this article, I find the comments of Theo Prinse particuarly ironic. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nehama</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/stephen-hawking-and-amateur-philosopher-syndrome-aps/comment-page-1/#comment-4591231</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Nehama]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:10:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=186806#comment-4591231</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You are entitled to you opinion, how ever wrong it may be. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are entitled to you opinion, how ever wrong it may be. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nehama</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/stephen-hawking-and-amateur-philosopher-syndrome-aps/comment-page-1/#comment-4591164</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Nehama]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:02:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=186806#comment-4591164</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[1. My statement was no more dogmatic than the idiot I was responding to. 2. the miswah of &quot;treat others as yourself&quot; does not need a why; if you are a Jew or a Christian you keep it because it is in the Torah, if you&#039;re an atheist you keep it because you have sense of empathy and a survival instinct. 3. Survival of the fittest is not a &quot;rule&quot; in any sense of the word, it is a description of historical natural selection not a template for future action. Survival of the fittest neither supports nor contradicts the golden rule. The fitness for edelweiss to survive at 3000 ft is not impacted by whether it is able empathise with mountain goats. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>1. My statement was no more dogmatic than the idiot I was responding to. 2. the miswah of &quot;treat others as yourself&quot; does not need a why; if you are a Jew or a Christian you keep it because it is in the Torah, if you&#039;re an atheist you keep it because you have sense of empathy and a survival instinct. 3. Survival of the fittest is not a &quot;rule&quot; in any sense of the word, it is a description of historical natural selection not a template for future action. Survival of the fittest neither supports nor contradicts the golden rule. The fitness for edelweiss to survive at 3000 ft is not impacted by whether it is able empathise with mountain goats. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nehama</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/stephen-hawking-and-amateur-philosopher-syndrome-aps/comment-page-1/#comment-4590976</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[nehama]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 14:42:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=186806#comment-4590976</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[No it&#039;s not. You don&#039;t have to have an opinion about the existance of the universe to treat others as you would like them to treat you, you just need a normal ability to empathise with others (i.e. you are not a sociopath). The universe doesn&#039;t come into it. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No it&#039;s not. You don&#039;t have to have an opinion about the existance of the universe to treat others as you would like them to treat you, you just need a normal ability to empathise with others (i.e. you are not a sociopath). The universe doesn&#039;t come into it. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nabrahami</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/stephen-hawking-and-amateur-philosopher-syndrome-aps/comment-page-1/#comment-4590891</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[nabrahami]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 14:35:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=186806#comment-4590891</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why not? ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why not? </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fritz</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/stephen-hawking-and-amateur-philosopher-syndrome-aps/comment-page-1/#comment-4586900</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Fritz]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 06:53:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=186806#comment-4586900</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ I&#039;ve been puzzled with the concept for some time about the idea of our universe only being one of many. While it makes an interesting theory for discussion, as well as creating plenty of fodder for science fiction stories, where are these other universes? Do they exist in fact or are we supposed to defer to an authority, like Mr. Hawking, and hold faith that they are real and do exist?  
  Since the dawn of Marxism there has also been a from of dogmatic orthodoxy perpetuated through the Western World that you are only a true scientist if you denounce and ridicule the belief in a creator or of a higher power. History of course contradicts this, many of the great scientists of the last 300 years not only believed in a higher power but were senior members of a church. Lord Kelvin, Isaac Newton, and ironically Charles Darwin were three examples of this. True science is about asking questions and seeing what answers you can find, not deferring to orthodoxies handed down by an unquestionable authority.  Only a fool would suggest that there is nothing left to know, that there is some unified law that explains all of creation.   ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> I&#039;ve been puzzled with the concept for some time about the idea of our universe only being one of many. While it makes an interesting theory for discussion, as well as creating plenty of fodder for science fiction stories, where are these other universes? Do they exist in fact or are we supposed to defer to an authority, like Mr. Hawking, and hold faith that they are real and do exist?<br />
  Since the dawn of Marxism there has also been a from of dogmatic orthodoxy perpetuated through the Western World that you are only a true scientist if you denounce and ridicule the belief in a creator or of a higher power. History of course contradicts this, many of the great scientists of the last 300 years not only believed in a higher power but were senior members of a church. Lord Kelvin, Isaac Newton, and ironically Charles Darwin were three examples of this. True science is about asking questions and seeing what answers you can find, not deferring to orthodoxies handed down by an unquestionable authority.  Only a fool would suggest that there is nothing left to know, that there is some unified law that explains all of creation.   </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: truebearing</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/stephen-hawking-and-amateur-philosopher-syndrome-aps/comment-page-1/#comment-4586302</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[truebearing]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 05:33:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=186806#comment-4586302</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hawking can&#039;t figure out that the awareness of a separate universe necessarily means that it isn&#039;t a separate universe because he has knowledge of its existence, yet arrogantly dismisses the existence of God...from his wheelchair. Could there possibly be a more fitting example of the finite trying to reduce infinity? ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hawking can&#039;t figure out that the awareness of a separate universe necessarily means that it isn&#039;t a separate universe because he has knowledge of its existence, yet arrogantly dismisses the existence of God&#8230;from his wheelchair. Could there possibly be a more fitting example of the finite trying to reduce infinity? </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: truebearing</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/stephen-hawking-and-amateur-philosopher-syndrome-aps/comment-page-1/#comment-4586188</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[truebearing]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 05:19:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=186806#comment-4586188</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[More of the Nincompoop&#039;s Manifesto, I see. Have you considered editing this diatribe with a food processor? I think it would read better. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>More of the Nincompoop&#039;s Manifesto, I see. Have you considered editing this diatribe with a food processor? I think it would read better. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: truebearing</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/stephen-hawking-and-amateur-philosopher-syndrome-aps/comment-page-1/#comment-4586156</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[truebearing]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 05:14:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=186806#comment-4586156</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It appears that the infinitely small particles have formed the nucleus of your brain.  
 
You say &quot;materialism derives truth,&quot; but how can that be? Truth is metaphysical. The rest of your convolutions are just as ridiculous, not to mention exremely poorly written. Maybe you should try to justify your absurd epistemic arrogance before taking a header on the rocks of ontology.  
 
The only thing you proved was that you can cut and paste incoherence. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It appears that the infinitely small particles have formed the nucleus of your brain.  </p>
<p>You say &quot;materialism derives truth,&quot; but how can that be? Truth is metaphysical. The rest of your convolutions are just as ridiculous, not to mention exremely poorly written. Maybe you should try to justify your absurd epistemic arrogance before taking a header on the rocks of ontology.  </p>
<p>The only thing you proved was that you can cut and paste incoherence. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: truebearing</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/stephen-hawking-and-amateur-philosopher-syndrome-aps/comment-page-1/#comment-4586064</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[truebearing]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 05:01:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=186806#comment-4586064</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Both your life and intellect are severely limited by the inescapable reality that you are mortal. You have neither the time to acquire enough knowledge, nor the capacity to comprehend all that you see in your fleeting life, so how can you be so ontologically arrogant? ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Both your life and intellect are severely limited by the inescapable reality that you are mortal. You have neither the time to acquire enough knowledge, nor the capacity to comprehend all that you see in your fleeting life, so how can you be so ontologically arrogant? </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rex</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/stephen-hawking-and-amateur-philosopher-syndrome-aps/comment-page-1/#comment-4584720</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rex]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 02:36:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=186806#comment-4584720</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Kerwick?  Just another case of ASS (Amateur Scientist Syndrome).  He for sure knows nothing about quantum mechanics and general relativity.  He&#039;d better just go back in his hole and continue to waste his life away talking about fairy tales.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kerwick?  Just another case of ASS (Amateur Scientist Syndrome).  He for sure knows nothing about quantum mechanics and general relativity.  He&#8217;d better just go back in his hole and continue to waste his life away talking about fairy tales.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: watermelonbeast</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/stephen-hawking-and-amateur-philosopher-syndrome-aps/comment-page-1/#comment-4584594</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[watermelonbeast]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 02:28:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=186806#comment-4584594</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Drajables must be the leader of the Deepak.. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Drajables must be the leader of the Deepak.. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Infovoyeur</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/stephen-hawking-and-amateur-philosopher-syndrome-aps/comment-page-1/#comment-4583010</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Infovoyeur]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 00:43:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=186806#comment-4583010</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Gosh, &quot;try to take a picture with a camera with no lens.&quot;  &quot;I got a blurrrr.&quot;  &#039;Right, a lens is mandatory to see anything, but every lens is tho powerful still partial plus skewed.  Further, the Proof of Truth etc. is not Out-There in the subject (a deity, or infinite atoms) but within the lens being used!!!!!&quot;  &quot;Wow, it&#039;s bleak plus confusing, what should I do now?&quot;  &quot;Heck, try the efficient lens of Existentialism.  It says, first existence, then essence.  Surrounded by obviiod occultings, we make our own reality.  And sometimes we do well and sometimes alas ill, because the MostComplexThingInTheUniverse, the human brain, is clever but not always human-e.  So, try for the best or better, eh.  Thus endeth the scientific sermon for today.&quot;  ........  &quot;Gosh, that&#039;s depressing.  Guess I better go out and get me a different nicely-conforting Lens, eh....&quot;     ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gosh, &quot;try to take a picture with a camera with no lens.&quot;  &quot;I got a blurrrr.&quot;  &#039;Right, a lens is mandatory to see anything, but every lens is tho powerful still partial plus skewed.  Further, the Proof of Truth etc. is not Out-There in the subject (a deity, or infinite atoms) but within the lens being used!!!!!&quot;  &quot;Wow, it&#039;s bleak plus confusing, what should I do now?&quot;  &quot;Heck, try the efficient lens of Existentialism.  It says, first existence, then essence.  Surrounded by obviiod occultings, we make our own reality.  And sometimes we do well and sometimes alas ill, because the MostComplexThingInTheUniverse, the human brain, is clever but not always human-e.  So, try for the best or better, eh.  Thus endeth the scientific sermon for today.&quot;  &#8230;&#8230;..  &quot;Gosh, that&#039;s depressing.  Guess I better go out and get me a different nicely-conforting Lens, eh&#8230;.&quot;     </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Donald DaCosta</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/stephen-hawking-and-amateur-philosopher-syndrome-aps/comment-page-1/#comment-4581589</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Donald DaCosta]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:02:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=186806#comment-4581589</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hawking&#039;s &quot;egregious&quot; error in expressing his Atheist views are no more egregious than the author&#039;s absolute, irrevocable belief that an even more mysterious, mythical being created it all from &quot;nothing.&quot; The currently predominant, scientific, &#8220;Big Bang&#8221; theory of creation itself, the one Mr. Hawking ascribes to, is struggling with the so called &#8220;singularity,&#8221; a beginning erupting from nothing. Is Mr. Kerwick&#039;s &#8220;nothing&#8221; more significant than Hawking&#039;s? 
 
Mr. Kerwick asserts that those &#8220;afflicted&#8221; with APS &#8220;assume that there is but one legitimate tongue in which to speak of reality:&#8221; implying that perhaps his is a better one. 
 
In another quote Kerwick belittles Hawking&#039;s implying that &#8220;human beings [are] but &#039;mere collections of fundamental particles of nature&#039;&#8221; and goes on to presume what Hawking meant with his use of the term, &#8220;mere&#8221; and semantically twists that meaning to fit his APS assertion. But the scientific fact is that every atom that makes up every molecule of every cell of every type in every plant, animal, mineral, etc., in our entire world, and perhaps the entire universe, including us, derives from the Big Bang and the continuous birth and death of stars. We are, quite literally, made from stardust and it is far more likely that that was Hawking&#039;s meaning. 
 
Does this conclusion in any way preclude the existence of God? Is the search for understanding the fundamental laws of nature somehow offensive to God? If, as the religionists believe, God made man in His image is not this search for understanding reflect the validity of that belief? 
 
Further, Mr. Hawking&#039;s poor choice of the word &#8220;mere&#8221; does not make his assertion idle  conjecture or mysticism. The fusion of fundamental particles into the 92 elements requires enormous, humanly incomprehensible amounts of energy. The 1st 26 of the 92 fundamental elements required temperatures of millions of degrees, The remaining 66, temperatures reaching billions of degrees. These temperatures only occur deep inside  stars of different mass when they collapse and die and release enormous quantities of the fundamental elements which eventually coalesce and form the planets and stars that become solar systems like that surrounding our sun,  
 
Does this incredibly dynamic, cataclysmic and enormously powerful scientific phenomena concerning creation, contradict or confirm the existence of God? Hawking thinks the former, but Kerwick and nearly every religious being on the planet are free to choose the latter. In fact this could easily be determined to be quite consistent with Divine Creation. 
 
Mr. Kerwick then says the following: &#8220;As long as the world is thought of as a distinct creation of God, it is assumed to be both rational and good, i.e. a proper object of study.&#8221; Is this apparently philosophical theory, based on assumption, any more valid than any of Mr. Hawking&#039;s proven, at least, to a mathematical certainty? And if so, why does it not follow that if Mr. Hawking does not believe in divine creation he should have no interest at all in what he has spent his entire, tortured life immersed in a, so far, futile attempt to understand its root, fundamental nature. As a result Hawking has won the following awards for his efforts: Presidential Medal of Freedom, Copley Medal, Albert Einstein Medal, Wolf Prize in Physics, Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Hughes Medal, Eddington Medal, Dirac Medal of the Institute of Physics. 
 
Mr. Kerwick is free to say what he likes about Stephen Hawking or any other Atheist, but he himself could be criticized for having the dreaded Philosopher Professor Syndrome  shared by at least an equal number of individuals who believe their credentials render their opinions an air of infallibility. 
 
This article comes across as the knee jerk response of a religious professor to a speech given by an equally accomplished scientist who openly expresses his disbelief in Divine Creation. How dare he. 
 
 ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hawking&#039;s &quot;egregious&quot; error in expressing his Atheist views are no more egregious than the author&#039;s absolute, irrevocable belief that an even more mysterious, mythical being created it all from &quot;nothing.&quot; The currently predominant, scientific, &ldquo;Big Bang&rdquo; theory of creation itself, the one Mr. Hawking ascribes to, is struggling with the so called &ldquo;singularity,&rdquo; a beginning erupting from nothing. Is Mr. Kerwick&#039;s &ldquo;nothing&rdquo; more significant than Hawking&#039;s? </p>
<p>Mr. Kerwick asserts that those &ldquo;afflicted&rdquo; with APS &ldquo;assume that there is but one legitimate tongue in which to speak of reality:&rdquo; implying that perhaps his is a better one. </p>
<p>In another quote Kerwick belittles Hawking&#039;s implying that &ldquo;human beings [are] but &#039;mere collections of fundamental particles of nature&#039;&rdquo; and goes on to presume what Hawking meant with his use of the term, &ldquo;mere&rdquo; and semantically twists that meaning to fit his APS assertion. But the scientific fact is that every atom that makes up every molecule of every cell of every type in every plant, animal, mineral, etc., in our entire world, and perhaps the entire universe, including us, derives from the Big Bang and the continuous birth and death of stars. We are, quite literally, made from stardust and it is far more likely that that was Hawking&#039;s meaning. </p>
<p>Does this conclusion in any way preclude the existence of God? Is the search for understanding the fundamental laws of nature somehow offensive to God? If, as the religionists believe, God made man in His image is not this search for understanding reflect the validity of that belief? </p>
<p>Further, Mr. Hawking&#039;s poor choice of the word &ldquo;mere&rdquo; does not make his assertion idle  conjecture or mysticism. The fusion of fundamental particles into the 92 elements requires enormous, humanly incomprehensible amounts of energy. The 1st 26 of the 92 fundamental elements required temperatures of millions of degrees, The remaining 66, temperatures reaching billions of degrees. These temperatures only occur deep inside  stars of different mass when they collapse and die and release enormous quantities of the fundamental elements which eventually coalesce and form the planets and stars that become solar systems like that surrounding our sun,  </p>
<p>Does this incredibly dynamic, cataclysmic and enormously powerful scientific phenomena concerning creation, contradict or confirm the existence of God? Hawking thinks the former, but Kerwick and nearly every religious being on the planet are free to choose the latter. In fact this could easily be determined to be quite consistent with Divine Creation. </p>
<p>Mr. Kerwick then says the following: &ldquo;As long as the world is thought of as a distinct creation of God, it is assumed to be both rational and good, i.e. a proper object of study.&rdquo; Is this apparently philosophical theory, based on assumption, any more valid than any of Mr. Hawking&#039;s proven, at least, to a mathematical certainty? And if so, why does it not follow that if Mr. Hawking does not believe in divine creation he should have no interest at all in what he has spent his entire, tortured life immersed in a, so far, futile attempt to understand its root, fundamental nature. As a result Hawking has won the following awards for his efforts: Presidential Medal of Freedom, Copley Medal, Albert Einstein Medal, Wolf Prize in Physics, Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Hughes Medal, Eddington Medal, Dirac Medal of the Institute of Physics. </p>
<p>Mr. Kerwick is free to say what he likes about Stephen Hawking or any other Atheist, but he himself could be criticized for having the dreaded Philosopher Professor Syndrome  shared by at least an equal number of individuals who believe their credentials render their opinions an air of infallibility. </p>
<p>This article comes across as the knee jerk response of a religious professor to a speech given by an equally accomplished scientist who openly expresses his disbelief in Divine Creation. How dare he. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mkat68</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/stephen-hawking-and-amateur-philosopher-syndrome-aps/comment-page-1/#comment-4580895</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[mkat68]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 22:18:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=186806#comment-4580895</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So what is the causative agent for these natural origins you speak of? You can&#039;t have an effect without a cause.   ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So what is the causative agent for these natural origins you speak of? You can&#039;t have an effect without a cause.   </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tagalog</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/stephen-hawking-and-amateur-philosopher-syndrome-aps/comment-page-1/#comment-4579368</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[tagalog]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 20:48:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=186806#comment-4579368</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[First, we let the ideas of the mush-minded become our intellectual guidelines.  
 
Then, in compassion for the victims of the Nazi hunt-down of innocent people, we let a lot of university professors who subscribed to the disciplines of logical positivism into this country, where their ideas (for the best of reasons) became the conventional wisdom over the next half-century. They were very valuable people and they had to be saved, but they had some ideas that have corrupted our culture.  
 
Then, we taught the generations that came of age during the time period 1960-2000 or so, mush-minded rational materialism. As a result, we lost the primary conception and goal of learning and experience, namely to develop virtue. We traded moral standards for open-mindedness, a trade that was not without its drawbacks. We are now so open-minded that our brains have fallen out. We became very skilled at making ourselves comfortable and making life far more convenient and entertaining, but we lost any sense of limits and most of our standards (I think God will punish us for that).  
 
Now we have a new generation and about half of the older generations wondering how to get back on track.  
 
We&#039;re having a difficult time of that because those people of that 50-year period are going to be running the U.S.A. for quite a while yet. They are also subverting our youth and having some success at that. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First, we let the ideas of the mush-minded become our intellectual guidelines.  </p>
<p>Then, in compassion for the victims of the Nazi hunt-down of innocent people, we let a lot of university professors who subscribed to the disciplines of logical positivism into this country, where their ideas (for the best of reasons) became the conventional wisdom over the next half-century. They were very valuable people and they had to be saved, but they had some ideas that have corrupted our culture.  </p>
<p>Then, we taught the generations that came of age during the time period 1960-2000 or so, mush-minded rational materialism. As a result, we lost the primary conception and goal of learning and experience, namely to develop virtue. We traded moral standards for open-mindedness, a trade that was not without its drawbacks. We are now so open-minded that our brains have fallen out. We became very skilled at making ourselves comfortable and making life far more convenient and entertaining, but we lost any sense of limits and most of our standards (I think God will punish us for that).  </p>
<p>Now we have a new generation and about half of the older generations wondering how to get back on track.  </p>
<p>We&#039;re having a difficult time of that because those people of that 50-year period are going to be running the U.S.A. for quite a while yet. They are also subverting our youth and having some success at that. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 700/727 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-29 22:45:26 by W3 Total Cache -->