one great example is Sean Carroll. He was arguing for the finality of death, at the time saying that when we die we simply cease to exist, and brought Dr. Stephen Novella with him. Forgive Dr. Steve, he is a doctor, not a physicist, but Sean, it is opposite of what he said about his view of time (eternalism). Meaning that no moment in time comes into existence nor cease to exist, therefore nobody appears into existence when they are born nor disappear from reality, beyond memories and works and ideas they have left, when they die. If he simply said we don't experience anything new, or in the moments after last moment of life in order, that would be more consistent. That shows again many American atheists do have allergic reaction to religion that if the religion says one thing, they will say the opposite, probably due to allergic reaction to religious right. But as Sean is a reasonable guy and has no hostility to religion, seems to have allergic reaction to religion. (probably due to aversion to bigotry and lifestyle prescriptions of religious fundamentalists).
I agree with about 90% of the podcast , I do have a few quibbles. You both say there is no precise definition of determinism but how about this; if the universe is deterministic and if you tell me how much error you are willing to tolerate in a prediction and as long as that allowable error is greater than zero then the laws of physics allow me to measure the present state of the universe with sufficient accuracy that I can figure out what things will be like in the future within that margin of error using only a finite number of computations.
Steinhart says atheists are being "Christian normative" and are really just saying they don't believe in Christianity or in any of the Abrahamic religions, perhaps some atheists are only saying that but not all and certainly not the atheist that is writing these words. I say the fundamental ideas behind Hinduism are nearly as ridiculous as Christianity, although I admit Buddhism has not caused as much grief as the other large religions have, I think that's because at least in its original form Buddhism didn't claim to have access to any profound ideas about the nature of reality, it was more of a personal philosophy on how to live a happy contented life. I also think the existence of God and the existence of life after death are two separate questions with no obvious connection between the two; you could have God without life after death and you could have life after death without God, or you could have neither or you could have both.
I was also a little disappointed there was no mention of cryonics.
one great example is Sean Carroll. He was arguing for the finality of death, at the time saying that when we die we simply cease to exist, and brought Dr. Stephen Novella with him. Forgive Dr. Steve, he is a doctor, not a physicist, but Sean, it is opposite of what he said about his view of time (eternalism). Meaning that no moment in time comes into existence nor cease to exist, therefore nobody appears into existence when they are born nor disappear from reality, beyond memories and works and ideas they have left, when they die. If he simply said we don't experience anything new, or in the moments after last moment of life in order, that would be more consistent. That shows again many American atheists do have allergic reaction to religion that if the religion says one thing, they will say the opposite, probably due to allergic reaction to religious right. But as Sean is a reasonable guy and has no hostility to religion, seems to have allergic reaction to religion. (probably due to aversion to bigotry and lifestyle prescriptions of religious fundamentalists).
I agree with about 90% of the podcast , I do have a few quibbles. You both say there is no precise definition of determinism but how about this; if the universe is deterministic and if you tell me how much error you are willing to tolerate in a prediction and as long as that allowable error is greater than zero then the laws of physics allow me to measure the present state of the universe with sufficient accuracy that I can figure out what things will be like in the future within that margin of error using only a finite number of computations.
Steinhart says atheists are being "Christian normative" and are really just saying they don't believe in Christianity or in any of the Abrahamic religions, perhaps some atheists are only saying that but not all and certainly not the atheist that is writing these words. I say the fundamental ideas behind Hinduism are nearly as ridiculous as Christianity, although I admit Buddhism has not caused as much grief as the other large religions have, I think that's because at least in its original form Buddhism didn't claim to have access to any profound ideas about the nature of reality, it was more of a personal philosophy on how to live a happy contented life. I also think the existence of God and the existence of life after death are two separate questions with no obvious connection between the two; you could have God without life after death and you could have life after death without God, or you could have neither or you could have both.
I was also a little disappointed there was no mention of cryonics.
John K Clark