<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.1.3" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Last Magician</title>
	<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/23/the-last-magician/</link>
	<description>Exposing the ugly truths about the Bush Administration.</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Oct 2008 06:59:19 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: The Mahablog &#187; The Wisdom of Doubt: The Series</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/23/the-last-magician/#comment-269080</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:41:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/23/the-last-magician/#comment-269080</guid>
					<description>[...] &amp;#8220;The Last Magician&amp;#8221; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>[&#8230;] &#8220;The Last Magician&#8221; [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/23/the-last-magician/#comment-265479</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2007 05:06:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/23/the-last-magician/#comment-265479</guid>
					<description>Ya know, I don't think there is a problem with granting a degree to a student who can't &quot;“truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer” to the question of mankind’s origin&quot; as long as that student can explain in detail the workings of that answer in  a provisional and theoretical sense.

If they can do the work, whether they believe it is based on observable truth or a lie or an illusion is not really relevant. 

The sanity or motives of a student who claims to be dedicating his or her life (or a big chunk of it, anyway) to a system of thought that he or she considers an error at best and a demonic lie at worst are another story.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Ya know, I don&#8217;t think there is a problem with granting a degree to a student who can&#8217;t &#8220;“truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer” to the question of mankind’s origin&#8221; as long as that student can explain in detail the workings of that answer in  a provisional and theoretical sense.</p>
	<p>If they can do the work, whether they believe it is based on observable truth or a lie or an illusion is not really relevant. </p>
	<p>The sanity or motives of a student who claims to be dedicating his or her life (or a big chunk of it, anyway) to a system of thought that he or she considers an error at best and a demonic lie at worst are another story.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: QrazyQat</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/23/the-last-magician/#comment-265390</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:56:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/23/the-last-magician/#comment-265390</guid>
					<description>If Newton came up for a position today and claimed that his Newtonian physics was the be all and end all of physics he wouldn't be hired either.  That was a sensible view in his day (after he'd formulated it) and for a long time after, but it just isn't now.  And Newton, if he lived now, would know that -- he wasn't stupid.

There are many people from the past, genius-level people in their fields, who would have many forehead slapping moments as they learned what their fields had found out since their day.  We've simply learned as we went along through the centuries -- is this really so unbelieveable?  Is it really such a hard concept for rightwingers to understand?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>If Newton came up for a position today and claimed that his Newtonian physics was the be all and end all of physics he wouldn&#8217;t be hired either.  That was a sensible view in his day (after he&#8217;d formulated it) and for a long time after, but it just isn&#8217;t now.  And Newton, if he lived now, would know that &#8212; he wasn&#8217;t stupid.</p>
	<p>There are many people from the past, genius-level people in their fields, who would have many forehead slapping moments as they learned what their fields had found out since their day.  We&#8217;ve simply learned as we went along through the centuries &#8212; is this really so unbelieveable?  Is it really such a hard concept for rightwingers to understand?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: SteveG</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/23/the-last-magician/#comment-265299</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/23/the-last-magician/#comment-265299</guid>
					<description>Newton actually was extremely intolerant when it came to religion.  He cut his teeth politically fighting against a royal order to seat a Catholic member of the faculty at Cambridge.

Of course, his own brand of Protestantism is also rather unorthodox.  He was a Unitarian (although not in the contemporary sense of Unitarian Universalism), convinced that the trinity was an error introduced by Augustine.  This held out a bit of a problem when he was being considered for a chair at Trinity College...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Newton actually was extremely intolerant when it came to religion.  He cut his teeth politically fighting against a royal order to seat a Catholic member of the faculty at Cambridge.</p>
	<p>Of course, his own brand of Protestantism is also rather unorthodox.  He was a Unitarian (although not in the contemporary sense of Unitarian Universalism), convinced that the trinity was an error introduced by Augustine.  This held out a bit of a problem when he was being considered for a chair at Trinity College&#8230;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Marshall</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/23/the-last-magician/#comment-265239</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2007 03:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/23/the-last-magician/#comment-265239</guid>
					<description>This is just wrong, wrong, wrong.

The U.K. was not at the time, nor is it still, organized on the principles of the separation of church and state. We are.

Newton kept most of his alchemical thinking deeply hidden; it didn't come out till long after his death, when that collection of papers was found. In any case, he was appointed the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics (the current holder is Stephan Hawkings, by the way), and one of the criteria was that the holder could not be active in the Church. Newton used that to appeal to Charles II that he not be required to take Holy Orders, his appeal was accepted, and he never did. So, while he had his mystical side, when the state tried to make a him a man of the cloth, he refused.

Newton's laws did more than other single intellectual act to bring on the enlightenment, by removing the need for an interventionist God. He did more to rid the world of superstition than probably any other person.  

As Warden of the Royal Mint, he had his share of experience with conmen and grifters; he had several convicted, drawn, and quartered. While he did try and find hidden messages in the Bible, this too he tried to do with intellectual rigor, and his purpose was at least partially &quot;to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail.&quot; I have a feeling that he would have a lot to say about our current batch of ecclesiastical grifters, and that it would not be very complementary.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>This is just wrong, wrong, wrong.</p>
	<p>The U.K. was not at the time, nor is it still, organized on the principles of the separation of church and state. We are.</p>
	<p>Newton kept most of his alchemical thinking deeply hidden; it didn&#8217;t come out till long after his death, when that collection of papers was found. In any case, he was appointed the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics (the current holder is Stephan Hawkings, by the way), and one of the criteria was that the holder could not be active in the Church. Newton used that to appeal to Charles II that he not be required to take Holy Orders, his appeal was accepted, and he never did. So, while he had his mystical side, when the state tried to make a him a man of the cloth, he refused.</p>
	<p>Newton&#8217;s laws did more than other single intellectual act to bring on the enlightenment, by removing the need for an interventionist God. He did more to rid the world of superstition than probably any other person.  </p>
	<p>As Warden of the Royal Mint, he had his share of experience with conmen and grifters; he had several convicted, drawn, and quartered. While he did try and find hidden messages in the Bible, this too he tried to do with intellectual rigor, and his purpose was at least partially &#8220;to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail.&#8221; I have a feeling that he would have a lot to say about our current batch of ecclesiastical grifters, and that it would not be very complementary.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Doug Hughes</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/23/the-last-magician/#comment-265235</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2007 02:50:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/23/the-last-magician/#comment-265235</guid>
					<description>If you make even a casual look at Albert Einstein, you will find a profound philosopher and humanist, who never let his devotion to science eclipse his conscience, or allowed his personal beliefs to affect his mathematics. The realms of science &amp;#38; spirit are not exclusive - but dogma... that has been a casualty of science on more than one occasion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>If you make even a casual look at Albert Einstein, you will find a profound philosopher and humanist, who never let his devotion to science eclipse his conscience, or allowed his personal beliefs to affect his mathematics. The realms of science &amp; spirit are not exclusive - but dogma&#8230; that has been a casualty of science on more than one occasion.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: maha</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/23/the-last-magician/#comment-265206</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:31:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/23/the-last-magician/#comment-265206</guid>
					<description>Thanks for the correction.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Thanks for the correction.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: wmr</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/23/the-last-magician/#comment-265202</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:12:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/23/the-last-magician/#comment-265202</guid>
					<description>The link doesn't go to the Jacoby column.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>The link doesn&#8217;t go to the Jacoby column.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
