Oscar Wilde had some wild thoughts

In one place, he writes that an idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of being called an idea.

In the same dialogue he writes that the security of society lies in custom and unconscious instinct, and the basis of the stability of society, as a healthy organism, is the complete absence of any intelligence amongst its members.

Man, he says, is least himself when he talks in his person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.

And what, you may ask, is truth? To this, his answer is in matters religion, it is simply the opinion that has survived. In matters of science, it is the ultimate sensation. In matters of art, it is one’s last mood.

He says there is much to be said in favour of journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community.

And in what has become too important in our days, he says of art; art is out of the reach of morals, for her eyes are fixed upon things beautiful and immortal and ever changing.

I will stop here for now and go back to my reading.

Have a beautiful week everyone and Pink.

In defence of Thomas

Many times we hear people are called doubting Thomases for demanding evidence or proof of something. Thomas, for those of you new here said to his fellow disciples when they said they had seen the Lord, that except he sees the hands and put his finger through, he is not buying the story. We are told Jesus rebuked him for making this demand. And believers since then take pride in not being Thomas. But I insist for knowledge to progress, we must be Thomas.

Our knowledge has only progressed to the extent that criticism has been alive allowing for testing of ideas, abandoning those that can’t hold and at the same time stating categorically that our knowledge is open to challenge. That we don’t have the final word.

So go out and become a Thomas, proudly and without shame.

on the devil and other news

aka Satan.

Nan says the dude has no real existence. The cuddly one says it is a mistake to think the devil is a myth.


I think the author of this article is not serious. He claims, boldy, that

As C.S. Lewis once observed, even among critics, the teachings of Jesus reflect the highest standard of morality known to man.

which makes me think he hasn’t really considered what he calls the highest standard of morality.

The mythical Dave the author quotes can believe as possible or true natural explanation even when these have not proven as long as they don’t require a miracle. In a world of particles colliding where some of those particles result in thinking beings, wrong and right become very useful indicators as some things are either beneficial or inimical to the continued survival of such species of organisms.

Regis tells us modern man is concerned with, following Maslow, self actualization instead of seeking salvation- individual salvation, so to speak. I see no difference between the two except in the means.

If god exists, Regis must tell us what has taken her so long to provide manna to end starvation? Or to make wine so we all can make merry. Man has been struggling in darkness to solve the problems of man. Were it not for nationalism, short term vision, greed, we could have made progress in how we deal with some of the crisis that face us.

Have a devil free Monday and a good week everyone.

Science and philosophy

Philosophers should be scientists and scientists philosophers. The current rigid separation of science from philosophy is dangerous, for it encourages acquiescence in partial knowledge, leaving the ultimate and all embracing concern with truth only to faith and ideological and racist obscurantism. The separation denies scientists human wisdom and philosophers the sober knowledge of nature. Science without philosophy is wrongly authoritative, while philosophy without science is seriously limited.

Odera Oruka

god, science, evolution

Does science disprove god? so the question gets asked.

Most who are scientifically minded quickly say no. They quickly add science is not in the business of god and accommodationists argue science and religion occupy different magestria.

But is this really the case or is this about modesty?

Take for example the case of evolution. If evolution is fact, Genesis 1 is disproved and this is a case of science disproving god. I may add here, for the benefit of my critique, that the theist could argue that it is their god that put the mechanism for evolution in place. This could be the case but they will have to choose whether such a god is beneficent or omnipotent.

In the same scenario, does an old universe disprove god? I think it does. And more still, whereas both the theist and atheist are ignorant of whether the universe is self existing or created, the atheist can say that so far as we know, all manifestations in nature (that is phenomena) need no supernatural push and to this extent science has shown no divine agency is necessary.

But one may ask about the nature of things in themselves and whether there is an Unknowable something beyond it all. Here, the theist may argue that at the beyond phenomena, in the dark areas where human knowledge can’t penetrate, there, their god resides. The atheist will argue from the indestructibility of matter and persistence of force, lies the source of all things. Since this is beyond all possible experience, conceding this to the theist gives them no advantage over the atheist.

In conclusion, in the area of experience, which is, in my view, the purview of science, it has been demonstrated there is no god, whatever they are conceived to be, but beyond the level of experience, everyone, atheist and theist alike are free to speculate all they want. Each must however remember that to think something could be, does not translate to it being.