Claim: blog comments sections unlikely to resolve issue of existence of God

Posted on February 10, 2009 by Walter Olson

Oh well, in that case, back to the drawing board.

About Walter Olson

Fellow at a think tank in the Northeast specializing in law. Websites include overlawyered.com. Former columnist for Reason and Times Online (U.K.), contributor to National Review, etc.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Claim: blog comments sections unlikely to resolve issue of existence of God

  1. chaosdrew says:
    February 10, 2009 at 1:08 pm

    Sounds like the headline of an Onion article: Meaning of Life discovered in Fark thread. Founder declares “topic resolved, now here’s a picture of cat with a funny caption stapled to its ass.”

  2. Saunders says:
    February 10, 2009 at 5:30 pm

    Sometimes, legitimate headlines are the funniest. As a longtime blog commenter however, I feel as though… I shall never be fulfilled. Are we certain this claim can’t be refuted?

  3. Caledonian says:
    February 11, 2009 at 10:09 am

    Define “resolve”.

    If it means “the cessation of people arguing”, probably the only thing that could resolve the debate would be the complete extermination of one of the factions, with regular killings to prevent its reformation.

    If it means “establish the correctness of one or more of the sides in the debate”, we don’t need blogs. It’s already happened, long ago.

  4. Kevembuangga says:
    February 11, 2009 at 10:46 am

    probably the only thing that could resolve the debate would be the complete extermination of one of the factions, with regular killings to prevent its reformation.

    Yes, but this is what Darwinian selection is about, though it is likely to take quite a long time in this case 🙂
    There is definitely something weird in the dismissal of plain everyday evidence in favor of ethereal fantasies:
    The proposition that biological novelty proceeds from a purely chaotic source is thus a proposition about the nature of existence as such – it is a proposition in metaphysics. Thus it is vulnerable to analytical or metaphysical refutation.
    Scholastic “truths” from pure speculation supposedly taking over one’s “lying eyes”.
    There must be a biological basis to explain this, a “wiring error” of some sort which (hopefully) can be weeded out like any other maladaptive feature.

Comments are closed.