Statistically, cynical mistrust is correlated with premature sudden death from cardio vascular disease. Since the skeptics who write venomous blogs trust in nothing, I imagine that God will outlive them. In the interests of better health, these people should read scripture, or at least a poem, twice a day. Doctor’s orders.
A doctor of what, Deepak? Straw man arguments.
No skeptic, to my knowledge, ever made a major scientific discovery or advanced the welfare of others.
Ever hear of Socrates? Plato? Benjamin Franklin? Edward Jenner? Charles Darwin? Albert Einstein? Stephen Hawking? Harry Houdini? James Randi? Carl Sagan? Hell, you constantly reference Richard Dawkins in your article, Dee, and obviously he’s been a science educator for decades and is largely responsible for advancing the idea of memes. So your article lacks even internal consistency.
Typically they sit by the side of the road with a sign that reads “You’re Wrong” so that every passerby, whether an Einstein, Gandhi, Newton, or Darwin, can gain the benefit of their illuminated skepticism.
Guess you have heard of some of the skeptics who have advanced human welfare afterall. It’s a shame that you fail to grasp the difference between someone who shouts people down out of hand and someone demanding scientific claims be backed up with physical evidence and reasoned logic.
That being said though, as much as you New Age guru types love to insist that everyone’s right and no one’s ever wrong (except apparently their own critics), some times people really are wrong. And in such cases, the intellectually dishonest thing to do is to tell them that they are wrong, ideally while describing the reasons that led to the conclusion that they’re wrong.
For make no mistake, the skeptics of the past were as eager to shoot down new theories as they are to worship the old ones once science has validated them.
I’m confused. Are you criticizing unnamed, hypothetically skeptics of the past or current skeptics like your favorite target, Richard Dawkins. Speaking of which, can you please cite a single example of Dawkins unreasonably shooting someone down without being able to back up that position with substantive evidence?
It never occurs to skeptics that a sense of wonder is paramount, even for scientists.
Are you kidding? Carl Sagain didn’t have a sense of wonder?
Neil DeGrasse Tyson doesn’t have a sense of wonder?
Richard Dawkins doesn’t have a sense of wonder?
I beg to differ. In fact, the only dismissive one here seems to be you, Dee.
Einstein insisted, in fact, that no great discovery can be made without a sense of awe before the mysteries of the universe.
Again, your preposterous article lacks internal consistency. Does Einstein lack a sense of wonder or insist on it? Which is it, Dee?
Skeptics know in advance — or think they know — what right thought is.
That’s a denier, Dee. A skeptic is someone who weighs the evidence and bases their conclusions on evidence. It’s you who arrogantly professes greater knowledge than can be demonstrably proven and chastises those who have the audacity to disagree with you. Pot. Kettle. Black. Chopra.
Thirty years ago no right-thinking physician accepted the mind-body connection as a valid, powerful mode of treatment. Today, no right-thinking physician (or very few) would trace physical illness to sickness of the soul, or accept that the body is a creation of consciousness, or tell a patient to change the expression of his genes.
Wow. There’s so much that’s wrong with those two sentences that I don’t even want to attempt a point-by-point critique. Soul? Dee, care to present some evidence for that soul that “right-thinking” people believe in so much?
Dee, you’re right about one thing. No sane, rational person would doubt that you’ve got a big imagination. The problem, however, is that perhaps you’ve overdosed on the stuff. Maybe you should switch to pot. Less long-term brain damage.