Comments on: How Not to Frame a Question

By: Gene Callahan

Gene Callahan — Mon, 19 May 2008 23:52:17 +0000

“as it begins providing rough solutions to mysteries we once turned to religion to explain?”

Sigh. No one who correctly understood religion ever saw it as explanations that could be substituted for by scientific explanations. For instance, the Greeks did not think of Zeus as the ’cause’ of thunder in anything like the way we think of electricity as its cause or we think of GWB as the cause of the Iraq War.

By: Julian Sanchez

Julian Sanchez — Thu, 08 May 2008 14:17:37 +0000

“But isn’t there ambiguity and vagueness lurking beneath ~every~ question?”

No.

By: RM

RM — Thu, 08 May 2008 13:07:21 +0000

But isn’t there ambiguity and vagueness lurking beneath ~every~ question? Even the more precise ones you unpack here? I mean, what the hell is omniscience? Ever tried to really break down that concept? If you define God as omniscient and omnipotent, and articulate that in the question, it’s still a reasonable response to call the question and disagreements about it meaningless. So the Templeton Foundation Q was vague; so what.

By: Kevin B. O'Reilly

Kevin B. O'Reilly — Thu, 08 May 2008 00:05:24 +0000

How would you have framed the question? Or, rather, since it’s not clear what question they are intending to ask, what would be a good framing of a question along these lines?