May 2nd, 2012

bilbo

Colbert goodness

Stephen Colbert interviewed Diane Keaton:

Collapse )

I'm sitting here trying to work out just why it's so hilarious. It's really about nothing and in the best way; but I can't work out just why it tickled my fancy so much. Regardless; it made me laugh heartily. Do give it a watch. (It gets a bit PG13ish at times, but nothing you haven't seen on primetime.)
bilbo

philosophy vs science vs theology

An astrophysicist has been in the news lately for blasting philosophy and theology, following some harsh reviews of his latest book by philosophers. I'll probably blog more about it later, but for now I was wondering: what do people think the difference is between these three areas? I'm not interested so much in whether you think they're good, but more where you draw the line between the different areas.

An example: I'm researching the ontological argument. Basically, this argument says two things. First, that (given a certain definition of "God"), it's logically impossible that this definition not refer to something that actually exists. Whether or not you think this argument makes sense, is it theology? Or philosophy? Or is it in some sense science? And why? (Something can be science without being good; for example, the idea that the world is only 6,000 years old may be scientific; it's just bad science.)

I'd really like to know. What do you think of when you hear these words and where do you draw the line between them?