nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index nglreturns.myfreeforum.org
Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


That nice Mr Attenborough
Page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.






Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
Lexilogio
Well Known Chatterbox...


Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 7585


Location: North of the Watford Gap

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 9:22 pm    Post subject:  Reply with quote

I do agree that Darwin was clearly one of the most influential figures in history, and I think that is largely because he challenged accepted belief, and caused not only a generation, but also those that followed to think about their beliefs.

Was he "the most influential"? Well, that is always a difficult one to argue, either way.

Who else has been so influential? Jesus? Mohammed? Einstein? Plato? Aristotle? St Paul? Buddha? We find those who impact on religion often have a wide influence, but there is also significant influence from science. There would be an argument for Gallileo.

Do you think anyone alive today, or recently, would have significant long term influence?
_________________
Lexi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Boyg
Senior Community Member


Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Posts: 3527



PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shaker wrote:
Boss Cat wrote:
Darwin was a hugely significant figure, but I disagree with you Leonard!  And no-one, no-one has explored what being human means as brilliantly as Shakespeare did.  Well that's my view anyway.  But how would you measure these things.  Sorry Sir David, you are wrong on that one!

If the world's history had panned out exactly as it has - Shakespeare included - but if Darwin had never lived we'd find ourselves in the position of having some phenomenal plays and poems but no understanding of the origins of the sort of animal who writes phenomenal plays and poems. Shakespeare, pre-Darwin, had no such understanding: post-Darwin, we do.


If Darwin had not existed then I have no doubt that someone else would have formulated the same theory for evolution (and probably not that long afterwards).

I doubt if anyone else would have written the works of Shakespeare though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Boss Cat
Junior Community Member


Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 365


Location: it's good here

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think Darwin did not particularly want to publish but had to publish because someone else was about to - is that true?  I half remember this but it might be the wrong half.  One thing that has been said about me again and again is that I have a magpie brain, it picks up bright things.  True, but it doesn't put them together very well!

I think most inventions/discoveries are a kind of race which is kind of what I meant when I said when does one person's work end and another begins...to a point.

Boyg has got a point though, hasn't he?  If we are doing greatest Briton, or actually greatest ever I would go for Shakespeare.  But Darwin would be up there - and David Attenborough would get an honourable mention; who else has brought the living world to such a wide audience? That's a massive contribution.

But it has to be Shakespeare.  If we could measure such a thing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lexilogio
Well Known Chatterbox...


Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 7585


Location: North of the Watford Gap

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 11:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Could anyone else have written Shakespeare? That depends if you mean the full works, or the elements of those works which made them so brilliant, and so different.

I think the elements would have been written by someone else. Probably not all by the same individual, but they would have happened eventually.
_________________
Lexi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leonard James
Senior Community Member


Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 3963


Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 6:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Both men were great in their own spheres, but I feel it is a pointless exercise to compare such vastly different merits.

There is no doubt that the world would have been a poorer place without either of them. Let's leave it at that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Shaker
Site Admin


Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 8694



PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Boss Cat wrote:
I think Darwin did not particularly want to publish but had to publish because someone else was about to - is that true?

Spot on. Alfred Russell Wallace hit upon essentially the same idea (evolution by natural selection) completely independently - he was half-way round the world at the time. Wallace wrote to Darwin (who he knew slightly) outlining his theory and informing him that he was going to work up a paper. Darwin, horrified, realised that he was going to be scooped and proposed to Wallace that they co-author a paper which was read out to a meeting of the Royal Society and received absolutely no attention whatsoever.

Had Darwin never existed it's possible that we'd be talking about Wallace's theory of evolution by natural selection. But then, if Wallace had never existed either someone else would surely have collected the evidence and put the theory together.
_________________
There’s no reason to be agnostic about ideas that are dramatically incompatible with everything we know about modern science. - Sean M. Carroll
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Boss Cat
Junior Community Member


Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 365


Location: it's good here

PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Shaker, that's the trouble with me; I half remember things and don't know if I remember them rightly.  I'm sure there was something similar with the telephone wasn't there?  And often you don't know who actually invented whatever it is, like Newton and some German mathematician with Calculus; one invented it and one made it useful or something.

You can't measure this type of thing, you are right, Leonard.  But I think we gravitate towards the areas we are interested in. Darwin is (still!) controversial he tends to gather, well, not groupies but a following.

You could measure by popularity.  Do you remember that thing on the BBC a few years ago, the greatest Briton?  As I remember Churchill narrowly beat Princess Diana into second place.   Hmm, right.   It was great for generating discussion though and there were some interesting programmes, the Newton one was particularly good.

(As an aside they did this the same programme in Germany but had to not allow Hitler to be included because he has a small, but fanatical, following and would have been in the top ten.  That's a weakness of using popularity as a measure!)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shaker
Site Admin


Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 8694



PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lexilogio wrote:
Could anyone else have written Shakespeare? That depends if you mean the full works, or the elements of those works which made them so brilliant, and so different.

I think the elements would have been written by someone else. Probably not all by the same individual, but they would have happened eventually.

Lest we forget there has long been and still is a body of thought that holds that Shakespeare didn't write all of Shakespeare.
_________________
There’s no reason to be agnostic about ideas that are dramatically incompatible with everything we know about modern science. - Sean M. Carroll
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leonard James
Senior Community Member


Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 3963


Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I suppose knowledge is always given a shove forward by certain brilliant minds, and if it isn't one, another will come along and do it eventually.

It's the same with the religions. A cult figure arises, gleans a following with convincing arguments, and finishes up being worshiped.

To a lesser degree the same thing happens with pop stars and sports personalities and teams.

The fault, if there is one of course, lies with the followers, not the icons.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Shrub Dweller
Junior Community Member


Joined: 26 Jul 2011
Posts: 387



PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This all depends on how you define God or whatever. The fact is we don't know for sure how things started or what the prime mover was etc, But what is obvious is that organised religion is a dud; which why am a anti-theist.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum