
"Pete Seeger's Session" http://www.beliefnet.com/entertainment/music/2006/08/pete-seegers-session?p=2, a Beliefnet interview (2006)
Source: Sexing the Cherry
"Pete Seeger's Session" http://www.beliefnet.com/entertainment/music/2006/08/pete-seegers-session?p=2, a Beliefnet interview (2006)
The God Delusion (2006)
Context: If the alternative that's being offered to what physicists now talk about - a big bang, a spontaneous singularity which gave rise to the origin of the universe - if the alternative to that is a divine intelligence, a creator, which would have to have been complicated, statistically improbable, the very kind of thing which scientific theories such as Darwin's exists to explain, then immediately we see that however difficult and apparently inadequate the theory of the physicists is, the theory of the theologians - that the first course was a complicated intelligence - is even more difficult to accept. They're both difficult but the theory of the cosmic intelligence is even worse. What Darwinism does is to raise our consciousness to the power of science to explain the existence of complex things and intelligences, and creative intelligences are above all complex things, they're statistically improbable. Darwinism raises our consciousness to the power of science to explain how such entities - and the human brain is one - can come into existence from simple beginnings. However difficult those simple beginnings may be to accept, they are a whole lot easier to accept than complicated beginnings. Complicated things come into the universe late, as a consequence of slow, gradual, incremental steps. God, if he exists, would have to be a very, very, very complicated thing indeed. So to postulate a God as the beginning of the universe, as the answer to the riddle of the first cause, is to shoot yourself in the conceptual foot because you are immediately postulating something far far more complicated than that which you are trying to explain. Now, physicists cope with this problem in various ways, which may seem somewhat unconvincing. For example, they suggest that our universe is but one bubble in foam of universes, the multiverse, and each bubble in the foam has a different set of laws and constants. And by the anthropic principle we have to be - since we're here talking about it - in the kind of bubble, with the kind of laws and constants, which are capable of giving rise to the evolutionary process and therefore to creatures like us. That is one current physicists' explanation for how we exist in the kind of universe that we do. It doesn't sound so shatteringly convincing as say Darwin's own theory, which is self-evidently very convincing. Nevertheless, however unconvincing that may sound, it is many, many, many orders of magnitude more convincing than any theory that says complex intelligence was there right from the outset. If you have problems seeing how matter could just come into existence - try thinking about how complex intelligent matter, or complex intelligent entities of any kind, could suddenly spring into existence, it's many many orders of magnitude harder to understand.
Lynchburg, Virginia, 23/10/2006 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR_z85O0P2M&t=42m41s
God doesn't believe in atheists (2002)
Source: Simone Weil : An Anthology (1986), The Great Beast (1947), p. 121; footnote in Gravity and Grace edited by Gustave Thibon: To adore the "Great Beast" is to think and act in conformity with the prejudices and reactions of the multitude to the detriment of all personal search for truth and goodness.
Source: Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space (1994), p. 50
Creation seminars (2003-2005), The Age of the Earth
“To put one’s trust in God is only a longer way of saying that one will chance it.”
Providence and Improvidence, ii
The Note-Books of Samuel Butler (1912), Part XIV - Higgledy-Piggledy
Mike Osegueda (March 29, 2005) "Appetizing chaos - The bands involved with the tour make sure they live up to the name", The Fresno Bee, p. B1.
I'm just sayin'.
The Glenn Beck Program
Premiere Radio Networks
2011-03-14
Ben
Dimiero
Beck: "I'm Not Not Saying" God Is Causing Earthquakes
Media Matters for America
2011-03-14
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201103140010
2011-03-19
2010s, 2011
Often referred to as Anderson's Law.
Cited in:
Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling by Harold Kerzner. Google Books http://books.google.com/books?id=4CqvpWwMLVEC&pg=PA246. Accessed September 5, 2009.
Checkland, P.B. (1985). Formulating problems in Systems Analysis. In: Miser, H. J. and Quade E. S. (eds.) (1985). Handbook of Systems Analysis: Overview of Uses, Procedures, Applications, and Practice. Chapter 5, pp. 151-170. North-Holland, New York.
Attributed