Stephen Hawking
Its interesting to see the general trend here of "pro-religious" people using religious terms to describe the process of science, in an attempt to explain their beliefs. Mangling the English language is not the way to convince people of the validity of your opinion, and such tortuous linguistic twisting and turning merely demonstrates the vacuity of their arguments
you have missed the point. I am not religious. I trained as a scientist.
You talk of methodology, experiments and proofs. My observation that whilst this is all good in the interests of science, it is also a grand house of cards. We establish a set of hypothesis and go out to prove them. In doing so we build a house of cards.
We have 'faith' that the previously proven hypotheses are true and we create a self-referencing series of mental projections.
We can never 'prove' an atom exists. We can merely hypothesise it's existence and create a set of references that explain atomic behaviour.
Take a great theoretical example.
Physicists calculated the mass of the Universe.
They were very happy.
More and more 'experiments proved' the mass was correct. Large card at the bottom of the house.
But increasingly the experiments/observations did not make sense. The observed Universe was too light.
So what was the result? Go back and challenge the underlying hypotheses - no that would challenge sacrosanct beliefs.
No - we invented dark matter. Couldn't see it, didn't know it was there, but it must exist and be really heavy otherwise the unified theory would breakdown.
House of cards!
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Warren,
you have missed the point. I am not religious. I trained as a scientist.
You talk of methodology, experiments and proofs. My observation that whilst this is all good in the interests of science, it is also a grand house of cards. We establish a set of hypothesis and go out to prove them. In doing so we build a house of cards.
We have 'faith' that the previously proven hypotheses are true and we create a self-referencing series of mental projections.
We can never 'prove' an atom exists. We can merely hypothesise it's existence and create a set of references that explain atomic behaviour.
Take a great theoretical example.
Physicists calculated the mass of the Universe.
They were very happy.
More and more 'experiments proved' the mass was correct. Large card at the bottom of the house.
But increasingly the experiments/observations did not make sense. The observed Universe was too light.
So what was the result? Go back and challenge the underlying hypotheses - no that would challenge sacrosanct beliefs.
No - we invented dark matter. Couldn't see it, didn't know it was there, but it must exist and be really heavy otherwise the unified theory would breakdown.
House of cards!
you have missed the point. I am not religious. I trained as a scientist.
You talk of methodology, experiments and proofs. My observation that whilst this is all good in the interests of science, it is also a grand house of cards. We establish a set of hypothesis and go out to prove them. In doing so we build a house of cards.
We have 'faith' that the previously proven hypotheses are true and we create a self-referencing series of mental projections.
We can never 'prove' an atom exists. We can merely hypothesise it's existence and create a set of references that explain atomic behaviour.
Take a great theoretical example.
Physicists calculated the mass of the Universe.
They were very happy.
More and more 'experiments proved' the mass was correct. Large card at the bottom of the house.
But increasingly the experiments/observations did not make sense. The observed Universe was too light.
So what was the result? Go back and challenge the underlying hypotheses - no that would challenge sacrosanct beliefs.
No - we invented dark matter. Couldn't see it, didn't know it was there, but it must exist and be really heavy otherwise the unified theory would breakdown.
House of cards!
Les
Scooby Senior
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
From: North Wales
What is your point though? We all know that some theories present some very real problems, and certain things can never really be 'proved'. But, this is still an eminently more satisfying way to look at things than "I believe the world was made by a man in the sky who has left no proof of existence or interference whatsoever, and the account of events of his going is directly contrary to very tangible things in the universe around us", don't you think?
Geezer
Geezer
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
The million-dollar question here Les is which is the most likely to be proved right? You seem intent on drumming home the message that as things stand, no-one could get a cigarette paper between the two on probability, but from where I'm standing I don't see how anyone who's actually taken the trouble to think about it longer than five minutes could come to that conclusion. Now, if you really haven't thought or don't want to think about it any longer than that, fair enough, that's your prerogative, just say you've got no real interest in the subject and walk away. The problem is though, that's not at all the impression you give. In post after post in this thread, you've come across as just wanting to close down the debate on that probability, rather than contributing anything very constructive on either side of it.
With you all the way on that, although I still think you have to be careful not to give people too much leeway to claim being offended over basically nothing. If someone enters freely into a debate on a subject in a public forum, then they should be prepared for the fact that their views might be vigorously challenged at times. The fact the debate might touch on their deeply-held religious beliefs doesn't in any way give them a pass to be treated with kid-gloves, if no-one's forced them to be there participating in it in the first place.
With you all the way on that, although I still think you have to be careful not to give people too much leeway to claim being offended over basically nothing. If someone enters freely into a debate on a subject in a public forum, then they should be prepared for the fact that their views might be vigorously challenged at times. The fact the debate might touch on their deeply-held religious beliefs doesn't in any way give them a pass to be treated with kid-gloves, if no-one's forced them to be there participating in it in the first place.
Did you actually notice that I said however that a discussion about the validity or not of religious belief is doomed to failure and will only cause unpleasantness anyway. Nothing would ever be proved and it is almost certainly going to act as a vehicle for the atheists to shout everyone else down as they seem to love doing. Why is it that they always start it all off anyway. How often do you see a religious believer slamming into atheists in such a manner? Are the atheists so underconfident that they have to keep shouting about it to convince themselves? What is wrong with quietly accepting your own beliefs and getting on with life? At least be polite about it.
When it comes to the subject of how the Universe started up, we have to accept that no one has the answers and although theories might be right until they can be proved one has to keep an open mind. Its the only honest way of considering it.
If someone wants to have such a discussion that is their own affair. Do you think however that using insulting language is an effective way to go about it? That almost certainly means that the person doing that is frightened of losing the argument. Do you think it is basically nothing to be accused of being mentally deficient? Are you saying that people are not entitled to defend themselves from such an accusation? Can you see how that immediately kills any value in a discussion anyway? That sort of behaviour is indefensible and if you say that there is no place for good manners in such a discussion then I disagree and make no apologies for that. I also don't "play games" as you said I did!
You seem to be unable to resist trying to criticise me and my beliefs even though you don't know what they really are. The fact is that you cannot find any effective basis for doing that and you are scraping the barrel anyway.
If you feel you have to have a discussion about all these matters you are free to do so of course. The only objection I would have is to mindless name calling etc. by those who are unable to present a valid case for their beliefs.
Les
Scooby Regular
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,647
Likes: 22
Warren,
you have missed the point. I am not religious. I trained as a scientist.
You talk of methodology, experiments and proofs. My observation that whilst this is all good in the interests of science, it is also a grand house of cards. We establish a set of hypothesis and go out to prove them. In doing so we build a house of cards.
We have 'faith' that the previously proven hypotheses are true and we create a self-referencing series of mental projections.
We can never 'prove' an atom exists. We can merely hypothesise it's existence and create a set of references that explain atomic behaviour.
Take a great theoretical example.
Physicists calculated the mass of the Universe.
They were very happy.
More and more 'experiments proved' the mass was correct. Large card at the bottom of the house.
But increasingly the experiments/observations did not make sense. The observed Universe was too light.
So what was the result? Go back and challenge the underlying hypotheses - no that would challenge sacrosanct beliefs.
No - we invented dark matter. Couldn't see it, didn't know it was there, but it must exist and be really heavy otherwise the unified theory would breakdown.
House of cards!
you have missed the point. I am not religious. I trained as a scientist.
You talk of methodology, experiments and proofs. My observation that whilst this is all good in the interests of science, it is also a grand house of cards. We establish a set of hypothesis and go out to prove them. In doing so we build a house of cards.
We have 'faith' that the previously proven hypotheses are true and we create a self-referencing series of mental projections.
We can never 'prove' an atom exists. We can merely hypothesise it's existence and create a set of references that explain atomic behaviour.
Take a great theoretical example.
Physicists calculated the mass of the Universe.
They were very happy.
More and more 'experiments proved' the mass was correct. Large card at the bottom of the house.
But increasingly the experiments/observations did not make sense. The observed Universe was too light.
So what was the result? Go back and challenge the underlying hypotheses - no that would challenge sacrosanct beliefs.
No - we invented dark matter. Couldn't see it, didn't know it was there, but it must exist and be really heavy otherwise the unified theory would breakdown.
House of cards!
Who has the grandest house of cards?
Also is this enough evidence that atoms exist? If not, science will continue to evolve until they prove its existence.
http://www.insidescience.org/researc...hotos_of_atoms
Scooby Regular
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 3,957
Likes: 0
Jon,
my point is that much of what we 'beleive' is a projection of what we want to believe.
Some argue that religion is simplistic and science is sensible.
I caution that in any age science certainly has had the arrogance to assume it had the answers. But there is also a long history of science that indicates that they were merely beliefs of the day and the world moves on with some new hypotheses.
I am not saying that the way we interpret the world is not useful - but in years to come I am pretty sure that current unified theory will break down and we will be using different explanations for what we thought was completely proven today.
my point is that much of what we 'beleive' is a projection of what we want to believe.
Some argue that religion is simplistic and science is sensible.
I caution that in any age science certainly has had the arrogance to assume it had the answers. But there is also a long history of science that indicates that they were merely beliefs of the day and the world moves on with some new hypotheses.
I am not saying that the way we interpret the world is not useful - but in years to come I am pretty sure that current unified theory will break down and we will be using different explanations for what we thought was completely proven today.
Scooby Senior
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
From: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Blah, blah... atoms and quarks.... I love the way this has turned so pathetically science based that the real point of "is there a god" has almost been lost ...
Bottom line, was everything "created" by a god.... you know an old dude in a white cape that floats around the place allowing children and people we know to be "chosen" before their time, who created everything from nothing in a few days.... and you all need to debate it!?! FFS
Bottom line, was everything "created" by a god.... you know an old dude in a white cape that floats around the place allowing children and people we know to be "chosen" before their time, who created everything from nothing in a few days.... and you all need to debate it!?! FFS
Scooby Regular
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,647
Likes: 22
Jon,
my point is that much of what we 'beleive' is a projection of what we want to believe.
Some argue that religion is simplistic and science is sensible.
I caution that in any age science certainly has had the arrogance to assume it had the answers. But there is also a long history of science that indicates that they were merely beliefs of the day and the world moves on with some new hypotheses.
I am not saying that the way we interpret the world is not useful - but in years to come I am pretty sure that current unified theory will break down and we will be using different explanations for what we thought was completely proven today.
my point is that much of what we 'beleive' is a projection of what we want to believe.
Some argue that religion is simplistic and science is sensible.
I caution that in any age science certainly has had the arrogance to assume it had the answers. But there is also a long history of science that indicates that they were merely beliefs of the day and the world moves on with some new hypotheses.
I am not saying that the way we interpret the world is not useful - but in years to come I am pretty sure that current unified theory will break down and we will be using different explanations for what we thought was completely proven today.
Religious beliefs do not evolve, set in stone as it were, and only differ in the way how what is written is interpreted. It is neither backed up by evidence nor observations but is based purely on human experience and emotions and hence why there are many different religious beliefs. Of these there is no one correct religion, only what one wants to believe.
For me, scientific theory most accurately explains the universe and our existence rather than religion.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,753
Likes: 1
Not sure i follow your point. Who's writing off science? Flippantly or otherwise? Not me!
Who are you speaking for when referring to "we"? I'm a brain in a jar who doesn't need any sort of belief system, possibly because i think our collective existence is, to use your word, ultimately meaningless. If somebody shows me that there is greater reason other than that we've just been hugely fortunate as humans to be on the right planet at the right time etc, then i'll listen. Until then, i don't need a crutch on which to rest, or "religion" as i believe it's called.
Who are you speaking for when referring to "we"? I'm a brain in a jar who doesn't need any sort of belief system, possibly because i think our collective existence is, to use your word, ultimately meaningless. If somebody shows me that there is greater reason other than that we've just been hugely fortunate as humans to be on the right planet at the right time etc, then i'll listen. Until then, i don't need a crutch on which to rest, or "religion" as i believe it's called.
My point is that "science" is something of a belief system, in that it is a system by which we, defined by our limited intelligence/sensory inputs, try to understand/comprehend the our surroundings. The word limited is the key word in all of this.
That does not mean that we can say God does not exist surely?
To say that means Christianity or any other religious system is correct is another matter all together - all a bit too anthropomorphic for my taste.
Since I don't have the answer, all I can do is be humble and say I don't have the right to say others are wrong.
I try to tell my children that science is not about knowing the answers, it is about asking the right questions.
Science without philosophy is a crutch for the intellectually lazy perhaps?
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
I think I may well think along the similar lines to yourself.
My point is that "science" is something of a belief system, in that it is a system by which we, defined by our limited intelligence/sensory inputs, try to understand/comprehend the our surroundings. The word limited is the key word in all of this.
That does not mean that we can say God does not exist surely?
To say that means Christianity or any other religious system is correct is another matter all together - all a bit too anthropomorphic for my taste.
Since I don't have the answer, all I can do is be humble and say I don't have the right to say others are wrong.
I try to tell my children that science is not about knowing the answers, it is about asking the right questions.
Science without philosophy is a crutch for the intellectually lazy perhaps?
My point is that "science" is something of a belief system, in that it is a system by which we, defined by our limited intelligence/sensory inputs, try to understand/comprehend the our surroundings. The word limited is the key word in all of this.
That does not mean that we can say God does not exist surely?
To say that means Christianity or any other religious system is correct is another matter all together - all a bit too anthropomorphic for my taste.
Since I don't have the answer, all I can do is be humble and say I don't have the right to say others are wrong.
I try to tell my children that science is not about knowing the answers, it is about asking the right questions.
Science without philosophy is a crutch for the intellectually lazy perhaps?
Les
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
From: God's promised land
Ah, now, to be sure, do you mean they have been having relations with the Blarney Stone, to be sure to be sure?btw - Peoples' is the correct way to define something which belongs to several groups of people, while people's is the correct way to define something which belongs to several people as a singular group. So this god the fanatics are discussing. It is the same god for several religions, making him "the peoples' god." When you get to Alex Higgins, he had a single group of surporters, so he would be "the people's champion" See - I knew Bubba was clever 
Do you think i need apostrophes explained to me?! I'm not regressing just yet! Peoples' would/could exist if;
1. Peoples was a word that officially existed.
End of sermon
Sorry for interrupting Pastor Snore's diatribe....
Scooby Senior
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,566
Likes: 0
From: Scotchland
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
From: God's promised land
I think I may well think along the similar lines to yourself.
My point is that "science" is something of a belief system, in that it is a system by which we, defined by our limited intelligence/sensory inputs, try to understand/comprehend the our surroundings. The word limited is the key word in all of this.
That does not mean that we can say God does not exist surely?
To say that means Christianity or any other religious system is correct is another matter all together - all a bit too anthropomorphic for my taste.
Since I don't have the answer, all I can do is be humble and say I don't have the right to say others are wrong.
I try to tell my children that science is not about knowing the answers, it is about asking the right questions.
Science without philosophy is a crutch for the intellectually lazy perhaps?
My point is that "science" is something of a belief system, in that it is a system by which we, defined by our limited intelligence/sensory inputs, try to understand/comprehend the our surroundings. The word limited is the key word in all of this.
That does not mean that we can say God does not exist surely?
To say that means Christianity or any other religious system is correct is another matter all together - all a bit too anthropomorphic for my taste.
Since I don't have the answer, all I can do is be humble and say I don't have the right to say others are wrong.
I try to tell my children that science is not about knowing the answers, it is about asking the right questions.
Science without philosophy is a crutch for the intellectually lazy perhaps?
Not sure i'd agree with the last point. Only humans are capable of philosophical thought. That doesn't mean it has to be included in an explanation of the Universe, surely?
Quite a few posts here have attempted to blur the line between belief and existence. To me, they are worlds apart. I can believe anything, but that doesn't mean it exists or is true.
I know what you mean about science only encompassing what humans have defined as the parameters, but of course you can't answer questions if you don't know what the questions are in the first place. We might be missing a huge chunk of knowledge and don't even know it! I wonder if mankind will make any other discoveries which will turn current thinking completely on its head. Probably.
Science without philosophy is a crutch for the intellectually lazy perhaps?
Scooby Regular
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Warren,
you have missed the point. I am not religious. I trained as a scientist.
You talk of methodology, experiments and proofs. My observation that whilst this is all good in the interests of science, it is also a grand house of cards. We establish a set of hypothesis and go out to prove them. In doing so we build a house of cards.
We have 'faith' that the previously proven hypotheses are true and we create a self-referencing series of mental projections.
We can never 'prove' an atom exists. We can merely hypothesise it's existence and create a set of references that explain atomic behaviour.
Take a great theoretical example.
Physicists calculated the mass of the Universe.
They were very happy.
More and more 'experiments proved' the mass was correct. Large card at the bottom of the house.
But increasingly the experiments/observations did not make sense. The observed Universe was too light.
So what was the result? Go back and challenge the underlying hypotheses - no that would challenge sacrosanct beliefs.
No - we invented dark matter. Couldn't see it, didn't know it was there, but it must exist and be really heavy otherwise the unified theory would breakdown.
House of cards!
you have missed the point. I am not religious. I trained as a scientist.
You talk of methodology, experiments and proofs. My observation that whilst this is all good in the interests of science, it is also a grand house of cards. We establish a set of hypothesis and go out to prove them. In doing so we build a house of cards.
We have 'faith' that the previously proven hypotheses are true and we create a self-referencing series of mental projections.
We can never 'prove' an atom exists. We can merely hypothesise it's existence and create a set of references that explain atomic behaviour.
Take a great theoretical example.
Physicists calculated the mass of the Universe.
They were very happy.
More and more 'experiments proved' the mass was correct. Large card at the bottom of the house.
But increasingly the experiments/observations did not make sense. The observed Universe was too light.
So what was the result? Go back and challenge the underlying hypotheses - no that would challenge sacrosanct beliefs.
No - we invented dark matter. Couldn't see it, didn't know it was there, but it must exist and be really heavy otherwise the unified theory would breakdown.
House of cards!
What about all the technology - were we just really lucky that it all works?
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
I find it fascinating that there is such a fine coordination in nature in the way everything works so well and fits in generally. So many things are interdependent and if they did not work as they do, we would be in a bit of a mess if we were here at all in fact.
One day we may discover other worlds and we might even find that their laws of nature and even science are different to our own.
If our circumstances change significantly in future I expect that nature will continue to evolve to cope with that.
The size of the Universe that we know is too much to be able to take in easily and it would be a bit of a shock to discover that other Universes exist as well! It is in Man's nature to keep on trying to find all the answers, I find it difficult to believe that will happen though. There is an awful lot of mystery tied up in all that.
I suppose the first thing is to hope that Man does not eventually destroy himself!
I am not usually this philosophical!
Les
One day we may discover other worlds and we might even find that their laws of nature and even science are different to our own.
If our circumstances change significantly in future I expect that nature will continue to evolve to cope with that.
The size of the Universe that we know is too much to be able to take in easily and it would be a bit of a shock to discover that other Universes exist as well! It is in Man's nature to keep on trying to find all the answers, I find it difficult to believe that will happen though. There is an awful lot of mystery tied up in all that.
I suppose the first thing is to hope that Man does not eventually destroy himself!
I am not usually this philosophical!
Les
Scooby Senior
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,566
Likes: 0
From: Scotchland
Scooby Regular
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 19,408
Likes: 0
From: Sunny BELFAST
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
From: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
saying the UK is a "Third World country" marked by "a new and aggressive atheism".
dl
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
He's basically saying the UK is full of ignorant philistines.
Cultured people may criticize religion but mock it and even hate it no.
It's interesting the way that Dawkins and Hawking are in their own way philistines even though they are very clever.
Last edited by tony de wonderful; Sep 16, 2010 at 12:57 AM.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 26,619
Likes: 0
F**k the pope and all that stuff.... (erm I bet thats a first from a Northern Irish fenian) but how would you distinguish something which belongs to several groups of people from something which belongs to several people?
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Not in the slightest. Just because a person doesn't wander around the whole time asking themselves why the universe is here, and is content instead with focusing on what the universe is and does, doesn't make that person any less intellectually able or curious. To say they were would just be another sop to the 'oh, but religion will always have its place' crowd.
You have plenty of idiots of science.
Remember science is amoral in itself, value free. Without philosophy and values we are nothing.
... how would you distinguish something which belongs to several groups of people from something which belongs to several people?
It's an easy conclusion to jump to that just because science makes no specific claims towards morality, it's therefore entirely without values. In actual fact though, science is very clearly in favour of truth for its own sake, objectivity, and intellectual betterment, all of which should qualify as highly positive to any decent and rational person.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,647
Likes: 22
And what of religion? What religious code of conduct should we follow? Allow the stoning of women? Allow the spread of STI? Turn a blind eye to sexually depraved priests? To kill in the name of religion?
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
From: Type 25. Build No.34
Reading this thread you do get a sense of what 'aggressive secularism' actually is!
Whether you believe in god or not is pretty irrelevant, because if it exists it exists and if it doesn't it doesn't. Ultimately what matters is how you live your life.
PS guys it is not deluded, retarded, or wrong to ask what the point in life and/or the universe it is human to wonder at these things.
Whether you believe in god or not is pretty irrelevant, because if it exists it exists and if it doesn't it doesn't. Ultimately what matters is how you live your life.
PS guys it is not deluded, retarded, or wrong to ask what the point in life and/or the universe it is human to wonder at these things.
Last edited by Martin2005; Sep 17, 2010 at 01:49 PM.
