Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 8,451-8,500 of 12,463

[[deleted user]]

Cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "It's always been my position, ever since I was young. "
Would you agree that it is a minority position, certainly in the realms of organised religion?"

I'm not sure.

I know there are many, Evangelicals, etc... who believe the Bible is the Word of God. There are others who don't. Some United Methodists do and some don't.

Even within faiths that "believe" it to be the Word of God, I'm guessing some don't. I've known (cringing) couples who weren't particularly religious ... didn't know what they believed, didn't read the Bible, didn't pray ... but started going to church when they had school aged children. They couldn't say what was in the Bible and what wasn't. But, they took their children to church. I knew someone who became a Sunday school teacher yet never read the Bible and wasn't overly familiar with many of the teachings found within it or within the church.

So, ultimately, I just don't know for sure. Maybe it's a minority position. Maybe it isn't. I don't know.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "So, ultimately, I just don't know for sure. Maybe it's a minority position. Maybe it isn't. I don't know. "
That's ok, I was just curious....

[[deleted user]]

Cerebus wrote: "that does not mean I am entitled to feel aggrieved that nobody else did"

Do you feel aggrieved when believers throw out parts of the Bible and accept other parts?

On the one hand, it has nothing to do with my being aggrieved. Yes, I've addressed the inaccuracies and will continue to do so. That's not the point. It's not about me feeling put-upon to have to make that point. Nor is it about my being angry or saddened when others don't.

It has to do with inconsistency. While you might not like history and might not have studied it, I'm guessing others have. But, they remain silent. Or, .... I'm guessing, guessing, that some non-believers make that argument and other non-believers "believe" it. I used the word "believed" for a reason. Instead of doing what they tell believers to do, look and listen and investigate and gain knowledge, they just accept it without checking. Therefore, it becomes a belief. There might be an idea that ... if a non-believer said it, it must be accurate. After all, non-believers value fact and evidence, yes? Hey, there was a time when I took the facts and stats, etc... given by non-believers here to be absolute fact. I mean, they said they valued such things. They'd never give misinformation. Right? Then, one day, I looked into something and was more than a bit shocked by what I found.

It just strikes me as odd ... inconsistent and maybe even hypocritical.

I won't lie, though; on some level, there is a level of fairness ... or its opposite ... at play in the back of my mind. It just doesn't seem right.

[[deleted user]]

Cerebus wrote: "Again speaking only for myself, it's not about challenging religion, it's about challenging inaccurate statements or assumptions about atheism."

Seriously need to go to bed, but ....

So, for you, it's not about accuracy in general. It's not about thinking thoughts and making decisions and living your life based on things that are factual and proven. It's not about advocating for that stance.

For you, it's just about what people assume and say about atheism.

If that's the way of it, I'm curious as to why. Why are you only focused on what people think and say about atheism?

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "So, for you, it's not about accuracy in general. It's not about thinking thoughts and making decisions and living your life based on things that are factual and proven. It's not about advocating for that stance."
To a certain extent, for me it's about defending, or clearing up misconceptions about, a subject that is important to me.

Shannon said: "If that's the way of it, I'm curious as to why. Why are you only focused on what people think and say about atheism? "
It's not just atheism, but that's what this thread is about....you should see me when people come out with misinformation about Pink Floyd! :)

I am interested in correcting people about atheism because I'm an atheist....and misinformation about atheism is effectively misinformation about me. If someone says without religion there can be no morals, they are saying that I am immoral. Also having seen documentaries about religion & atheism, particularly in the US, but also in this neck of the woods, and hearing statistics like "atheists are the least trusted minority group in the US" I have realised that a lot of this mistrust is based on ignorance, particularly of what atheism actually is. Combine this with an increase in the influence religion holds in the political sphere, and a previous tendency of atheists not to bother with the discussions (the only thing most atheists have in common is that lack of belief, so we're not an organised bunch), it seems like it has become more important to challenge these misconceptions when I see them. I've said it before, I'll say it again, I'm not trying to persuade anyone away from their religion, but I expect some intellectual honesty from them when challenged on their view of atheists, and I don't see why their positions on religion cannot be questioned in the same way I'd question them on another subject.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "Instead of doing what they tell believers to do, look and listen and investigate and gain knowledge, they just accept it without checking"
This is something everyone is guilty of, myself included. We can't investigate and study every piece of information we see or read, but as soon as that piece of information is relied on to make an argument or to form an opinion then it should be challenged.
I think you're running into the unfortunately universally human trait of confirmation bias, we tend to accept with a lower requirement for evidence something which agrees with our currently held positions, and more likely to expect a higher level of evidence for something we inherently disagree with. It's human nature, it's something we all have, and the two best antidotes are 1) an awareness that it is something we have, and 2) being challenged to back an argument up by someone who holds a differing position.
I've posted about this before, but the bit of cognitive dissonance I think everyone engaging in any debate should be aware of is the Illusion of Asymmetric Insight, and realising it applies to yourself every bit as much as to the other person.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "Do you feel aggrieved when believers throw out parts of the Bible and accept other parts? ."
No, not aggrieved. Fair point :)

[[deleted user]]

Cerebus wrote: "I think you're running into the unfortunately universally human trait of confirmation bias, we tend to accept with a lower requirement for evidence something which agrees with our currently held positions, and more likely to expect a higher level of evidence for something we inherently disagree with. "

Mmmm.... Not sure. The one thing that this idea doesn't take into consideration is the stance of non-believers themselves.

Have you ever noticed that people cry out, VERY loudly, on US Republicans who are found in compromising positions. Those who are caught cheating with a mistress. The one who was caught taping his toe in the men's room at an airport. Often, Democrats are the loudest in pointing out the wrongs of these politicians. Is it just a Democrat vs. Republican thing? I don't think so. Are Democrats squeamish about sex? Do they never have affairs? Are they anti-gay? Not so much. I think a large part of it deals with who Republican's hold themselves out to be. They say they're about the family. Family. Values. God. Anti-gay. When you hold yourself up to the the model of something, a family values believer who is anti-gay, people hold you to that. It's about a lack of honesty. Hypocrisy.

So, if non-believers go on and on about the need for logic and evidence and accuracy, which is something else they have in common, I think it's fair to expect them to live it and not just talk about it. I don't expect them to throw out questionable information as fact. I expect them to speak up when they know information that is given is obviously and blatantly wrong. I expect them value what they claim to value, in all instances, not just in arguments against religion.

Thank you for your other answer. Yes, many seem to link morality with religion and view non-believers as less moral. It's a huge misrepresentation. I'd say, though, that misrepresenting anyone and anything is wrong. It's something I try to stand up against. Whether a believer is claiming non-believers are immoral or a non-believer is painting a believer with the "ist" brush. We definitely, as humans, have issues in how we view people who are different/have different views. That's a problem in general, sadly.

[cHriS]

Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "This to me is a case of…… if you don’t believe something (Nessie for example) it is not likely to be proved correct. But if you want something to be true and lots of the scientific world..."
That was not my point.

Wanting something to be true, because a lot of work and financial backing has gone into the research, and if results are not forthcoming the project ends; can compromise things.

Maybe all the evidence left for Nessie are bones at the bottom of the Loch.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "Yes, you can believe in a deity, and also believe the bible is merely a work of man written to try and interpret what those people thought their deity would want them to believe, th..."

My confusion comes from the mixing up of ideas:

my book of choice has some good life lessons and ideas: good idea. I'm all about books and the power of their ideas.

My deity of choice guides me with his message: Not a choice I agree with, but I can at least understand it.

Once you combine the two ideas, you have painted yourself into a corner, as the two don't mesh well and the whole tripod of book, deity, social structure gets shaky.

If you are following the book, why do you need the deity?
If the deity is big and unknowable, then why do you need the book?
if you are in a religion for the sense of community, then I'm back where I started.

Every religion seems to use those same three and to my mind, it would work better if you just pick two.

Heck, if the two you pick are the book and community, you have moved from 'religion' to personal philosophy and are within arms reach of atheist.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: What is not understandable is making a claim of the limitations of science, perhaps so you can then substitute faith into the gap, when your claim about the limitations is based on not comprehending what was told you on a TV program

That is hearsay on your part and there fore not admissible. You cannot assume that I am unable to comprehend.

Gary wrote: Really. What is an "end"? Again this is a simple idea, and like a lot of simple ideas in science it can get you into a lot of problems. Like it being impossible for an arrow to hit a moving target.

Science doesn't say the "universe has no end", do you mean an end in time, or an end in space. Do you understand the concept of a finite boundless universe?
Do you understand the various hypotheses about boundaries or the lack of them?

I understand completely, or as completely as one can without a degree in the subject. Not having that degree can be an advantage because I am not indoctrinated to a specific way of thinking like the scientific world is. This way of thinking can be compared to the religious way of thinking, and so I am not knocking either or both.

Religion for the most part believe a god created everything. Science has an answer which is just as believable or not, as the religious answer and that is the one you are using. ….“concept of a finite boundless universe”. That is just as good as saying ‘god’. It explains everything without having to explain anything.

Can’t you see that you are just as wrapped up in science as others are in religion, neither on there own are completely healthy. The fact that you use the word ‘concept’ is nothing more than a ‘notion’ science has about the universe, until it comes up with something else.

You will believe that concept/theory until it’s proven not to be so, just like I will believe in a god, and as you question others about the existence of a god I question the “concept of a finite boundless universe”.

Gary wrote: Again a misunderstanding of cosmological shorthand. We have "the Universe" which is by definition "everything in existence", and then we have our universe which is actually (fairly lazy) term for "our observable universe" which I do not like to use, especially because non-cosmologists then use the term to justify interpretations of what cosmologists are talking about that are misleading.

I agree. But; like a doctor talking to a patient the doctor has to talk in layman’s terms to the patient and I guess that is what TV programmes do. Put into layman’s terms, what they are explaining. Some cosmologists could also be accused of not understanding what the layman is referring to when they say ‘universe’. For a general discussion like this universe or observable universe would be much the same thing. What is beyond it and if nothing then what was there before it came into being? And if the answer is given as nothing as well, then that is only a ‘concept’ and not an answer.

Gary wrote: Again a convenient false presentation of an argument to make it sound more like a 50% chance. In actual fact you are saying that "a" god may exist, or there may be many gods, or a magical mystical force or many many other possibilities.

Yes and No. It is much the same argument that science is using. A concept may or may not pan out over a long term to be true. But for now we take it to be true (layman’s terms) because that is what evidence shows. Much like a 50% chance to me.

Example Quote: It was humans’ ancestors’ ability to leave the trees and walk and/or run over long distances that enabled humans to eventually expand out of Africa and populate the world. If the Laetoli analysis is correct, our ancestors were stepping out with a very modern foot function far earlier than we thought.

2 million years earlier. If this is going to be deemed as new evidence then maybe all it will do is raise more questions than answers.

It is also an argument for not accepting ‘all’ of what this branch of science puts before us as evidence. I was saying this some pages back when we were talking about ‘Lucy’.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article...

Gary wrote: The reason science calls these things "Theories" is to avoid the arrogant assumption that what we know is now the "truth". Only in the hands of people who want to belittle science in order to have their own "speculation" taken seriously is the word theory treated with such scorn.

You use the word arrogant in a sentence that ‘is’ arrogant/self-important.

The sentence suggests that unless we have a scientific background we should not speculate / hypothesize / wonder, we should leave that to you guys. You will tell us when your ‘theories’ need to be superseded by new evidence. Your theories can’t be wrong because you have never said that they are right. A sort of ‘belief’ that they are correct until proven otherwise.

A bit like what some of us say regarding a god.

Gary wrote: Only in your arrogance do you think that your guesses and claims are equivalent to people who spend years not only trying to find evidence for their ideas, but to find evidence against it.

I have now been downgraded from one who speculates to someone who only guesses. Yet if the Laetoli analysis is correct, then my previous ‘guess’ about ‘Lucy’ is better than the little evidence collected so far.


Gary wrote: You claimed that light could not reach the edge and that meant science had to "stop" because nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. This is not true.

I never said that science had to stop, I said the universe is expanding.

Gary wrote: .Which it doesn't, and perhaps we will never have a "complete" understanding maybe we will just have more and more accurate models, but still models. Perhaps to have complete understanding you would have to be the same complexity as the entire universe. Perhaps not.

The centre of a blackhole, the singularity is where the scientific understanding of the universe stops. And as you say we may never have a complete understanding.

As I said some pages back, we will never fully understand because we do not have enough intelligence ‘to’ understand, but we can speculate, guess, believe or wonder and science helps us do that.

Gary wrote: You did dismiss it, I quote "and there science has to stop". Science does not have to stop at your artificial limit just so you can make your evidence-free claims..

Science can go on proposing theories but it is not getting any closer to understanding.

Gary wrote: .Wrong again. First as I've said before, what's beyond "the Universe"? Nothing. As the word means "everything in reality". What's beyond the "observable universe" we can derive some things about, and new ideas allow us even further insight. You only view it as speculation as you have a 19th century idea of a finite universe resting in some sort of encompassing infinite meta-universe.

It's like the question "what existed before time" and forgetting that "before" is a direction in time. So what is "beyond" the universe, forgetting that "beyond" is a direction in space and therefore anything "beyond" the universe would be more universe.

Good scientific reply. But is does NOT answer any of those questions. It may satisfy the scientific community just as god does for others.

A child can ask what the last number is and the reply would be, there is no last number. If the child then asks, Why is there no last number? We would say because we can just make up numbers by adding zeros. We just add more universe.

Ask a child to write down all the numbers and there would be a final number.

Gary wrote: This is why science certainly should stay open to ideas, but pursue them based on where evidence leads us, rather than taking one particular tale and then trying to find evidence to support that one idea at the expense of all of the other ideas.

So where is the evidence of intelligent life (excluding earth), where has the evidence lead us and what evidence are we following and why do we look.

[Travis]

Melissa wrote: ""Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein"

"You pray for me and I'll think for you." Christopher Hitchens

[cerebus]

Melissa wrote: ""Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein"
Two things, one, this is an appeal to authority and is entirely irrelevant, and two:

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." Albert Einstein

"A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." Albert Einstein

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms." Albert Einstein

"The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously." Albert Einstein

"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it." Albert Einstein



"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of Nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being." Albert Einstein

[Michael]

Religion is a human construct, period. What we call "science" will carry on with or without humans. What we call "religion" will cease to exists without us, look at the number of "religions" the have died and become "myths" because no one still practices the "religion". You are already living in a "Science" world.

[Saturnberry]

Why does it have to be one or the other? I find that humans are innately curious about everything and also spiritual in some capacity. Trying to separate the two concepts as 'which is better' is - silly at best. Humans are capable of so much, why limit it? I believe that humans have a spiritual element to them; I think it's healthy, a part of who we are. Science is merely our definition and labeling of the universe as we find it. I love science and I am particularly spiritual.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "That is hearsay on your part and there fore not admissible. You cannot assume that I am unable to comprehend."

Then you cannot assume that science is subject to your limits, invalidating that entire argument.

Besides it was not an assumption, it was based on the conclusion you stated based on the "evidence" you cited.

cHriS wrote: "I understand completely, or as completely as one can without a degree in the subject. Not having that degree can be an advantage because I am not indoctrinated to a specific way of thinking like the scientific world is."

Just as a person who doesn't speak Japanese isn't "indoctrinated" into what the Japanese think they mean when they use their language. Or a non-pilot isn't indoctrinated into how to fly a plane and therefore is probably better at it.

Yet ...oops... by your argument an atheist is fundamentally better at comprehending your religion because they haven't been indoctrinated into it.

Yeah, again simple arrogance of claiming "if it doesn't make sense to me then it doesn't make sense to the universe".

cHriS wrote: "This way of thinking can be compared to the religious way of thinking, and so I am not knocking either or both."

Wrong. Religion requires belief. Science requires belief to be set aside so that the truth can be sought.

cHriS wrote: "Religion for the most part believe a god created everything. Science has an answer which is just as believable or not, as the religious answer and that is the one you are using. ….“concept of a finite boundless universe”. That is just as good as saying ‘god’. It explains everything without having to explain anything."

You have got it right in a nutshell, for religion, whereas science does actually explain things without having to resort to a made up answer, and when it doesn't know yet, it says it doesn't know.

cHriS wrote: "Can’t you see that you are just as wrapped up in science as others are in religion, neither on there own are completely healthy."

Can you not see that just because you define everything through belief does not mean everyone else does?

cHriS wrote: "The fact that you use the word ‘concept’ is nothing more than a ‘notion’ science has about the universe, until it comes up with something else. "

Except these concepts have evidence that we can show to support them, religion doesn't. We do not know which ones are right, but we are narrowing down the list, just as a few decades ago we did not know whether the universe always looks as it does now, or whether it has changed, and now we do know.

cHriS wrote: "You will believe that concept/theory until it’s proven not to be so, just like I will believe in a god,"

Except that I will view concepts as possibilities until evidence makes them hard theories, then I will accept it, unless it is superceded. Whereas you believe in an idea and refuse to change it with new data.

Oh and most science isn't disproved, most remains true but new information reveals new more accurate data. Atoms were hypothesised thousands of years ago, then they became a theory. The discovery of subatomic matter didn't disprove atoms, it just showed us there was more to the story.

cHriS wrote: "and as you question others about the existence of a god I question the “concept of a finite boundless universe”."

Good! Question it! That's the difference, science welcomes questioning. I am not claiming that existence is a finite boundless universe, but that is the most likely definition based on what we see. Why, because we know the universe has expanded in space and time hence it must be finite (and infinite universes throw up many paradoxes) and boundless because a boundary would potentially violate both relativity and quantum theory.

But if you have a better claim, then go ahead! However the claim needs to actually avoid the trap you pointed out earlier (Occams Razor) it must net explain what we observe. The "god" hypothesis does not do this. What can we see that gives us a "god" and no other explanation? And what does "god" explain, creation? No, because "god created himself" is circular and "god always was" is just adding a step onto "the universe always was". And what is the difference between "god" and "the Universe" except for us imagining it has a personality and temporal goals.

cHriS wrote: "I agree. But; like a doctor talking to a patient the doctor has to talk in layman’s terms to the patient and I guess that is what TV programmes do. Put into layman’s terms, what they are explaining."

Yes, you are quite right. The point is though that when explaining something to a layman is not teaching them to become an expert or to comprehend the ideas. You can do, but that requires to teach them until they are no longer laymen.

For example a doctor may explain the operation to remove a tumour, does that make you qualified to remove a tumour, or even to judge when a tumour is benign, or when it is inoperable?

cHriS wrote: "Some cosmologists could also be accused of not understanding what the layman is referring to when they say ‘universe’."

Which is why a cosmologist would ask them what they mean by "Universe", and also to show that the layman may not even understand what they mean.

For example "what is beyond the universe" is a question that carries a basic assumption that the universe they are talking about is not everything (and therefore "the Universe".)

I hear it often where people claim that there are "Nine planets in the Universe" or a "hundred million stars in our universe" when they actually mean "solar system" or "galaxy" and some people do not realise the terms mean things of radically different scales.

cHriS wrote: "For a general discussion like this universe or observable universe would be much the same thing."

Unless you draw conclusions based on the over-simplification.

For example you can say that the "earth is a sphere" then someone comes along and shows you mountains, or the flattening of the poles, etc. and then claims that this proves you are wrong and therefore we know nothing about the shape of the Earth.

cHriS wrote: "What is beyond it and if nothing then what was there before it came into being? And if the answer is given as nothing as well, then that is only a ‘concept’ and not an answer."

Except that you again have assumptions in those questions I suspect you don't realise you have.

(This is a really difficult concept so I sympathise but try to see what I am saying)

What is North of the North pole? If you continue going North on the Earth eventually you will end up going south, without changing direction or encountering a boundary. You cannot go north because the direction does not exist.

Hence what is "beyond" the universe? Nothing is beyond the universe because the direction makes no sense. What was before the universe? What was before time? How can you have before without time?

Note that this doesn't mean nothing like "empty space", space is something not nothing.

cHriS wrote: "A concept may or may not pan out over a long term to be true. But for now we take it to be true (layman’s terms) because that is what evidence shows. Much like a 50% chance to me."

Only if you use true and false as absolutes. Said concept may be 99.999& right and a more accurate answer will explain the 0.001%

cHriS wrote: "It is also an argument for not accepting ‘all’ of what this branch of science puts before us as evidence. I was saying this some pages back when we were talking about ‘Lucy’."

Again because you do treat science like religion so if one bit is wrong it must all be wrong, that's not science.

Evidence is evidence. Just like most crimes are not caught red handed and need a lot of different evidence brought together to give us the idea of what happened.

Creationists love this way of thinking as it's what they are afraid science will do to god.

cHriS wrote: "You use the word arrogant in a sentence that ‘is’ arrogant/self-important."

In your "humble" opinion. :-D

cHriS wrote: "The sentence suggests that unless we have a scientific background we should not speculate / hypothesize / wonder, we should leave that to you guys."

No. It says if you claim we're wrong then put up or shut up.

cHriS wrote: "A sort of ‘belief’ that they are correct until proven otherwise.

A bit like what some of us say regarding a god."

Except again we are happy to change our ideas when circumstances allow, you are still using 2000 year old scripture to denigrate your fellow man.

Prove us wrong, feel free, but proving a part of science wrong doesn't prove any religion right, and it doesn't prove science wrong because that's how you do science.

cHriS wrote: "Yet if the Laetoli analysis is correct, then my previous ‘guess’ about ‘Lucy’ is better than the little evidence collected so far."

And?

Getting the details right is good, but saying everything is wrong because one detail was wrong doesn't mean it's all wrong. Unlike the absolute claims of religion.

It used to be thought that heavy objects always fall faster than light ones, that was shown to be untrue, does that prove objects do not fall?

cHriS wrote: "I never said that science had to stop, I said the universe is expanding."

cHriS wrote: "It never reaches the edge because the universe expands faster that light. And that’s where science has to stop."

Really?

cHriS wrote: "The centre of a blackhole, the singularity is where the scientific understanding of the universe stops. And as you say we may never have a complete understanding."

We may never have, but then again we might.

Actually Hawking has related the work in singularities to the singularity at the start of time and has shown that they may never form. In fact it would take infinite time for one to form from our point of view so they may not exist anyway.

cHriS wrote: "As I said some pages back, we will never fully understand because we do not have enough intelligence ‘to’ understand, but we can speculate, guess, believe or wonder and science helps us do that."

Yet we understand a lot more than we did, and look like we will understand more. To pretend that means its ok to make anything up and ask people to believe it... well.

cHriS wrote: "Science can go on proposing theories but it is not getting any closer to understanding. "

Please learn the meaning of the scientific term "theory".

cHriS wrote: "Good scientific reply. But is does NOT answer any of those questions. It may satisfy the scientific community just as god does for others."

In the same way that "electricity" may satisfy scientists for how your computer works just as "magic and fairy dust" may satisfy others.

Doesn't mean the fairy believers are right, or that they can design a working computer.

cHriS wrote: "Ask a child to write down all the numbers and there would be a final number."

A final number for that child, but that would still not answer their question correctly would it?

But well illustrated on the difference between not understanding an answer when you don't understand the assumption in the question.

(i.e. that there is a limit to numbers)

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "So where is the evidence of intelligent life (excluding earth), where has the evidence lead us and what evidence are we following and why do we look."

The evidence is based in the observation of homogeneity across the universe. This would suggest that if a planet with life on can exist in one apparently not particularly special place in the universe then it could exist in another. Since there is nothing special about this part of the universe at least on the scale we are looking at.

If the universe had turned out to be only big enough to fit our solar system in and a few tiny stars to light the sky that would be strong evidence for us to be alone. However, sheer scale suggests that it may be possible.

However, alien life is indeed a hypothesis, not a theory so until we get evidence that life can exist out there, then its not a theory.

It has more evidence than any religion though. The fact life exists everywhere on Earth we thought it could exist and indeed almost everywhere we thought it couldn't, and much of the universe we can see appears to be made out of similar stuff, then unless we find evidence of something "special" about Earth there is no reason to assume its special.

Now we have more evidence. Once we did not know if stable planetary systems were a rare thing, or whether rocky planets were rare. Now we have evidence that both are common. Once we thought that organic material that makes us would be staggeringly hard to put together, however now we've seen clouds in space light years across that contain amino acids and other organic compounds.

So the evidence for alien life is actually mounting up even as things that we thought were caused by gods are disappearing.

But it's not a "theory" until we can prove specific alien life beyond reasonable doubt.

[Travis]

Gary wrote: "cHriS wrote: "That is hearsay on your part and there fore not admissible. You cannot assume that I am unable to comprehend."

Then you cannot assume that science is subject to your limits, invalida..."

Like your phrase about how 'proving science wrong does not prove religion right'

Drives me crazy when someone points out an unanswered question in a theory and then immediately goes 'It must be god!'

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: But it's not a "theory" until we can prove specific alien life beyond reasonable doubt. ..."

Ok, thanks for the information, but it's not really addressing the question I asked. Although I will admit that I did ask it in a rather rhetorical fashion, because I thought it would challenge your previous response, which was......

Gary wrote: This is why science certainly should stay open to ideas, but pursue them based on where evidence leads us, rather than taking one particular tale and then trying to find evidence to support that one idea....

So what was the evidence that lead us to look for alien life in the first place? If it was not just man's curiosity.

-------------------------------------

I have often thought that maybe life on earth did come from another planet, but that does not seem to fit in with what science is telling us, right now.

But reading this.............

.quote:The idea that life on Earth came from another planet has been around as a modern scientific theory since the 1960s when it was proposed by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. At the time they were ridiculed for their idea – known as panspermia. But now, with growing evidence, it's back in vogue and even being studied by NASA.

........... I think that there are so many 'theories' and so little concrete evidence for any one of them, in this branch of science that at this moment in time, anything is still possible.

It's just that science seems to want us to follow it's finding and us believe what it says until it tells us something different. Most of us do not have enough time to wait and so we wonder.

[Ryver]

without religion definetaley.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Gary wrote: But it's not a "theory" until we can prove specific alien life beyond reasonable doubt. ..."

Ok, thanks for the information, but it's not really addressing the question I asked. Althou..."

and the 'wondering' would not be a problem if it didn't always seem to lead to a version of 'my imaginary friend did it.'

Science is not an exclusive club. Everybody is welcome to join in, if you are bored waiting.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: and the 'wondering' would not be a problem if it didn't always seem to lead to a version of 'my imaginary friend did it.'

Science is not an exclusive club. Everybody is welcome to join in, if you are bored waiting.
..."

I do join in, and it's good to know that it's not an exclusive club, but I sometimes think that it does have a sort of class system with elements of snobbery.

Whos is your imaginary friend? Harvey?

[Ra44]

"Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? "

When people get sick or injured, they almost always go to science based medical practitioners, only a few go to faith healers.

If somebody wants you to believe in a religion, simply ask for the god(s) to appear and prove their existence and powers.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: and the 'wondering' would not be a problem if it didn't always seem to lead to a version of 'my imaginary friend did it.'

Science is not an exclusive club. Everybody is welcome to jo..."

It is weird how science people can get so prickly when you use magic to explain how the world works.


Harvey...? A giant bunny?
It's a blizzard in New Hampshire, I'm imagining Scarlet Johanson with a coffee maker.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: Harvey...? A giant bunny?

That's the one.

It's a blizzard in New Hampshire, I'm imagining Scarlet Johanson with a coffee maker...."

I've been reading Douglas Kennedy's tweets and he said that he drove from Canada to his home Maine a few days ago and is has been snowed in even since then....about three days now.

[Linda]

Would rather live without religion but don't see why we can't have both.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "Ok, thanks for the information, but it's not really addressing the question I asked."

I thought it did. You asked for the evidence and the evidence is based in observational evidence that their is nothing special or unique about our position in our galaxy or our galaxy's position in the universe, therefore if life arose here, and intelligent life, then it is reasonable to hypothesise that it could happen around any of the billions of G2V stars in the universe. Then there is the observational evidence of complex carbon structures in far away nebula.

cHriS wrote: "So what was the evidence that lead us to look for alien life in the first place? If it was not just man's curiosity."

The evidence that I provided above? The fact that our sun isn't unique, that our planet isn't the only body in our solar system capable of maintaining an atmosphere.

Certainly there is no "proof", but their is enough evidence to make it a reasonable hypothesis, and no evidence to suggest that the Earth is unique in the Universe.

I realise you wanted to somehow equate SETI with religion but it is demonstrably a fallacy.

cHriS wrote: "I have often thought that maybe life on earth did come from another planet, but that does not seem to fit in with what science is telling us, right now."

Panspermia is indeed an intriguing idea, and it may not be entirely false. Some scientists hypothesise that it could be "partially" correct in that nebulae like the ones detected could provide the building blocks of life pre-built to planets where further chemistry leads to a slow birth of biology.

cHriS wrote: "I think that there are so many 'theories' and so little concrete evidence for any one of them, in this branch of science that at this moment in time, anything is still possible."

Again you need to separate "hypothesis" from theory, and also realise it's not this "branch" of science but one particular question that we are yet to answer. However, "anything is still possible" is misleading. We do have quite a lot of evidence which puts constraints on what an acceptable theory would eventually be.

cHriS wrote: "It's just that science seems to want us to follow it's finding and us believe what it says until it tells us something different."

Only if you again treat science as a religion. Science doesn't "want" anything. Scientists are trying to discover the right answers and to show the reasoning and evidence for those answers. There is no need to "believe".

You want to try to paint science as unfounded belief to justify your own unfounded beliefs, but the fact you post that on the internet shows the difference between working things out and making things up.

cHriS wrote: "Most of us do not have enough time to wait and so we wonder."

Wondering is fine. I do the same. However once you believe in something, wondering ends.

If you had someone on trial and it was dragging on, is it ethical to just choose to believe that they are guilty just because you personally don't have time to discover the truth? To then proclaim their guilt to others based on your belief rather than evidence?

You claim that you are perhaps intellectually superior to scientists because you haven't been "indoctrinated" into a particular dogma, yet obviously you have. Scientists actually spend a portion of their training specifically learning to break free from dogma, learning to be objective rather than keeping their limited human assumptions and perceptions, and learning to be sceptical even of ideas that seem "common sense" that turn out not to be.

It turns out that by wondering and learning we discover that the Universe is more wonderful than we imagine, and in the face of this it is better to be honest and say "we don't know" when we reach our limits rather than projecting limits to fill the gap with a deity a lot like ourselves.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "I do join in, and it's good to know that it's not an exclusive club, but I sometimes think that it does have a sort of class system with elements of snobbery. "

Snobbery would be claiming to be equivalent or more knowledgeable than others based on your lack of learning.

[Michael]

If, Gary, we DO aspire to be honest and we DO say "we don't know" when we reach our limits, a deity a lot like ourselves is inevitable. Partly because the situation becomes, by definition, ineffable (we've reached our limits after all and can't properly frame what's beyond them), and partly because anthropomorphising is just what we do to compartmentalise the ineffable, the "pathetic fallacy" of the Romantic mentality.

I'm still going to poke the beehive though - I see no correlation in my mind between religion and faith. One's a set meal and the other is a buffet. Also, I see no reason, in the face of any inclination toward deism, for which each must pick their flavour, to eschew a nod to faith for the sake of lauding science - or vice versa of course. You suggest that indoctrination is a bad thing, but the rigours of the scientific mind can occasionally be as limiting as the ones you perceive to exist in the religious one. And I specify the word "religious", mostly for convenience. The day science has all the answers I'll change my mind - but it never will. Which is a shame. And isn't.

Keeps the debate going though I guess and after over 8000 entries and a lot of lo-o-o-o-ng detailed points being made, some of them a little on the peripheral side, nobody has changed their mind yet. Is that good or bad? Away you go.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: Just as a person who doesn't speak Japanese isn't "indoctrinated" into what the Japanese think they mean when they use their language. Or a non-pilot isn't indoctrinated into how to fly a plane and therefore is probably better at it.

Yet ...oops... by your argument an atheist is fundamentally better at comprehending your religion because they haven't been indoctrinated into it.

Yeah, again simple arrogance of claiming "if it doesn't make sense to me then it doesn't make sense to the universe".

You were doing so well until the last paragraph.

An atheist may well be better at seeing outside the box when it come to religion. Just as I said about science, which is also a form of indoctrination.

Simple arrogance applies both ways. If you use it as you have done above, then why should it not apply equally to you when you comment on religion?

Gary wrote: Wrong. Religion requires belief. Science requires belief to be set aside so that the truth can be sought.

You are putting yourself into check; science cannot find the answers. If you have a better answer than there being a god, show us. But not by constantly trying to disprove god, just give us your best answer.

Gary wrote: but we are narrowing down the list….

Wrong, you are giving rise to even more questions.

Gary wrote: Except that I will view concepts as possibilities until evidence makes them hard theories, then I will accept it, unless it is superceded. Whereas you believe in an idea and refuse to change it with new data

I am happy to change when we have evidence, but nothing so far eliminates the need for a creator. In other words produce the correct answer.

Gary wrote: And what is the difference between "god" and "the Universe" except for us imagining it has a personality and temporal goals.

No not that. I believe the human brain/mind is not powerful enough to understand every thing, so I do not try and figure out anything about god. Science thinks it knows the answer and it’s just a matter of finding evidence.

Gary wrote: Yes, you are quite right. The point is though that when explaining something to a layman is not teaching them to become an expert or to comprehend the ideas.

It is to answer the question asked.

Gary wrote: I hear it often where people claim that there are "Nine planets in the Universe" or a "hundred million stars in our universe" when they actually mean "solar system" or "galaxy" and some people do not realise the terms mean things of radically different scales.

No, but I understood the ‘context’ of the word Universe as did the Professor when we gave an answer to the ‘speed of light’ ‘universe’ thing of a few posts ago. He did not need to clarify what context the questioner was using regarding the word universe, because the answer would have been correct with either use.

What you did was introduce a ‘red herring’ into the equation and then expand on the answer.

Gary wrote: What is North of the North pole? If you continue going North on the Earth eventually you will end up going south, without changing direction or encountering a boundary. You cannot go north because the direction does not exist.

Hence what is "beyond" the universe? Nothing is beyond the universe because the direction makes no sense. What was before the universe? What was before time? How can you have before without time?

I do understand that concept. Of course the North pole example assumed that you are walking on the outside of a globe.

I also understand that all time is, is a measurement that man invented to measure things by. But we are having a ’layman’ discussion and then you use the reply ‘How can you have before without time’ is no more than me saying god exists.

I am sure you understand what I am saying, it is the science ‘get out of jail free card’ which you may want to dispute rather than agree, otherwise you have no answer.

It is possible to have a ‘before’ time. We are deflecting by debating words and not meanings. Forget the word time and rephrase the question.

What was here before what is here now?

Gary wrote: Again because you do treat science like religion so if one bit is wrong it must all be wrong, that's not science.

It seems that with science we should take as correct what science tell us (the public) until they say otherwise. If we question something, science will show us the last bit of evidence. Like folks here did when I suggested that Lucy was not what science was telling us she was.

Gary wrote: Evidence is evidence.

Is it? Always?

Gary wrote: No. It says if you claim we're wrong then put up or shut up.

That does not seem to work here because you will never accept when we may just be a little more correct than you are.


Gary wrote: It used to be thought that heavy objects always fall faster than light ones, that was shown to be untrue, does that prove objects do not fall?

If that is your counter argument to the ‘Lucy’ thing, it’s not very good.

Gary wrote: But well illustrated on the difference between not understanding an answer when you don't understand the assumption in the question.

(i.e. that there is a limit to numbers)

Oh I understand, you did not understand the analogy. It's like the ‘time’ illustration above, it does not exist anymore than numbers exist.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: "cHriS wrote: "I do join in, and it's good to know that it's not an exclusive club, but I sometimes think that it does have a sort of class system with elements of snobbery. "

Snobbery would be cla..."

Could be, or it could be "we are better than you" therefore your opinion does not count.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Gary wrote: "cHriS wrote: "I do join in, and it's good to know that it's not an exclusive club, but I sometimes think that it does have a sort of class system with elements of snobbery. "

Snobbery..."

or it could be 'we went to school and spent years studying this stuff and it's hard to take seriously someone who keeps claiming a magical being did it all.'

[cHriS]

If you had an open mind you would not rule anything out, even a magical being.

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "If you had an open mind you would not rule anything out, even a magical being."
Can't remember who it was that said "Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out". The issue is not ruling out a magical being, it's that there is no evidence for one, and no requirement for one to explain anything. So why add the extra level of explanation of "it's a magical being"? If we accept that, and accept your culturally default position of "it's the magical being that the culture I was born into happens to believe in", then what's to stop an extra level on top of that and go "well maybe, but your magical being was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster"? I'm reasonably sure that's an explanation you'd reject, but it is in no way different from yours.

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "Could be, or it could be "we are better than you" therefore your opinion does not count. "
You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. I don't know enough about you to judge whether anyone here is better than you or not, that's not the issue.

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "I am happy to change when we have evidence, but nothing so far eliminates the need for a creator. In other words produce the correct answer."
Nothing requires the existence of a creator. The evidence for the big bang theory, even if incomplete, is still evidence. There is no evidence for a creator other than "I can't understand how else it could happen", which is not evidence.

[cerebus]

cswrote: "No not that. I believe the human brain/mind is not powerful enough to understand every thing, so I do not try and figure out anything about god. "
You don't try and figure "anything out about god"? Really? Nothing? So it really is just blind faith and blind adherence to the bible? All of it?

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "What was here before what is here now?"
Why does there have to have been something?

[Anne]

Neither, there is no reason that religion and science can't compliment each other rather than be adversaries.

[Rutul]

I would rather live in a world without Justin Bieber.

Haha. But on a serious note, I would rather live in a world without religion.

[cerebus]

Anne wrote: "Neither, there is no reason that religion and science can't compliment each other rather than be adversaries."
How do you feel they compliment each other?

[Steve]

Without religion for sure.

[Gary]

Michael wrote: "If, Gary, we DO aspire to be honest and we DO say "we don't know" when we reach our limits, a deity a lot like ourselves is inevitable."

Do you mean belief in a deity like ourselves, or the actual existence of one?

Michael wrote: "Partly because the situation becomes, by definition, ineffable (we've reached our limits after all and can't properly frame what's beyond them),"

Yet.

This is the repeated issue that Chris keeps falling prey to, it assumes an absolute limit to what we can know and what we can't. That is also an unfounded belief.

Its an arrogant position to take that just because we personally do not know something then those that come after us can never know. It's also a position proved consistently wrong.

Michael wrote: "and partly because anthropomorphising is just what we do to compartmentalise the ineffable, the "pathetic fallacy" of the Romantic mentality."

So instead of assuming that belief in an anthropomorphic entity is inevitable we can choose to see it as an intrinsic tendency and compensate for it. The existence of lightening rods shows we can accept a non-anthropomorphic explanation for things that once had one. So we just need to follow the trend of expanding knowledge.

Michael wrote: "I'm still going to poke the beehive though - I see no correlation in my mind between religion and faith. One's a set meal and the other is a buffet."

A common opinion, similar to the "spiritual" vs. "religious" conjecture that comes up every so often, and just like here it is almost always expressed as a loose metaphor than a rigid definition which keeps it safe from being challenged.

You may see a difference between religion and faith, but they are both based on belief. Catholics and protestants also saw their ideologies as distinct enough to kill each other over, yet to the Muslims they are both Christians, and to the pagans they and the Muslims are all monotheists and to 'spiritualists' they are all religious adherents and to non-theists they are all some form of believer.

Michael wrote: "You suggest that indoctrination is a bad thing, but the rigours of the scientific mind can occasionally be as limiting as the ones you perceive to exist in the religious one."

A claim often made by non-scientists who assume that science works like religion. Can you cite examples? Quite often you will find that it is a belief that limited the scientific mind rather than the other way around.

E.g. Einstein worked out that his theory should mean that the entire universe would collapse under its gravity. It turned out this was based on his belief/assumption that the universe was static. It then turned out that the universe wasn't static.

Michael wrote: "The day science has all the answers I'll change my mind - but it never will. Which is a shame. And isn't."

Again this is based on the unfounded belief in a limitation to our knowledge or the existence of infinite knowledge.

It's also based on a fallacious idea of the role of science.

If the weather report says "prepare for a hurricane" do you ignore it because we can never know what the weather will do for the rest of time so this information is useless, or do we take precautions?

If you see a red traffic light, do you ignore that information based on the fact that you can never know the absolute likelihood of the patterns of traffic for the next million years? Or do you stop because you have more information that you would have had without it?

Science isn't about "answering everything" science is about answering and also questioning.

Michael wrote: "nobody has changed their mind yet. Is that good or bad? Away you go. "

Depends on your goals. If you are trying to look for an extrinsic purpose you may need an ultimate goal of converting others, whereas an intrinsic purpose may be an end unto itself.

[Michael]

Well I can't deny you bit right down on it. I picked up some phrases though in my perusing: "repeated issue", "common opinion", "claim often made". I'm glad I could participate fully in the cliches. Perhaps they are repeated or common or often claimed, I have no way of knowing and you saying so doesn't make it any more objectively true if you think about it. Which is pretty much symptomatic, wouldn't you say? I also had no rigid opinion on the role of science - I think the phrase "role of science" sounds almost as evangelical as the sort of stuff you yourself would call bollocks. That is, unless that lack of form suggests some sort of fallacy in itself.

Also, when you write that "Its an arrogant position to take that just because we personally do not know something then those that come after us can never know. It's also a position proved consistently wrong.", you may want to take a moment to consider that you didn't half misread something there. I have no such position and never would have. It may be that you have a script you need to work to here, or it may not, but don't assume things. Don't misinterpret things.

Here's a thing though - another poke if you will - you are as blind to the truth of this argument as I am. You can't not be, which is why you're still writing essays 8000 comments in. You can postulate, as we all can. But for all your arguments, you do like to express yourself in ways that just about skirt the murky edge of the absolute, but without falling in. Good here, innit?

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "You were doing so well until the last paragraph."

You are very fond of arbitrarily judging me by your standards.

cHriS wrote: "An atheist may well be better at seeing outside the box when it come to religion. Just as I said about science, which is also a form of indoctrination."

Except that again you are making a statement of belief which is demonstrably wrong.

Science isn't indoctrination, in fact much of science is learning how to look past our inherent bias and assumptions. Again I will provide reasoning and evidence rather than presenting beliefs as facts. If science was indoctrination then there would be one consistent interpretation of what Quantum Theory actually means. As it is Quantum Theory works, it works extremely well, but their is no doctrine or complete understanding why it works. In fact it currently defies all doctrine or attempts to provide an overarching explanation, but it works and it works very well.

Evidence and reason have uncovered Quantum Theory, but we are yet to have any established "doctrine" that explains "why" it is. Whereas religion starts with doctrine and then looks for confirmational evidence.

cHriS wrote: "Simple arrogance applies both ways. If you use it as you have done above, then why should it not apply equally to you when you comment on religion?"

Because I've studied religion too, and I am not making claims that I know a particular religion better than you because I've studied it less.

cHriS wrote: "You are putting yourself into check; science cannot find the answers."

Again an arrogant claim based on the idea that science has finished and successive generations may actually find all the answers you are talking about and more.

Prove that science cannot find the answers. In fact prove that the "answers" you are talking about exist. What are these answers that science cannot find?

cHriS wrote: "If you have a better answer than there being a god, show us."

A better answer to what exactly? Why we are here maybe? Well since god is nothing but a circular answer. It makes the answer just ask the further question of why is god here, which is then usually walled off as unknown or an answer to itself.

cHriS wrote: "But not by constantly trying to disprove god, just give us your best answer."

When have I tried to disprove god? You cannot even define god to a level where we can apply proofs.

What I do is repeatedly point out the fallacies and assumptions that people like you make when claiming there is a god.

Only based on your endlessly repeated god of the gaps fallacy. I don't try to disprove god,

cHriS wrote: "Wrong, you are giving rise to even more questions."

Wrong, because those questions were always there, so therefore we are actually discovering how much we don't know, which still means that there is less we don't know, even though now we realise how much we didn't know.

Your error is in the assumption that the universe is so simple that you can understand it alone without need for study or the knowledge of others.

cHriS wrote: "I am happy to change when we have evidence, but nothing so far eliminates the need for a creator. In other words produce the correct answer."

There is only a need for a creator if you can provide evidence that "creation" happened, and that it happened deliberately. Neither claim has any evidence whatsoever so I have no need for the hypothesis of a creator to fit that evidence.

cHriS wrote: "No not that. I believe the human brain/mind is not powerful enough to understand every thing, so I do not try and figure out anything about god."

(My emphasis). It's a belief. Nothing more.

You also make a great over simplification of understanding versus knowledge. Scientists know the difference. We may understand every letter in the alphabet, that doesn't grant you knowledge of every thing written in that alphabet, but neither do you need to assume that there is a mystical force that provides the writing we are posting here.

cHriS wrote: "Science thinks it knows the answer and it’s just a matter of finding evidence."

Wrong again. Science looks for evidence first and then looks for the answers and the questions that the evidence leads us to.

cHriS wrote: "It is to answer the question asked."

Yes and as I showed before, sometimes the mistaken assumptions in the question make the answer superfluous. Like "Why does it rain candy every day in Germany?" any answer that doesn't point out the mistaken assumption in the question would be superfluous.

cHriS wrote: "No, but I understood the ‘context’ of the word Universe as did the Professor when we gave an answer to the ‘speed of light’ ‘universe’ thing of a few posts ago. He did not need to clarify what context the questioner was using regarding the word universe, because the answer would have been correct with either use."

Erm... Completely wrong. Again. I repeat. The "edge" is only a horizon to us and therefore the "observable universe" (just as we are to it), however "beyond" that edge is still "the Universe".

cHriS wrote: "What you did was introduce a ‘red herring’ into the equation and then expand on the answer."

Again trying to claim that I am lying with no proof and a failure to comprehend why you are wrong.

cHriS wrote: "I do understand that concept. Of course the North pole example assumed that you are walking on the outside of a globe."

Yes but the point isn't whether you can move in three dimensions, it's whether you can move north. There is a whole section of cosmology dealing with cosmological topology and dimensions. We know thanks to Einstein that what we think of as rigid 3 dimensional space is actually 4 dimensional space-time that curves with gravity and acceleration. So we may be living in a curved space rather than a flat infinite one.

cHriS wrote: "I also understand that all time is, is a measurement that man invented to measure things by. But we are having a ’layman’ discussion and then you use the reply ‘How can you have before without time’ is no more than me saying god exists."

Not at all. We already know that time is not an infinite linear thing, we have proof of that. Proof that every GPS smartphone in the world needs to take into account to work.

You have no proof god exists, just as you have no proof time is infinite.

cHriS wrote: "I am sure you understand what I am saying, it is the science ‘get out of jail free card’ which you may want to dispute rather than agree, otherwise you have no answer."

No, its the fact that you don't appear to understand what I'm saying which is why you don't understand the answer and would rather believe the universe is limited rather than you are.

cHriS wrote: "It is possible to have a ‘before’ time.

What was here before what is here now?"

Before and now both require time, you cannot have a "before time" because you would need time to be before it in. Again your question contains an erroneous assumption that there is a universal time, a concept disproved by Einstein.

GcHriS wrote: "It seems that with science we should take as correct what science tell us (the public) until they say otherwise."

Common religious/creationist paranoia that somehow scientists are a "new priesthood". You don't seem to have a problem if any other expert is relied on for their expertise. Only when it challenges your own authority to make claims on how the universe works do you attack and demonise hundreds of thousands of hard-working experts, a lot underpaid and all who have spent years studying and challenging each other to find the truth.

cHriS wrote: "If we question something, science will show us the last bit of evidence. Like folks here did when I suggested that Lucy was not what science was telling us she was."

Except "science" claimed nothing because "science" isn't a thing, or a god, or a religion. Some scientists claimed that Lucy was evidence and it turned out to be wrong. People attempting to mislead people about science cherry pick these pieces to cast doubt on the rest even though that there is lots of evidence that has been confirmed. The fact that some evidence has been found wrong is a strength of science not a weakness.

Meanwhile many religions still base their ideas on concepts long found wanting.

cHriS wrote: "That does not seem to work here because you will never accept when we may just be a little more correct than you are."

Funny since you constantly make claims and present your beliefs as facts, whereas I always try to explain why I think you are wrong, and agree those times I think you are right.


cHriS wrote: "If that is your counter argument to the ‘Lucy’ thing, it’s not very good."

You love the "Lucy" thing don't you, because its one little fragment you can cling to so you can deny any evidence to the contrary because some scientists got something wrong, well who discovered that? More scientists.

That's the way science works.

cHriS wrote: "Oh I understand, you did not understand the analogy. It's like the ‘time’ illustration above, it does not exist anymore than numbers exist."

Er, wrong. We can show that time moves at different rates for objects travelling at different speeds, we can show time is not a simple abstract idea that we created, it is not a seperate thing to the universe it is an intrinsic interacting part of the universe.

cHriS wrote: "Could be, or it could be "we are better than you" therefore your opinion does not count."

Only if you're the type of person who tells others that your opinion on something formed by guesswork and assumption should have equal validity to theirs without the same study, practice and training that they've had.

Do you think that people should trust just anyone to fly an airliner, to build a computer, to perform surgery, to practise law because the experts may just be indoctrinated into one way of thinking?

So why should your opinion carry equal weight to the opinion of someone who has studied what you are talking about for years?

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "If you had an open mind you would not rule anything out, even a magical being."

If you had a convincing argument, you wouldn't have to keep telling us to 'keep an open mind'.

[Travis]

Rutul wrote: "I would rather live in a world without Justin Bieber.

Haha. But on a serious note, I would rather live in a world without religion."

At the rate he's going, Justin Bieber will soon be a religion.

[Shanna]

Travis wrote: "Rutul wrote: "I would rather live in a world without Justin Bieber.

Haha. But on a serious note, I would rather live in a world without religion."

At the rate he's going, Justin Bieber will soon ..."

To thousands of Bieliebers he already is ;P

[Michael]

Lot of the argument has been left behind now and there's a great deal of ad hominem carping going on. Phrases like "you're the type of person" show no worthwhile insight at all, whatever side of this argument you're on. And I'm the type of person who genuinely believes that.

[Gary]

Michael wrote: "I'm glad I could participate fully in the cliches. Perhaps they are repeated or common or often claimed, I have no way of knowing and you saying so doesn't make it any more objectively true if you think about it."

I do think about it, and you are right just saying it doesn't make it true. However you have 8600+ posts where you can go and check my conclusions and make your own opinion. In the same manner science works.

Michael wrote: "Which is pretty much symptomatic, wouldn't you say? I also had no rigid opinion on the role of science"

A good point. Any rigid opinion would be antithetical to science. This is because when most people say "science" they mean the current body of scientific knowledge which they treat as doctrine, or they mean "scientists" as some sort of authoritarian hierarchy. Science is just the methodology of rational enquiry that tries to remove human bias and assumption from what is studied.

Michael wrote: "I think the phrase "role of science" sounds almost as evangelical as the sort of stuff you yourself would call bollocks."

I try to avoid phrases like "bollocks" as no matter how frustrating it is sometimes, outright mockery instead of reason is ultimately self-defeating. The subject of the mockery learns nothing and is further resistant to reasonable discourse, your audience misses an opportunity to learn from their mistakes, or perhaps to see what they was afraid was a silly question explained without scorn.

Michael wrote: "That is, unless that lack of form suggests some sort of fallacy in itself."

Or perhaps it doesn't. Who knows? Since you opened speaking about the problems with taking a statement at face value, it seems strange then to use such a rhetorical tool to vaguely imply some sort of inherent error. Was this intentional?

Michael wrote: "Also, when you write that "Its an arrogant position to take that just because we personally do not know something then those that come after us can never know. It's also a position proved consistently wrong.", you may want to take a moment to consider that you didn't half misread something there. I have no such position and never would have."

I was responding to this part of your post.

Michael wrote: "If, Gary, we DO aspire to be honest and we DO say "we don't know" when we reach our limits, a deity a lot like ourselves is inevitable. Partly because the situation becomes, by definition, ineffable (we've reached our limits after all and can't properly frame what's beyond them)

(My emphasis) Here you twice referred to "reaching our limits" and made note of the situation becoming "ineffable". My point is that for anyone to assume they have reached the limits of understanding is arrogant, because we do not know what our successors will be able to understand or indeed put into words.

So I was directly addressing this opinion you posted, based on your assumption that whatever "we" you were referring to would be able to state with utter certainty that the limits of knowledge were reached. However, any such person who could say that wouldn't need god, they would be god.

Michael wrote: "It may be that you have a script you need to work to here, or it may not, but don't assume things."

A common tactic to try to denigrate someone's opinion, try to imply that they are the witless mouthpiece of someone else's script.

I also really love the hypocrisy of assuming I am following a script (or I have a predetermined goal which a script would speak to) and then tell me not to assume.

Michael wrote: "Don't misinterpret things."

It is fundamentally impossible to achieve that alone. Misinterpretation can happen on both sides, the person sending the information or the person receiving. I do try never to misrepresent which would be a deliberate misinterpretation, but I cannot promise to not misinterpret especially if you do not address specifics.

Michael wrote: "you are as blind to the truth of this argument as I am."

Again the arrogance of assuming that what you don't know, no one can know. Meanwhile I have never claimed to know the "truth of this argument", what I have done is repeatedly challenged the assumptions and misconceptions that are repeatedly posted.

Michael wrote: "You can't not be, which is why you're still writing essays 8000 comments in."

Assuming that I have some other goal than simply discussing and writing.

That's (at least) 2 assumptions since admonishing me not to make them.

Michael wrote: "You can postulate, as we all can. But for all your arguments, you do like to express yourself in ways that just about skirt the murky edge of the absolute, but without falling in. Good here, innit? "

3

Assuming there is an absolute.

What man has discovered so far is every absolute we have found has been found not to be so. It used to be thought that space and time were absolutes, now we can show they are not, we used to think atoms were absolutely indivisible, turns out that's not true. In fact it turns out that a fundamental piece of modern knowledge shows us that when absolutes, even absolute nothings, arise natural effects stop us from ever reaching them.

So there is at least two possibilities, we are all "skirting this murky edge" of some absolute or other, or there is no absolute and we can rise ever higher and see ever further into the clearing murkiness. In either case there is no reason to assume that an absolute exists.