Religion Yet Another Religion Thread

Killswitch

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 29, 2004
Messages
1,584
I know it's probably asking too much, but in the light of the apparent rise of the batshit-insane Religious Right in US politics and the ongoing debates about the teaching of creationism vs evolution recently fired-up by a certain Rick Perry, I'd like to try and start a decent debate on here. I'm 99% sure it'll degenerate into namecalling, trolling and long, rambling posts by Toht that are at best orthogonal to the subject. :)

I'll start with where I stand. I would imagine I'm as close to a full-blown Athiest as it's possible to get without discarding logic and reason completely. This would be a "6 leaning strongly towards 7" on the scale Richard Dawkins mentioned in The God Delusion. I would hope that if faced with compelling evidence of the existence of a deity, I'd be able to accept that and change my world-view based on it. I am uncomfortable with the term "Agnostic" though, as it seems to suggest almost a coin-flip of likelihood...an equivalence of probabilities of the existence of a god (which god is never really made clear).

There are several common arguments I hear regarding the existence of God with the most common being summed up by Stephen Jay Gould using the term Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA). This is essentially the idea that Science (or reason/logic/experimentation) and Religion are two parallel lines which never cross. Essentially that they answer different questions; Science tells us "How" and Religion tells us "Why". I instinctively distrust this reasoning because assigning motives and will to inanimate objects is the very antithesis of Science and progress. This kind of anthropomorphisation dominated early critical thinking but acts as a barrier to further inquiry; if we say that a rock falls to the earth because that is it's correct place then that seems to be end of the discussion. Once this was challenged, it led (eventually) to Newton's Laws of Motion and the single-greatest advancement in our understanding of the universe.

"Why" attributes a purpose, a pursuit of an eventual goal but this seems to me very much like putting the cart before the horse. Religion claims to be the road to finding out the "Why" of existence, but the only reason anyone would even assume there IS a "Why" is if they are religious to begin with.

The other point that specifically interests me is what evidence I think I personally would need to see before I could believe in God. This is a tricky question for several reasons. The first reason is that no-one has defined what it means to be God (or a god, or god-like). Is it enough to be have been the Creator? The guy who flipped the "On" switch and then pursued other interests, an absentee landlord? At the other end of the scale, would God need to be present in all places at all times for eternity? Would his constant attention and will be required for all physical processes to continue? Somewhere in-between?

I like to postulate a thought-experiment at this point. The "Computer Simulation" experiment in fact. If this Universe and every sentient being in it was being run by a computer program (or even AS a computer program, computing some complex problem) would that make the guy running the program God? Which God? Would he be Allah or Yahweh or Zeus? Would he pass the "Fit and Proper Deity Test" of a Christian or Muslim"?

I think that's where I feel comfortable drawing my line in the sand as it were. It seems possible (it could be argued that it's very likely in fact) that we are in some kind of simulation or managed world, made by a Creator with a definite, fixed purpose. That person may or may not have the ability to influence everything great and small within our universe. They might have seeded life on our planet with the certainty that human life would evolve and argue endlessly about the origins of the Universe. I could accept that possibility. What I could not accept, however, is that this Creator could have appeared, fully-formed and all-powerful and willed our Universe into existence. Any creature capable of such a technological feat of creation would, like us, have evolved from the smallest possible form of life over billions of years. While they might have god-like powers (whatever that means) over their "Creation" and while they might have "Intelligently Designed" us and everything around us, that excludes them from being the Abrahamic God (or Zeus, Thor, Amon-Ra and all the other gods that believers conveniently choose to not believe it).

So I guess (after all that rambling) I'm an Atheist with a leaning towards a weird kind of techno-spiritualism. The idea something as awesome as the Universe could be created appeals to me on a technological level and the idea that a race could evolve to the point of technical prowess to be able to create/simulate an entire Universe doesn't seem impossible to me. These are people like me though, just smarter and more evolved.

To sum up; God is clearly a bedroom-dwelling IT nerd from the Deimos cell of Anonymous. :)
 

old.user4556

Has a sexy sister. I am also a Bodhi wannabee.
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
16,163
Interesting post.

I've always said that the 'God' part wasn't what bothered me about religion, is was all the infighting bollocks inbetween: Catholics, Protestants, Sunni Muslims, Shia Muslims etc. The goal post moving of religion also fucks me off. Clearly the uneducated stuff at the start of the bible, such as the nonsense of the Earth being the centre of the universe, turned out to be a spade-loads of bollocks along with a fair other chunk of it.
 

ford prefect

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,386
Firstly, on the Agnostic issue. I consider myself agnostic, but it isn’t a coin toss for me. I believe that ultimately the universe and its origins are unknowable. As human beings we possess physical and mental limitations, and no matter how far our genius reaches or how advances our technology becomes, we can only ever theorise on our cosmic origins and the necessity or lack there of, of a deity. Science is important – the pursuit of science is the single most important human endeavour, but for me, it is important not to ignore that one fundamental flaw – doing so, as I have argued in the past, makes science a belief.

For me religion is a necessity. The human condition is exceptionally complex and we find ourselves increasingly in a collective environment which we are ill equipped to cope with. We are in the unenviable position of being self aware, aware of our own mortality and for reasons of evolutionary survival; we are capable of doing incredibly unpleasant things to each other. A moral framework, and a need to address the awareness of our own finite existence can most easily be addressed by religious means. As an atheist, you still largely follow the Christian-Judeo morality that has been instilled in yourself and your ancestors, and it is something that most of us cling to as a moral compass in our daily lives. Perhaps that is the ultimate evolution of religion – a collective morality.

I have a problem with religious intolerance – largely concerned with the media portrayal of certain religions over the past decade or so. I have just explained why I believe religion is necessary, but equally I believe that MOST PEOPLE who are religious are doing more to address the darker aspects of the human condition, by inspiring us to question our moral boundaries, our duties to our fellow man and instilling those moral imperatives (if not those religious views per se), to future generations.

I would also argue that there is a vast difference between Christianity, Islam and many other major religions, compared to teaching common ignorance in the form of religious extremism. Extremists by their nature miss the most important aspects of religion and focus specifically on the minutia, often for their own agenda. Creationism & Extremist Muslim views fall into this category. I will reiterate that Islam is a religion & a set of laws, which by western standards may seem somewhat outdated, but which have survived for 2000 years and (yes I am aware many of you will disagree) have kept peace and promoted a lawful society for majority of that time. Extremism has no place in any society, nor does it have any place in our schools.

To sum up: The question of whether god exists, for me, isn’t a relevant one.
 

Deebs

Chief Arsewipe
Staff member
Moderator
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 11, 1997
Messages
9,076,920
I too follow the Computer Simulation scenario to a degree and over the past 2 weeks have been holding conversations with a Hindu at work who believes in the same. What we both struggle to understand is the following statement:

"If we are being told that the Universe is growing/expanding then what is it growing/expanding into? What is the something else..."

I simply cannot believe that someone came along and created billions upon billions of entities in a massive universe in 6 days. Our scientists have placed an age upon this universe to be a little bit older than that, are they wrong? If so, surely our complete understanding of science must be utterly flawed.

ps. Keep the topic civil, no trolling and no name calling etc.
 

Killswitch

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 29, 2004
Messages
1,584
Interesting post.

I've always said that the 'God' part wasn't what bothered me about religion, is was all the infighting bollocks inbetween: Catholics, Protestants, Sunni Muslims, Shia Muslims etc. The goal post moving of religion also fucks me off. Clearly the uneducated stuff at the start of the bible, such as the nonsense of the Earth being the centre of the universe, turned out to be a spade-loads of bollocks along with a fair other chunk of it.

I agree with this to a point, but it's my considered opinion that people like to eat, fight and fuck, usually in that order. It's been shown many times that people don't need religious differences to have a good old ding-dong, but it certainly helps to justify it and rile up the unwashed masses from the security of your air-conditioned bunker.

I think that if there wasn't a force as divisive as religion loose in the world, we'd have to invent one.

I personally see the Bible as being a bit like the original radio broadcast of War of the Worlds. The people writing it knew they were writing a story, but the people who heard those stories were naive enough (and the stories fantastical enough) that they took them as truth. The sad thing is that 2000 years on with the advances in science and the understanding of the physical world there are still bible literalists who believe in the Great Flood and the Fall of Man and the 7-day Creation-a-thon. Even if God (whichever one) cannot be refuted these events surely can.

Even the Church is looking to distance itself from the whole "Adam and Eve" thing, despite the fact that this means no Garden of Eden, no Fall of Man, no Original Sin, no reason for Christ to die for our sins and basically no Christian faith. Without Adam and Eve the entire Bible is essentially a book about smiting and conjuring tricks.

I doubt many people today (even the really, really crazy ones) believe Martians landed on Horsfall Common and chased David Essex into a lake.
 

StRaNgEdAyS

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
237
Heh, I'm firmly entrenched in the agnostic camp.
We just don't have sufficient evidence to say for sure there is no god, but judging from the verification of the tales laid out in the widely accepted handbook of godly works then I'd have to say it's not looking good for the vindictive old fart in the least.
There is however a very small band of debaters who firmly place atheism in the faith based religion camp. That is an argument I'd like to see played out, simply because it's nothing short of beautiful to see circular reasoning in action. Heads can and do explode on keyboards in these debates.
 

old.user4556

Has a sexy sister. I am also a Bodhi wannabee.
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
16,163
ps. Keep the topic civil, no trolling and no name calling etc.

You nose it!

I'm just going to put this rather off the wall thought out there:

Suppose then, that it's some massive IT Geek God and the universe is just a massive pseudo matrix-style reality, you could argue that it was 'pre configured' to make us believe it took billions of years? Maybe 'billions of years' is just to keep us cushioned and under control in the groove of science? For want of a better example, look at the theory behind Rachel from Bladerunner - give them memories and they're emotionally more stable.
 

Killswitch

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 29, 2004
Messages
1,584
"If we are being told that the Universe is growing/expanding then what is it growing/expanding into? What is the something else..."

I see this as a lack of understanding (or lack of capability TO understand). This isn't meant as an insult, I doubt very much that Plato or some other equally smart dude from history would be able to get his head around the operation of semiconductors or genome decoding. He would have the intelligence, but not the "extelligence"...basically the culture and environment of shared knowledge...required to make the leap to understanding.

"What happened before the Big Bang?" - in our Universe (there are probably others) time only started "ticking" when it was initially created. Our timeline began at the point so the question "what happened before" makes as much sense as the questions "what does red smell like?".

In the same way, we struggle to think of expansion as anything other than "expansion into three-dimensional space" but many theories suggest that the universe is essentially on the "surface" of a large, higher-dimensional space which is itself expanding, with the universe expanding like a logo on an inflating balloon.

Of course all these are theories, but they are internally consistent and supported by at least some tenuous mathematics and observable behavior.
 

Killswitch

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 29, 2004
Messages
1,584
To sum up: The question of whether god exists, for me, isn’t a relevant one.

This is interesting. The "need" for religion, the good works religion is responsible for, the sense of well-being and happiness enjoyed by the happy faithful...these things are all laudable, but none of it makes religious beliefs true or correct.

I see no reason why the existence of a god or the truth behind the creation of the universe should be classed as unknowable or untestable. That seems to be the flimsiest of beliefs, driven by nothing more than wishful thinking or pure defeatism. Everything from the composition of stars to the laws of motion to the movement of the planets to the cause of disease was "unknowable" and "untestable" at some point.

I cannot help but think that their are differences between a universe ruled by immutable physical laws and another ruled by divine will and I am sure these difference will come under the scrutiny of our best and brightest.
 

Killswitch

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 29, 2004
Messages
1,584
You nose it!

I'm just going to put this rather off the wall thought out there:

Suppose then, that it's some massive IT Geek God and the universe is just a massive pseudo matrix-style reality, you could argue that it was 'pre configured' to make us believe it took billions of years? Maybe 'billions of years' is just to keep us cushioned and under control in the groove of science? For want of a better example, look at the theory behind Rachel from Bladerunner - give them memories and they're emotionally more stable.

Or look at World of Warcraft...some of those ruins looks thousands of years old, but the game only came out in 2004!!

That said, there's no reason that it couldn't be a simulation from first principles...just tune the Weak Electromagnetic Force to X and the Avagadro Constant to Y and set it going! Hours of fun for all the family! No need for it to run in real-time if your hypervisor is fast enough. You might be able to simulate the entire life-span of a Universe from Big Bang to the final victory of entropy in an afternoon and just "Tivo" the good bits.
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
21,652
Not interested in arguing religion, moved on some time ago, obvious outcome from sentient beings in an indifferent universe
Just two questions, why does matter or the space for it ,exist at all.
Two..how can that same matter form itself into a lump that can be self aware , experiencing anything is the most mind boggingly bizarre thing in any dimension you can imagine. What is it,where is it?
 

ford prefect

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,386
This is interesting. The "need" for religion, the good works religion is responsible for, the sense of well-being and happiness enjoyed by the happy faithful...these things are all laudable, but none of it makes religious beliefs true or correct.

I see no reason why the existence of a god or the truth behind the creation of the universe should be classed as unknowable or untestable. That seems to be the flimsiest of beliefs, driven by nothing more than wishful thinking or pure defeatism. Everything from the composition of stars to the laws of motion to the movement of the planets to the cause of disease was "unknowable" and "untestable" at some point.

I cannot help but think that their are differences between a universe ruled by immutable physical laws and another ruled by divine will and I am sure these difference will come under the scrutiny of our best and brightest.

I don't see it as flimsy at all. It is rational. Understanding the coposition of stars, the motion of planets or the causes of disease are quite different from proving a grand unified field theory, or even understanding the quantum world in any detail, apart from creating theories and mathematical models which seem to fit the observable data. In fact it is these very mathmatical models - especially quantum theory and m-theory which show just how ill equipped we are to understand the nature of the universe, or even if it is a universe in the truest sense of the word.
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
Aww, sad to disappoint the Toht waiters. The troll-me would've jumped on this like a clown on a hedgehog(look it up), but the real toht shady doesn't discuss politics, religion, past relationships or justin timberlake :p
 

ford prefect

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,386
I too follow the Computer Simulation scenario to a degree and over the past 2 weeks have been holding conversations with a Hindu at work who believes in the same. What we both struggle to understand is the following statement:

"If we are being told that the Universe is growing/expanding then what is it growing/expanding into? What is the something else..."

I simply cannot believe that someone came along and created billions upon billions of entities in a massive universe in 6 days. Our scientists have placed an age upon this universe to be a little bit older than that, are they wrong? If so, surely our complete understanding of science must be utterly flawed.

ps. Keep the topic civil, no trolling and no name calling etc.

The computer simlulation aside, doesn't m-theory provide a, well, solution to that question - i.e. membranes, vibrating, expanding and periodically interacting with each other?
 

Krazeh

Part of the furniture
Joined
Dec 30, 2003
Messages
950
Firstly, on the Agnostic issue. I consider myself agnostic, but it isn’t a coin toss for me. I believe that ultimately the universe and its origins are unknowable. As human beings we possess physical and mental limitations, and no matter how far our genius reaches or how advances our technology becomes, we can only ever theorise on our cosmic origins and the necessity or lack there of, of a deity. Science is important – the pursuit of science is the single most important human endeavour, but for me, it is important not to ignore that one fundamental flaw – doing so, as I have argued in the past, makes science a belief.

I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you saying that unless we accept that we have limitations that make it impossible for us to ever fully understand the universe and its origins then science is a belief? What rational basis is there to base an acceptance that such limitations do and/or will exist for the entire length of human existence?

For me religion is a necessity. The human condition is exceptionally complex and we find ourselves increasingly in a collective environment which we are ill equipped to cope with. We are in the unenviable position of being self aware, aware of our own mortality and for reasons of evolutionary survival; we are capable of doing incredibly unpleasant things to each other. A moral framework, and a need to address the awareness of our own finite existence can most easily be addressed by religious means. As an atheist, you still largely follow the Christian-Judeo morality that has been instilled in yourself and your ancestors, and it is something that most of us cling to as a moral compass in our daily lives. Perhaps that is the ultimate evolution of religion – a collective morality.

I disagree that religion is a necessity. Yes it provides simpler, easier to understand 'answers' to big questions but are they really answers or just a placebo? It extols ignorance rather than understanding. There's also the question of how many issues that people find difficult to cope with are actually brought up because of religion. For example would the issue of mortality be as difficult for people to deal with if they'd never be introduced to concepts such as the afterlife, heaven/hell, an eternal soul?

As for morality I'd argue that it stems from the very fact that humans are social animals and live in social groups. It would have been necessary for moral frameworks to spring up to allow such groups to survive successfully and grow in size. I'd further argue that christian-judeo religion usurped existing moral frameworks rather than creating one and that we would have moral frameworks even if religion did not exist. The fact that the current western moral framework can be considered a christian-judeo one has more to do with the spread of such religion rather than the religions role in creating it imo.
 

Lamp

Gold Star Holder!!
Joined
Jan 16, 2005
Messages
22,953
I like what Paul Dirac (physicist - one of the founders of quantum mechanics) said about religion

I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards—in heaven if not on earth—all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins
 

ford prefect

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,386
I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you saying that unless we accept that we have limitations that make it impossible for us to ever fully understand the universe and its origins then science is a belief? What rational basis is there to base an acceptance that such limitations do and/or will exist for the entire length of human existence?

Essentially yes. As Stanley Jaki observed, to theorise is to explore the limits of human imagination and understanding, but equally such theorems apply strict limits on our understanding of the universe.

Look at it another way, we are capable of creating theories, like string / m-theory or quantum mechanics, but by the very nature of what they propose, ultimately we can never actually truly comprehend them, simply because we are subject to our own physical and mental limitations, there is no reason to believe that will change. If you make the mistake of confusing theory as fact, it is no longer science, it is by any reasonable measure it becomes a belief.

I disagree that religion is a necessity. Yes it provides simpler, easier to understand 'answers' to big questions but are they really answers or just a placebo? It extols ignorance rather than understanding. There's also the question of how many issues that people find difficult to cope with are actually brought up because of religion. For example would the issue of mortality be as difficult for people to deal with if they'd never be introduced to concepts such as the afterlife, heaven/hell, an eternal soul?

Actually, necessity it probably the wrong word; the need to look beyond ourselves, for something bigger (and that statement isn’t limited to religion), has been around as long as we have. We are predisposed to look beyond ourselves, it is as much a part of what makes us self aware as any other aspect of consciousness. You may look at someone who looks to the bible for their understanding of the world around them and their place in it as ignorant. Equally they may look at science, which is as easily applied to killing thousands of people at once as it is to curing a skin rash, and with little culpability; and they may feel that your conviction that science holds the answers is equally as ignorant. My point is, both are very valid views. If you disagree, we will simply have to agree to disagree there.

As for morality I'd argue that it stems from the very fact that humans are social animals and live in social groups. It would have been necessary for moral frameworks to spring up to allow such groups to survive successfully and grow in size. I'd further argue that christian-judeo religion usurped existing moral frameworks rather than creating one and that we would have moral frameworks even if religion did not exist. The fact that the current western moral framework can be considered a christian-judeo one has more to do with the spread of such religion rather than the religions role in creating it imo.

You are right to a degree – most humans are social animals, but they are also selfish, greedy, proud and on occasion, simply unpleasant. I used the Christian-Judeo system as an example, as it is essentially what modern western civilization is based on, but obviously, as I said above, the need to reach beyond ourselves has always been there. And that need, whether it be religion or something else is fundamental to our survival. We will always war; again it is in our nature, but frameworks like religion are the essential counterpoint, which serves to bring our behaviour into balance. I suspect science would make a poor substitute
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,981
Firstly, on the Agnostic issue. I consider myself agnostic, but it isn’t a coin toss for me. I believe that ultimately the universe and its origins are unknowable. As human beings we possess physical and mental limitations, and no matter how far our genius reaches or how advances our technology becomes, we can only ever theorise on our cosmic origins and the necessity or lack there of, of a deity. Science is important – the pursuit of science is the single most important human endeavour, but for me, it is important not to ignore that one fundamental flaw – doing so, as I have argued in the past, makes science a belief.

For starters: "I believe that ultimately the universe [is] unknowable".

OK then. You believe that. Despite the evidence pointing the other way IMO - but that's not the point. You state up front that you believe, and I'm willing to accept that statement as fact...


"no matter how far our genius reaches or how advances our technology becomes, we can only ever theorise on our cosmic origins"

Again. Statement of belief. Not of fact. I disagree with your belief. I think that in the future we could possibly understand the lot. Perhaps not, but maybe.

It's unwise to deal in certainties like "no matter" what happens we could never understand the universe - because that's obviously a ridiculous statement of clairvoyant proportions - common amongst believers :)


Then there's this twaddle:

"it is important not to ignore that one fundamental flaw – doing so...makes science a belief"

Again. Disagree completely. You're ignoring your own fundamental flaw that your opinion of whether the world is knowabale or not is a belief - and as that is a fundamental basis for your assessment of science then your assessment is, fundamentally, incorrect. :)


Science cannot be a belief. Science is a tool, like a hammer.

You can believe in hammers. But it doesn't change the hammer - it changes how you think about it.

You can believe in something about science. What following the procedure offers. Whether it's overall influence on society is a good or bad thing. Ideologies that spring from it, etc. etc.

However, you can't "believe" in science as it's a ruleset. If you believe in it then by definition you're no longer following it. Science and belief are two separate things. :)


"Science is important – the pursuit of science is the single most important human endeavour"

You can't persue "science". You can use it as a tool to remove silly human emotions, beliefs and bias in the persuit of knowledge. But you can't persue science per se - as science is a tool...



Oh, as I've argued before and you've denied (but strangely supported with the content of your posts, despite denial):

on the Agnostic issue. I consider myself agnostic, but it isn’t a coin toss for me.

So you're not really agnostic about it. You've decided that there's probably a god and the universe is unknowable. It comes through in your posts on religion.

TBH, I used to think that you were christian but trying to hide it in order to get a bit more traction in threads. I'm still not sure you're not - because although you don't have the obvious god-bothering-ness about you, your arguments go as far as they can in support of religion and it's thinking without a full-out endorsement of sky-fairies.


As evidence I'd like to present:

Essentially yes. As Stanley Jaki observed, to theorise is to explore the limits of human imagination and understanding, but equally such theorems apply strict limits on our understanding of the universe.

Seriously ford, come out of your religious closet and stop quoting priests in support of an argument about science. You'll probably get felt up by a catholic if you stay in there much longer...

:D
 

rynnor

Rockhound
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
9,353
I think organised religion serves a useful purpose instilling guilt into that chunk of humanity who lack empathy.
 

rynnor

Rockhound
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
9,353
For starters: "I believe that ultimately the universe [is] unknowable".

OK then. You believe that. Despite the evidence pointing the other way IMO - but that's not the point. You state up front that you believe, and I'm willing to accept that statement as fact...

Hmm - quantum theory suggests that ultimate knowledge of the universe is impossible because the act of observation changes the observed.
 

Lamp

Gold Star Holder!!
Joined
Jan 16, 2005
Messages
22,953
Hmm - quantum theory suggests that ultimate knowledge of the universe is impossible because the act of observation changes the observed.

first bit of that sentence is probably correct, but for the wrong reason. Observation changes the probability quantum wavefunction, but the simple fact is we just don't know what goes on at the Planck level - especially with the uncertainty principle. Some things will be beyond our understanding for many years to come - eg the nature of a singularity in a black hole.
 

TdC

Trem's hunky sex love muffin
Joined
Dec 20, 2003
Messages
30,801
goooooo Heisenberg! I believe in uncertainty! Yay for not knowing! :D
 

Lamp

Gold Star Holder!!
Joined
Jan 16, 2005
Messages
22,953
Indeed. At its absolute basic level, nature herself is uncertain. Particles can literally be created from nothing (this happens trillions of times a second, but the particles don't last long, and are annihilated by antimatter particles). The stars, planets, galaxies, and us, are a result of quantum fluctuations occuring at the big bang, where only one in one billion partices of matter managed to escape being annihilated by antimatter. Had there been no quantum fluctuations, we wouldn't be here.
 

rynnor

Rockhound
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
9,353
Personally I think its a good thing - knowing everything down to the quantum level would be dull :p
 

ford prefect

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,386
For starters: "I believe that ultimately the universe [is] unknowable".

OK then. You believe that. Despite the evidence pointing the other way IMO - but that's not the point. You state up front that you believe, and I'm willing to accept that statement as fact...


"no matter how far our genius reaches or how advances our technology becomes, we can only ever theorise on our cosmic origins"

Again. Statement of belief. Not of fact. I disagree with your belief. I think that in the future we could possibly understand the lot. Perhaps not, but maybe.

It's unwise to deal in certainties like "no matter" what happens we could never understand the universe - because that's obviously a ridiculous statement of clairvoyant proportions - common amongst believers :)

Then there's this twaddle:

"it is important not to ignore that one fundamental flaw – doing so...makes science a belief"

I think you are misunderstanding me here. I am not saying belief is a positive or negative thing, it is what it is. A scientific theory is just that a theory. Science is unbiased observation based on repeatable experiementation with reproducable results. A theory is a mathematical model which appears to fit the observable facts. I will say again treating a theory (relativity for example) as fact is a belief. Perhaps the more pertanent question is if we do come up with a cogent grand unified field theory, will it ever be any more than that; will we ever be able to scientifically prove that theory beyond any shadow of a doubt? I suspect due to our limits, the answer is no.
Perhaps more relavent to this debate, if such a theory existed, appeared to explain everything, but could not be 100% conclusively proven by scientific process, would you believe in it?

Again. Disagree completely. You're ignoring your own fundamental flaw that your opinion of whether the world is knowabale or not is a belief - and as that is a fundamental basis for your assessment of science then your assessment is, fundamentally, incorrect. :)


Science cannot be a belief. Science is a tool, like a hammer.

You can believe in hammers. But it doesn't change the hammer - it changes how you think about it.

You can believe in something about science. What following the procedure offers. Whether it's overall influence on society is a good or bad thing. Ideologies that spring from it, etc. etc.

However, you can't "believe" in science as it's a ruleset. If you believe in it then by definition you're no longer following it. Science and belief are two separate things. :)

I agree completely.

"Science is important – the pursuit of science is the single most important human endeavour"

You can't persue "science". You can use it as a tool to remove silly human emotions, beliefs and bias in the persuit of knowledge. But you can't persue science per se - as science is a tool...

Now you are just being silly, I should have probably said the persuit of scientific knowledge, but does it really matter?

Oh, as I've argued before and you've denied (but strangely supported with the content of your posts, despite denial):

So you're not really agnostic about it. You've decided that there's probably a god and the universe is unknowable. It comes through in your posts on religion.

TBH, I used to think that you were christian but trying to hide it in order to get a bit more traction in threads. I'm still not sure you're not - because although you don't have the obvious god-bothering-ness about you, your arguments go as far as they can in support of religion and it's thinking without a full-out endorsement of sky-fairies.

To be honest, I would appreciate it if you didn't tell me what I do or don't believe. I have stated my religous views above.

As evidence I'd like to present:



Seriously ford, come out of your religious closet and stop quoting priests in support of an argument about science. You'll probably get felt up by a catholic if you stay in there much longer...

:D
Yes, he was a priest, a philospher and also an extremely accomplished Physicist. His work around Gödel's theorem arguably underpins much of the modelling for the search for a grand unified field theory.
 

Lamp

Gold Star Holder!!
Joined
Jan 16, 2005
Messages
22,953
I will say again treating a theory (relativity for example) as fact is a belief.

You can't possibly be stating that Einstein's general relativity is mere unproven theory can you? I can't prove God doesn't exist, but I can prove Einstein's equations bear out in the real world. I'm missunderstanding you, right?
 

ford prefect

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,386
You can't possibly be stating that Einstein's general relativity is mere unproven theory can you? I can't prove God doesn't exist, but I can prove Einstein's equations bear out in the real world. I'm missunderstanding you, right?

Exactly my point. In its native form, relativity should apply as easily to the quantum world as it does to cosmology - it is a theory, yes and a good one, but it is a small part of a much larger puzzle and ultimately incorrect.
 

Lamp

Gold Star Holder!!
Joined
Jan 16, 2005
Messages
22,953
I was cherry-picking out of context. Yes, you're right. The search for a unified theory goes on...

Side note: Wouldn't it be nice if Hawking could provide the unified theory before he died?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom