Religion Yet Another Religion Thread

[Wij]

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.

<zombie voice>
Branes
</zombie voice>

Nerd laughs now please.

Deebs - we've had the internet for a long time now. Don't wonder about things with friends, Google it:

Curious About Astronomy: What is the universe expanding into?

 

[Killswitch]

<zombie voice>
Branes
</zombie voice>

Nerd laughs now please.

Deebs - we've had the internet for a long time now. Don't wonder about things with friends, Google it:

Curious About Astronomy: What is the universe expanding into?

I can highly recommend this book, although it has that annoying Popular Science thing of making you understand everything about a topic right up until you need to explain it to someone else...

The Never-Ending Days of Being Dead: Dispatches from the Front Line of Science: Amazon.co.uk: Marcus Chown: Books

 

[Scouse]

I will say again treating a theory (relativity for example) as fact is a belief.

That's not what happens though, is it.


The Theory of Relativity. The clue's in the name and there's no attempt to hide the fact that we know it's wrong. We freely admit that it's the best theory we have and use it to great advantage.

And there's millions of physicists trying to prove it wrong. Deadicating their whole lives to it.

Hardly belief there. In fact, a startling lack of it

 

[Ormorof]

they actually proved a lot of Einsteins relativitiy shizzle with some lasers on a probe near the sun, i will dig up some links to the news story

 

[ford prefect]

That's not what happens though, is it.

The Theory of Relativity. The clue's in the name and there's no attempt to hide the fact that we know it's wrong. We freely admit that it's the best theory we have and use it to great advantage.

And there's millions of physicists trying to prove it wrong. Deadicating their whole lives to it.

Hardly belief there. In fact, a startling lack of it

And should a reasonable grand unified field theory be produced tomorrow? Can it ever be anything more than a belief? It will never be anything more than a theory, as every aspect of it can never be proven conclusively.

 

[Wij]

And should a reasonable grand unified field theory be produced tomorrow? Can it ever be anything more than a belief? It will never be anything more than a theory, as every aspect of it can never be proven conclusively.

So ? I don't get your point. These theories consistently match with enough of reality to allow us to do really useful stuff. They work.

Praying doesn't.

 

[ford prefect]

So ? I don't get your point. These theories consistently match with enough of reality to allow us to do really useful stuff. They work.

Praying doesn't.

Actually, in terms of stress management, prayer has been shown to be very useful, a sort of psychological passing the buck if you will, but that is irrelevant.

My point is that the holy grail of science, a theory of everything, if it actually exists, is also about belief. The basis of the pursuit of scientific knowledge is to try to make sense of the world around us, examining something larger than ourselves. It is a very human thing to do, something we have always done.

In Britain, many people are incredibly dismissive of religion and as has been proven on this very forum, they can be quite militant on the subject. And yet the out of 6.8 billion people in the world, 4.6 billion believe in and actively participate in the four major religions. These aren't extremists or people who are ignorant. These are people who are trying to understand the human condition and who are trying to live good, decent and above all peaceful lives. If their form of introspection takes the form of prayer or attending mass, that shouldn't be a subject for derision, or as teaching ignorance. It should be respected.

Some of the greatest thinkers in the world today are men & women of faith, many of whom are open to the view that science, religion and philosophy aren't mutually exclusive. Not to be derivative, but it seems odd that Hawkins or Dawkins has a place in this debate, but I refer to a professor of physics in an earlier post, Stanley Jaki, who also happened to be a priest and the focus is drawn immediately to the latter as if his religious views somehow make his contribution to science less.

 

[Turamber]

In Britain, many people are incredibly dismissive of religion and as has been proven on this very forum, they can be quite militant on the subject.

At the same time that most religious people in Britain are quite passive about their beliefs. Getting militant about not believing something seems truly odd to me.

 

[TdC]

These are people who are trying to understand the human condition and who are trying to live good, decent and above all peaceful lives. If their form of introspection takes the form of prayer or attending mass, that shouldn't be a subject for derision, or as teaching ignorance. It should be respected.

I do respect this. My mother is one of those people. My mother is a christian in such a manner that she probably would be branded a heretic/witch/whatever not so very log ago.

On the other hand, she also respects my firm belief that we are made of stars. That there is no god or gods. That hopefully one day we will meet others from far away

 

[DaGaffer]

. And yet the out of 6.8 billion people in the world, 4.6 billion believe in and actively participate in the four major religions.

And I wonder where those 4.6 billion sit on the normal distribution curves of IQ, education and wealth? 4.6 billion is just a number; and I'd very surprised if that number as a percentage of the overall, doesn't represent a massive decline compared to the near universal participation in religion of 100 years ago.

I also think for every "active" member of a religion, five more are just going through the motions (certainly in the case of Christianity), and don't really believe anything, if they even think about religion at all.

 

[Calaen]

And I wonder where those 4.6 billion sit on the normal distribution curves of IQ, education and wealth? 4.6 billion is just a number; and I'd very surprised if that number as a percentage of the overall, doesn't represent a massive decline compared to the near universal participation in religion of 100 years ago.

I also think for every "active" member of a religion, five more are just going through the motions (certainly in the case of Christianity), and don't really believe anything, if they even think about religion at all.

My wife's family is rather large the come from Cork! Non of her brothers or relations from their aunties/uncles children give a shit about it anymore, they attend mass at christmas as it's a family thing and more for their grandmother who is very religious.

 

[Wij]

Actually, in terms of stress management, prayer has been shown to be very useful, a sort of psychological passing the buck if you will, but that is irrelevant.

Most prayers aren't about managing stress levels so it's still fair to say that praying doesn't work

My point is that the holy grail of science, a theory of everything, if it actually exists, is also about belief. The basis of the pursuit of scientific knowledge is to try to make sense of the world around us, examining something larger than ourselves. It is a very human thing to do, something we have always done.

In Britain, many people are incredibly dismissive of religion and as has been proven on this very forum, they can be quite militant on the subject. And yet the out of 6.8 billion people in the world, 4.6 billion believe in and actively participate in the four major religions. These aren't extremists or people who are ignorant. These are people who are trying to understand the human condition and who are trying to live good, decent and above all peaceful lives. If their form of introspection takes the form of prayer or attending mass, that shouldn't be a subject for derision, or as teaching ignorance. It should be respected.

Some of the greatest thinkers in the world today are men & women of faith, many of whom are open to the view that science, religion and philosophy aren't mutually exclusive. Not to be derivative, but it seems odd that Hawkins or Dawkins has a place in this debate, but I refer to a professor of physics in an earlier post, Stanley Jaki, who also happened to be a priest and the focus is drawn immediately to the latter as if his religious views somehow make his contribution to science less.

Science isn't about belief. It's about finding stuff that works.

Numbers of believers and showing respect for others do not make an ounce of difference to the lack of evidence for religious beliefs.

 

[Shagrat]

But surely, thats all religion and superstition was as well originally wasnt it, finding an explanation for something.

It's just that as our knowledge has increased the explanation for incredibly hairy people has gone from werewolves to a genetic disease, for example.

Aren't both really just about finding a place/reason for our little spec of matter floating in the infinite.

 

[DaGaffer]

But surely, thats all religion and superstition was as well originally wasnt it, finding an explanation for something.

It's just that as our knowledge has increased the explanation for incredibly hairy people has gone from werewolves to a genetic disease, for example.

Aren't both really just about finding a place/reason for our little spec of matter floating in the infinite.

Yeah but "finding stuff out" > "making shit up"

 

[Zarjazz]

The Theory of Relativity. The clue's in the name and there's no attempt to hide the fact that we know it's wrong.

Yes, that Theory of Gravity is obviously wrong. I'm shocked objects still manage to fall to Earth.

 

[Zede]

the more we advance, the more theories become more provable

on topic one here : NASA - Gravity Probe B: The Relativity Mission

edging towards fact now.

 

[Wij]

Yes, that Theory of Gravity is obviously wrong. I'm shocked objects still manage to fall to Earth.

Here's how:

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

 

[ford prefect]

I’m not going to comment on the idea that suggests that three quarters of the world population are in some way intellectually inferior based on their beliefs, because it is a statement that speaks for itself.

I am not going to repeat my point on the difference between theory, hard science and the logical outcome of the scientific process.

I am not going to explain why NASA’s incredibly interesting relativity experiments do confirm Einstein’s observations and ideas, but don not and cannot prove his theory.

I have covered all of that in my previous posts – it is time to simply agree to disagree again I think. It is the most polite solution to the debate.

 

[Zarjazz]

Here's how:

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Thank God for The Onion.

 

[Wij]

I’m not going to comment on the idea that suggests that three quarters of the world population are in some way intellectually inferior based on their beliefs, because it is a statement that speaks for itself.

Gaff's words were 'IQ, education and wealth'. Not exactly stating that theists are inferior. Tugging on the old heart-strings a bit with that argument

 

[ford prefect]

Gaff's words were 'IQ, education and wealth'. Not exactly stating that theists are inferior. Tugging on the old heart-strings a bit with that argument

References to IQ & education in that context implies their ability to learn and reason, does it not?

 

[Wij]

By definition some people will have below average IQ.

More to the point, billions of people aren't educated. Doesn't make them inferior but it does mean they aren't as well equipped to understand the world. Unless you think education's a waste of time.

 

[Zarjazz]

Back in my previous life as a physicist I met a lot of people much smarter than me and with much higher IQ's [there was a reason I quit ] and a surprising amount of them were religious, very strongly so. I always found that strange especially considering the area of science they were studying.

I honestly think that "religion" is in our DNA. Every culture throughout recorded history, cavemen, recently discovered Amazonian tribes have all believed in a higher power or powers - all different of course. I suspect there is an evolutionary reason for this that has enhanced humanities survival. Be it better social cohesion, burial practices reducing disease and other less obvious effects.

It doesn't matter how smart you are, it's hard to go against your genes.

 

[Krazeh]

I honestly think that "religion" is in our DNA. Every culture throughout recorded history, cavemen, recently discovered Amazonian tribes have all believed in a higher power or powers - all different of course. I suspect there is an evolutionary reason for this that has enhanced humanities survival. Be it better social cohesion, burial practices reducing disease and other less obvious effects.

I think the desire to find understanding about the world around us is in our 'DNA'. Religion, higher powers, supernatural entities etc are all byproducts created when we tried to understand things that were beyond us at that point in our intellectual growth.

 

[ford prefect]

By definition some people will have below average IQ.

More to the point, billions of people aren't educated. Doesn't make them inferior but it does mean they aren't as well equipped to understand the world. Unless you think education's a waste of time.

No, of course I don't, but equally I don't think it means they are any less capable of questioning the world around them or the ideas and priciples of the religious teachings which they embrace.

 

[rynnor]

References to IQ & education in that context implies their ability to learn and reason, does it not?

I dont think so but if you are dirt poor theres little time for philosophy beyond wheres my next meal coming from. That doesnt say anything about relative intelligence.

 

[Scouse]

And should a reasonable grand unified field theory be produced tomorrow? Can it ever be anything more than a belief? It will never be anything more than a theory, as every aspect of it can never be proven conclusively.

Yes. Of course it can be "more than a belief". If you'd actually understood what I wrote you wouldn't have said that.


Belief isn't necessary to be anywhere in the equation.


If a grand unified theory was found tomorrow - and was correct - then we'd still try to break it. How else would we know it was correct?

If a grand unified theory was found tomorrow - and was broken but more useful than Einstein's - then we'd use the new theory whilst searching for a better one.

My point is that the holy grail of science, a theory of everything, if it actually exists, is also about belief.

No. It isn't. Without wanting to deliberately insult you - all the above shows is your ignorance of science and how it works on a conceptual level, that is all.


No belief at all.

 

[rynnor]

I actually think the difference between religion and science is not down to one being belief and one being fact but rather that a scientist will abandon belief in a theory when a better one comes along.

 

[Lamp]

If - one day in the future - scientists are able to categorically prove (both mathematically and practically in a lab and from real world observations) that a theory of everything explains how nature works, will it still be a belief?

I've tried to explain to a very religious Christian friend of mine various elements of how physics can explain how nature works, as its like banging your head against a brick wall.

 

[rynnor]

If - one day in the future - scientists are able to categorically prove (both mathematically and practically in a lab and from real world observations) that a theory of everything explains how nature works, will it still be a belief?

No but to think that such an unlikely thing will occur is itself a belief though arguably a more rational one