Scientists as Kings?

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:

A scientist will accept a theory until a better one comes along.

Regards

Stephen

To accept a theory - 'believe' it to be true!!

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:

quote:

Originally posted by TheRedHerring:
I would never thrust my beliefs down anyone’s throat, however all around I have atheists willing to thrust their beliefs down mine!


A

Maybe they are making up for a few thousand years of persecution by religious people?

Stephen

Hypocrisy is everywhere!!

quote:

Originally posted by TheRedHerring:

Hypocrisy is everywhere!!

That, I can't disagree with!



Stephen

quote:

Now back to the subject, I would agree that ID should not be taught in one of the ‘science’ subjects but in a religious and moral education subject as we have in Scotland

'ID' can be covered in ten minutes. So I guess space could be made for it. I'd prefer that classes covered the philosophy of science.

ID isn't a theory, it's a paint. Whenever an ID believer finds a phenomenon that doesn't meet their personal definition of natural they paint it with ID.

Paul

Science is open to constant scrutiny on a truly international scale without borders or limitation. It thrives on change and actively seeks it at every level, in every discipline, by the brightest minds alive. Intensely competitive cross-referencing between the sciences reinforces or questions theories to destruction. Or advances them as the best current truth. Nobody has a monopoly or holds the high ground for as long as another idea or viewpoint can be tested and proved (or disproved) in the long or short term. The only punishment for failure is obscurity or mild derision from one's fellow scientists. One might hope for a slightly less conservative approach at times to the more "ethereal" notions. Which tend to be no-go areas for the ambitious until mainstream science catches up. Or cheerfully disproves such things. Whether accidentally or by more careful re-trial of the conditions under experiment. Or better analysis of the results. But generally all aspects of science are available to testing by the most (and least) talented and/or most imagininative of their day. Scientific truth is the answer to an infinitely long equation with an infinite number of variables expanding exponentially with each iteration.


Religion is (simply) the reverse.

By Douglas Adams 'God rest his soul and all who sail in her'

'"In the beginning the Universe was created. This had made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. Many races believe that it was created by some sort of god, though the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle Six believe that the entire universe was in fact sneezed out the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. The Jatravartids, who live in perpetual fear of the time they call the Coming of the Great White Handkerchief, are small blue creatures with more than fifty arms each, who are therefore unique in being the only race in history to have invented aerosol deodorant before the wheel. However, the Great Green Arkleseizure Theory is not widely excepted outside Viltvodle Six and so, the Universe being the puzzling place that it is, other explanations are constantly being sought."


Regards

Stephen

"A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein

quote:

Originally posted by TheRedHerring:
"A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein

Yeah, but what did he know?

Stephen

ID does not conflict with science any more than astrology. The potential for conflict arises when it is promoted as 'scientific', but this is not a legitimate conflict.

Wise old bird that Albert.

Paul

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein

And, I'd rather be lame than blind.



Stephen

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:
And, I'd rather be lame than blind.



Stephen

Lame - Weak and ineffectual; unsatisfactory

Says it all really!

We start off discussing an important and crucial issue of the day. And end in personal insults. Typical Forum postings then!



Stephen

What is it they say (whoever 'they' are).... never to talk about........

No personal insult intended - I don't know you!

A

quote:

Originally posted by TheRedHerring:
No personal insult intended - I don't know you!

A

That's never stopped anyone else before!



Stephen

Thank-you Stephen

'bout what I figured...

regards,

michael

quote:

Originally posted by Matthew T:
Blind faith in 'god'

or

Blind faith in science

take your pick, science asks as many questions as it answers.

Matthew

No comparison. Science will do its best to find answers to the questions and will change if the answers are not what was expected while religion .... well let's just say that religion and questions don't mix well.

quote:

If by 'belief' you mean a belief in some being or force that created the universe or life on earth... I would......agree with you. If by 'belief' you mean....accepting (without question) the dogma of a..... religion, I would strongly disagree.

Perhaps it's not a problem in 'everyday' science - but when researching the 'big questions' of life, the universe and everything....? Then I'd strongly disagree with you.

I assume you don't agree that a belief should be taught in a science class?

Stephen,

I have re-drafted your first statement, and as re-drafted I have no problem with it.

If you are going to research the 'big questions' (your second statement) then as a scientist, you can't ignore the possibility of some 'being' or 'force' that created the universe, and created what lies outside it.

I have no problem with your last statement.

I don't trust scientists who set out to demonstrate 'conclusively' that bible stories (such as the Flood or the parting of the Red Sea) are 'impossible' and therefore 'prove' that the associated religion is 'false'. I also think scientists who see the 'Big Bang' as the end of 'nothingness' and 'the begining of somethingness and time' have very limited imagination. And without imagination, science won't get very far. I also don't trust 'fundamentalist' religions and their 'dogmatic' teachings.

I supose I am a bit of a sceptic.

As a 'guide' I tend to think of scientists answering the question "how does something happen?" rather than "why does something happen?". I find the second question is more easily answered as "because God says so" or, if you are an aetheist, "because thats the way this universe happens to be". (I'm talking here about the physical universe rather than the way people behave as individuals or groups. But, I supose, if a 'god' exists he could 'cause' people to behave as he wishes, who knows?)



Cheers

Don

"if men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it" Benjamin Franklin
Somes it up for me, religion is a total menace and serves no purpose.
Just my 2p
Martin
God is dead

quote:

Originally posted by Martin D:

God is dead

Or running away so fast from her creation that she's presently travelling at the speed of light at the far edge of the expanding universe and we will never be able to catch her (even at warp ten) to ask what she actually intended in creating... Adam?

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
If you are going to research the 'big questions' (your second statement) then as a scientist, you can't ignore the possibility of some 'being' or 'force' that created the universe, and created what lies outside it.

I never meant to preculde the 'possibility - just that, there's no point in seriously considering it until there's some evidence for its existence. If one already believes that it exists, then that shuts down all further research - hence why I considered it an important issue in those areas of research. I don't preclude the possibility of you being the supreme being - it's just about as (un)likely to be the case as a 'god'.

Regards

Stephen

If man were wiped out today, science would continue to exist unchanged. It would wait patiently, but with complete indifference, for the next semi-intelligent species to attempt to describe its details again. And again and again. Until the universe grows cold.

But God would cease to exist. Immediately, and forever.

quote:

I don't trust scientists who set out to demonstrate 'conclusively' that bible stories (such as the Flood or the parting of the Red Sea) are 'impossible' and therefore 'prove' that the associated religion is 'false'.

I think those are straw scientists.

The one thing a scientist cannot do is conclude 'It was God' because that's the end of enquiry and no conclusion at all.

quote:

I also think scientists who see the 'Big Bang' as the end of 'nothingness' and 'the begining of somethingness and time' have very limited imagination. And without imagination, science won't get very far.

I completely disagree. The imagination involved in a theory that has a start point for time and space is pretty vivid.

Paul

I believe the BBC said that religion was Einstein's achilles heel. But I can't prove it.

Stephen Hawking said something like (paraphrase) The big bang theory does not preclude a creator it just places limits on when he did it.

And Francis bacon "Small amounts of philosophy lead to atheism, but larger amounts bring us back to God." Although I think I read Arthur Schopenhauer said something similar first.

Surly the point about religion is faith. If a God or a supreme creator could be proven there would be no need for faith. I am not pushing any theory here BTW and because eminent and intelligent scientists or philosophers can be quoted, for or against, means nothing as a contradictory quote from another such could be found.
What gets on my wick are the people who question other peoples intelligence over their particular beliefs.
Of course we in the West have trouble accepting one God but how about Eastern religions and getting to grips with belief in numerous different gods?
John.

Not to mention those esoteric Eastern religions who push one god and are now practiced extensively in the West, like Christianity. Or those religions based on many gods that have been practiced in the West for many thousands of years. It’s not really an East/West thing. Would that it were that simple.

Cheers

Harry