| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/22/2010 06:35:07 PM · #1476 |
Originally posted by Jason the all knowing:
So ultimately the two answers I've gotten are "why does it matter?" and "who cares?" |
Which are still better than answers that are fabricated.
Message edited by author 2010-02-22 19:02:21.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2010 06:36:01 PM · #1477 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So ultimately the two answers I've gotten are "why does it matter?" and "who cares?" |
Which are still better than answers that are fabricated. |
I didn't say that :D
Message edited by author 2010-02-22 18:37:23. |
|
|
|
02/22/2010 06:52:01 PM · #1478 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So ultimately the two answers I've gotten are "why does it matter?" and "who cares?" Hardly erudite thinking. |
Now I feel slighted. :{
Actually, in regard to the "what came before everything question" you have been provided with at least three answers:
1) "Why does it matter?"
2) "Who cares?"
And mine, 3) We don't know and we may never know, but religion/faith-based thinking provides no better answers (meaning reliable and persuasive to those not already sharing it the particular faith's preconceived dogma) than mere guesswork, so why should we preference your preferred flavor of guesswork over any other?
I will also note that in order to get your supposed "conflicts and contradictions" that "bankrupt" science you seem to be forced to look out on the very margins of theoretical physics, biology and chemistry - those areas that are, by definition, currently unknown or are the subject of internal dispute (and very vigorous dispute too if you have ever observed a couple of physics grad students in their cups discussing the relative merits of string theory).
But while we have gone far down the theological rabbit hole on occasion, the majority of objections to Christian theology cited in this forum have concerned topics lying right at the heart and surface of Christianity - the veracity/inerrancy of the Bible; the historical truth of Jesus; the supposed virginity of Mary; the effect or lack thereof of prayer; the (apparent) contradictory nature of an omnipotent and omniscient god; the doctrine(s) of salvation and Original Sin; and the nature of God him/her/itself. These are not topics lying out on the fringes of your faith where one would expect that only a handful of highly trained theologians would have a coherent position. This is the very soul (pardon the intended pun) of what it means to be Christian.
This is what I mean when I talk about how holding religious beliefs may be rational and logical, but not reasonable:
- rational (it makes sense for "x" to believe given the circumstances and position of "x" within his/her social/geographic/political framework);
- internally logical (if you accept axioms x, y and z then conclusions a, b and c can be logically inferred);
BUT - not reasonable given what we now know about the universe we live in.
What may have been perfectly reasonable for the average Roman/Jew to believe in 50 C.E. (or the average camel driver in 2000 B.C.E., or the average member of the local tribe in 20,000 B.C.E.) will not necessarily be reasonable for the modern human to believe given that human's access to information about life, the universe and everything that was completely unknown and unknowable to our ancestors.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2010 06:53:50 PM · #1479 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Et tu, Bear? Et tu? ;) |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm just sort of trying to make a distinction between "religion" and "God"... I'm still on the God side of the debate, as I always have been, but I'm defiantly NOT in the "my religion is truer than your religion" camp. R. |
I'm trying in my own faith and belief system to distinguish, and separate God and religion. I very much believe in God, but I very much hate the things that people do to each other when trying to convince one another that their flavor is the correct one. Every single falling out I have ahd with a church has never been over spiritual principles, it's always been that yeah, though they appreciate the service, we want you to donate your time to do it THIS way, the way WE think it should be done.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So ultimately the two answers I've gotten are "why does it matter?" and "who cares?" Hardly erudite thinking. |
Okay......Ed broke them down a little more than some of us, but why does it need to be more complicated than that? I don't NEED answers....I don't sit up nights wondering.
I may try to solve the problems of the world at a picnic or something, but when the dinner bell rings, or the wife and kids are ready to go back home to real life, I can check my philosophy at the door. I'd much rather spend some time at church helping out at a community breakfast, and donating toys and clothes to the clothing bank than try tio figure out the origin of the universe.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2010 06:59:32 PM · #1480 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
What may have been perfectly reasonable for the average Roman/Jew to believe in 50 C.E. (or the average camel driver in 2000 B.C.E., or the average member of the local tribe in 20,000 B.C.E.) will not necessarily be reasonable for the modern human to believe given that human's access to information about life, the universe and everything that was completely unknown and unknowable to our ancestors. |
This is the point that a few of us have been trying to raise for some time, and we get the decline of morality in the modern world as the reason that it's hard to toe the line as the bible puts forth.
I maintain that it's so much more than that on so many levels. There's nothing wrong with growth and progress, and life evolves, and changes, not always for the better, but in some ways, you have to admit that life can be easier, and richer than it was.
Though every now and then I wish it was a little simpler....8>)
|
|
|
|
02/22/2010 07:01:05 PM · #1481 |
I meant to send you a PM on your reply Ed. I haven't gotten to it yet.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2010 07:03:04 PM · #1482 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So ultimately the two answers I've gotten are "why does it matter?" and "who cares?" |
Which are still better than answers that are fabricated. |
I didn't say that :D |
Not sure how that happened. Fixored.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2010 07:03:50 PM · #1483 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I meant to send you a PM on your reply Ed. I haven't gotten to it yet. |
Flowers after the fact, huh? ;) |
|
|
|
02/22/2010 07:08:41 PM · #1484 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
. . . and we get the decline of morality in the modern world as the reason that it's hard to toe the line as the bible puts forth. . . . There's nothing wrong with growth and progress, and life evolves, and changes, not always for the better, but in some ways, you have to admit that life can be easier, and richer than it was. |
In most ways, actually. I take modern, western morality over just about anything previous any day of the week. |
|
|
|
02/22/2010 09:21:09 PM · #1485 |
| Hey Richard, just letting you know I wasn't being sarcastic about wanting to know what questions were important. I'd love to hear them! |
|
|
|
02/22/2010 10:13:39 PM · #1486 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
... that human's access to information about life, the universe and everything that was completely unknown and unknowable to our ancestors. |
... and luckily for us, someone finally figured out that...The answer is 42!
Sorry, I just could not resist a bit of levity.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/22/2010 11:58:56 PM · #1487 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Every religion only compounds the problems, so I find my own way. |
I meant to come back to this. Would you mind expanding on how one finds ones own way? I'm not sure what that looks like practically. (I'm being serious here.) |
|
|
|
02/23/2010 12:16:47 AM · #1488 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Every religion only compounds the problems, so I find my own way. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I meant to come back to this. Would you mind expanding on how one finds ones own way? I'm not sure what that looks like practically. (I'm being serious here.) |
I'd be curious to have Robert's take on religion & God. I know I have issues with religion, but not with God.
It seems to me that God is God, and religion is a whole bunch of confusion trying to explain God.....and not so well.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2010 12:22:15 AM · #1489 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'd be curious to have Robert's take on religion & God. I know I have issues with religion, but not with God.
It seems to me that God is God, and religion is a whole bunch of confusion trying to explain God.....and not so well. |
As mathematics, a human invention
that parallels but never touches reality,
gives the astronomer metaphors by which he may comprehend
the power and the flow of things,
so the human sense of beauty
is our metaphor of their excellence,
their divine nature;
like dust in a whirlwind, making
the wild wind visible...
That's from memory, quoting Robinson Jeffers. I don't think the line breaks are right, but it doesn't matter. It will do for starters.
R.
Message edited by author 2010-02-23 00:22:45. |
|
|
|
02/23/2010 12:25:38 PM · #1490 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Certainly Science knows there is an opaque curtain of the origin of our universe that we cannot see beyond. |
Not really. The Steinhardt–Turok cyclic model is pretty cutting-edge cosmology, formulated in 2006, and still being developed. |
Basically, it's fantasy at a fundamental level. |
Absolutely not. Surely you can distinguish between theoretical models of cosmology based on mathematical formulae, and actual fantasy. Fantasy is poofing the universe into existence with an eye-blink a la "I Dream of Jeannie" Genesis. Reality is attempting to explain the universe rationally with real-world formulae that withstand scrutiny despite the kicking and screaming from some quarters, and dewey-eyed romantic notions of how the universe "ought" to have been created.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
My point is different than that; my point is that when intelligent people act like we've somehow gotten closer to solving the mysteries of the universe because we are able to speculate about 'branes and strings and colliding dimensions, I have to ask how this can be distinguished from magic, basically. |
That's not much of a point. It reminds me of the official line from Apple about their new iPad. From the mouth of the VP of design: "When something exceeds your ability to understand how it works, it becomes magical, and that's exactly what the iPad is." I'm sure you're aware of Arthur Clarke's famous quote: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." These quotes highlight that we need to move away from notions of "magic" or an ultimately unexplainable phenomenon being the root cause of things, including the universe itself. As an entity, humanity is so much better than that.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2010 01:20:21 PM · #1491 |
I liked this article in The New Yorker last year and recommend a re-read (or first time read) for those interested in knowing why String Theory is not real science (yet). It sounds impressive, but it works backward compared to the real scientific method (finding a formula that fits the data and not finding whether the data fits the formula).
It just goes to point out that there is justification/rationalization going on all around. And while I understand some of us feel much more comfortable with these rationalizations, I personally don't and so see no need to alter my position.
A great opening quote in the second paragraph:
"It is the worst of times in physics. For more than a generation, physicists have been chasing a will-o’-the-wisp called string theory. The beginning of this chase marked the end of what had been three-quarters of a century of progress. Dozens of string-theory conferences have been held, hundreds of new Ph.D.s have been minted, and thousands of papers have been written. Yet, for all this activity, not a single new testable prediction has been made, not a single theoretical puzzle has been solved. In fact, there is no theory so far—just a set of hunches and calculations suggesting that a theory might exist. And, even if it does, this theory will come in such a bewildering number of versions that it will be of no practical use: a Theory of Nothing. Yet the physics establishment promotes string theory with irrational fervor, ruthlessly weeding dissenting physicists from the profession. Meanwhile, physics is stuck in a paradigm doomed to barrenness."
Emphasis is mine, but it sounds strangely familiar.
Message edited by author 2010-02-23 13:22:20.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2010 01:59:52 PM · #1492 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It just goes to point out that there is justification/rationalization going on all around. And while I understand some of us feel much more comfortable with these rationalizations, I personally don't and so see no need to alter my position. |
Nobody's asking you to change your position, with the possible exception of leaving your mind open top other possibilities.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A great opening quote in the second paragraph:
"It is the worst of times in physics. For more than a generation, physicists have been chasing a will-o’-the-wisp called string theory. The beginning of this chase marked the end of what had been three-quarters of a century of progress. Dozens of string-theory conferences have been held, hundreds of new Ph.D.s have been minted, and thousands of papers have been written. Yet, for all this activity, not a single new testable prediction has been made, not a single theoretical puzzle has been solved. In fact, there is no theory so far—just a set of hunches and calculations suggesting that a theory might exist. And, even if it does, this theory will come in such a bewildering number of versions that it will be of no practical use: a Theory of Nothing. Yet the physics establishment promotes string theory with irrational fervor, ruthlessly weeding dissenting physicists from the profession. Meanwhile, physics is stuck in a paradigm doomed to barrenness."
Emphasis is mine, but it sounds strangely familiar. |
So we have the flavor of the week from some circles. If they're trying to pass it off as the only absolute truth, then they're no better than another religion.
The difference is that there is always a possibility that it could be proven out. With most religions, the faithful have to hope that the giant gaps left in explanations from thousands of years ago are filled after the journey on this plane. There really is no way to travel back in time to verify the missing information, and/or equate it to fact in modern ways establishing its veracity. Not necessarily something to take to the bank......8>)
|
|
|
|
02/23/2010 02:14:13 PM · #1493 |
Jeb, you state that you believe in God but not Christian teachings (do I have that correct?) I am wondering what you believe about God. I have problems with the Christian image of God. Too much like a toddler--prove you love me, worship me or else. I also wonder why He needed a sacrifice in order to forgive. If He is all knowing, would He not have known how we (people) would turn out? So I reject this image. This is a serious question, as I am still searching for how to make sense of the spirituality I feel.
I would welcome anyone's response as well as Jeb's. |
|
|
|
02/23/2010 02:40:31 PM · #1494 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
Jeb, you state that you believe in God but not Christian teachings (do I have that correct?) I am wondering what you believe about God. I have problems with the Christian image of God. Too much like a toddler--prove you love me, worship me or else. I also wonder why He needed a sacrifice in order to forgive. If He is all knowing, would He not have known how we (people) would turn out? So I reject this image. This is a serious question, as I am still searching for how to make sense of the spirituality I feel.
I would welcome anyone's response as well as Jeb's. |
I kinda hoped someone would open this discussion, because to me it's the most obtuse kind of thing, and hard to explain, much less argue. I really have very little grasp on what it is that I feel God is all about. I'm sure the more pragmatic would say that the things that I attribute to God for the most part would be coincidence and chance. And they may very well be right. I think there's an irrational side of me that hopes there's a great and wonderful God. Part of that would be the personal thing with me. I have to work with what I believe to be my own understanding, and part of that is that I don't get the answers to any of my questions, so the journey, and trying to decipher my path is part of it all. Because I believe it *is* personal, the relationship, and because I have so little idea as to what it is that I'm supposed to do, it completely eludes me as to how I could ever presume to tell someone else how to do it. That gets me into trouble sometimes on both sides of the fence.....the realists want me not to waffle, and the faithful want me to do it their way. The way I see it, God, as I understand HER (LOL!!!), guides me in her own way. That's one of the amusing things for me. I really attach more female characteristics to the compassionate side of God as I see the big picture.
That said, there seem to be a lot of basic ideals that run through most of the "big" religions that so mirror each other that it just doesn't make sense to me on any level that God isn't pretty much the same for all of us that seek God, yet in the struggle to define how it works, people have done such a thorough job of mucking it up that too many are convinced that somehow, there are either different Gods, or that only one segment of society gets it, or whatever. I see/hear so many otherwise intelligent people going completely gaga over what really boil down to personal issues as to how to live your life, which ultimately, is up to you, and whatever your God tells you to do......should you want and have a God. I really think that there are only two types of realistic people in the mix. The atheists, who hold themselves accountable, and responsible, to the people they share life with, and the people who feel that they have a personal relationship with the God of their choice, and keep that relationship personal, and respectful. Everyone else seems to want to drag their confusion into others' lives looking for validation, and a group to huddle together to convince each other they're right. I seriously find most religions to be more harm than good because of their need to establish that their flavor is either better, or "righter", than the next guy's, and that is guaranteed to lead to trouble as one human being cannot tell another human being that his ideas are better than theirs. It's always going to create problems.
Howzat?
|
|
|
|
02/23/2010 02:45:47 PM · #1495 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It just goes to point out that there is justification/rationalization going on all around. And while I understand some of us feel much more comfortable with these rationalizations, I personally don't and so see no need to alter my position.
A great opening quote in the second paragraph:
"It is the worst of times in physics. For more than a generation, physicists have been chasing a will-o’-the-wisp called string theory. The beginning of this chase marked the end of what had been three-quarters of a century of progress. Dozens of string-theory conferences have been held, hundreds of new Ph.D.s have been minted, and thousands of papers have been written. Yet, for all this activity, not a single new testable prediction has been made, not a single theoretical puzzle has been solved. In fact, there is no theory so far—just a set of hunches and calculations suggesting that a theory might exist. And, even if it does, this theory will come in such a bewildering number of versions that it will be of no practical use: a Theory of Nothing. Yet the physics establishment promotes string theory with irrational fervor, ruthlessly weeding dissenting physicists from the profession. Meanwhile, physics is stuck in a paradigm doomed to barrenness." |
Doc, I'm sure, since you have read the New Yorker article that you understand that the paragraph you quoted is a deliberate "pessimistic" characterization of the status of string theory which is contrasted by a paragraph which deliberately lays out the "optimistic" view, and which I'm sure no you meant no dissembling by not quoting. For those too lazy to link:
Originally posted by New Yorker writer setting up an interesting, dramatic (and likely overblown) dichotomy:
It is the best of times in physics. Physicists are on the verge of obtaining the long-sought Theory of Everything. In a few elegant equations, perhaps concise enough to be emblazoned on a T-shirt, this theory will reveal how the universe began and how it will end. The key insight is that the smallest constituents of the world are not particles, as had been supposed since ancient times, but “stringsӉ€”tiny strands of energy. By vibrating in different ways, these strings produce the essential phenomena of nature, the way violin strings produce musical notes. String theory isn’t just powerful; it’s also mathematically beautiful. All that remains to be done is to write down the actual equations. This is taking a little longer than expected. But, with almost the entire theoretical-physics community working on the problem—presided over by a sage in Princeton, New Jersey—the millennia-old dream of a final theory is sure to be realized before long. |
There is actually broad dissent and dissatisfaction with string theory among physicists, with the lack - so far - of testability being the major concern. Physicists have not been "ruthlessly weeded" from the profession because they oppose string theory, but physicists that dissent from a predominate theory by putting forth truly crackpot alternatives are unlikely to receive tenure or invitations to the nicer dinner parties.
The problem for many physicists who have a problem with string theory is the fact that 1) the math does appear to point to the validity of the theory and 2) the lack of a currently viable alternative. That said, string theory is running out of time to provide scientific justification for its continued existence. If such justification - testable hypotheses, a model for falsifiability, etc. - are not forthcoming within the next decade, the theory is likely to lose its predominance and the physicist community will begin a full-scale search for alternatives, a search that is already well underway by many. (Remember, the best way to make your reputation in the scientific world is to provide a rock solid alternative to a currently prevailing theory. The person who could come up with such an alternative would be a superstar in physics.)
|
|
|
|
02/23/2010 02:55:43 PM · #1496 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I liked this article in The New Yorker last year and recommend a re-read (or first time read) for those interested in knowing why String Theory is not real science (yet). It sounds impressive, but it works backward compared to the real scientific method (finding a formula that fits the data and not finding whether the data fits the formula).
It just goes to point out that there is justification/rationalization going on all around. And while I understand some of us feel much more comfortable with these rationalizations, I personally don't and so see no need to alter my position.
A great opening quote in the second paragraph:
"It is the worst of times in physics. For more than a generation, physicists have been chasing a will-o’-the-wisp called string theory. The beginning of this chase marked the end of what had been three-quarters of a century of progress. Dozens of string-theory conferences have been held, hundreds of new Ph.D.s have been minted, and thousands of papers have been written. Yet, for all this activity, not a single new testable prediction has been made, not a single theoretical puzzle has been solved. In fact, there is no theory so far—just a set of hunches and calculations suggesting that a theory might exist. And, even if it does, this theory will come in such a bewildering number of versions that it will be of no practical use: a Theory of Nothing. Yet the physics establishment promotes string theory with irrational fervor, ruthlessly weeding dissenting physicists from the profession. Meanwhile, physics is stuck in a paradigm doomed to barrenness."
Emphasis is mine, but it sounds strangely familiar. |
Taken out of context with the first paragraph that begins, "These are the best of times in physics, . . ." It loses some of its meaning.
You could also replace "string theory" with "climate change" and you have an oddly similar conversation with global warming deniers. Not sure what that means, but I get nervous when someone with an opposing view says the establishment is the establishment because they "weed out" dissenting opinions.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2010 02:57:01 PM · #1497 |
Oh yeah, I saw that Ed. I considered quoting both paragraphs, but I figured it was long and I wanted to emphasize the fact that String Theory isn't "all that" as it's often portrayed. Many of the theorists themselves are a little more humble, but on Rant, as always, things get presented like we are just a few eight-hour shifts away from having it all down.
Did you catch from the article that your #1 (the math appears to be valid) isn't that great because there are literally an infinite number of flavors of string theory and so you can essentially have the math show anything you want? Once again, the "science" is operating backward. The math is being derived to fit the data rather than deriving the formula first and seeing if the data fits. This is where lots of the weirder aspects of string theory come in. The formula seems to work IF we postulate 10, 11 or 26 dimensions (which we have zero other reasons to believe exist).
Basically my point stands. Materialism cannot account for the kick off of the material system (an obvious fundamental problem) unless it resorts to justifications/rationalizations that do not fit within the framework of the Scientific Method (and even then the answers are flawed and nonspecific). Personal I find that every bit as perplexing as explaining exactly how the resurrection works. The grass is no greener on the other side. And this is only one of the multiple topics I brought up.
Message edited by author 2010-02-23 14:58:32. |
|
|
|
02/23/2010 03:12:22 PM · #1498 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
your #1 (the math appears to be valid) isn't that great because there are literally an infinite number of flavors of string theory and so you can essentially have the math show anything you want? Once again, the "science" is operating backward. The math is being derived to fit the data rather than deriving the formula first and seeing if the data fits. This is where lots of the weirder aspects of string theory come in. The formula seems to work IF we postulate 10, 11 or 26 dimensions (which we have zero other reasons to believe exist). |
I don't put much stock in string theory for that reason. Maybe something solid will com e out of it, but so far it just seems like wild conjecture.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Materialism cannot account for the kick off of the material system (an obvious fundamental problem) unless it resorts to justifications/rationalizations that do not fit within the framework of the Scientific Method (and even then the answers are flawed and nonspecific)...The grass is no greener on the other side. |
The Argument from Ignorance fallacy rears its head. Again. Just because a conventional scientific explanation isn't immediately available doesn't mean it cannot be found, no matter how implausible you think it may be. We're only a few decades removed from the claim that the sound barrier could not be broken. |
|
|
|
02/23/2010 03:31:23 PM · #1499 |
Thanks for your reply Jeb. I feel a connection with people and with nature, and think of this as spirituality. I would like to learn more about Native American beliefs and Buddhism, I just haven't done it.
Like you, another one of my problems with religion(and I have many problems with religion!)is that they all claim to be right which is not possible.
Maybe the answer is that there is no answer. :)
|
|
|
|
02/23/2010 03:42:15 PM · #1500 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
We're only a few decades removed from the claim that the sound barrier could not be broken. |
Dude......yer gettin' old!
1947 is more than a few decades back! LOL!!!
|
|
