|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 7, 2010 16:45:18 GMT 1
Up to a point we can but we should be humble enough to realise we have a lot to learn.
There is much in science today that once would have been labelled 'magic'.
That is why God is God. God is supposed to beyond scientific description.
This view is simply a cop-out and not every scientists holds such a position.
I notice you are not dealing with the 'Many Worlds' idea.
You think so?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 7, 2010 17:41:22 GMT 1
Except science already does this. Whereas religion seems to think they do know, and science isn't it, or science CAN'T provide the answer, and their god IS the answer. Who is being humble here?
Yes, but that doesn't mean that anything that might be seen as magic today has the same probability as actually being seen as good science in the future.
You mistake considering all possibilities (no matter how at odd with current facts) as what science does, which is considering only those possibilities which have a reasonable support in the light of current knowledge. Given new facts, science updates its hypotheses,which is kind of the point.
We aren't being arrogant, it's the facts which are arrogant and say -- no evidence for this hypothesis, not needed at present.
This is just playing games with language. If a god existed, and that god intervened in this universe to some extent (which is the sort of god most people believe in), then by definition, that interaction is within the realm of science, we can test whether such intervention exists, whether or not we can derive from that the nature of the thing that is doing the interacting.
If a god existed, yet hid her interactions such that they were describable by natural laws, then in what sense can that god be said to exist?
Nonsense. More of a cop out that positing the existence of an undefinable god. I think not.................
It is far from a cop out, and just means that you have failed to understand the nature of our universe in which time is bound to our universe. It is a perfectly logical, testable idea about cosmology, that has observable consequences for the universe we see now. It is perfectly good physics, however much you may dislike the possible conclusions.
Okay, not all cosmologists agree with quantum cosmology -- what other scientists have to say, I don't care that much, they aren't cosmologists.
Is that really the best you can come up with, some supposedly humble admittance of great ignorance, to try and create a gap big enough in which to slot your favourite god or gods? It's a very poor argument, I might almost call it argument from (pretended or insisted) ignorance.
From a scientific point of view, most of this stuff is fairly ordinary, and some is rather old-hat by now. The possibilities of quantum ideas have been realized by physicists for a long time, and the philosophical problems of cosmology have been around for a while as well. What this meant for those who insist on some sort of religious belief has been common knowledge amongst physicists for a long time as well.
But a poor argument is a poor argument, and religion has a very poor one when it comes to trying to bring science in to back it up.
If you want to belief that science knows very little, it is arrogant to claim so, so I can carry on believing whatever it is I wanted to believe without worrying about what science has to say, then you will probably carry on doing so. Just don't expect physicists like myself to agree with you on that!
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 7, 2010 18:00:05 GMT 1
Isn't that rather splitting hairs? No, it is a vital point about how science proceeds, one that is often misunderstood. So, it is an argument often attempted by those who don't like what science has to say (be they the religious, or just general pseudo-science nutters and various fruitcakes), that science is closed-minded, that it is just not prepared to consider whatever wild theory they want to be considered. Science only considers new hypotheses when there is some reason for doing so, when we have something we cannot explain using conventional theories. Science ISN'T in the game of refutting ALL hypotheses, however outlandish. So, that every particle in the universe is pushed about by an invisible, intangible blue goblin, and they are all called Wilbur, and do it in such a way that the particles seem to obey what we call the laws of physics is a hypothesis, but not a sensible or a testable one (and one can of course imagine an infinity of similar hypotheses). The problem with pseudo science is they throw about claims of closed-mindedness, when what is actually the problem is that the position they have chosen to believe actually has no evidence to support it, or where the evidence actually contradicts their favourite belief. The pseudo comes form the fact that they refuse to alter their beliefs based on the evidence, or claim that usual tests based on evidence do not apply in their special case. So, chiropractors who still make certain claims despite the facts are one example, as are homeopaths who ignore their lack of solid evidence, and the placebo effect explanation of their supposed treatments. As regards cosmology, if there are things which we cannot test or know by making observations, or things that can have no possible effect on our universe (such as in various theories where there is some universe before the big bang but information about it gets lost in the almost-singularity squash, such as happens in various quantum gravity theories such as loop quantum gravity), then science usually has the good grace to say -- we don't really know. But saying we don't really know is not the same as saying -- so any possibility we might like to consider cannot be disproved, therefore we might as well pick our favourite one. Science doesn't have a problem with saying we don't know, because in terms of research, that is where all the fun is! Whereas it seems to me that some people on here who disagree with what Hawking said instead want to locate a big area of ignorance, and keep it so.....................
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 7, 2010 18:23:11 GMT 1
Speaker, how can we possibly imagine what science will be like in, say, a hundred or a thousand years time? You are just reflecting our current state of ignorance and may well be shown to be way off the mark in the future.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 7, 2010 19:37:39 GMT 1
Speaker, how can we possibly imagine what science will be like in, say, a hundred or a thousand years time? You are just reflecting our current state of ignorance and may well be shown to be way off the mark in the future. no, this is just another attempt to create a serious gap, and slot god in! It is nonsense, because even if we don't know what science will say in a thousand years time, we DON'T KNOW. Hence we cannot first take that supposed ignorance, and slot in what some would like to believe in now. after all, how many times do you find someone who claims -- I believe in god because because I believe science in a thousand years time will come to the conclusion that god exists? The point remains, given our current state of knowledge, there is no reasonable case for introducing a god hypothesis (as opposed to many of the other infinite possibilities such as alien computer programmers and we are just a simulation). the arrogance I think is in those who can't accept this, and want to fit there god in, and don't have the honesty to admit that there is no scientific basis for such a move. Fine, if in a thousand years time a scientist comes across evidence to support the existence of god (like a message left in the digits of pi, cheers to Carl Sagan for that one!), then science will have to consider it. but at the moment, there is no such evidence, hence Stephen Hawking is quite correct to say, that at the moment, god is not necessary.
|
|
|
Post by kiteman on Sept 7, 2010 20:52:12 GMT 1
Why not present it with topless girls?
Because he's a married man?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 7, 2010 21:25:49 GMT 1
The point remains, given our current state of knowledge, there is no reasonable case for introducing a god hypothesis (as opposed to many of the other infinite possibilities such as alien computer programmers and we are just a simulation). Ah but there is! The Great Questions - where did matter and energy come from, why are there 'laws', remain unanswered by science yet the questions remain - burning through the night of our ignorance. It is VERY reasonable to reason that this universe, us, sentient beings, the seasons, nature the unfathomable well of space and its millions of stars - VERY logical , to hypothesise that all this is the act of a creator, and science cannot gainsay this. Until science can provide answers, and Hawking cannot - he hypothesises just as God is a hypothesis, then the God hypothesis, a construct of human intelligence and logic, is unassailable, despite the bollocks trundled out by Hawking to raise a stir and sell more books
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 7, 2010 23:25:10 GMT 1
STA, I think all I can say to you is that science is merely a starting point, but science is a way of attempting to understand ourselves, in essence. This may seem a strange thing to say but ultimately when we use science we are really discovering the way our mind and consciousness work. As science progresses we will, no doubt, gain further insights into our consciousness and perhaps eventually come to accept that the only 'reality' is what we choose it to be. Perhaps a 'science of the mind' might be a more productive path to truth and accommodate the God hypothesis. Science has made life easier for many people and relieved much suffering, however, that does not mean it can answer the deep questions of existence. Religious belief far outdates scientific thought and the reason for this is that it provides a 'oneness' with the cosmos, something science will probably come to acknowledge.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 8, 2010 8:55:43 GMT 1
This perked me up this morning, reminding us that not all scientists are bigots
Baroness Greenfield on R4 this morning regretted the sensationalism of Stephen Hawking's claim that God is unnecessary. She reminded us of Faraday who said; 'Beware - there is nothing more frightening than someone who knows that he is right'
She regretted the fundamentalist Taliban-tendency in some of today's scientists Hurrah!
|
|
|
Post by shaker2010 on Sept 8, 2010 10:49:34 GMT 1
Isn't that rather splitting hairs? No, I don't think so: it's drawing an exact and important difference between what Hawking actually did say and what various byline writers have said (or thought, or hoped ...) that he said. And, as others have said, since science is methodologically naturalistic, not invoking gods is hardly news anyway.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 8, 2010 11:08:56 GMT 1
The trouble is that can only ever be a provisional position borne out of limited experience, something Hawking should have made clear.
|
|
|
Post by Iapetus on Sept 8, 2010 12:10:58 GMT 1
Actually, no - that's what the newspapers said he'd said, not what he actually did say, which was that it is unnecessary to invoke a god to explain the origin of the universe. In other words Hawking knows the answers. Complete bollocks of course Throw in the God bit to get publicity Sweet deep-fried Cthulhu on a stick! What on earth makes you think you are better qualified to discuss the origins of the universe than Hawking?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 8, 2010 13:32:57 GMT 1
The Great Questions - where did matter and energy come from, why are there 'laws', remain unanswered by science yet the questions remain - burning through the night of our ignorance. It is VERY reasonable to reason that this universe, us, sentient beings, the seasons, nature the unfathomable well of space and its millions of stars - VERY logical , to hypothesise that all this is the act of a creator, and science cannot gainsay this. Until science can provide answers, and Hawking cannot - he hypothesises just as God is a hypothesis, then the God hypothesis, a construct of human intelligence and logic, is unassailable, despite the bollocks trundled out by Hawking to raise a stir and sell more books I'm sorry did you miss my explanation of where matter and energy came from? that one is actually quite simple, adn as I said, fairly old-hat now. Why laws? Well, the laws justr are what stuff does, and asking why laws in some sense presupposes that they could do otherwise if there WEREN'T laws. God as some sort of cosmic speed-cop again presupposes that he is needed to make sure laws are obeyed, which again makes the same hidden assumption. Okay, so rather than laws, we just have -- this is what stuff does If we had other laws, or no regularity in the way stuff behaved, then we would not have stable structures like galaxies, stars, planetary systems, and eventually, chemistry and life. Hence you could perfectly well claim that only in a regular universe would life arise that could then ask the question as to why everything was so nicely arranged. Anyway, this is either: We don't know, therefore ANY hypothesis can be considered valid, and in particular the one I like (god did it and is a nice chap), as opposed to: The devil did it as an amusement and isn't a nice chap or: It is an alien computer simulation. If the supposed god hypothesis is unassailable, then so are all the others, so perhsp you would care to explain why you believe in a nice creator god, but not a nasty creator devil. And please spare us the look at the pretty flowers type of argument........... Let's face it, many people would consider the nasty creator devil type argument more valid, given the state of human existence! And given the poor design of the human spine and the agony of bad backs, I'd say he was a vindictive bastard as well.......... Thank you for nicely illustrating the total emptiness of the god hypothesis argument though....................
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 8, 2010 13:35:18 GMT 1
STA, I think all I can say to you is that science is merely a starting point, but science is a way of attempting to understand ourselves, in essence. This may seem a strange thing to say but ultimately when we use science we are really discovering the way our mind and consciousness work. .......... Don't confuse what we learn about ourselves as practitioners with external reality. Just pseudo-mystical twaddle, frankly.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 8, 2010 14:00:44 GMT 1
Why do you think that saying that the god hypothesis is not necessary from a scientific point of view is bigotry? Seems you don't understand the meaning of bigot either?
Really, I am slightly shocked at the vitriol being thrown at what is fairly standard scientific discourse. Have people forgotten what happened to Darwin when he suggested life evolved, rather than each species being a separate creation? Now most people are happy with the idea that life evolved, and that at most god tinkered a bit, or puts the magic soul bit in at some point.
But when cosmologists say a similar thing about the origin and evolution of the universe, suddenly people are up in arms again -- is this because science is gradually filling in the gaps where some like to hide their god?
Then they accuse scientists of being arrogant when they follow their theories to their conclusion, and state what they find!
Really, if people just bothered to learn the difference between not necessary and disprove, then they might calm down a bit before throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and claiming that all science is nonsense..................
|
|