The Non Xmas Xmas Film Is On...
Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Science versus the supernatural
So-called 'rational' science dismisses the paranormal or unexplained, saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Similarly, materialist philosophy dismisses religious philosophy as mere speculation without scientific fact. Yet a lot of SCIENCE is speculation. Nobody knows what existed before the big bang or what lies at the centre of a black hole, so scientists just speculate. No one has found a direct link between the reptiles and the mammals, so scientists speculate the existence of furry dinosaurs. In physics, 'neutrinos' are subatomic particles which cannot be detected or identified but which are supposed must exist. My question is - is it any more 'speculation' to believe in God than to believe in some of the wacko theories by scientists? Don't get me wrong - I don't believe in the Bible creation myth literally (though I believe in God), but I question science. If neutrinos didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent them. Opinions, please.
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by happysax. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Neutrinos do exist and are detectable......an american and a japanese professor shared a noble prize a few years ago for their work in developing equipment to detect neutrinos....basically a huge tank of heavy water which reacts with passing neutrinos (which come in three flavours just to make live more awkward for people who ain't in anyway into sub atomic physics)....Just because something is very very small is no reason to cast doubt on it's validity....Your basic premise is wrong....Science doesn't dismiss anything it just looks to have verifiable answers that can be repeated, quantified and qualified.....If anyone could give basic proof for the existence of God then I am sure most scientists would readily accept her (though of course proof of a god would thereby negate any need for belief and without belief god is nothing...so that would be a waste of time)......Your right in one thing that experimental science is speculation...that's is why we experiment...to test theories and check if an idea is right or not.....without science we would all still hold true to the thought of a flat earth and other proven to be outmoded trains of thought. How can you question science? Do you think that scientists should stop searching for a cure for cancer? or that we should stop looking for alternate energy sources to replace oil? Whacko theories will come and go.....some will be proven to be gaa-gaa but some will actually turn out to be life changing and mould our joint destinies....If you had asked a man in the street just 50 years ago if he thought it would be possible to chat to someone one the other side of the world whilst sending pictures to each other, and speculated on all that a home PC can do today you would have been laughed at
Science is constantly challenging us to re-appraise our thoughts and beliefs, exactly the opposite of the mainstream churches who are refusing to evolve and stick with centuries if not thousands of years old dogma....that maybe why church attendance is at an all time low? Everyone is entitled to their own creed and belief system, such is one joy of living in a democracy, but I still can't understand how you can "question" science....if you wish to forgo all the many benefits of modern technology, including the PC you type your question on then fine, but without science you'd be living an Amish lifestyle most likely without the prescience of mind to even draw up your question in the first place.
For anyone interested there is a good page here http://compsoc.dur.ac.uk/~ads/11dim.html that explains a little about neutrino behaviour along with quarks, muons, gluons and tau mesons....My brain usually tries to escape out my ears about halfway through stuff like this but give it a try.
there is a fundamental difference held between the two doctrines. In religion, the articles of faith are revealed to a few and are held to be unchangeable (in most religions anyway). Belief in them is necessary to the religion. These artticles of faith can be used to explain events AFTER they happen. for example if I commit the venial sin of masturbation today then can apparently be sure that my sins will find me out, but I cant be sure when. When I stub my toe that may be the vengeance of a wronged deity or it may be me not looking where I am going. I cant tell. I certainly cant say " tomorrow I will have a brick fall on my head because today I shouted at my mother". Religion is not predictive, except about things that cannot be checked, like the afterlife etc., and even then it makes no promises.
Science does not require that you believe in any part of it. In ffact the whole point is that it welcomes people to test its theories practically. so OK at the moment it says neutrinos have to behave in a particular way. Ths is why people down mineshafts throughout the world are desperately trying to see if they do or not. The scientific model is predictive. I can say with reasonable certainty what will happen if I set up an experiment. But to be honest its more fun when it doesnt work as planned because this means you get to rewrite theory.
Everyone has their own opinion on the existence of god. Myown is that its a ludicrous idea, and I wouldnt see any need to invent him. A while ago this would have me drummed out of the human race at firepoint. The point with science though is that it does not require belief, in fact belief is dangerous to good science. It demands that it is tested, and proved wrong if wrong. Religion, on the whole, doesnt.
sft - I question science, I never said I dismiss it. For example, I believe in evolution. I just don't blindly accept everything scientists say without question, any more than I would accept what a Church person would say. I am no fundamentalist Bible believer. I am saying that there is more happening in the universe than we know. But scientists - I just HATE the way they dismiss things like ghosts just because they don't have the answers. [Personal details removed as per site policy. - AB Editor]. Incitatus - you readily dismiss religious belief without understanding it. I believe there is a higher power beyond nature, a meaning to life beyond mere existence and something after death beyond mere extinction. These things require deep thought beyond a test tube and bunsen burner. Speculation, perhaps/ So are furry dinosaurs! Oh and by the way, did you know that Copernicus, Galilleo, Newton, Boyle, Darwin and Mendel - all great contributors to science - were NOT Atheists?
To say the great scientists of years past weren't atheists is just the same as saying they had legs....the whole knowledge and power base in those days was tied into the church they had no option but be in the kirk of the day of face death if they spoke out against it....which is why Galilleo held onto his theories for years, he was scared that he would be locked up by the church for being a heretic.
Show me a banana....it's yellow, you can eat it, it tastes bananaey....ergo, it's a banana.
Show me a UFO....It's a object flying in an odd manner, it perhaps floats, it's very fast...ergo it's an Unidentified object....Not, it must be one thing or another....it's still to be decided.
The same applies to Ghosts and Gods....they may exist, they may not, but I for one will not believe in something just because I was (and my forefathers were) previously indoctrinated in it...I have outgrown that mode of thought and grown to the stage where I analyse something, take evidence and examine, and then decide.
I choose to sit on the fence on a few things as science hasn't evolved to the stage where we can say for sure if some things exist, are possible etc, but this doesn't mean I don't believe in them (or do believe for that matter) they are in my "to be decided on" box in my mind.
Lastly, My upbringing has nothing to do with anything on this subject and I would prefer that you didn't reveal any personal details like that unless you are going to use your original username or disclose how you think you are aware of these things.
Happy- what you accuse me of is what you seem to be guilty of- dismissing without understanding.
if anyone claims to be a scientist and then asks you to beleive something he is a charlatan. Science has nothing to do with belief. it is a tested working model, and as such is constantly changing. the universe newton believed in is demonstrably untrue with the evidence we have now, so the model has changed. sometimes we get results we cant understand and then we change the model again. The problem with most supernatural sightings is actually pinning down what happens and then separating out what people would like to have happened. Police run into this all the time with eyewitnesses- the brain fills in details tht arent there. This is why it is so hard to gather good evidence for or against ghsts, telepathy etc. This isnt to say that we can say "there are no ghosts" but we can say that IF there is a phenomenon, which has yet to be proven, we have not got enough evidence to favour any explanation over another.
personal beliefs have nothing to do with quality as a scientist. oh and the bunsen went out in the 60's by the way. You say I dont understand religius belief. I think I do. I used to believe. Then I realised that all I wanted was a giant beard in the sky to make things feel better and I grew up. That is my personal belief. yours is different. Both are based on belief, you see. I believe that there is no higher power, and that the concept is very unhealthy. You believe the opposite. Neither of us have proof.
sft - I knew about your upbringing because you mentioned it yourself on this site, but I want to apologize. I realize now it didn't sound very good, so I'm really sorry if I was out of order. I'm not here to make enemies, man. Inci - you don't like the idea of a 'parent' God, a big beard in the sky watching over us, ready to punish or reward us. Neither do I. I don't believe in that either. That's not my idea of the concept of God or a higher power. Just try to be a bit more broad minded, mate, that's all. I assure you I am pretty broad minded. I hope you believe me.
its not the breadth of the mind, really. OK, you dont believe in god the father but to me any higher power is just a version of this- someone to run to when things get tough. My real reason for being antipathetic to the god idea is that there is clear argument that if he does exist he needs a damn good hiding for being so irresponsible.
Well, inci, some would say it's humankind that needs a damn good sorting out, but I won't go into that. That's another matter requiring a different question and a different thread. Meanwhile, if scientists come up with ideas like cute furry dinosaurs that are recorded as fact in kids' encyclopedias but totally reject telepathy or precognition or spontaneous human combustion with a patronising laugh, don't laugh along with them, but think for yourself.
Science is a philosophy based on measurement. As with all philosophies, speculation is an important part of the scientific process but the aim is always to prove, disprove or modify the theory by new measurement and experimentation. Theories are usually formulated by extrapolating existing experimental data and all good scientists accept that their theories may be wrong or inadequate. That said, science has an extremely good track record for predicting how things work. It is the 'measurement' aspect of science that makes it different from other philosophies like religion.
if you cam believe in God, does it require anymore faith to believe in creation? If you can put your hand up for a God that is eternal, that does not live in the world of time and space, and who has a supreme power, surely this same God could create the earth. If you can believe that God was always there, surely you can believe that the earth began. Can you see by what is around you that the world is too facinating, too thought out....too creative?
You have a lot of mistaken facts.
Neutrinos were preposed to exist to solve the problem of missing energy in a decay of a particle to save conservation of energy from being violated. They weren't detected for some time but now several experiments around the world have detected neutrinos even though they are highly un-interactive.
I'm not quite sure what you mean about the fury dinosaurs, perhaps you are thinking of feathered dinosaurs to link dinosaurs and birds. Though this was initially speculation there are several examples of fossilised creatures which share many dinosaur and bird features, such as feathers, Archioptirix (I have no idea how to spell that) for example.
However some of your statements are true, we have know idea what happened before the big bang, if indeed a concept of time before the big bang is even viable. Also at the heart of a black hole is thought to be a singularity, an object of zero size and therefore infinite density, but this is not understood by any stretch of the imagination, mainly due to it being so far out of the sphere of human experience.
What differs between speculation in science and speculation in religion and 'the supernatural' is that in science speculation is taken as just that, a theory, a possibility not fact as it is presented in religion and people interested in the supernatural. There are theories to explain how the big bang came about, M theory for example but these are never quoted in scientific articles or papers as fact, but as a theory, awaiting enough evidence to support them. Religion has non of this, it simply states an opinion and does not move until it has absolutely no choice, such as when the earth was thought of as the centre of the universe or when Darwins theories came along.
1 to 17 of 17
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.