Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
cosmology
72 Answers
Has anyone been watching that program about Stephen Hawking? It's fascinating stuff - string theory, black holes, dark matter, branes etc. The only thing is I find myself concluding it's all basically just the same as religion - ie a load of b0llox that we've invented in order to explain things that we don't understand.
What do you reckon?
What do you reckon?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ludwig. 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.
I agree entirely with Ludwig (I've said it myself several times here) atheism is just another religion. Alas many of it's followers lack the sense of irony to admit it. Every aspect of the atheist/secular sysytems are reformed religious orthodoxies. E.G. Counselling/psychiatry=confession.
The atheist "truth" is often as absolute as any fundamentalist or evangelist doctrine.
The atheist "truth" is often as absolute as any fundamentalist or evangelist doctrine.
Not sure what you mean Waldo. I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here, but I'd still like to be convinced that this type of astrophysical science isn't just a belief system like a religion. It serves to try and explain the inexplicable.
The 'proof' for the big bang doesn't seem to be much more than - 'well, the universe is expanding, so if we extrapolate that backwards at one point it must have been the size of a pea, and these mathematical equations seem to support that - q.e.d'. when in actual fact, we can never know how the universe began.
And that's just the simple stuff. When you start getting into 11 dimensional multi-verses and p-branes etc, we're really just guessing aren't we?
The 'proof' for the big bang doesn't seem to be much more than - 'well, the universe is expanding, so if we extrapolate that backwards at one point it must have been the size of a pea, and these mathematical equations seem to support that - q.e.d'. when in actual fact, we can never know how the universe began.
And that's just the simple stuff. When you start getting into 11 dimensional multi-verses and p-branes etc, we're really just guessing aren't we?
But what would find convincing, Ludwig? If you want certainty, that's what religion deals in, not science. Religionists know that a god created the universe and that's all there is to it. If you're satsified with that proud ignorance, fine. But scientific theories are different. It may be that none of the hypotheses or theories you can hear about on programmes like this is "true". But they are steps on the way. To be scientific, an idea doesn't have to be true but there has to be a way in which it might be found to be false. Scientific ideas compete for survival, constantly attacked and tested for their explanatory power and accurate picturing of the observed universe. Religious ideas are not like that - not half!
A lot of the stuff is theory only but believe me physicists et al live nothing more than making their rivals look stupid and any of the theories put forward are tested mathematically. It's a far cry from religion where we are supposed to have faith. Quantam mechanics/ particale physics has gone a long way to verifying theories. Note also that virtually nothing is 100% provable. We only have the maths and the repetition of experiments to continually re-inforce knowledge.
Religious ideas are not like that because they are already complete. What we are looking at is science following the religions bit by bit. Religions are not following science. Because what is written is written in most of the religious scriptures. That is not changing any more as far as I am aware. Yes their interpretation is changing because certain things were never known to the people of that time.
I agree with 123 that atheism is a faith just like any other faith. So not believing in a religion itself is a religion.
I agree with 123 that atheism is a faith just like any other faith. So not believing in a religion itself is a religion.
Atheism is not a faith except in the sense that "I might be wrong about there being no gods in reality but I choose to live my life on the basis that I am right". Even then, it's important to think about the strength of that "might be wrong". To say "there is no God" - meaning the god of the Church of England, say - is precisely the same as saying "there is no flying spaghetti monster". In both cases I might be wrong - but the probability is overwhelmingly in favour of my being right.
How on earth does anyone come to the conclusion that atheism is a religion? Where are it's leaders, who organises it, what is it's credo, where is its rule book, where do its followers meet? Of course it isn't a religion.
A definition of 'religion'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
A definition of 'religion'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
How boring, a dictionary definition of religion.
Is a Paganism a religion?
Who's the head of the Pagans?
So to be semantic with the pedantic, atheism has adopted the practices of religion, but (I repeat) many of it's followers lack the sense of irony to see it.
Counselling=confession.
Repent=recycle.
Puritans=eco warriors.
Armageddon=global warming.
When I was a small boy my mother would take me into the City Centre just off Hanover Street was Clayton Square (when it was a Georgian Square of buildings, not a mall) an old West Indian(?) man used to walk around there every day (Theland will probably remember him) he wore about him a sandwich board that said "The end of the world is nigh".
Contd
Is a Paganism a religion?
Who's the head of the Pagans?
So to be semantic with the pedantic, atheism has adopted the practices of religion, but (I repeat) many of it's followers lack the sense of irony to see it.
Counselling=confession.
Repent=recycle.
Puritans=eco warriors.
Armageddon=global warming.
When I was a small boy my mother would take me into the City Centre just off Hanover Street was Clayton Square (when it was a Georgian Square of buildings, not a mall) an old West Indian(?) man used to walk around there every day (Theland will probably remember him) he wore about him a sandwich board that said "The end of the world is nigh".
Contd
I asked my mother what that was about and she replied "he's just some religious nutter" and that was the end of that.
But what if he were the head of complicated mathematics at Liverpool University?
If a scientist says the end of the world is nigh (or 15 years to save the world) the followers of this mantra are heading for the hills.
Scientists are now the high priests of atheism, God is the answer (I've come to believe), science will discover the answer the answer atheists have come to believe.
No irony there is there?
Of course everyone laughed at Noah when he predicted a flood. :-)
But what if he were the head of complicated mathematics at Liverpool University?
If a scientist says the end of the world is nigh (or 15 years to save the world) the followers of this mantra are heading for the hills.
Scientists are now the high priests of atheism, God is the answer (I've come to believe), science will discover the answer the answer atheists have come to believe.
No irony there is there?
Of course everyone laughed at Noah when he predicted a flood. :-)
If 123Everton can't see the difference between "x is the answer" and "y will discover the answer" then there's no point arguing with him. However, I'll just say this: none of the things that he mentions as having religious analogues have anything to do with belief or non-belief in a god. Does he think that there are no counsellors, for example, who are religious?
Try and understand the concept.
Counselling is where one tries to find the answer to and comfort fom an independent invigilator who is sworn to to silence,a bit like going to confession.
Eco-warriors want people to shiver whilst having a smoke in the pub rather than use patio heaters, this denial of comforts is akin to the puritan way of creating their own heaven on Earth.
A creationist believes in God absoloutely, an atheist does'nt believe in God absolutely x=y?
Same meat different gravy.
Naomi never had you down for a dullard (that's what happens when you play too much with Waldo!).
If you like we'll talk dogmatically about the definition of words, the construction of sentances, interpretation and punctuation. A bit like religious scholars (one of thebig problems with atheists is the endles argument about definition rather any subsance), or we can talk the similarity of practices and expressions therein...
It's up to you...
Gotta go, second half.
Counselling is where one tries to find the answer to and comfort fom an independent invigilator who is sworn to to silence,a bit like going to confession.
Eco-warriors want people to shiver whilst having a smoke in the pub rather than use patio heaters, this denial of comforts is akin to the puritan way of creating their own heaven on Earth.
A creationist believes in God absoloutely, an atheist does'nt believe in God absolutely x=y?
Same meat different gravy.
Naomi never had you down for a dullard (that's what happens when you play too much with Waldo!).
If you like we'll talk dogmatically about the definition of words, the construction of sentances, interpretation and punctuation. A bit like religious scholars (one of thebig problems with atheists is the endles argument about definition rather any subsance), or we can talk the similarity of practices and expressions therein...
It's up to you...
Gotta go, second half.
123 Still suffering the same old problem, I see. You find it impossible to debate without resorting to personal insults. You really need to sort that out if you want to retain any semblance of credibiltiy - especially on R&S - where you're always going to meet with some people who disagree with you.
Oh stop getting your knickers in a twist!
There's nothing insulting there that I can see.
The qusetioner asked whether science is becoming like religion, I agreed and offered broader examples to demonstrate the point, your repost is dictionary definition of religion. that's hardly a debate!?
Who's the head of the Druid Church etc. thousands of people have personal relationships with God but with wholly non-doctrinal views. None of whom would identify with the definitions you offer.
Does that mean they're not religious? Or believers in God?
Can you not see the irony in the scientific doctrines on global warming when put up alongside hardline end of timers?
Both preach armageddon and both offer salvation through living the way they tell you too.
There's nothing insulting there that I can see.
The qusetioner asked whether science is becoming like religion, I agreed and offered broader examples to demonstrate the point, your repost is dictionary definition of religion. that's hardly a debate!?
Who's the head of the Druid Church etc. thousands of people have personal relationships with God but with wholly non-doctrinal views. None of whom would identify with the definitions you offer.
Does that mean they're not religious? Or believers in God?
Can you not see the irony in the scientific doctrines on global warming when put up alongside hardline end of timers?
Both preach armageddon and both offer salvation through living the way they tell you too.
123 - I don't remember that particular chap with the sandwich board, but there were a few of them around there, one in Church Street that wore a dayglo vest with "Jesus Is Lord" or something or other printed on it, and used to hand out pamphlets. He was from the Wirral and died a few years ago.
The Hawking programme was a joke, and left science far behind as it roamed into the realms of fantasy.
I've read Hawkings books, and others written for the layman, Green, Penrose, amongst them, and I find the whole particle physics thing truly amazing. But when such educated men begin baseless speculation, it is taken as gospel by the great unwashed, and seems to me to serve no other purpose than propaganda.
I would appreciate Jakes view on this.
I do agree to a great extent that to many, atheism is a religion, with faith, missionaries, and as 123 has said, it has its counterparts from religion.
The Hawking programme was a joke, and left science far behind as it roamed into the realms of fantasy.
I've read Hawkings books, and others written for the layman, Green, Penrose, amongst them, and I find the whole particle physics thing truly amazing. But when such educated men begin baseless speculation, it is taken as gospel by the great unwashed, and seems to me to serve no other purpose than propaganda.
I would appreciate Jakes view on this.
I do agree to a great extent that to many, atheism is a religion, with faith, missionaries, and as 123 has said, it has its counterparts from religion.
ludwig, You've have raised a valid and important issue. If one accepts what they read or what someone is alleged to have said as fact, whether it be from a science text book or the Bible, Jesus or Einstein, without proving and understanding it for themselves, they are acquiescing by an act of faith.
Science is a method of establishing facts based on observation and experimentation, but if you haven�t done the experiment yourself or observed the phenomenon directly, if the facts purveyed can not be related by personal perception, conceptualization or experience showing a non-contradictory correlation to reality, using such personally unproven knowledge no matter how true it may in fact be, outside of the context to which is applies can prove to be more hazardous than blind ignorance.
Modern science can be as dazzlingly blinding as staring at the Sun. It is easy to be lead astray when wonder leads to worship rather than seeking a first hand understanding of the new marvels that science presents to us on a daily basis. Science has no less need of the guidance of reason to insure that it serves the best interests of those who are able to do it as well as those who are affected by it products, technology. When science becomes a religion than we suffer as greatly from its effects as we do from those who believe in and follow blindly the leadership of a religious dictatorship. 911 should serve as a profound example of what happens when the products of science fall into the hands of people who have forgotten or never learned the important difference between religious faith and firsthand knowledge.
Science is a method of establishing facts based on observation and experimentation, but if you haven�t done the experiment yourself or observed the phenomenon directly, if the facts purveyed can not be related by personal perception, conceptualization or experience showing a non-contradictory correlation to reality, using such personally unproven knowledge no matter how true it may in fact be, outside of the context to which is applies can prove to be more hazardous than blind ignorance.
Modern science can be as dazzlingly blinding as staring at the Sun. It is easy to be lead astray when wonder leads to worship rather than seeking a first hand understanding of the new marvels that science presents to us on a daily basis. Science has no less need of the guidance of reason to insure that it serves the best interests of those who are able to do it as well as those who are affected by it products, technology. When science becomes a religion than we suffer as greatly from its effects as we do from those who believe in and follow blindly the leadership of a religious dictatorship. 911 should serve as a profound example of what happens when the products of science fall into the hands of people who have forgotten or never learned the important difference between religious faith and firsthand knowledge.
