What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
66 Comments
- inactive, on 07/14/2009, -2/+12Lucas,
As a scientist the issue of "arrogance" describes a human condition not the scientific process. I have my undergrad degrees and advanced degrees in biomedical science. Like you I find arrogance in scientists, but most of them are very kind and philanthropic people. They are seekers of truth and exhibit a large spectrum of personal philosophies.
Science is a "method" of knowing and assumes natural causes of which science is well equipped to investigate. I do not understand this insecurity in people that causes them to attack science. Science does not exist as an endeavor to "prove" there is no creator. You have to admit that when doing your experiments (if you are indeed doing novel work) the results achieved by hypothesis driven science do not appear to "need the influence of God." You can argue that God set up all natural laws and created the universe, but that is a theological argument not a scientific one. - Lucas123, on 07/14/2009, -3/+9Yes. I know I used the word "thought" instead of taught. I changed my "thought" in midstream and rewrote the sentence but forgot to change "thought", but you get the gist.
- chewbacca77, on 07/14/2009, -1/+7This only applies to Young Earth Creationists.
- Lucas123, on 07/14/2009, -1/+6I agree with that analysis.
- bombula, on 07/14/2009, -1/+6@ Lucas
Fine, fine, I'll be the scientist who calls ***** on your apologist attitude.
The difference between arrogance and confidence is that arrogance is baseless. Scientists have every right to be confident. The triumphs of science as a method of building understanding about our world and our universe make every other attempt in human history pale by comparison.
You may have an undergrad degree in science, but without a PhD you _aren't_ a scientist. If you were a scientist, you would understand that scientific claims are always made with confidence intervals, either directly or by citing sources that do so. So your claims about how you "can't count the number of times I've seen stories from scientific journals claiming to know the size of the universe" are complete nonsense. You're conflating real scientific sources with non-scientific ones, i.e. something you saw on the internet or TV.
As for the actual confidence we do have, it's absolutely breathtaking. The standard model of theoretical physics, for example, makes predictions that when tested are accurate to 12 orders of magnitude. For illustration, that's like estimating the distance across the continental United States to an accuracy of the width of a human hair. If we weren't able to do these things, the computer you're using to access Digg wouldn't be able to flawlessly perform more than 1 billion calculations per second, would it? Of course not. - ps3udov3ctor, on 07/14/2009, -3/+8"And god placed into the rocks fossils that appeared older than 4004 BC,
that were similar to, but different than living creatures."
Makes perfect sense to me.
Actually this may be even better: "So he proclaimed, 'Thank me, it's Friday', and he made the weekend. It was a good idea." - RealmDown, on 07/14/2009, -0/+5He and I are going to have a talk.
There He was, right there at the beginning, and could have made a THREE day weekend. - matrixOp3r4t0r, on 07/14/2009, -2/+7that surely got my head spinnning for a while ....
- Quaterni0n, on 07/14/2009, -0/+5"...but I have to believe that god had his hand in our existence because there are things we can't explain."
Yeah that's pretty weak. I'm sure firearms, rockets, automobiles, aircrafts, computers and all modern technology would all seem pretty miraculous to people that lived a few hundred years ago, but that doesn't mean god had his hand in those things. Just because we can't understand some things now, it doesn't mean we won't in the future. It's just technological progression. We're taking baby steps. - Moralogic, on 07/14/2009, -0/+4The technologies that have been made in the modern world that have killed people were not initially made to kill people. Einstein and his fellow scientists never wanted his work to lead to what it did with the atom bomb.
I am sure the people who came up with religion never wanted it to turn out how it has too... then again maybe they did. Given the time they were created it may have helped in their wars to use mythology.
It is hard to tell really. Either way the human element is what allows it to get out of hand the way it does, and it is typically the less intelligent human element that lets it get out of hand.
Mason, I would honestly say restrict religious practices the exact same way the founding fathers intended them to be restricted. Aka - No "In God We Trust" on money, no "Under God" in the pledge, no 10 commandments, Jesus's birth, or Bible on government property. If there is a Bible it is to be kept personal and in one's desk if that security blanket is needed for someone. Anything like a moment of silence needs to be treated as a moment to reflect on a situation and not as a religious time of prayer, though people would of course be given that time to pray if it is part of their belief. - inactive, on 07/14/2009, -0/+4Lucas,
With regards to believing we know "a millionth of one percent about anything." That is a statement that is hard to evaluate much like someone telling me Gods son was 100% human and 100% divine or 50% human or 50% divine. These percentages are meaningless. People also tell me that God is "omniscient and omnipotent." Once again those assertions come from the human cortex and do not appear to come from "God himself" although many Christians feel that the human words in the bible are indeed "Gods words" handed to the writers. That argument leaves a lot of open territory and science is not the forum for such arguments. Theology is the proper forum. - smallfry405, on 07/14/2009, -1/+5Science and religion are both based on the same principle, the pursuit of truth. While in many ways they are different paths, I do not believe they are mutually exclusive. The tragedy here is when such noble pursuits, such as those of truth and knowledge, are perverted into ways to belittle the opposition. All knowledge is based on interpretation of observation. While honest, open debate will always be one of the most enriching ways to not only test our own beliefs, but to expose ourselves to alternative viewpoints, when these discussions deteriorate into an attempt to assassinate the intellect of our opponent, nobody wins.
In mathematics, to construct a valid proof of a concept requires more than simply illustrating why another method doesn't work. The pursuit of truth will achieve little when it's concerned with nothing more that just trying to prove the other guy wrong. - inactive, on 07/14/2009, -0/+4Faith: belief that is not based on proof
- redrambler, on 07/14/2009, -2/+6If you are saying to yourself "this isn't what I believe...I don't believe in the strict creationism where god made the earth in a week, but I have to believe that god had his hand in our existence because there are things we can't explain." (see deathbybrass comment) I have news.
It used to be that god was used to explain the sun set and rise. We didn't understand the earth around us, and therefor came up with supernatural explanations for what we saw. It took us hundreds of years to dig ourselves out of these holes that supernatural explanations have dug, but eventually we do. Currently, we (physicists) have a unified theory of the universe past 10^-43 seconds after the big bang. Gods only place right now is within those 10^-43 seconds, and when we come to a grand unified field theory, that margin will disappear. Solutions and explanations will always be found, some will move us forward with our knowledge of the universe and some will set us back. Don't be drawn in by supernatural explanations, no matter how tempting. - inactive, on 07/14/2009, -0/+4Lucas,
One more thing. I appreciate your comportment in this dialogue. Agree or disagree you are very polite which is often something missing with these types of topics which can become quite emotional for some. - mogdor, on 07/14/2009, -5/+8I think the real "flamers" are the ones who invite arguments by posting articles making fun of others' beliefs.
- wontstoptalking, on 07/14/2009, -0/+3But he's got a British accent! He can't be a creationist!
- Lucas123, on 07/14/2009, -3/+6That said, that video was the very height of arrogance. It may not have been produced by a scientist, but like mass media, it touts science as the end-all, be-all with regard to the origins, make-up and function of our universe. And, some scientists certainly embrace the warm glow of the media spotlight. I was not attacking the entire scientific community and that's why I said "some". Certainly, science is an excellent process for attempting to understand and connect the puzzle pieces, as long as we don't start believing we know "a millionth of one percent about anything."
- blackjack06, on 07/14/2009, -0/+3What the hell is tired light?
- SkateorDie, on 07/14/2009, -2/+5Sounds about right.
- McMannus00, on 07/14/2009, -1/+4Who is more arrogant, Lucas? Those who say something is true because it is supported by evidence from meticulous, reproducible tests, or those who say something else is true because a self-serving doctrine grants them infallibility?
- johnnick, on 07/14/2009, -0/+3So working backwards in time from the present conditions, your logic would say that:
1) current life evolved from previously existing life forms via scientifically comprehensible processes;
2) abiogenesis occurred via scientifically comprehensible processes;
3) the current state of the Universe "evolved" from the Big Bang via scientifically comprehensible processes;
4) and the Big Bang was caused by the miraculous intervention of an eternal, ineffable deity.
Could you help me understand the logic involved in the gap between steps 3 and 4? Sounds more like this -> http://www.physics.uci.edu/~jeff/grfx/miracle.gif - redrambler, on 07/14/2009, -0/+3I am getting my Ph. D in astronomy...and yes we have huge error bars on our distance estimates of the size of the galaxy. Its hard to know the size of a galaxy because of the broad extent of the halo which was formed by our galaxy merging with dwarf galaxies and collecting their stars.
My point: at least we can know these things....at least we have the process and ability to know these things (Thank you science). Saying: science isn't always right (or the people that do it can be sometime arrogant), and therefor god would be a grave misnomer. - Innuendo24, on 07/14/2009, -1/+4A good book to check out is "The biblical case for an old earth"
Very good read by a very smart man. - RSMiller, on 07/14/2009, -1/+3Fork in eye? Spoon go in ear? O'tay!
- Robronco07, on 07/14/2009, -1/+3God is a scientific genius!!!
- thetruckert, on 07/14/2009, -1/+3"and god placed into the rocks fossils that appeared older than 4004 B.C. that were similar to but different from living creatures."
- Jsmuli2, on 07/14/2009, -1/+3Exactly!
- wontstoptalking, on 07/14/2009, -1/+3Reunite Pangaea! Join the cause!
- mason.parker, on 07/14/2009, -0/+2Here's the funny thing, I don't mind Richard Dawkins. I think he uses the term "militant atheism" to grab your attention but there's a much deeper conversation going on.
I'm assuming this is old news, but check out TED.com and watch some of the religion tagged items. Now _there's_ food for thought and not mob-mentality. - inactive, on 07/14/2009, -0/+2I'm only talking to you if you're a creationist.
- Quaterni0n, on 07/14/2009, -1/+3I was of the live and let live philosophy, until I saw all the harm militant religious zealots are causing: religion in schools, Bush, ignoring science, stem cells, wars, etc. If we shut up and let them do what they want, the world is going to relive the dark ages.
- smallfry405, on 07/15/2009, -0/+2It's unbelievably naive of you to suggest that all scientific advancements were made with altruistic intentions. You're cherry-picking your arguments to fit your preconceived notions of the "evils of religion."
I believe in God. I believe in evolution. I believe that science and religion do not have to be mutually exclusive. I also believe that religion should not be taught in a science classroom, but a theology classroom. I don't think anyone should believe in God because I do. I think people should be free to choose what faith, if any, to follow.
What I do believe is that most people on BOTH sides of the religious debate are tolerant, open-minded individuals who are following what they believe is the proper course. At the same time, both science and religion have their extremists and people who are so polarized one way that everyone who disagrees with them must be a mouth-breathing fool.
When you make these broad generalizations about people of faith, you lower yourself down to the level of the people you're disagreeing with. - McMannus00, on 07/14/2009, -0/+2Did the narrator sound like a British MacInTalk to anyone else?
- mason.parker, on 07/14/2009, -2/+4Yeah, we get that evolution makes sense and creationism doesn't but this non-stop "religion is wrong dammit!!!" ***** is just as bad as the religious zealots Diggers love to post crazy videos of. I honestly don't see that much difference between these two seemingly different group of people. They all have the same urge to proselytize whether it's God or science or whatever. Seriously, if someone wants to believe in something higher, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, let them. Why do we care SO much?
- Infidelephant, on 07/14/2009, -1/+2*snicker*
- jiggawatt, on 07/14/2009, -2/+3Sorry, but this is all wrong. Satan caused all of the confusion like putting the fossils in the ground, duhhhhh. God just let him do it because 1) Satan is too powerful for him to beat up, 2) he just really doesn't love us enough to care and let Satan do it anyways, 3) he thought it'd be hilarious to watch us kill each other over our ideas of where they came from once we found them.
Everything good is because of God. Everything bad is because of Satan. Problem solved! - johnnick, on 07/14/2009, -0/+1Did you watch through to the comments at the end? If so, you'd be certain.
- bombula, on 07/15/2009, -0/+1@lucas
Ahh, you ARE a Christian wingnut. Now it all makes sense.
As for "how exactly is Christianity a "self-serving" doctrine?", there are dozens of good books to read on the subject. You should start with Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation - it lays out clearly and succinctly why Christian doctrine is not only silly and delusional, but entirely selfish and self-serving as well.
Just one clear example to get you thinking is the New Testament idea of Heaven and Hell. Fear of eternal damnation as a motivator for moral behavior? Pretty self-serving. - johnnick, on 07/14/2009, -1/+2"...it will always be more logical to believe that matter was created by a supernatural God who has been present for an eternity, than to believe that a random assortment of Hydrogen and Helium happened to exist and eventually form everything as we know it."
Somehow that's logical to you? To quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - jakelocker38, on 07/14/2009, -0/+1life is absurd
- inactive, on 07/14/2009, -1/+2@fry
Indeed both are pursuing "truth" but the methodology is a bit different. More understanding and communication from both sides as you suggest are in order. - wontstoptalking, on 07/14/2009, -2/+3I can't tell if this is satire....
- bombula, on 07/14/2009, -1/+2@lucas
You're saying science sucks because in the 50 years since transistors and microelectronics were invented we haven't yet been able to match the capability of the human brain, which took ~3.8 billion years to evolve?
I think your expectations may be slightly unreasonable. Moreover, I think you may be surprised how quickly your statements become obsolete. In a single human lifetime science has taken us from having no cars or airplanes to men walking on the Moon. 50 years from now, assuming no global catastrophes, we are likely to reach the technological singularity, after which the human brain will look like a toy by comparison.
You'll probably find this talk by Ray Kurzweil a real eye-opener:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ray_kurzweil_on_how_techn ... - Lucas123, on 07/15/2009, -0/+1I believe in me or I'll believe in a higher power greater than myself? Kind of obvious which is more arrogant. And, how exactly is Christianity a "self-serving" doctrine? I could far more easily apply that to scientists than Christians. Many scientists revel in every discovery they make and fight over recognition and attribution. It's hugely self-serving.
- inactive, on 07/14/2009, -0/+1I tempted to replace my avatar with a black and white photo of myself.
- Lucas123, on 07/14/2009, -12/+13Actually, my bachelor's degree is in science and one of the things it thought me is how arrogant some scientists are. The scientific community can't even accurately measure the distance from one side of galaxy to the other, yet I can't count the number of times I've seen stories from scientific journals claiming to know the size of the universe. Somehow, because we've assigned terms to the wonders surrounding us, we believe we now own them and have intellectual control over them.
- mogdor, on 07/14/2009, -2/+2thanks, though it looks like I accidentally responded to the wrong post with that, oops.
- RSMiller, on 07/14/2009, -1/+1No, it's not satire. This is the ***** they are selling to the kids at school here in Texas.
-
Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 