Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Analyzing: Christian Bill O'Reilly vs Atheist Richard Dawkin
mywisegeneration.blogspot.com — If individuals have not had a chance to view the short debate between Atheist Richard Dawkins and Christian Bill O'Reilly between belief or simple dis-belief they can view it here. There are some interesting conclusions one can draw from the short discussion these two individuals had.
iucraigmc- 77 diggs
- digg it
- kelly, on 04/18/2008, -1/+18I wish O'Reilly wouldn't have made the "true for me" comment as that only lends credibility to the notion that Christians believe in God because a belief helps them rather than because God actually exists AND He helps us.
- drachemorder, on 04/18/2008, -1/+15In addition it implies moral relativism --- if it's "true" for you it's fine. In reality, of course, if something is true then it's true, period. We're Christians because we believe Christianity is the fundamental TRUTH of the universe, not because it gives us a nice fuzzy feeling.
- TopherD, on 04/18/2008, -0/+8That's a way that most Christians feel, I think, but most don't follow the verse in 1 Pet. to "be ready always to give an answer to anyone that asks of the hope which is in you."
- Antarcticn, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1o'reilly has diarrhea of the mouth. So, even when he does good or tries to do good, misspeaking frequently happens.
- drachemorder, on 04/18/2008, -1/+15In addition it implies moral relativism --- if it's "true" for you it's fine. In reality, of course, if something is true then it's true, period. We're Christians because we believe Christianity is the fundamental TRUTH of the universe, not because it gives us a nice fuzzy feeling.
- lodibug3, on 04/18/2008, -1/+18Seems O'Reilly won''t convince ANYONE with his wishy washy belief in the Christ of the Bible. We need Christians who can Persuade, not simply add more stench to the already rotting culture.
- avengingturnip, on 04/18/2008, -2/+16"I am not positive that Jesus is God but I am throwing in with him." - Bill O'Reilly is not a Christian. He did this for show and for ratings. If he was a true Christian he would have argued much differently.
- KJeffV, on 04/18/2008, -5/+1O'Reilly's a practicing Roman Catholic. Watch any of his shows or read any of his books—or recall the behaviors/beliefs of any, ordinary RC in your circle—to see where he stands and why.
Put Dawkins up against Ortberg or Laurie, and he'd fold like wet laundry.- avengingturnip, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2O'Reilly never seems to not be able to not find fault with the Pope, the Church, or its teachings. If he was a believing Catholic he would take the words of the Creed to heart. As it is, he is just the typical American individualist trying to figure everything out for himself. Of course, he will not believe anything which would threaten his livelihood which makes him a member of the church of Neoconism.
- KJeffV, on 04/18/2008, -5/+1O'Reilly's a practicing Roman Catholic. Watch any of his shows or read any of his books—or recall the behaviors/beliefs of any, ordinary RC in your circle—to see where he stands and why.
- TopherD, on 04/18/2008, -5/+8I might say O'Reilly is not a committed Christian. The Bible actually teaches of different levels in the Christian belief. It talks about the Bride and groom, but it talks about the wedding party, and it goes further for those even closer and talks about the queen. So you have the wedding party, the bride, and the Queen.
- SampleX, on 04/18/2008, -4/+7Really? Where in the Bible does it talk about the Queen? And which Queen does it talk about?
- shanson13, on 04/18/2008, -3/+5I haven't seen that teaching either...where is it?
- Nannybell, on 04/18/2008, -4/+3Are you referring to Mary who Catholics believe to be the Queen of Heaven? I do not believe in that false doctrine, but am just inquiring.
- kelly, on 04/19/2008, -2/+3I don't know why you got dugg down.
- Nannybell, on 04/21/2008, -2/+2Catholics may be angry at my statement. Plus, there are Digg trolls who follow me around and digg me down just because. :)
- TYRONEBR549, on 04/21/2008, -2/+2They follow many of us around and digg us down. I can just say BO and it gets dugg down. I find it humorous that they find what we say so important they they spend their time doing this. We must be doing right for these devil dogs to be getting all worked up about little ol' us. Carry on the good fight sister.
- Nannybell, on 04/21/2008, -2/+2Catholics may be angry at my statement. Plus, there are Digg trolls who follow me around and digg me down just because. :)
- kelly, on 04/19/2008, -2/+3I don't know why you got dugg down.
- keithgplayer, on 04/18/2008, -1/+10Bill O'Reilly is not somebody I'd want to debate Christianity with an atheist. He seems more like a Christian is name only and I never see him be compassionate to those with differing views. Also, his fascination with war is a good indicator that he is not a true Christian. They have a saying in the bible for all the Bill wantabee's out there.
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. You shall know them by their fruits."- drachemorder, on 04/18/2008, -7/+5"I never see him be compassionate to those with differing views."
That's what makes him a good political commentator.
"Also, his fascination with war is a good indicator that he is not a true Christian."
That doesn't mean anything. It's just being realistic. War is a necessary evil. There are bad guys out there and they will not just give up without a fight. That's just how the world works.- keithgplayer, on 04/18/2008, -1/+11There is a difference between a war of defense and a war of aggression. Which would Jesus approve? O'Reilly pushes the aggressive, to say otherwise is just fooling yourself.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God."- KJeffV, on 04/18/2008, -6/+3Oops! Watch your Greek, Maxine! That's NOT what Matthew 5:9 means at all. And, there are plenty of examples in Scripture when God calls upon His peoples to war aggressively.
I'm NOT espousing the current skirmish we're in; I'm calling you on your lack of Biblical knowledge.- keithgplayer, on 04/18/2008, -2/+5Funny, you speak of Old Testament. I was quoting Jesus, and what I read from him is that he is not to much into war. He says of war, that he who lives by the sword dies by the sword, but of course I get that wrong too, right.
- Nannybell, on 04/18/2008, -4/+3It is so dangerous when Christians confuse these issues, because they have political power to defund our military and cause us to be unable to defend our nation. Please, Christians, educate yourselves on the context to which Jesus was addressing His remarks. Jesus was not giving a model for government, because He knows govts. have to use force as long as evil exists in the world; but rather He was speaking of personal relationships. How long do you think America would last if we got rid of our military and police forces? And please read Revelation where we see the wrath of God poured out on an unbelieving world... sounds a lot like the terrors of war to me, and coming from God Himself.
- drachemorder, on 04/19/2008, -3/+3"Funny, you speak of Old Testament. I was quoting Jesus, and what I read from him is that he is not to much into war."
The entire Bible has to be taken as a whole. Just because some words are in red doesn't necessarily make them more important than others. Jesus is ultimately the source of the whole thing in the end. - Nannybell, on 04/19/2008, -2/+3Excellent point, D!
- shanson13, on 04/18/2008, -3/+52 Timothy 3:16 ALL Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness...
- KJeffV, on 04/18/2008, -6/+3Oops! Watch your Greek, Maxine! That's NOT what Matthew 5:9 means at all. And, there are plenty of examples in Scripture when God calls upon His peoples to war aggressively.
- keithgplayer, on 04/18/2008, -1/+11There is a difference between a war of defense and a war of aggression. Which would Jesus approve? O'Reilly pushes the aggressive, to say otherwise is just fooling yourself.
- alkajazz, on 04/18/2008, -2/+6I thought you weren't suppose to judge? Isn't that Gods job?
- keithgplayer, on 04/18/2008, -3/+5I'm making an observation, I'm not condemning him to hell. If we're not supposed to be mindful of people's actions as they are concerned with weather or not they are acting Christianly then how are we supposed to let other's know they are being deceived from false prophets?
- shanson13, on 04/18/2008, -3/+9According to Scripture we are to not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of our minds...then we will be able to test and approve what God's will is. It's not judging others...its testing/approving what is within God's will. This guidance comes from studying His Word and by the Holy Spirit. God is the Judge of all...and we are not to pass judgement on other people, however, we certainly are told to discern wrong from right and stand firm for that which is good.
- Look4Truth, on 04/18/2008, -4/+6"Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” - John 7:24
- Nannybell, on 04/18/2008, -4/+4Bible verses are quoted out of context and used as a mantra, but that is incorrect. The entire Bible must be understood in context, meaning that each passage must be understood in the context of what all other passages say on the specific topic.
- Look4Truth, on 04/19/2008, -2/+2What is out of context with what I quoted? The verse is very easy to understand, we're to judge but judge righteously. Using discernment is judging righteously, are you telling me that we shouldn't use discernment either? Not sure what you're getting at because that verse is very simple and IN context to the question asked.
- Nannybell, on 04/21/2008, -1/+0Sorry, but I was speaking to alkajazz, not you; just like you and the two posts above you were also speaking to him. I am in complete agreement with what you said and appreciated the passage you quoted. :)
- drachemorder, on 04/18/2008, -7/+5"I never see him be compassionate to those with differing views."
- Tugging, on 04/18/2008, -2/+11I must say that I think both of these men are in real need of knowing the Jesus Christ and God of the Bible. Knowing Him and making the commitment of a
relationship to Him is what's important. - Look4Truth, on 04/18/2008, -2/+10O'Reilly bares no fruit of being a Christian. Anyone can call themselves a Christian but not everyone is.
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven." - Matthew 7:21- shanson13, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3I hope he doesn't bare any fruit on TV...but if her were to bear fruit...that would be nice to see LOL (just teasing you a little over the spelling error, but I agree with you on your point, dugg)
- dcmusicfusion, on 04/18/2008, -3/+5Wow....two of the most hated and polarizing men in America. Both are pros at name calling, stereotyping, and engendering hate.
- SampleX, on 04/18/2008, -6/+9What did you expect? That the mass media would sponsor a genuine debate involving someone who really knew the Bible and the evidence? You expect too much. Any such interchange is rigged, not least because Dawkins has refused to debate anyone who believes in either Intelligent Design or Creationism because he believes that to do so would be to demean his intellect so much as to lose him credibility. He has been criticised by theists and atheists alike who recognise his position as being fragility disguised as arrogance, and the deliberate avoidance of anyone who might actually be able to run rings around him (there are several) is now well noted, and believed to be almost 'religious' in nature, even to the point that atheist scientists have disowned him for making a religion out of atheism and promoting humanism as a religious principle.
There are other noted self-proclaimed experts in 'atheism' and 'humanism' who started out debating theists and intelligent design advocates, and having been shot down in flames, blamed a non-existent 'Christian' media bias for setting them up, and then refused to debate them again. There's nothing funnier than the liberal media platform rigging their own 'election' and then finding out that the opposing candidates were still more convincing anyway.- ozydingo, on 04/18/2008, -0/+7It almost seems like you are saying that O'Reilly is part of the liberal media.
- SampleX, on 04/19/2008, -2/+3I'm saying that when it comes to the mass media, there is no 'conservative' or 'liberal' there is only 'agenda', and simple minded people of all political persuasions can be easily led to pander to an agenda that they might not adopt voluntarily, simply by making them think that they're doing some good by getting involved and following the script. An agendist media can happily put all kinds of right-wingers, Christians or anyone else on a platform, and then set about hanging them for all to see, while the participant is blissfully ignorant of what is going on, and completely happy in that state. It's why some of the best evangelical ministers of the last 40 years have avoided television and 'media corporation controlled media' like the plague, while others have courted it, and then paid the heaviest price for doing so.
- Ramble, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1What are you babbling about? Many scientists have debated IDers, and they've all won because ID hasn't a single leg to stand on. Hell, I'm not a biologist and I'll debate any ID advocate.
- ozydingo, on 04/18/2008, -0/+7It almost seems like you are saying that O'Reilly is part of the liberal media.
- scroogereport, on 04/18/2008, -1/+8Watched the video and glanced through your commentary. I disagree with one thing...and that is tagging Bill O'Reilly as a Christian. He is a Christian as much of the world associates that tag because he is Catholic. But being Catholic does not mean he has a personal relationship with Jesus...which is the true definition of Christian. O'Reilly may have the seeds of Christian faith in his heart, but he often gets things a bit wrong...being the confused Catholic that he is! :)
I don't see the text in your commentary of him saying "I don't know if Jesus is God." That is your first clue that he is a bit off (giving him the benefit of the doubt).
Now, Dawkins is certainly an atheist. And anytime I hear an atheist debate subjects like this it scares the heck out of me. I have the bad feeling in my stomach like "this guy is going down"...and I don't mean just temporarily.
All and all, it was a good, polite discussion. However, O'Reilly is not representative of a Christian mature in his faith. - alkajazz, on 04/18/2008, -1/+12I would love you to explain to me what the first and second laws of thermodynamics are.
- KJeffV, on 04/18/2008, -10/+1...when you're more mature, you'll be ready.
- alkajazz, on 04/18/2008, -0/+6I guess you're talking about the second coming or something?
- KJeffV, on 04/18/2008, -9/+3Yes, I'm referring to something. No, it isn't the Second Coming.
- KJeffV, on 04/18/2008, -9/+2Hey, ya missed one:
digg.com/arts_culture/Yale_Studnt_Insists_She_Tried_to_Get_Pregnant_Have_Abortions?t=14578314#c14578314 - KJeffV, on 04/18/2008, -9/+2Thatta boy. Good doggie!
- KJeffV, on 04/18/2008, -8/+2Ten minutes. Not bad. Unless it's the company you "work" for.
- alkajazz, on 04/18/2008, -1/+10Are you a tool?
- KJeffV, on 04/19/2008, -6/+2Are you a thief?
- ElWizardo, on 04/20/2008, -1/+5Don't listen to him Jazz. He's an "ex-junkie" who guzzled cum and sold his ass for rock. He's as credible as any other street whore.
- KJeffV, on 04/20/2008, -4/+1Apparently you are unfamiliar w/both history & illicit drug use: Having been clean f/over thirty yrs, as previously discussed, I was sober BEFORE crack was invented. Junkies—w/few exceptions, such as "8-ballers"—NEVER do anything akin to uppers, which cocaine is. I disliked anything speedy much in the same manner as some wine drinkers who eschew beer.
Oh, and by the bye: There are some street whores whose credibility is WAY above yours. Ask anyone.
- KJeffV, on 04/20/2008, -4/+1Apparently you are unfamiliar w/both history & illicit drug use: Having been clean f/over thirty yrs, as previously discussed, I was sober BEFORE crack was invented. Junkies—w/few exceptions, such as "8-ballers"—NEVER do anything akin to uppers, which cocaine is. I disliked anything speedy much in the same manner as some wine drinkers who eschew beer.
- Ramble, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1Sure, the first law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed (no idea where atheism or evolution comes into that, because evolution doesn't breach the first law. If anything a God would.). The second law states that disorder in a system (for example, arrangement of particles, distribution of energy) tends to increase. At a first glance it would appear evolution breaches this, as organisms usually get more complex and so more ordered, but this only applies in a system. The Earth is not a closed system and so this doesn't even apply.
- eir574, on 04/18/2008, -0/+9Craig,
I'm curious why you use the argument about the first two laws of thermodynamics to argue against a natural cause for the formation of the universe, abiogenesis, and evolution. The first law states that energy can't be created or destroyed. How is this violated?
The second law states that the entropy of a closed system will tend to increase. I've seen many people use this to argue against evolution. But, it is incorrect to say that the second law of thermodynamics does not permit local decreases in entropy. If you plant a seed, a plant will grow. Since we observe this, it's clear that the second law of thermodynamics does not prevent local decreases in entropy.
This is not the central point of Craig's blog post, but I figured I'd take the opportunity to correct this common misunderstanding of thermodynamics.- ApokalypseNow, on 04/18/2008, -0/+7The plant is not a closed system - it, just like the whole damn planet, is powered by the sun. Even if we, for the sake of argument, look at a sun-earth system and consider it closed, overall entropy in that system is STILL decreasing due to the work being done inside the sun. Remember kiddies, entropy is not about order and disorder, it is about the inability of a system's energy to do work.
- animalwheeler, on 04/18/2008, -3/+4eir: I'll try and give this a whirl;
Since the first law of thermodynamics says energy cannot be created or destroyed, then how some happenstance, just 'accidently' create it? How could some event, just by chance, violate this law, and create all that is around us?
But if there were a Creator, His power being much greater than those of the universe, and was able to perform such a task. His power was able to make such an event happen, and then move on the other complexities of this world (and beyond).
He would be able to be the 'exception to the rule' (if you will), that His power is able to Miraculously make the energy needed.- StaticThunder, on 04/18/2008, -2/+8Why is God the exception to the rule and not the universe itself? If you're going to make an exception, what evidence do you have that it should be made for God and not somewhere else?
Besides, its only a "law" based on observations from within the system. Nobody knows what is outside the system, or what rules systems such as the universe follows. I'm not just going to stick God in there if I don't have a reason to. When I have information, I'll make an informed decision how it works. Right now, there is none.- animalwheeler, on 04/19/2008, -1/+2ST: If we consider that Creationists look to God, and He created the universe; then God is the exception, not the universe. But heck God could have made the universe with it being an exception. So yes it could be "outside the system". But I am no scholar, i was just throwin that out there to chew on.
Neither side has, the direct-have it in my hands- evidence right now. I have faith, through things that have happened in my life, that God does fill that void. There are scientists who have faith in their respective field, that if this theory is correct and this other theory is correct, we can take this data and conclude this certain conclusion. Just different types of faith, on where that faith is put, because both sides lack the 'last coffin nail' to bring it all home. Each has seen things, 'evidence' in other places, that they take and apply here.
- animalwheeler, on 04/19/2008, -1/+2ST: If we consider that Creationists look to God, and He created the universe; then God is the exception, not the universe. But heck God could have made the universe with it being an exception. So yes it could be "outside the system". But I am no scholar, i was just throwin that out there to chew on.
- ApokalypseNow, on 04/18/2008, -0/+5Asking about what created implies causation, but causation requires time to occur in, and at T=0 of the Big Bang, the universe was a singularity, a volumeless point. Volumeless, as in no space. Without space, we cannot have time (spacetime, remember?), so there was no time in which for the quark-gluon plasma that would eventually turn into matter as we know it to be created in. You cannot place a temporal quantifier onto a frame of reference where that continuum does not exist.
Essentially, at T=0, the energy existed. It just was, it always had been (for values of "always" that work in a relativistically-expanding universe with no volume).- animalwheeler, on 04/19/2008, -1/+3AN: I have no problem admitting, you are starting to go over my head here; but no time like the present to learn.
OK, so the Universe would be one consistent homogenous entity, of nothing. And since we have no time or space in this nothing, there lacks any precursor to start something happening.
So there would have to be energy, in some form at least, that had always existed to facilitate an event.
Am I starting down the right road here?- ApokalypseNow, on 04/20/2008, -0/+3@Animalwheeler:
Something like that, or at least, that is how current hypothetical science understands it (or, at the very least, that is how I understand the science). The first 10^-11 seconds or so after the event of the Big Bang are less-than perfectly clear to us, and involve several processes that we don't completely understand (such as baryogenesis, the process in which matter and anti-matter were formed in a ratio slightly favoring normal matter). However, at 10^-11 seconds and afterwards, we can replicate the energy levels of the events that happened during these events in particle accelerators.
And yes, the energy always existed, for values of always that work in a relativistically-expanding universe with no volume, and the amount of time that the "always" existed was sub-1-second. - ApokalypseNow, on 04/20/2008, -0/+3Oh, forgot to comment on this point:
"OK, so the Universe would be one consistent homogenous entity, of nothing."
Technically, the universe is one consistent homogeneous entity of *everything*, since the energy that would eventually coalesce into all the matter in the universe was contained in that volumeless point, that singularity. The whole universe was contained in that point, *was* that point, and then it expanded. By all measurements, the expansion is even accelerating today. If I understand the science correctly, then this would indicate that the mass density of the universe is less than the critical density, meaning that we are not headed for a "Big Crunch" universal ending, but rather a situation known as "heat death". Wikipedia has a good summary for that possibility.
- ApokalypseNow, on 04/20/2008, -0/+3@Animalwheeler:
- animalwheeler, on 04/19/2008, -1/+3AN: I have no problem admitting, you are starting to go over my head here; but no time like the present to learn.
- eir574, on 04/18/2008, -2/+6@Animalwheeler:
The big bang theory doesn't state that something was made out of nothing. We don't know exactly what happened, but there are hypotheses to account for conservation of energy. Only a theory in which the first law of thermodynamics is not violated would hold up. Many physicists have evidence that the total energy of the universe is zero -- the positive energy we see is balanced out by something else. I'm being vague here, but I'm not a physicist. The quantum mechanical world is nonintuitive to most of us.
There are a bunch of quotes here from physicists on the conservation of energy as it relates to the formation of the universe: http://www.braungardt.com/Physics/Vacuum%20Fluctua ... . Here's one of the quotes from that page:
"There is a still more remarkable possibility, which is the creation of matter from a state of zero energy. This possibility arises because energy can be both positive and negative. The energy of motion or the energy of mass is always positive, but the energy of attraction, such as that due to certain types of gravitational or electromagnetic field, is negative. Circumstances can arise in which the positive energy that goes to make up the mass of newly-created particles of matter is exactly offset by the negative energy of gravity of electromagnetism. For example, in the vicinity of an atomic nucleus the electric field is intense. If a nucleus containing 200 protons could be made (possible but difficult), then the system becomes unstable against the spontaneous production of electron-positron pairs, without any energy input at all. The reason is that the negative electric energy can exactly offset the energy of their masses.
In the gravitational case the situation is still more bizarre, for the gravitational field is only a spacewarp - curved space. The energy locked up in a spacewarp can be converted into particles of matter and antimatter. This occurs, for example, near a black hole, and was probably also the most important source of particles in the big bang. Thus, matter appears spontaneously out of empty space. The question then arises, did the primeval bang possess energy, or is the entire universe a state of zero energy, with the energy of all the material offset by negative energy of gravitational attraction?
It is possible to settle the issue by a simple calculation. Astronomers can measure the masses of galaxies, their average separation, and their speeds of recession. Putting these numbers into a formula yields a quantity which some physicists have interpreted as the total energy of the universe. The answer does indeed come out to be zero within the observational accuracy. The reason for this distinctive result has long been a source of puzzlement to cosmologists. Some have suggested that there is a deep cosmic principle at work which requires the universe to have exactly zero energy. If that is so the cosmos can follow the path of least resistance, coming into existence without requiring any input of matter or energy at all. (Davies, 1983, 31-32)"- animalwheeler, on 04/19/2008, -1/+3eir: thanks for the link, looks like a lot of information to delve through here. I'll have to look through the rest of it later. :)
I read the quote two below the one you copied over, on the "bubbles of false vacuum", and was interesting.
What I am gathering, is that since we have a positive and directly correlating negative effect, we come with a net of ZERO- nothing created or destroyed, but we could have something new due the changes made to the energy. A change in it's "state", so the first law of thermodynamics is kept intact, but we still 'gain' something, correct?- eir574, on 04/20/2008, -0/+3As best as I understand it, that's the right idea, though of course there may be hypotheses that differ from the ones described on that page. No hypothesis relating to the big bang will violate the first law of thermodynamics, though, unless there was evidence available to suggest that the law is somehow wrong. At this point, that seems very unlikely.
I have great respect for the people who truly understand this stuff. One of my big regrets from college is that I didn't make time to take a class on quantum mechanics. The quantum mechanical world is so incredibly non-intuitive to most of us that what we call common sense completely breaks down when evaluating theories like the big bang theory. Einstein even rejected some aspects of quantum mechanics later in his life, and called one concept in particular (quantum entanglement) "spooky." Recently, quantum entanglement has been used quantum teleportation experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation ). Bizarre stuff, and I wish I understood more. - eir574, on 04/20/2008, -0/+5animalwheeler,
By the way, if I haven't yet said that I appreciate your interest in this area, I do. Too many people assume that that if some scientific theory defies common sense, then it must not be true. We can't all be experts in everything, and it's good to talk about the things we don't understand with others. We don't have to substitute anyone else's judgement for our own, but I think it's helpful to understand what other people have to say before rejecting it. - animalwheeler, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2I've always liked science, just been away from it for too long. We touched on some of it in HS; but then pursued an Art Major, when I was in college. So been away from some of it for awhile, and some of it is new things to check out. I am just wanting to know a little more.
- eir574, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2It's amazing how fast things have been moving. If I had known eight or ten years ago what I know now, I might have been a physics major. Of course, in that case I'd probably be lamenting lost opportunities elsewhere. Biology in particular has absolutely been revolutionized by technology in recent years (or is perhaps still in the middle of a revolution).
- eir574, on 04/20/2008, -0/+3As best as I understand it, that's the right idea, though of course there may be hypotheses that differ from the ones described on that page. No hypothesis relating to the big bang will violate the first law of thermodynamics, though, unless there was evidence available to suggest that the law is somehow wrong. At this point, that seems very unlikely.
- animalwheeler, on 04/19/2008, -1/+3eir: thanks for the link, looks like a lot of information to delve through here. I'll have to look through the rest of it later. :)
- StaticThunder, on 04/18/2008, -2/+8Why is God the exception to the rule and not the universe itself? If you're going to make an exception, what evidence do you have that it should be made for God and not somewhere else?
- aoliver, on 04/18/2008, -0/+9"The reason this is important is because the atrocities that were performed by Hitler and Mao can be 'justified' because they were atheists. If there is no absolute judge of right and wrong then the deeds Hitler and Mao committed can be morally justified. One cannot tell them they were being evil if there is no absolute good that they had violated."
Madness can justify anything. Try to envision all of those killed in the name of god, and think on how many of thier deaths seemed justified to men of faith. - aoliver, on 04/18/2008, -4/+5"The reason this is important is because the atrocities that were performed by Hitler and Mao can be 'justified' because they were atheists. If there is no absolute judge of right and wrong then the deeds Hitler and Mao committed can be morally justified. One cannot tell them they were being evil if there is no absolute good that they had violated."
Madness can justify anything. Try to envision all of those killed in the name of god, and think on how many of thier deaths seemed justified to men of faith. - ozydingo, on 04/18/2008, -1/+12"As one can see, Dawkin's contradicted himself - on one hand he is saying that Christians must provide the evidences necessary to establish the validity of their faith in what they believe, on the other hand when confronted with the reality that science cannot answer such a profound question of the origins of the universe his response is simply "We are working on it.""
This is not a contradiction. It requires a leap of faith, Dawkins says, to have this defined set of positive beliefs. However, admitting "we do not know" does in no way require a leap of faith, and it is not a specific belief. You refer to "sheer chance" as if scientist postulate that it is a positive phenomenon or thing that resulted in the creation of the universe. Chance, however, is not that. Chance, or probability, generally is our way of modeling what we either do not fully understand or is too complicated to warrant a full calculation for little increased accuracy. You have also not stated who specifically has stated that the creation of the universe is "sheer chance" nor in what context, so it is difficult to address this matter in more depth.
There are some other more minor points that I don't feel it is worth going over. I do applaud you however for a overall well-written commentary from your perspective.- StaticThunder, on 04/18/2008, -3/+8There are holes in the Theory of God that the religious can not explain. In reality the Theory of God can not answer such a profound question of the origins of the universe, and their response is simply "God works in mysterious ways."
When science makes a claim about origins without evidence to back it up, I'll be the first to call it Faith. As I do with string theory and quantum gravity. Pretty equations with no testable predictions are not science - they are merely physicists playing at theology.- ApokalypseNow, on 04/18/2008, -1/+6I wouldn't call it playing at theology necessarily, as the equations make no statements about morality, afterlives, etc. Certain assumptions are made in those fields of course, assumptions not present in other branches of the sciences, but to call them theology because of it is a bit of an exaggeration. Up to the point where their hypotheses kick in, everything else in their branches has evidence - which is a far cry from so-called "christian science" arenas that truly *are* theology and have no evidential backing what-so-ever.
- StaticThunder, on 04/18/2008, -0/+6Fine, I was a bit hyperbolic. But I sort of view esoteric mathematics as living in a world of its own, similar to spiritual conjecture. Yes, pure math has utility, maybe, eventually. But I do wish theoretical physicists would stop referring to things like "the God particle" or publishing books trying to unify spiritual ideas with their conjectures about higher dimensions. Not to mention that for many of these ideas they truly have no evidential backing. There are an infinite number of possible mathematical structures that collapse to solutions in meat-space that look like our universe. Which one is correct, we have no idea until they are tested at Planck scales.
- ApokalypseNow, on 04/18/2008, -0/+5"The God Particle" is actually just the Higgs-boson. The only reason they call it that is because the publisher of a book about it refused to use the physicist's first choice of title, "The Goddamn Particle", referring to how hard it is to detect. The difference here is that when the Large Hadron Collider goes online, we might in fact be able to detect it - that's actually one of the reasons it is being built. At least, in this case, we're talking about something we can do experiments on, and not just pure theoretical math. The other pseudo-science that attempts to marry itself to spirituality, I would agree, is ***** - but don't throw the Higgs-boson in with that group just yet.
- eir574, on 04/18/2008, -0/+6I work in bioinformatics, so I understand the debate on whether theoretical science is worthwhile from that perspective. There are plenty of people in bioinformatics (as there are in physics) generating hypotheses that can't yet be tested. So long as we're all aware of that, theoretical science can still serve a purpose in that it proposes and explores ideas that are not yet accessible to experimentalists. Those ideas can get us thinking about where to go next. Sometimes they're only infeasible because of their scale, but could be done a few years down the road. Sometimes compelling ideas can also drive technological development in the sciences to improve our capabilities for testing those ideas. Technological development has been a driving force in biology in recent years.
I'm not a fan of theoretical science for the sake of theoretical science, but I do think it has its uses. - StaticThunder, on 04/19/2008, -0/+5I was taking issue with the name and its popular perception (and that these guys go on to write books about how the universe is really God and how quantum shows that souls exist). I know about the Higgs-Boson and no, its not untestable.
And yes eir, if the math actually eventually impinges on the real world; but the string theorists are in a world of their own. It is unlikely that we will EVER be able to test those theories; they exist only to provide a rationale for continued grant funding. - StaticThunder, on 04/19/2008, -0/+5Which is not to say I don't get your point about theory expanding the realm of experimentation. I've always been a pragmatic scientist. If you're accepting public money, I really do believe you should at least be trying to produce something that will be useful to the public -- bioinformatic conjectures are usually closely related to a biological system that is amenable to study. Not the same as engaging in mental masturbation, for lack of a better term, about exotic mathematical constructs that have no tangible physical reality and calling it physics and arguing with other people doing the same thing about who is right. But then I think abstract mathematics is probably important - even when I can't see how it can be applied - so I guess I'm torn about this one.
- eir574, on 04/19/2008, -0/+5Research in bioinformatics always has something to do with biological systems that could theoretically be studied, but it's also very possible to put forth hypotheses that aren't specifically amenable to experimental testing. At least not yet, that is.
I think your comment about abstract mathematics is very much on point. I had a math professor once who studied, among other things, geometry in high dimensional spaces. There was a time when that wasn't particularly useful from a practical sense, but the types of techniques she and others developed are now used in cryptography.
I agree that public funding of science should go towards projects that have practical implications, but how do we know what's practical? Discoveries often come from unexpected places. When funding is limited, as it always is to at least some extent, funding agencies want to put their money into the projects that they think are most likely to yield results. That's perfectly reasonable, of course, but it also means that wacky ideas that are high risk but that could have large payoffs don't get funded very often. A couple of years ago my PI applied for a grant from some foundation that was looking to fund exactly those kinds of projects. He got the grant, but even then the work is proceeding slowly because no graduate student or postdoc can afford to spend too much time on something so risky. (He wants to try to find and isolate liver cells in the blood so that liver biopsies can be avoided. He jokes that the procedure may have to involve hitting patients in the liver with a baseball bat in order to get them to slough off some cells.) - StaticThunder, on 04/19/2008, -0/+4Let me show you my line. If the energy of the particles you are studying is greater than that contained within the visible universe, its pointless.
The funding agencies generally try to balance exotic with practical. I just thing string theory is way over the line at this point. And its continued to be funded because "Hey! Its the mysteries of the universe!" - Ramble, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1You say this about high energy and theoretical physics (which both go hand in hand). To you the theory of relativity may be useless. If you don't like your tax money being spent on these things then I suggest you don't use GPS, ANY medical scanner, any product that utilises physical scanning techniques (neutron scattering, high intensity X-Rays) - and let me tell you that's probably damn near every single thing you buy. So next time don't tell me physics is useless when the convienient life you have today is provided on the back of physics.
- StaticThunder, on 04/18/2008, -0/+6Fine, I was a bit hyperbolic. But I sort of view esoteric mathematics as living in a world of its own, similar to spiritual conjecture. Yes, pure math has utility, maybe, eventually. But I do wish theoretical physicists would stop referring to things like "the God particle" or publishing books trying to unify spiritual ideas with their conjectures about higher dimensions. Not to mention that for many of these ideas they truly have no evidential backing. There are an infinite number of possible mathematical structures that collapse to solutions in meat-space that look like our universe. Which one is correct, we have no idea until they are tested at Planck scales.
- ApokalypseNow, on 04/18/2008, -1/+6I wouldn't call it playing at theology necessarily, as the equations make no statements about morality, afterlives, etc. Certain assumptions are made in those fields of course, assumptions not present in other branches of the sciences, but to call them theology because of it is a bit of an exaggeration. Up to the point where their hypotheses kick in, everything else in their branches has evidence - which is a far cry from so-called "christian science" arenas that truly *are* theology and have no evidential backing what-so-ever.
- StaticThunder, on 04/18/2008, -3/+8There are holes in the Theory of God that the religious can not explain. In reality the Theory of God can not answer such a profound question of the origins of the universe, and their response is simply "God works in mysterious ways."
- Odenized, on 04/18/2008, -2/+1This is an amazing debate. There's nothing not a paring who I would rather see talk about these issues than these two.
- ApokalypseNow, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3I'd agree that these are two people I'd really like to see debate the issue, but not because I think O'Reilly is a great speaker - rather, because I think he's a douchebag and I would really like to see Dawkin tear him a new one.
- nowsamsara, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1O'Reilly, "Y' know...I'm not positive that Jesus was God...But I'm throwin' in with Jesus, rather than throwin' in with *you* guys...because *you* guys can't tell me how it all got here..."
Sure. I throw in with Jesus too. Just not with the belief that he is God. Of course, this is where gnosticism come in.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by