h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

Well, I guess *I* can take that as a compliment, being as how I'm much older than them.

Noggin

"Of course I am not going to ask all those people"

What is it about Christians and their persistent unwillingness to confront evidence?

SoRB

<<>

Well, I guess *I* can take that as a compliment, being as how I'm much older than them.

Noggin>

Well, if I look as sprightly as Noggin when I am as ancient as he is I will be very happy.

Well, *I* take it as an insult, because I'm MUCH better looking than those mingers!



SoRB

<>

Yeah, but just wait until you're my age

Noggin

Don't listen to SoRB, Noggin, you are totally adorable just as you are . . . *kisses bald head*

Though since you are in your fifties and are an atheist I think you now run the risk of being labelled an American!!! And possibly even being called Bill!



az

SoRB,
On proof: ""In all your demands you seem to require first-hand proof,"
Yes. And that is a problem because...?" This is a problem because you're prejudice in favour of science means you denounce those who accept second-hand proof for religion whilst readily accepting second-hand proof for science.

On me: "You seem to be implying that YOUR god" If you paid the slightest bit of attention to what I've said you would see that I clearly show myself NOT to believe in a god in post 10.

On science: "Gravity is an inescapable fact, and only the most deluded idiot or tedious adolescent pseudo-philosopher would waste time trying to argue otherwise." Two points; firstly, I am not a "tedious adolescent pseudo-philosopher", and challenging common-sense realism shows that gravity should not be taken as an "inescapable fact", and I doubt you would call Descartes an adolescent pseudo-philosopher? In his view you are ‘believing’ in your computer as you have no *incontrovertible* proof it does exist.
Secondly, you may have some proof of exchange particles (note, this is the most common but not necessarily the only explanation of gravity) but has anyone ever measured a graviton's existence? Is their then ANY first-hand proof of it? no. yet you still believe in its existence. The theory may well be right, I'm persuaded by it, BUT it is still only a theory. You may argue you can see the effects of the graviton, but surely then some would say you can see the existence of a god. William Paley would point you to the mutual dependence in nature, and Isaac Newton would draw your attention to the human thumb. I repeat the inductive proof of both science AND religion is of the same nature.

On Medicine: “Please let me know what the "effective" religious/herbal cure for cholera is.

Please let me know what the "effective" religious/herbal cure for smallpox is.”
Please let ME know what the scientific cures for certain cancers are.
Are you suggesting that before scientific method there was no “effective” development? That religion never was a catalyst for the development of society and civilisations, early medicine and science, literature and art, and most importantly the development of the human mind?

On violence: “[Christianity is] a middle-eastern death cult”. OK, religion has been used as an excuse for many wars. This doesn’t mean it was the real reason, often greed and avarice. And it’s hard to argue science hasn’t caused a lot of death, Hiroshima and Nagasaki for example. Just because either have been used for evil ends doesn’t make either untrue.

On disproving religion: “What is it about Christians and their persistent unwillingness to confront evidence?” Give me any evidence that the existence of a monotheistic god (or any type for that matter) is completely disprovable.

Blub-blub

"On proof: ""In all your demands you seem to require first-hand proof,"
Yes. And that is a problem because...?" This is a problem because you're prejudice in favour of science means you denounce those who accept second-hand proof for religion whilst readily accepting second-hand proof for science."

You seem to have missed the point. What I don't understand is why first hand proof is a problem. If I want first hand, understandable proof of the existence of, say, quarks, I would need to undergo some pretty intensive education in physics and gain access to extremely expensive and rare equipment.

First hand, understandable proof of the existence of god could be provided, to me, by him, right now, this second, with less effort for anyone than it takes me to blink.

Therefore I can see no reason why providing that proof should be a problem.

"Two points; firstly, I am not a "tedious adolescent pseudo-philosopher","

For now I'll take your word for it...

"and challenging common-sense realism shows that gravity should not be taken as an "inescapable fact", "

What?

"I doubt you would call Descartes an adolescent pseudo-philosopher?"

I can't write what I think of Descartes on a PG rated site.

"In his view you are ‘believing’ in your computer as you have no *incontrovertible* proof it does exist."

That's precisely the kind of time-wasting drivel I was talking about. Sure, we can't prove that objective reality exists. Woohoo, maybe we're all plugged into the Matrix. Makes a good movie, but as far as talking about the real world, it's just so much mind wa*k. Leave it out.

"Secondly, you may have some proof of exchange particles (note, this is the most common but not necessarily the only explanation of gravity)"

I disagree. Deformable spacetime is the most common explanation of gravity, if by "common" you mean heard of by the layman and used on any scale above the sub-microscopic.

"but has anyone ever measured a graviton's existence?"

Not yet. Like a creationist, you demand all the answers immediately, and crow when they are not forthcoming.

"Is their then ANY first-hand proof of it? no. yet you still believe in its existence."

Do I? What else do I believe in, my little psychic buddy?

"You may argue you can see the effects of the graviton,"

No. I would argue I can see AND MEASURE the force of gravity, but do not currently have a working model of how it works at all scales.

"but surely then some would say you can see the existence of a god."

There's a crucial difference. The graviton (or curved spacetime) is a *model* with explanatory and predictive POWER.

A god, by contrast, is a hand-waving non-explanation that predicts nothing and instead says "Never mind that, look over here..."

The difference is striking. Those working with the first are striving towards greater knowledge, those working with the second are embracing ignorance.

"On Medicine: “Please let me know what the "effective" religious/herbal cure for cholera is. Please let me know what the "effective" religious/herbal cure for smallpox is.”
Please let ME know what the scientific cures for certain cancers are."

Oh for f**k's sake what is the MATTER with you people?

Yes, whoopy doo, there are incurable diseases. You hold this up as though you've deftly caught me out.

So let me get this straight - because science has not, yet, cured EVERY SINGLE disease, it's worthless compared to religion? Is that what you're saying?

You KNOW what my point is - science, fundamentally, WORKS, and religion does not, in every important practical sense.

If the best you can do is to say "well, yeah, but, no, but, yeah, but science don't work on THAT yet, yeah?" then I'm afraid you need some debating practice.

"Are you suggesting that before scientific method there was no “effective” development?"

No. I'm saying that, like it or not, effective development with any speed REQUIRES scientific method. Sure, folk remedies can be found by accident - killing pain by chewing bark that turns out to contain aspirin, etc. But such progress is made by chimps. Religion actually actively works against such progress by discouraging inquiry.

"That religion never was a catalyst for the development of society and civilisations, early medicine and science, literature and art, and most importantly the development of the human mind?"

Interesting point. I am interested by, although not completely convinced, the theory that consciousness itself arose because of the development of written language, and that religions as we know them (not to mention several mental illnesses) are a throwback to our pre-conscious past. See "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes.

"On violence: “[Christianity is] a middle-eastern death cult”. OK, religion has been used as an excuse for many wars."

That's not what "death-cult" means.

"And it’s hard to argue science hasn’t caused a lot of death, Hiroshima and Nagasaki for example."

Science did not cause those deaths. Politics caused those deaths.

"Just because either have been used for evil ends doesn’t make either untrue."

Correct, BUT that's a false dichotomy.

Just because both have (arguably) been used for good ends doesn't make either "true" in itself.

Look again at what I've said: in every important respect, science WORKS. In every important respect, religion does not. Truth or falsity is either demonstrated by that fact, or it is irrelevant.

"Give me any evidence that the existence of a monotheistic god (or any type for that matter) is completely disprovable."

No god is disprovable. That is what separates scientific theory from fairy stories.

I'm not out to "disprove" religion, because religion is by its nature not disprovable. The very day such a religion arises it will surely fall. The only way religion can survive is by making no disprovable claims and discouraging searches for evidence.

The only point I'm making is that, in the modern world, religion is useless except as a psychological crutch for the inadequate, whereas science and technology have repeatedly delivered better and longer lives for almost everyone they've touched, and will continue to do so in the future. No religion can claim the same.

SoRB

SoRB,

You’re still treating religion and science as completely different things.

“Yes, whoopy doo, there are incurable diseases.” I say that science doesn’t hold all the answers for all the diseases (my eg was cancer). You believe that this is not an argument against science working, fair enough, its not. What I was trying to do was create a contrast with you’re suggestion; paraphrased ‘religion/herbal medicine doesn’t hold all the answers, and this IS an argument against religion.’

“science, fundamentally, WORKS, and religion does not, in every important practical sense.” Religion doesn’t work practically? I refer you back to my argument "[Religion is] a catalyst for the development of society and civilisations, early medicine and science, literature and art, and most importantly the development of the human mind."

“I'm not out to "disprove" religion, because religion is by its nature not disprovable. The very day such a religion arises it will surely fall. The only way religion can survive is by making no disprovable claims and discouraging searches for evidence.” You seem to suggest significant scientific development as being due to a process of discarding or modifying theories which are falsified and keeping does which aren’t (almost survival of the fittest). Only a theory which could, hypothetically, be disproved but hasn’t been yet is useful. But this doesn’t fit in well with the history of scientific development.

My point is; science is the new religion, blindly accepted by many. It does progress, but then so did/does religion, eg. from Polytheism to Monotheism.

Both are based on the SAME kind of evidence/proof. Both serve the SAME purpose. They shouldn’t be treated completely differently.

Blub-blub

>>"You’re still treating religion and science as completely different things."

There's probably a good reason for that - apart from both being human inventions, they *are* different things.

>>"Both are based on the SAME kind of evidence/proof. Both serve the SAME purpose. They shouldn’t be treated completely differently."

They aren't based on the SAME kinds of evidence, nor do they serve even SIMILAR (let alone identical) purposes.
One deals with the natural world as it is (or at least, as it relentlessly appears to be, which is practically the same thing), the other deals with some aspects of human interaction, placing partial reliance on the existence of one or more supernatural entities which seem reluctant to demonstrate their existence despite their supposed abilities being sufficient to do so if they wished.

>>"It does progress, but then so did/does religion, eg. from Polytheism to Monotheism."

Is the movement from polytheism to monotheism actually *progress*, or just a change?
One could be forgiven for wondering why, if religions are actually divinely inspired, rather than human-invented political and social institutions, they couldn't even have got the *number* of Gods right from the beginning, and still don't seem capable of agreement even now?
If they *aren't* divinely inspired, why do they need to hide their core social/political motivation (which may well have been better than obvious alternatives at various places and times) behind a facade of divinity?
Are people too naturally evil to understand the benefits of good social ideas, or are some too dumb to understand them, with the divine part of religion being an easy way of explaining things to the cognitively challenged?
If the answer is 'neither of the above', and the divine side was simply a way of helping to explain things to questioning minds which couldn't be otherwise explained at the time, is it *now* time to let the divine element of religions wither away, and let religions simply become more honest political/social movements, or ditch religions in favour of secular social politics?
Is that in fact what is effectively happening in some parts of the world?

Potholer,

"They aren't based on the SAME kinds of evidence"

Both are based on methods of induction (Scientific Method, and observing miricles), ie a finite number of observations then backed up with some theory or other.

"nor do they serve even SIMILAR (let alone identical) purposes."

both seek to explain the nature of the world/reality. (incedently, both fail, in my opinion)

"at least, as it relentlessly appears to be, which is practically the same thing"

How is it even *remotley* the same thing? We have no reason to believe that reality, if it even exists, is accuratley perceived by us. As Descartes pointed out, all we can be sure of is of our mind's existence, and even this is open to debate. In either case, if I don't even conclusivley KNOW my hand exists how can I even suggest it is probable that there are massless, chargeless particles called neutrinos flying around (it dosn't matter if you believe them to have non-zero mass, you still can't prove/know of there existence.)

"seem reluctant to demonstrate their existence despite their supposed abilities"

I'm not Christian but I do know of their argument (as put by DNA) "God: I refuse to prove I exist, because proof undermines faith and without faith I am nothing"

"why, if religions are actually divinely inspired, rather than human-invented political and social institutions, they couldn't even have got the *number* of Gods right from the beginning"

And why, if science is actually the truth which can be seen clearly by those who arn't "cognitively challenged", did it take man over 5,869 years to discover things weren't made up of Earth Wind Water and Fire after all.

"Is the movement from polytheism to monotheism actually *progress*"
In what way is 'changing' from simply assigning natural phenomena with gods (a rain god, a fire god, a thunder god), to coming up with various theories and explanations of reality, how it works, fits together and why it does this, not a significant development?

To return to my point, which you conviniently ignored, SCIENCE ISN'T PROVABLE, it is a way to explain how we see things, and we have to have faith in it if we are to believe it. Funny, sounds alot like religion to me.

blub-blub

>>"Both are based on methods of induction (Scientific Method, and observing miricles), ie a finite number of observations then backed up with some theory or other."

People don't 'observe miracles', they observe *events* and then interpret those events in the like of their prior belief in good stuff being down to God being good, and bad stuff not being down to God being evil.
As far as I'm aware, there's no 'miracle science' that makes any kind of prediction about future events.

>>"How is it even *remotley* the same thing? We have no reason to believe that reality, if it even exists, is accuratley perceived by us. As Descartes pointed out, all we can be sure of is of our mind's existence, and even this is open to debate."

Do we have any particular reason to believe that reality *doesn't* exist, or that we can't perceive it with a fair degree of accuracy?
Some people could sit around on their philosophical backsides and endlessly debate whether we actually exist, but real people get on with life, and the contention that until shown otherwise, reality *does* exist would seem to be be one worth taking seriously.
For practical purposes, therefore, the *appearance* of a world which has consistently acted *as if* it were governed by simple naturalistic laws seems the very next best thing to proof of a naturalistic world - how much better could we hope to do?.

>>"I'm not Christian but I do know of their argument (as put by DNA) "God: I refuse to prove I exist, because proof undermines faith and without faith I am nothing""

So, a pi$$take by an atheist is your defence of Gods who seem to demand worship yet are somehow shy of announcing themselves to everyone, *and yet* who also seem quite forthcoming at speaking to many of the faithful (which one might think should undermine the faith of the faithful)?
However, I suppose we must exclude the nonzero fraction of the 'faithful' who claim to have been spoken to by God yet who are actually mentally ill, or who are believing in heretical religions, which many not leave all that many of them.

>>"In what way is 'changing' from simply assigning natural phenomena with gods (a rain god, a fire god, a thunder god), to coming up with various theories and explanations of reality, how it works, fits together and why it does this, not a significant development?"

What 'theories and explanations of reality' does monotheism magically make more available?
'YHWH did it all' is better than 'Thor did this and Wotan didn that'?

>>"To return to my point, which you conviniently ignored, SCIENCE ISN'T PROVABLE, it is a way to explain how we see things, and we have to have faith in it if we are to believe it."

Science is a tool to be used, so it needs nothing more than confidence that it is worth bothering to try using it. The making of testable predictions is a valid way of evaluating the likely future usefulness of science, which is all that many people ask of it.

When you talk of 'believing' science, what do you mean?
That we have to believe in all the conclusions of scientists, (which no sane scientist would ever do), or to believe that following the scientific method is likely to result in conclusions which are probably/possibly useful.
That latter kind of belief (that the general approach may be useful) would be rather like someone who thought that being a Christian would be likely to be make them happy, which is an entirely different thing to believing that any or all parts of the religion are actually *true* despite a paucity of evidence.

Since science is a progressive approach to the world, pretty much by definition at any point in time the conclusions of science will tend to make a great deal of sense, and have been tested against [apparent] reality by many sceptical and competetive people. Therefore, even for someone who is a natural skeptic, it will usually make sense to consider that the conclusions of science are *probably* correct (unlikely to be disproved), and therefore useful, even if one lacks the mental apparatus for religious-level faith.

"People don't 'observe miracles', they observe *events* and then interpret those events"

And this is different to science how? The only difference is the theories used to explain these events.

"in the like of their prior belief"

Because scientists are always open-minded right? Most scientists wouldn't dismiss non-scientific theories out-right would they? of course not!

"Do we have any particular reason to believe that reality *doesn't* exist, or that we can't perceive it with a fair degree of accuracy?"


The short answer is 'YES'. The slightly longer answer is 'Yes, absolutley loads'.
Put simply:
How do we get ALL of our information of the outside world?
Through our senses. Do our senses work to "a fair degree of accuracy"? No.
We all know our senses decieve us all the time. Everybody experiences it all the time. Every single second. We know we can never be sure of what John Locke described as Secondary qualaties.
So we are aware of our senses decieving us in minor ways. Therefore it is reasonable (and probable) to assume they are decieving us in other ways we are *not* yet aware of. These desceptions would have to be more extreme than those we are aware of otherwise they wouldn't being decieving us. Therefore we can *never* be sure which sense experiences are at all acurate and which are complete deceptions, to the extent I can't even be sure of the existence of my own body. We have every reason to assume we do *not* have an accurate picture of 'reality'.

DNA - athiest - so? It's still a description of the argument many theists use to justify god not being imminent in the world. An argument you hoped you'd distracted my attention from (probably because you didn't actually even attempt to rebut it)by going off on some tangent about people who think they've talked to god.

"That we have to believe in all the conclusions of scientists, (which no sane scientist would ever do), or to believe that following the scientific method is likely to result in conclusions which are probably/possibly useful.
That latter kind of belief (that the general approach may be useful) would be rather like someone who thought that being a Christian would be likely to be make them happy, which is an entirely different thing to believing that any or all parts of the religion are actually *true*"

So, to paraphrase you, being Christian produces beneficial results for the majority of people for the majority of the time, but this dosn't make it true. Ok, I agree.
You also say; Science *produces beneficial results for the majority of people for the majority of the time*. Ok, I agree. The only thing I'd add is that *but this dosn't make it true*.
You make the two sound so similair.
You seem to be agreeing with me here.

You don't seem to grasp who I am. I AM NOT a blind believer in religion, I'm not saying it's true. But neither am I a blind believer in science. Probably because they're so similair, I've simply learnt from the past that faith=not always a good thing, so I refuse to put complete faith in science.

blub-blub

>>"And why, if science is actually the truth which can be seen clearly by those who arn't "cognitively challenged", did it take man over 5,869 years to discover things weren't made up of Earth Wind Water and Fire after all."

You're misrepresenting what I wrote, presumably unintentionally.
I didn't say that all scientific explanations were obvious to anyone smart (or non-thick), or that they should have been obvious to people ages ago, just as I wouldn't criticise people from the 19th century for not understanding radioactivity, or people from the 14th century for not understanding electromagnetic theory, nor people from Ancient Egypt for not knowing how to make steel.

As a *tool*, science has for much of the time been driven by curiosity about the natural world and human technology.
For people who were given adequate religious explanations for much of what happened in the natural world (Gods make earthquakes, floods, etc), there may not have been much curiosity in exploring possible other explanations, and may have even been significant discouragement in questioning the religious explanations.
The interplay between science and technology is one of mutual feedback, and in a world where technology developed slowly, and where there wasn't much of an existing overall 'science' framework to slot technological discoveries into, with advances often being kept as trade secrets in specialised areas, what increments in knowledge existed may not always have been widely known, nor particular explanations sought for them by practical people as long as they worked consistently.

It would appear that some kind of critical mass of knowledge is necessary for fully-fledged science to be able to take flight, where new discoveries start to be more widely known (via printing, trade?), where new knowledge starts to fit into some cohesive overall picture, and where there is an expectation that there *is* much more to be discovered, and that experimentation is one of the ways to find things out (rather than the intellectually-shackling idea that one should be able to understand the world from pure philosophy), and where there is an expectation that new discoveries may bring either fame or fortune.

That's why some erroneous theories managed to hang around a long time - few were in a position to even know about them (little education), of the few who knew them, few were probably much interested, the ideas were taught as fact (often alongside religion) so there was little to be gained (and potentially some risk) by questioning them, they were vague enough to be hard to disprove (making few predictions, just post-hoc explanations), and the experimental, questioning scientific method itself was not put forward as a Good Thing. If they weren't actually used by practical people, many of whom would have been uneducated, their flaws may never really have been noticed.

The process of science would appear to have been one of accelerating growth, and it would seem likely it could have not really been any other way. For someone to ask after it did happen "Well, why it didn't happen before" does seem a bit odd - the simple answer is that the conditions were just not right at earlier times, or that much slow and hard-to-see groundwork had to be done before the process could start more obviously.

Anyway, back to my questions, which *you* seemed to ignore by asking your question (which I answered above):
If religions are divinely inspired, why *can't* they agree on the number of deities, or much else?
If they aren't divinely inspired, how different are they in practice from simple social/political movements - what social/political motive is there to hide behind a facade of divinity?

<>

There's a subtle fallacy in this argument. The information that shows that we can't trust our senses is provided by...our senses.

Noggin

blub-blub the whole point of science is that it requires no faith. Scientists don't have faith, they have doubt (something, incidentally, they inherited from Descartes). The reason science has been so successful is that it works; if a theory doesn't work (ie evidence is discovered that it can't be right) it gets thrown out.

*waves to Chris* Long time no see!



az

Potholer,

"If religions are divinely inspired, why *can't* they agree on the number of deities, or much else?"

To use your own words "the simple answer is that the conditions were just not right at earlier times" You confusing man's ability to understand and an omnipotent god's ability to pass on information.

"If they aren't divinely inspired, how different are they in practice from simple social/political movements - what social/political motive is there to hide behind a facade of divinity?"
Just to clarify, what do you mean by "social movement"?

Religion attempts to understand life, the universe and everything.
Science attempts to understand life, the universe and everything.
Politics dosn't.

Noggin,

You seem to suggest that the senses arn't flawed, because we know they are flawed and therefore they are not accurate in showing us they are flawed. This seems like a paradox to me. I am prepared to accept that this may be the case in some ununderstandable way, but we can't know either/any way, ie we can't be sure of anything, including our view of the outside world.

blub-blub

waves back hello az and noggin

yes I'm still reading the conversations but not often getting time to join in

Hi Chris. How are you and Stitches?

blub-blub, I'm not suggesting that the senses aren't flawed. I'm suggesting that we either start with the assumption that our senses are totally unreliable, or that they are reliable.

The first leads nowhere.

The second leads to the conclusion that our senses are not always reliable, but that the ways in which they are unreliable can be *systematically* analysed and understood, by various means of cross testing.

Noggin