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

If I may rephrase for Edward:

We can now quite easily hypothesise creation scenarios which do not require a creating entity. So, why unnecessarily multiply entities?

>>"So, why unnecessarily multiply entities?"

... *and*, for any alleged specific creating entity, it seems reasonable to ask what evidence there is for that particular entity existing.

At a time when people assumed that at least *people* were created, there was at least the vague argument "Well, *some* kind of higher being must be responsible, since there doesn't seem to be any other way".
That argument works rather less well these days, except maybe for people who would extrapolate their personal ignorance or incomprehension of biology onto humanity/reality as a whole.

Thanks Anhaga. I wasn't picking a fight, it just seemed such a definitive statement.

IMHO, most people can't be bothered thinking too much. When it comes to the big questions, people shy away. Religion provides simple answers to complicated ideas, hence the attraction. Those "simple answers" may be incredibly wrong, but it takes complicated arguments to disprove them.

When science can provide simple answers, religion will have a fight on its hands.

Please excuse the backtracking, but I'm a wee bit miffed.

In post 7496, I replied to SWL's post 7496, at the time thinking I was being accused of 'closed-mindedness'

I said:
>>"au contraire. Those with religious 'philosophies' or beliefs tend to be rather blinkered, and 'closed-minded'."

Malthowch rebutted(?)
>So we are back to judging all by the actions of a few huh? You forget that there are many religions and spiritual paths that do not buy into the created/closed universe theory of the abrahamics.


Ok, first of all, why are you accusing me of judging anyone?

Secondly, I made no statement regarding cosmology, religious or otherwise.

Thirdly, if you wish to rebut me, I would appreciate you taking the time to read what I say, and consider the context in which I say it.
Note in particular my use of the word, 'tend' -- in this context, 'tend' means to have a disposition to do or be something. To be inclined.

And, just to be, (hopefully), quite clear: My use of the words 'religious', pertains directly to 'religion', which in this context means dogmatic conformity to unverifiable beliefs.
I realize 'religion' is one of those slippery words that means different things to different people, but I assumed, (foolishly, perhaps), that we had generally agreed upon a working definition in this discussion.

In the same posting, I offered two contrasting statements, intending to illustrate the difference between dogmatic, religious 'philosophy' on the one hand, and a 'natural' variety, on the other. Here they are again, (complete with typo!), to save you the trouble of backtracking:

"I'm incapable of understanding how the everything works, so I'll stop wondering/thinking and blindly accept some iron-age myth invented by a nomadic tribe"

"I gaze upon a universe of wonder and beauty, and although I may never understand how it all fits together, I will strive to figure it out, and will never cease in the attempt"

Malthowch
>Hmm... methinks you forgot one alternative here:

"Those religious people's views are obviously tainted with irrationality so I will dismiss every single thing they believe, after all how could know anything of any value whatsoever?"


That is completely uncalled for, friend.

I do not see how what I actually said could even imply such, unless taken completely out of context, so I will not dignify it with a reply, other than a reminder it is rude in the extreme to put words in the mouths of others.

The close-mindedness taunt is a way of closing minds to the idea that certain 'possibilities' can either be discounted or are not worthy of further consideration.

Thanks for the correction re creation...sort of. Perhaps if I'd used the word 'design' it might have been more accurate. We certainly know enough to say that, following the Big Bang, the universe we've ended up with has been the inevitable result of happenstance. That sounds a little paradoxical. What I mean is that matter and energy behaved in certain ways because that's what matter and energy do. We ended up as 'Us' without the need for any guiding hand in the middle. (Not that the universe was developing *towards* us as its special purpose. We have no special status relative to slime moulds, asteroids or clouds of dark matter). We don't know all the details, but we do know that the basic processes of, eg, the formation of heavy elements, the coalescence of planets, life...they're just physical/chemical/biochemical/biological/evolutionary processes. We can be sure of this. No 'creation' necessary.

So that just leaves the Big Bang itself. Sure, we don't know why there's something instead of nothing. So let's postulate a creating god. We have the obvious paradox of "So who created god?" We also have the severe philosophical problem of a god that simply fires the starting pistol and then stays hands off. Why call this 'god'? What's wrong with 'physics'? And if this *do* call it god...it would be utterly disingenuous for the religious to try and claim it's the same god they've been talking about. It would be starting with the conclusion and trying to make the story fit. I think this is called 'casuistry'.

It wasn't meant as a taunt, and I apologise if people see it that way.

Can someone explain why a belief in Dark Energy is different from a belief in a Creator?

'Can someone explain why a belief in Dark Energy is different from a belief in a Creator?'

perhaps because dark energy is not an agent in any meaningful sense, unlike any entity which could meaningfully be termed 'Creator'.


Edward: Thanks for the thanks. I was partly meaning to clarify what I thought you were trying to say and partly trying to make my own point.

You mean 'dark matter'? Because it having been hypothesised, it was subsequently detected. Or, at least, its existence was inferred from observations. (Although admittedly there *does* seem to be rather more of it than the theorists would have liked.) That's obviously not true of a creator.

*Although*...since dark matter hasn't been *directly* observed, and since the results don't quite fit the standard model, it may be that the underpinning observations can be explained otherwise - eg that gravity doesn't work quite as we think. Further work is needed, and this could conceivably throw dark matter out of the window. But then, scientists would happily do that. Unlike the religious. So you can 'believe' in a creator...but for dark matter, a better description might be 'best guess; or 'it's where I'd put my money'.

And, of course, some religious types duck the issue by placing god/the creator outside the philosophical scope of the universe and thus apprehendable only through 'Faith'. But that's just being silly.

(Similar explanation for Dark Energy...but with less observational support. I think).

Thanks for the thanks for the thanks, anhaga. I think, though, that I'd like to be rather stronger about the non-existence of a creator than you perhaps were. (not that this is an atheistic pissing contest).

I'd also like to be rather stronger about the non-existence of a creator than I was. In fact, I am.

Assuming it's allowable to have a fairly strong opinion [confident guess?] about the non-existence of a claimed entity on the basis of an apparent lack of evidence, I guess I have a fairly strong opinion, at least until/unless evidence actually appears.
In that position, I'm actually pretty well aligned with any believer who disbelieves in other believer's deities on the grounds of lack of evidence (rather than on the grounds of simple dogma). It's just that I'm more consistent.

Just to return for a moment to the original subject line:

'A public high school has suspended three girls who disobeyed officials by saying the word "vagina" during a reading from a well-known feminist play.

The students, Megan Reback, Elan Stahl and Hannah Levinson, included the word during their reading of "The Vagina Monologues" . . .'

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257078,00.html

Nobody in particular help them if they'd also said 'vulva' or 'cervix'

We really do need a 'wtf' smiley!

Oh, and:
>(not that this is an atheistic pissing contest).<



Careful. You'll make the front page

Conservapedia...

It looks like they *are* for real. Or, at least, the guy on R4 Today (Weds 7th) sounded sincere: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/

So not only does reality have a liberal bias, but it also delivers the best satire.

I liked the last bit here:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Spartan_Soldiers

I'm rooting for Goat-Man; I hope he survives the grenades.

'Conservapedia began in November 2006, as the class project for a World History class of 58 advanced homeschooled and college-bound students'

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:About



It's a school project. Shouldn't we be more generous?













Nah.

In 2003, Thailand contributed 260 specially trained elephants to Coalition Forces in the Iraq War for purposes of unexploded ordinance disposal and minefield clearing. Within two years, all of these animals were killed in theater.

Y'know... I've only been skimming this thread lately as it just seemed to be more of the same (Della's persecution complex, Math indiscriminantly disagreeing with everyone, &c.) but then Blicky posts that aside... those poor elephants.