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

What I meant by "Too smart for our own evolution" is that, with todays medical procedures, technologies, et al (and don't think for one heartbeat that I'm at all opposed to keeping individuals healty!), are we defeating evolution (as I had described it, that is)? We don't throw them out to the wolves, but we're constantly coming up with ways to keep mankind exactly as they are... What is our future?

Indeed, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, if you get what I'm saying.

Hmm.. Come to think of it, aren't we now touching on the -true- essence of science -- the gathering of evidence?

i'd personally like to know where this so called "cheeky chappie" character is or whether he started this off simply for the view of the pretty snowball effect

Perhaps he already has his mind made up?

Bingo! A good definition. Science is a set of theories, which are agreed, and can be tested by anyone. Also, no theory is infallible, it takes only one negative result to destroy it, which can be done.
As to faith, you can have that as well. Science says there was a big bang, it don't say who/what started it. Stephen Hawking's Brief History of Time talks about God quite a bit, showing how he can fit into what we know.

I can quite understand you taking umbrage at the heading. I was merely venting my own umbrage at the "Adam and Eve is Crap" heading. I actually think Science is amazing - hugely beneficial to society - but I also think there is a danger in having too much faith in it - and not allowing the possibility of anything "beyone science" to be valid.

No - Im still here - didn't imagine my two cents worth to snowball this much!!! Glad it has though. Nice to see good wholesome debate about the whole thing. A lot of interesting comments.

Too just give you some background - I'm a Christian who is not able to prove scientifically anything that I believe. Very frustrating!! But having said that I (a) dont believe that I have been duped into anything (b) feel a great peace about having a personal relationship with my Creator. Something that was always very difficult to have in my days before my faith. I don't actually believe Science is Crap! - but it certainly helped provoke some good debate - as I said earlier - I believe mankind needs science.

But I don't belive that there should be this great chasm between science and faith.

the great gap between science and faith is, unfortunately, in you. certainly if your faith requires you to accept some kind of humancentric cartoon view of reality, then there will be a number of......conflicts..... between your belief system and evidence in the reality. but many strong scientists have no difficulty accepting the notion of forces beyond our ken at work in the universe. key here is that it is something to accept.

you have apparently accepted a body of beliefs that provide you with peace and certitude. fine for you.

i have come from a background of dogma to a position of peace without accepting the arrogance of christianity; so we are apparently in about the same place. about. i just don't need some of the things you do.

good luck in your journey.

True, there are many things in heaven and earth Horatio, and all that.

I don't know, I've been to earth Horatio, and believe me, it's NOT all that!

Seriously though, if we're talking about "beyond science", didn't Arthur C. Clarke say something about science and magic? I think it went to the tune of any science that is beyond our understanding can be considered to be magic. Or perhaps it could be considered God as well. Perhaps the soul is an as-yet-undiscovered form of energy...

I think Dr. Who said that as well, but I am just showing my anorak tendencies. As to the soul being energy, hmm, sounds like a load of New Age Boll... Oops, nearly showed myself to be a narrow minded scientist there. That is the big problem with science, people can get just as irrational, driven by their faith in a theory, about a pet subject in science as religion. Also, money comes into science to help that. Witness Cold Fusion or GM foods. Both research that was pilloried before anyone had actually seen the data. Mind you, they were both set up to be knocked down by scientists circumventing the usual peer review situation, i.e. telling the press at large first. It is very hard to be open minded about anything people propose, while still being sceptical enough to spot any flaws in the argument. And also never shouting bollocks, in case your argument has flaws.

I think I have gone off being a physicist now. Unless, that is, someone will give me a grant to study the soul, or something, sufficently large that I can ignore peer review until I have an answer. Theyv'e got one of them in Edinburgh you know, lots of guessing cards and such.

I am in a very similar position to Whizzard of Oz, and although there can be a great gap between science and faith within someone, there is still a great gap between them as organisations. Both religious groups and scientists tend to assume that they are correct, and find it very hard to accept that they may be wrong. This obviously leads to great divisions.

"Many strong scientists have no difficulty accepting the notion of forces beyond our ken at work in the universe"
Unfortunately science as a whole does not often give out this view to the general public, maybe as a result of the scientists themselves, or the media coverage they are given.

Faith leaders are often the same, again maybe because of the people themselves, or again just the media coverage that they get.

I hope that most scientists and most people who believe in God would agree on most things. It is a shame this is not publicised more than the disagreements.

I think the reason scientists don't publicize the fact that they "have no difficulty accepting the notion of forces beyond our ken at work in the universe" is that many people tend to interpret that as an admission that scientists don't know everything and therefore (as so many seem to conclude) that they don't really know anything. I suppose scientists sometimes feel it necessary to give the false impression of omniscience in order to keep people from doubting them--which unfortunately just makes things worse, since as soon as some people find out _for the first time_ that scientists are fallible, they are even more likely to assume that this means science as a whole is unreliable. Sort of a vicious cycle.

Heh.. Pardon me (but -someone- had to say it ), but it all boils down to the difference between theoretical and theological.

but these so called "divisions" between scientists and religious types aren't specific to them, nor the both sides assuming that They are right. if you are ever out in the wild and trying to identify a certain species, and it's starts telling you of it's strong opinions without ever completely justifying it's argument and when you tell it how you feel it goes and tells you that you are wrong and it is right without any particular evidence, you should be able to identify these as fundamental traits of the human species in general and i urge you to stay well away

Well said - I think that this was my point right from the beginning. Except you said it better - thanx!!!

Thank you.

Rest assured, I am no New Ager, and I will personally smack anyone who suggests that the pyramids were built by aliens. I was merely suggesting that we exist and interact with the world in more than just a purely physical sense: like electrical energy, heat energy, sonic energy, as well as various gases... There may be others we don't know about yet, and these or various combinations of these may or may not constitute a soul, I don't know.