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

One person's nitpicking can be is another person's analytical assesment.
Blind faith is, presumably, blind faith in what other people tell us is the truth, and if we are going to be faithful, we'd better make sure we pick a decent, humane leader to follow, as there are so many imperfect ones out there.

Regarding miracles, so many of them are defined by observing the world through a strong religious filter that they need no explanation at all.
eg - If a boat sinks, 50 people die but one child survives, it's claimed as a miracle and a reason to believe even more, but if a boat sinks and everyone dies, I guess most beleivers would go for the 'God works in mysterious ways' explanation.
Personally, I can't accept that biased logic, and anyway, what about the 50 dead - is that an unmiracle?

As a social meme for making the best out of tragedies, I can definitely understand the psychological basis for the belief, but I couldn't take it as evidence for divine action, as it's intensely subjective and selective.
Likewise, I'm sure the belief in heaven must be a very great comfort for people who lose people they deeply love, but I'm afraid in my case, I can't choose to believe things, and would feel very uncomfortable if I tried to pretend I did, even on occasions when I suspect belief would have made me feel better about the loss of close friends and family.
If there was a button I could press to turn on faith, (which in my case, I doubt) I admit I'd be tempted on the odd occasion, but I honestly doubt I could live with faith on a permanent basis, and I fear the effects of stopping to believe may be more than I'd want to handle. To an extent, what you've never had, you never miss.

So is evolution "survival of the fittest” or is it “survival of the lucky enough not to have died out because of any number environmental factors” or “survival of the dumb lucky”.

Yes

I agree. That's just three different ways of saying the same thing.

I have a varied point of view on both directions this conversation is going. Faith is unreliable in that, #1... it allows for no other point of view than what that particular faith believes in, as well as the fact that the prejudice of each of those faiths iis that every other faith is completely wrong and should be either made to believe their point of view or wiped out should they not be able to be convinced of the error of their ways.

Science is unreliable in that all too often science is based on profit and not fact. The most stunning discoveries throughout history were made by people either trying to make more money or provide a means for the faithful to more easily and efficiently wipe out those unfaithful heathens who believe differently.

LAstly, as far as humanity being too smart for evolution >?? Well considering the computer manufacturers cannot figure out how to fix broken computers,,, and they are the ones who built them, as well as the fact that the average human has no idea how to truly program their VCR, set the radio stations in their car or correct the displayed time on their microwave ovens.... I have to think that the "smart " arguement is right out.


My $.02

Q~

In the immortal words of the semanticist Albert Korzybski, "The map is not the territory." Science is a map of the universe. It is NOT the universe. It is our job to constantly refine the map as we explore it more and more. As coastlines are explored to their infinite depth, our maps get larger and more complex. Sometimes we find that a bay we thought existed is actually the opening of until now totally unexplored river.

I suggest you all go and read the entire works of Stephen Jay Gould

ESPECIALLY "Wonderful Life"

I think I would rather be uncomfortable with the truth, than feel comfortable with a lie.

If we entrust our destinies and our world to a divine creator, if we see the Earth as the "devil's playground," if we believe in Karma as a shaping force for future incarnations of ourselves, if we look forward to an afterlife in Heaven, or count on our enemies being punished in Hell, then we might be less likely to take our present world into serious account. What if there is no Heaven or Hell or future lives? What if this is the only chance we get? What if the world is truly what we make of it? What if Jesus isn't coming back, or there are no further incarnations of Buddha, no more messiahs, and it's all up to us, and we have approximately 80 years to do something about it before we're gone forever?

It fascinates me to hear people say science is "irresponsible," or "less ethical" or whatnot. It also fascinates me to hear "science is crap" from the very people who would not be here if it weren't for science. Do you think your daily medicine, your preserved food, or even the procedures used when you were being born, are all here because of one religion or another?

I have tried numerous religions on for size over the years, and have had surprising revelations with each one. We're talking powerful feelings. God taking me by the hand, Jesus holding me, Buddha showing me the way, all that great stuff. But nothing can compare to the awesome sense of responsibility, the wonder, the hope, and the feeling of greatness that I felt, when one day I saw all of the life in the world as part of a complex series of events, over millions of years, all culminating into this moment.

Why do you put blind faith in what an authority tells you? Why will you not question these beliefs, and test them, and see what comes of it?

I can't remember the exact phrase, spoken by a Buddhist whose name I cannot recall. Still, my paraphrase might be something to think about.

God is no mystery, because god is the creation of humanity. The true mystery lies in the human race that invented him to begin with.

--- Avatar

Odd that... I look at the wonders of black holes, the stunning amount of information encoded in DNA, complex chemical reactions and I say, "My word, God was clever". Most of the scientists I know and my mum knows would agree. I believe in God and that just makes me appreciate science more. The two shouldn't conflict. As the Pope John Paul II said, I look at evolution and am in wonder that God created such a powerful tool.

To me, atheism is the behaviour of those scared to sacrifice a modicum of control. Don't drag me into an argument, I have my dogma, you have yours. There is no way to logically prove either so there is no point trying.

What does annoy me are those religious people who insist that science is wrong. I may believe in God, but I also know in science.

I must agree with you, Joe aka Arnia. Those who believe in their religion will do as they wish, no matter what arguments you pose to them. Those who follow the methods of science, will not put blind faith anywhere. It's no surprise, humans being human, that there are extremes in both camps; scientists who will denounce anything that has a slight connection with a religion, as well as religious people who will say "Check the Bible, NUFF SAID!"

When you follow a method of finding things out, you must be careful not to become the thing you hate, in principle. Indeed, you should be careful not to hate at all, but instead explore the options with an open mind. There is no war going on, save the one we bring with us to the discussion table.

And yes, this recent pope is an enlightened sort. He has been forgiving past problems with the Catholic church, and is embracing wonderful new concepts. I highly admire this fellow.

--- Avatar

This may come across as being immensley sad, but what I am interested to know what your opinion of maths is, the science that seems as much as possible to detatch itsself from the real world. (personally I love Maths, it's a very satisfying subject because there are nearly always a finite number of proveable answers)

by the way, to any statistcian's out there 0_<p_<1 , not 0<p<1, so there. ha.

Dunc !8 ')

Hear hear.
I totally agree with you, being a science-loving Christian. God is a big man (or woman, or thing, whatever) with big tools.

I also think there are questions and theories that are just Too big (and I mean massive) And you've just got to ask yourself, "do I really care. Does it really make a difference to my everyday life if evolution really happens. What is more important to me is wheter or not I believe in it or not.

I realise now that I have gone way off topic, and that I may actually now be disagreeing with you, but what the heck

!8 ')

I am a mathematician BTW

My family has the maths gene and proud of it

There is an interesting new theory about the exponential growth of change put forth recently by Ray Kurzweil in his book, "the Age of Spiritual machines" that points to some of the inadaquacies of human evolution (it's too slow) and how new methods of change are overriding and replacing evolutionary change. He is positing that technology and science are becomeing better at making changes than the slow paced evolutionary design that is used by our DNA currently. After all, isn't it technology, (science, medicine, computers, chemistry, etc.) that is at least partially to thank that we don't leave babies in the woods. Technology affords opportunities for humans where natural selection could not.

And we should be scared by it. This isn't sane, we are destroying our viability as a species without any thought.

Ever heard of the current theory of evolution, put forth by my mum's hero, Gould? It is called Punctuated Equilibrium and it accounts for the Cambrian Explosion. It also destroys the cone of diversity as a concept as well as the ladder.

That is what "Wonderful Life" is about, his theory.

Hi all, i'd like to add my thoughts to this discussion.

I've always thought science was all about observing change and then finding explanations for why it happens, whereas religon seems to be about preventing change and claiming that it didn't happen.

Jokes aside,I suspect the reason for a lack of human fossils, compared to prehistoric fossil remains, is mainly due to 2 reasons.

1)Man has been around for two million years, whereas with dinosaurs we're talked tens and hundreds of millions.

2)Until man evolved and started using bones from dead animals, mainly to hit live animals and other men with, they were undisturbed and could fossilise over a long timespan.

So any to the point science isn't crap. If it was then I would still be using animal bones to hit things with. Because of science I dont have to go and look for my dinner, chadse it, butcher it, make a fire, etc. I can instead get a pie out of the fridge, and deovte more time to such self indulgent activities such as typing this.

But on the downside, a large proportion of man's scientific achievements were a result of researching better ways to kill each, and if they weren't then the first application of these discoveries was to see whether they could help kill each other better.

Also science has given me microsoft operating systems, traffic jams, too many tv channels and musak. This is where religon comes in, to help you believe that life could be better.

We may get many negative things in life from religion, just as we do from science. Television evangelists, cult suicides, the Salem witch trials, justification of slavery, and the oppression of women all have their roots in one religion or another; just as nuclear weapons, deadly street drugs, the Manhattan project, justification of slavery, and the oppression of women all have their roots in science.

Would these things have happened without religion or science? Quite possibly. From a scientific point of view, the religious injustices can be attributed to xenophobia and fear of the unknown; things deeply ingrained within us as important evolutionary tools for survival. Catastrophies attributed to science can be explained in religious circles as Satanic involvement in the affairs of humanity.

It is not religion nor science that causes these things. They come from something deep inside of us. Religion and science, ultimately, are methods of explaining the unknown. One depends on faith, the other on physical evidence. These are tools, and ultimately the fault is in the humans that use them.

--- Avatar

good for you. Mathematicians of the word unite!
By the way, apparently everybody has it, but not very many use it

!8 ' )

Math is the whooly evil equivelent of satan in the science world, and that is only because I am lousy at it. So if I were a religious man, I would gather a congregation together and burn mathematicians at the stake, which makes me glad I am not a religious man. I think the real problem with math is that I haveyet to find a teacher of math who could truly explain exactly how it works. Most of the time they say that it just works and that should be good enough for me. Similar to computer programmers. as far as fossils and such, please read my next post as I will explain a theory I have had for quite a while now.

Q~

In my years of learning, I have received enough scientific knowledge to just be considered highly dangerous. I have formulated a theory on how I think the earth will end it's days as a living planet. This will be very unscientific so please keep that in mind.

When a life form ceases to exist, it decays into some volitile matter, Usually turning eventually into oil or coal. Carbon is still the basic component of it's make-up. In some cases, oil will becoem coal over many centuries. And, in turn, this oil or coal will be further converted into a harder, more dense substance known as diamonds. We, as human beings, have discovered uses for each of these substances and exploit them as a resource to the extreme. It is also widely accepted that the earth is dynamic, with a molten core.

My theory revolves around this... I believe that the fuel for this thermic reaction at the core are diamonds. The oil is compressed into coal at shallow levels below the earths crust. The coal is compressed into diamonds at a deeper level, and then the diamonds are either converted even further or just burned as fuel at the core to maintain the earths molten core. I believe that the earth will cease to be a living planet because we, as humans, are taking away that fuel source. The result is a cooling of the core, no more plate tectonics, and no more continued creation of the ocean floor. The planet will likely die as a result.


Remember that this is just a theory and comments are extremely welcome.

Q~