The Four Horseman hold forth! Dawkins, Hitchen et al.

[kyser_soze]

I saw this program about Stephen Hawking a few years back, and he talks about the universe expanding, and then hitting some kind of limit and then bouncing back, at which point he claimed 'time would start running backwards.' I thought, 'that's clearly nonsense.' Five minutes later, he admits he's effed up his calculations.

My point being, that for some unspecified amount of time, Hawking believed that time would run backwards at some point in the future, despite all evidence to the contrary; because that's what his calculations told him. Whereas someone without this blind faith in scientific procedure would not have the wool pulled over their eyes so easily.

Yeah, but you see the difference is if Hawking's position had been a religious one, and was part of a religious doctrine, backed up by a Church and possibly state/s, that kind of reversal would take a few centuries, bloodshed and would probably never be truly resolved between the 'Time Will Move Backward' group, and the 'Hawking's Retraction' group.

Scientism is a form of blind adherence to specific bits of research, and claiming that science 'can't be wrong' - and those that have that variant on faith don't really get science, which can be wrong, but is also capable of fixing itself without killing 000s or millions of people in the process.

I don't think you quite understand what a GUT is either - when scientists say 'Theory of Everything', as with most things, they are referring to a specific field of study. I doubt there's a single physicist working on a TOE or GUT who thinks that it will explain consciousness or give an easy algo for modellign protein folding, so as much as anything else it's necessary for non-scientists to look at how these words are used in context of the discipline. Same as religious types going on about Einstein and Hawking being religious by using the word 'God', when both were referring to the universe as a whole, rather than anyone's pet sky pixie.

 

[frogwoman]

There's a difference between science itself though, and rabid atheism and a conviction that absolutely everything can be explained by science

 

[kyser_soze]

There's a difference between science itself though, and rabid atheism and a conviction that absolutely everything can be explained by science

Hmmm, well I certainly fall into the camp of materialists who believe that everything that happens has a material cause, and that invoking supernatural entities of any description, or assigning mystical powers to objects (e.g. crystals) which then can't be proved to work through studying them and subjecting them to experiments that can be repeated, is a load of bollocks.

 

[frogwoman]

fair enough

 

[Barking_Mad]

There's a difference between science itself though, and rabid atheism and a conviction that absolutely everything can be explained by science

And this in my view is a great mistake. Science will teach us much, but if we aren't careful we will allow certain areas of it to reduce human beings down to 'atoms, cells and genes' and nothing else. We will become machines with no soul, for the soul will be explained in terms of science and science alone.

 

[Crispy]

Understanding something does not remove its meaning. For example, we understand very well the mechanisms involved in storms, but still have the emotional capacity to be awed and excited by them.

 

[kyser_soze]

Yeah, as I said (possibly on this thread, possibly on another) I find that arguement that knowing that 'love' is a set of electrochemical reactions means that you don't feel it, that somehow that knowledge is reductive reduces it's effect on you, is little different from someone saying that because atheists don't believe in God they are incapable of behaving morally.

Knowing the sun is a big ball of gas undergoing nuclear fusion, or your storm example, doesn't mean I can't be awed by them...if anything, I'm more awed by the fact that very tiny things (atoms) can be configured into the dazzling array of the universe we live in.

On souls...why would the knowledge that, for example, souls were a quantum manifestation of our consciousness that remains after we leave a denser (as in more stuff squeezed in, not thick ) medium of existance, mean that we become machines? Rubbish.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Understanding something does not remove its meaning. For example, we understand very well the mechanisms involved in storms, but still have the emotional capacity to be awed and excited by them.

True, but then you aren't in a position to abuse science and its discoveries as some people are.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Yeah, as I said (possibly on this thread, possibly on another) I find that arguement that knowing that 'love' is a set of electrochemical reactions means that you don't feel it, that somehow that knowledge is reductive reduces it's effect on you, is little different from someone saying that because atheists don't believe in God they are incapable of behaving morally.

Knowing the sun is a big ball of gas undergoing nuclear fusion, or your storm example, doesn't mean I can't be awed by them...if anything, I'm more awed by the fact that very tiny things (atoms) can be configured into the dazzling array of the universe we live in.

Again, Im not saying science isn't amazing, I just dont want to put all my eggs in one basket.

On souls...why would the knowledge that, for example, souls were a quantum manifestation of our consciousness that remains after we leave a denser (as in more stuff squeezed in, not thick ) medium of existance, mean that we become machines? Rubbish.

My fault in not being clear enough. I meant 'become machines' in the sense that we may be treated like machines. Some might argue we have already started down that path.

 

[kyser_soze]

My fault in not being clear enough. I meant 'become machines' in the sense that we may be treated like machines. Some might argue we have already started down that path.

Well, on a certain level we are machines - complex biological ones. We need fuel, we do stuff etc, but I know what you mean - mechanistic in a behavioural sense...which we are depending on your perspective. For example, would you say ants or bees are machines, or rather than they could be said to lead mechanistic lives? I many ways some humans have always been treated as machines - altho during the old times of slavery the comparison would be with animals, since they were the primary labour saving device, rather than technology, and while our modern sensibillity of 'dehumansing' wasn't around, the actual result - where a human slave was worth less than an animal - is still the same. And this in a time when pretty much everyone believed utterly in the spiritual nature of existance and reality...

 

[Poi E]

And this in my view is a great mistake. Science will teach us much, but if we aren't careful we will allow certain areas of it to reduce human beings down to 'atoms, cells and genes' and nothing else. We will become machines with no soul, for the soul will be explained in terms of science and science alone.

Well, yes. We have other tools aside from rationality such as common sense and ethics. An example would be total war. You may win the war by blowing fuck out of the civilian population (the McNamara solution) but common sense tells you that at the end you have a wrecked country to dominate (and ethics might suggest that it is not all that sporting.)

Actually John Ralston Saul treats this whole area with aplomb in "Voltaire's Bastards."

 

[Gmart]

Well, yes. We have other tools aside from rationality such as common sense and ethics.

Actually they're both versions of rationality again, aren't they!!

 

[Poi E]

Actually they're both versions of rationality again, aren't they!!

I use rationality in the sense of being merely an administrative method for promoting effectiveness and efficiency (the tool of the technocrat), rather than assessing the worth of an actual outcome, which depends on factors outside of the means used to produce that outcome.

 

[Aldebaran]

I don't find it stunning that anyone would believe in Creationism- it's just a story that appears to explain, 'how we are here'.

It doesn't explain anything, it provides the believers with a falsification of everything.

In this way 'the Big Bang' is also a story- it's science's story.

This is a scientifically underscored theory, which is a lot more and a lot different than a "story".

The aborigines believe that God dreamed the world into existence. Some other dudes view the universe as a hologram that aliens created for their own amusement, and then buggered off leaving the motor running. It's just stories. For any one belief system to point to their idea and say, 'this is what REALLY happened' is just daft.

I don't see what this has to do with anything ...

I saw this program about Stephen Hawking a few years back, and he talks about the universe expanding, and then hitting some kind of limit and then bouncing back, at which point he claimed 'time would start running backwards.' I thought, 'that's clearly nonsense.' Five minutes later, he admits he's effed up his calculations.

My point being, that for some unspecified amount of time, Hawking believed that time would run backwards at some point in the future, despite all evidence to the contrary; because that's what his calculations told him. Whereas someone without this blind faith in scientific procedure would not have the wool pulled over their eyes so easily.

Can't comment on this, don't know Hawking.
If the universe is expanding up to a certain point to fall back on its kernell again once the limit is reached - as some propose it could be the case - it is only normal to ponder about the reason why and if it is the first time ever this happens.
I would think it wouldn't be the first time, but I would also not think it had started the first time "out of nothing" = by coincidence. I don't believe in coincidence, I believe in cause and result.

Science is a Godless religion. The day that some scientists stop thinking it's ok to deprive a monkey of affection and keep him in a cage as an 'experiment', or to continually be thinking up more and more efficient ways to wipe out other human beings, I might have a bit more respect for them.

You are painting with a broad brush, are you not?
I know many scientist not even coming near to the description you give them (I know also one who breeds white mouses for experimental purpose)
It totally depends on the person if he takes something as if it is a religion or not.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

I use rationality in the sense of being merely an administrative method for promoting effectiveness and efficiency (the tool of the technocrat), rather than assessing the worth of an actual outcome, which depends on factors outside of the means used to produce that outcome.

Any outcome can eventually depend on outside factors. That isn't necessarily the case.

salaam.

 

[gorski]

I saw this program about Stephen Hawking a few years back, and he talks about the universe expanding, and then hitting some kind of limit and then bouncing back, at which point he claimed 'time would start running backwards.' I thought, 'that's clearly nonsense.' Five minutes later, he admits he's effed up his calculations.

My point being, that for some unspecified amount of time, Hawking believed that time would run backwards at some point in the future, despite all evidence to the contrary; because that's what his calculations told him. Whereas someone without this blind faith in scientific procedure would not have the wool pulled over their eyes so easily.

Hawking is clearly an intelligent man, but if you tie yourself so strongly to one analytical standpoint, you are going to become a cropper.

Indeed. Some moments later he qualifies his statements with "No one has seen the future!" Clever lad!

Science is a Godless religion. The day that some scientists stop thinking it's ok to deprive a monkey of affection and keep him in a cage as an 'experiment', or to continually be thinking up more and more efficient ways to wipe out other human beings, I might have a bit more respect for them.

I'm going to end by quoting someone whose views I respect.

Jumping to conclusions! Not all scientists are the same! Check out the "other kind" of scientists in this link: http://www.pugwash.org/

I can't see anything better so far! Can you? But that blows your unqualified statements out of the water... Sorry but...

 

[ebay sex moomin]

*blows raspberry*

I did qualify my statement with the word 'some'- there's clearly great advances that have been made by science. I was just havin' a rant. I wish *some of them* would stop torturing rabbits and making bombs.

...and Dawkins annoys me with his smug reductionism. Apart from that, all good- as you were

 

[ebay sex moomin]

It's almost impossible to make a reply to yr post that makes sense, due to the number of quotes involved, but I'll do me best!

This is a scientifically underscored theory, which is a lot more and a lot different than a "story".

no, still a theory, a story, an idea...

I got no beef with the 'big bang' theory by the way- it makes as much sense as anything else

I would think it wouldn't be the first time, but I would also not think it had started the first time "out of nothing" = by coincidence. I don't believe in coincidence, I believe in cause and result.

aye, as do I

You are painting with a broad brush, are you not?
I know many scientist not even coming near to the description you give them (I know also one who breeds white mouses for experimental purpose)
It totally depends on the person if he takes something as if it is a religion or not.

salaam.

well, as I said before, the qualifier 'some' narrows the brush a little You are correct; it does depend on the person. there are ethical scientists, and unethical (horrible) people who subscribe to religion, and vice versa. I don't have any answers, and even if I did, I doubt that posting them on a messageboard would make any difference.

salaam, mate

 

[gorski]

Science is a Godless religion.

Not qualified... Otherwise, sure, as you were...

 

[ebay sex moomin]

No, it's an opinion. You clearly didn't read my qualifier at the start of the post- "bearing in mind that 'everything you believe is wrong', you probably won't want to take it all that seriously." Otherwise, sure, as you were...

 

[gorski]

Of course it's an opinion - unless you see yourself as Gawd...

 

[ebay sex moomin]

probably

if you know it's an opinion, why are you bothering to point out it's unqualified?

are you trying to point-score?!

 

[gorski]

To influence.

 

[ebay sex moomin]

stop arguing with Gawd!

 

[ebay sex moomin]

dawkins is wel fit an e is rite wen e sez ther ent no god or nuffin LOL

 

[poului]

re6g7erdt

Anyone who's seen even ten minutes of that clip will know that the four men clearly don't agree completely on religious issues.

Yet we still get 10 pages of bitching.

What thorough "critiques" you have!