What Do You Believe Even If You Can't Prove It? 2353
An anonymous reader writes "That's what online magazine The Edge - the World Question Center asked over 120 scientists, futurists, and other interesting minds. Their answers are sometimes short and to the point (Bruce Sterling: 'We're in for climatic mayhem'), often long and involved; they cover everything from the existence of God to the nature of black holes. What do you believe, even though you can't prove it?"
Someday (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Someday (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Someday (Score:5, Funny)
>
> [nine-times] ep... you have your proof... no longer counts.
"Oh dear", says doublem, "I hadn't thought of that", and promptly vanishes in a fog of (-1, Overrated) moderation.
"Oh, that was easy", says nine-times, and for an encore, goes on to prove that (+1, Funny) is indistinguishable from (-1, Troll), and gets himself confirmed dead at the next Netcraft parody post.
Re:Someday (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Someday (Score:5, Funny)
A Consistent Universe and Other People (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe, though I can't prove, that the universe presented to me by my senses is not an artifact of my own existence but exists separately from me, is consistent and will remain consistent after I am dead. (i.e. the universe isn't a figment of my imagination).
I believe, though I can't prove, that other entities that resemble me in appearance and behavior (people) have the same kind of agency and observer status as myself and therefore have value similar in kind to myself. (i.e. contrary to the assertion of the psychopath, I believe other people really are people).
Once you accept those predicates as lemmas (and variations, like having empathy for the pain of animals, or using tools to enhance your senses), a great number of things become "very likely". However, we don't need to "prove" any of it, because there's very little value to "proven" once you have "really, really likely". All we need is enough consistency to make predictions reliable and you can live a full and happy life in this world. Most/all of the people I've observed actually demanding proof for things are those behaving defensively in a "faith-based knowledge vs. reason-based knowledge" discussion.
Yes, I am an athiest. No, I'm not hostile to Christianity or Christians: I just stopped accepting that there was a need for God and lost interest (except as a hobby of studying myth in literature and culture).
Regards,
Ross
Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People (Score:4, Insightful)
Because you are part of their environment, they have some power over you and you some power over them. Since they seem to exhibit a sort of herd mentality, it would seem foolish to antagonize them as the herd itself is significantly stronger than the sum of its parts.
Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People (Score:5, Interesting)
Good followup, but now you're asking a question of morality, as opposed to the reasoning behind a metaphysical predicate.
Short answer: because it's normal (genetically wired into my brain) to treat other people with respect.
Longer answer (and a better answer for people who don't believe in natural causes of behavior): Because there are substantial negative consequences to behaving in a way that ignores other people's value. I enjoy the company of friends (and find their help useful on occasion), and other people are good at detecting fake friends. I like my freedom, and running people down at stoplights causes uniformed people in cars with flashing lights to lock me up, limiting my freedom.
Regards,
Ross
Re:Someday (Score:5, Insightful)
Certainly you're entitled to your views on whether or not Jesus is the Christ, but you shouldn't misrepresent facts. Jesus made several claims to divinity -- both direct and oblique.
Matthew 11:27: Jesus claims an exclusive Father/Son relationship with God.
Matthew 26:63-64: High Priest asks Jesus if he is the Christ (aka the Messiah) and Jesus answers that he is.
John 8:58: Jesus states "Before Abraham was born, I am" The term "I am" is considered by Jews to be the name of God. (When God appeared to Moses as the burning bush, Moses asked His name. The response was "I am".)
John 14:6: "No one comes to the Father, except through me." -- while not a direct claim of deity, it's a very weighty statement of Jesus as Savior of the world. This is one of Jesus' statements that prevents most Christians from jumping on the "all religions are equal" bandwagon.
For more detail, check out Josh McDowell's Evidence which Demands a Verdict -- specificially, the chapter "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?".
Re:Someday (Score:4, Interesting)
It is perhaps the best CURRENT explanation. But it is not as good a theory as it was even a few years ago. There are questions that the Big Bang theory has no explanation for.
For example, as recently as 1998 it was discovered that the universe is "flat" [nasa.gov]. A tiny difference in the density of the universe, either up or down, would make it curved. This means the Big Bang was "tuned" to produce exactly this density. The odds of that happening by chance are estimated at 1 to 10^50.
The Big Bang does not explain the increasing evidence that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating
The Big Bang theory does not adequately explain (IMHO) the "Horizon Problem" [uoregon.edu], which is that the universe looks uniform in all directions, from galaxy evolution to background radiation. (Yes, I am aware of "Inflation Theory", which seeks to address the Horizon Problem, but it's pretty shaky. Here's a paper [iop.org] disputing the ability of the inflationary model to produce homogenous CMBR if you are interested.)
Dead-Tree References:
"The Field", Lynne McTaggart - Recommended for everyone, written for laymen.
"Science and the Akashic Field", Ervin Laszlo - This is a bit more technical.
OH COME ON!!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
This kind of thinking is freshman 101 philosphy talking. You obviously have little grasp of the very large numbers, even less grasp of the infinite. This kind of talk leads even more stupid people into believing in miracles, and gods, and all sorts of magical mystery tour fluff.
Experience thinkers go well beyond your primitive and immature logic. It is well known that in a universe of practically infinite time that all numbers less than infinity might as well be 1. So while I'm not a die hard believer in the big bang theory, whatever happened only had to happen once! And based on any kind of random chance, no tuning was neccessary. Better yet, in infinite time, not only does this theoretical universe come into existance, but it does so an infinte number of times. All that, and together with all the other random universe type probabilities.
The question, and this has been pondered many times by advanced theologians, philosophers, and scientists, is...is this universe the only logical possible universe that can exist? If this turns out to be true, then not only do gods get demoted to janitorial duty, but they don't even get paid. This is basically saying that any god would have no choice in the creation of a universe...there is only one possible one that could ever be created.
This kind of thinking makes perfect sense when you go into deep analysis on how we are able to think and know truths. In our everyday lives we know things by definition. We made up those definitions based on sensory perception. Definitions need to be logically organized, otherwise the world is utterly incomprehensable. For example, the color of the sky can never be both black and white at the same time. We've created an intermediate word for that defined as "grey". Also, you cannot pick up a thing that is both square and round, or lift a thing that is both heavy and light. You would never say to a person "Go pickup that heavy box, it doesn't weigh much." Our entire experience of the universe is based on the languages of definition and logic. We see a "color". We define that "color". If the color changes, the only way to know that it did was to compare it to the originally defined color.
If there is only one logically possible universe, then what is the requirement that it changes over time? Quite possibly so that it can work out all the permutations of what -is- possible. But that is not a "purpose". That is only "what it does". The next question that arises is...if the universe is working out all logically possible combinations over time (perhaps at the quantum level), then are the number of logically possible combinations infinite?
Any beginning computer programmer knows that a memory with a finite number states cannot logically produce every number in existance. So if the universe has an infinite number of states, in a sea of inifinite time, is there an algorithm that would produce a series of logically possible states that occur once and only once...that cannot repeat? Even calculating PI will eventually produce a series of repetitive numbers that occur at ever decreasing frequency.
Is there only one logically possible universe?
For insight into this kind of thinking google on the "Bekenstein Bound" of quantum mechanics.
Also read...
"The Physics of Immortality", Frank J. Tipler
and,
"The Anthropic Cosmological Principle", John D. Barrow & Frank J. Tipler
Note: I personally don't always agree with the nature of the material presented in the above books. Nevertheless I find the reading to be absolutely facinating.
That's easy (Score:5, Funny)
The Joke (Score:5, Funny)
A: Because they think men care.
Re:That's easy (Score:4, Funny)
Women can't fake orgasms perfectly (Score:5, Funny)
So... go run some experiments with this new data.
Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm...very hard to observe signs such as these with the lights down low, and your behind her doggy style her head is either buried in the pillow, or bouncing off the headboard.
At that point in time....I'm probably NOT going to roll her over and shine a flashlight in her face to check out her flush or pupils...
Besides...she might start talking, and I'd miss something on tv...
Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly (Score:5, Funny)
And if they're only at 0.9 s intervals, what then?
Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly (Score:5, Funny)
Spoken like a true nerd.
Re:That's easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Orgasmic vaginal contractions are rather easy to feel. Even if you can't feel it when you're doing the deed with your wang, you should be able to feel it if you're using your fingers or your tongue.
(Wait. I'm on Slashdot. 99% of geeks here have never gotten that far.)
Many women become hyper-sensitive to clitoral stimulation immediately prior and after orgasm. Meaning that the intensity is not comfortable, or even painful.
If she's enjoying clitoral stimulation and then stops enjoying it very suddenly and urgently, you can be pretty sure she had an orgasm.
If you guys can't grasp this, then seriously, turn off the computer, put away the porn, and go find a girlfriend. Seriously.
I believe (Score:3, Interesting)
-nB
Re:I believe (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, slashdot, it's possible to believe in God and science without being a damned fundie that makes my faith look bad.
Re:I believe (Score:5, Insightful)
The solidified and well-accepted portions of evolutionary models make no requirement, however, that you cease to believe in any gods.
Intelligent Design, therefore, while perhaps a good example of things to believe in without proof, has nothing to do with science and god. It has much more, however, to do with politically empowered people who don't understand science, and the people they seem to think are somehow disproving god.
Your ending statment, therefore, appears to have little to do with the rest of your post when it is put into the context of the post you replied to.
Re:I believe (Score:5, Insightful)
Right
ID is an escape hatch for those who cannot deny the obviousness of evolution but don't want to give up their need to belief in God and, ergo, an afterlife.
Re:I believe (Score:5, Insightful)
How about it? Is this just another appeal for "God in the Gaps"?
Bias is on both sides.
How so? You have irrefutable evidence of god's existence? Something testable and falsifiable?
I have an open mind. Fill it with something other than speculation and you will be able to convince me.
"Atheists want nothing more than to live their lives without God so they can live a life without any ultimate consequences."
Atheists (and I can only speak for the ones I know) want nothing more than to be left alone by religious people. They don't belive in god, so the threat of any "ultimate consequences" is moot.
We chose to be moral and good because it suits us, not because we fear for our fate after we die.
Re:I believe (Score:5, Insightful)
You bet! Someday people will realize that the Bible is a book of THEOLOGY and not a book of SCIENCE.
Re:I believe (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I believe (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what Occam's Razor is for. As in the simplest explanation that fits the evidence is usually best (paraphrase). God, being unprovable, will rarely (if ever) fit these criteria.
Taken a physics class lately? (Score:4, Informative)
"The electron lies in a potential well"
Or:
"God did it."
Looks like God is winning this one.
Re:I believe (Score:5, Funny)
So do I, but there seems to be darned little of it in the software that I see.
-dB
Re:I believe (Score:4, Funny)
If you mean intelligent design, as in purposeful creation by programmers, analysts and end-users: Mod - Funny
Re:I believe (Score:3, Insightful)
Cheers,
Scott
Re:I believe (Score:5, Insightful)
BTW, if you're really interested in the question and not merely espousing it as a foundation for other less tenable beliefs, I recommend that you read Bertrand Russell's "Why I Am Not a Christian (And Other Essays)" and George Smith's ""Atheism: The Case Against God."
Re:I believe (Score:4, Insightful)
That is the point of the whole story: Belief on what can not be proven. Your question is sort of pointless because you can't prove it either way. You didn't RTFA or even the title of the story, did you?
It sounds like the title is about all you've read. The site and its articles aren't about things believed willy-nilly; the articles are experts describing their hunches based on their years of experience and synthesizing information outside their fields. It is not about experts having beliefs without cause--it's about experts having beliefs with cause but not rigorously proven (yet anyway). That is a critical distinction to make. To quote [edge.org]:
These questions are not about making vague statments and leaving them at belief; they are about stimulating thought and discussion--not about simply accepting a belief and rejecting discussion based on unprovability.
Aparently that has already been answered by the partent with a resounding Yes!.
That was a mistake on my part. The quesion was meant to be: Have you ever experienced a universe that was not designed?
No, not really. Design is one of those things that indicates intelligent origin, that's all. You can call a DVD player "designed", but yet you can't point to a naturally-occurring DVD player growing wild on some jungle or being mined from the earth.
You've just restated what I said: Design implies an abstraction (a function of intelligence) of a purpose from nature and then creation (by man) of something for that purpose.
Re:I believe (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes.
Both are valid schools of thought under the heading of "intelligent design"
Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause (Score:5, Insightful)
> is no "prohibitions against teachign{sic} religion in public schools". The only thing the Establisment
> Clause prohibits is a state sponsored religion.
Teachign a religious belief, even a cleverly hidden one like ID, in a public school is state-sponsored religion. Parents are perfectly welcome to put their children in private schools if they wish them to be taught about the Intelligent Designer.
ID evolved because openly teaching Biblical Literalism to public school students was pretty much squashed a long time ago. It's the floorboards of the wedge strategy (along with the premise that somewhere somehow something is wrong with evolution). Watch an ID advocate. In mixed company they will refuse to say anything about the alleged Designer, while among like-minded inviduals, this Designer's secret identity is quite obviously the Judeao-Christian god.
In other words, ID is nothing more than a lawyer's version of Biblical Creationism, specially designed to get around that little ol' problem of pushing Biblical Literalism upon kiddies in public schools.
Re:What about quazi-intelligent design? (Score:3, Insightful)
So, no, there's no reason for God
The usual.... (Score:3, Funny)
WMD (Score:5, Funny)
G.W. Bush
Re:WMD (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about that.
Re:WMD (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess they are, after all, nobody really wants to know the real truth, they just want whatever truth they get fed through the media or through their religious leader or through their president (often then filtered through the media too!)
Reminds me of the Republican ads being shown before the election, talking about how the Republicans were the "value" party, and listing all sorts of values they claimed to hold (gee, I'm glad you're courageous!). I guess those "liberal" tv channels must have cut the ad short, since not once was "truth", "justice", or "honesty" listed.
So, if The Truth is bashing the US, then maybe its deserved. US spoonfed Saddam (who wouldn't have been able to hold Iraq together himself) to have a secular friend against Iran taking over the region. Once Saddam was armed, he started misbehaving and killing people but the US chose to "overlook" that small flaw in his character for the continued security against Iran, until finally he invaded another country. Then Bush Sr. beat him down just enough to teach him that if he wants to slaughter people, he can do it within his own country.
Later, we invade Iraq, kill a lot of people, discover halfway through that we had no plans for an exit, no plans for a democracy (are we even going to pull off the hastily arranged election this month?), no weapons of mass destruction (and members of the government knew this, but failed to communicate it to anyone who could do anything about it other than fire them from the CIA, even after weeks of hunting in Iraq) making this an elective war which means that we could have waited in order to properly equip troops, rather than "going to war with the army we have".
I also find it highly amusing that you believe we are the sole source of freedom on this planet. I can see how people could say "we saved Europe" in WW2, but I'd like to hear how crushing Japan or Germany saved South Africa or Mexico. Not to mention that our own freedom was largely conferred to us with French support.
I suppose though that what America giveth, it taketh away, as the Bush Administration did when it tried to imprison our own Citizens without charge or trial, until the Supreme Court schooled Bush on the bill of rights (Jose Padilla was "detained" in 2002, and finally has a trial scheduled for this month thanks to the SCOTUS decision, however he STILL has not been charged with a crime). Though maybe you're right about the source of freedom spiel, just last month Britain saw the light and their indefinite imprisonment law got busted too.
Re:WMD (Score:5, Informative)
The US seemed okay with gassing the Kurds as well. We provided the satellite intelligence to Saddam's military so that they could evaluate the efficacy of their operation.
We didn't make too much noise as long as Saddam continued to pound the crap out of Iran.
Re:WMD (Score:4, Insightful)
How true, but this applies to everyone equally.
For every petty dictator we supported in the Cold War, there was a petty dictator supported by the Soviet Union as well. I noticed that East Germany was absent from your listing. There are many more in that listing as well, I assure you.
And what about colonies? Every major power in Europe was just itching to get into Africa in a big way. Do you think they brought the natives foreign aid?
How do you rate the French involvement in Algeria or the Ivory Coast?
To contantly jump on the US for having made poor decisions as a nation undermines the great sacrifice that American citizens have made in keeping major conflict from arriving at everyone's doors world-wide. You and I can criticize the decisions as ill-informed or malevolent, but please don't forget that the US doesn't make them without perceived threats from abroad.
There are still Americans who believe in John Adams proclaimation [thisnation.com] that "Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy."
Living up to that proclaimation has been difficult and has meant the sacrifice of a nations treasure.
I believe I will have another martini, please. (Score:5, Funny)
Logic works? (Score:5, Funny)
I mean, go ahead and prove it, but you'll still be taking it for granted, or you wouldn't bother with a proof.
Re:Logic works? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, the incompleteness theorem itself is derived by a system of which the validity is unknown...
Re:Logic works? (Score:3, Interesting)
Not only that, but there are different arguments about the proper use of argumentation and logic. So, not only does every argument presume that "logic works", but it presumes that a certain sort of "logic", namely the sort of logical attack you're using at the
First Post. (Score:3, Insightful)
Let the flames begin.
Re:First Post. (Score:4, Insightful)
You know what? Good for you!
I'm an atheist myself, but I'm not going to try and convert you. Nor do I want you to convert me. I don't believe in UFO's, ghosts, fortune telling nor anything else supernatural.
BUT! I believe that if people were a little bit more tolerant, the world would be a much better place.
A Kind and Loving God. (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, occasionally, because of acts of nature.
"It's all part of God's plan" my ass. This is all looking pretty random to me.
(dons flame retardant suit)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:A Kind and Loving God. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:First Post. (Score:3, Insightful)
I've haven't seen so many AC replies to a single posting before. Methinks people are scared to be associated with such a "controversial" topic.
It's a shame the topic can't be approached more open-mindedly, as the parent was neither malicious or forceful. Whether you believe in a God or not, is the idea so black and white that people can't even maintain a healthy, respectful dialogue about it?
Re:Check the News- (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:First Post. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not necessarily, depending on whether there is an afterlife and what determines your fate therein. That's even assuming that the earthquake wasn't actually a good outcome out of all the possible outcomes; for example, what if the earthquake released tectonic pressure that otherwise would've built up and killed millions instead of hundreds of thousands?
I for one think the "If an omnipotent, loving God exists, why does he let bad things happen?" line of argument is a red herring. It's impossible for us to understand the actions of a being with an infinite perspective, if one exists--or to look at it another way, you can always argue the other side, no matter how disastrous and cruel the world might seem to be.
I believe that children are our future... (Score:3, Funny)
What Bruce Sterling should have said: (Score:4, Funny)
Redundancy (Score:5, Insightful)
The question should be simply "What do you believe?" Because if something can be proven, the issue of belief does not arise. And only idiots believe what what is proven as false.
Re:Redundancy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Redundancy (Score:3, Insightful)
The most important problem in Mathematics is unproveable. This is worrying. You just gotta believe it is true.
What comes around, goes around (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that if you are mean to others, even in small ways, that the world gets worse.
I believe that I want the world to be a better place, and I live each day according to that.
Re:What comes around, goes around (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What comes around, goes around (Score:3, Informative)
Usually I can just let that kind of stuff go and not have it ruin my mood. But sometimes its impossible.
So, hang in there.
Truth... (Score:5, Interesting)
In some cultures, sacrificing a goat to the spirits is a truth that may help you survive the famine, if only by making your neighbours afraid enough of you so you can steal their food.
In other cultures, knowing why the ride to work drives you crazy is a truth that helps you stay sane.
Truth is any tool that works better. Scientific truth - that is, truth derived by the scientific method - works best of all, because it fits the physical world so well.
Different truths can be in direct conflict (quantum vs. classical mechanics) and yet both be suitable tools.
Even religion is a truth that helps navigate certain kinds of reality... it's a kind of fuse box for the mind, so to speak. When logic and science can't explain why the wave hit you, perhaps religion can.
Hard AI (Score:3, Interesting)
That is, that Minsky was fundamentally right, and that the brain can be modeled as a computing device (although not necessarily a deterministic Turing machine) made of meat.
Meta-belief: Just as I believe that mind is an epiphenomenon of certain configurations of matter, I believe that free will is an epiphenomenon of random processes in the brain.
Side note: I do not believe we'll solve the Hard AI problem in the next 50 years. (I'd very much like to be proven wrong on that, however.)
That there is no god. (Score:5, Interesting)
We as humans look for a god, even though based upon complex systems and greater scarcity of complex working systems as the systems become more complex, it is unlikely that one exists.
Re:That there is no god. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're talking about philosophy, guides to life, etc., this can certainly be separated from theology. Look no further than Jefferson's Bible.
I also don't understand how you take a complex system as an argument against intelligent design; I would tend to see it the other way. Or, as someone else said it: "It's unbelievable that something so mind-bogglingly useful evolved all by itself." In other words, it would take something incredible to set such systems in motion.
Do I believe with absolute certainty in a quantifiable vision of the Almighty? No, and I think that's how it was meant to be. I don't think that any one religion is supposed to get it completely right, and I think we're supposed to be responsible for living our own lives (but I don't fully agree with the Deists either). Based on the things I've encountered in my life, adamant total disbelief seems...unbelievable.
Christ (Score:5, Funny)
P != NP (Score:5, Interesting)
There are various points of discontinuity in mathematics and I think this is one of them (for example, we know that the number of integers is less than the number of reals and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis
John.
I BELIEVE! (Score:3, Insightful)
ZFC (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe in 2 things I can't prove (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I believe in 2 things I can't prove (Score:5, Informative)
Note that a vast majority of *real* scientists concur that global warming is happening, though there are myriad theories of WHY it is happening.
Re:I believe in 2 things I can't prove (Score:5, Informative)
Other Worlds with Life and Civilization (Score:4, Insightful)
As for the question of them visiting us, I am not so sure on that one.
What do you believen even if you can't prove it? (Score:3, Interesting)
My God is the Universe (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with many modern belief systems is that those who sin, repent, and sin again. It's a vicious cycle that gives people an excuse for evil deeds. Repentance only serves the goal of a supposed salvation. It does not in any way correct an evil deed. These beliefs cause people to sin against each other confident that their slates can be wiped clean in the confessional.
I have different beliefs. Their foundation is karma, a form of spiritual energy that connects life, the universe, and everything. What we do in our lives causes repercussions that are instantaneous, and those that echo into eternity long after our flesh is decomposed.
I first began to believe all this nonsense after doing something that was very evil and destructive. Not more than 24 hours after my transgression, something horrible happened to me. Could this have been a complete coincidence? Indeed it could; but what I did, and what happened was destructive, traumatic, and totally unrelated as possible. This led me to believe that there must be some underlying power that isn't properly described by Christian theology. Since getting slapped by karma I've changed my life. I haven't been perfect, but I've done my best. Now I find myself incredibly fortunate and happy in my life. This could be a complete coincidence.
Most modern religions defy science... mine embraces it. Physics has conservation of energy... What about conservation of karma or conservation of souls? If earth was once a cloud of stealer particles brought together by gravity, where did all the souls come from? From the billions of other systems that support life in this universe.
As far as "reincarnation" verses "afterlife", the two concepts are not mutually exclusive. For a soul that might have come from a distant star, or found its way into a different species; their lives now fit all the classic definitions or "afterlife". So with my beliefs it's impossible to say that the core concepts of most organized religions are wrong. But it becomes easy to tell that arguing the semantics of these concepts is pointless.
A final component of my belief system is that it could all be complete bullshit... But if it lays down a good moral code sans religious fanaticism, is it really that bad?
Who is God? A man sitting on a cloud passing judgment? Or a vast entity far beyond our comprehension? Why do religions have to weave such intricate and detailed pictures of what this deity is? Why must people comfort their fears of death by fabricating an imaginary world that lies beyond the grave? Why can't we realize how totally insignificant we and all of our complex illusions really are?
Karma (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Karma (Score:3, Interesting)
And if it turns out we're wrong, Buddhists will simply change their philosophy to match reality rather than the other way around.
The Elf Conspiracy (Score:4, Funny)
Even now, the elves are working on igniting a great volcano under yellostone park!
Reality (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as 'unprovable', the term is highly misleading. To be more specific, if there is a fabric which exactly explains the universe, mathematics, so be it. If the physical results of that fabric are repeatable, predictable, and disprovable then that is it.
OK, my turn to reply (Score:4, Interesting)
After all, if the observable world didn't exist, what the hell, the concept of truth itself is questionable, you might as well believe whatever you want.
Everything else is suspect.
I kinda like theories that don't falter under repeated experiments. Scientific method and all that. It's a good thing.
I'm going to heaven, you're going to hell (Score:3, Funny)
call Ohio (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, and I also believe that Dick Cheney is a cyborg.
Many Worlds Interpretation I believe in (Score:5, Interesting)
The Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) is an approach to quantum mechanics according to which, in addition to the world we are aware of directly, there are many other similar worlds which exist in parallel at the same space and time. The existence of the other worlds makes it possible to remove randomness and action at a distance from quantum theory and thus from all physics.
UNQUOTE
This gives new meaning to the concept of re-incarnation.
Mob psychology (Score:5, Funny)
I can't prove that, but I do fervently believe that
-WS
A simple universe (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not "if" but "why". (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference is whether they say that man-made pollution is the primary cause or whether this is part of a natural cycle.
If it is part of a natural cycle, then there is no "proof" that changing our pollution will do anything.
Re:We're in for climatic mayhem (Score:4, Insightful)
One use of the phrase is to claim that the world is getting warmer. Well, it is. There is plenty of proof.
However, there is another more liberal use of the phrase to claim that humans are at fault for the world getting warmer. That is lacking in proof. Sure, fossil fuels warm the earth, but by how much? How is that compared to cow emissions? How much is just the normal cycle of the Earth from hot to cold to hot again?
In the face of this lack of proof, some claim that if humans aren't part of the solution, they are part of the problem. This is a classic non-sequitur argument for fools that can easily be twisted into: if you aren't part of the problem, you are part of the solution.
I know you said to just look at the pretty charts in the National Geographic article, but I accidentally read it too.
Re:i don't know what i really beleive (Score:4, Interesting)
I think what you meant to say was:
"i don't beleive in the christian god, but i WANT there has to be something out there, things are just to "perfect" to randomly appear.
Are things "too perfect" because the earth and the universe was built around us and our design or are they "too perfect" because we eveloved to fit "perfectly" into this universe, that if the universe was different, we would be different also and wondering the same thoughts.
Just thought you might want to consider these things along with a healthy dose of Occam's Razor...
Re:homosexuality (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense. Homosexuals, physically, are fully capable of reproducing - it's just that the sexual acts which are appealing to them don't result in reproduction. Regardless, I know no lack of people with gay biological parents who reproduced because they felt social pressure to enter into heterosexual relationships.
Additionally, recessive genes can carry for many generations, and if homosexuality is genetic, it's obviously controlled by a sequence of genes that are recessive.
Personally, I'm gay and I don't think homosexuality is genetic. I suspect that there are biological causes (e.g. hormone levels in the mother, etc.), but I'm capable of admitting that we don't know at this stage and it is possible that homosexuality is a choice. This is irrelevant to me, though, because even if it *is* a choice, it's my choice to make, and it's no one's business what the outcome of that decision is.
Re:homosexuality (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. [google.com]
Re:homosexuality (Score:5, Informative)
Many animals show homosexual activity which includes full mating rituals and sex, not just 'tree humping'. This is know to occur in dolphins and wales, apes, rodents, deer, goats, sheep, and birds. In all, it been observed in hundreds of species. As for cases of exclusive homosexuality, this has also been seen in many species. For example, in japanese Macaque monkeys around 9% of all adults exclusively mate and pair-bond with the same sex.
Re:homosexuality (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Me personally (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST (Score:5, Interesting)
72% believe that religion provides a reliable and necessary guide to life.
58% attend church once a month.
58% believe the Bible was inspired by God.
So while your article implies intelligent and influential scientists don't believe in God, a number I personally hope to decrease, the study of medical doctors shows a strong number of people with faith. I would say that medical doctors have 'scientific minds', which would dispute your second to last line.
On a related note, I don't think that it's fair to use the National Academy of Science as the survey pool. People who have made it into the NAS have devoted at least 90% of their waking energy to the scientific fields are not consistent with most kinds of faith anyways. As a Christian, there are things more important to me than scientific success. I have had dinner with many biochemists in the academy and family/friends/life/etc comes a distant second to their career. So I would suggest that these results are completely consistent with their life style. I would like to see a survey of PhD scientists or professors at a variety of universities, those results would be much more of a mixed bag.
I also hope that you don't take this as confirmation that education and faith are not compatible. I know plenty of PhD students who are practicing Christians.
~Dan
Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST (Score:4, Insightful)
Mathematics is the first science to get it right. When your precious "scientists" were making up goofy cosmological models to account for idiotic presuppositions, it was the mathematicians that set them straight. At the beginning of the modern era, all real scientists were first and foremost mathematicians. Tomorrow, we may find out your most precious "science" was fraudulantly doctored, but 1 plus 1 will always equal 2. Period.
The above quote, by the way, shows you know absolutely nothing, nada, zip, zilch about mathematics or science. Anyone who has taken high school chemistry ought to know better.
Re:The scientists arrogance (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the thing: no other method comes anywhere close to the scientific one for generating real knowledge about the observable universe. Science keeps on generating better understanding, so either the universe is infinitely complex, in which case we'll never stop generting better science; or we'll eventually run out of steam due to our admittedly tiny minds - I doubt this one since we already so most of our science using mind-tools like oh, books, computers, etc to help us understand it; or we will eventually know it all. In a loose sense of "know". Much of the world doesn't know the venerable physics of Einstein and Heisenberg very well; and even more sadly, many deny the even more venerable biology of Darwin.
You often hear people come with arguments like 'but God can't exist' or 'we don't need God to explain the universe'. Sure, if you think that man can eventually comprehend everything there is to know about the universe, then you can make those claims.
So either we can know all, or we need God to explain it? false dichotomy.
Religion/faith is all about the step after that.
A totally meaningless sentence.
I personally do
What testable predictions about the observable universe result from this assumption? If there are none, you must entertain the posiblity that your statement has no meaning.
Re:The scientists arrogance (Score:5, Insightful)
The true answer is always "I don't know" - but the person who has studied the available evidence will say - "the available evidence points to this or that conlusion". It does not mean that that conclusion is true, only that the available evidence points to it. When more evidence becomes available, the pointed at conclusion will change to more accurately reflect the available evidence.
So it's not a question of "possibility" but one of evidence. Faith is what you believe in when you don't have evidence. There's ample evidence out there to make a decision if you look at it without being brainwashed from birth.
What a rational person can do is look at the known facts about the christian god and decide from the available evidence if they make sense given your own personal experiences of the world. If you have a vision and god speaks to you, then there is no way for me to dissuade you from a belief in god. However, your evidence is personal evidence, and it's based upon personal experience, and is in no way valid for convincing me that there is such a god.
Even if you do have a personal revelation and believe in a god, how does that help you know the attributes of god. Unless god tells you he's omnipotent, do you know that he is. Perhaps your revealed god says "I'm the god of the christian bible, and everything in it is true", and there you are, you can now be a truely rational christian. Hopefully you'll ask your god to do a bit of proof for you, to give you some more tangible evidence. Why would god make you a rational being if the one thing he asks you not to be rational about is his own existence?
Most people on this planet who believe in a god do so for no other reason that that's what they were told when they were little. They're not just told that there is a god, but which particular brand they're to follow. That's not rational, that's just hearsay evidence and means nothing.
That's why the rational course of action is to be agnostic until proven otherwise. If you've been proven otherwise, then that's fine - I'll respect that, but don't go thinking that your evidence has any meaning for me because the only evidence that matters in this issue is very personal. Everyone has to discover their own answers to these questions and make them fit with how their own brains work. That why religion in it's current "one size fits all" mentality doesn't work, for even in a specific branch of a specific religion there are vast differences in the details of belief, and that's because the religion was not personally revealed to each and every member, but passed on from one person to another in such a way that does not account for the differences in each individual.
The arrogance of religion (Score:4, Insightful)
It's religion that says "we have ALL the answers." That's the arrogance - claiming to have all the answers without proof. Where did the Universe come from? Science says, "we have this theory that seems to lead to what we see now, but if something changes, we'll change our model." Religion says, "We know! God created it! No debate necessary, no evidence needed more than this here book!"
-T