Owen Gingerich, Astronomer Who Saw God in the Cosmos, Dies at 93 (nytimes.com) 135
Owen Gingerich, a renowned astronomer and historian of science, has passed away at the age of 93. Gingerich dedicated years to tracking down 600 copies of Nicolaus Copernicus's influential book "De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium Libri Sex" and was known for his passion for astronomy, often dressing up as a 16th-century scholar for lectures. He believed in the compatibility of religion and science and explored this theme in his books "God's Universe" and "God's Planet." The New York Times reports:
Professor Gingerich, who lived in Cambridge, Mass., and taught at Harvard for many years, was a lively lecturer and writer. During his decades of teaching astronomy and the history of science, he would sometimes dress as a 16th-century Latin-speaking scholar for his classroom presentations, or convey a point of physics with a memorable demonstration; for instance, The Boston Globe related in 2004, he "routinely shot himself out of the room on the power of a fire extinguisher to prove one of Newton's laws." He was nothing if not enthusiastic about the sciences, especially astronomy. One year at Harvard, when his signature course, "The Astronomical Perspective," wasn't filling up as fast as he would have liked, he hired a plane to fly a banner over the campus that read: "Sci A-17. M, W, F. Try it!"
Professor Gingerich's doggedness was on full display in his long pursuit of copies of Copernicus's "De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium Libri Sex" ("Six Books on the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres"), first published in 1543, the year Copernicus died. That book laid out the thesis that Earth revolved around the sun, rather than the other way around, a profound challenge to scientific knowledge and religious belief in that era. The writer Arthur Koestler had contended in 1959 that the Copernicus book was not read in its time, and Professor Gingerich set out to determine whether that was true. In 1970 he happened on a copy of "De Revolutionibus" that was heavily annotated in the library of the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh, suggesting that at least one person had read it closely. A quest was born. Thirty years and hundreds of thousands of miles later, Professor Gingerich had examined some 600 Renaissance-era copies of "De Revolutionibus" all over the world and had developed a detailed picture not only of how thoroughly the work was read in its time, but also of how word of its theories spread and evolved. He documented all this in "The Book Nobody Read: Chasing the Revolutions of Nicolaus Copernicus" (2004). John Noble Wilford, reviewing it in The New York Times, called "The Book Nobody Read" "a fascinating story of a scholar as sleuth."
Professor Gingerich was raised a Mennonite and was a student at Goshen College, a Mennonite institution in Indiana, studying chemistry but thinking of astronomy, when, he later recalled, a professor there gave him pivotal advice: "If you feel a calling to pursue astronomy, you should go for it. We can't let the atheists take over any field." He took the counsel, and throughout his career he often wrote or spoke about his belief that religion and science need not be at odds. He explored that theme in the books "God's Universe" (2006) and "God's Planet" (2014). He was not a biblical literalist; he had no use for those who ignored science and proclaimed the Bible's creation story historical fact. Yet, as he put it in "God's Universe," he was "personally persuaded that a superintelligent Creator exists beyond and within the cosmos." [...] Professor Gingerich, who was senior astronomer emeritus at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, wrote countless articles over his career in addition to his books. In one for Science and Technology News in 2005, he talked about the divide between theories of atheistic evolution and theistic evolution. "Frankly it lies beyond science to prove the matter one way or the other," he wrote. "Science will not collapse if some practitioners are convinced that occasionally there has been creative input in the long chain of being." In 2006, Gingerich was mentioned in a Slashdot story about geologists' reacting to the new definition of "Pluton." He was quoted as saying that he was only peripherally aware of the definition, and because it didn't show up on MS Word's spell check, he didn't think it was that important."
"Gingerich lead a committee of the International Astronomical Union charged with recommending whether Pluto should remain a planet," notes the New York Times. "His panel recommended that it should, but the full membership rejected that idea and instead made Pluto a 'dwarf planet.' That decision left Professor Gingerich somehwat dismayed."
Professor Gingerich's doggedness was on full display in his long pursuit of copies of Copernicus's "De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium Libri Sex" ("Six Books on the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres"), first published in 1543, the year Copernicus died. That book laid out the thesis that Earth revolved around the sun, rather than the other way around, a profound challenge to scientific knowledge and religious belief in that era. The writer Arthur Koestler had contended in 1959 that the Copernicus book was not read in its time, and Professor Gingerich set out to determine whether that was true. In 1970 he happened on a copy of "De Revolutionibus" that was heavily annotated in the library of the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh, suggesting that at least one person had read it closely. A quest was born. Thirty years and hundreds of thousands of miles later, Professor Gingerich had examined some 600 Renaissance-era copies of "De Revolutionibus" all over the world and had developed a detailed picture not only of how thoroughly the work was read in its time, but also of how word of its theories spread and evolved. He documented all this in "The Book Nobody Read: Chasing the Revolutions of Nicolaus Copernicus" (2004). John Noble Wilford, reviewing it in The New York Times, called "The Book Nobody Read" "a fascinating story of a scholar as sleuth."
Professor Gingerich was raised a Mennonite and was a student at Goshen College, a Mennonite institution in Indiana, studying chemistry but thinking of astronomy, when, he later recalled, a professor there gave him pivotal advice: "If you feel a calling to pursue astronomy, you should go for it. We can't let the atheists take over any field." He took the counsel, and throughout his career he often wrote or spoke about his belief that religion and science need not be at odds. He explored that theme in the books "God's Universe" (2006) and "God's Planet" (2014). He was not a biblical literalist; he had no use for those who ignored science and proclaimed the Bible's creation story historical fact. Yet, as he put it in "God's Universe," he was "personally persuaded that a superintelligent Creator exists beyond and within the cosmos." [...] Professor Gingerich, who was senior astronomer emeritus at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, wrote countless articles over his career in addition to his books. In one for Science and Technology News in 2005, he talked about the divide between theories of atheistic evolution and theistic evolution. "Frankly it lies beyond science to prove the matter one way or the other," he wrote. "Science will not collapse if some practitioners are convinced that occasionally there has been creative input in the long chain of being." In 2006, Gingerich was mentioned in a Slashdot story about geologists' reacting to the new definition of "Pluton." He was quoted as saying that he was only peripherally aware of the definition, and because it didn't show up on MS Word's spell check, he didn't think it was that important."
"Gingerich lead a committee of the International Astronomical Union charged with recommending whether Pluto should remain a planet," notes the New York Times. "His panel recommended that it should, but the full membership rejected that idea and instead made Pluto a 'dwarf planet.' That decision left Professor Gingerich somehwat dismayed."
Heroic defender of Pluto's honor (Score:4, Interesting)
May you find peace but never too much.
I saw God in a cup of hummus once (Score:1, Funny)
I was so impressed that I named my dog the word God in reverse that day.
Re: (Score:2)
One of many interesting religious scientists (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the pivotal figures in cosmology was a Jesuit, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
There is, I am told, a verse in the Quran that instructs people to reflect on the wonders of creation. That was Abdus Salam's inspiration for practicing physics. His reflections went so deep he shared a Nobel Prize.
I think they're a minority, but their existence is interesting.
Admire the beauty (Score:1)
There is, I am told, a verse in the Quran that instructs people to reflect on the wonders of creation. That was Abdus Salam's inspiration for practicing physics.
Common sense, really. It is sad that humanity works so hard to destroy it, but still we're living in a wonderful world.
Stars and clouds in the sky. Flowers in a field. Bees that visit them. A dolphin in the sea. Snow-peaked mountains. Waves crashing into a beach. A friendly person that crosses your path. A tree with its root system beneath your feet, grown from nothing but a small seed, water, air, minerals & sunlight. A spider spinning its web. Ants building their nest. Etc etc etc, enough to fill a li
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what time frame you're looking at. WWI and WWII sucked. And WWII certainly sucked for your family if you were Jewish or different.
Less religious does not equate to everyone is athiestic. In France, for example, only 42% respond as refuse to answer or no religion when polled. What is there is overwhelmingly Christian. There are fewer who attend services each week across Europe. That is certainly true. But that is also changing.
The evangelical Christians are growing in number there just like ev
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not forget Isaac Newton. Widely regarded by his peers as a religious nutter, he was still immensely respected.
You'd don't have to be perfectly rational to be a good scientist.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but you have to be data and evidence driven.
There are no such things as gods ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, sure... but your lack of understanding makes it appear magical until you do understand. By denying magic, you deny the unknown. Don't do that; rather, not let the unknown dictate your behaviors. Living in constant fear is ... a biblical Hell.
Hocus pocus (Score:3)
Re:Hocus pocus (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. And it is always easy to just not think things through that could otherwise result in uncomfortable insights.
Just to elaborate: Science finds the question of the existence of a god is "open". No, this does not mean it is expected to be answered with a "yes" eventually. This does mean there is no evidence either way. Same as for countless crackpot theories. This state does confuse a lot of people. Add that a lot of people confuse "possible" and "likely" and you end up with the usually observable mess that religious people make of their argumentation.
Because there is a second aspect: The existence of a god would clearly be an extraordinary claim, and hence extraordinary evidence would be needed to give it validity. As there is not even simple evidence, the scientific state of-the-art is that there is very likely (almost sure) no god and that the default assumption is "no god" unless said extraordinary evidence becomes available. And unless simple evidence becomes available, it does not even make sense to seriously debate the idea.
The reason why religion is incompatible with that is because religion assumes the converse. It assumes there is a god without scientifically sound evidence and requires proof that there is no god as counter argument. That approach does not even fulfill basic scientific standards as Science requires every claim to be supported by scientifically sound evidence in order to be recognized as true or likely true.
Of course, what religion uses is both the the "Big Lie" technique (hammer them with an extreme but unsubstantiated claim until they believe it) and a fundamental denial of logic. There is a really simple counter argument to any one religion claiming their model of reality is true: There are a lot of religions and all have the same evidence basis (none). At the same time most of them are incompatible with each other in what they claim. As "number of followers" is irrelevant to the validity of a claim made, all religions, cults, quasi-religious philosophical beliefs, etc. compete here and only one could, as a maximum, have the truth. Note that this includes religions with no followers. Now, because none have evidence, there is no way to identify which one could be the one with truth. At the same time, they are all generally similar enough (being of type "religion") that it is not plausible that one of them should be fundamentally true and all other not. And hence Science tells us to discount every religion as model of reality, unless extraordinary evidence becomes available. If that evidence becomes available, fine. But until then the only sane view is that the claims of any religion are bullshit and serve entirely different purposes than explaining reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Just to elaborate: Science finds the question of the existence of a god is "open".
Not true for the disproven ones (the god of the bible for example), but I otherwise agree with you. I think that based on the infinite number of possibilities for an unprovable god, god is non-existent. Proven gods aren't considered gods, and unproven gods are guaranteed the same fate.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that (almost?!) all religions believe in the existence of God is the extraordinary proof. That numerous different cultures, with no contact with each other, came to the same, basic conclusion is the extraordinary evidence you're seeking. Yes, there are differences in how different cultures and religions perceived God, but the fundamental premise that God exists is not in doubt by any serious theologian.
It would be akin to saying that climate science is a big lie because some say warming will b
Re:Hocus pocus (Score:4, Insightful)
Monotheism is not anywhere near universal.
However, the ubiquity of belief in some kind of spirits or gods is pretty much ubiquitous. That says nothing about reality at all, except what it says about the human mind, which (a) is always searching for explanations and (b) which just can't believe that its own consciousness can just come to an end.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, (a) is very strong in most people and they just cannot deal with the unknown. Hence if they cannot simply ignore it, they make up some story, any story as how that is or, more often, eat up stories made by others. As to (b) we do not actually know that. What we do know is cessation of communication possibilities with a specifically identified person and that people have no verifiable memories of a previous existence. That this means the end of that consciousness (and also its start) is a possibility,
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Belief does in no way constitute proof. It is, in fact, an indicator of the absence of proof. Numbers do not matter. For example, the reality of Covid does not depend on the number of deniers and believers. It depends on the established facts.
This bullshit argument gets pushed all the time by the religiously deranged though. It boils down to is the "safety in numbers" fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_in_numbers) with a not very subtle threat of "you do not want to be different, do you?"
Re: (Score:2)
We know that Europeans had no contact with Native Americans prior to the Vikings because when that contact was first established, the diseases carried by the Europeans destroyed entire tribes.
Belief is not an indicator of the absence of proof - if that were the case, we could safely dismiss climate change. Belief is just that - belief.
But here's the problem with your argument: people don't believe something they know to be false. At worst, they are merely mistaken. Your position relies on an assumpti
Re: (Score:2)
Actually no. The current explanation of essentially "poof and it was there" is not unsound. It is just hard to grasp for humans because within this universe we have cause and effect relations. But the very point is that this would not have happened within this universe and then all bets are off. Extend things a little and this may be a regular event. that happens all over existence all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
The naive expression of Occam's razor is useless in practice, anyone with common sense will let an explanation with two strong assumptions beat an explanation with one weak assumption. It's not about numbers, it's about strength ... and that strength is fundamentally a subjective measure.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about numbers, it's about strength ... and that strength is fundamentally a subjective measure.
Well we're in the universe ,so strong indication that's real.
How strong is your God assumption in comparison?
Re: (Score:2)
Lets forget about mine for a moment and concentrate on mr. Gingerich. He obviously thought it was a strong assumption.
As for why, well among other things he doesn't seem satisfied with the infinite universes approach to solving the Anthropic principle. He also didn't seem a fan of "cause" for why the moon is approximately the size of the sun in the sky. Ultimately though, he seemed mostly moved by a feeling of divine inspiration ... the least falsifiable of all.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. The existence of our universe is an extraordinary claim. But there is extraordinary proof for it, so assuming it exists is scientifically sound. "God" has exactly no extraordinary proof and not even any sound simple proof going for it. Masses of people believing something does not make for proof.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Occam's Razor is essentially an early form for "scientific claims require proof" and "extraordinary scientific claims require extraordinary proof".
Also, why would anybody rational prefer strong assumptions over weak ones? I am not aware of behaving in that way. At least to me any strong assumption is an immediate red flag of "requires extraordinary proof". Of course, given the number of religious people on the planet (apparently something like 80% all taken together) it seems likely that most peop
Re: (Score:2)
Evidence, not proof. What is extraordinary is subjective.
Assumptions are the best you can do, even in mathematics all proofs are downstream of assumptions.
Re: (Score:2)
It's superfluous for one possible explanation, mandatory for another.
Re: (Score:2)
No. In your argument, it still just requires one. It's just a different one.
The Forward to De Revolutionibus Was Key (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Paragraphs! If you want anyone to read your posts you should use them!
Re: (Score:2)
Looked all over the keyboard, did not see a paragraph key.
God of the gaps (Score:2)
The God in the gaps between knowledge has ruined otherwise smart men since the beginning of time. As we fill in the gaps, the gymnastics necessary to slip between them get more entertaining to other scientists, and more incomprehensible to the layman. Among the masses, the word "Quantum" gets misused as something mystical more often than it's used appropriately.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect no more than despair at nihilism has ruined otherwise smart men and women. Talking yourself into feeling the divine spirit does make it easier to accept the world and move forward, while having children along the way.
Normies need no reason, but smart people look for them.
Re: (Score:2)
PS. that is of course assuming there is something to ruin ... my Christian upbringing showing through in my rather arbitrary value system there :p
durability of inculcation (Score:2)
A 93 year testament to the durability of childhood religious inculcation.
And his name was Gingerich? (Score:2)
the compatibility of religion and science? (Score:3)
Nonsense.
Benjamin Disraeli (Score:2)
"Where knowledge ends, religion BEGINS" - Benjamin Disraeli (b. 1804)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
but if he tried to mix God and science, I'm sorry but... good riddance.
He did not mix God and science. Rather, he saw the limits of both. Religion cannot say how nature works, but offers a explanation for why. Science cannot say why nature works, but offers an explanation for how. You do not need religion for science, or science for religion, but neither excludes the other, and together you have a richer view of reality.
Re:I don't know the guy and I'm sure he was great (Score:5, Insightful)
Nature works why? Oh, invisible spirits. Sure, that's useful.
Re:I don't know the guy and I'm sure he was great (Score:4, Insightful)
believing in certain theories is just a way for humanity to cope with questions that cannot be answered.
And every time a logical explanation is discovered. Lightning from the sky sent by gods? => static electricity. Plague, god's punishment => bacteria from pleas... Simulation hypothesis is same as god, explain everything but explains nothing. God exists mainly because conscious beings don't want to die. Religions without some kind of immortality are not really popular. Unfortunately religions always make more harm than good (stealing money/time from poorest people, murders, oppressing people...)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do bacteria and static electricity exist?
What does the bible say?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But that no more explains the why than anything else. After all, you're left with why God exists, and then all you're going to get is variations on the ultimate metaphysical handwaving; Aristotle's Unmoved Mover.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Beliefs or religions are not useful in the sense of finding things out, but believing in certain theories is just a way for humanity to cope with questions that cannot be answered.
And a way to convince the masses of your chosen answers. Useful for the things that can be answered, but you just don't like the answer.
Not useful for the people who want to actually know stuff though.
Re: (Score:1)
Religion isn't useful for anything but group cohesion, maybe spotting marks for your scam.
It's like painting giant "I'm gullible" sign on your forehead. It's no too bad if everyone does it. Right up until the time that it is.
Maybe your country isn't up to that level of development yet?
Re: (Score:3)
Religion isn't useful for anything but group cohesion [...]
This seems like a pretty big benefit to simply write off as not useful.
I have always thought that organized religion serves a useful purpose as it gives individuals a common narrative to relate to and bond over. It also gives people a common language and rule set. Basically, it brings people together, and people working together toward a common goal is what makes humanity great.
The bad part is when the collective is hijacked for political purposes.
Re:I don't know the guy and I'm sure he was great (Score:5, Insightful)
Religion cannot say how nature works, but offers a explanation for why.
no, that's no "explanation", that's just a random "narrative" chosen to appease human perception. the distinction is crucial as it means religion doesn't really seek truth or knowledge but appeasement. choosing such a narrative and accepting their placeholder answers means simply to stop asking tough questions. it is the negation of knowledge.
most religions are like this, but there are some exceptions. buddhism for example doesn't hand out arbitrary dogma to accept by sheer faith, it is all about questioning and exploring the nature of our own experience and the possible meaning of stuff that science can't explain.
i think it is very natural that scientific curiosity and spiritual inquisition coexist in the same mind. it's quite more jarring when it happens with religions that are basically fairy tales and thus the fundamental negation of any desire of knowledge, but there are indeed quite a few cases. imo that's just shutting off one part of the brain and stopping to nag with questions that appear to have no answer, some heavy cognitive dissonance going on.
Re:I don't know the guy and I'm sure he was great (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I'll tell you the way it often happens with Christians (and Jews, and probably Muslims as well) who reject literalistic interpretations of Scripture. They basically scoop out the very core of their faith and retain then, and everything else becomes metaphor and allegory. For a Christian, at least, the primary requirements since 325CE is accepting the Nicene Creed. That pretty much requires only one significant theological position; that Jesus the Son is part of the Trinity, and two miracles; that Jesus died and was resurrected three days later, and that he Ascended to Heaven.
Pretty much everything else, like most of the Old Testament's for fantastical stories (like Adam and Eve, a global flood, the sun standing still in the sky, and so on) are just myth and legend with some moral lesson, but not being real events. The New Testament is given more weight, but problematic passages like the two genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Mark, are either hand waved away or openly admitted as being contradictory, and that Biblical inerrancy as a historical document is not necessary. Heck, the Early Church itself had to largely shuffle Revelations into a peculiar category of maybe prophecy, but maybe not literal prophecy, because then, as now, some Christians seemed to think the end of the world was imminent, and apocalyptic cults have always been dangerous and disruptive.
As an atheist, part of me finds that a bit absurd. I mean, why have a Bible at all, or at least why include books where even the moral value is iffy, or that are so obviously mythical and fanciful that even theologians have to contort them to find some value in them. The pragmatist in me says "Hey, these Christians aren't trying to shove Young Earth Creationism down my kids throats, and seem to be able to keep their faith and their research at arm's length." But yeah, at the end of the day, I always worry that once you believe one absurd thing, it becomes easier to believe other absurd things, and the next thing you know you're trying to get Answers in Genesis articles put into a high school science class.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Genealogy - Matthew and Luke - get it right. Most believe one traces the genealogy of Mary and one traces the genealogy of Joseph. Matthew traces Jesus legal right to assume the throne of David, Luke traces the blood relationship between Jesus and David.
The Bible should be taken literally, except when figurative language is clearly used. Gen. 1:1 In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth -- 2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness is on the face of the deep, and the Spirit
Re: (Score:2)
There is absolutely nothing in the Gospels or in the NT to explain the two genealogies. Claiming one is Mary and one is Jospeh is extra-Blblical interpretation that has not Biblical foundation at all.
And claiming "Hey, He's God, He can do anything" as an explanation is really not explaining anything. In a geocentrism cosmology like the authors of the OT were, it makes total sense, as the Sun basically floats in the firmament and God can just make it stand still. In a heiocentric model, it becomes a helluva
Re: (Score:2)
Something to think about... https://www.timesofisrael.com/... [timesofisrael.com]
Re:I don't know the guy and I'm sure he was great (Score:4, Insightful)
Genealogy - Matthew and Luke - get it right. Most believe one traces the genealogy of Mary and one traces the genealogy of Joseph. Matthew traces Jesus legal right to assume the throne of David, Luke traces the blood relationship between Jesus and David.
Many Christian sects, including the largest one, insist its adherents accept one more miracle—Jesus' virgin birth. Meanwhile both Matthew and Luke, the gospels which promulgate that myth, name Joseph as Jesus' father explicitly. They agree on little else (besides David and his lineage) but they do agree on that. They aren't above lying by omission for political reasons either. Matthew intentionally leaves out three consecutive kings of Judah because of their bad reputations.
Matthew is commonly seen as attempting to establish Jesus' rights as the legal descendant of David, but that's unreasonable because in Jewish halakhah at the time and to this day there is no legal adoption. Recounting Joseph's lineage does nothing legally if the authors of Matthew's own assertion of the virgin birth is to be believed.
The Bible and all of its books, including those later omitted, are riddled with such contradictions and nonsense. It's bad history, worse scholarship, and unbelievably immoral throughout. It's a ridiculous book to base a world view on.
Re: (Score:2)
I get what you are saying. The Bible itself is too corrupted with the word of Man to work in the way you desire. Cognitive Dissonance is the term. A loving and merciful God is not compatible with a vengeful and tricky God. I am sure Isaac agrees with me on this one. "What the FUCK was THAT all about Dad?", while an important lesson for Abraham, it had unintended consequences on Isaac's mental health and Isaac's relationship with God. An actual God would not be so short sighted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good way of explaining why science and religion are incompatible.
I prefer to think that science (specifically social science informed by energy efficiency of co-operative survival strategies) can explain memes of religious form.
So in that sense, they are compatible. Science can explain the the "how" and "why" of religion. Why it persists in human societies despite being hollow at its ideational core = group-evolutionary advantage to cohesive societies. How it persists = the design of the idea,
Re: I don't know the guy and I'm sure he was great (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really, evolution did nothing to the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis. If you look through the anthropologic record, there is a whole branching of the hominid tree of which modern humans are a part. Then, at about the same time in the span of history (quite recently), they all disappeared and only homo sapiens continued.
As I read Genesis, God created everything at some point in the ancient past. Several billions of years for the universe at large and 4.53 or so billion years for earth. Reading Isaiah 14 a
Re: (Score:2)
>> neither excludes the other,
Sure it does. What about all the idiot creationist teachers that are brainwashing kids with provably false nonsense like the earth is only 4000 years old?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fear? no, I have no fear of things that are provably false.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is true that science is limited to "that which is observable." We can observe the behaviors of matter and energy, but we cannot observe things like whether-or-not a person created it all (and certainly not why such an act was performed).
HOWEVER, it is NOT true that religion can give answers to these questions either. All religion offers is unprovable claims. Unprovable claims do not qualify as "answers" because there is no good reason to believe them. Anyone at all can cook up unprovable claims and s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Religion is rarely the problem. It's the people that are the problem and use religion to take advantage of others. This will happen without religion.
People can slip and fall on a sidewalk without ice, too, but ice makes it a lot more likely. Religion is a loaded gun. It can be pointed in any direction. You shouldn't leave loaded guns lying around where malicious children can play with them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Troll eh? Why am I not surprised. Whenever someone doesn't show some form of polite acceptance or tolerance for religion, he's a troll of course.
Well, my opinion is thar religion is poisonous, believers spread the poison and we don't need anymore of this poison in the 21th century. It's high time we fought back and got rid of the poison, and however well-meaning, this man was toxic - and yes, good riddance for the sake of peace and reason around the world.
I might be someone you disagree with, but how am I t
Re:I don't know the guy and I'm sure he was great (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes thank you for replying an argumented reply. This was more a reaction to those who always mod strict atheists who dare say what they think of religion and religious peple trolls. It gets tiring.
As for Gingerich, yes he did do exactly what I said: he weaved God nonsense into his scientific discourse. I don't really care how, how well, to what end nor why he felt the need to do so. All I know is that God nonsense has no place in the modern world in any educated mind, and certainly not in juxtaposition with
Re:I don't know the guy and I'm sure he was great (Score:5, Interesting)
You may have also been called a troll because you literally wished ill on the dead.
Gingerich did nothing more than you are doing. You have a predisposition against religion, so you are using your powers of reason to explain what you believe.He had a predisposition toward religion, and is using his powers of reason to explain what he believes.
In other words, if a religious person believes that the universe is created by a benevolent being, that is merely motivation. Newton of course was such a scientist. As long as the science follows method and remains falsifiable, then nothing is unscientific in the religious scientist's work.
That belief of course is not scientific. When a fundamentalist thinks fossils are a test of faith (etc.), that mixes science with religion. When a religious biologist studies evolution in an attempt to explain what he believes to be God's mechanism, then there is no mix. His or her papers should read the same as yours. But to invoke 'Intelligent Design' is to go beyond the scientific, as that implies some sort of proof that God designed evolution, and thus also that God exists. Both of those are non-scientific claims masquerading as scientific claims.
It is just as non-scientific to hold that there is a benevolent creator as to hold there is none. Both positions go beyond the data. But both are fine dogma, and thus fine motivations for doing science.
Finally, to write about the relation between God and science is not scientific, so he does not mix them in this sense either. As he says, religion gives him a context or interpretation of what he is doing with science. Another example: medicine is a science that aims at improving health, but the idea of human dignity provides an interpretation for why we build hospitals. Ultimately, this is why the hospital is named after an order of monks, and why so many hospitals are religious. Does it matter if the scientist is studying the body because he admires God's creation, or wants to help people, or holds strict naturalism?
I am not arguing that there is a God. I am just trying to separate the two fields, and also to account for the obvious historical fact that throughout history, an unfathomable number of scientists have found no contradiction between the two domains.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect I'm going to lose all my karma here, but...
If someone suggests that there are things we don't understand such as how (and why) the universe came into being, and claims that there is a benevolent (or perhaps evil) sentient force that made it so, even though I'm 100% an atheist, I will accept it as a possibility as I have absolutely no evidence to the contrary.
However, if that person then claims that the same force that created the universe also did all the mad bullshit that the bible says they did,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fine. The problem is, the argument that there is not an (actual) god because god can't/doesn't prevent evil and misery/disaster is the weakest and most superfluous argument against the existence of god. It's just saying "I don't think your god exists because he/she/it is not exactly as you say that god is."
Clearly t
Re: (Score:2)
You're arguing with people who know absolutely nothing about the subject, but believe themselves to be experts. It's probably not worth your time. They're just copy/pasting shit they found on a blog somewhere anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you say it is better to sacrifice 1 to save n where n is some large number or that it is wrong? What value of n is your breakover point, because ultimately everyone has one? I'm not saying that even losing 1 is good. But at what point does it become acceptable for the mass of humanity to sacrifice some for many?
Much of what you condemn in the Bible - and predominately the Old Testament of the Bible comes down to this one question. From the time of Adam and Eve in the Bible, Jesus was prophecied to c
Re: (Score:2)
You mentioned God punishing humans and likened it to a father punishing a child. This metaphor is widely used to justify all the horrible acts that were attributed to God in the Bible. And it is a terrible analogy for these reasons:
1. Fathers use temporary and mild punishments in order to help their children learn valuable principles of correct behavior that they can use in the future..
1a.God's punishments are permeant (murder), so there is no future in which the students can apply their lessons. God's
Re: (Score:2)
We are nothing compared to God. We are nothing compared to the angels either when it comes to our own inherent power. You take offense at the "metaphor" I mentioned because at some point you seem to miss this real point. Someone elsewhere in the discussions mentioned ants and how it would be if we burrowed into an ant hil to watch them in their lives. We are at least that far removed from the totality of God.
He has His purposes and plans that ulitmately will prevail. To think He is required to pay attenti
Re: (Score:2)
So, "we are nothing compared to God" means "torture is ok if God does it." Got it.
Your justification as to why it is ok for God to torture us forever does not address my accusation that the doctrine is abusive. The technique used here is exactly the sort of technique the abusers use to keep their victims under their control. They convince their victims that they are worthless apart from their association with the abuser, threaten their victims with terrible punishments if the victims ever leave, and conv
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the Bible was written by humans, and copied over and over through the centuries, also by humans, and then translated by humans. All true.
My belief in God is based on my personal experiences. They aren't your personal experiences so you will probably discount them. I've seen people healed (family members who I knew the doctor's test results on - not some random person), and others I've known that reported their own healing with before and after x-rays without any other doctor intervention. We've had a
Re: (Score:2)
I posted most of my reply below this accidentally, but I'll add one other thing here so you'll know to look below for the rest if you're interested. I also had the occasion in a discussion with my father in law and his friend who were going on about how people had all the time in the world to make a decision for Christ or something like that. I felt God prompting me to say they might not live the year out. Both were dead within the year - one from heart issues I think and the other from rapid onset of COPD.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess it all depends on how many are really Christian and not just saying that, and what jobs and functions they're performing in life. Losing a bunch of farmers, or medical personnel, or even scientists might be a bit annoying post rapture. Same with pilots, drivers, and others. I think losing 2.2 billion people all at once would probably make things massively worse for everybody else for a pretty good chunk of time.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, forgot your Job comment. Not saying I understand the why, but it should be noted that when all was said and done Job didn't condemn God. Maybe if he didn't, you shouldn't take up offense on his behalf, but might think that if even Job didn't get mad at God, you might be wrong about Him too.
Re: (Score:2)
Only superstitious fruitbats think you can wish ill on the dead, or that your wishes (and hopes and prayers) affect anything.
Never the less it's considered rude in quite a lot of cultures including ours here in the US. It's fine to disagree but one shouldnt be surprised to be modded a troll for saying something commonly considered to be rude.
Re: (Score:2)
Only superstitious fruitbats think you can wish ill on the dead, or that your wishes (and hopes and prayers) affect anything.
Hopes and prayers do have a measurable effect.
People who send hopes and prayers are less likely to do something actually useful instead.
Re: (Score:2)
It is just as non-scientific to hold that there is a benevolent creator as to hold there is none.
Well, no, no it is not. There is no evidence at all of a creator, benevolent or otherwise. There is lots of evidence that we don't need one to explain things. If you want to invoke one as the beginning of what we perceive, you're going to have to explain where they came from.
Well, yes, yes it is. There is no evidence at all of organic, sentient vertebrates other than humans anywhere else in the universe, bipedal or otherwise.
The statement "There are organic, sentient vertebrates other than humans in the universe" is non-scientific.
The statement "There are no organic, sentient vertebrates other than humans in the universe" is non-scientific.
I respect that you are trying to proactively exclude the "Invisible Gardener / God Of The Gaps" argument, because that approach is often use
Re: (Score:2)
Only superstitious fruitbats think you can wish ill on the dead,
I'll bet you even call yourself a 'rationalist'... Where to begin...
First, dead people exist. There's a whole industry just for managing corpses.
Second, people wish things all the time. I wish I didn't have to write this post. You probably wish you hadn't written yours. Wishes and hopes are an ordinary part of the human experience.
Third, wishes can be positive or negative -- for good or ill. You might wish your nasty neighbor would just die already so you could get some peace. Or you might wish that y
Re: (Score:2)
All I know is that God nonsense has no place in the modern world in any educated mind, and certainly not in juxtaposition with scientific content.
Wouldn't a juxtaposition be the perfect place to show the difference between science and religion? As long as you're contrasting them and not trying to claim they were equivalent.
Re:I don't know the guy and I'm sure he was great (Score:4, Interesting)
Troll eh? Why am I not surprised.
Because your comment was meant to troll and inflame. Your comment was modded exactly as it should have been.
I was watching Neil Tyson doing an interview this weekend, and someone asked why he refused to identify himself as an atheist. His reply was that, even while he was in practice a functioning atheist, he couldn't bring himself to identify as such because of the conduct of those that do. He simply didn't want to be associated with the label because of the behavior of others that carry the banner.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a person that's big on religion. In fact I have several big moments in my past that makes me feel most religious people are deluded, self-aggrandizing assholes that refuse to face reality. But? It's not necessary to live in that headspace 24/7, and I certainly see no need to point it out every opportunity I get. My main beef with religion is the constant preaching to non-believers. You come off here much the same as them, just coming from a different angle.
That all said, you fell for a clickbait, bu
Re: (Score:2)
It was the "good riddance" bit that earned you the troll mod.
Even if you disagree with some of what he said, you simply MUST see that such a statement is callous. People tend to want to remember the best about others after they have passed away, and they get a lot of strong emotions wrapped up in that. A statement like "good riddance" comes across as a deliberate attempt at being hurtful.
Even if you believe that the world is better off without religious people, expressing that belief in such a callous way
Re: (Score:2)
Troll eh? [...] I might be someone you disagree with, but how am I troll?
That's exactly what your post deserved. It wasn't an invitation to discussion. It wasn't you expressing your view. It was unprovoked hostility, nasty and hateful.
Well, my opinion is thar religion is poisonous, believers spread the poison and we don't need anymore of this poison in the 21th century.
The problem with that position is that it's completely thoughtless. When you say 'religion' you have exactly one thing in mind: right-wing evangelical christianity. You'll deny this, of course, and talk about the Crusades and various Catholic scandals, but you'll completely ignore the bulk of the world's religions and the important social fun
hush now karen ... (Score:2)
are you seriously saying that this:
I don't know the guy and I'm sure he was great but if he tried to mix God and science, I'm sorry but... good riddance.
is hate speech?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Hate speech is reserved for things people cannot candy, like race or sexual orientation, belief is not protected that way. If someone thinks is great to rape women, that’s a belief by choice and not protected. Indeed it is your right to be able to hate them, publicly if so desired. Religion is just another such toxic belief, especially when it’s fantasy is forced on others through political movements or laws.
According to you, [religious people] as a class are prima facie toxic and evil and therefore we are justified in hating them. There are several words for the belief that people different from us deserve hatred and we have no obligation to be kind or empathetic toward them. But they aren't particularly nice words.
Tell us how your rationalizations for hating an entire class of people apply to the life of the individual person who is the subject of this /. story.
As a follow-up, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther K
Re: (Score:2)
yes? i concede the expression is not particularly fortunate (given the circumstances) but it has a context. the speaker does not question the value or validity of the subject as a human being, the speaker rejects very specifically a fundamental contradiction in the subject's worldview. that's a rational disagreement, not any form of hate or singling out. it's not a death wish either, the subject has already passed.
the problem with calling hate speech anything you don't particularly like or agree with is tha
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're going to completely ignore the fact that so many of our beloved scientists and creators of science were actually men of god? Like, oh, I dunno, NEWTON? There are quite a few scientists who were religious and just wanted to understand's "God's mind," however misguided that original thought may be. Literally tired of this argument that religion and science are incompatible. I know a few Christians who are very science minded and rational. I don't know which side started this crusade against the