Beyond Belief 2006

Ahnimus

http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/

Just 40 years after a famous TIME magazine cover asked "Is God Dead?" the answer appears to be a resounding "No!" According to a survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life in a recent issue of Foreign Policy magazine, "God is Winning". Religions are increasingly a geopolitical force to be reckoned with. Fundamentalist movements - some violent in the extreme - are growing. Science and religion are at odds in the classrooms and courtrooms. And a return to religious values is widely touted as an antidote to the alleged decline in public morality. After two centuries, could this be twilight for the Enlightenment project and the beginning of a new age of unreason? Will faith and dogma trump rational inquiry, or will it be possible to reconcile religious and scientific worldviews? Can evolutionary biology, anthropology and neuroscience help us to better understand how we construct beliefs, and experience empathy, fear and awe? Can science help us create a new rational narrative as poetic and powerful as those that have traditionally sustained societies? Can we treat religion as a natural phenomenon? Can we be good without God? And if not God, then what?

This is a critical moment in the human situation, and The Science Network in association with the Crick-Jacobs Center brought together an extraordinary group of scientists and philosophers to explore answers to these questions. The conversation took place at the Salk Institute, La Jolla, CA from November 5-7, 2006.

Ahnimus

Good Stuff

RolandTD20Kdrummer

I find a lot of people use God as a way to not have to seriously think about a problem or situation in their lives and have to personally deal with it.

They just throw up their hands, give it all to God, and then do their best to not think about it. "Leave it in God's hands". "God will take care of it". "God will provide". "God will make it better".

I'm not sure that's a good thing to do at all. It's like asking your little invisible friend to solve all your problems...

Ahnimus

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I find a lot of people use God as a way to not have to seriously think about a problem or situation in their lives and have to personally deal with it.

They just throw up their hands, give it all to God, and then do their best to not think about it. "Leave it in God's hands". "God will take care of it". "God will provide". "God will make it better".

I'm not sure that's a good thing to do at all. It's like asking your little invisible friend to solve all your problems...

That kind of thinking is addressed in the conference. They talk about how many scientists of the past have pointed to God when they couldn't understand something. Like Newton discovering gravity, but attributing the structure of the solar system to God. It continues through all of history, including present day, where the pre-big bang universe is often attributed to God.

Hence why Religion is the study of ignorance.

Wareveh

People mistake God for some for kind of excuse.
I still dunno if I believe in God, I had my phases, but I do go to church and sunday school, and the fact that you believe or not in God will never make you less responsible for your actions! It's like "oh I want that so bad!" but instead of working hard for it people just pray. That isn't how it works... Either people believe in Him or no the have to realize that moral and values are important to everyone on any kind of situations.
Yes, morals and values are getting worse, but it ain't gonna stop just by praying! Moral and Value isn't religion, Belief isn't religion. People need to be educated. In my opinion education is and always will be the answer.
But of course people choose to believe in God<and pray, it's the easy way.

However I'm not afraid of this muisture beteween religion and science, if we can all learn to respect each others, nothing will go wrong. And, actualli, in my opion religion and science can work together!

MakingWaves

Ahnimus wrote:

That kind of thinking is addressed in the conference. They talk about how many scientists of the past have pointed to God when they couldn't understand something. Like Newton discovering gravity, but attributing the structure of the solar system to God. It continues through all of history, including present day, where the pre-big bang universe is often attributed to God.

Hence why Religion is the study of ignorance.

Calling people like Stephen Hawkins and Albert Einstein ignorant because they think God is the answer to pre-big bang is pretty ignorant too in my opinion. Some of the greatest thinkers of our time said they believed there had to be a higher power at work and you think you are smart enough to call them ignorant? I don't mean to sound like an asshole but to call religion ignorant is a little over the top.

Ahnimus

Wareveh wrote:

People mistake God for some for kind of excuse.
I still dunno if I believe in God, I had my phases, but I do go to church and sunday school, and the fact that you believe or not in God will never make you less responsible for your actions! It's like "oh I want that so bad!" but instead of working hard for it people just pray. That isn't how it works... Either people believe in Him or no the have to realize that moral and values are important to everyone on any kind of situations.
Yes, morals and values are getting worse, but it ain't gonna stop just by praying! Moral and Value isn't religion, Belief isn't religion. People need to be educated. In my opinion education is and always will be the answer.
But of course people choose to believe in God<and pray, it's the easy way.

However I'm not afraid of this muisture beteween religion and science, if we can all learn to respect each others, nothing will go wrong. And, actualli, in my opion religion and science can work together!

That's kind of what the discussion is about. Richard Dawking gets roasted a bit by other scientists for tackling the problem in such an aggressive way. Meanwhile other scientists like Sam Harriss fully agree with Dawkings approach. Michael Shermer suggests the approach is relative to the goal.

MakingWaves

Wareveh wrote:

People mistake God for some for kind of excuse.
I still dunno if I believe in God, I had my phases, but I do go to church and sunday school, and the fact that you believe or not in God will never make you less responsible for your actions! It's like "oh I want that so bad!" but instead of working hard for it people just pray. That isn't how it works... Either people believe in Him or no the have to realize that moral and values are important to everyone on any kind of situations.
Yes, morals and values are getting worse, but it ain't gonna stop just by praying! Moral and Value isn't religion, Belief isn't religion. People need to be educated. In my opinion education is and always will be the answer.
But of course people choose to believe in God<and pray, it's the easy way.

However I'm not afraid of this muisture beteween religion and science, if we can all learn to respect each others, nothing will go wrong. And, actualli, in my opion religion and science can work together!

I couldn't agree more. Religion and science work very well together.

Ahnimus

MakingWaves wrote:

Calling people like Stephen Hawkins and Albert Einstein ignorant because they think God is the answer to pre-big bang is pretty ignorant too in my opinion. Some of the greatest thinkers of our time said they believed there had to be a higher power at work and you think you are smart enough to call them ignorant? I don't mean to sound like an asshole but to call religion ignorant is a little over the top.

Actually it's not over the top.

Religion is like this A + B + "A Miracal" = Life. Putting that miracal in there doesn't solve anything, it just chooses to be ignorant about the third variable.

Newton was wrong, Copernicus was wrong, Galileo was wrong, Einstein was wrong. Those are facts, and they were wrong about more things than one. But certainly their attribution of the unknown to God was wrong, because it's been proven.

Watch the conference. There was a 300 year time span from 800 A.D. to 1100 A.D. when the middle-east muslims were at the top of scientific discovery. Most of the stars are named with Arabic names, by Arabs during that 300 year period. Fundamentalist Islam took over and they haven't contributed much since. The same can be said about Fundamentalist Religion all around, it stifles progress, it encourages ignorance. Ignorance is the doctrine of religion.

MakingWaves

Ahnimus wrote:

Actually it's not over the top.

Religion is like this A + B + "A Miracal" = Life. Putting that miracal in there doesn't solve anything, it just chooses to be ignorant about the third variable.

Newton was wrong, Copernicus was wrong, Galileo was wrong, Einstein was wrong. Those are facts, and they were wrong about more things than one. But certainly their attribution of the unknown to God was wrong, because it's been proven.

Watch the conference. There was a 300 year time span from 800 A.D. to 1100 A.D. when the middle-east muslims were at the top of scientific discovery. Most of the stars are named with Arabic names, by Arabs during that 300 year period. Fundamentalist Islam took over and they haven't contributed much since. The same can be said about Fundamentalist Religion all around, it stifles progress, it encourages ignorance. Ignorance is the doctrine of religion.

Religion is ignorant if you believe creationism. But I don't and the Catholic church has said that evolution was part of God's plan.

But, please tell me what Einstein was wrong about????

Ahnimus

MakingWaves wrote:

Religion is ignorant if you believe creationism. But I don't and the Catholic church has said that evolution was part of God's plan.

But, please tell me what Einstein was wrong about????

Einstein was wrong about the mathematical equation for kinetic energy.

He even admitted it and called it "the biggest blunder of my career".

He said philosophically that God exists, so I won't say he was scientifically wrong, but philosophically wrong, many holes in the logic. He went from a completely deterministic view of the word and just tacked God on the end, like it was suppose to make sense, but it doesn't.

MakingWaves

MakingWaves wrote:

Religion is ignorant if you believe creationism. But I don't and the Catholic church has said that evolution was part of God's plan.

But, please tell me what Einstein was wrong about????

Let me reprhase part of that, Pope John Paul II said "The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter."

Doesn't exactly say evolution was fact but throws it out there that it could be correct.

MakingWaves

Ahnimus wrote:

Einstein was wrong about the mathematical equation for kinetic energy.

He even admitted it and called it "the biggest blunder of my career".

He said philosophically that God exists, so I won't say he was scientifically wrong, but philosophically wrong, many holes in the logic. He went from a completely deterministic view of the word and just tacked God on the end, like it was suppose to make sense, but it doesn't.

If I remember correctly Einstein said that but was then later proven that in fact he was correct.

MakingWaves

MakingWaves wrote:

If I remember correctly Einstein said that but was then later proven that in fact he was correct.

correct me if I am wrong but the only equation Einstein had with kinetic energy was E=mc^2. and i know that isn't wrong.

Also, Newton discovered the equation for kinetic energy. KE = 1/2 m v^2. That isn't wrong either.

MakingWaves

What you are thinking of is Einsteins theory on the cosmological constant a.k.a. "dark matter" in the universe which was a solve all for forces in the universe. Later scientists believed this was in fact true. Then they thought it wasn't and recently there has been proof that it very well could be true. Einstein was never wrong. If he said there is a God, then I am not going to argue with the smartest person to ever live.

MakingWaves

Ahnimus wrote:

Einstein was wrong about the mathematical equation for kinetic energy.

He even admitted it and called it "the biggest blunder of my career".

He said philosophically that God exists, so I won't say he was scientifically wrong, but philosophically wrong, many holes in the logic. He went from a completely deterministic view of the word and just tacked God on the end, like it was suppose to make sense, but it doesn't.

If Einstein said it makes sense then it does. What was before the big bang if it doesn't make sense?

Ahnimus

MakingWaves wrote:

correct me if I am wrong but the only equation Einstein had with kinetic energy was E=mc^2. and i know that isn't wrong.

Also, Newton discovered the equation for kinetic energy. KE = 1/2 m v^2. That isn't wrong either.

I'll have to admit a lack of understanding on the mathemtics of the theory of special relativity and kinetic energy. It was wikipedia and a physicist over at skepticforum that convinced me otherwise.

Apparently it was Einstein's Cosmological Constant that he called his "biggest blunder"

Personally, I don't know why we are discussing wether or not Einstein made a mistake, like it's going to some how prove god does or doesn't exist.

My point is that historically, if people can't figure something out, they just shove God into the equation.

MakingWaves

Ahnimus wrote:

I'll have to admit a lack of understanding on the mathemtics of the theory of special relativity and kinetic energy. It was wikipedia and a physicist over at skepticforum that convinced me otherwise.

Apparently it was Einstein's Cosmological Constant that he called his "biggest blunder"

Personally, I don't know why we are discussing wether or not Einstein made a mistake, like it's going to some how prove god does or doesn't exist.

My point is that historically, if people can't figure something out, they just shove God into the equation.

Good point. I will admit that people lean on God to heavily to explain things but my point was that it isn't ignorance for people like Einstein to say God is a solution.

Ahnimus

MakingWaves wrote:

If Einstein said it makes sense then it does. What was before the big bang if it doesn't make sense?

That first statement implies that Einstein is God.

Who says there was a big bang? It's not a fact, yet.

All we see is expansion of the observable universe through red-shift theory. If you put a bomb in the middle of a room, the room expands outwards from the bomb. It doesn't mean that the room was a condensed mass of matter to begin with. It just means that some force caused the matter to move outward from each other.

Anyway, God and the Universe might as well be the same thing. If you are going to suggest that the Universe cannot be infinite, then neither can God. If you suggest the Universe must have had a cause, then so must God.

Ahnimus

MakingWaves wrote:

Good point. I will admit that people lean on God to heavily to explain things but my point was that it isn't ignorance for people like Einstein to say God is a solution.

Depends what God is.

If God is just a placeholder, then sure, guess that works. But no one can agree on a definition of God and if you use the literal biblical definition then it's impossible.

MakingWaves

Ahnimus wrote:

That first statement implies that Einstein is God.

Who says there was a big bang? It's not a fact, yet.

All we see is expansion of the observable universe through red-shift theory. If you put a bomb in the middle of a room, the room expands outwards from the bomb. It doesn't mean that the room was a condensed mass of matter to begin with. It just means that some force caused the matter to move outward from each other.

Anyway, God and the Universe might as well be the same thing. If you are going to suggest that the Universe cannot be infinite, then neither can God. If you suggest the Universe must have had a cause, then so must God.

From all that science has to go by the big bang is a fact. It is a scientific theory which in science means it is a fact. A scientific theory doesn't mean a theory as used in everyday language.

Also, saying God and the universe are the same has no leg to stand on. It sounds good but doesn't make sense. If you say the universe isn't infinite that has nothing to do with God existing.

MakingWaves

Ahnimus wrote:

Depends what God is.

If God is just a placeholder, then sure, guess that works. But no one can agree on a definition of God and if you use the literal biblical definition then it's impossible.

I guess I am safe then because Catholics don't take the bible literally.

Ahnimus

MakingWaves wrote:

From all that science has to go by the big bang is a fact. It is a scientific theory which in science means it is a fact. A scientific theory doesn't mean a theory as used in everyday language.

Also, saying God and the universe are the same has no leg to stand on. It sounds good but doesn't make sense. If you say the universe isn't infinite that has nothing to do with God existing.

No, a scientific theory is not a fact. A scientific theory is interpretation of facts.

Ahnimus

MakingWaves wrote:

From all that science has to go by the big bang is a fact. It is a scientific theory which in science means it is a fact. A scientific theory doesn't mean a theory as used in everyday language.

Also, saying God and the universe are the same has no leg to stand on. It sounds good but doesn't make sense. If you say the universe isn't infinite that has nothing to do with God existing.

Saying God exists has even less to stand on. We know the universe exists. How can one suggest that God is infinite, the universe is not and you can't even prove that God exists? Then break down my suggestion that the universe might be infinite by simply saying "doesn't make sense". Give me a break, where is the rationality?

MakingWaves

Ahnimus wrote:

No, a scientific theory is not a fact. A scientific theory is interpretation of facts.

In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena. (I did copy this definition. I am not that smart...or even close.)

It has been proven and is a fact.

MakingWaves

Ahnimus wrote:

Saying God exists has even less to stand on. We know the universe exists. How can one suggest that God is infinite, the universe is not and you can't even prove that God exists? Then break down my suggestion that the universe might be infinite by simply saying "doesn't make sense". Give me a break, where is the rationality?

You might have me on this one. I guess it would all just come back to the basic belief in God and having to have faith that he exist.

It is good to talk to someone who has an educated opinion and doesn't take to name calling though.

PJPOWER

MakingWaves wrote:

In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena. (I did copy this definition. I am not that smart...or even close.)

It has been proven and is a fact.

Any scientist will say to be careful with the word "proven" or "causation".........The term "correlation" is much more appropriate. A scientific theory is at its roots based on correlations instead of absolutes.

surferdude

Ahnimus wrote:

A scientific theory is interpretation of facts.

No, a scientific theory is an interpretation of observances. It is at best only as accurate as our ability to observe and make measurements. At worst they are completely wrong based on poor reasoning, poor measurement or poor observation.

MakingWaves

PJPOWER wrote:

Any scientist will say to be careful with the word "proven" or "causation".........The term "correlation" is much more appropriate. A scientific theory is at its roots based on correlations instead of absolutes.

I would agree with that.

We were talking about the Big Bang and from what I know, in the science field that is regarded as fact. Do you agree?

Ahnimus

MakingWaves wrote:

I would agree with that.

We were talking about the Big Bang and from what I know, in the science field that is regarded as fact. Do you agree?

It's not, read about it. I'm sorry if I get frustrated by this, but honestly if you so much as look on wikipedia you will find that is garbage.

Halton Arp is a very well known cosmologist who does not agree with Big Bang theory. There are dozens of cosmologists that don't agree with Big Bang. I can link you a documentary full of cosmologists that disagree with Big Bang theory. I'm sickened by the assumptions you people constantly make.

Scientific theory is a theory about facts, hypothesis is a means to test the theory. Scientific theory is much more solid than a guess, but it hardly translates to fact.

wikipedia wrote:

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory

OutOfBreath

surferdude wrote:

No, a scientific theory is an interpretation of observances.

You nailed it there I think. Scientific theories are ususally more founded than mere guesswork and loose speculation, and are based on a number of observances, some of which one feel (note the word I used there) are so secure as to call facts. Fact is generally a word used far too often for my tastes.

Still, I usually put more merit in a scientifically tested theory, than untested theories.

Peace
Dan