01-29-2007, 12:08 PM
|
#1
|
Organ Donator
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Beastly Muck
Posts: 13,136
|
This is a long frigging post. If you're tempted to skip it rather than slog through, I give you an abstract:
Quote:
There may be a place for 'god' in science, and possibly even the inverse.
|
It all started when I read this nit-wit:
Quote:
This book is a description of the Omega Point Theory, which is a testable physical theory for an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent God who will one day in the far future resurrect every single one of us to live forever in an abode which is in all essentials the Judeo-Christian Heaven. Every single term in the theory -- for example, "omnipresent," "omniscient," "omnipotent," "resurrection" (spiritual) body, Heaven -- will be introduced as pure physics concepts.
|
I can't speak to the physics of this thing, as it is quite beyond my ken. The appendix includes hundreds of pages of mathematical equations that Tipler claims backs up his wacky theory.
Personally, I think the old prof is off his nut, but that's beside the point. Allow yourself to dream a bit: What if you could convince Jeetards that their whole shitty little 'worldview' could be validated by science? Creation, omni-max, the Resurrection -- the whole frigging magilla ...
And why would we want to do that?
Quote:
In a thread in a galaxy far, far away, Choobus wrote
Bah! Humanity has only one useful purpose: the furtherance of science. ... Ultimately, we are all doomed if we do not learn to travel across space. All the resources of humanity should be directed towards this necessary goal. Then, and only then, will we have the freedom to engage in other pursuits.
|
See where I'm going with this? We need to get Christers onboard with scientific enquiry; we need their support for big projects, certainly any project that involves space travel or expanding our biosphere. (Speaking of which, Freeman Dyson, the godfather of biosphere expanding, is a theist of some sort.)
Quote:
Freud wrote
Thus either these dangerous masses must be held down most severely and kept most carefully away from any chance of intellectual awakening, or else the relationship between civilization and religion must undergo a fundamental revision.
|
The Future of an Illusion (1927)
I say the latter. We need to revise the relationship between science and godidiocy. I wish it were true that religion will eventually fade away as our understanding of the universe expands, but folks, it just ain't happening. If anything, it's getting worse. The Enlightenment was supposed to sweep away superstition, but, in the US anyway, religion is insinuating itself more into society than it did two hundred years ago. And a hundred years ago, freethinkers were more respected than they are today.
There must be a way to acknowledge (read: 'humor') theologians, and give them a role in human progress. I haven't fleshed it out how quite yet, but a clue is in the thread title.
Quote:
On still another thread, Quaker wrote
If God is the universe, then scientists are God's priests. They have dedicated their li[ves] to the study of God (the universe). So if scientists in their study hold that God implemented evolution through random genetic mutation and natural selection, you should probably recognize their authority in such matters, as they understand God's actions better than those who have not studied science.
|
I don't about that, but Quaker may be on to something.
I'd like to compile two lists. One would be to delineate reasons why the magisteria shouldn't overlap; the other giving reasons why they could.
Keep 'em Separated
1. Religion in general and faith in particular are antithetical to reason
2. Jeetards don't want to cede ANY authority to science
3. There's too much internecine battles among religions to get them on board
4. Many people are religious precisely because they are too dense or lazy to apply themselves to scientific thought
5. And so forth ..
Throw Religion a Bone
1. The religious are naturally gullible
2. You can show anything you want in the Bible (or Koran); let's use Scripture to call for scientific enquiry
3. Sheeple crave a shepherd
4. And et cetera ...
There are some signs that some Jeetards are on board with science.
Or anyway, they're at least going through the motions.
There's some Raver discussion here.
More here.
Good Philadelphia Inquirer piece here.
Here's one avenue for science to get Jeetards to support big and important ideas.
In the 1990s, when US Congress was mulling whether to build a supercollider, some slope-headed Congressman asked one of the testifying scientists if such a device would help them 'find God.' I don't remember the exact response, but the egghead should have said 'Yes, definitely!' then launched into an incomprehensible spiel about the Higgs boson. (That project died.)
Item:
Quote:
On the science Web site Edge.org, the astronomer Carolyn Porco offers the subversive suggestion that science itself should attempt to supplant God in Western culture, by providing the benefits and comforts people find in religion: community, ceremony and a sense of awe. "Imagine congregations raising their voices in tribute to gravity, the force that binds us all to the Earth, and the Earth to the Sun, and the Sun to the Milky Way," she writes. Porco, who is deeply involved in the Cassini mission to Saturn, finds spiritual fulfillment in exploring the cosmos. But will that work for the rest of the world—for "the people who want to know that they're going to live forever and meet Mom and Dad in heaven?
|
I dunno, she sounds a little dreamy to me. But that last point is one that Tipler addresses. Who cares if he's crazy? The big projects he proposes are ones humans will need to survive and grow.
Quote:
Sam Harris wrote
I can guarantee, for instance, that the following religion, invented by me in the last ten seconds, would be extraordinarily useful. It is called “Scientismo.” Here is its creed: Be kind to others; do not lie, steal, or murder; and oblige your children to master mathematics and science to the best of their abilities or 17 demons will torture you with hot tongs for eternity after death. If I could spread this faith to billions, I have little doubt that we would live in a better world than we do at present.
|
Emphasis Sam's; boldface mine. This is what we need -- a Scientismo that the Jeetard's will swallow. I suggest it has to be in such a way that it validates their own dogma, at least within the confines of their sloping foreheads.
Quote:
A commenter on an unrelated blog wrote
It is amazing how easy it is to hoodwink the scientifically ignorant with reasonable sounding theories that are purely motivated by a religious agenda.
|
Damn straight! They were reluctant to accept evolution, but boy they were all over Big Bang theory like cops on donuts. I wonder why. (They being Cath=Psychotics)
Of course we have Shitlord X.
Quote:
Shitlord X wrote
Science is not the only way of knowing. The spiritual worldview provides another way of finding truth.
|
This may be bullshit, but that doesn't matter. We see it used again and again by intelligent people: Quaker, Andrew Sullivan, Shitlord X, and so on. Maybe we're going to have to suck it up and throw them a bone on this. Is it possible to make that accommodation?
Quote:
Quaker wrote
If we are going to move forward, then atheists are going to have to embrace moderate theists as partners in the effort to squash the last vestiges of dark-age ignorance.
|
Quote:
To which Choobus wrote
I disagree, That's like trying to swim to safety with a fat cripple on your back. As education increases, theism declines. The way forward is tyo make these godidiots defend their untenable positions so that people can see what bullshit it is. The brainwashing of children is getting harder because of all them internets and shit, but we need to go further and reveal religon for what it is: an anachronistic method of sheeple control. It is brilliantly contrived, but at its core is a stinking rotting cynicism that is the very opposite of all religon purports to be. The intrinsic hypocrisy, logical flaws and widespread abuse of religon should be enough to rid us from its malicious clutches, if only we can encourage edumacation. As this graph shows, it doesn't take very much.
|
I encourage all to view Choobus' accompanying graph here.
I have long been in the Choobus-Dawkins camp. I view religious belief as a frigging millstone around the neck of progress. But the clock's ticking. How long can we afford to wait for jeetardism to disappear, particularly when it shows no frigging sign of letting up? I'm concerned that humanity may have a century or two to solve some huge, species-threatening problems, after which it can embark on bigger, bolder plans. I would say that we are swimming with a fat cripple on our backs, and we're not sure if we can make it to land. We may need that fat cripple, either as a flotation device or perhaps for food.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
La propriété, c'est le vol ...
|
|
|
01-29-2007, 03:23 PM
|
#2
|
Guest
|
I don't think we can afford to wait for supernaturalism to disappear. And, as I've said (on my blog), I think at this point we need both the "mean" atheists and the "nice" atheists in order to continue the struggle against swimming with big-boned handi-capable folks strapped to our spines.
Can someone constuct a "Scientismo" that could achieve the goal you've indicated? Perhaps. As a mean atheist, I wouldn't approve of it (for the reasons which Mr Harris was getting at in the passage you've quoted, if I recall). Would it be better than what we've got? Most likely -- but I'm an idealistic pessimist. Which gets me into lots of trouble, mostly with myself.
|
|
|
01-29-2007, 03:50 PM
|
#3
|
The Original Rhinoqurilla
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Somewhere Not-So-Cold with Mountains
Posts: 4,829
|
Ahh, the "Omega-Point" theory. It's almost as entertaining as Time-Cube. I first ran across it (or, an earlier version of the theory) reading The Phenomena of Man by Teilhard de Chardin. Class A bullshit at its finest.
Wait just a minute-You expect me to believe-That all this misbehaving-Grew from one enchanted tree? And helpless to fight it-We should all be satisfied-With this magical explanation-For why the living die-And why it's hard to be a decent human being - David Bazan
|
|
|
01-29-2007, 05:07 PM
|
#4
|
Guest
|
If only scientists could actually build spaceships to other planets, and then all scientists and atheists would leave earth to the theists. The theists, now lacking knowledge of science and hoping for jesus, will eventually kill themselves out or at least fuck the planet up. On the other side of the galaxy, atheists will live in peace, free from religion... of course, we have to invent spaceships that can actually travel across the galaxy first.
|
|
|
01-29-2007, 05:13 PM
|
#5
|
Guest
|
Manipulating nitwits like that just doesn't seem right......though I'd be perfectly happy to reap the rewards if someone else did it. :lol:
|
|
|
01-29-2007, 05:15 PM
|
#6
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
|
jeebus Kristoffsky Phil, hjow do you manage to find all this old shit?
You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
|
|
|
01-30-2007, 06:47 AM
|
#7
|
Organ Donator
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Beastly Muck
Posts: 13,136
|
Quote:
Choobus wrote
jeebus Kristoffsky Phil, hjow do you manage to find all this old shit?
|
I started thinking along these lines a while ago -- I read the Tipler book a year and a half ago. And every so often I toss a link or a quote in a file.
Quote:
Evil_M wrote
Manipulating nitwits like that just doesn't seem right......though I'd be perfectly happy to reap the rewards if someone else did it.
|
I'm on it!
Quote:
Bap wrote
If only scientists could actually build spaceships to other planets, and then all scientists and atheists would leave earth to the theists. The theists, now lacking knowledge of science and hoping for jesus, will eventually kill themselves out or at least fuck the planet up. On the other side of the galaxy, atheists will live in peace, free from religion... of course, we have to invent spaceships that can actually travel across the galaxy first.
|
Sounds like a happier ending than the one I got from a massage in Phuket last year.
Quote:
Rhinoq wrote
Ahh, the "Omega-Point" theory. It's almost as entertaining as Time-Cube. I first ran across it (or, an earlier version of the theory) reading The Phenomena of Man by Teilhard de Chardin. Class A bullshit at its finest.
|
Tipler cites de Chardin favorably. I don't know much about Time Cube -- I assume it's a spoof? Tipler, however, is as a serious as a heart attack. Omega Point may well be Class A bullshit -- as I say, it's beyond my ken -- but he is taken seriously in some circles. (By Deutsch, inter alia, e.g.) And Tipler teaches physics at Tulane. In any case, it makes no difference if his theory is total shite. The point is that to achieve his nutty goals, humans need to survive, continue to increase computing power, expand our biosphere, and eventually leave this frigging rock. I think all those things are desirable goals, and they will require humanity's concerted efforts; i.e., we need jeetards on board, if only for funding.
Quote:
OC wrote
I don't think we can afford to wait for supernaturalism to disappear. And, as I've said (on my blog), I think at this point we need both the "mean" atheists and the "nice" atheists in order to continue the struggle against swimming with big-boned handi-capable folks strapped to our spines.
Can someone constuct a "Scientismo" that could achieve the goal you've indicated? Perhaps. As a mean atheist, I wouldn't approve of it (for the reasons which Mr Harris was getting at in the passage you've quoted, if I recall). Would it be better than what we've got? Most likely -- but I'm an idealistic pessimist. Which gets me into lots of trouble, mostly with myself.
|
Your words are soothing and incomprehensible. I'll check out the blog.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
La propriété, c'est le vol ...
|
|
|
01-30-2007, 08:57 AM
|
#8
|
He who walks among the theists
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Big D
Posts: 12,119
|
Quote:
Baphomet wrote
If only scientists could actually build spaceships to other planets, and then all scientists and atheists would leave earth to the theists. The theists, now lacking knowledge of science and hoping for jesus, will eventually kill themselves out or at least fuck the planet up. On the other side of the galaxy, atheists will live in peace, free from religion... of course, we have to invent spaceships that can actually travel across the galaxy first.
|
Baphomet,
That utopia sounds awesome, however, it would never fly. The theists would find a way to get on those spaceships (because too many powerful and rich people are theists), because they would want to spread the word in the new world.
How could they be happy back on Earth, if they knew that sane people are having a unburdened-by-God good time elsewhere?
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
George Bernard Shaw
|
|
|
01-30-2007, 09:02 AM
|
#9
|
Guest
|
That, plus as a recent South Park episode demonstrated, atheists would probably still find an excuse to blow each other up.
|
|
|
01-30-2007, 11:19 AM
|
#10
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Phil wrote
Your words are soothing and incomprehensible. I'll check out the blog.
|
The relevant posts are here and (less so) here. As for why I wouldn't approve, I don't like white lies -- so, I personally wouldn't approve of a psuedo-supernatural religio-philosophy, even if it furthered my own ends (that's the idealist part), and I also have grave doubts as to whether it would work( that's the pessimist).
|
|
|
02-01-2007, 07:41 AM
|
#11
|
Organ Donator
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Beastly Muck
Posts: 13,136
|
There was a 3-day conference at the Salk Institute recently, "Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival" which discussed some of the themes I'm trying to flesh out here. Some clips from the conference have been posted in other threads. Browse here: http://beyondbelief2006.org/
Sam Harris was there, and he notes some of the silliness he heard here.
The conference inspired a little contest that some of you might be interested in:
Quote:
Sam Harris wrote
While I heard many silly retorts to atheism at this conference, here is a list of those most in need of deflation by freethinkers:
1. Even though I’m an atheist, my friends are atheists, and we all get along fine without pretending to know that one of our books was written by the Creator of the universe, other people really do need religion. It is, therefore, wrong to criticize their faith.
2. People are not really motivated by religion. Religion is used as a rationale for other aims—political, economic, and social. Consequently, the specific content of religious doctrines is beside the point.
3.It is useless to argue against the veracity of religious doctrines, be¬cause religious people are not actually making claims about reality. Their claims are metaphorical or otherwise without real content. Hence, there is no conflict between religion and science.
4. Religion will always be with us. The idea that we might rid ourselves of it to any significant degree is quixotic, bordering on delusional. Dawkins and other strident opponents of religious faith are just wasting their time.
I invite readers of FREE INQUIRY to provide short answers to any or all of these fantasies. The winning responses will be published in a future issue of the magazine. Winners in each category will be sent signed copies of both of my books and a cash prize of $100. Each response must be two hundred words or less (longer responses will be disqualified). Correspondence should be sent to: Free Inquiry Contest, P.O. Box 664, Amherst, NY 14226-0664.
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
La propriété, c'est le vol ...
|
|
|
02-01-2007, 08:08 AM
|
#12
|
Guest
|
I'm sure AJF's already on it.
|
|
|
02-01-2007, 08:50 AM
|
#13
|
Guest
|
I sort of agree with point No. 2; although I would restate the opener as, "People are not only motivated by religion..." and drop the last sentence, which I don't agree with.
|
|
|
02-01-2007, 10:33 AM
|
#14
|
Guest
|
I'll take 2 (People are not really motivated by religion. Religion is used as a rationale for other aims—political, economic, and social)
I think a good religion to mention in this context is Christian Science. Good luck finding a political explanation for why Joanne doesn't take her kids to the doctor, but her neighbor Anne does. This difference, based solely on religious beliefs, can be literally a matter of life and death.
Fundamentalists are also clearly motivated by the Bible in deciding what scientific theories to reject; ignoring the specific content of their religion, you would be at a complete loss to explain why they reject evolution and carbon dating, but not stoichiometry or antibiotics.
All these are examples of people engaging in behavior that is completely inexplicable without looking at the content of their religious beliefs.
|
|
|
02-01-2007, 12:41 PM
|
#15
|
Organ Donator
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Beastly Muck
Posts: 13,136
|
some interesting apropos commentary here: http://blog.oup.com/oupblog/2007/01/...rom_the_1.html
(Philip Kitcher, Philosophy prof at Columbia.)
Quote:
Some forms of religion – those that give up their stories as literal truths and see those stories as significant allegories – survive the scientific case, but for many devout people, those forms of religion have conceded far too much. Given this attitude, the resistance to Darwin is likely to continue, and is likely to be part of a sense of science as alien and threatening. Once that attitude becomes prevalent, we’re well on our way to the deep problem of a muddled society in which people give up on “objective expertise” and pick their news sources on the basis of comfort. They report, so that we can maintain our previous decisions.
How do we get beyond this impasse? Not by shouting at people about “the God delusion”. Religion is immensely important to people, and, although it’s easy to point to the ways in which religious belief has caused serious harm, it’s also necessary to appreciate its social and personal functions. Religious beliefs play an important role in people’s sense of their own lives, explaining why those lives matter. Religion also offers genuine community with others, providing spaces for joint ethical commitment and joint action. You don’t end this heated debate by simply telling folk to brace up – or to take their scientific medicine so that they’ll feel better in the morning. They won’t.
|
I disagree with the bold parts. Especially the wrods 'explaining' and 'genuaine.'
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
La propriété, c'est le vol ...
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:23 PM.
|