|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
palsing wrote in
: On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 2:11:07 PM UTC-7, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote: There is no conflict between science and religion... Try telling that to a creationist... Or anyone else who doesn't know what either science or religion actually is, sure. Like Chris (who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground). -- Terry Austin Vacation photos from Iceland: https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB "Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole." -- David Bilek Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 5:41:46 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 2:11:07 PM UTC-7, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote: There is no conflict between science and religion... Try telling that to a creationist... Simply because there is a conflict between science and the religious beliefs that some people hold, it is not necessarily the case that there is a conflict between science and religion _per se_. There are, after all, some religious people who are not Creationists. Science has been described as a methodical application of common sense. It is, therefore, a form of the use of reason. Religion requires accepting certain things on faith. Should we conclude from these premises that religion and science are in total opposition? Before we can do that, we would have to ask: *what* things does religion ask us to accept on faith? If you look at Euclid's _Elements_, while the book is logical through and through, it starts from five postulates that aren't proven by logic; they have to be accepted as the starting point. That's not to say they're accepted on faith, since they are things observed in every day experience. Scientists accept on faith that the laws of nature are consistent and intelligible. So faith is part of science as well as part of religion. And science draws conclusions about the physical world we live in. While some religions may have tenets contrary to reason, the basic teachings shared by most religious faiths don't come into conflict with what science addresses. Religion involves faith in things like: - the Universe serves a meaningful purpose; - other people have feelings like I do, and how I treat them matters; - Justice, somehow, will eventually triumph, even if not where we see it; These longings of the human heart are not in conflict with science. Even the idea of a personal God is not incompatible with science, as many mainstream Christian denominations demonstrate. John Savard |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Thursday, 13 September 2018 19:41:46 UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 2:11:07 PM UTC-7, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote: There is no conflict between science and religion... Try telling that to a creationist... "There is no conflict between religion and science, TRUE science." Dr. Zaius, "Planet of the Apes." (The original movie, not the s--- lefty remake). |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 17:09:57 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote: Religion requires accepting certain things on faith. Should we conclude from these premises that religion and science are in total opposition? Yes. Before we can do that, we would have to ask: *what* things does religion ask us to accept on faith? It doesn't. Because we should accept nothing on faith. To do so is to reject reason. Faith is an epistemological system that can never reliably produce accurate knowledge. If faith is involved, then the search has already failed. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
I don't feel sorry for theorists as they are perfectly content in their convictions however people of simple faith may be taken in by the projection of pseudo-authority and find themselves in an uncomfortable position of supporting something they are not sure of. Denominational Christianity doesn't help as they have fashioned religion via the Bible as a monolithic work despite the fact that the Bible is a work covering dozens of traditions and most individual works, including what is called the NT, are at complete variance with each other.
The Bible sets off Christ against each of these traditions by allowing the older or less relevant traditions to have their say and that is unique by any measure. The empiricists here have merely done what the Church did after it jettisoned its scientific heritage when a Sun centered system emerged, they create a narrative from beginning to end to suit themselves and their followers and while that would be okay for a certain section of people, the more creative and productive person recognises faith as the ability to be inspired and in turn inspiring. It is why Galileo said you can teach a person anything, you can make them feel excited, satisfied, curious in different measures when it comes to astronomy - “You cannot teach a man anything, you can only help him find it within himself.” ― Galileo The Church may have unwittingly created science vs religion, faith vs fact, truth vs myth and consequently these unfortunates who follow that precept but people who can be inspired (spirit) become confident people who have no fear dealing with the Bible as a work with lots of different perspectives but with vibrancy at its core. This is why I get so much done astronomically, creation looks so much better when you become encompassed in the Infinite and Eternal. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 9:49:03 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 17:09:57 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc wrote: Religion requires accepting certain things on faith. Should we conclude from these premises that religion and science are in total opposition? Yes. You seem to be blinded by your prejudices. Before we can do that, we would have to ask: *what* things does religion ask us to accept on faith? It doesn't. which causes you to misunderstand what John said. OF COURSE religion asks us to accept certain things on faith. So does science. Because we should accept nothing on faith. Then you have no science. In fact, you have no LIFE. To do so is to reject reason. Not at all. Such a position is arrogant nonsense. Faith is an epistemological system that can never reliably produce accurate knowledge. "Accurate knowledge." Hmm, that phrase seems to be tinged with private interpretation. Science deals with models that allow prediction of observable events. Models are maps, and we know that a map is not the territory it purports to describe. "Accuracy" is a relative term, and "knowledge" is what we gain by living and growing. If faith is involved, then the search has already failed. Then everything is vain. As John pointed out, science requires faith in certain things, too: "Scientists accept on faith that the laws of nature are consistent and intelligible." This was certainly a problem for Saint Albert with the development of quantum mechanics, which he himself started. “If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it.” -- John Wheeler “It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.” -- Richard Feynman We can predict a LOT of things with QM, so if "knowledge" means that, then science gives us "accurate knowledge," but if "knowledge" means "understanding" then science doesn't give us "accurate knowledge." Some of the biggest questions in cosmology today are (1) What is dark matter? (2) What is dark energy? (3) How can general relativity and quantum mechanics be made compatible? (4) Did time start at the Big Bang? Quantum field theory is the most accurate map we have of the small, but we have no idea how far "down" it reaches. Does it go to the Planck level? What's below that? Is there a "below that"? String theory says no. General Relativity is the most accurate map we have of the large, but it doesn't tell us what dark matter and dark energy are. Cosmologists take of faith that the FRWL metric accurately describes the universe, but does it? Spacetime is a model, and we don't know what the heck it is. “spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of something quite different.” – Steven Carlip |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 7:10:00 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 5:41:46 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote: On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 2:11:07 PM UTC-7, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote: There is no conflict between science and religion... Try telling that to a creationist... Simply because there is a conflict between science and the religious beliefs that some people hold, it is not necessarily the case that there is a conflict between science and religion _per se_. There are, after all, some religious people who are not Creationists. Science has been described as a methodical application of common sense. It is, therefore, a form of the use of reason. Religion requires accepting certain things on faith. Should we conclude from these premises that religion and science are in total opposition? Before we can do that, we would have to ask: *what* things does religion ask us to accept on faith? If you look at Euclid's _Elements_, while the book is logical through and through, it starts from five postulates that aren't proven by logic; they have to be accepted as the starting point. That's not to say they're accepted on faith, since they are things observed in every day experience. Scientists accept on faith that the laws of nature are consistent and intelligible. So faith is part of science as well as part of religion. And science draws conclusions about the physical world we live in. While some religions may have tenets contrary to reason, the basic teachings shared by most religious faiths don't come into conflict with what science addresses. Religion involves faith in things like: - the Universe serves a meaningful purpose; - other people have feelings like I do, and how I treat them matters; - Justice, somehow, will eventually triumph, even if not where we see it; These longings of the human heart are not in conflict with science. Even the idea of a personal God is not incompatible with science, as many mainstream Christian denominations demonstrate. John Savard Scientists accept on faith that the laws of nature are consistent and intelligible. No. In fact as the ability to research progresses many notions thought to be immutable have been left aside or at best updated in form which would not be intelligible to earlier generations. Despite this, science continues to progress unhindered. On the other hand with the possible exception of Theravada Buddhism, all the major faiths and most minor faiths have basic tenants which cannot be set aside without the whole house of cards falling down. - the Universe serves a meaningful purpose; - other people have feelings like I do, and how I treat them matters; - Justice, somehow, will eventually triumph, even if not where we see it; All three of which can and are explained in a satisfactory manner by science and secular philosophy. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 05:24:38 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote: On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 9:49:03 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 17:09:57 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc wrote: Religion requires accepting certain things on faith. Should we conclude from these premises that religion and science are in total opposition? Yes. You seem to be blinded by your prejudices. No. I simply recognize reality. Faith-based thinking has never produced a truth. Before we can do that, we would have to ask: *what* things does religion ask us to accept on faith? It doesn't. which causes you to misunderstand what John said. OF COURSE religion asks us to accept certain things on faith. So does science. I do not accept any axioms on faith. I'm always open to considering different axioms, different choices for assumptions behind reasoning. That is not faith. "Accurate knowledge." Hmm, that phrase seems to be tinged with private interpretation. No. Reality is not determined by interpretation. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 7:24:41 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 9:49:03 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 17:09:57 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc wrote: Religion requires accepting certain things on faith. Should we conclude from these premises that religion and science are in total opposition? Yes. You seem to be blinded by your prejudices. Before we can do that, we would have to ask: *what* things does religion ask us to accept on faith? It doesn't. which causes you to misunderstand what John said. OF COURSE religion asks us to accept certain things on faith. So does science. Because we should accept nothing on faith. Then you have no science. In fact, you have no LIFE. To do so is to reject reason. Not at all. Such a position is arrogant nonsense. Faith is an epistemological system that can never reliably produce accurate knowledge. "Accurate knowledge." Hmm, that phrase seems to be tinged with private interpretation. Science deals with models that allow prediction of observable events. Models are maps, and we know that a map is not the territory it purports to describe. "Accuracy" is a relative term, and "knowledge" is what we gain by living and growing. If faith is involved, then the search has already failed. Then everything is vain. As John pointed out, science requires faith in certain things, too: "Scientists accept on faith that the laws of nature are consistent and intelligible." This was certainly a problem for Saint Albert with the development of quantum mechanics, which he himself started. “If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it.” -- John Wheeler “It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.” -- Richard Feynman We can predict a LOT of things with QM, so if "knowledge" means that, then science gives us "accurate knowledge," but if "knowledge" means "understanding" then science doesn't give us "accurate knowledge." Some of the biggest questions in cosmology today are (1) What is dark matter? (2) What is dark energy? (3) How can general relativity and quantum mechanics be made compatible? (4) Did time start at the Big Bang? Quantum field theory is the most accurate map we have of the small, but we have no idea how far "down" it reaches. Does it go to the Planck level? What's below that? Is there a "below that"? String theory says no. General Relativity is the most accurate map we have of the large, but it doesn't tell us what dark matter and dark energy are. Cosmologists take of faith that the FRWL metric accurately describes the universe, but does it? Spacetime is a model, and we don't know what the heck it is. “spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of something quite different.” – Steven Carlip Then everything is vain. As John pointed out, science requires faith in certain things, too: "Scientists accept on faith that the laws of nature are consistent and intelligible." This is simply not true. If observation and data call into question a basic law of nature, human understanding of science would change but would continue. On the other hand, just to use the Abrahmic religions as example, the belief systems simply could not continue if one accepts the archaeological evidence that 13 Jewish tribes after a long period of captivity in Egypt wandered into the Levant, that Jesus was both human and god, or that Mohamed's writings were inspired by some infinitely powerful being. A good current example of what was considered a fundamental base of science being scattered without destroying scientific inquire itself is the current challenges to Darwin's theory of evolution from developments in biochemistry. Data no longer supports that evolution must occur over generations as Darwin and successive generations believed. While this is certainly shaking up evolutionary inquiry, evolution as a branch of science does and will continue to exist. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
There is a curious bunch of Americans who adopted the term 'Abrahamic' religion but this empirical subculture reminds me of those two Russians on television yesterday trying to sound like they were tourists interested in visiting Salisbury.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Denial of Neil deGrasse Tyson's Science | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | April 24th 17 06:58 PM |
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON DISHONEST OR JUST SILLY? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | August 6th 15 12:14 PM |
Neil (EGO) Degrasse Tyson STEALS directly from Sagan | RichA[_6_] | Amateur Astronomy | 4 | April 17th 15 09:38 AM |
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON : CONSPIRACY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 2 | July 14th 14 04:32 PM |
'My Favorite Universe' (Neil deGrasse Tyson) | M Dombek | UK Astronomy | 1 | December 29th 05 12:01 AM |