[Craig328]

blutrane: this is one of the first times I wish I could up-rep in the lounge. Note to all: you don't need to necessarily agree with someone's post to recognize the inherent quality of it.

hookiethe1: don't be so sure. You're seemingly healthy and of sound mind. There are many who are not and have nothing else to explain why except for "random chance". Where some see random chance others may see the hand of God at work. Depends on what you believe.

As for those who pooh-pooh intelligent design I'll say this: the universe shows a marked preference for order over disorder, symmetry over random form, and much of what we know can be explained mathematically. There is no inherent reason that we yet understand that would make the universe tend towards these behaviors. Think about it. Physics has dozens of formulas that predict what will happen when something else happens. What is it about atoms, subatomic particles, quirks, quarks, quacks and quakes that make that so? Why MUST there be a formula? Why MUST things adhere to a "law". And just the use of that word itself implies that there is a rule so absolutely followed that there is little observable deviation from it when describing the way things work all around us. Science discovers, describes, tests, posits, theorizes and finally cannonizes laws...but there is little to no effort to describe the fundamental "whys" of the universe. Gravity attracts two bodies with mass. We strive to discover how gravity works and one day we may discover a subatomic particle or some such thing that we can point at and say "that's what makes gravity"...and yet the unanswered question will still remain: why does that particle even exist and why does it act that way?

I'm not a proponent of intelligent design as is commonly derided in the media and spouted from shrilling jugheads clutching Bibles at school board meetings. However, there are a great many scientists who are not atheists. Belief in God (not the same as adherence to a particular religion mind you) is not an automatic opposite to a pursuit of science. I think if you truly believe yourself to be "open minded" then automatically discarding one possibility without any reason whatsoever aside from it seems implausible kind of outs you from the open minded club.

[cmh0114]

The Big Bang theory was originally a Catholic idea - proposed by a priest or bishop or something like that. Some scientists saw the idea and said, "Hey, this could really work," and did some calculations and theorizing. They stuck a few numbers along with the theory and proposed it to the world, thinking it could resolve one of the greatest debates between science and religion. The Church (which originally had no problem with the theory, although I don't know if it would have been widely taught in many churches), saw that it was a scientific idea and said "Hell, no. Scientists worked on this idea? They can't possibly be right." And so they denounced the idea as heretical. Now that so many (religious and non-religious) people are starting to realize that it's a valid theory, the Church finally has to admit that it they may have been wrong to denounce it.

Disclaimer: The quotes used above are not actual quotes said by either the scientists or the Church. /Disclaimer

[Locke]

hookiethe1, on 06 January 2011 - 01:09 PM, said:

Quote

God acts as a parent toward the universe, nurturing, encouraging and working with it.

Well quotes like that are just outright offensive as far as I'm concerned. If there is a god, he hasn't done jack for me, I've done it all myself, and he can nurture my ass with his holy lips.

I feel the same way. If there is a God, he sure likes to point and laugh at me a lot.

[dorknexus]

Quote

I think if you truly believe yourself to be "open minded" then automatically discarding one possibility without any reason whatsoever aside from it seems implausible kind of outs you from the open minded club.

TL;DW open mindedness is important, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't be skeptical of the things you are being being open towards. Discarding an idea due to a complete lack of evidence sounds completely rational to me. It doesn't mean that what is being discarded isn't ultimately true, it just means right now it doesn't jive with our understanding of reality.

I would argue that the faithful are in fact the ones who are close minded because, by definition, they reject alternatives based solely on intuition and speculation. That's just stubborn and thickheaded.

Quote

As for those who pooh-pooh intelligent design I'll say this: the universe shows a marked preference for order over disorder, symmetry over random form, and much of what we know can be explained mathematically. There is no inherent reason that we yet understand that would make the universe tend towards these behaviors.

Perhaps I completely misunderstood this but I think what you're getting at is there's shit out there that we don't yet understand and that might in someway point towards a creator. A lack of understanding is not indicative of a supernatural being. A lack of understanding is simply a lack of understanding. To extrapolate that into anything else is purely speculation.

Quote

The Big Bang theory was originally a Catholic idea - proposed by a priest or bishop or something like that.

This is a gross misunderstanding of history. A scientist who happened to be Catholic proposed the idea of a big bang. It was not something the Catholic church endorsed.

This post has been edited by Dark_Nexus: 06 January 2011 - 01:40 PM

[supersloth]

Dark_Nexus, on 06 January 2011 - 12:26 PM, said:

TL;DW open mindedness is important, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't be skeptical of the things you are being being open towards. Discarding an idea due to a complete lack of evidence sounds completely rational to me.

perfect.

[Craig328]

Dark_Nexus, on 06 January 2011 - 02:26 PM, said:

TL;DW open mindedness is important, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't be skeptical of the things you are being being open towards. Discarding an idea due to a complete lack of evidence sounds completely rational to me. It doesn't mean that what is being discarded isn't ultimately true, it just means right now it doesn't jive with our understanding of reality.

I'm wondering if you're aware of the irony of that statement vis-a-vis scientific inquiry in general. The very reason to investigate possibilities is entirely because we lack understanding. There are a great many who do indeed reject the possibility of a supernatural being in the absence of understanding or evidence either way.

Understand, I'm not a religious person by any means. I am as equally skeptical as the next guy. However, while some will discard a belief in supernatural being(s) due to a "complete lack of evidence" they willingly embrace the equally unproven musings of science. I merely point out the intellectual hypocrisy of such.

[hookiethe1]

Craig328, on 06 January 2011 - 12:48 PM, said:

I'm wondering if you're aware of the irony of that statement vis-a-vis scientific inquiry in general. The very reason to investigate possibilities is entirely because we lack understanding. There are a great many who do indeed reject the possibility of a supernatural being in the absence of understanding or evidence either way.

It's not lack of understanding or evidence, but the sheer absurdity of the proposed theory.
"How did all this shit get here?"
"Dunno, some magic guy musta just said fuck it, I'm gunna make some stuff and then people and junk."
"Sounds fair to me."
Ludicrous.



There is one piece of evidence that suggests there is a god and that he's a cruel, sadistic son of a bitch, and that's food. How else do you explain the fact that things like broccoli, celery, and brussels sprouts are superfoods, while cheeseburgers, pizza, and ice cream will kill you just as sure as a bullet???

This post has been edited by hookiethe1: 06 January 2011 - 01:52 PM

[BenignDesign]

Do cheeseburgers, pizza and ice cream exist in nature? Can you wander the countryside and stumble upon gardens of little sprouting Buffalo wings and pork rinds just starting to bud?

No. God or no god, processed food is man-made and in no way existed "in the beginning"... however it started...

[Christoph]

Did I really just read that?

[dorknexus]

Quote

Understand, I'm not a religious person by any means. I am as equally skeptical as the next guy. However, while some will discard a belief in supernatural being(s) due to a "complete lack of evidence" they willingly embrace the equally unproven musings of science. I merely point out the intellectual hypocrisy of such.

If they are unproven then they do not reside in the realm of scientific fact or theory and therefore you can't blame that on science. If it is scientific fact or theory then it is, by it's nature, backed by demonstrable and repeatable evidence. Thus it would not be unproven.

If I asked you to be more open minded towards the existence of Unicorns and you rejected that notion, would that make you close minded?

Quote

The very reason to investigate possibilities is entirely because we lack understanding.

I didn't say we shouldn't investigate the unknowns, I simply stated that it is unscientific and irrational to speculate on the actuality of those unknowns given that we have no evidence. In that we have no evidence concerning those unknowns, you could literally say anything you wanted.

Science is a rational and skeptical interrogation of reality. Science does not make unfounded assumptions for that which it cannot substantiate proof. Science also does not dwell in realms where no proof or evidence can be gathered. The supernatural realm fits that description.

[Craig328]

I see.

So dark matter and string theory = proven? I must have missed the memo.

And, let's say for fun, that string theory is "proven" tomorrow. Guess what: there is a still a "why" there. Fundamentally, we can eventually explain observable phenomena only so far. At some point we have to address beginnings and ends. Big bang theory is a fun one. Before that, what was there? Nothing? Something? How did we get something from nothing? Did time not exist before? If it exists now, why?

This post has been edited by Craig328: 06 January 2011 - 02:02 PM

[dorknexus]

How does God answer the whys? Where did he come from? Those same questions can be applied to supernatural solutions as well. The common answers are "well God has always been here." Why can't we simplify that model and just say "well the universe has always been here"? Or simply be comfortable with saying "we aren't really sure right now"?

Metaphysical and epistemological meanderings concerning the ultimate nature of reality do not apply to science. Science operates on an assumption of objectivism and our ability to directly interact with reality. Science is pragmatic in that sense.

If you want to debate philosophy, then we have to first come to the understanding that science does not attempt to answer those more abstract questions. at least not right now.

The point is, science operates on what it knows to achieve an understanding of what it doesn't. It doesn't make baseless speculations in between.

EDIT:

Quote

So dark matter and string theory = proven?

Nothing is proven 100% to be true. We simply have a given degree of certainty associated with scientific claims. The more evidence we have that jives with our models and theories, the more certain we can be that those models and theories are a reflection of reality.

This post has been edited by Dark_Nexus: 06 January 2011 - 02:19 PM

[SixOfEleven]

The Catholic Church usually ends up agreeing with science. It happened with Galileo. He was excommunicated, locked in a tower, and the key was thrown away. Eventually the church changed their mind and he was right! The church was slowly brought into that modern age. So, the Catholic Church usually catches up with the rest of the world, it may take years, decades, or centuries, but they do get there.

There will be the die hard Catholics that no matter what the Pope says they will continue on their course. They will eventually die out and the newer generations will already believe what the Pope said years ago. I'm sure that a lot of Catholics already believe that there was a Big Bang that started it all and the Bible was man's way of explaining how the universe came into being. Creation stories can be found all over the world after all.

I guess in away it is like a government coming out and saying: "From this day forth no person is allowed to drink alcohol." Does the entire country fall into line right away? Definitive "NO!" as the prohibition times in the states showed. Eventually the government was forced to repeal that law and let there be alcohol again!

Catholics, while dutiful, are not fanatics. Just because the Pope says something they don't turn things on and off like a light switch. It is not Boolean. It is more shades of gray.

BTW B9:
Catholics are allowed one divorce and are able to get remarried in the Catholic church. However, they have to get their first marriage annulled, which can cost between $200-$3000 CDN. If they co-habitate with their partner before the annulment neither of them are "allowed" to receive communion because they are in a state of "mortal" sin.

[Magixion]

Just to throw this out there, one could also use the fact that scientific facts or theories are backed by demonstrable and repeatable evidence as a way to support that a higher power of some sort created things and were entirely intended.

To further clarify what I am trying to say, take physics and all the formulas that are necessary to calculate things in that area. The mere fact that things are so constant and not just random chance could be used as evidence to support the big guy.

[dorknexus]

Again, order and/or complexity are not indicative of a higher power. Things could be consistent, constant, and ordered simply because that is the nature of our reality.