Why do scientists want to prove we are an accident?

[inocente]

So, if so, why should the scientists not believe that the universe discovered itself by accident?

Why not indeed, rather poetic. Bit silly though.

Just like some people watching a Shakespearean play suspend disbelief to enjoy the play’s absurdities,improbabilities, and unreality, so it has become in vogue to suspend Christian beliefs while going about the work of science.

I take it you’re Anglo-Saxon so it never occurred to you there are Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. scientists who don’t have any Christian beliefs to suspend.

But in any event your argument can logically be turned straight back on you, and then it’s us Christians who are suspending disbelief and living a fiction.

Carl Sagan, a life long atheist, recanted on his beliefs of God just before he died.

There doesn’t appear to be any evidence for that piece of wishful thinking, you may be being misled by fundamentalists and their fictions.

 

[Michael19682]

Why not indeed, rather poetic. Bit silly though.

I take it you’re Anglo-Saxon so it never occurred to you there are Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. scientists who don’t have any Christian beliefs to suspend.

But in any event your argument can logically be turned straight back on you, and then it’s us Christians who are suspending disbelief and living a fiction.

There doesn’t appear to be any evidence for that piece of wishful thinking, you may be being misled by fundamentalists and their fictions.

Caucasian, actually. I no doubt resemble you far more than an Anglo-Saxon. I simply was pointing out that Shakespearean drama has lessons to teach us in the manner of the often glorious armada of methods our mind has to disbelieve what we choose. And, how amazing the world would be if each of us could direct that armada against Shakespearean drama and towards belief in the gospel

As for Christians suspending disbelief, so be it, if it is ‘the world’ they are suspending it in. What’s wrong with following Christ as an actor? As long as you reject the right thing, in this case the world’s evil, how can you go wrong?

As for Sagan: I saw him recant on video tape! Something like “I do now believe there is a God.”

 

[inocente]

As for Sagan: I saw him recant on video tape! Something like “I do now believe there is a God.”

Can’t spot anything in his biography or on google except sites saying he never said it.

 

[fred_conty]

It seems to me that scientists wants to prove we came from the dust of the stars and we evolved through many forms and became human.In otherwords we are accidents not guided by anything but keep on evolving.Lets just assume this to be true.
How would it change their lives or ours?

“Every man for himself.”

 

[StrawberryJam]

“Every man for himself.”

Quite untrue. Are flu shots or any other vaccines evidence that scientists are supporting an every man for himself attitude?
One small example. We really could devote an entire website to the achievements of science and how you have gained from it. It however, has gained what from you?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Can’t spot anything in his biography or on google except sites saying he never said it.

Because he never did, even before death.

 

[Michael19682]

Because he never did, even before death.

I’m sure I saw it. But in deference to your sources on the internet, I contacted ABC network and am waiting for them to answer. They claim they can’t answer all viewer questions directly, but something tells me I’ll get an answer from them on this. It may take a few weeks. Viewed his last interview, but that wasn’t the one where I saw him. “Stay tuned”

 

[grannymh]

I’m sure I saw it. But in deference to your sources on the internet, I contacted ABC network and am waiting for them to answer. They claim they can’t answer all viewer questions directly, but something tells me I’ll get an answer from them on this. It may take a few weeks. Viewed his last interview, but that wasn’t the one where I saw him. “Stay tuned”

If you have a good idea of the date of the interview in question, contact ABC public relations office and ask for a transcript of the interview. ABC’s own news bureau would be another source for a transcript. An archives type department may be another source. Sometimes, the type of information you are looking for can be obtained from similar departments of major newspapers.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I mentioned spectroscopy and you didn’t have the interest to find out how we determine the properties of stars with it, so why would me mentioning something else be different? Your original point wasn’t that what we know about stars all comes through visual data, but that we can’t know anything about stars because they are far away, which was, and is, wrong. And, as you now see, the other claim about visual data only is also wrong.

Well, actually, thinking about it…sort of. We get data spectroscopically mostly from visual data, but then, the only way we claim to know that gamma rays give us data about other planetary/stellar entities is by assuming we understand how gamma rays work in relation to such entities, and in relation to ourselves (or, presumably remote sensors or whatever) in response to them

You seem not to recognise that there are many flavours of positivism, and I am absolutely and unequivocally not a logical positivist.
Yes, that’s what I’m saying: once the proposition that the universe is expanding was accepted it, scientists have not changed that view.

Hmmm – reviewing the topic, there seems to be a belief that the expansion will stop at some point and shrinking will begin. Are you sure it wasn’t believed at some point that had already started?

Sorry - oversight - go here and pages after:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=409584&page=27

Alec

Aha… I’m afraid I misremembered this a little - I see the discussion was closed before it could get so much further, allowing us to drag it out further… here!

 

[hecd2]

Well, actually, thinking about it…sort of. We get data spectroscopically mostly from visual data, but then, the only way we claim to know that gamma rays give us data about other planetary/stellar entities is by assuming we understand how gamma rays work in relation to such entities, and in relation to ourselves (or, presumably remote sensors or whatever) in response to them

I really don’t understand what you’re talking about here, or what your point now is. Spectroscopy is useful across the electromagnetic spectrum - not just in the visual. Are you saying that gamma ray data doesn’t tell us anything about cosmic events?

Hmmm – reviewing the topic, there seems to be a belief that the expansion will stop at some point and shrinking will begin. Are you sure it wasn’t believed at some point that had already started?

Quite sure.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Mystic_Banana]

But did it occur to you that the idea for, say, a computer chip, let alone designing it, fabricating it and making it work, depends entirely on having a darn good prior understanding of electrons?

In a broader context, you appear to be arguing that we must never act until we’re 100% certain that we know that we know that we know what we know, not exactly a philosophy for marines, football players or, come to think of it, anyone in the real world outside of the occasional navel gazing monk on top of a mountain and possibly your good self.

You’re missing the whole point. Medicine had a glorious system based around the moderation of the 4 humors for centuries… it was found to work most efficiently! However, the 4 humors, after centuries of measurement, management and treatment, do not cause most of our ailments by being out of balance. They themselves are just symptoms, and govern nothing…

do you see what I’m saying yet?

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Yes, it’s messy and full of failures, but the fact that there can be sure-fire failures (guesses not born out by physical evidence) is why it’s so successful. Critics of science can have their day when philosophers land a ship on Mars and theologians rid the world of malaria.

Perhaps in a medieval university, but these days it’s rare to find zoology taught by the philosophy department or marine biologists trotting off for their essential primer on Wittgenstein.

Critics of science can have their day when science screws things up, which is quite regularly, thankyou very much!

And luckily, the nature of things is not entirely based on how Universities structure their departments, otherwise the Universe would be a crazy, re-ordered mess everytime a VC decided to make his mark on the academic structure

 

[hecd2]

You’re missing the whole point. Medicine had a glorious system based around the moderation of the 4 humors for centuries… it was found to work most efficiently! However, the 4 humors, after centuries of measurement, management and treatment, do not cause most of our ailments by being out of balance. They themselves are just symptoms, and govern nothing…

do you see what I’m saying yet?

Not really. Hippocratic medicine was neither based on the scientific method, nor, unless you can show to the contrary, particularly efficacious - at least not compared to modern medicine based on a real knowledge of anatomy, physiology, microbiology and chemistry. Whereas an extremely detailed and correct knowledge of the behaviour of electrons in a wide range of conditions, including their rather counter-intuitive quantum behaviour is required to design and build computer chips. If you think we can do that without understanding the existence and behaviour of electrons to an exquisite degree of precision, then you don’t really know what’s involved in designing and making a chip. To compare that knowledge with the Hippocratic theory of medicine is, frankly, absurd.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[inocente]

do you see what I’m saying yet?

Nope, for the same reasons hedc2 gave. That’s unless you’re asking how do we know that we know what we know, but to me that would be a content-free question.

 

[inocente]

Critics of science can have their day when science screws things up, which is quite regularly, thankyou very much!

But you’ll see that the scientific method allows false theories to be detected objectively, while philosophers and theologians have no equivalent test.

And luckily, the nature of things is not entirely based on how Universities structure their departments, otherwise the Universe would be a crazy, re-ordered mess everytime a VC decided to make his mark on the academic structure

It remains that philosophy and science are separate disciplines. To the extent that physicist Richard Feynman ridiculed philosophers, see this short video clip: youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’m sure I saw it. But in deference to your sources on the internet, I contacted ABC network and am waiting for them to answer.

Have you tried YouTube? I did a search and found a few recordings of what is labeled as Carl Sagan’s last interview with ABC (1996 May 27, about 7 months before he died). About 7 minutes and 10 seconds into the first part of this interview he talks about his views on faith. I’ll try to retype it here. Trying not to make any mistakes in typing it but that doesn’t guarantee I won’t so if I’ve typed something that appears to misrepresent in anyway please comment on it. There are certain things that he says that if removed from the context of the rest of the interview could be taken as an endorsement of religion (but removing the phrase from context might be considered quote mining). From watching the entire interview it seems he was not a person of religious faith.
Sagan:

What is faith? It’s belief in the absence of evidence. I’m not telling any one what to believe but for me believing when there is no compelling evidence is a mistake. The idea is to withhold belief until there is compelling evidence. And if the universe does not comply with our predispositions than we have the wrenching obligation to accommodate to the way the universe really is."

Rose:

So you step forward to say you deny all religion because you can’t see it proved scientifically…"

Sagan:

Religion deals with history, poetry, with great literature , with morals, including the morality of treating compassionately the least fortunate among us. All of things are endorser whole heatedly. Where religion gets into trouble is in those cases where it pretend it knows something about science. The science in the bible for example was acquired from the Jews from the Babylonians during the Babylonian during the Babylonian captivity of 600 BC. But we’ve learned something since than.

The trouble comes with people that are biblical literist who believe the Bible was dictated by the creator of the Universe to an unerring stenographer…

In the third part of the interview he talks about his own death and says he would love to believe in life but there’s no evidence to support such a belief.

Here are the links if you want to see it.

Part 1 of 3: youtube.com/watch?v=jod7v-m573k
Part 2 of 3: youtube.com/watch?v=uDKSZO-aACk
Part 3 of 3: youtube.com/watch?v=SxeN6Wf7mbU

 

[Michael19682]

Have you tried YouTube? I did a search and found a few recordings of what is labeled as Carl Sagan’s last interview with ABC (1996 May 27, about 7 months before he died). About 7 minutes and 10 seconds into the first part of this interview he talks about his views on faith. I’ll try to retype it here. Trying not to make any mistakes in typing it but that doesn’t guarantee I won’t so if I’ve typed something that appears to misrepresent in anyway please comment on it. There are certain things that he says that if removed from the context of the rest of the interview could be taken as an endorsement of religion (but removing the phrase from context might be considered quote mining). From watching the entire interview it seems he was not a person of religious faith.

I have a well founded reason to believe that the recording I saw was dubbed over. I checked the internet also. Very sorry to those I tried to convince; I was, however, relying upon memory; and generally, my memory is spot on!

Thanks again!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I have a well founded reason to believe that the recording I saw was dubbed over. I checked the internet also. Very sorry to those I tried to convince; I was, however, relying upon memory; and generally, my memory is spot on!

It may well have been. In the Information Age some times it’s hard to distinguish the authentic information from the altered information. Selective clips taken out of context could easily be used to present a statement other than the one that was communicated in the full interview.

 

[Michael19682]

It may well have been. In the Information Age some times it’s hard to distinguish the authentic information from the altered information. Selective clips taken out of context could easily be used to present a statement other than the one that was communicated in the full interview.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sagan

What is faith? It’s belief in the absence of evidence. I’m not telling any one what to believe but for me believing when there is no compelling evidence is a mistake. The idea is to withhold belief until there is compelling evidence. And if the universe does not comply with our predispositions than we have the wrenching obligation to accommodate to the way the universe really is."

God does not compel any atheist to believe by physically presenting Himself to the atheist to see and touch. And if there is compelling evidence at all, it would certainly not be found by the atheist, who flees from the evidence as fast as his feet can carry him.

The compelling evidence is going to be found in the mind and heart of man rather than just in his mind. Openness to love is openness to revelation and relationship.

On the human level, a man and a woman never really see the evidence of their relationship just by thinking about it. They have to desire a relationship as well.

The atheist sees no evidence whatever because he has closed both his mind and his heart to the revelation. The atheist not only does not desire to know God, he desires **not **to know God.