New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

I don't see there needs to be a conflict between science and religion. Even if science manages to elucidate the origin of the earth etc.. couldn't a proponent of a religion just claim it was god who created the mechanism that created the earth etc... Back to square one.

Just because you can explain something doesn't detract from its beauty, nor does it preclude faith in a higher power.

Don't forget, Einstein himself was a man who believed in god.

Science shouldn't be about trampling over faith, not should faith be about trampling over science: one illuminates the other.

Ns04

Andy T

Doooomed, we all doooomed.

And the world is flat too, it says so on interweb they have a forum and everything.

theflatearthsociety.org - Index



Really, if we knew half the things that went on behind closed doors we wouldn't leave the house in the morning. Everybody has seen SG1, it has to be true.

Bring it on, science is progress, imagine when caveman made fire for 1st time,

"oh we dont like it put it out...."

where would we be now? as mentioned, old froggie jambon over the pond is going to know about it and then the predicted Credit crunch will dissappear too, Winner.

jods

Odds on

On acount of the below post vvvv -- I demand my life back for another few days.

scoobyboy

they are only firing a beam on the 10th the first collision will happen on october 21st 2008

wayne9t9

When I was a kid 9/10 was always cheaper than 9/11, but only by a penny. A big penny made of copper, if you had a pocketfull you walked in circles. Anyhow bring it on..

r32

Big bang, every one dead ............................. oh no I'd better cancel my dental appointment

Or it may throw us back into the sixties.

TelBoy

Sorry but i strongly disagree. What sort of examples are you thinking of in terms of religion "illuminating" science?

Scoobychick

iTrader: (1)

I hope not, that would mean I'd have to live through the 70s and 80s again. I didn't mind the 70s but the 80s were awful, such horrible music and fashion

TelBoy

The 80s produced the finest music we've ever known, Sal

Scoobychick

iTrader: (1)

Maybe it's the memories of me being a New Romantic which I associate with the early 80s music that I actually can't stand then

In all honesty I can't stand a lot of 80s stuff, Duran Duran, Human League (except the early stuff before those two silly girls joined), etc.

I loved the latter part of the decade when the rave scene began and I also loved the middle part with the warehouse party scene. So it looks like it's just the early 80s that I hated

PeteBrant

I think the 70's was possibly the best musical decades in history. And the 80's was probably one of the worst - With a few exceptions

lozgti

I was safe in the 80's.I was still a 'Rocker' so AC/DC Motorhead Rainbow etc.

If this Big Bang does result in Tight Fit or Yazoo getting back in the charts then no,I don't believe there is a God

The Chief

Pete and Scoobychick you bloody old farts

I loved the 80's and the music in general, the pinnacle was meeting a certain Mr Howard Jones in 2000 when he did a free gig in a pub in Manchester, which there were like only 30 people there (what a crime)

Crap music - pah! what are you on about, cant beat a bit of Blancmange, Kadgagoogoo, Captain Sensible.

A great era!

StickyMicky

if it works then we will have no problem bringing the date forward

john titor FTW

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Tel,

I'm not so much thinking that religion contributes to knowledge in a manner consistent with rigorous empirical inivestigation, as much as it serves to illuminate areas of interest to scientists, for example, the Psychology of conformity More generally, its existence and -at times- dark history in terms of its treatment of scientists indicates just how critical it is to have an objective and empirical knowledge base in formulating an understanding of the world. Quite often the role of science is merely to elucidate knowledge derived from everyday observations, so any activity can be conceived of as informing science, even if only in a very crude way. It starts the ball rolling in identifying subject matter that scientists have then got their teeth into.

I'm not sure that the concept of discipline and ethics is invariably tied to religious conviction, but the two can make happy bedfellows and discipline and ethics are certainly pre-requsites for good and beneficial science: just because you can investigate something doesn't mean that you should!

The problem between religion and science occurs when people don't want to see the science, as they feel it undermines faith, which is nonsense and potentially very dangerous! Or when people who are scientists (as I am) flatly refuse to listen to anything those who subscribe to organised religion say, which actually impedes scientific development, as no-one then bothers to do the proper investigations to elucidate the phenomena in question, instead dismissing it as religious hog-wash.

Some people have a very "unscientific" hatred of the concept of religion, which is irrational. It is a human endeavor and like all human endeavors has good points and bads points, and can be exploited for good or evil, right and wrong just like science.

Both perspectives define each other, just as darkness defines the light.

Ns04

Leslie

Of course it is, by definition, but is it right to take an enormous risk when you don't know what could happen to the world?

Les

Leslie

A good post NS 04.

Another way of saying it is that those who are violently anti religion will jump up and down and say the the Big Bang Theory and Darwin's Theory of Evolution are an instant proof that religion should not be allowed to exist in our minds, despite the fact that we are talking about theories anyway!

What they cannot seem, or wish to accept however, is that even if those theories are proved to be correct, there is no reason why someone who does believe in a religion or for that matter, an all powerful being, cannot accept them and continue to follow their religion. I certainly feel that way myself.

Les

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

That depends on your definition of 'enormous', and the extent to which you're qualified to assess whether the risk is 'enormous' or not.

Personally I'm content to defer to the physicists who are actually involved in conducting the experiment. I regard them as much better qualified to assess whether any risk is significant or not than I am - assuming that they have no great desire themselves to see the Earth sucked into a black hole.

I think it would be wrong to allow fear of the unknown to prevent actions from being taken which might result in significant benefits. You may well feel differently. But I do feel that it should be the people best qualified to assess the risk vs reward that should be allowed to make the final decision.

TelBoy

The problem i have with that though, NS04, is that religion has been based very largely on needing an answer as to where we came from, and whether there is a higher reason for our existence. If i was given definitive proof that we could have been created effectively out of "nothing", scientifically, then i'd regard anybody looking for a religious angle to the answer to those questions as utterly irrational. Blind faith, as i put it before. A refusal to accept the perhaps dreary truth that we're just lucky enough to be the inhabitants of a tiny planet in one tiny corner of the cosmos.

I'm still not convinced that religion gives wholly justifiable areas for investigation, it's just a system of faith built up from the very humanistic questions of where did we come from, why are we here. Well, the why are we here bit is purely subjective of course, but if we can take out the uncertainty of how it all started, it then becomes a moot point. Why did we develop the ability to wonder why we're here is the real question, and what might our brains be able to question in future if they continue to evolve. Questions which require no element of religion to address, in my opinion.

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

When I was at school, one of my science teachers (physics) was also an active church goer, he even preached at his church on occassions. So he was one who could accept both together, rather than thinking if you accept one, the other has to be dismissed. For what it's worth, he didn't favour religion in his lessons, he just taught in a fair and reasonable way, equally teaching the different theories.

On the other hand, my PSRE teacher was very anti-religion, and he never held back about his views, which I personally thought was out of order. It's strange how religious people can teach fairly and not push their personal views, yet those who are against, feel the need to rubbish religion, quite like society itself. This is only based on my own experiences, I'm not saying this is always the case. It appears, with the exception of religious fanatics, most people who follow religion, just get on with it, yet those against will argue til the cows come home that it's a load of rubbish, quite often getting offensive.

The Chief

Should we be worried?

rabbos

Naturally occurring very high energy particles (cosmic rays from space) only occur once per century per square kilometer, so you would have to be a bit lucky to see one...

A lot of what strikes the earth has a higher energy than anything made at CERN, so we are unlikely to be destroyed anytime soon.

Its ok, you can stop cowering under your desk in the own **** now. Best to worry about a real threat like being stabbed 35 times in the face for looking at some nutter.

Odds on

http://www.deviantyouth.com/images/d...n_collider.jpg

I'm worried about the dates on both. Are we dead already?

wiley

iTrader: (63)

i'm scared....

Leslie

Well regardless of what the scientists involved say, do they really know for sure what they are getting into? There seem to be enough other scientists who are also very concerned about what could happen it they got too close to the Big Bang scenario.

I am all for finding out as much as possible about our origins etc. but I cannot support venturing into the unknown if there is a possible risk to the world via an Big Bang style detonation or creating black holes on earth since we don't know the possible effects of that either. They may have a "death wish" but I certainly don't and that must go for most of us.

Thats an interesting post Lisa. Funnily enough when i was at school the attitude was exactly the same. Also when we had Apologetics classes when they discussed a lot of different religions accurately and fairly, we were able to make up our own minds what to believe without any particular influence in any way.

Les

Norman D. Landing

Interesting how Sun Microsystems (or was it Hitachi? I forget) blamed multiple disk failures over the course of 1 year in 1 place (where I work) on cosmic rays. Bloody unlucky square kilometer?

OllyK

Yes, some do already.

It does cause some internal inconsistency, but most people of faith manage to do so.

No, he wasn't. He rarely spoke on the matter, but denied a belief in a personal god.

They are laregly incompatible. Science usually stays out of matters of religion, religion should return the favour.

speedking

I find that offensive.

Nowhere did I say I was scared. I was questioning the need to spend billions on something that occurred naturally. FWIW I agree that the scientific community are best placed to assess the risk. I doubt they are all suicidal.

It was the CERN spokesman who said "... already happen routinely in nature." If that means once per century per km˛ then his definition of routinely is somewhat different from mine. Perhaps you should get in touch and tell him that he is misinformed

Personally I am more concerned about the release of genetically modified biological entities, over which we have little control, and their potential effects on life on earth.

OllyK

You'll cause more damage to the earth by dropping a rock on it. We're talking about atomic and sub atomic particles here. Black holes involve masses in the order of 10 times that of our sun, the amounts of mass involved in all this a miniscule.