End of the World on Sept. 10th
02 September 2008, 01:06 PM
#91
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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
Les
02 September 2008, 01:10 PM
#92
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
The problems, if there are any legitimate ones, are -as always- caused by inflexible people on both sides, who just dismiss any observations.
I'm a scientist. I'm not satisfied with religious accounts of how the universe was created: I defer to the physicists for that. BUT who's to say the physicists were not inspired to look at this issue because of their disagreement with religious accounts! I'd suggest dissatisfaction with such accounts were probably responsible for such investigation. As such, religion has made a contribution, as it provided a catalyst for the real empirical work.
If we do uncover the origins of life, from a scientific perspective and someone religious wants to claim that the mechanism elucidated by science was created by god, I'm not going to p*ss over their bonfire/waste time trying to dispel someone's beliefs. I'll simply wonder what humanity will turn it's attention to next!
Einstein spoke quite extensively about religion and science in his correspondence. Much of it is unpublished. He denied a personal god, but made frequent reference to "god" or a higher power.
e.g.
I want to know how God created this world. I'm not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.
— From E. Salaman, "A Talk With Einstein," The Listener 54 (1955), pp. 370-371, quoted in Jammer, p. 123.
Last edited by New_scooby_04; 02 September 2008 at 01:22 PM.
02 September 2008, 01:11 PM
#93
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
02 September 2008, 01:26 PM
#94
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: There on the stair
Posts: 10,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
If you would like any more of your essays summarised for ease of reading, please feel free to contact me
02 September 2008, 01:36 PM
#96
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are loads of cosmic ray showers passing through us at ground level all the time - I was referring to the very highest energy particles (equal or greater than those produced in the LHC) occurring once a century
02 September 2008, 01:39 PM
#97
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I want to know how God created this world. I'm not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.
— From E. Salaman, "A Talk With Einstein," The Listener 54 (1955), pp. 370-371, quoted in Jammer, p. 123.
— From E. Salaman, "A Talk With Einstein," The Listener 54 (1955), pp. 370-371, quoted in Jammer, p. 123.
02 September 2008, 01:41 PM
#98
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't actually consider myself dogmatic, i just think science will eventually have an answer for all the things currently "explained" by religion. And that might include the hypothetical notions such as why we are here, what happens to us after death and so on. Just a matter of time i reckon.
02 September 2008, 01:46 PM
#99
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: There on the stair
Posts: 10,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was an interesting point you made and I think what people miss is that the established religions that promote dogma actually started the same way that (pure) science now acts: A search for an explanation of what the hell is going on.
A lack of knowledge and an active imagination gave early man an explanation about how the heavens worked. All we do nowadays with scientific discovery is ask more questions
02 September 2008, 01:50 PM
#100
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pleasure - given that I was able to summarise, proves that I read it
It was an interesting point you made and I think what people miss is that the established religions that promote dogma actually started the same way that (pure) science now acts: A search for an explanation of what the hell is going on.
A lack of knowledge and an active imagination gave early man an explanation about how the heavens worked. All we do nowadays with scientific discovery is ask more questions
It was an interesting point you made and I think what people miss is that the established religions that promote dogma actually started the same way that (pure) science now acts: A search for an explanation of what the hell is going on.
A lack of knowledge and an active imagination gave early man an explanation about how the heavens worked. All we do nowadays with scientific discovery is ask more questions
Any scientific or religious pursuit starts with the same question, 'why?'
Einstein once said something along the lines of, the only legitimate purpose of science is to ask five questions where there had previously been one.
Ns04
Last edited by New_scooby_04; 02 September 2008 at 01:52 PM.
02 September 2008, 01:58 PM
#101
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's why we have engineers, though. Pure scientists might indeed 'just' advance our understanding of the world in a purely academic sense, but engineers are usually right behind them making use of their discoveries. Hence: medicine, communications, mechanisation, transport, electronics etc - all based on science.
Last edited by AndyC_772; 02 September 2008 at 02:04 PM.
02 September 2008, 02:04 PM
#102
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evidently he wasn't an engineer, then. Pure scientists might indeed 'just' advance our understanding of the world in a purely academic sense, but engineers are usually right behind them making use of their discoveries. Hence: medicine, communications, mechanisation, transport, electronics etc.
The engineers I know have "hard science" backgrounds...maths, physics etc...in fact one could almost conceptualise engineering as a branch of applied science.
Ns04
02 September 2008, 02:05 PM
#103
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't actually consider myself dogmatic, i just think science will eventually have an answer for all the things currently "explained" by religion. And that might include the hypothetical notions such as why we are here, what happens to us after death and so on. Just a matter of time i reckon.
02 September 2008, 02:06 PM
#104
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: There on the stair
Posts: 10,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's why we have engineers, though. Pure scientists might indeed 'just' advance our understanding of the world in a purely academic sense, but engineers are usually right behind them making use of their discoveries. Hence: medicine, communications, mechanisation, transport, electronics etc - all based on science.
02 September 2008, 03:49 PM
#105
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
enrico fermi and edward teller both posited that the trinity test at alamagordo in july '45 might theoretically fuse the oceans and set light to the atmosphere. fermi ran a morbid sweepstake on it as he thought it was a credible, unintended outcome - even oppenheimer took it seriously for a while. of course, it did neither. and then teller went on to design something hugely more powerful - the h-bomb.
there's no progress without risk. besides, the thought that it might be the swiss of all people who trigger mankind's accidental destruction is just too ridiculous to contemplate.
there's no progress without risk. besides, the thought that it might be the swiss of all people who trigger mankind's accidental destruction is just too ridiculous to contemplate.
02 September 2008, 03:52 PM
#106
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02 September 2008, 03:59 PM
#107
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess they figured it was about the only time they would not have to put up with people saying "I told you so", if the worst did happen!
02 September 2008, 04:05 PM
#108
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just been doing the maths. Unless i've fat-fingered it, these particles are going to be travelling at 688,194,000 mph. That's some speed! And looking at the pictures, nobody could argue that it wasn't through the twisties either!
Last edited by TelBoy; 02 September 2008 at 04:08 PM.
02 September 2008, 04:11 PM
#110
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: in a place where there lots of rocks to chuck at feejits
Posts: 1,854
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03 September 2008, 07:07 AM
#113
Well who to say that we weren't here discussing the same thing on the same forum some14 billion years ago just before the last big bang? If this experiment creates the big bang, everything will disappear in an instant and space and time will start over again, so I'll see you all in another 14 billion years time!
03 September 2008, 11:12 AM
#114
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't actually consider myself dogmatic, i just think science will eventually have an answer for all the things currently "explained" by religion. And that might include the hypothetical notions such as why we are here, what happens to us after death and so on. Just a matter of time i reckon.
Les
03 September 2008, 11:38 AM
#115
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do I have to correct your ignorance on this every time. A scientific theory is not the same wishy washy thing you have when you have a theory about why the misses threw a tea pot at your head when you came home pi$$ed last night.
Those theories are about as correct / proved as you can get in science, stop trying to trivialise them.
Those theories are about as correct / proved as you can get in science, stop trying to trivialise them.
Why should the meaning of "theory" be different when applied to science than to anything else. Does it not mean that it has been proposed as a viable idea of a happening even though it cannot be proved beyond doubt? That was how I understood it and I was in no way trying to trivialise anything but pointing out the true standing of all those scientific statements.
I did not say that the origin of the universe was not due to a big bang from a very small and concentrated source, it may well have been and if it is proved beyond doubt then thats fine by me, and it still would not alter my belief in the existence of an all powerful being in some form or other.
The point of my post is that if they do get that close to the big bang in that cyclotron, then we cannot forecast accurately what might happen. They do not know as you say, they can't do because it is something which has not been done since the first one if that is what happened, and like it or not, their knowledge is still based on theory. I don't think it can be denied that they might just be risking gross destructive forces beyond their control. Why is there a move to stop them taking that risk? Is it really worth it?
Yes of course there always have been risks in exploration of unknown matters, but how big might this risk be in relation to the world?
Of course that risk might not really be there, but when you think that they say that the big bang was responsible for the formation of the universe from a tiny piece of extraordinarily dense piece of energy amd matter then such an explosion has to be highly feared and respected.
Please refrain from assuming that I am ignorant by the way. My educational qualifications are largely in scientific subjects.
Les
03 September 2008, 11:44 AM
#116
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They had the same scare stories some years ago with a collider in the US, and nothing happened.
I don't see how you can form a black hole from a few elementary particles! I'm no ohysicist, but even I know that a black hole arises from a huge amount of matter contracting catastrophically under it's own gravity. There just isn't the right conditions to creat one. Am I missing something?
Geezer
I don't see how you can form a black hole from a few elementary particles! I'm no ohysicist, but even I know that a black hole arises from a huge amount of matter contracting catastrophically under it's own gravity. There just isn't the right conditions to creat one. Am I missing something?
Geezer
03 September 2008, 01:37 PM
#117
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course that risk might not really be there, but when you think that they say that the big bang was responsible for the formation of the universe from a tiny piece of extraordinarily dense piece of energy amd matter then such an explosion has to be highly feared and respected.
Please refrain from assuming that I am ignorant by the way. My educational qualifications are largely in scientific subjects.
Les
Les
03 September 2008, 01:38 PM
#118
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They had the same scare stories some years ago with a collider in the US, and nothing happened.
I don't see how you can form a black hole from a few elementary particles! I'm no ohysicist, but even I know that a black hole arises from a huge amount of matter contracting catastrophically under it's own gravity. There just isn't the right conditions to creat one. Am I missing something?
Geezer
I don't see how you can form a black hole from a few elementary particles! I'm no ohysicist, but even I know that a black hole arises from a huge amount of matter contracting catastrophically under it's own gravity. There just isn't the right conditions to creat one. Am I missing something?
Geezer
03 September 2008, 02:46 PM
#119
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: West London
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like a load of hype again to somehow "sex up" the whole thing. Must be a new labor spin doctor in their PR department. To be honest the whole thing fills me with a sense of extreme boredom.
Saw the program on discovery on the making of the collider and the presenter didn't have a clue what any of it what actually doing. It's a toy for boffins and will not provide the common man/woman with anything useful. All IMO of course
Saw the program on discovery on the making of the collider and the presenter didn't have a clue what any of it what actually doing. It's a toy for boffins and will not provide the common man/woman with anything useful. All IMO of course
