Science > Physics > Scientists Bewildered By Fine Tuned Design Of The Universe
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
16 Feb 2006 06:58:00 AM |
| Object: |
Scientists Bewildered By Fine Tuned Design Of The Universe |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1576947/posts
http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/The_Fine_Tuning_of_the_Universe.asp
The Fine Tuning of the Universe
by Rabbi Mordechai Steinman with Dr. Gerald Schroeder
An amazing array of scientists are bewildered by the design of the
universe and admit a possibility of a designer.
According to growing numbers of scientists, the laws and constants of
nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred
to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into
existence through intentional planning and intelligence.
In fact, this "fine-tuning" is so pronounced, and the "coincidences"
are so numerous, many scientists have come to espouse The Anthropic
Principle, which contends that the universe was brought into existence
intentionally for the sake of producing mankind.
Even those who do not accept The Anthropic Principle admit to the
"fine-tuning" and conclude that the universe is "too contrived" to be a
chance event.
In a BBC science documentary, "The Anthropic Principle," some of the
greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings which
compel this conclusion.
Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University
Observatories:
If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little
bit the constants of nature -- like the charge on the electron -- then
the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that
intelligent life would not have been able to develop.
Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University:
If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction,
stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is
no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other
direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no
life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.
Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at
Adelaide University:
"The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a
knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge,
and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off
even slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a
chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably
suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a
'put-up job'."
According to the latest scientific thinking, the matter of the universe
originated in a huge explosion of energy called "The Big Bang." At
first, the universe was only hydrogen and helium, which congealed into
stars. Subsequently, all the other elements were manufactured inside
the stars. The four most abundant elements in the universe are:
hydrogen, helium, oxygen and carbon.
When Sir Fred Hoyle was researching how carbon came to be, in the
"blast-furnaces" of the stars, his calculations indicated that it is
very difficult to explain how the stars generated the necessary
quantity of carbon upon which life on earth depends. Hoyle found that
there were numerous "fortunate" one-time occurrences which seemed to
indicate that purposeful "adjustments" had been made in the laws of
physics and chemistry in order to produce the necessary carbon.
Hoyle sums up his findings as follows:
A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a
superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and
biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in
nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence
could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have
been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce
within stars.
Adds Dr. David D. Deutch:
If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the
universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features
ARE surprising and unlikely.
UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE OF FINE-TUNING
Besides the BBC video, the scientific establishment's most prestigious
journals, and its most famous physicists and cosmologists, have all
gone on record as recognizing the objective truth of the fine-tuning.
The August '97 issue of "Science" (the most prestigious peer-reviewed
scientific journal in the United States) featured an article entitled
"Science and God: A Warming Trend?" Here is an excerpt:
The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic
life -- such as precisely those physical constants that result in
planets and long-lived stars -- also has led some scientists to
speculate that some divine influence may be present.
In his best-selling book, "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking
(perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon
as "remarkable."
"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the
constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make
possible the development of life". "For example," Hawking writes, "if
the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different,
stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they
would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few
ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow
for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values
would give rise to universes that, although they might be very
beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty."
Hawking then goes on to say that he can appreciate taking this as
possible evidence of "a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of
the laws of science (by God)" (ibid. p. 125). Dr. Gerald Schroeder,
author of "Genesis and the Big Bang" and "The Science of Life" was
formerly with the M.I.T. physics department. He adds the following
examples:
1) Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics
(a field of science that deals with the very early universe), writing
in the journal "Scientific American", reflects on
how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions
of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could
observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of
several physical quantities had slightly different values.
Although Weinberg is a self-described agnostic, he cannot but be
astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how
a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of
0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in
that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a
totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two
nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier
elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be
composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor
Weinberg's wonder at our well-tuned universe. He continues:
One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning -- The
existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between
different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120
decimal places.
This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary
units, not:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000,
but instead:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001,
there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as
Weinberg states:
the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and
contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no
galaxies or stars could form.
2) Michael Turner, the widely quoted astrophysicist at the University
of Chicago and Fermilab, describes the fine-tuning of the universe with
a simile:
The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire
universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other
side.
3) Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the
University of Oxford, discovers that the likelihood of the universe
having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more
astounding,
namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the
power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly
even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of
ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123
successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion billion
billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion
zeros.)
Penrose continues,
Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on
eachseparate neutron in the entire universe -- and we could throw in
all the other particles as well for good measure -- we should fall far
short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set
the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that
extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in
the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's) which
govern the behavior of things from moment to moment.
Cosmologists debate whether the space-time continuum is finite or
infinite, bounded or unbounded. In all scenarios, the fine-tuning
remains the same.
It is appropriate to complete this section on "fine tuning" with the
eloquent words of Professor John Wheeler:
To my mind, there must be at the bottom of it all, not an utterly
simple equation, but an utterly simple IDEA. And to me that idea, when
we finally discover it, will be so compelling, and so inevitable, so
beautiful, we will all say to each other, "How could it have ever been
otherwise?"
See the full presentation of this and other themes on the 2001
Principle Website.
.
|
|
| User: "Mark Vaughan" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Bewildered By Fine Tuned Design Of The Universe |
17 Feb 2006 05:59:43 PM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@lycos.com> wrote in
news:1140094680.002007.174670@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1576947/posts
http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/The_Fine_Tuning_of_the_
Universe.asp
how sweet it is! the sound of Strumpets with Trumpets, blaring
foolishness across the firmament...blow it hard, darlin', blow
it long and hard!!! :^D
The Fine Tuning of the Universe
by Rabbi Mordechai Steinman with Dr. Gerald Schroeder
An amazing array of scientists are bewildered by the design of the
universe and admit a possibility of a designer.
--
Mark Vaughan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jason Stanidge" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Bewildered By Fine Tuned Design Of The Universe |
27 Feb 2006 09:09:50 PM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1140094680.002007.174670@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1576947/posts
http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/The_Fine_Tuning_of_the_Universe.asp
The Fine Tuning of the Universe
by Rabbi Mordechai Steinman with Dr. Gerald Schroeder
An amazing array of scientists are bewildered by the design of the
universe and admit a possibility of a designer.
According to growing numbers of scientists, the laws and constants of
nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred
to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into
existence through intentional planning and intelligence.
In fact, this "fine-tuning" is so pronounced, and the "coincidences"
are so numerous, many scientists have come to espouse The Anthropic
Principle, which contends that the universe was brought into existence
intentionally for the sake of producing mankind.
LOL!. You don't even understand what the Anthropic Principle is!
[snipped]
.
|
|
|
| User: "platopes" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Bewildered By Fine Tuned Design Of The Universe |
02 Mar 2006 03:54:25 AM |
|
|
Jason Stanidge wrote:
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@lycos.com> wrote in message
An amazing array of scientists are bewildered by the design of the
universe and admit a possibility of a designer.
According to growing numbers of scientists, the laws and constants of
nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred
to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into
existence through intentional planning and intelligence.
In fact, this "fine-tuning" is so pronounced, and the "coincidences"
are so numerous, many scientists have come to espouse The Anthropic
Principle, which contends that the universe was brought into existence
intentionally for the sake of producing mankind.
LOL!. You don't even understand what the Anthropic Principle is!
I'll bet it isn't anything to do with ringing a bell at a certain
time of day, wearing a special hat, or not eating grasshoppers on the
last tuesday of each month. Ha ha! Whatever the grand philosophy behind
theism, or the posts in this thread, it always ends up with a special
hat.
You can talk about personal beliefs, but somehow they always end up
*spilling over* onto regular folks just trying to get a look at how
stuff works. *How*. What we need is for ITER to work. If faith in a
deity doesn't contribute to that, then ***** it.
Anyway, if you got faith, why the hell do you need anybody to *agree*
with that? Science needs concensus, faith can thrive in a little hut on
the edge of the field, and generally does.
p
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Bewildered By Fine Tuned Design Of The Universe |
16 Feb 2006 01:27:38 PM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1140094680.002007.174670@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip nonsense>
Oddly nothing is left.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "richard miller" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Bewildered By Fine Tuned Design Of The Universe |
16 Feb 2006 01:57:02 PM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1140094680.002007.174670@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1576947/posts
http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/The_Fine_Tuning_of_the_Universe.asp
The Fine Tuning of the Universe
by Rabbi Mordechai Steinman with Dr. Gerald Schroeder
An amazing array of scientists are bewildered by the design of the
universe and admit a possibility of a designer.
According to growing numbers of scientists, the laws and constants of
nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred
to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into
existence through intentional planning and intelligence.
In fact, this "fine-tuning" is so pronounced, and the "coincidences"
are so numerous, many scientists have come to espouse The Anthropic
Principle, which contends that the universe was brought into existence
intentionally for the sake of producing mankind.
Even those who do not accept The Anthropic Principle admit to the
"fine-tuning" and conclude that the universe is "too contrived" to be a
chance event.
In a BBC science documentary, "The Anthropic Principle," some of the
greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings which
compel this conclusion.
Do you think just becuase the BBC say something, that is it?
They have as much credibility as New Scientist.Most of the BBC are either
Arts students or should have been.
There do not have to be many worlds, there does not have to be any
remarkable tuning.
Evolution doesn't have remarkable tuning, it evolves.
Mathematics can have many forms, but only the self-consistent will remain
observable.
Keep it simple. Physical reality follows mathematical laws becuuase they are
self consistent. Any inconsistency was snuffed-out long ago. What we finally
see is not what may exist or what we started with.
It doesn't take a God, it doesn't take many worlds, it just takes a resality
check.
Keep it simple
Richard Miller
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Bewildered By Fine Tuned Design Of The Universe |
16 Feb 2006 09:43:29 AM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1140094680.002007.174670@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1576947/posts
http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/The_Fine_Tuning_of_the_Universe.asp
The Fine Tuning of the Universe
by Rabbi Mordechai Steinman with Dr. Gerald Schroeder
An amazing array of scientists are bewildered by the design of the
universe and admit a possibility of a designer.
Here, let me help you out:
An amazing array of Creation Scientists are bewildered with science and have
to admit that they believe that the universe is designed despite evidence to
the contrary.
According to growing numbers of scientists, the laws and constants of
nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred
to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into
existence through intentional planning and intelligence.
According to these Creationists, the laws and constants of nature are so
bewildering to them, that to look at natural explanations would go against
every religious belief that they possess...so they don't. An argument from
incredulity is good enough to say "GodDidIt".
JR
<snip non-sequitur posturing>
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Bewildered By Fine Tuned Design Of The Universe |
16 Feb 2006 10:02:23 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:43:29 GMT, in alt.talk.creationism
<jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<B41Jf.57205$PL5.28803@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>:
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1140094680.002007.174670@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1576947/posts
http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/The_Fine_Tuning_of_the_Universe.asp
The Fine Tuning of the Universe
by Rabbi Mordechai Steinman with Dr. Gerald Schroeder
An amazing array of scientists are bewildered by the design of the
universe and admit a possibility of a designer.
Here, let me help you out:
An amazing array of Creation Scientists are bewildered with science and have
to admit that they believe that the universe is designed despite evidence to
the contrary.
According to growing numbers of scientists, the laws and constants of
nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred
to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into
existence through intentional planning and intelligence.
According to these Creationists, the laws and constants of nature are so
bewildering to them, that to look at natural explanations would go against
every religious belief that they possess...so they don't. An argument from
incredulity is good enough to say "GodDidIt".
The most serious and valid charge against most of these arguments from
incredulity is that the person making it is doing so out of total
ignorance, often self-inflicted. The arrogance of those who refuse to
learn science, but then claim that they know from their ignorance how
nature works, is remarkable and it is ultimately destructive of faith.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Bewildered By Fine Tuned Design Of The Universe |
16 Feb 2006 10:25:22 AM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:9489v19b3j289pommal13f49gk32l9nn2f@4ax.com...
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:43:29 GMT, in alt.talk.creationism
<jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<B41Jf.57205$PL5.28803@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>:
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1140094680.002007.174670@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1576947/posts
http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/The_Fine_Tuning_of_the_Universe.asp
The Fine Tuning of the Universe
by Rabbi Mordechai Steinman with Dr. Gerald Schroeder
An amazing array of scientists are bewildered by the design of the
universe and admit a possibility of a designer.
Here, let me help you out:
An amazing array of Creation Scientists are bewildered with science and
have
to admit that they believe that the universe is designed despite evidence
to
the contrary.
According to growing numbers of scientists, the laws and constants of
nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred
to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into
existence through intentional planning and intelligence.
According to these Creationists, the laws and constants of nature are so
bewildering to them, that to look at natural explanations would go against
every religious belief that they possess...so they don't. An argument
from
incredulity is good enough to say "GodDidIt".
The most serious and valid charge against most of these arguments from
incredulity is that the person making it is doing so out of total
ignorance, often self-inflicted. The arrogance of those who refuse to
learn science, but then claim that they know from their ignorance how
nature works, is remarkable and it is ultimately destructive of faith.
To me, those who have to look for scientific validity of their faith, are
those with extremely *weak* faith.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Bewildered By Fine Tuned Design Of The Universe |
16 Feb 2006 05:47:12 PM |
|
|
<jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:SH1Jf.29230$Jd.14652@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
To me, those who have to look for scientific validity of their faith, are
those with extremely *weak* faith.
Well, there may be some hope for those with weak faith. Those with strong
faith are really gone.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Bewildered By Fine Tuned Design Of The Universe |
16 Feb 2006 07:02:43 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:47:12 -0000, in alt.talk.creationism
"Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote in <45khhvF77acuU1@individual.net>:
<jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:SH1Jf.29230$Jd.14652@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
To me, those who have to look for scientific validity of their faith, are
those with extremely *weak* faith.
Well, there may be some hope for those with weak faith. Those with strong
faith are really gone.
I like to distinguish between brittle or fragile and resilient or
robust. It is the folks with the brittle faith who refuse to consider
that some of their doctrines are wrong because they cannot imagine that
they would be able to have a real faith without the foolish doctrine
that is contrary to science. Those with resilient faiths don't need bad
doctrine to prop up what they believe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Bewildered By Fine Tuned Design Of The Universe |
16 Feb 2006 07:16:09 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:g28av190ke1m6rfnoo73h9njb32ur576ar@4ax.com...
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:47:12 -0000, in alt.talk.creationism
"Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote in <45khhvF77acuU1@individual.net>:
<jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:SH1Jf.29230$Jd.14652@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
To me, those who have to look for scientific validity of their faith,
are
those with extremely *weak* faith.
Well, there may be some hope for those with weak faith. Those with strong
faith are really gone.
I like to distinguish between brittle or fragile and resilient or
robust. It is the folks with the brittle faith who refuse to consider
that some of their doctrines are wrong because they cannot imagine that
they would be able to have a real faith without the foolish doctrine
that is contrary to science. Those with resilient faiths don't need bad
doctrine to prop up what they believe.
Yes. I understand your point. And my point stands. There may be hope for
those with weak faith. But those with strong faith are more unlikely to
return to the realm of reason.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Bewildered By Fine Tuned Design Of The Universe |
16 Feb 2006 11:53:27 PM |
|
|
Milan wrote:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:g28av190ke1m6rfnoo73h9njb32ur576ar@4ax.com...
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:47:12 -0000, in alt.talk.creationism
"Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote in <45khhvF77acuU1@individual.net>:
<jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:SH1Jf.29230$Jd.14652@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
To me, those who have to look for scientific validity of their faith,
are
those with extremely *weak* faith.
Well, there may be some hope for those with weak faith. Those with strong
faith are really gone.
I like to distinguish between brittle or fragile and resilient or
robust. It is the folks with the brittle faith who refuse to consider
that some of their doctrines are wrong because they cannot imagine that
they would be able to have a real faith without the foolish doctrine
that is contrary to science. Those with resilient faiths don't need bad
doctrine to prop up what they believe.
Yes. I understand your point. And my point stands. There may be hope for
those with weak faith. But those with strong faith are more unlikely to
return to the realm of reason.
I don't think so. Doubt and re-examination is an essential part of
faith. Oh, hey, that's a common point with science, isn't it?
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Bewildered By Fine Tuned Design Of The Universe |
17 Feb 2006 01:44:54 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140155607.734576.67210@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Milan wrote:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:g28av190ke1m6rfnoo73h9njb32ur576ar@4ax.com...
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:47:12 -0000, in alt.talk.creationism
"Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote in <45khhvF77acuU1@individual.net>:
<jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:SH1Jf.29230$Jd.14652@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
To me, those who have to look for scientific validity of their
faith,
are
those with extremely *weak* faith.
Well, there may be some hope for those with weak faith. Those with
strong
faith are really gone.
I like to distinguish between brittle or fragile and resilient or
robust. It is the folks with the brittle faith who refuse to consider
that some of their doctrines are wrong because they cannot imagine
that
they would be able to have a real faith without the foolish doctrine
that is contrary to science. Those with resilient faiths don't need
bad
doctrine to prop up what they believe.
Yes. I understand your point. And my point stands. There may be hope for
those with weak faith. But those with strong faith are more unlikely to
return to the realm of reason.
I don't think so. Doubt and re-examination is an essential part of
faith. Oh, hey, that's a common point with science, isn't it?
PD
Not really. Firstly, doubt is not an essential part of faith -actually, it
is not a part of faith at all. Secondly, whatever re-examination might take
place regarding one's faith, it doesnt involve looking at the evidence,
since faith, by definition, is a belief in spite of the absence of
evidence -so, there is no evidence to look at. Science, on the other hand
involves re-examination of hypotheses and theories in the light of the
available evidence. So, faith and science have nothing in common.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Bewildered By Fine Tuned Design Of The Universe |
18 Feb 2006 04:06:06 PM |
|
|
Milan wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140155607.734576.67210@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Milan wrote:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:g28av190ke1m6rfnoo73h9njb32ur576ar@4ax.com...
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:47:12 -0000, in alt.talk.creationism
"Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote in <45khhvF77acuU1@individual.net>:
<jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:SH1Jf.29230$Jd.14652@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
To me, those who have to look for scientific validity of their
faith,
are
those with extremely *weak* faith.
Well, there may be some hope for those with weak faith. Those with
strong
faith are really gone.
I like to distinguish between brittle or fragile and resilient or
robust. It is the folks with the brittle faith who refuse to consider
that some of their doctrines are wrong because they cannot imagine
that
they would be able to have a real faith without the foolish doctrine
that is contrary to science. Those with resilient faiths don't need
bad
doctrine to prop up what they believe.
Yes. I understand your point. And my point stands. There may be hope for
those with weak faith. But those with strong faith are more unlikely to
return to the realm of reason.
I don't think so. Doubt and re-examination is an essential part of
faith. Oh, hey, that's a common point with science, isn't it?
PD
Not really. Firstly, doubt is not an essential part of faith -actually, it
is not a part of faith at all.
I think you do faith a disservice. There are whole books on doubt's
role in faith, if you choose to look.
PD
Secondly, whatever re-examination might take
place regarding one's faith, it doesnt involve looking at the evidence,
since faith, by definition, is a belief in spite of the absence of
evidence -so, there is no evidence to look at. Science, on the other hand
involves re-examination of hypotheses and theories in the light of the
available evidence. So, faith and science have nothing in common.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Bewildered By Fine Tuned Design Of The Universe |
18 Feb 2006 04:59:09 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140300366.330102.221610@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Milan wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140155607.734576.67210@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Milan wrote:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:g28av190ke1m6rfnoo73h9njb32ur576ar@4ax.com...
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:47:12 -0000, in alt.talk.creationism
"Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote in
<45khhvF77acuU1@individual.net>:
<jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:SH1Jf.29230$Jd.14652@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
To me, those who have to look for scientific validity of their
faith,
are
those with extremely *weak* faith.
Well, there may be some hope for those with weak faith. Those
with
strong
faith are really gone.
I like to distinguish between brittle or fragile and resilient or
robust. It is the folks with the brittle faith who refuse to
consider
that some of their doctrines are wrong because they cannot imagine
that
they would be able to have a real faith without the foolish
doctrine
that is contrary to science. Those with resilient faiths don't
need
bad
doctrine to prop up what they believe.
Yes. I understand your point. And my point stands. There may be hope
for
those with weak faith. But those with strong faith are more unlikely
to
return to the realm of reason.
I don't think so. Doubt and re-examination is an essential part of
faith. Oh, hey, that's a common point with science, isn't it?
PD
Not really. Firstly, doubt is not an essential part of faith -actually,
it
is not a part of faith at all.
I think you do faith a disservice. There are whole books on doubt's
role in faith, if you choose to look.
PD
There may be whole libraries on the role of doubt in faith. That doesnt mean
that doubt is an essential part of faith. Faith is a belief that doesnt rest
on logical proof or evidence.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Bewildered By Fine Tuned Design Of The Universe |
18 Feb 2006 05:40:40 PM |
|
|
"Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:45png0F7qkgaU1@individual.net...
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140300366.330102.221610@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Milan wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140155607.734576.67210@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
I don't think so. Doubt and re-examination is an essential part of
faith. Oh, hey, that's a common point with science, isn't it?
PD
Not really. Firstly, doubt is not an essential part of faith -actually,
it is not a part of faith at all.
I think you do faith a disservice. There are whole books on doubt's
role in faith, if you choose to look.
PD
There may be whole libraries on the role of doubt in faith. That doesnt mean
that doubt is an essential part of faith. Faith is a belief that doesnt rest
on logical proof or evidence.
Fwiw, I lost my faith (and religion) at the age of 14 or so.
Suddenly out of the blue it struck me that if something
takes faith to go along with it, then it could just as well be
false, or even must be - sort of by definition. If it is true,
then it doesn't take faith or belief to know that it is true.
If gods would exist, there wouldn't even be *concepts*
of belief or religion to begin with. After all, it doesn't
take faith to know that apples fall either. Why haven't
we, as a species, not developed the concept of "blime"
that allows us to "know" that apples have deep thoughts,
just like religious people have the concept of "faith" that
allows them to "know" that their gods exist?
Well, for me it was just a matter of letting it go, and I
have a moderately hard time understanding why some
very intelligent people don't.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Bewildered By Fine Tuned Design Of The Universe |
20 Feb 2006 07:51:25 PM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:YfOJf.265606$%y5.7917664@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:45png0F7qkgaU1@individual.net...
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140300366.330102.221610@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Milan wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140155607.734576.67210@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
I don't think so. Doubt and re-examination is an essential part of
faith. Oh, hey, that's a common point with science, isn't it?
PD
Not really. Firstly, doubt is not an essential part of
faith -actually,
it is not a part of faith at all.
I think you do faith a disservice. There are whole books on doubt's
role in faith, if you choose to look.
PD
There may be whole libraries on the role of doubt in faith. That doesnt
mean
that doubt is an essential part of faith. Faith is a belief that doesnt
rest
on logical proof or evidence.
Fwiw, I lost my faith (and religion) at the age of 14 or so.
Suddenly out of the blue it struck me that if something
takes faith to go along with it, then it could just as well be
false, or even must be - sort of by definition. If it is true,
then it doesn't take faith or belief to know that it is true.
If gods would exist, there wouldn't even be *concepts*
of belief or religion to begin with. After all, it doesn't
take faith to know that apples fall either. Why haven't
we, as a species, not developed the concept of "blime"
that allows us to "know" that apples have deep thoughts,
just like religious people have the concept of "faith" that
allows them to "know" that their gods exist?
Well, for me it was just a matter of letting it go, and I
have a moderately hard time understanding why some
very intelligent people don't.
Dirk Vdm
Religious faith is usually just a part of the cultural baggage we inherit
from our parents and from the cultural milieu we grow up in. Most people
dont spend any time examining the validity of the baggage they carry with
them, they just carry on with it. I dont think it is a matter of "letting
go", as you say, I think it takes quite a bit of effort in terms of analysis
and examination to abandon such baggage. Most people dont do it. Including
intelligent people. It's easier for most to simply go on with the stories
they were told.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Bewildered By Fine Tuned Design Of The Universe |
23 Feb 2006 09:55:47 AM |
|
|
Milan wrote:
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:YfOJf.265606$%y5.7917664@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:45png0F7qkgaU1@individual.net...
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140300366.330102.221610@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Milan wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140155607.734576.67210@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
I don't think so. Doubt and re-examination is an essential part of
faith. Oh, hey, that's a common point with science, isn't it?
PD
Not really. Firstly, doubt is not an essential part of
faith -actually,
it is not a part of faith at all.
I think you do faith a disservice. There are whole books on doubt's
role in faith, if you choose to look.
PD
There may be whole libraries on the role of doubt in faith. That doesnt
mean
that doubt is an essential part of faith. Faith is a belief that doesnt
rest
on logical proof or evidence.
Fwiw, I lost my faith (and religion) at the age of 14 or so.
Suddenly out of the blue it struck me that if something
takes faith to go along with it, then it could just as well be
false, or even must be - sort of by definition. If it is true,
then it doesn't take faith or belief to know that it is true.
If gods would exist, there wouldn't even be *concepts*
of belief or religion to begin with. After all, it doesn't
take faith to know that apples fall either. Why haven't
we, as a species, not developed the concept of "blime"
that allows us to "know" that apples have deep thoughts,
just like religious people have the concept of "faith" that
allows them to "know" that their gods exist?
Well, for me it was just a matter of letting it go, and I
have a moderately hard time understanding why some
very intelligent people don't.
Dirk Vdm
Religious faith is usually just a part of the cultural baggage we inherit
from our parents and from the cultural milieu we grow up in. Most people
dont spend any time examining the validity of the baggage they carry with
them, they just carry on with it.
While I don't doubt there are *some* that fit this mold, it's not my
experience that it is "most", and I *certainly* would not generalize
this statement to be true of believers as a whole. Moreover, it
*certainly* is not an argument about the value of faith in the
abstract, any more than people's inability to grasp the laws of physics
or their unwillingness to examine them thoroughly is an indictment
against physics.
I dont think it is a matter of "letting
go", as you say, I think it takes quite a bit of effort in terms of analysis
and examination to abandon such baggage. Most people dont do it. Including
intelligent people. It's easier for most to simply go on with the stories
they were told.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Bewildered By Fine Tuned Design Of The Universe |
23 Feb 2006 01:35:28 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140710147.896960.254460@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Milan wrote:
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
in message news:YfOJf.265606$%y5.7917664@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:45png0F7qkgaU1@individual.net...
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140300366.330102.221610@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Milan wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140155607.734576.67210@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
I don't think so. Doubt and re-examination is an essential
part of
faith. Oh, hey, that's a common point with science, isn't it?
PD
Not really. Firstly, doubt is not an essential part of
faith -actually,
it is not a part of faith at all.
I think you do faith a disservice. There are whole books on
doubt's
role in faith, if you choose to look.
PD
There may be whole libraries on the role of doubt in faith. That
doesnt
mean
that doubt is an essential part of faith. Faith is a belief that
doesnt
rest
on logical proof or evidence.
Fwiw, I lost my faith (and religion) at the age of 14 or so.
Suddenly out of the blue it struck me that if something
takes faith to go along with it, then it could just as well be
false, or even must be - sort of by definition. If it is true,
then it doesn't take faith or belief to know that it is true.
If gods would exist, there wouldn't even be *concepts*
of belief or religion to begin with. After all, it doesn't
take faith to know that apples fall either. Why haven't
we, as a species, not developed the concept of "blime"
that allows us to "know" that apples have deep thoughts,
just like religious people have the concept of "faith" that
allows them to "know" that their gods exist?
Well, for me it was just a matter of letting it go, and I
have a moderately hard time understanding why some
very intelligent people don't.
Dirk Vdm
Religious faith is usually just a part of the cultural baggage we
inherit
from our parents and from the cultural milieu we grow up in. Most people
dont spend any time examining the validity of the baggage they carry
with
them, they just carry on with it.
While I don't doubt there are *some* that fit this mold, it's not my
experience that it is "most", and I *certainly* would not generalize
this statement to be true of believers as a whole.
How many muslims do you know born to jewish parents? How many jewish people
do you know born to christian parents, etc etc? It seems blindingly obvious
that religion is not chosen, but absorbed from the cultural environment.
Moreover, it
*certainly* is not an argument about the value of faith in the
abstract, any more than people's inability to grasp the laws of physics
or their unwillingness to examine them thoroughly is an indictment
against physics.
I'm not talking about the "value" of faith (whatever such value might be).
The value of faith is not the issue here. I'm talking about the sociologic
and psychologic origins of faith.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Bewildered By Fine Tuned Design Of The Universe |
23 Feb 2006 01:56:44 PM |
|
|
Milan wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140710147.896960.254460@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Milan wrote:
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
in message news:YfOJf.265606$%y5.7917664@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:45png0F7qkgaU1@individual.net...
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140300366.330102.221610@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Milan wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140155607.734576.67210@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
I don't think so. Doubt and re-examination is an essential
part of
faith. Oh, hey, that's a common point with science, isn't it?
PD
Not really. Firstly, doubt is not an essential part of
faith -actually,
it is not a part of faith at all.
I think you do faith a disservice. There are whole books on
doubt's
role in faith, if you choose to look.
PD
There may be whole libraries on the role of doubt in faith. That
doesnt
mean
that doubt is an essential part of faith. Faith is a belief that
doesnt
rest
on logical proof or evidence.
Fwiw, I lost my faith (and religion) at the age of 14 or so.
Suddenly out of the blue it struck me that if something
takes faith to go along with it, then it could just as well be
false, or even must be - sort of by definition. If it is true,
then it doesn't take faith or belief to know that it is true.
If gods would exist, there wouldn't even be *concepts*
of belief or religion to begin with. After all, it doesn't
take faith to know that apples fall either. Why haven't
we, as a species, not developed the concept of "blime"
that allows us to "know" that apples have deep thoughts,
just like religious people have the concept of "faith" that
allows them to "know" that their gods exist?
Well, for me it was just a matter of letting it go, and I
have a moderately hard time understanding why some
very intelligent people don't.
Dirk Vdm
Religious faith is usually just a part of the cultural baggage we
inherit
from our parents and from the cultural milieu we grow up in. Most people
dont spend any time examining the validity of the baggage they carry
with
them, they just carry on with it.
While I don't doubt there are *some* that fit this mold, it's not my
experience that it is "most", and I *certainly* would not generalize
this statement to be true of believers as a whole.
How many muslims do you know born to jewish parents? How many jewish people
do you know born to christian parents, etc etc? It seems blindingly obvious
that religion is not chosen, but absorbed from the cultural environment.
Actually, there are quite a few instances of conversion. You seem to be
ignorant of that. How many instances do you know of where someone has
become Jewish or Christian or Muslim despite not being brought up in
that faith at all? I know quite a number of those. How do you suppose
Christian churches appeared in India? Are the populated solely by the
children of immigrants? How do you suppose that Buddhism appeared in
the US? Populated solely by immigrants?
Moreover, it
*certainly* is not an argument about the value of faith in the
abstract, any more than people's inability to grasp the laws of physics
or their unwillingness to examine them thoroughly is an indictment
against physics.
I'm not talking about the "value" of faith (whatever such value might be).
The value of faith is not the issue here. I'm talking about the sociologic
and psychologic origins of faith.
And you seem to have as shallow an understanding of that as you do with
the element of doubt in faith.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Bewildered By Fine Tuned Design Of The Universe |
23 Feb 2006 05:46:00 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140724604.334288.240700@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Milan wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140710147.896960.254460@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Milan wrote:
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
in message news:YfOJf.265606$%y5.7917664@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:45png0F7qkgaU1@individual.net...
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140300366.330102.221610@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Milan wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140155607.734576.67210@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
I don't think so. Doubt and re-examination is an essential
part of
faith. Oh, hey, that's a common point with science, isn't
it?
PD
Not really. Firstly, doubt is not an essential part of
faith -actually,
it is not a part of faith at all.
I think you do faith a disservice. There are whole books on
doubt's
role in faith, if you choose to look.
PD
There may be whole libraries on the role of doubt in faith. That
doesnt
mean
that doubt is an essential part of faith. Faith is a belief that
doesnt
rest
on logical proof or evidence.
Fwiw, I lost my faith (and religion) at the age of 14 or so.
Suddenly out of the blue it struck me that if something
takes faith to go along with it, then it could just as well be
false, or even must be - sort of by definition. If it is true,
then it doesn't take faith or belief to know that it is true.
If gods would exist, there wouldn't even be *concepts*
of belief or religion to begin with. After all, it doesn't
take faith to know that apples fall either. Why haven't
we, as a species, not developed the concept of "blime"
that allows us to "know" that apples have deep thoughts,
just like religious people have the concept of "faith" that
allows them to "know" that their gods exist?
Well, for me it was just a matter of letting it go, and I
have a moderately hard time understanding why some
very intelligent people don't.
Dirk Vdm
Religious faith is usually just a part of the cultural baggage we
inherit
from our parents and from the cultural milieu we grow up in. Most
people
dont spend any time examining the validity of the baggage they carry
with
them, they just carry on with it.
While I don't doubt there are *some* that fit this mold, it's not my
experience that it is "most", and I *certainly* would not generalize
this statement to be true of believers as a whole.
How many muslims do you know born to jewish parents? How many jewish
people
do you know born to christian parents, etc etc? It seems blindingly
obvious
that religion is not chosen, but absorbed from the cultural environment.
Actually, there are quite a few instances of conversion. You seem to be
ignorant of that. How many instances do you know of where someone has
become Jewish or Christian or Muslim despite not being brought up in
that faith at all? I know quite a number of those. How do you suppose
Christian churches appeared in India? Are the populated solely by the
children of immigrants? How do you suppose that Buddhism appeared in
the US? Populated solely by immigrants?
They are a tiny minority in comparison with the cases of continuity in the
same religion.
Moreover, it
*certainly* is not an argument about the value of faith in the
abstract, any more than people's inability to grasp the laws of
physics
or their unwillingness to examine them thoroughly is an indictment
against physics.
I'm not talking about the "value" of faith (whatever such value might
be).
The value of faith is not the issue here. I'm talking about the
sociologic
and psychologic origins of faith.
And you seem to have as shallow an understanding of that as you do with
the element of doubt in faith.
I have to admit you are rather plucky considering that you have contributed
nothing but unsupported assertions, cheap fallacies, and infantile rhetoric.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Bewildered By Fine Tuned Design Of The Universe |
23 Feb 2006 06:08:06 PM |
|
|
Milan wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140724604.334288.240700@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Milan wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140710147.896960.254460@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Milan wrote:
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
in message news:YfOJf.265606$%y5.7917664@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:45png0F7qkgaU1@individual.net...
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140300366.330102.221610@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Milan wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140155607.734576.67210@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
I don't think so. Doubt and re-examination is an essential
part of
faith. Oh, hey, that's a common point with science, isn't
it?
PD
Not really. Firstly, doubt is not an essential part of
faith -actually,
it is not a part of faith at all.
I think you do faith a disservice. There are whole books on
doubt's
role in faith, if you choose to look.
PD
There may be whole libraries on the role of doubt in faith. That
doesnt
mean
that doubt is an essential part of faith. Faith is a belief that
doesnt
rest
on logical proof or evidence.
Fwiw, I lost my faith (and religion) at the age of 14 or so.
Suddenly out of the blue it struck me that if something
takes faith to go along with it, then it could just as well be
false, or even must be - sort of by definition. If it is true,
then it doesn't take faith or belief to know that it is true.
If gods would exist, there wouldn't even be *concepts*
of belief or religion to begin with. After all, it doesn't
take faith to know that apples fall either. Why haven't
we, as a species, not developed the concept of "blime"
that allows us to "know" that apples have deep thoughts,
just like religious people have the concept of "faith" that
allows them to "know" that their gods exist?
Well, for me it was just a matter of letting it go, and I
have a moderately hard time understanding why some
very intelligent people don't.
Dirk Vdm
Religious faith is usually just a part of the cultural baggage we
inherit
from our parents and from the cultural milieu we grow up in. Most
people
dont spend any time examining the validity of the baggage they carry
with
them, they just carry on with it.
While I don't doubt there are *some* that fit this mold, it's not my
experience that it is "most", and I *certainly* would not generalize
this statement to be true of believers as a whole.
How many muslims do you know born to jewish parents? How many jewish
people
do you know born to christian parents, etc etc? It seems blindingly
obvious
that religion is not chosen, but absorbed from the cultural environment.
Actually, there are quite a few instances of conversion. You seem to be
ignorant of that. How many instances do you know of where someone has
become Jewish or Christian or Muslim despite not being brought up in
that faith at all? I know quite a number of those. How do you suppose
Christian churches appeared in India? Are the populated solely by the
children of immigrants? How do you suppose that Buddhism appeared in
the US? Populated solely by immigrants?
They are a tiny minority in comparison with the cases of continuity in the
same religion.
Well, I don't know about you, but in physics it only takes one
counterexample to disprove a theory that claims to be correct all the
time.
Moreover, you haven't taken into account adults who profess a stronger
faith than they had when they were children. There are a large number
of adults who will tell you, if you ask, that they *abandoned their
faith* in early adulthood, only to return to it later. These also would
be hard to fit in with a theory that says that faith is only what is
instilled in you by your upbringing. I'll leave it to you to check the
incidence of that occurence by your own data acquisition methods.
Moreover, it
*certainly* is not an argument about the value of faith in the
abstract, any more than people's inability to grasp the laws of
physics
or their unwillingness to examine them thoroughly is an indictment
against physics.
I'm not talking about the "value" of faith (whatever such value might
be).
The value of faith is not the issue here. I'm talking about the
sociologic
and psychologic origins of faith.
And you seem to have as shallow an understanding of that as you do with
the element of doubt in faith.
I have to admit you are rather plucky considering that you have contributed
nothing but unsupported assertions, cheap fallacies, and infantile rhetoric.
As I said earlier, I don't owe you anything but assertions. This is not
necessarily a subject amenable to proof or argument. Neither is quantum
mechanics.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arthur Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Bewildered By Fine Tuned Design Of The Universe |
23 Feb 2006 06:10:38 PM |
|
|
PD wrote:
Milan wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140724604.334288.240700@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Milan wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140710147.896960.254460@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Milan wrote:
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
in message news:YfOJf.265606$%y5.7917664@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:45png0F7qkgaU1@individual.net...
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140300366.330102.221610@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Milan wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140155607.734576.67210@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
I don't think so. Doubt and re-examination is an essential
part of
faith. Oh, hey, that's a common point with science, isn't
it?
PD
Not really. Firstly, doubt is not an essential part of
faith -actually,
it is not a part of faith at all.
I think you do faith a disservice. There are whole books on
doubt's
role in faith, if you choose to look.
PD
There may be whole libraries on the role of doubt in faith. That
doesnt
mean
that doubt is an essential part of faith. Faith is a belief that
doesnt
rest
on logical proof or evidence.
Fwiw, I lost my faith (and religion) at the age of 14 or so.
Suddenly out of the blue it struck me that if something
takes faith to go along with it, then it could just as well be
false, or even must be - sort of by definition. If it is true,
then it doesn't take faith or belief to know that it is true.
If gods would exist, there wouldn't even be *concepts*
of belief or religion to begin with. After all, it doesn't
take faith to know that apples fall either. Why haven't
we, as a species, not developed the concept of "blime"
that allows us to "know" that apples have deep thoughts,
just like religious people have the concept of "faith" that
allows them to "know" that their gods exist?
Well, for me it was just a matter of letting it go, and I
have a moderately hard time understanding why some
very intelligent people don't.
Dirk Vdm
Religious faith is usually just a part of the cultural baggage we
inherit
from our parents and from the cultural milieu we grow up in. Most
people
dont spend any time examining the validity of the baggage they carry
with
them, they just carry on with it.
While I don't doubt there are *some* that fit this mold, it's not my
experience that it is "most", and I *certainly* would not generalize
this statement to be true of believers as a whole.
How many muslims do you know born to jewish parents? How many jewish
people
do you know born to christian parents, etc etc? It seems blindingly
obvious
that religion is not chosen, but absorbed from the cultural environment.
Actually, there are quite a few instances of conversion. You seem to be
ignorant of that. How many instances do you know of where someone has
become Jewish or Christian or Muslim despite not being brought up in
that faith at all? I know quite a number of those. How do you suppose
Christian churches appeared in India? Are the populated solely by the
children of immigrants? How do you suppose that Buddhism appeared in
the US? Populated solely by immigrants?
They are a tiny minority in comparison with the cases of continuity in the
same religion.
Well, I don't know about you, but in physics it only takes one
counterexample to disprove a theory that claims to be correct all the
time.
Moreover, you haven't taken into account adults who profess a stronger
faith than they had when they were children. There are a large number
of adults who will tell you, if you ask, that they *abandoned their
faith* in early adulthood, only to return to it later. These also would
be hard to fit in with a theory that says that faith is only what is
instilled in you by your upbringing. I'll leave it to you to check the
incidence of that occurence by your own data acquisition methods.
My Mother is one such person. Over 85 and lately more interested in
her faith I tease her for hedging her bets.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Bewildered By Fine Tuned Design Of The Universe |
24 Feb 2006 12:21:36 AM |
|
|
PD wrote:
[big snip]
As I said earlier, I don't owe you anything but assertions. This is not
necessarily a subject amenable to proof or argument. Neither is quantum
mechanics.
How do you mean that? Quantum mechanics is scientific knowledge
strictly based on objective evidence, isn't it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Bewildered By Fine Tuned Design Of The Universe |
24 Feb 2006 10:29:11 AM |
|
|
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
PD wrote:
[big snip]
As I said earlier, I don't owe you anything but assertions. This is not
necessarily a subject amenable to proof or argument. Neither is quantum
mechanics.
How do you mean that? Quantum mechanics is scientific knowledge
strictly based on objective evidence, isn't it?
There was no rationale that suggested that the universe *should* have a
quantum nature except that a model that incorporates that assumption
seems to *then* match data. There was no experimental evidence pointing
toward a particle wavefunction before one was proposed. There was no
experimental evidence pointing toward a commutator before one was
proposed.
The theory was *motivated* by a lack of match-up between the
then-current theory and experimental observations. There was no
argument or proof that indicated that quantum mechanics had to be the
right solution until it matched evidence. There would be no way to
convince someone, on the basis of logic or argument, that quantum
mechanics is right unless it gets the data right. This is one reason
why we don't know whether loop gravity or spin networks or strings is
the right theory for gravity -- there is no way to *argue* convincingly
that one *has* to be right and the others not right.
In the same way, there is no way to *argue* convincingly that doubt is
an essential element of faith. There is, however, acquisition of
evidence which could decide the issue for the investigator, which is
what I was suggesting to a poster here.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Bewildered By Fine Tuned Design Of The Universe |
20 Feb 2006 01:10:53 PM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:45png0F7qkgaU1@individual.net...
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140300366.330102.221610@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Milan wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140155607.734576.67210@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
I don't think so. Doubt and re-examination is an essential part of
faith. Oh, hey, that's a common point with science, isn't it?
PD
Not really. Firstly, doubt is not an essential part of faith -actually,
it is not a part of faith at all.
I think you do faith a disservice. There are whole books on doubt's
role in faith, if you choose to look.
PD
There may be whole libraries on the role of doubt in faith. That doesnt mean
that doubt is an essential part of faith. Faith is a belief that doesnt rest
on logical proof or evidence.
Fwiw, I lost my faith (and religion) at the age of 14 or so.
Suddenly out of the blue it struck me that if something
takes faith to go along with it, then it could just as well be
false, or even must be - sort of by definition.
Why?
For example, I believe on faith that you are a conscious being and not
just a conscious-less machine (a zombie). After all you can't give me
any objective evidence that you are conscious, correct? So, according
to your lema, my believing that you are conscious must be false.
If it is true,
then it doesn't take faith or belief to know that it is true.
If gods would exist, there wouldn't even be *concepts*
of belief or religion to begin with.
Why?
After all belief is a useful concept related to our thinking about
facts - like when we say "I believe it's raining". And religion is
organized theology, no? If there were gods one would expect that people
would want to organize their knowledge about them.
After all, it doesn't
take faith to know that apples fall either.
Neither does it take math. So what? One uses different tools in order
to learn about different things.
Why haven't
we, as a species, not developed the concept of "blime"
that allows us to "know" that apples have deep thoughts,
just like religious people have the concept of "faith" that
allows them to "know" that their gods exist?
I am not sure what your point is here.
Well, for me it was just a matter of letting it go, and I
have a moderately hard time understanding why some
very intelligent people don't.
Yes, it's interesting no? Probably because faith works for them. It
appears that faith doesn't work for you. How are we to understand this
state of affairs?
I think there are the following possibilities:
1. There are fundamentally different kinds of people.
or else
2. Either you or them are wrong: maybe they are imagining things or
else maybe you fail to see things.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Bewildered By Fine Tuned Design Of The Universe |
20 Feb 2006 02:20:46 PM |
|
|
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message news:1140462653.814867.29810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:45png0F7qkgaU1@individual.net...
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140300366.330102.221610@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Milan wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140155607.734576.67210@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
I don't think so. Doubt and re-examination is an essential part of
faith. Oh, hey, that's a common point with science, isn't it?
PD
Not really. Firstly, doubt is not an essential part of faith -actually,
it is not a part of faith at all.
I think you do faith a disservice. There are whole books on doubt's
role in faith, if you choose to look.
PD
There may be whole libraries on the role of doubt in faith. That doesnt mean
that doubt is an essential part of faith. Faith is a belief that doesnt rest
on logical proof or evidence.
Fwiw, I lost my faith (and religion) at the age of 14 or so.
Suddenly out of the blue it struck me that if something
takes faith to go along with it, then it could just as well be
false, or even must be - sort of by definition.
Why?
For example, I believe on faith that you ar | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
