Education, Standards and Culture

[Preston]

I think Peter means all the waste (which is negativity) in the world. For instance, you cannot even turn on the TV, to most all channels, and not be affected by it. That says something strong, imo.

You speak of the beauty of nature. Nature is probably the most pure of all things on Earth. Yet, another example of extreme negativity, is that we are destroying nature and the earth with it.

Not to mention all the sweat-shops in the world today. People who are born in most repressive environments. The madness of the popular culture. People who are locked behind bars for their entire lives. The lack of support for the mentally-sick, the blind, the poor, the mentally-challenged, etc. ETC.

Humanity, as a whole, destroys more than it saves.

[Peter]

Those aren't really comparable things. Proof has been at least offered for God's existence, both in the abstract philosophical sense and in the direct sense. There are people who claim that God came here in person, taught them things, and gave them commands. They committed these things to writing and testified to their truth through their own deaths. Whether you find that convincing or not, it's at least there for consideration.

Life on other planets, however, is pure speculation. We don't even know that there are trillions of exoplanets out there. To date we have identified less than 500, and even those not directly, but inferred from their believed effects on other things (effects which we don't even fully understand yet). Even if there are such a large number of exoplanets, that must be balanced against the probably that they can support life and that, even if they can, life will arise at all, which is remote in the extreme. Physicists will tend to argue from the vast amount of stuff out there, while biologists will tend to argue the other side due to the complexity of what must occur. And unfortunately, even if life out there was a certainty, the odds of us ever finding one another are almost nonexistent. The more likely value of exoplanets that can support life is that we could colonize them.

It isn't proof that has been offered of God's existence, but ancient texts written by men who have made all sorts of claims that millions accept through faith. I make no comments on that as I thoroughly respect the individuals right to their own personal beliefs but it does not constitute proof. My point was just because you cannot prove a thing it does not mean it doesn't exist or isn't possible - it is therefore foolish in my view to deny the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe because we do not know. You don't have to go back far to think of things that would once have been thought fantasy but are now known to be fact.

[Chris]

It isn't proof that has been offered of God's existence, but ancient texts written by men who have made all sorts of claims that millions accept through faith. I make no comments on that as I thoroughly respect the individuals right to their own personal beliefs but it does not constitute proof. My point was just because you cannot prove a thing it does not mean it doesn't exist or isn't possible - it is therefore foolish in my view to deny the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe because we do not know. You don't have to go back far to think of things that would once have been thought fantasy but are now known to be fact.

Faith is considered a theological virtue, but that is not related to proofs for the existence of God, either philosophical or historical. What is written in the Gospels, for example, is just as valid a submission of historical proof as any historical document that has survived to present times, and can be judged by the same criteria.

Scientific proofs seem to have less difficulties associated with them to the general public, but behind the scenes there is just as much arguing and debate as there is in historical circles, because, while scientific experiments at least have the advantage of being repeatable, the details of the setup and the interpretation of the data is by no means obvious. We have indeed discovered a great many things that were thought impossible in science. And we have also discovered that many of the things we thought we knew are wrong. And we continue to operate with theories and models that we know are wrong as we search for the missing pieces.

I don't deny the possibility of life on other planets. Believe me, as a kid who was amazed by the cantina scene in Star Wars with all the wonderful aliens, there is no one who would be more excited by it than I. Even if it were just microbes or plants. I am just cautioning against the assumption that, due to the large number of stars, there must be life on other planets, or even that there probably is life on other planets. Because, while that number is truly amazing, there are also amazingly small numbers in the equation that cancel it out. We don't even know much about these supposed other planets that we haven't even really seen yet. Popular imagination and hope for practically useful results tends to drive these things (something scientists love, because it means grant money), but in truth we are a long way from establishing that there is or can be any other life out there.

[Bonn1827]

At my stage in life I don't see this debate as pro-religion or anti-science, and vice versa, any more. The scientifically proven aspects of this discourse, as Chris suggests, are fraught and problematic. I think the "faith" aspect is far more important: actually both paradigms require "faith" when you think about it. (I don't agree with the more cynical observation about scientific grants, since no intellectual endeavour is possible without adequate financial support.)

I tend to agree with Australian theoretical physicist Paul Davies, who has discovered that the "more" he tries to understand quantum physics, black holes, galaxies and possible "life" beyond our planet, the more, for him, this becomes an existential argument which involves "faith". I note that recently the opposite has applied with respect to Stephen Hawking. The whole subject is fraught but terribly exciting because it is pushing the boundaries about what people "believe", just as early navigators did when they discovered that the earth wasn't flat. To me, it's the ultimate metaphor of human imagination and, yes, faith.

Faith is an essential element of our daily lives and something which can be divorced from the realm of religion though, for some people - and I believe this is Chris - it is inextricably linked to religious belief. To me, "faith" is an existential term which means "belief", but this belief embodies such secular ideas as faith in my fellow human beings, in my ability to cross the street and be alive when I get to the other side, being able to trust and believe people, to glory in the imagination of a small child and its incredible learning possibilities. I think of the film "Inherit the Wind" and the words of Spencer Tracy, "there is more sanctity in the power of a child's imagination than in all of your shouted amens". (I didn't mean this to be anti-religious; the film was about demagoguery, not religion per se.)

[Chris]

The discussion isn't about religion vs. science, just about the nature of proofs and evidence, which span a variety of subjects, including religion, history, philosophy, science, and mathematics.

[Bonn1827]

[QUOTE=Chris;48305]Those aren't really comparable things. Proof has been at least offered for God's existence, both in the abstract philosophical sense and in the direct sense. There are people who claim that God came here in person, taught them things, and gave them commands. They committed these things to writing and testified to their truth through their own deaths. Whether you find that convincing or not, it's at least there for consideration.

Sorry, I should have stated that these were the comments to which I was mainly referring. As to the other discussion on "proofs", I really think that this is inextricably linked with the philosophy of religion anyway. And I wonder about the ultimate point you are making in your argument about such "proofs" anyway?

[Chris]

Sorry, I should have stated that these were the comments to which I was mainly referring. As to the other discussion on "proofs", I really think that this is inextricably linked with the philosophy of religion anyway. And I wonder about the ultimate point you are making in your argument about such "proofs" anyway?

It's the same discussion. Peter said:

That we have no proof of life on other planets is no more of an argument than saying there is no proof of God's existence. With the billions of suns out there surrounded by trillions of planets it would be foolish to deny the possibility of life elsewhere.

My counter to that was that, in regard to the existence of God, at least historical proof has been offered for consideration. But as of yet, no proof has even been offered for consideration regarding the existence of extraterrestrial life, nor does the number of stars allow one to make an argument of probability for it, since that number is countered by equally small numbers as well. Thus, the two examples are not equivalent.

[Peter]

It's the same discussion. Peter said:



My counter to that was that, in regard to the existence of God, at least historical proof has been offered for consideration. But as of yet, no proof has even been offered for consideration regarding the existence of extraterrestrial life, nor does the number of stars allow one to make an argument of probability for it, since that number is countered by equally small numbers as well. Thus, the two examples are not equivalent.

But what you call 'historical proof' is nothing of the kind! The Gospels for example were written down at least 80 years after the events they describe and they contain contradictions with each other and with historical fact. I think you're missing my point which is not to attack religion or a belief in God ( I am not an atheist!!) but to simply state that because a thing cannot be proven it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Bonn1827]

I guess I muddied the waters somewhat by suggesting that you didn't need "proofs", merely "faith" and that the term has a much more comprehensive meaning than that assigned to conventional religion. As to my misreading the nature of the argument...if it walks and talks like a duck....

But I take Peter's point that the lack of "proof" doesn't mean that something either did not happen or does not exist. Look at a simple court case and "habeas corpus" - the "body" can't be found but the prosecution case can still successfully proceed. The deceased is known to have died but it cannot be absolutely proven. How many times have we known, for certain, that somebody has done something wrong but cannot prove it in a court of law?! So, even on the most prosaic level "proof" is a problematic concept.

[Chris]

But what you call 'historical proof' is nothing of the kind! The Gospels for example were written down at least 80 years after the events they describe and they contain contradictions with each other and with historical fact.

They don't contain any contradictions in their essential elements, and I have never heard of anyone saying anything in one of the Gospels contradicted any historical fact. When you have different accounts being written down after some length of time, you would expect that different people would remember some of the small details differently (or would write them differently for narrative purposes). But that is the very nature of historical evidence! How much work is done by historians in reconciling different accounts, factoring in the fact that history is written by the victors, and so on? One day Columbus is a hero and the next he is a villain. Which is it? One, the other, both, neither? The point is, whether you find it convincing or not, it's there for consideration.

On the other hand, no one has offered any evidence, convincing or unconvincing, for life on other planets yet.

I think you're missing my point which is not to attack religion or a belief in God ( I am not an atheist!!) but to simply state that because a thing cannot be proven it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

No, I know - but I didn't say that a thing that has not been proven is not true. I said that it is not reasonable to make a positive assertion without some evidence being offered. In your example of belief in God, that evidence has been offered, and it then comes down to judging it. In the case of life on other planets, no evidence has yet been offered for judgment.

It is an interesting topic, because science has for a while now been headed in a direction where evidence is indirect or not even possible. I'm sure many of us have heard of String Theory. It is a true physical theory? Some say yes, some say no, due to the fact that it makes no falsifiable predictions and that no experiments can be performed. And even two of the most successful theories in science, Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity pose difficulties. We can do some experiments that prove particle-wave duality, and we can make some extremely accurate equations as a result. And yet...we really have no idea what physical reality is at play there. Scientists come up with various interpretations of the data, and there is no evidence for any them. And perhaps there cannot be, because it is intrinsically beyond our ability to know. Some scientists argue that understanding how it works is enough, and we shouldn't be concerned with what it is. (Personally, I am not satisfied with that.) In any case, the nature of proof is an interesting subject that crosses multiple disciplines, from the inexact to the most rigorous. In fact, one of the most bizarre things about reality at the most fundamental level we know about is that the ability to know things about it actually changes it!

[Bonn1827]

Getting back to the Education discussion, Peter, this would be a great start in schools don't you think?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-david-cameron

[Peter]

Getting back to the Education discussion, Peter, this would be a great start in schools don't you think?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-david-cameron

Simon Schama's programmes are excellent and I've always enjoyed his presentation - in other words the issue comes down to a good communicator who can engage with children. I don't agree that context isn't important - they cited the example of Nazi Germany on the curriculum - well you can't teach it in isolation. You have to understand the 19th century background and the first world war.

[Peter]

They don't contain any contradictions in their essential elements, and I have never heard of anyone saying anything in one of the Gospels contradicted any historical fact.

Well they contradict even on the basics such as the days major events as the Crucifixion happened. There is also a major problem with the chronology of King Herod and the governor Quirinius who Luke places as contemporaries when in fact they were 10 years or so apart. Nor could Herod have coincided with a Roman taxation of Judaea. These are just a few examples of many but I have no desire to go further on these issues as I respect your views and beliefs.

[Chris]

Well they contradict even on the basics such as the days major events as the Crucifixion happened. There is also a major problem with the chronology of King Herod and the governor Quirinius who Luke places as contemporaries when in fact they were 10 years or so apart. Nor could Herod have coincided with a Roman taxation of Judaea. These are just a few examples of many but I have no desire to go further on these issues as I respect your views and beliefs.

The issue isn't anyone's views or beliefs. The issue is that this is not any different from the difficulties faced when analyzing and judging any historical evidence. There are many possible explanations for these questions, and these are merely details anyway. In fact, if the Gospels agreed too closely on all the details, you would have to be rather suspicious as to whether these were actually three or four separate accounts of what happened, as multiple people are not likely to have remembered all of the details in exactly the same way many years after the events in question.

You even have this problem when dealing with scientific evidence. Two labs run the same experiment and obtain slightly different results. Why? Were those conclusions justified? Did you run the experiment enough times? And so on. (This is why I have personally always hated lab work, by the way.) At least the scientists have the advantage of (usually) being able to repeat experiments. But they also have to deal with the fact that measuring things changes the results!

And I mentioned the theories of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity before. Two of the most successful theories in all of science. They have both been verified experimentally numerous times. There's just one problem - they are mutually incompatible. And they are highly resistant to being unified due to some boring math stuff. So we know they are both wrong, because they can't account for the results of the other. Yet we know that they are both quite a bit right, too. What's the answer? Nobody knows. But I imagine we'll figure it out eventually.

Forgive me if I've rambled on about this, but these areas of physics were my favorite areas of study, and I would probably talk about them all day if nobody stopped me. The urge to make a physics thread is becoming overwhelming...

[Peter]

The issue isn't anyone's views or beliefs. The issue is that this is not any different from the difficulties faced when analyzing and judging any historical evidence. There are many possible explanations for these questions, and these are merely details anyway. In fact, if the Gospels agreed too closely on all the details, you would have to be rather suspicious as to whether these were actually three or four separate accounts of what happened, as multiple people are not likely to have remembered all of the details in exactly the same way many years after the events in question.

You even have this problem when dealing with scientific evidence. Two labs run the same experiment and obtain slightly different results. Why? Were those conclusions justified? Did you run the experiment enough times? And so on. (This is why I have personally always hated lab work, by the way.) At least the scientists have the advantage of (usually) being able to repeat experiments. But they also have to deal with the fact that measuring things changes the results!

And I mentioned the theories of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity before. Two of the most successful theories in all of science. They have both been verified experimentally numerous times. There's just one problem - they are mutually incompatible. And they are highly resistant to being unified due to some boring math stuff. So we know they are both wrong, because they can't account for the results of the other. Yet we know that they are both quite a bit right, too. What's the answer? Nobody knows. But I imagine we'll figure it out eventually.

Forgive me if I've rambled on about this, but these areas of physics were my favorite areas of study, and I would probably talk about them all day if nobody stopped me. The urge to make a physics thread is becoming overwhelming...

Yes I agree with you on this and on the points concerning the Bible - I was merely pointing them out and in a way making the argument you yourself are about proof and evidence. For me a belief in God doesn't require ancient texts anyway and nor do I require scientists to inform me of what I consider the probability of life elsewhere in the universe.