Science and Religion

[AEON]

Interesting...

Just Thinking about Science Triggers Moral Behavior

Researchers at the University of California Santa Barbara set out to test this possibility. They hypothesized that there is a deep-seated perception of science as a moral pursuit — its emphasis on truth-seeking, impartiality and rationality privileges collective well-being above all else. Their new study, published in the journal PLOSOne, argues that the association between science and morality is so ingrained that merely thinking about it can trigger more moral behavior.

[AEON]

The Dark Age Myth: An Atheist Reviews “God’s Philosophers”

One of the occupational hazards of being an atheist and secular humanist who hangs around on discussion boards is to encounter a staggering level of historical illiteracy. I like to console myself that many of the people on such boards have come to their atheism via the study of science and so, even if they are quite learned in things like geology and biology, usually have a grasp of history stunted at about high school level. I generally do this because the alternative is to admit that the average person's grasp of history and how history is studied is so utterly feeble as to be totally depressing.

So, alongside the regular airings of the hoary old myth that the Bible was collated at the Council of Nicea, the tedious internet-based "Jesus never existed!" nonsense, or otherwise intelligent people spouting pseudo historical claims that would make even Dan Brown snort in derision, the myth that the Catholic Church caused the Dark Ages and the Medieval Period was a scientific wasteland is regularly wheeled, creaking, into the sunlight for another trundle around the arena.

The myth goes that the Greeks and Romans were wise and rational types who loved science and were on the brink of doing all kinds of marvelous things (inventing full-scale steam engines is one example that is usually, rather fancifully, invoked) until Christianity came along. Christianity then banned all learning and rational thought and ushered in the Dark Ages. Then an iron-fisted theocracy, backed by a Gestapo-style Inquisition, prevented any science or questioning inquiry from happening until Leonardo da Vinci invented intelligence and the wondrous Renaissance saved us all from Medieval darkness.
The online manifestations of this curiously quaint but seemingly indefatigable idea range from the touchingly clumsy to the utterly shocking, but it remains one of those things that "everybody knows" and permeates modern culture. A recent episode of Family Guy had Stewie and Brian enter a futuristic alternative world where, it was explained, things were so advanced because Christianity didn't destroy learning, usher in the Dark Ages and stifle science. The writers didn't see the need to explain what Stewie meant - they assumed everyone understood.

About once every 3-4 months on forums like RichardDawkins.net we get some discussion where someone invokes the old "Conflict Thesis". That evolves into the usual ritual kicking of the Middle Ages as a benighted intellectual wasteland where humanity was shackled to superstition and oppressed by cackling minions of the Evil Old Catholic Church. The hoary standards are brought out on cue. Giordiano Bruno is presented as a wise and noble martyr for science instead of the irritating mystical New Age kook he actually was. Hypatia is presented as another such martyr and the mythical Christian destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria is spoken of in hushed tones, despite both these ideas being totally untrue. The Galileo Affair is ushered in as evidence of a brave scientist standing up to the unscientific obscurantism of the Church, despite that case being as much about science as it was about Scripture.

[AEON]

Maybe we're all wrong...

A new cosmology successfully explains the accelerating expansion of the universe without dark energy; but only if the universe has no beginning and no end.

Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe

[BEAL]

Great thing about science is working towards a solution or answer based off of data as it changes.

If this theory were to be true it's due to a better algorithm and data that's presented to us.

Science will try to prove this theory wrong and if it can't then great!

Still better than making a claim its true and I evidence to back it up

[AEON]

Originally Posted by BEAL

Science will try to prove this theory wrong and if it can't then great!

I agree - that is why I think science is better at describing the observable/testable universe than philosophy/theology.

What's really interesting - if it can be proven that the universe never had a beginning - this would be a major obstacle for Creationism. At least the Big Bang points to a single moment when the universe came into existence (which can actually assist - and certainly does not contradict - a Creationist argument).

[PhilsFan]

Does this mean CBS will finally cancel The Big Bang Theory?

[AEON]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

Does this mean CBS will finally cancel The Big Bang Theory?

LOL - I guess The Universe Has No Beginning and No End Theory just doesn't have the same ring to it.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by AEON

Maybe we're all wrong...



Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe

Interesting article, but I'd be curious to see what other theoretical physicists have to say about it. My first thought upon seeing the headline was "what about the cosmic background radiation?". Glad that isn't being overlooked. There are other problems to an infinite universe though. For one, our night sky should be lit up like a giant skylight from all the light of every star in the universe having an infinite amount of time to reach us.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

There are other problems to an infinite universe though. For one, our night sky should be lit up like a giant skylight from all the light of every star in the universe having an infinite amount of time to reach us.

Unless the exponential "expansion" is faster than light...just a thought...

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by AEON

Unless the exponential "expansion" is faster than light...just a thought...

But the expansion isn't really an expansion in the way we would normally think about it. The space itself isn't moving. More space is being added. It's more of an inflation... interesting thought none the less. And really, what the hell do I know?

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

and really, what the hell do I know?

LOL - what do any of us really know about these things? But it's fun as hell to think about.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

But the expansion isn't really an expansion in the way we would normally think about it. The space itself isn't moving. More space is being added. It's more of an inflation...

Even if this is the case - wouldn't the individual sources of light also expand as more "space" is added (like the internal surface of a balloon)? It seems the sky wouldn't necessarily be filled with light, it would actually grow dimmer and dimmer (meaning more dark "space" between individual sources of light) as the "edge" expanded further and further because of the "inflation" you speak of...just a thought...

[Jive Turkey]

Random Deepak Chopra Quote Generator - Wisdom of Chopra

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Random Deepak Chopra Quote Generator - Wisdom of Chopra

That's some good stuff.

[Kieran McConville]

Reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by Kieran McConville

Reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.

Anyone check the flux capacitor?

[AEON]

This makes me wonder, what if we (in theory) made a telescope so strong it could actually view the daily life on another planet - but it would be "live" images that were created millions of years ago. How would that impact our sense of free will vs. determinism? Could we zoom in and zoom out to FWD and REW on individual lives? Would such a tool help you to make "better" choices knowing it's possible you are observed?

Light from farthest galaxy yet discovered breaks through cosmic fog

[Jive Turkey]

Once the light reaches us, it's done. It's no different than the light reflecting off your neighbour's shed. So there would be no fastforwarding or rewinding. In theory, I suppose a high enough resolution camera and perfect conditions would capture actual, ancient movement on a long dead planet, but in reality, the light is so distorted by that point through gravitational distortion and refraction, that it's not very practical. I'm not sure what it all has to do with free will or determinism though. We experience that very same phenomenon in our daily lives, just on a shorter time scale. Everything you see has happened at least a fraction of a fraction of a second in the past. "live" images you see on the television aren't happening simultaneously with you experiencing them. Even the light from the moon takes over a half a minute to reach us, so the moon as you see it at any time is the moon as it was 39 seconds ago.
When biologists speak of free will or a lack there of, it's not fatalism they're talking about. It's not the idea that things are predetermined, so we have no free will of our own; I don't think any serious scientist is positing that. Rather, the lack of free will is in relation to whether or not our conscious self is really making any decisions or if they're really coming into being from deep within the darkness of our minds. Experiments suggest the latter.

[BEAL]

Sam Harris has a nice short book/essay on free will

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by BEAL

Sam Harris has a nice short book/essay on free will