There is a Heaven

[thestoat]

Kalamity Jane says: there cannot be an infinite number of moments prior to this moment because if there were an infinite number of moments prior to this moment we would never reach this moment

Damn, that is a good one. There haven't been an infinite amount of moments - because time is wrapped up with space, but had there been I am not quite sure that Jame would be quite correct. But that is instinct - I have no idea how to go about proving that one

Therefore the argument says that the universe had a beginning and science agrees, some 13.7 billion years ago. I'll let Dawkins argue that science is wrong because I happen to think it's correct.

Understandable you are down on Dawkins, but in the books of his I have read I have never come across him postulating that science is wrong on that point. Can you point me to a reference there? I am assuming you aren't making it up Most of what I have read of Dawkins that I understood I agree with (he does harp on about memes - wish he wouldn't), and something so obviously false as to state science is wrong on the age of the universe I am sure I would have picked up.

And I like your question "why not?" Exactly! Why is there something rather than nothing?

Well in most of space there really is nothing. A big fat nothing. As for why other things like us and planets are there - I feel the anthropic principal answers that. My feeling is there doesn't have to be a why. As you correctly state, science tries to understand the how. It could be argued it tries to understand the why as well - "why do large objects attract each other? Because there are particles called gravitons that blah blah" Obviously one can continue to ask "why" in the mode of a 5 year old ...

why do objects attract
gravity
why does gravity make them attract
gravitons
why do gravitons work the way they do

And ultimately, when you don't know the answer any more, just state

cos god made them act that way

But then I'd ask "why did god make them" - and keep going in the 5 year old mode

Science stops answering questions when it had no more answers (and then looks for those answers). Those of faith feel they don't need to look for the answers, because their mate god can be used as the answer to everything ...

[Sean]

To me that is a fundamental difference between science and religion and one of the main reasons I err on the side of science:
There is a question; an unknown. Scientists will theorise an answer, test the theory, if proven wrong try another theory, debunk each others theories but never stop looking for the answer.
The religious however will say "God did it" and stop looking.

This to me is the ultimate cop-out.

[thestoat]

This to me is the ultimate cop-out.

Absolutely

[MajGenl.Meade]

To me that is a fundamental difference between science and religion and one of the main reasons I err on the side of science:
There is a question; an unknown. Scientists will theorise an answer, test the theory, if proven wrong try another theory, debunk each others theories but never stop looking for the answer.
The religious however will say "God did it" and stop looking.

This to me is the ultimate cop-out.

You know I think that all of the scientists (and there are many) who are Christians (and I bet there's more than a few who are Hindus and whatever else) would not declare that the above is crap because they are just too polite. And they don't bother reading this board too - yes, there is that.

"The religious" have never said "God did it" and stopped looking. It's a historical fact that one of the main impetuses for the development of science was because believers such as Newton had a burning desire to find out "how" God did it.

It's about time that the constant harping about a division between science and faith was recognised for the total bullshit that it is

Just sayin'
Meade

PS "I err" OK 100% on that one

[thestoat]

believers such as Newton

Was he a believer, I wonder? If I were he, and had heard about Galileo, I think I'd say I was a believer too. Just sayin

[thestoat]

You know I think that all of the scientists (and there are many) who are Christians

Now that is an interesting statement, and it got me looking for some data to back up (or refute) that statement. A lot on the web is hugely biased, either for or against religion, so I have tried to avoid that. I came across the following that looks non biased and seems to refute your statement ...

Larson and Witham present the results of a replication of 1913 and 1933 surveys by James H. Leuba. In those surveys, Leuba mailed a questionnaire to leading scientists asking about their belief in "a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" and in "personal immortality". Larson and Witham used the same wording [as in the Leuba studies], and sent their questionnaire to 517 members of the [U.S.] National Academy of Sciences from the biological and physical sciences (the latter including mathematicians, physicists and astronomers). The return rate was slightly over 50%.

BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD 1914 1933 1998

Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

This study is referred to in the NY Times too http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/natio ... ted=2&_r=1

Finally, in the same article ...

But Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary theorist at Oxford, said that even scientists who were believers did not claim evidence for that belief. "The most they will claim is that there is no evidence against," Dr. Dawkins said, "which is pathetically weak. There is no evidence against all sorts of things, but we don't waste our time believing in them."

[Big RR]

believers such as Newton

Was he a believer, I wonder? If I were he, and had heard about Galileo, I think I'd say I was a believer too. Just sayin

Actually, Galileo's letters and writing show he was a believer; he didn't buy the BS of the RC church's dogma and pronouncements, but he did seek to reconcile many of his positions with biblical accounts (e.g. he used the discovery of sunspots as evidence that the sun rotated, and likened the biblical account of the sun stopping its motion in the skies (which the religious "geniuses" at the time said proved the sun orbited the earth, moving across its skies), saying the motion that stopped was the rotation.

[thestoat]

Actually, Galileo's letters and writing show he was a believer

Nah - these days any writings made by someone under duress are treated with scepticism at best.

In February 1616, although he had been cleared of any offence, the Catholic Church nevertheless condemned heliocentrism as "false and contrary to Scripture",[10] and Galileo was warned to abandon his support for it—which he promised to do. When he later defended his views in his most famous work, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, published in 1632, he was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo

You really want to say that he chose to be religious? In that situation I suspect most people would tread very carefully.

[thestoat]

In fact, what an utter bastard the church has been. How much more scientific understanding would we now have if the church had stayed away from things it had no business trying to subvert and molest?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Oh I don't think anything is refuted. 7% of 259 (or whatever) is far from a majority but it is (a) more than none and (2) a survey of USA only members of an organization which responded at 50% ... when I quite clearly included Christians, Hindus and whatever (meaning Moslems, Buddhists and other religions) from the whole world and (iii) did I say anything about intellectual and affectual (?) communication with humankind" combined with "personal immortality"? I know some self-described Christians who would have to say no to that combination! I'm not sure how I'd do on the first part since their intent is not clear - is that a spelling error or is communication judged to affect people?

And as to Dawkins the man is a hypocrite and if he told me the date I'd check the calendar. There is no evidence FOR multiverses but he wastes a lot of time thinking about them and writing about them on the grounds that er..... there's no evidence against them either.

Meade

PS and sorry yes I forgot Galileo - another believer as Big RR has just added. Can you not distinguish between "church" and "faith"?

PPS The church (and by that we speak of the RC in the dark ages and on into the Middle Ages) preserved what little of education, language and civilization there was in the West and I have no more regard for much of that church's history than you do. But I'll ask you to give us the info - how much scientific understanding do these dumb scientists today not have because the RC church was so naughty many hundreds of years ago? Obviously you must know of something the scientists don't understand?

[Big RR]

Well Stoat, a lot of what I have red indicates otherwise; I think he hated the jerks and corruption in the church (really the RC church), but he held too some belief in a supreme being.

Meade--

how much scientific understanding do these dumb scientists today not have because the RC church was so naughty many hundreds of years ago? Obviously you must know of something the scientists don't understand?

Science builds upon itself and the ideas of those who have come before; if the Church has not persecuted scientists and called their opinions heresy, how much more might we have to build upon? I'd venture a good deal more advanced.

As for the RC church preserving books and writings throughout the dark ages, i'll agree some enlightened within the church tried to do that; but I'd alo venture to guess these were not those who persecuted scientists, or sought to have Guttenberg's abomination of a machine (gasp--a printing press) banned less the masses have access to it.

[thestoat]

Oh I don't think anything is refuted. 7% of 259 (or whatever) is far from a majority but it is (a) more than none

I didn't suggest you had said none! But it was simply my research into your statement that I found interesting. Yes, it was US scientists and yes it had a 50% response rate (which I think isn't that bad) - 7% belief is pretty bad though. You said that many scientists are Christians, etc. I have found figures suggesting otherwise (or do you believe these figures back up your claim?) - do you have any that support the claim?

There is no evidence FOR multiverses

That is simply not true. There is plenty of evidence FOR multiverses. Sure - they can be explained in other ways but there are man many scientists working on multiverse maths currently due to the evidence.

Can you not distinguish between "church" and "faith"?

I most certainly can. I simply believe that any "evidence" collected by anyone threatened and treated the way he was is suspect at the least.

But I'll ask you to give us the info - how much scientific understanding do these dumb scientists today not have because the RC church was so naughty many hundreds of years ago? Obviously you must know of something the scientists don't understand?

I posed the question because I do not know the answer. The church killed and threatened many who disagreed with it through the years. It is very possible some may have published new exciting theories that others could have built upon were it not for the sadistic bullying of the church. How much more could Galileo alone have done were he not placed under house arrest?

[thestoat]

I think he hated the jerks and corruption in the church (really the RC church), but he held too some belief in a supreme being.

We'll never know for sure. I do know that any evidence for his belief must be highly suspect due to the way he was threatened and treated. I wouldn't put much store by it ...

[Scooter]

If one examines his life and writings before he was persecuted, it is clear that he was a believer. None of that was lived/written under any kind of duress.

[Sean]

You know I think that all of the scientists (and there are many) who are Christians (and I bet there's more than a few who are Hindus and whatever else) would not declare that the above is crap because they are just too polite. And they don't bother reading this board too - yes, there is that.

Then it is worth considering that maybe the Christian scientists (small 's') might declare the above is crap because of the above. If a scientist starts to look for a source having already decided what the source is then that is the 'faith' part of him at work not the 'science' part.

"The religious" have never said "God did it" and stopped looking. It's a historical fact that one of the main impetuses for the development of science was because believers such as Newton had a burning desire to find out "how" God did it.

You've just made my point for me. The religious (scientists or not) see God as the only eventual conclusion and refuse to entertain any other possibilities. As for

"The religious" have never said "God did it" and stopped looking.

I think you know as well as I do that that's absolutely not true. None of them? Ever? Really? Are you sure?

It's about time that the constant harping about a division between science and faith was recognised for the total bullshit that it is

This is your opinion which you are of course entitled to. It stems from your knowledge and your experiences. My knowledge and experiences have led me to form a different opinion.

So there!

[thestoat]

If one examines his life and writings before he was persecuted, it is clear that he was a believer. None of that was lived/written under any kind of duress.

Not relevant. He may well have started off religious - most people do because they get it from all angles - especially around the time Newton was born when the church was so powerful. His study may well have led him to the conclusion that there is no god - and thus prompted the persecution. People do change their minds with new evidence.

[loCAtek]

So, he was persecuted by the church and blessed by God;

After his trial, and persecution of house arrest (oh, the horror) Galileo maintained a friendship with Ascanio Piccolomini the archbishop of Siena until his death.

Wiki;

According to Dava Sobel, Galileo's ability "to rise from the ashes of his condemnation by the Inquisition" and complete perhaps his greatest book, the Two New Sciences, was "due in large measure to Piccolomini's solicitous kindness" [4].

[thestoat]

Missing the point entirely. If someone is threatened by persecution, torture and death for them and their loved ones, they are liable to say anything. In that situation I'd happily admit I was well religious. Any writings along those lines are tainted by the pressures and threats he was under. And his creative genius was seriously undermined by the church because of it. Once again, the church tried to hold back the quest for knowledge.

[thestoat]

... was "due in large measure to Piccolomini's solicitous kindness" (in not pulling my finger nails and toe nails out one by one and torturing me to death before I could write this)

[loCAtek]

Missing the point entirely. If someone is threatened by persecution, torture and death for them and their loved ones, they are liable to say anything. In that situation I'd happily admit I was well religious. Any writings along those lines are tainted by the pressures and threats he was under. And his creative genius was seriously undermined by the church because of it. Once again, the church tried to hold back the quest for knowledge.

Um, I don't think he was tortured into befriending the Bishop, making up a quote doesn't convince me of that. He probably liked him quite a bit.
While Galileo was under house arrest, he was hosted by the archbishop Piccolomini calling him "My most congenial jailer".

The Church nor the Bishop held back "the Two New Sciences"

FIRST EDITION OF THE FIRST MODERN TEXTBOOK OF PHYSICS AND THE FOUNDATION OF THE SCIENCE OF MECHANICS. Galilio's trial had left him "so crushed that his life had been feared for" (DSB). At the urgings of his friend and supporter the Archbishop of Siena, Ascanio Piccolomini, Galileo began to pull together his life's work in physics.