Miracle: Just a puzzle science has not solved - Richard Dawkins

[BridgeTheGap]

Miracles, magic and myths are interesting. Everybody likes a good story. But truth has a magic of its own.

Just imagine how people in medieval times — even the most intelligent and educated — would react to a jet plane or a laptop computer.

They would call them "supernatural, miraculous." But we know how they work; we know how engineers have built them, following scientific principles. There is no need to invoke miracles or the supernatural.

A gang of Victorian criminals equipped with modern mobile phones could have coordinated their activities in ways that would have looked like supernatural telepathy to Sherlock Holmes. In Holmes's world, a suspect who could prove that he was in New York the same day a murder was committed in London would have a perfect alibi.

Read more: http://www.kentucky.com/2011/10/05/1908699/miracle-just-a-puzzle-science.html#ixzz1ZuPHti36

[slackmaster]

1. Either that, or...

...Mass Insanity.

[geckosfeet]

2. "But we know how they work" - not really. But we trust that our engineers

and scientists and doctors know what they are doing.

[trotsky]

3. I.e., god of the gaps.

Put your god in the box of stuff that we can't explain. Seems like a reasonable and unassailable tactic - and it is, as long as you are OK with a god that shrinks every day and is based on humanity remaining ignorant.

[izquierdista]

4. If He shrinks every day...

...soon He is going to be like a lizard puffed up and wedged between a crack in some rocks.

[cleanhippie]

6. Already is, for the most part.

[tama]

12. In fact, He grows

Scientific progress means that every answered question creates many more new questions to wonder. Universe is not finite but opens to infinite possibilities.

[cleanhippie]

26. And that supports your assertion that YOUR god is real how?

Oh, right, it doesn't.

[tama]

29. WTF?

Where did I assert that I have god, or that the god I don't have is real? I don't have religion anymore than you have.

Just stating the obvious correction, the thought structure in question does not "shrink" with scientific progress, as science is not closed but open process and universe is full of infinite marvels.

[darkstar3]

31. And that "infinity", which isn't, grows smaller every day.

[tama]

33. Read some

fucking Cantor, to begin with.

[darkstar3]

37. Read some

fucking scientific journals, and recognize that we already understand that there are questions we don't yet know how to ask, but that doesn't mean that finding the way to ask the question expands the box for God.

[tama]

39. If you are familiar with Cantor

you should understand that my answer was counter to the preposterous idea of infinity getting smaller.

But perhaps you were being metaphorical in a way that blew over my head.

Why are people so silly that they want to give any attention to the silly idea of Gap-God? Postive or negative or any sillytive?

[tama]

40. And another thing

I like to stay open to the idea that marvels really do begin when one stops asking question and just marvels. 8?=

[darkstar3]

41. And I know

that the first and only step to eternal stagnation is to stop asking questions.

[tama]

43. In that case

perhaps you should ask deeper question about the nature of time, and not accept the usual view as given. :)

[darkstar3]

46. I do, which is why the God of the Gaps is ridiculous.

[tama]

49. Yeah

He's a real clown. I'm trying very hard to go OT and have a serious discussion, but the clown keeps just popping up and ambushing with hilarious non sequiturs. :D

[cleanhippie]

32. Quote: "In fact, He grows."

Maybe I misunderstood. Who is this "He" you were referring to?

[tama]

34. The same "He" as in the post I replied. nt

[cleanhippie]

35. So that would be god then?

[tama]

38. Don't be daft, or be as you like. Whateveryousay, dude.

[cleanhippie]

55. Its actually what YOU said, dude.

They are YOUR words, not mine.


Just sayin, dude.

[tama]

57. Post 4

which I understood was not by a theist or believer in God of the Gaps, had the string "He". Why make so big deal of it when I used the same string when pointing out apparently incorrect argument in the post - not in defence of the God of the Gaps folly, but in defense of open and evolving science?

[Eddie Haskell]

5. There will always be a gap.

Understanding the artist's technique doesn't reveal his inspiration.

[Goblinmonger]

7. I'm not a brain scientist guy

but you don't think we have come a LONG way in understanding how the brain works? Read Brain Rules among a host of other books on current brain research and you'll find that even that gap is closing.

[tama]

13. LONG

relative to what?

[Eddie Haskell]

15. I doubt we'll ever know everything.

In fact we can't be sure of everything we think we know now. Many great scientists and philosophers believed in a creator.

[tama]

30. That's what belief in

naive causality does to you. You start to believe in Unmovable Mover, Creator, Big Bang, what ever you call the First Cause.

[cleanhippie]

8. You should read The Believing Brain, by Michael Shermer.

http://www.amazon.com/Believing-Brain-Conspiracies-How-Construct-Reinforce/dp/0805091254


VERY enlightening.

[Eddie Haskell]

11. Neither of us knows the answer ...

Yet I am the believer and you the voice of reason. VERY enlightening.

[cleanhippie]

23. The answer to what, Mr. Haskell?

What I DO know, is WHY you believe what you do, do YOU?


Hint: Its a neuro-chemical reaction in your brain, and nothing more.

Read the book, friend, you can only learn something. It will not hurt you, I promise.

[Eddie Haskell]

59. Is there a creator?

Why do you believe what you believe? And how is your belief different than mine?

[cleanhippie]

62. I don't know the answer to that, and neither do you.

You, obviously, believe that there is, and I DO NOT believe that there is (which is MUCH, MUCH different than BELIEVING there is no creator).

I make no claim about a creator, but you do. Do you see the difference? I am simply RESPONDING to YOUR claim that there IS a creator, and my response is "what proof do you have to support such a claim?" So far, no one in the entire world has ever produced evidence to support your claim, so in the face of such an overwhelming LACK of evidence, I do not believe your claim. Get it now?


And seriously, you should read that book. Its interesting, backed by hard science, and written in layman's terms that even I could easily grasp, and if I got it, anyone can.

[trotsky]

17. Since your belief in god evidently requires one,

you had better hope so I guess.

[Eddie Haskell]

60. Hope has nothing to do with it.

We'll never know.

[trotsky]

61. I'd say in your case it has everything to do with it. n/t

[rug]

9. He believes science will be able to solve them.

I'm dubious.

[laconicsax]

10. Well, science does have a good track record. n/t

[cleanhippie]

14. Let's check the "Mysteries Explained" scoreboard. Religion - 0 Science - ALL of them.

I'd say that really IS a good track record.

[rug]

18. You remain uninformed.

I don't mean to question your belief.

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

[cleanhippie]

22. And you remain ignorant, willfully.

Did someone say that science had solved ALL mysteries? Ahh, lemme check. Nope, no one did.

But someone did say that of the mysteries that HAVE been explained, that science has solved all of them and religion has solved none.

[rug]

24. You did.

"Let's check the "Mysteries Explained" scoreboard. Religion - 0 Science - ALL of them." i dislike the use of all caps but I didn't want to misquote you.

If you're now saying science cannot explain all of them, welcome to reality.

[cleanhippie]

25. How do you get that "Mysteries Explained" = "Explains all Mysteries"? Oh, right, it doesn't.

Don't be so obtuse, its not very becoming.

[darkstar3]

27. You and I both know that he meant PAST mysteries.

As for future, the fact that we will never know everything there is to know in the universe in no way means that there is room for God.

[tama]

36. - A room for God please...

... double bed, Champaigne in the cooler and mirror in the ceiling.

- My pleasure, there is allways room for God in the Hot Elle of Gap.

[rug]

44. How refreshing that you acknowledge the limits of science.

Welcome to the world of unsolved puzzles.

[darkstar3]

47. Your sanctimonious welcome is unfounded. I was here before you.

And while you pretend to have a solution to all of those puzzles, I don't.

[trotsky]

16. Do you believe religion has "solved" a problem that science cannot?

Keep in mind, "goddidit" isn't an answer.

[rug]

19. You're changing the subject.

Not that I blame you.

"We must not rest until we have improved our science so that it does provide an explanation."

[trotsky]

20. Unfortunately for you, I'm not. I'm pressing you on the subject.

You obviously believe there are things science will never answer. I am asking if you think religion (or any other system of inquiry or discovery) has answered a problem. Just one. Just was curious if there is any other "alternative way of knowing" that has actually contributed a verifiable nugget of information for humanity. If you have even one, it would drastically strengthen your argument.

[rug]

21. Oh, press away.

Just stay on topic. Obviously you believe science will answer all questions. Obviously that is untenable.

As to your question, read this article again, slowly. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x306884

"Finally, I believe there are things we take on faith, without physical proof and even sometimes without any methodology for proof. We cannot clearly show why the ending of a particular novel haunts us. We cannot prove under what conditions we would sacrifice our own life in order to save the life of our child. We cannot prove whether it is right or wrong to steal in order to feed our family, or even agree on a definition of “right” and “wrong.” We cannot prove the meaning of our life, or whether life has any meaning at all. For these questions, we can gather evidence and debate, but, in the end, we cannot arrive at any system of analysis akin to the way in which a physicist decides how many seconds it will take a one-foot-long pendulum to make a complete swing. These are questions for the arts and the humanities. These are also questions aligned with some of the intangible concerns of traditional religion."

[darkstar3]

28. He never said anything of the sort.

However, it is clear from the past track records of religion and science that any mysteries that we do solve will have been solved by science. That doesn't mean science will one day answer every question we could possibly fathom.

[rug]

45. Has he gone mute?

Must he rely on surrogates?

And I never got to see the tag.

[darkstar3]

48. Public discussion forum.

If he has something to say he undoubtedly will. Does that mean I'm not allowed to chime in? Fuck that.

[trotsky]

50. Please ratchet down the nastiness.

I am not stupid, and do not need to be told to read something "slowly."

Science may never answer all questions. No one said it needs to. Well, I suppose that straw man of yours did. But it doesn't mean we get to make up answers and have them be equally justified. Now can you please address this from my post:

Just was curious if there is any other "alternative way of knowing" that has actually contributed a verifiable nugget of information for humanity.

[tama]

51. Are intuition and inspiration

and altered states of mind part of scientific way of knowing or something purely external to science?

[trotsky]

52. You have admitted in the past that you intentionally misuse words.

Since that is the case, I have absolutely no interest in any discussion with you. Sorry.

[tama]

53. I have such recollection ("prove it!")

so I'm inclined to believe that is just another hostile misinterpretation from your part. Or just way to avoid answering a simple question.

[trotsky]

54. Not interested.

Not in a discussion with you, or your attacks. Again, sorry.

[skepticscott]

58. You may wait a long time

That question has been asked in one form or another many times here, and the apologistas have NEVER offered even their usual flailing, pap-filled answer to it. Not expecting any more this time.

[tama]

42. What does science answer

if you stop questioning?

[cleanhippie]

56. .