The Absense of God In The Universe ...

[Trajan]

http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/jan/article066.html

The Absence Of God In The Universe

By Keith Cantrell
Jan. 4, 2005

Actually this title is a bit misleading. This article really deals with the ongoing debate between creationism and science. In that ongoing debate, the scientists have conceded the territory of religious dogma. In other words they aren't interested in pointless debates with narrow-minded fundamentalists whose only motivation is to save the world from damnation. Scientists have work to do. Important work. They're trying to determine where the edge of the universe is and how life started and whether or not we can live in outer space. Creationists, on the other hand, are only interested in brainwashing the world in their own special brand of theology. They don't care about scientific truth.

I'd like to clarify this point. There is a huge difference between science and religion and creationists who pretend that they are scientists are simply proving their idiocy. Creationism is a religious idea. That's all. It proves nothing and openly rejects fact in favor of fiction. It is at best a myth trying to disguise itself as truth. By outlining the process of science I will attempt to illustrate this point coherently.

Modern physical science is built on fundamental laws which describe the behavior of natural systems. Where do these fundamental laws come from? They are discovered by two main processes. First is the inspection and observation process. This means that scientists compare data with mathematical models to look for evidence of natural characteristics.

The second process for discovering fundamental laws starts with a deduction. This doesn't mean the scientist makes a wild guess. A deduction starts with a theory which leads to a prediction. Then the scientist compares and contrasts this prediction with observational data and develops a model. This model becomes a fundamental law which describes natural phenomena. But the process isn't over yet. The models and fundamental laws are continuously scrutinized by other scientists to gain an explicit understanding about their limitations and weaknesses. This leads to consensus and then, finally, the model is accepted and used to describe as many phenomena as possible.

-snip-

I just found this article .... Like most atheists: Cantrell was very religious .. a fundamentalist .....

[Warpy]

1. The problem with poking god into science

is that god tries to be the explanation for everything, and that pretty much makes scientific inquiry fruitless at best, blasphemous at worst.

Right wingers have stolen a lot of names lately. Christian, for one. Conservative for another. Scientist is just the latest in a long line of theft.

[saltpoint]

5. Hi, Warpy. I sure do like what you say --

-- about right wingers being thieves.

Very strong point.

[papau]

2. He was truth telling until the 3rd paragraph below

Modern physical science is built on fundamental laws which describe the behavior of natural systems. Where do these fundamental laws come from? They are discovered by two main processes. First is the inspection and observation process. This means that scientists compare data with mathematical models to look for evidence of natural characteristics.

The second process for discovering fundamental laws starts with a deduction. This doesn't mean the scientist makes a wild guess. A deduction starts with a theory which leads to a prediction. Then the scientist compares and contrasts this prediction with observational data and develops a model. This model becomes a fundamental law which describes natural phenomena. But the process isn't over yet. The models and fundamental laws are continuously scrutinized by other scientists to gain an explicit understanding about their limitations and weaknesses. This leads to consensus and then, finally, the model is accepted and used to describe as many phenomena as possible.

So, the most noble aspect of scientific inquiry is that it is self-correcting. In fact, in science skepticism is a virtue. In religion it's a vice. In other words science welcomes opposition, but religion avoids it. Religious institutions condemn those who disagree but science thrives on open debate.

[Trajan]

3. I agree with the writer ....

I respectfully disagree with you ...

Even though you personally hold mild and accepting values as an individual theist ... those who profess ecclesiastical control over the tenets of every sect certainly tend to promote their own views over those of other sects .... Heck: even different Baptist congregations condemn other congregations to hell .... and they're both Baptist .....

It has been said that John Calvin murdered Micheal Servatus because Servatus held the 'heretical' belief that the trinity was not valid, and Calvin went on to establish a major sect of Christianity with tens of millions of followers .....

I appreciate when individuals claim a wide and divergent view of their acceptance of apostate humanity ... but there is no doubt that the centers of abrahamic theology demand compliance to their creed, lest one suffer's an eternal hell ....

NOT your view ? .... fine: but most do hold that view ....

[papau]

4. we agree to disagree - but your point on authorities demanding total

agreement is valid.

I just do not thing that 90% of thiests are into control the way their leaders are.