Re: Jet Propulsion Laboratory Honored By Scientific American

From: Steen (virker_at_ikke.invalid)
Date: 12/01/04 

Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 15:52:37 +0100

jonathan wrote:

> I have no doubt there's life on Mars, and that
> a steady drumbeat of papers building the case
> will soon begin.

Why is this, when there's no evidence?

> So you choose to believe only in that which is tangible, testable
> and real? That which is 'unreal' has a far greater
> effect on us and our planet. An idea, a concept, an
> emotion or a belief. Imagining the future.

Ideas, concepts, emotions and beliefs are certainly not unreal. It would be
very unwise to claim so, since most people experience these phenomena daily.

> All these things are unreal. Yet we live and die
> by them. Until you can build a science that can
> deal with these properties of unreality, your
> understanding of ...reality... will remain incomplete
> and empty.

They are not unreal. I believe science is currently able to deal with these
things. But we're talking space science here, not psychology...

> When a person reads a poem, and is moved to
> suicide, the world has lost a variable. How
> does 'science' quantify that? Where's the math
> that defines that poem and it's effect on
> 'reality'?

What has this got to do with life on Mars?

> There is no objective reality. There is no such
> thing as a fact. Nothing in the universe can
> be quantified and nothing in the universe
> ever repeats.

Ok. Let's all give up and go home. What nonsense!

> We rely today on a science built on completely
> incorrect assumptions.

Newton's laws? Maxwell's equations? The theory of relativity? Quantum
mechanics? "Completely incorrect"? Scientific theories can never be proven -
only disproven. Can you disprove all of the above?

> The concept of objectivity
> is erroneous and the source of most human
> suffering and ignorance.

How exactly is that?

> The universe is teeming with life and Gods.

Erm, can I ask what education you have?

> It takes no more
> faith to believe this than simply observing the patterns
> of creation displayed all around us.

Again, let me remind you that we are in sci.space.policy, not
alt.religion.christianity.fundamentalism

> The two great methods of understanding, science
> and religion, are in fact two opposite extremes.

Religion is not a method of understanding, it is most certainly a great
method of misunderstanding.

> Both
> equally flawed and equally empty without the other.
> Until a single view consistent with both sweeps this
> planet, we will continue to fail to understand
> our reality and each other.

Which means never. How about waking up?

> Extrapolating the creativity of evolution far
> into the future produces a concept of God
> that is a mathematical limit and certainty.
>
> There is nothing mystical or irrational about
> believing in God. One must simply accept the
> fact that God comes at the end of the evolutionary
> ladder, not the beginning. The incompatibility between
> science and religion is the result of a simple
> frame of reference mistake.
>
> Projecting into the future is the path to understanding
> reality and God. Objective science and religion foolishly
> attempts to unravel the past as a means to
> understanding.
>
> That's the wrong way.

I give up.

/steen

Relevant Pages

  • Re: AiG goes after Francis Collins
    ... principles is incompatible with what science tells us about the world. ... the idea that God speaks directly to any person, ... any "is" claims must be accompanied by evidence. ... was that the proper domain of religion is "ought" claims only. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Faith, Reason, God and Other Imponderables
    ... Books on Science ... Faith, Reason, God and Other Imponderables ... for the age of the earth, scientists have to be brave to talk about religion. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Hooking up transistors in LTSpice
    ... connector Everything else comes in the kit from TI. ... Such things place religion in ... the position of making science claims. ... doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Religion and evolution
    ... God has always been a puzzle for Scott Atran. ... about religion ever since - why he himself no longer believes in God ... something beyond the reach or understanding of science. ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Religion and evolution
    ... God has always been a puzzle for Scott Atran. ... about religion ever since - why he himself no longer believes in God ... something beyond the reach or understanding of science. ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)