Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Fingerlocks
Trad climber
where the climbin's good
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Aug 3, 2005 - 03:13pm PT
|
Did people get bored with talking about evolution? Or do all discussions of evolution eventually drift into discussions of the possible existence of supernatural things? Other scientific theories are not afflicted in such ways—I’ve never heard a discussion of, say, the elemental theory of chemistry digress so. It must come down to just what ruffles some people’s feathers.
Largo said a few things that were ignored, but which are significant for this shift. Namely, science is about the physical world—those things that can be examined, measured, predicted, and tested. Science only became the powerful force that it is today by adopting this approach. The first steps in this direction were only about 500 years ago, and fully modern science has been around for, say, a couple of hundred years. But in this brief span, we have learned vastly more about the universe than in all those thousands of years of postulating various unseen creatures pulling the strings behind the scenes. Science ignores all that. Science has also been very, very, effective.
Try this one on:
Do you know about the Blablablob? It is an entity that cannot be found anywhere in the physical universe and is unaffected by time. It has thoughts, reasons, and beliefs, however, none of them make any sense to humans because it is so unlike us. After all, it doesn’t have a brain. The Blablablab doesn’t have any measurable affect on our world. Nonetheless, it is the reason you sometimes feel sad. Without it, you would always be happy. Why this is true nobody can explain since it doesn’t have any measurable effects on our world. But we all get sad, don’t we? It’s a mystery.
Now the Blablablob doesn’t exist because I just made it up five minutes ago. Of course, you can never “prove” that it doesn’t exist, but there is simply no reason to believe that it does. The main difference between your gods and various other “higher powers” and my Blablablob is that your god talk has a few thousand year head start over my Blablablob. You only believe it because there is a long chain of other people who believed it. We won’t find scientific support for your gods any more that we will for my Blablablob.
Science has done very well in investigating the universe in a strictly naturalistic way. That approach is key to its success. We owe it to our kids to teach them what science is and why it is such a powerful force for examining the universe. Science became powerful only after it eliminated supernatural thinking. Everybody should understand this.
|
|
Sally OConnor
Social climber
Canada
|
|
Science is a very big part of my professional life.
I still believe God is running the show.
|
|
Fingerlocks
Trad climber
where the climbin's good
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 3, 2005 - 03:54pm PT
|
Oh, and to return to evolution for a moment. Something that people often miss is that evolution via natural selection doesn’t have a “direction” or “goal”. Evolution didn’t set out to design a cockroach, a human, or a peach. It didn’t set out to design anything. Creatures don’t evolve some new feature because they “need” it.
The two key ideas are that there are random changes in genetic information, and that the genotypes that do well (reproduce well) in an environment become more common while the genotypes that do poorly become less common. Thus, the “direction” of evolution cannot be predicted because it has this random base. What can be predicted is that organisms will be generally well adapted to their environment and the poorly adapted ones will be in decline. (Lots of species that were well adapted to their old environments are disappearing because they are not adapted to the new environments humans are creating around the world.)
Many people like the idea of “evolution-guided-by-a-higher-power”. But they should realize that such a theory is flatly at odds with evolution via natural selection. Either there is a random basis or there is not—“guided random” makes no sense. This point should be made clear in the teaching of evolution, but I’m afraid that it rarely is.
|
|
Sally OConnor
Social climber
Canada
|
|
Why can't it be that what seems random to the most intelligent of humans is not at all random to the supreme being?
|
|
Fingerlocks
Trad climber
where the climbin's good
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 3, 2005 - 04:00pm PT
|
Sally,
To be successful at science doesn't require that have no supernatural beliefs. But it does require that you exclude such beliefs from your scientific work. The history of supernatural ideas is that they are very poor at explaining (and predicting) the kinds of things that science is good at explaining (and predicitng).
|
|
Fingerlocks
Trad climber
where the climbin's good
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 3, 2005 - 04:04pm PT
|
Why?
Well, we have an excellent theory based on random variation. We have a blank about the so called "reasons" of this non-physical, non-testable thing you are talking about. So the answer to your question is that there is no reason to think that anything more than random is required.
|
|
Sally OConnor
Social climber
Canada
|
|
"To be successful at science doesn't require that have no supernatural beliefs. But it does require that you exclude such beliefs from your scientific work. The history of supernatural ideas is that they are very poor at explaining (and predicting) the kinds of things that science is good at explaining (and predicitng)."
Supernatural powers control science and our understanding of our physical world, just as they control all of the good and terrible things that happen to you or me today. We have freedom of choice but ultimately our choices all lead to the place we are meant to end up. Our choices just determine what kind of a ride we will have.
|
|
Fingerlocks
Trad climber
where the climbin's good
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 3, 2005 - 04:19pm PT
|
(Hmmm, no edit button again)
I created the Blablablob as an example of unneeded creatures. These things can never be disproved, but I could think up thousands in a single afternoon with the help of the right drugs.
I, for one, make it a point not to believe in any unneed supernatural creatures. Science makes it a point to not invoke any unneeded supernatural creatures. The people who practice science have all kinds of beliefs--some, of course, believe in supernatural things. Some also believe in totally wacky scientific ideas (but ussually not in their own field of study).
|
|
Fingerlocks
Trad climber
where the climbin's good
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 3, 2005 - 04:28pm PT
|
"Supernatural powers control science and our understanding of the physical world..."
Really? How? And what would be different if they didn't?
The Blablablob has an older brother (who really isn't an older brother since they have no parents) named BooWho. BooWho is mean and has destroyed all other supernatural powers (including the indestructable ones(yes, another mystery)). Thus, there are no longer any supernatural powers to control anything.
Did the world change?
|
|
Sally OConnor
Social climber
Canada
|
|
Here's what I think, fingerlocks:
You are right, we don't really need anything over and above science to explain how things happen or even why things happen. What I think people turn to the supernatural for (and I will say God as that is who I would turn to) is to tell me the answer to "why does it have to happen that way?
Like, if I got cancer, a scientist could explain what happened to me and what the chances of being cured were and all sorts but science couldn't tell me why it had to be that way. Do I sound wacko? Must be the water up here eh?
|
|
Fingerlocks
Trad climber
where the climbin's good
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 3, 2005 - 04:39pm PT
|
No, I'm sure you are right about it being a desire for a "why".
But what I find puzzling is how it helps. For me, the universe has no metaphysical "why". Some people are bothered by that and stick in this idea of some supernatural thinking entity to provide the why for them. But if we cannot figure out any details of the entity or sort out its thoughts and reasons, then how is that any better than having none at all?
|
|
Sally OConnor
Social climber
Canada
|
|
" No, I'm sure you are right about it being a desire for a "why".
But what I find puzzling is how it helps. For me, the universe has no metaphysical "why". Some people are bothered by that and stick in this idea of some supernatural thinking entity to provide the why for them. But if we cannot figure out any details of the entity or sort out its thoughts and reasons, then how is that any better than having none at all?"
Well, again I can only speak for myself but if it helps your understanding of why some people feel this way or that: if I got cancer, like I said, and wanted to know why, I would get the doctors to explain it to me scientifically, as best they could. After that, I would have to resolve things in my mind as to why it HAD to happen to me. That would help me better accept it.
|
|
Fingerlocks
Trad climber
where the climbin's good
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 3, 2005 - 05:13pm PT
|
"A certain percent of people get this cancer, too bad I'm in that percent."
"A certain percent of people get this cancer, too bad a mysterious supernatural entity put me in that percent."
Isn't it just the same thing with extra bells and whistles?
|
|
arete
Trad climber
Estes Park, Colorado
|
|
OH MY GOD -- not another one of these threads! I'm going to quit my job, move to Bangladesh, start a church to worship Blablablob, and start a campaign to oppose the teaching of the Theory of General Relativity in the kindergartens there.
|
|
Fingerlocks
Trad climber
where the climbin's good
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 3, 2005 - 05:37pm PT
|
Well Arete, just remember to them that the Blablablob is pink, but in a weird non-physical sort of way.
And you might be on to something about the relativity. If we cannot make science education better in this country, maybe we can make it worse everywhere else. That way we still maintain a comparative advantage.
|
|
Sally OConnor
Social climber
Canada
|
|
""A certain percent of people get this cancer, too bad I'm in that percent."
"A certain percent of people get this cancer, too bad a mysterious supernatural entity put me in that percent."
Isn't it just the same thing with extra bells and whistles?"
No! I can't tell you why but I need to come to terms with my pain, whether it is physical or emotional. There is a purpose for it, it is a good purpose (though it might be beyond my comprehension), and in that I will find peace.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
I think the only way to make these threads interesting--instead of flogging the same old horse--is for everyone posting to start with the words--I really want this to be the case because . . .
|
|
Fingerlocks
Trad climber
where the climbin's good
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 3, 2005 - 05:51pm PT
|
???
I'm not sure where you are going with that Largo. Can you fill me in?
Sally,
I'm sure it is easier to put up with something if you feel that it is all for a good reason. But suppose for a moment that the natural course of the universe was for all physical creatures to be happy all the time and the only supernatural entity was a nasty one that sometimes caused pain for no other reason than to be nasty. This would be a reason for suffering, but not a good reason.
In order to have it so that everything happens for a good reason, you have to set up your supernatural world in the right way. This kind of manipulation would undercut any comfort I might get from trying to believe in such a metaphysic.
|
|
G_Gnome
Trad climber
Ca
|
|
If I got cancer I would really want it to be the case that a supreme being gave it to me to make me a better person so that I could go to heaven and live the good life everlasting.
It scares the crap out of me to think that it is just bad luck and when I die from this cancer I will cease to exist in all ways that matter.
So, fear seems to be my overriding concern! Hmmmm, seems just like climbing.
|
|
Fingerlocks
Trad climber
where the climbin's good
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 3, 2005 - 06:20pm PT
|
To return to where I started with this thread, some of you might remember a few years ago when religious activists took control of the Kansas Board of Education. They deleted from the educational requirements not only all mention of evolution, but also all mention of any idea that the Earth is more than 5 or 6 thousand years old. But they didn’t try to prohibit teaching such ideas since they knew that the courts would strike them down. Well that bunch got voted out at the next election.
Now a new bunch of religious activists have taken control and this time they are doing the “intelligent design” attack. Not content to ignore the bits of science that they don’t like, they have instead decided to change the definition of science. So instead of having science students learn—like they do everywhere else in the world—that science is the naturalistic investigation of the universe using carefully worked out procedures and methods, they instead have a concept of “science” that would embrace all sorts of activities that scientists do not consider to be science including speculating about supernatural interventions.
I find this new attack on science to be more insidious than the old one. We don’t teach our kids very much science in this country, but the least we could do is honestly teach them about what science is and isn’t.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!