<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/qxyriE97DnU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
the non-uniqueness of human existence on the cosmic scale the lack of supernatural influences on the human scale the finite nature of our organic conciousness
If you separate the "religion" aspect out (belief in a supreme being(s) of some sort) form the moral/philosophical undertones, it's one good way of avoiding conflicts between science and religion, but really you're just avoiding the issue because you don't like the result. Likewsie, even if you get rid of hte supernatural part of it - there's a lot of scientific/biological basis for certian moral, ethical & philosophical behaviors that are common across the human species, so the separation your straining to create can be broken down. No but it's a far more logical explanation (and a lot closer to testable) than the ones that religion proposes The problem with ceding the "why" to religion is that it gives it a status that it doesn't really deserve. Religion doesn't do a very good job with the why.
Does religion always have to be about supreme beings or the supernatural? In my own religious views I don't focus on supreme beings or on the supernatural and you will find that many who are religious do not. True and there is nothing wrong with the study of those. In fact the Dalai Lama and other religious leaders are encouraging that. What I am talking about though is the question of meaning and being. Science if dependent upon empiricism so the apriori basis of science is that our senses are telling us about an objective reality. The limitation there though is what about the questions that go beyond an objective reality? The anthropic principle is one of those issues that go beyond objective reality which is why it is so controversial and why many consider it to be philosophy rather than science. The weak anthropic principle itself could be used as an argument for intelligent design. My point is that while there might be some grey areas saying that the scientific method is the end all and be all of understanding gets to be very problematic as there are even questions that science raises, such as the anthropic principle, that cannot be tested through that method. I am not saying religion provided better answers but as I said the answers aren't as important as the process. We as limited human beings will never understand the Universe or even our own existence fully. As rational beings (having thought and aware of the passage of time) we will still strive to understand that. Science can teach us about material existence but there are questions that go beyond material.
Yes; I grant you that buddhims in some forms straddles the line between a purely philosophical practice - but for every other major religion, some form of non-natural phenomenon/creator is a definitional aspect. Religions originated though as explanations for objective reality, and are just are inextricabaly intertwined with it. Saying "oh they're just for explaining nonquantifiable stuff like what is true beauty" blurs whole purpose and what they are used for. And frankly they don't lend us much help with the subjective stuff that we can't get from other sources Disagree strongly -the anthropic priinciple is founded in the particular objective reality that we're in. To equate it with questions like "how do I love thee" is inaccurate.
The anthropomorphic creator addresses the issues of origin and inexplicable phenomenon (anything sufficiently complex appears to be magic - Arthur C. Clark) It also gives credence and consequences to religious tenets. (it makes morality law instead of suggestions, it provides the carrot and the stick) I want to invent a new religion, a secular humanism that convinces people that since this is the only consciousness you will ever know, your state of mind defines your heaven and hell. Where confidence caring, love and generally accepted moral acts constituting self -acceptance are heaven and guilt, regret and social ostracization comprise hell.
Except if you listen to guys like Rhester and MadMax talk about their Christianity while they certainly believe in the divinity of Jesus their practice of Christianity isn't focused on that divinity but more about what does Jesus' teachings and stories tell them about their own actions and life. As I keep on saying critics like to focus on the answers from religion rather than on the process. I'm not arguing whether the answers of any particular religion are right or wrong but about the why religion is important to us as rational beings. You have to consider for most of human history that science, religion, philosophy and etc. were all the same. Human cultures didn't really differentiate those things until the Renaissance. Holding religion to views of antiquity though would be about the same as holding science to the views of a hundred years ago. Only if you view religion as being fixed and your primary goal is to criticize. Except it can't be falsified. Unless we can actually observe another universe there is no way of proving the stong anthropic principle and as I said before the weak anthropic principle lends credence to the idea of intelligent design. Keep in mind too that the basis of religious questions originate from objective reality. If I take from the objective reality that I exist, that I am aware of that time passes and that I will die then that does lead to questions that go beyond objective reality.
The physical effect that we observe and call gravity is certainly real. Our two major models for it are also very useful, but that doesn't mean they are factually correct. I understand his point, I just think it's an odd quote since most astronomers I know try to be more careful with their language when speaking to the media.
Yes, Buddhism and science do not conflict. If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims. Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality http://www.goodreads.com/work/quote...tom-the-convergence-of-science-and-spirituali
When a theory is known to be incomplete, you should not state that it is fact. Newtonian gravity, for example, is a theory in which all massive bodies exert attractive forces on one another. To the extent that GR is correct, Newtonian gravity is actually wrong about this (i.e., not a "fact") because there is no force, but rather a bending of spacetime that alters the trajectory of other bodies. Language matters here. I also think gravity is a poor comparison for evolution because gravity is a theory that allows for very precise predictions. As you mentioned, these predictions are very well verified (except in the cases of the limitations I mentioned in the first post). I'm not at all saying I doubt the validity of evolutionary theory, just that I don't think gravity is a proper comparison.
I think he means the existence of the phenomena is fact, not the current understanding of them. i.e. gravity and evolution As you say, we are a long way from understanding the reality gravity and the mechanisms of DNA.
It is a perfect comparison. The theory of evolution is as strong as the theory of gravity. Neither is complete, of course, but both have been proven. Evolution's most compelling evidence has come from predictions. The chromosome prediction (that humans must have two chromosomes fused together into one because we only have 23 while our closest relatives have 24) found exactly what they were looking for. Tiktaalik was a predicted species that was found. I think that NdGT stated things the way he did to combat this whole "it's just a theory" nonsense (not that I am accusing you of that thought process).
Religions and religious people have been douche's for millenniums. Actually douche is not strong enough word, they've been treacherous, heavy handed, brutal, cruel, grievous, oppressive, hostile, inhumane, torturous, murderous, and straight up EVIL to those who disagreed for millenniums. Face it your ideas are outdated, antiquated, and obsolete, DONE!!! Your magic, wizardry, mysticism, prophesying, soothsaying, alchemistic ways are OVER!!! Quite being a little b**** and take your medicine. Your time is up, it's our time now. PRAY to your GOD we'll be kinder to you than you were to forefathers.
What do you mean by "complete" here? Can you given an example of a complete scientific theory? GR is incomplete in the same sense that QM is incomplete, isn't it? We don't yet have a unified model which explains everything. But both GR and QM make predictions which are confirmed by all experimental evidence we've gathered, as far as I'm aware (in contrast to Newtonian gravity, which as a theory can make very accurate predictions at certain scales, but gets it wrong in others). This is what he means by "scientific fact". Not an expert in this area by any means, so I could be wrong. Edit: On doing some cursory web "research", I guess its more correct to say that GR is a refinement of Newtonion gravity which works over a much broader spectrum.
The fact that viruses evolve is not enough proof for you that it is fact? Otherwise, there is no need to get FLU shots every year for certain viral strains as they should stay static and one shot should be enough. With regards to predictability, this is what science has to say about Science predicting FLU and we use our knowledge of evolution to do this.
People wonder why there is never opposing viewpoint in the D&D. Here is some evidence as to why that is the case. Thanks for posting.
All theories are going to missing something. I was referring to the fact that, as your web research showed, we actually know the limitations with gravity.
The fact that evolution occurs is certainly a fact, and you bring up an obvious example. But that's very different from implying that our current understanding of evolution is fact. Again, I'm not refuting evolution (or gravity) here. I'm just saying that I would have expected NdGT to be more careful/precise with his wording.
I'm not exactly sure what I would have liked him to say. That's why I'm not interested in promoting myself to the media as an ambassador for science! I would have just probably preferred an explanation that acknowledged the uncertainty in our understanding of precise details, while also indicating that we probably have the big picture mostly right.
