# Religion and the Wonders of the Universe



## Carina1962 (Mar 13, 2011)

I love Wonders of the Universe, so fascinating but what do you think about all this science and religion?  do you think that it is blowing religion out of the window?


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 13, 2011)

Hi Carina. Glad you enjoyed it. As for your question, I think it's a case of those who believe as opposed to those who seek evidence.

So I for one don't think religion will disappear.

But there's a lot of people who follow a religion because it explains things in a way they prefer. Maybe some of those will see the scientific explanation as more acceptable.

Very interesting thoughts though and a debate that is probably too big and complex for this forum.

Rob


----------



## Northerner (Mar 13, 2011)

I seem to remember hearing Sir Martin Rees (Astronomer Royal) saying he didn't find religion and science to be incompatible. I think a lot depends on how literally you believe in the stories of the various religions - creationism is clearly incompatible with the scientific timescales of the origins of life and the universe and there are those who will not accept Darwinism. A very big question indeed!


----------



## Carina1962 (Mar 13, 2011)

yes, i suppose there will be people who do believe in something greater than scienctific explanation.  I am a brought up (not practising) catholic but since my teens and programmes like wonders of the universe i do begin to doubt my religion, that is how i feel anyway.  I wonder if religion will die out though, very debateable subject


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 13, 2011)

There are many scientists, including cosmologists, who still have a belief in god, citing the big bang itself as a viable creation moment.

Maybe that could be Brian Cox's next series. 

Rob


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 13, 2011)

I once had a chat with a very learned anthropolgist who held that religions of the book, ie. religions that wrote down their beliefs and practices were at a disadvantage since, as attitudes and understanding progressed, they found it more difficult to be compatible with the current trends.
Any religion that has no written texts can change as it goes on. Maybe they'll be the ones that survive by incorporating scientific thinking into their belief systems.

Rob


----------



## Carina1962 (Mar 13, 2011)

very well put Robster and that does make sense  as we get to learn more and more about where we came from it could open up new religions maybe - is the religion scientology (the one Tom Cruise belongs to) an example?


----------



## FM001 (Mar 14, 2011)

carina62 said:


> I love Wonders of the Universe, so fascinating but what do you think about all this science and religion?  do you think that it is blowing religion out of the window?





Absolutely science has blown religion out of the window.  Our understanding of the world and how it was created has taught us that the teachings of some religions are flawed and simply don't make any sense in the modern world. Christianity over the years has been used and abused and its teachings have been rewritten time and time again, the elite of society and rulers of our land traditionally used it as a form of oppression in controlling the masses, people were told that if they didn't accept what they had was chosen by god then they would not go to heaven and be damned forever, this is why we have prayers with the line ''The rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gate''.  Charles Darwin's The theory of Evolution was the first to seriously cast doubt on religion and its teachings and was a bench for other scientists to question its existence, modern day thinkers with a similar view is the brilliant Stephen Hawking.


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 14, 2011)

carina62 said:


> very well put Robster and that does make sense  as we get to learn more and more about where we came from it could open up new religions maybe - is the religion scientology (the one Tom Cruise belongs to) an example?



Sadly, scientology is more of a cult that was started by science fiction write L Ron Hubbard. They are very powerful and very wealthy and have a history of bringing legal action against anyone who publicly criticises them.

I'm not entirely sure of their views but they apparently believe that an alien space god will come and save them when the world ends. Or something. Very weird in my opinion but each to their own as long as they don't interfere in others' lives.

There would seem, to me, no reason why someone with religious views can't follow a scientific path as far as they want to. Science is merely the search for reality using methods that guard against misinterpretation and error. There is often uncertainty (as with climate change) but this should always be acknowledged. Science is often seen as some big organisation but it is merely a method or approach to find answers. 

Rob


----------



## Northerner (Mar 14, 2011)

I'm not religious at all, but what I will say is that I have experienced some extremely strange things in my (long!) life that I have been unable to explain - although one thing that happened when I was in hospital might be explained by scientific theories on time. What I find interesting particularly is the way that some things can be mathematically shown to be possible, even though they are beyond anything we can physically experience or be aware of, like extra dimensions (some mathematical/cosmological theories postulate up to 11 dimensions!)

I think organised religion has a different purpose to the philosophy of religion, as it seeks to define societal rules and human interpretations of ancient writings and phenomena. A broader view of religion is far less literal. I'd recommend reading either The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins or God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens for anyone interested in separating the established religions through the ages and the concept of a higher being. The Hitchens book is probably the better of the two, in my opinion, but both are well worth reading whatever your religious views.


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 14, 2011)

I plan to read Dawkins book in time. I share his views but not necessarily his methodology.

I have read most of The Blind Watchmaker and it is a very dry book that attempts to hammer home the points rather than engage the reader.

I would imagine that spirituality has taken over to a fair degree frm major religions but many find comfort in the community spirit that exists in most large church groups. It's maybe what is missing from wider society.

It's one of my favourite topics for debate and for contemplation but is one which always end in stalemate and sometimes in anger. Which is a shame.

Rob


----------



## novorapidboi26 (Mar 14, 2011)

*It's one of my favorite topics* Agree.... *but is one which always end in stalemate and sometimes in anger. Which is a shame.* and also Agree.................


----------



## AlisonM (Mar 14, 2011)

He looks a lot like his dad doesn't he? I like the show, it's one of the few that I will turn on the telly for these days.


----------



## novorapidboi26 (Mar 14, 2011)

Was it on last night, if so I missed it................damn decorating..............


----------



## ypauly (Mar 14, 2011)

Northerner said:


> I'm not religious at all, but what I will say is that I have experienced some extremely strange things in my (long!) life that I have been unable to explain - although one thing that happened when I was in hospital might be explained by scientific theories on time. What I find interesting particularly is the way that some things can be mathematically shown to be possible, even though they are beyond anything we can physically experience or be aware of, like extra dimensions (some mathematical/cosmological theories postulate up to 11 dimensions!)
> 
> I think organised religion has a different purpose to the philosophy of religion, as it seeks to define societal rules and human interpretations of ancient writings and phenomena. A broader view of religion is far less literal. I'd recommend reading either The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins or God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens for anyone interested in separating the established religions through the ages and the concept of a higher being. The Hitchens book is probably the better of the two, in my opinion, but both are well worth reading whatever your religious views.



You may be interested in this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNxss3IQluQ

It's Hitchens vs blair (full version available on youtube)

I don't think Blair did religion any good at all, I would have put up a better fight than he did. You may have guessed by now I actually wanted him to do better as I am a believer and think that religion does people good.


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 14, 2011)

AlisonM said:


> He looks a lot like his dad doesn't he? I like the show, it's one of the few that I will turn on the telly for these days.



Brian COx or NRBoi's little lad ?  

I think it could have been given a BBC1 slot.

@ypauly. Personal question, but does your belief affect how you might view a programme like this ? (obviously, no obligation to answer and no disrespect if you don't). 

I also would like to add that religion isn't a prerequisite for good in people. ALthough I agree with you that it is good for many and should never be denied anyone who wants to follow any beliefs they may have. It's a way of dealing with life and explaining some of its little 'quirks' along the journey.

Rob


----------



## FM001 (Mar 14, 2011)

I was watching a news item a few weeks back with Sir Robert Winston who openly declared he was a atheist, again another brilliant scientist and his programmes over the years have made compelling viewing.


----------



## ypauly (Mar 14, 2011)

Robster65 said:


> @ypauly. Personal question, but does your belief affect how you might view a programme like this ? (obviously, no obligation to answer and no disrespect if you don't).



No, I like science. I find science actually fits my beliefs. I am church of england and worship reguarly and at no point do I think "this must be wrong because of science" I don't see any conflict either.

I think Northerner made an excellent point re - dimensions. There is so much we do not understand, there is so much that maths alone cannot explain and there far too much of people taking sides, like religion is the only truth or science is the only thruth, when in actual fact science isn't and as my bible was written by many many authors over a very many centuries that cannot be the only fact. They are both important for my understanding.

To highlight the latest scientific "fact" that was even refered to in last night program, the big bang. Many of this planets top brains are now saying there was no bang, many have also admitted that the use of the term singularity was a mathematicians way of saying we dont know.

The BBC Horizon program "what happened before the big bang" brought this gem of knowledge to the general publics attention.

Nobody knows how the universe came into being or how many there are, no scientist has ever proved there is no God so by there own standards they only believe there isn't. Though some still do believe there is.


----------



## mcdonagh47 (Mar 14, 2011)

ypauly said:


> No, I like science. I find science actually fits my beliefs. I am church of england and worship reguarly and at no point do I think "this must be wrong because of science" I don't see any conflict either.
> .



You don't see any conflict between what Science has to say and the belief that a man was born of a virgin, rose from the dead and walked on water ?

BTW there are no Scientific "Facts" or truths only Scientific Hypotheses which explain the facts as we know them. The Big bang ( the term was actually coined by a Belgian Priest-astronomer as "Le Grand Eclat" ) is the current Scientific Hypothesis which explains the facts as currently known. No doubt the Big Bang Theory will change ( they all do) and be replaced by another SCIENTIFIC hypothesis as new facts become known.

The last Pope actually said the Big Bang is not incompatible with a Divine Creator ( but that's how the Catholic Church has survived 2000 years - by constantly updating its dogma while pretending to be unchanging ).


----------



## ypauly (Mar 14, 2011)

mcdonagh47 said:


> You don't see any conflict between what Science has to say and the belief that a man was born of a virgin, rose from the dead and walked on water ?
> 
> BTW there are no Scientific "Facts" or truths only Scientific Hypotheses which explain the facts as we know them. The Big bang ( the term was actually coined by a Belgian Priest-astronomer as "Le Grand Eclat" ) is the current Scientific Hypothesis which explains the facts as currently known. No doubt the Big Bang Theory will change ( they all do) and be replaced by another SCIENTIFIC hypothesis as new facts become known.
> 
> The last Pope actually said the Big Bang is not incompatible with a Divine Creator ( but that's how the Catholic Church has survived 2000 years - by constantly updating its dogma while pretending to be unchanging ).



You can prove he didn't?

I can show you testament from people that were around back then that say he did.


----------



## ypauly (Mar 14, 2011)

Can I also add, while I am willing to partake in a religious debate (very big shoulders) Some people may find it offensive.

It would probably be better for a clearly titled thread on the subject if you want to continue so that people can decide if they want to enter or not. As it stands somebody who may find it offensive could come accross it by accident.

It is a very emotive subject for some, and I wouldn't like to think we have or are causing upset with our discussion.


----------



## Klocky (Mar 14, 2011)

Look at you all hijacking my lighthearted thread about Sir Brian of Cox with religion - if I was a muslim I'd be making enquiries about fatwahs 

PS no offence intended


----------



## Andy HB (Mar 14, 2011)

ypauly said:


> It would probably be better for a clearly titled thread on the subject if you want to continue so that people can decide if they want to enter or not. As it stands somebody who may find it offensive could come accross it by accident.
> 
> It is a very emotive subject for some, and I wouldn't like to think we have or are causing upset with our discussion.



I think I agree with that sentiment. I will split the religious posts out into a separate thread shortly.

Andy 

p.s. Which I have now done!


----------



## ypauly (Mar 14, 2011)

Klocky said:


> Look at you all hijacking my lighthearted thread about Sir Brian of Cox with religion



If Jesus looked like him would you go to church?





Sorry couldn't resist


----------



## Klocky (Mar 14, 2011)

ypauly said:


> If Jesus looked like him would you go to church?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dont be daft, nobody really knows what Jesus looked like and how do you know I dont go to church


----------



## ypauly (Mar 14, 2011)

Klocky said:


> Dont be daft, nobody really knows what Jesus looked like and how do you know I dont go to church



 It's why I started with the word if.


----------



## margie (Mar 14, 2011)

I don't want to get into a discussion about religion but I will say 2 things.

Although there are some scientists who do not believe in God there are also many that do, I can remember watching a programme years ago possibly Horizon or something similar and the scientist (who I cannot remember) said that the more he learnt about science the more it made him believe. 

My second point is that many people say that religion is the cause of war - I don't think that is the case people may use religion as an excuse for war but that's a different thing. Most world religions (don't know which don't) believe in peace - the followers of said religions don't always feel the same way.


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 14, 2011)

I would also love to get involved but feel that to do so would necessarily mean attacking beliefs that are clearly very personal and so I'll refrain unless anyone wishes to do it by PM. Facts can be argued. Beliefs are just that. Not evidence based. Otherwise it would be called science. 

I agree Margie. Many wars have been fought in the name of religion but they are all about power, territory and control of resources.

Rob


----------



## ypauly (Mar 14, 2011)

Robster65 said:


> I agree Margie. Many wars have been fought in the name of religion but they are all about power, territory and control of resources.
> 
> Rob


Rob, this thread has been created for the discussion/ debate so as long as it's kept in good spirit it should be ok.

But without science those wars would not have been wars. It was science that created metal for weapons, it was science that developed those weapons and it was science that helped people navigate the globe to find the "enemy".

It was and still is leaders who fund this, the same leaders that use religion to thier own advantage and increase thier power.

Science has killed just as many if not more than any religion ever has, and while leaders continue to generously fund science in any area that helps them grow thier power base it will continue, with or without religion.


----------



## Carina1962 (Mar 14, 2011)

It is definately a subject that could go on and on but nonetheless a very interesting and fascinating one.  As i said i am a brought up catholic and not a practising one but i always remember the very first time i had heard about 'the big bang theory' how shocked i was and remember reading or hearing somewhere that the catholic religion were in uproar about this theory but i can understand why some people believe in something greater because our whole existance is so awesome and complex that we can only think that there must be more to it all but i have found very few people i know who are religious and go to church but i do realise that you don't have to go to church to be a christian and believe but over the years i have distanced myself more and more from the catholic religion and everything relating to it ie the bible, i just find it harder to believe than believe.

Going back to the wonders of the universe, my argument is that if it was started off by the big bang etc is it just a coincidence that everything seems to fit in perfectly with earth, life, the sun ?  ie it all runs like clockwork and perfect when it comes to life on earth


----------



## mcdonagh47 (Mar 14, 2011)

Robster65 said:


> I agree Margie. Many wars have been fought in the name of religion but they are all about power, territory and control of resources.
> 
> Rob



You are underestimating the power of religious belief. Some wars have been fought in the name of religion and have been precisely that.


----------



## Andy HB (Mar 14, 2011)

carina62 said:


> It is definately a subject that could go on and on but nonetheless a very interesting and fascinating one.  As i said i am a brought up catholic and not a practising one but i always remember the very first time i had heard about 'the big bang theory' how shocked i was and remember reading or hearing somewhere that the catholic religion were in uproar about this theory but i can understand why some people believe in something greater because our whole existance is so awesome and complex that we can only think that there must be more to it all but i have found very few people i know who are religious and go to church but i do realise that you don't have to go to church to be a christian and believe but over the years i have distanced myself more and more from the catholic religion and everything relating to it ie the bible, i just find it harder to believe than believe.
> 
> Going back to the wonders of the universe, my argument is that if it was started off by the big bang etc is it just a coincidence that everything seems to fit in perfectly with earth, life, the sun ?  ie it all runs like clockwork and perfect when it comes to life on earth



Ah! But it won't take much to turn the earth into the equivalent of it's fiery 'twin' Venus. There was very little difference between the two planets in the early solar system.

Also, there is the theory about infinite multiple universes. It is no surprise if one of them just happens to have the 'perfect' attributes for life. But, to be honest, I find that theory just a little too convenient!


----------



## mcdonagh47 (Mar 14, 2011)

carina62 said:


> It is definately



Oy .....did you miss Chris's thread on spelling !!


----------



## Andy HB (Mar 14, 2011)

mcdonagh47 said:


> Oy .....did you miss Chris's thread on spelling !!



probebly


----------



## margie (Mar 14, 2011)

Andy HB said:


> Ah! But it won't take much to turn the earth into the equivalent of it's fiery 'twin' Venus. There was very little difference between the two planets in the early solar system.
> 
> Also, there is the theory about infinite multiple universes. It is no surprise if one of them just happens to have the 'perfect' attributes for life. But, to be honest, I find that theory just a little too convenient!



You'll be quoting the Hitch-hikers guide to the Universe next ............


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 14, 2011)

@ Ypauly - I would suggest that it's humans who wage wars using whatever weapons or methods of manipulating populations that they can. You're using the word science as if it were a tangible thing, but it is merely a method of approaching an unknown. Theology is a science because it poses questions in a particular way and attempts to answer them using scientific method (I presume).
I would rather say that technology is the thing that is used for weaponry. From flint arrow heads to laser guided missiles.

Carina - The fact that Earth, etc is just right for life is something that causes great argument amongst scientists. If it weren't, we wouldn't be here to ask the question. There could be plenty of planets that fit the bill but we have no way of seeing them in sufficient detail as yet.

Rob


----------



## Northerner (Mar 14, 2011)

Andy HB said:


> ...Also, there is the theory about infinite multiple universes. It is no surprise if one of them just happens to have the 'perfect' attributes for life. But, to be honest, I find that theory just a little too convenient!



Have you read The Goldilocks Enigma? Excellent stuff from the equally excellent Paul Davies


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 14, 2011)

Next week's programme is about gravity btw. That will require full concentration !

Rob


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 14, 2011)

Northerner said:


> Have you read The Goldilocks Enigma? Excellent stuff from the equally excellent Paul Davies



Just to expand on that idea Alan. Goldilocks enigma being more or less what Carina asked. How come everything is 'just right' for life ?
But with such a large number of stars and planets, it would probably be unlikely for life NOT to develop. If our planet wasn't right, then we would be sat on another one in another part of the universe. Probably.

Rob


----------



## mcdonagh47 (Mar 14, 2011)

carina62 said:


> Going back to the wonders of the universe, my argument is that if it was started off by the big bang etc is it just a coincidence that everything seems to fit in perfectly with earth, life, the sun ?  ie it all runs like clockwork and perfect when it comes to life on earth



perfect ? life on earth is an haphazard mess created by blind forces working through evolution over billions of years. Millions of teeming lifeforms all filling niches and earning a living by various means. There was a famous Medieval King of Spain , the astromoners explained medieval cosmology to him ( Spheres etc) and he said, "I wish God had consulted me before he did this, because I could have advised him on a better way of doing things". The Universe can't be the work of all powerful creator, because he /she couldn't have done such an irrational job, its just the Laws of Physics operating with no rhyme or reason. Although some religious scientists would claim that God lit the blue touch-paper and then withdrew.
If it was "perfect" and running "like clockwork" we might not have Type 2 diabetes and there might not have been the recent events in Japan. ( Although we are now told Tsunamis have played an important role in Human history).
We are a race of African Killer Apes who happen to have come out on top, through advantageous gene mutations. That gives us a natural bias in looking at the Universe and thinking it has all been laid on for our benefit. It hasn't and that's just conceited anthropomorphism.


----------



## mcdonagh47 (Mar 14, 2011)

Robster65 said:


> Just to expand on that idea Alan. Goldilocks enigma being more or less what Carina asked. How come everything is 'just right' for life ?
> But with such a large number of stars and planets, it would probably be unlikely for life NOT to develop. If our planet wasn't right, then we would be sat on another one in another part of the universe. Probably.
> 
> Rob



Take the "just" out of the statement. Conditions on Earth are "right for life" ( as we know it, Jim) to develop. The current situation is ONE of the multitiude of options that might have come about if a planet the size of Earth is placed in the Zone where water can run freely, in the Solar System of a GVII Yellow Sub-Dwarf Star, for a period of six billion years.
The current situation on Earth is an unintended consequence, there is no "just" involved in it..


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 14, 2011)

Sadly, without the 'just', it doesn't make much sense in the goldilocks context ! 

But yes, I agree the conditions were/are right and it happens to have led to where we are today. It could have ended up a piece of rock in space and nothing else.

Rob


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 14, 2011)

Listening to replay of Start the week on radio 4. Brian Cox has just been talking about scientific theories as the result of theoretical physicists (et al) attempting to explain all the evidence that is observed.

They follow where it all leads.

Rob


----------



## ypauly (Mar 14, 2011)

Robster65 said:


> @ Ypauly - I would suggest that it's humans who wage wars using whatever weapons or methods of manipulating populations that they can. You're using the word science as if it were a tangible thing, but it is merely a method of approaching an unknown. Theology is a science because it poses questions in a particular way and attempts to answer them using scientific method (I presume).
> I would rather say that technology is the thing that is used for weaponry. From flint arrow heads to laser guided missiles.
> 
> Carina - The fact that Earth, etc is just right for life is something that causes great argument amongst scientists. If it weren't, we wouldn't be here to ask the question. There could be plenty of planets that fit the bill but we have no way of seeing them in sufficient detail as yet.
> ...



Technology is the child of science. Science devolopes by means of experiment the food that feeds technology.


----------



## Northerner (Mar 14, 2011)

Of course, all this assumes that the physical universe actually exists...


----------



## ypauly (Mar 14, 2011)

carina62 said:


> Going back to the wonders of the universe, my argument is that if it was started off by the big bang etc is it just a coincidence that everything seems to fit in perfectly with earth, life, the sun ?  ie it all runs like clockwork and perfect when it comes to life on earth


It does seem a little too convenient.

The big bang, a theory (correct me if i'm wrong) that tells us everything came from nothing.

I find that hard to believe.


----------



## Andy HB (Mar 14, 2011)

Northerner said:


> Of course, all this assumes that the physical universe actually exists...



No, it is the consequence of a sneeze from the Great Arkleseizure 

(Yes!!! I've got my Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference in!!)


----------



## ypauly (Mar 14, 2011)

Northerner said:


> Of course, all this assumes that the physical universe actually exists...



That thought is cooking my brain lol



I think it's time for bed.


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 14, 2011)

Did someone mention holograms ? 

Rob

Good discussion.

And no fights ! 

Rob


----------



## AlisonM (Mar 15, 2011)

As far as I'm concerned the jury is still out on god. I tend to be the Doubting Thomas type, I want evidence because I've never been one to take things on faith alone. I do think we have a spiritual existence and I also believe that life on Earth and in the Cosmos is far more interconnected than most folk would like to believe (every action has an equal and opposite reaction?) From what I've been reading, there is mounting scientific evidence to suggest that this view is right.

I also believe strongly that our treatment of our only home is appalling. Historically speaking up here the belief has been that we are custodians of the land for those who come after, and therefore, we are honour bound to treat it and everything else with respect. I think if we all did that, we wouldn't go far wrong.

Of course, we could all be floating through space on the back of a giant turtle and I could be completely wrong.


----------



## mcdonagh47 (Mar 15, 2011)

AlisonM said:


> As far as I'm concerned the jury is still out on god. I tend to be the Doubting Thomas type, I want evidence because I've never been one to take things on faith alone. I do think we have a spiritual existence and I also believe that life on Earth and in the Cosmos is far more interconnected than most folk would like to believe



Life on Earth is the only life we know of, there is no evidence of life anywhere else on the Cosmos as yet.


----------



## Carina1962 (Mar 15, 2011)

AlisonM : what have you been reading?  i would be interested to know, thanks


----------



## AlisonM (Mar 15, 2011)

carina62 said:


> AlisonM : what have you been reading?  i would be interested to know, thanks



Everything I can get my hands on from Aristotle to Hawking and Linnaeus to Dawkins.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Mar 15, 2011)

I bet God has a right old chuckle reading Dawkins.


----------



## Northerner (Mar 15, 2011)

Anyone interested in reading about the Earth's history, I'd highly recommend The Earth: An Intimate History by Richard Fortey - one of the best books I have ever read about life on Earth, going through all the geological changes etc.  It really brings home to you the enormous scale of geological time and how brief our presence has been here.


----------



## Mark T (Mar 15, 2011)

AlisonM said:


> Of course, we could all be floating through space on the back of a giant turtle and I could be completely wrong.


Don't forget the pachyderm's!


----------



## AlisonM (Mar 15, 2011)

Mark T said:


> Don't forget the pachyderm's!



As if I would!


----------



## Carina1962 (Mar 15, 2011)

thanks Northey, I wonder if i could get this book to read from the local library?  no doubt Prof Brian Cox has already got some books out on his series on TV atm, may have a look when next in a bookshop.


----------



## runner (Mar 16, 2011)

One of my favourite topics, so have to add my tuppenyworth!  I am an athiest and strongly believe that religion is still 'the opiate of the masses'.  _However_  I also don't believe in absolute truths of any description- sceintific and mathematical theoroms are often changing as we discover more about our universe. 

_the important thing is_ I am a commited person (who can't speil) like a lot of my religious neighbours and we have a lot in common with regard to concern for our fellow man. I have often stood side by side with Christians, Catholics, Muslims etc. in an effort to try and improve life for all.  I even belong to a choir linked to a church!

I get very annoyed when people equate being non religious with being without any moral standards!!

What is sad, is that Brian Cox will probably be banned from America because of what he is saying (or rather relaying), just like no more films will be made of the Phillip Pulman trilogy (The golden Compass being the first film) because the American religious fundamentalists can't cope with being questioned. They even complained about the Great Harry Potter, for Heaven's sake!

There's a good set of books to read Carina - and enjoyable - google Phillip Pullman.  Neil Gaiman is another great author on this topic.


----------



## FM001 (Mar 16, 2011)

Just caught the second episode last night on BBC 2, I have to say it was really good and very well explained for those who may not have a strong scientific background.  What shone through was his passion and love for the subject he has spent his life studying, I must admit I'd not heard of Professor Cox until this series but I'm already looking forward to next weeks Wonders of the Universe.


----------



## Northerner (Mar 16, 2011)

carina62 said:


> thanks Northey, I wonder if i could get this book to read from the local library?  no doubt Prof Brian Cox has already got some books out on his series on TV atm, may have a look when next in a bookshop.



I gave the wrong book in my previous post - the one I meant to say was Life: an Unauthorised Biography. I've read both, but this was the first one I read by Richard Fortey and I got them mixed up


----------



## margie (Mar 16, 2011)

runner said:


> What is sad, is that Brian Cox will probably be banned from America because of what he is saying (or rather relaying), just like no more films will be made of the Phillip Pulman trilogy (The golden Compass being the first film) because the American religious fundamentalists can't cope with being questioned. They even complained about the Great Harry Potter, for Heaven's sake!



You have to be careful what you say in the US. I have a relative who is a teacher and called a child (not in her class) by her name. The child asked how she knew her name - to which my relative replied its magic. The following day the child's father was at the school demanding to know if my relative was a witch.


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 16, 2011)

Sadly, something only an open and broad education can resolve. Dare I say that the fundamentalism in parts of the US have fostered this type of closed mind thinking and have left many ignorant of the realities of life. In my opinion.

I would be happier if religion was something to be chosen and seen as a personal philosophy, rather than an imposed alternative reality.

I am pleased that I live in a country where (fairly) open debate can take place in a culture of mutual respect. Thank you to everyone taking part for not feeling offended or defensive (except me ). It makes for a very interesting and educational thread. 

Rob


----------



## runner (Mar 16, 2011)

Just a thought - you might be interested in The British Humanist Association's take on all this:

http://www.humanism.org.uk/home


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 16, 2011)

The BHA are a good focus for anyone who doesn't wish to belong to organised religion, for whatever reason.

I've had them bookmarked for a while.

Rob


----------



## novorapidboi26 (Mar 16, 2011)

Robster65 said:


> The BHA are a good focus for anyone who doesn't wish to belong to organised religion, for whatever reason.
> 
> I've had them bookmarked for a while.
> 
> Rob



The British Horse Racing Authority........strange...........

I would describe myself as a Humanist actually.......


----------



## mcdonagh47 (Mar 16, 2011)

novorapidboi26 said:


> The British Horse Racing Authority........strange...........



but not totally irrelevant since the racing industry has rejected God's handiwork and relies on the semi-scientific manipulation of genes and DNA and artificial insemination.


----------



## AlisonM (Mar 16, 2011)

mcdonagh47 said:


> but not totally irrelevant since the racing industry has rejected God's handiwork and relies on the semi-scientific manipulation of genes and DNA and artificial insemination.



And handicapping.


----------



## ypauly (Mar 16, 2011)

Robster65 said:


> Sadly, something only an open and broad education can resolve. Dare I say that the fundamentalism in parts of the US have fostered this type of closed mind thinking and have left many ignorant of the realities of life. In my opinion.
> 
> I would be happier if religion was something to be chosen and seen as a personal philosophy, rather than an imposed alternative reality.
> 
> ...



My faith wasn't imposed. My religion was also chosen.

See I made you happy


----------



## Carina1962 (Mar 16, 2011)

and to put the cat amongst the pigeons........who is to say that our universe is not controlled in any way by something ie God - we could chat about this to infinity and beyond


----------



## ypauly (Mar 16, 2011)

carina62 said:


> and to put the cat amongst the pigeons........who is to say that our universe is not controlled in any way by something ie God - we could chat about this to infinity and beyond


There are so many questions carina.

Like: How did life survive the Big Bang?

Or: How did all those particles decide to join together and create life? Especially as the universe was expanding and so they were travelling away from each other.


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 16, 2011)

ypauly said:


> My faith wasn't imposed. My religion was also chosen.
> 
> See I made you happy



I am VERY happy for you ! 




			
				carina62 said:
			
		

> and to put the cat amongst the pigeons........who is to say that our universe is not controlled in any way by something ie God - we could chat about this to infinity and beyond



The way science approaches it, is that there is no evidence, direct or otherwise to suggest any sort of god, so the idea is discounted. There have always been unknowns in science, as there are now, but as research continues, they are explained one by one, so the argument that the things we don't know can be credited to a god (there have been many through history) are only temporary arguments. Once something is discovered or explained, the argument has to be reallocated to another unknown. 

If ever there is any evidence to suggest an intervention by something other than natural laws, be sure that sciencists will be as excited as anyone.

Rob


----------



## ypauly (Mar 16, 2011)

Robster65 said:


> I am VERY happy for you !
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There is no eveidence to suggest there isn't either.


I am aware of the many people that examine and show supposed evidence against writings in religious texts such as Dawkins), but that shows at best that the text is wrong (well to some it might) Not that there is no basis for it,and certainly not that there isn't a God.


----------



## sugarfreerach (Mar 16, 2011)

science explains how God did it all. God invented all the complicated science bit as well.  When God created the universe, there was a pretty big bang!! When it says in genesis about the seven "days" we are the ones who put "days" as 24 hours not God...


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 16, 2011)

ypauly said:


> My faith wasn't imposed. My religion was also chosen.
> 
> See I made you happy



But the point is, science can only look at evidence, form a hypothesis, make predictions and test results/observations against the hypothesis. The tests will be carefully structured so that they will either prove or disprove the hypothesis.

You cannot use a lack of evidence to support a hypothesis that something doesn't not exist. If that makes sense.

Religious texts and the writings therein can be cited as evidence. But since a lot of it (as far as I've seen) seems to be in the form of stories and accounts of happenings that can't be repeated, they can't really be tested against.

Bear in mind that personal belief, however popular, doesn't provide evidence in itself. Unless there is something that an observation or experiment or discovery can show to be outside of the current standard scientific model, then it has to be seen as something that you believe and not to be held as an alternative to scientific theories.

Rob


----------



## ypauly (Mar 16, 2011)

Robster65 said:


> You cannot use a lack of evidence to support a hypothesis that something doesn't not exist. If that makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Rob



Generally in science, something suggests something exists and then the scientists go and look for it. Usually mathematics but quite often it's witness testimony.


Dark matter and higgs bosen are just two things that nobody knows for sure exist, yet alot of effort is put into finding it.


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 16, 2011)

Merely because the evidence suggests they should exist. 

It's not merely speculative, but a test to discover if something pivotal can be detected. If they fail to find it, they'll have to admit defeat and go in a different direction. Possibly in search of god ! 

But there needs to be strong evidence to support something before you can test for it. As said, belief, however strong, is not evidence but faith or hope.

I have faith in humanity and the fundamental laws of nature. If these are modified, then my world view is adjusted to suit. If I come across something I can't explain, I'll seek out an answer from the most credible source. FOr many, this is the bible or qoran or torah or another tex or philosophy. For me and many others, it's the standard scientific model and all that that encompasses.

Rob


----------



## macast (Mar 16, 2011)

Northerner said:


> Of course, all this assumes that the physical universe actually exists...



a man after my own heart Northerner 

perhaps The Matrix is closer to the truth than we care to imagine

I consider myself a Holist.... I am happy to encompass all spiritual and religious beliefs with no one being 'wrong' or 'right' including the scientists..... but I do believe that "all is not what it seems" .............


----------



## ypauly (Mar 16, 2011)

macast said:


> all is not what it seems



Indeed it isn't.


----------



## ypauly (Mar 16, 2011)

Robster65 said:


> But there needs to be strong evidence to support something before you can test for it.


Just had this strange thought.
Does that apply to the lock ness monster? A lot of effort went into that one, scientists aswell.

Though it is probably easy, as a lake is easier to search than the universe.




Am I starting to look weird?


----------



## Northerner (Mar 16, 2011)

ypauly said:


> Am I starting to look weird?



What do you mean 'starting'?


----------



## sugarfreerach (Mar 16, 2011)

[QUOTEypauly;238324]J

Am I starting to look weird?[/QUOTE]

only from certain angles...


----------



## ypauly (Mar 16, 2011)

Northerner said:


> What do you mean 'starting'?











 I let myself in for that one didn't I.


----------



## Northerner (Mar 16, 2011)

ypauly said:


> I let myself in for that one didn't I.



And Rach's!


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 16, 2011)

ypauly said:


> I let myself in for that one didn't I.



And I missed the opportunity !!  

As far as quantum theory goes, all isn't what it seems. It allows for a lot of very weird stuff. Far stranger and more wonderful than any fiction.

Rob


----------

