Slashdot Mirror
What Do You Believe Even If You Can't Prove It?
An anonymous reader writes "That's what online magazine The Edge - the World Question Center asked over 120 scientists, futurists, and other interesting minds. Their answers are sometimes short and to the point (Bruce Sterling: 'We're in for climatic mayhem'), often long and involved; they cover everything from the existence of God to the nature of black holes. What do you believe, even though you can't prove it?"
That some day, somehow, I will get the elusive First Post.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
The female orgasm.
G.W. Bush
I believe I will have another martini, please. Up, Sapphire, extra olives, and go easy on the vermouth.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
I mean, go ahead and prove it, but you'll still be taking it for granted, or you wouldn't bother with a proof.
The question should be simply "What do you believe?" Because if something can be proven, the issue of belief does not arise. And only idiots believe what what is proven as false.
I believe that if you are nice to others, even in small ways, that the world gets better.
I believe that if you are mean to others, even in small ways, that the world gets worse.
I believe that I want the world to be a better place, and I live each day according to that.
42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
... is just a tool for navigating a complex world.
In some cultures, sacrificing a goat to the spirits is a truth that may help you survive the famine, if only by making your neighbours afraid enough of you so you can steal their food.
In other cultures, knowing why the ride to work drives you crazy is a truth that helps you stay sane.
Truth is any tool that works better. Scientific truth - that is, truth derived by the scientific method - works best of all, because it fits the physical world so well.
Different truths can be in direct conflict (quantum vs. classical mechanics) and yet both be suitable tools.
Even religion is a truth that helps navigate certain kinds of reality... it's a kind of fuse box for the mind, so to speak. When logic and science can't explain why the wave hit you, perhaps religion can.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
So do I, but there seems to be darned little of it in the software that I see.
-dB
"It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."
Simply put. As children, we grow up with "all knowing parental figures." With that as precident, when we grow up, we look for that figure. Therefore it is understandable and expected that humanity seek some type of all knowing figure to explain all they don not know and give them comfort when they are grown.
We as humans look for a god, even though based upon complex systems and greater scarcity of complex working systems as the systems become more complex, it is unlikely that one exists.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
I believe in Christ Jesus and the "End of this Earth" as we know it today. I also believe that many of us will go to hell (the lake of fire) believe it or not.
I wish I could prove it, but it seems to me that it is unlikely that P == NP.
) .
There are various points of discontinuity in mathematics and I think this is one of them (for example, we know that the number of integers is less than the number of reals and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis
John.
Let the flames begin.
You know what? Good for you!
I'm an atheist myself, but I'm not going to try and convert you. Nor do I want you to convert me. I don't believe in UFO's, ghosts, fortune telling nor anything else supernatural.
BUT! I believe that if people were a little bit more tolerant, the world would be a much better place.
God and that Global Warming is not necessarily a bad thing.
Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
Please note: I.D. is billed as an "alternative" to evolution in which god exists.
The solidified and well-accepted portions of evolutionary models make no requirement, however, that you cease to believe in any gods.
Intelligent Design, therefore, while perhaps a good example of things to believe in without proof, has nothing to do with science and god. It has much more, however, to do with politically empowered people who don't understand science, and the people they seem to think are somehow disproving god.
Your ending statment, therefore, appears to have little to do with the rest of your post when it is put into the context of the post you replied to.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Do intelligent design believers argue that God designed humans, animals etc directly or is it that God designed the physical laws of the universe such that everything could naturally evolve on its own?
Yes.
Both are valid schools of thought under the heading of "intelligent design"
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
You bet! Someday people will realize that the Bible is a book of THEOLOGY and not a book of SCIENCE.
There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
Of course, if it were genetics, according to Darwin, it would be a trait that should have been wiped out long ago since homosexuals cant reproduce.
Nonsense. Homosexuals, physically, are fully capable of reproducing - it's just that the sexual acts which are appealing to them don't result in reproduction. Regardless, I know no lack of people with gay biological parents who reproduced because they felt social pressure to enter into heterosexual relationships.
Additionally, recessive genes can carry for many generations, and if homosexuality is genetic, it's obviously controlled by a sequence of genes that are recessive.
Personally, I'm gay and I don't think homosexuality is genetic. I suspect that there are biological causes (e.g. hormone levels in the mother, etc.), but I'm capable of admitting that we don't know at this stage and it is possible that homosexuality is a choice. This is irrelevant to me, though, because even if it *is* a choice, it's my choice to make, and it's no one's business what the outcome of that decision is.
There are difficult-to-impossible-to-fake signs, if you know what to look/feel for. The sex flush is the best one. Pupil size generally increases when it happens too. The vaginal contractions at 0.8s intervals would be very difficult to fake also. Also there's the whole issue of their acting skills.
So... go run some experiments with this new data.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
How would you know what a universe that wasn't designed looked like? Have you ever experienced a universe that was designed? "Design" is one of those things that we as humans recognize in relation to things not designed; we compare, say, a chair with a fallen tree. Both can be appropriated for the task of sitting, but one is designed and other other not (presuming, of course, we're talking about a knocked over). How would you recognize if the universe werre not designed?
BTW, if you're really interested in the question and not merely espousing it as a foundation for other less tenable beliefs, I recommend that you read Bertrand Russell's "Why I Am Not a Christian (And Other Essays)" and George Smith's ""Atheism: The Case Against God."
Wil
wiki
Don't anthropomorphise computers and cars, They hate that.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Wrong.
find / -name "*.sig" | xargs rm
While researchers views might be that depressing, the beliefs of medical doctors is quite encouraging. Take a look at this survey.
72% believe that religion provides a reliable and necessary guide to life.
58% attend church once a month.
58% believe the Bible was inspired by God.
So while your article implies intelligent and influential scientists don't believe in God, a number I personally hope to decrease, the study of medical doctors shows a strong number of people with faith. I would say that medical doctors have 'scientific minds', which would dispute your second to last line.
On a related note, I don't think that it's fair to use the National Academy of Science as the survey pool. People who have made it into the NAS have devoted at least 90% of their waking energy to the scientific fields are not consistent with most kinds of faith anyways. As a Christian, there are things more important to me than scientific success. I have had dinner with many biochemists in the academy and family/friends/life/etc comes a distant second to their career. So I would suggest that these results are completely consistent with their life style. I would like to see a survey of PhD scientists or professors at a variety of universities, those results would be much more of a mixed bag.
I also hope that you don't take this as confirmation that education and faith are not compatible. I know plenty of PhD students who are practicing Christians.
~Dan
Not necessarily, depending on whether there is an afterlife and what determines your fate therein. That's even assuming that the earthquake wasn't actually a good outcome out of all the possible outcomes; for example, what if the earthquake released tectonic pressure that otherwise would've built up and killed millions instead of hundreds of thousands?
I for one think the "If an omnipotent, loving God exists, why does he let bad things happen?" line of argument is a red herring. It's impossible for us to understand the actions of a being with an infinite perspective, if one exists--or to look at it another way, you can always argue the other side, no matter how disastrous and cruel the world might seem to be.
As opposed to those adulterous heterosexuals who fornicate all day long and have children out of wedlock only to beat and otherwise abuse them. See, I can corner a small part of a population and project their faults onto the population as a whole. Does being straight make us the way I've described? No. Does being gay mean you spread disease? No. Can everything mentioned in both your post and mine be done by gays AND straights? Yes. Am I beginning to talk in questions like Donald Rumsfeld? Well, you post on Slashdot with the comments you have, not necessarily the comments you want.
If you mod me down, I shall become less powerful than you could possibly imagine.
"Just because science CAN explain something doesn't mean that it WASN'T God".
That's what Occam's Razor is for. As in the simplest explanation that fits the evidence is usually best (paraphrase). God, being unprovable, will rarely (if ever) fit these criteria.
yeah, show me exclusive homosexuality in other animals i mean like humans do, not like confused dogs humping a tree.
Many animals show homosexual activity which includes full mating rituals and sex, not just 'tree humping'. This is know to occur in dolphins and wales, apes, rodents, deer, goats, sheep, and birds. In all, it been observed in hundreds of species. As for cases of exclusive homosexuality, this has also been seen in many species. For example, in japanese Macaque monkeys around 9% of all adults exclusively mate and pair-bond with the same sex.
To be a little more constructive than the parent:
I believe, though I can't prove, that the universe presented to me by my senses is not an artifact of my own existence but exists separately from me, is consistent and will remain consistent after I am dead. (i.e. the universe isn't a figment of my imagination).
I believe, though I can't prove, that other entities that resemble me in appearance and behavior (people) have the same kind of agency and observer status as myself and therefore have value similar in kind to myself. (i.e. contrary to the assertion of the psychopath, I believe other people really are people).
Once you accept those predicates as lemmas (and variations, like having empathy for the pain of animals, or using tools to enhance your senses), a great number of things become "very likely". However, we don't need to "prove" any of it, because there's very little value to "proven" once you have "really, really likely". All we need is enough consistency to make predictions reliable and you can live a full and happy life in this world. Most/all of the people I've observed actually demanding proof for things are those behaving defensively in a "faith-based knowledge vs. reason-based knowledge" discussion.
Yes, I am an athiest. No, I'm not hostile to Christianity or Christians: I just stopped accepting that there was a need for God and lost interest (except as a hobby of studying myth in literature and culture).
Regards,
Ross
Sure, God wanted us to be intelligent, but took 3 billion years of fucking around to get to it.
....
Right
ID is an escape hatch for those who cannot deny the obviousness of evolution but don't want to give up their need to belief in God and, ergo, an afterlife.
What has striken me most the last few years, is the arrogance ... that Science will Have All The Answers. Eventually we will comprehend everything
... have faith that there is a God (paraphrase).
Here's the thing: no other method comes anywhere close to the scientific one for generating real knowledge about the observable universe. Science keeps on generating better understanding, so either the universe is infinitely complex, in which case we'll never stop generting better science; or we'll eventually run out of steam due to our admittedly tiny minds - I doubt this one since we already so most of our science using mind-tools like oh, books, computers, etc to help us understand it; or we will eventually know it all. In a loose sense of "know". Much of the world doesn't know the venerable physics of Einstein and Heisenberg very well; and even more sadly, many deny the even more venerable biology of Darwin.
You often hear people come with arguments like 'but God can't exist' or 'we don't need God to explain the universe'. Sure, if you think that man can eventually comprehend everything there is to know about the universe, then you can make those claims.
So either we can know all, or we need God to explain it? false dichotomy.
Religion/faith is all about the step after that.
A totally meaningless sentence.
I personally do
What testable predictions about the observable universe result from this assumption? If there are none, you must entertain the posiblity that your statement has no meaning.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
QUOTE
The Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) is an approach to quantum mechanics according to which, in addition to the world we are aware of directly, there are many other similar worlds which exist in parallel at the same space and time. The existence of the other worlds makes it possible to remove randomness and action at a distance from quantum theory and thus from all physics.
UNQUOTE
This gives new meaning to the concept of re-incarnation.
Yup. I believe that in tense situations groups are only as smart as the dumbest person there, and that all people are fundamentally like sheep.
:)
I can't prove that, but I do fervently believe that
-WS
An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
That the universe is understandable by man, and furthermore that its fundamental principles, when properly formulated, are conceptually simple.
Just because media science promulgates arrogance, does not mean that science is arrogant. Any scientist that says "this is the right answer, the total truth, forever" is arrogant - but they don't say that. Your media scientist is a straw man.
The true answer is always "I don't know" - but the person who has studied the available evidence will say - "the available evidence points to this or that conlusion". It does not mean that that conclusion is true, only that the available evidence points to it. When more evidence becomes available, the pointed at conclusion will change to more accurately reflect the available evidence.
So it's not a question of "possibility" but one of evidence. Faith is what you believe in when you don't have evidence. There's ample evidence out there to make a decision if you look at it without being brainwashed from birth.
What a rational person can do is look at the known facts about the christian god and decide from the available evidence if they make sense given your own personal experiences of the world. If you have a vision and god speaks to you, then there is no way for me to dissuade you from a belief in god. However, your evidence is personal evidence, and it's based upon personal experience, and is in no way valid for convincing me that there is such a god.
Even if you do have a personal revelation and believe in a god, how does that help you know the attributes of god. Unless god tells you he's omnipotent, do you know that he is. Perhaps your revealed god says "I'm the god of the christian bible, and everything in it is true", and there you are, you can now be a truely rational christian. Hopefully you'll ask your god to do a bit of proof for you, to give you some more tangible evidence. Why would god make you a rational being if the one thing he asks you not to be rational about is his own existence?
Most people on this planet who believe in a god do so for no other reason that that's what they were told when they were little. They're not just told that there is a god, but which particular brand they're to follow. That's not rational, that's just hearsay evidence and means nothing.
That's why the rational course of action is to be agnostic until proven otherwise. If you've been proven otherwise, then that's fine - I'll respect that, but don't go thinking that your evidence has any meaning for me because the only evidence that matters in this issue is very personal. Everyone has to discover their own answers to these questions and make them fit with how their own brains work. That why religion in it's current "one size fits all" mentality doesn't work, for even in a specific branch of a specific religion there are vast differences in the details of belief, and that's because the religion was not personally revealed to each and every member, but passed on from one person to another in such a way that does not account for the differences in each individual.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
> Why is this modded insightful? It's a complete misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause. There
> is no "prohibitions against teachign{sic} religion in public schools". The only thing the Establisment
> Clause prohibits is a state sponsored religion.
Teachign a religious belief, even a cleverly hidden one like ID, in a public school is state-sponsored religion. Parents are perfectly welcome to put their children in private schools if they wish them to be taught about the Intelligent Designer.
ID evolved because openly teaching Biblical Literalism to public school students was pretty much squashed a long time ago. It's the floorboards of the wedge strategy (along with the premise that somewhere somehow something is wrong with evolution). Watch an ID advocate. In mixed company they will refuse to say anything about the alleged Designer, while among like-minded inviduals, this Designer's secret identity is quite obviously the Judeao-Christian god.
In other words, ID is nothing more than a lawyer's version of Biblical Creationism, specially designed to get around that little ol' problem of pushing Biblical Literalism upon kiddies in public schools.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
But they still are clearly not you, so why should you care?
Good followup, but now you're asking a question of morality, as opposed to the reasoning behind a metaphysical predicate.
Short answer: because it's normal (genetically wired into my brain) to treat other people with respect.
Longer answer (and a better answer for people who don't believe in natural causes of behavior): Because there are substantial negative consequences to behaving in a way that ignores other people's value. I enjoy the company of friends (and find their help useful on occasion), and other people are good at detecting fake friends. I like my freedom, and running people down at stoplights causes uniformed people in cars with flashing lights to lock me up, limiting my freedom.
Regards,
Ross
You are reaching with that conclusion. *No* physical evidence. How about the Big Bang?
How about it? Is this just another appeal for "God in the Gaps"?
Bias is on both sides.
How so? You have irrefutable evidence of god's existence? Something testable and falsifiable?
I have an open mind. Fill it with something other than speculation and you will be able to convince me.
"Atheists want nothing more than to live their lives without God so they can live a life without any ultimate consequences."
Atheists (and I can only speak for the ones I know) want nothing more than to be left alone by religious people. They don't belive in god, so the threat of any "ultimate consequences" is moot.
We chose to be moral and good because it suits us, not because we fear for our fate after we die.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Q: Why do women fake their orgasms?
A: Because they think men care.
"This means the Big Bang was "tuned" to produce exactly this density. The odds of that happening by chance are estimated at 1 to 10^50."
This kind of thinking is freshman 101 philosphy talking. You obviously have little grasp of the very large numbers, even less grasp of the infinite. This kind of talk leads even more stupid people into believing in miracles, and gods, and all sorts of magical mystery tour fluff.
Experience thinkers go well beyond your primitive and immature logic. It is well known that in a universe of practically infinite time that all numbers less than infinity might as well be 1. So while I'm not a die hard believer in the big bang theory, whatever happened only had to happen once! And based on any kind of random chance, no tuning was neccessary. Better yet, in infinite time, not only does this theoretical universe come into existance, but it does so an infinte number of times. All that, and together with all the other random universe type probabilities.
The question, and this has been pondered many times by advanced theologians, philosophers, and scientists, is...is this universe the only logical possible universe that can exist? If this turns out to be true, then not only do gods get demoted to janitorial duty, but they don't even get paid. This is basically saying that any god would have no choice in the creation of a universe...there is only one possible one that could ever be created.
This kind of thinking makes perfect sense when you go into deep analysis on how we are able to think and know truths. In our everyday lives we know things by definition. We made up those definitions based on sensory perception. Definitions need to be logically organized, otherwise the world is utterly incomprehensable. For example, the color of the sky can never be both black and white at the same time. We've created an intermediate word for that defined as "grey". Also, you cannot pick up a thing that is both square and round, or lift a thing that is both heavy and light. You would never say to a person "Go pickup that heavy box, it doesn't weigh much." Our entire experience of the universe is based on the languages of definition and logic. We see a "color". We define that "color". If the color changes, the only way to know that it did was to compare it to the originally defined color.
If there is only one logically possible universe, then what is the requirement that it changes over time? Quite possibly so that it can work out all the permutations of what -is- possible. But that is not a "purpose". That is only "what it does". The next question that arises is...if the universe is working out all logically possible combinations over time (perhaps at the quantum level), then are the number of logically possible combinations infinite?
Any beginning computer programmer knows that a memory with a finite number states cannot logically produce every number in existance. So if the universe has an infinite number of states, in a sea of inifinite time, is there an algorithm that would produce a series of logically possible states that occur once and only once...that cannot repeat? Even calculating PI will eventually produce a series of repetitive numbers that occur at ever decreasing frequency.
Is there only one logically possible universe?
For insight into this kind of thinking google on the "Bekenstein Bound" of quantum mechanics.
Also read...
"The Physics of Immortality", Frank J. Tipler
and,
"The Anthropic Cosmological Principle", John D. Barrow & Frank J. Tipler
Note: I personally don't always agree with the nature of the material presented in the above books. Nevertheless I find the reading to be absolutely facinating.