Slashdot Mirror
Talking Science and God With the Pope's New Chief Astronomer
sciencehabit writes: On 18 September, Pope Francis appointed Jesuit brother Guy Consolmagno as the new director of the Vatican Observatory, which employs a dozen astronomers to study asteroids, meteorites, extrasolar planets, stellar evolution, and cosmology. The observatory is based at the pope's summer residence south of Rome and operates a 1.8-meter telescope in Arizona, where the skies are clearer. Science Magazine chatted with Consolmagno about a variety of topics, including whether God gets in the way of doing good astronomy. Consolmagno said, "First of all, I want to provide space for other astronomers to do their work. And I also want to show the world that religion supports astronomy. It is often religious people who most need to see that; they need to know that astronomy is wonderful and that they shouldn't be afraid of it. I often quote John Paul II, when he said [of evolution] that "truth cannot contradict truth." If you think you already know everything about the world, you are not a good scientist, and if you think you know all there is to know about God, then your religious faith is at fault."
about the world, you are not a good scientist," except when talking about global warming, because that science is settled.
Here come all the Angry Atheists.
Remember...you can't hate what doesn't exist.
The Catholic church has always been supportive of science, though. The main reason there was such a fuss was because some scientists didn't like their control over science, but the whole reason they had that much control was that they'd set up the entire university system to begin with.
"Truth is truth, wherever found, On Christian or on heathen ground."
science tells you how the world works. religion tells you how to live in the world
of course there will be people who will insist religion and science do conflict. such people do not understand science and/ or religion. if they point to something a scientist or religious figure said, then they are fools who don't understand the topics arguing against other fools who don't understand the topics. they are removing themselves form the realm of people who need to be taken seriously
science and religion simply do not conflict. they examine entirely different realms that do not interact. if you think the realms do interact, you are simply announcing you don't understand what you are talking about
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Seems like a lot of work when you can just read your big book of answers or talk to the guy who you think made it all. Alternatively they could also just wait until heaven and then they'd have their answers. Clearly not enough faith...
So something that has no idea about how the world works or our place in it had the credentials to tell us how to live? What could possibly go wrong...
"science tells you how the world works. religion tells you how to live in the world"
This is incorrect historically.
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--"
AKA the reason we die is because of sin entered the world through disobedience of the first human beings. You can't get around fundamental biblical doctrines or it makes nonsense of the resurrection of christ. Christianity rises or falls with the historical resurrection of christ. Apologists like yourself have no credibility.
The reality is historically medical quackery was based on religious nonsense and all we have to do is put ourselves in the shoes of someone living in those times with our advanced knowledge and imagine our friends and family is getting "treated" by these religious loons and their medical pseudo-science based on their religious beliefs. Christianity is far from the only religion that has done this.
Next omnipotence and failure are opposed to one another, you can't fail to communicate a message you exist if you are omnipotent. The very concept of failure is inimical to omnipotence. This is why people who claim "their god is right" are full of shit. They also suffer from a painful lack of imagination, i.e. my god is so awesome you don't even have to search for him or even believe he exists because a best friend would never ask you to worship him!". People's failure of imagination is why religion survives.
The below gave birth the superstitious nonsense over the centuries that was treated as historically true lets remember, if any god gives misinformation in his "message to us", he is no god, because it is 100% likely human beings and their malfunctioning brain are making this shit up.
"Matthew 8:30-34 New International Version (NIV)
30 Some distance from them a large herd of pigs was feeding. 31 The demons begged Jesus, “If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs.”
32 He said to them, “Go!” So they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water. 33 Those tending the pigs ran off, went into the town and reported all this, including what had happened to the demon-possessed men. 34 Then the whole town went out to meet Jesus. And when they saw him, they pleaded with him to leave their region.'
At first, I though that spelled "the Pope's New Chief Astrologer".
science tells you how the world works. religion tells you how to live in the world
of course there will be people who will insist religion and science do conflict. such people do not understand science and/ or religion. if they point to something a scientist or religious figure said, then they are fools who don't understand the topics arguing against other fools who don't understand the topics. they are removing themselves form the realm of people who need to be taken seriously
science and religion simply do not conflict. they examine entirely different realms that do not interact. if you think the realms do interact, you are simply announcing you don't understand what you are talking about
science tells you how the world works. religion tells you how to live in the world of course there will be people who will insist religion and science do not conflict. such people do not understand science and/ or religion. if they point to something a scientist or religious figure said, then they are fools who don't understand the topics arguing against other fools who don't understand the topics. they are removing themselves form the realm of people who need to be taken seriously science and religion simply do conflict. they examine entirely different realms that do interact. if you think the realms do not interact, you are simply announcing you don't understand what you are talking about You're right back where you started.
Poor fellow has not a clue about anything!
Sad.
There is no god. No supremo up in the sky. When you die, you are gone - poof! Your existence is halted. Don't consider my words an expose', consider them for what they are, the truth.
And may God Bless!
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--"
Why do you think you're a member of "people"?
Very specifically. Clear, non-arbitrary, scientific DNA-based justifications for what biological structures are in the realm of "ethics" and which are not, will be fine.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
In addition to now being the director of the Vatican Observatory, he's a scifi fan and a regular speaker at scifi cons on astronomy. Very enjoyable and very informative.
He's a serious scientist who also is a Jesuit Brother. That's not a conflict for him.
Here's more info at Wikipedia: Guy_Consolmagno
The Vatican Observatory also runs the Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope on Mount Graham near Tuscon. Vatican_Advanced_Technology_Telescope
It's optimized for photometry so it's a good fit with Brother Guy's research on asteroids and other small objects in the solar system.
science tells you how the world works. religion tells you how to live in the world
The great thing about religions is that there are so many to choose from!
For example, the bible at times recognizes, condones, and even encourages slavery.
Bible:Exodus 21:20 "Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result,
but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
Islam neither ignores nor condemns slavery. In fact, a large part of the Sharia is dedicated to the practice (source).
Muslims are encouraged to live in the way of Muhammad, who was a slave owner and trader. He captured slaves in battle. He had sex with his slaves. And he instructed his men to do the same. The Qur'an actually devotes more verses to making sure that Muslim men know they can keep women as sex slaves than it does to telling them to pray five times a day.
For 3,000 years, the Hindu caste system has held the people of India in the grip of religious slavery.
I wonder what the Flying Spaghetti Monster has to say about slavery?
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this yet. Great book.
Also, Fr Consolmagno taught Astronomy & Physics. Dude's nerdy as it gets. He's one of us, guys.
James Blish's After Such Knowledge series.
The first volume, A Case Of Conscience, won not just one, but two Hugo awards.
I recently discovered that these are once again in print. Awesome.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Some religions conflict with science. Some do not.
The Catholic concept of the "mysteries" is a convenient device allowing any Catholic the ability to avoid conflict between religion and science. Furthermore, Catholic theology is highly abstract, meaning the points of irreconcilable contention are quite few compared to, say, an animist religion.
Of course, most Catholics adhere to beliefs that aren't strictly required by the theology, or otherwise don't apply their beliefs logically. (That is to say, don't know how to recognize when to employ the above mentioned device.)
Before you get all "religion is fine with science", you had better remember that this group exists, and that they and their predecessors have been defining religious thought for a long, long time.
International Association of Exorcists
Why is Snark Required?
Is there a real stance on aliens from the Catholic Church other than "we don't know". How does the end of the world work out when there are other life forms? Does all of the universe end at once? What lies beyond the universe and does it escape this fate? It doesn't seem plausible that humans and ET live together on a bed of clouds and the more that we discover it seems that animals that we share this Earth with have more feelings and awareness than has been credited them. How is it then that humans hold dominion over them? The tenants just don't seem to match up with current knowledge and appear to be written from a mindset of ignorance. I truly don't mean this in a negative way. It just seems as though the more we learn the harder it is to accept the Bible. Everything seems to indicate that "God" thrives on logic. Jesus refutes the temptations of Satan through logical discourse, ancient Hebrew practices of draining the blood of animals and cooking off bacteria is sound advice, and loving each other brings forth a prosperous existence. Why then are there so many falsifications or errors in the Bible? If the scriptures are written from the word of God then he seems to be in the dark or at least enjoying leaving the rest of us in it while warning us of our eternal dam nation if we guess wrong. That doesn't seem like a God of logic.
" religion tells you how to live in the world" - yeah , they do and they kill you if you don't follow their way (thats if you really truly follow all the instructions in your book of choice). - great way to live.
Its amazing how, through science and clear thinking philosophy, knowledge has expanded to the point that some religions have hidden/dropped a lot of the nasty rules like apostasy, not eating pork, shellfish etc
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
science tells you how the world works. religion tells you how to live in the world
Lucky all of religion is silent on how the world works, that's why creationists never have a problem with the the theory of evolution, and the Church was best buddies with Galileo.
Or perhaps, you have a slightly more narrow definition of religion then I am used to.
"Well, the Abrahamic God (of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) is a hands-off kind of God,"
Do you mean the same good which people believe flooded the world, killing untold number of human ? Which smote Sodom and Gomorrah under the pretense there was absolutely nobody, not even a child, which was innocent ? Which ordered various Israeli tribe to kill all adult , including children, but keep nubile women for themselves ? Killing children by mauling them with bear ? The one which ordered a father to kill its kids as a test of faith ? Or as a result of a bet ruined the life of another ?
The god of the new testament is somewhat kinder if only by its absence. But the god of the old testament is as far as "hand off" as you can be.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
As a work, reading the bible offers some really hard challenges to absorb it. When you read the books of the bible as a piece of literature, as opposed to a 'rulebook', you find that it describes human nature pretty well and helps you develop good empathy (and street smarts) for people. I hope you won't judge me as I try to share some things I learned here. I have zero problem with people believing whatever they want.
The most interesting thing I found from reading the bible is just how often it is misquoted or twisted into manipulating people from a point of moral superiority, usually by politicians or rich people. Classic example is 'An eye for an eye', the rest says ' a tooth for a tooth, vengeance is mine says the Lord', so revenge is not an option for people according to the bible only for God, but the saying is twisted so it comes out the opposite way. There are many other examples and most often it is used to divide people or unite opinion against some other people.
I'm a monkey when it comes to being holy and I'm not religious but it's easy to see some people do evil things in Gods name. Conversely I see a lot of Gods work being done by Atheists about which the Bible *specifically* says (in Mathew) not to judge anyone, any more than you should force a belief system down anyone's throat. However that's the freedom we have being human, at least according to the bible.
This sort of work looks at what we don't know about and attempts to describe it. As opposed to 'Intelligent Design' which attempts to describe what it does not know about and say that is how it is, in ignorance of any facts. The concept is called 'limiting the glory of God' in the bible, which is a blasphemous act. Science has been used as a tool to describe the works of God, but it certainly can't be used to prove or disprove the existence of a consciousness that creates universes like bubbles in a champagne glass and can change the laws of nature at any time at will.
How would you prove or disprove something that can at any point in time change the behavior of the laws of nature that you are using to evaluate it's existence?
That's the point, you aren't supposed to know if God exists because that would be tyranny as opposed to freedom. Specifically the point being, you are free to choose for yourself and, according to the bible I read, to decide and make up you mind - for yourself in absence of any proof either way.
And that doesn't mean you're going to Hell either because there is no such thing as Hell so don't feel threatened by that. Armageddon is another one, it doesn't mean the end of the world, it means 'really big change', at least in the context of the bible and Satan, is deception which manifests through human hands to create human misery. If the message divides people, then it is not a work of God at all.
Spirituality is about peoples own journeys, even if it is strictly a human one.
" Arizona, where the skies are clearer."
Also, the meth is cheaper, to stay awake at night.
Being able to see everything is not the same as tight control of everything.
Taking a cynical view of religion I can see the message of omniscience as "don't do evil because God can always see you and will punish you later".
So omniscience has nothing at all to do with free will. It just implies an observer at all times.
That sums up all human societies ever quite well, apart from lesser punishments in some of the more enlightened ones. If you really don't fit in with the people around you, and you can't hide it, then shit generally happens.
science and religion simply do not conflict. they examine entirely different realms that do not interact. if you think the realms do interact, you are simply announcing you don't understand what you are talking about
Well, up to a point. Science has no opinion to offer about whether there is a god or God, but science can and must offer input on any testable claims made by any religion. So far all statements saying that God does something real have tested false. Now, as a very open minded scientist, you still have to say "we don't know if God exists", but I think it is a very reasonable position to take, as a scientist, that since all positive statements about God's reality have been disproven, then he probably doesn't exist in any real sense.
The other part of your claim is also dubious, I think. You seem to claim that morality comes from God: "religion tells you how to live in the world". It is the other way around, actually: we have evolved certain moral behavious, because it gave us better chances of surviving as a social species, and our ideas of God are likely to spring from that as the ultimate 'because'. In a sense, God didn't create us, we created Him.
Nicely said cts. It seems critical thinking is discouraged here these days.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
The pope was literally Galileo's old college buddy and the Pope actually was the one to tell him he should publish.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
The last thing I care about is the Catholic church. What's next? Evidence for channeling the dead? Palm reading that indicates the end of the world? Ten reasons why we should get a psychic reading over the phone?
They need to be asked 'which god' more often. Humanity has invented many. Fans of the abrahamic faiths like to pretend there has only ever been one on the table. Don't let them.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
yup, thank you
i have 8 replies to an obviously nontroll comment. so my comment provokes thought, but the 0 rating reflects the lack of intellectual honesty
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Scientific truth is not the same thing as religious truth. There can be true statements in each system which contradict each other. Whether or not it is meaningful to compare truths arrived at by different methods is debatable.
Science is rooted in empiricism; truth is determined by observation. It's well suited to producing truths about things which can be isolated in an experiment. Things like economies, law/morality, and mathematics are more or less intractable for science, and it cannot make many statements about supernatural beliefs. There is a branch of philosophy which regards the unproven or unprovable as false, but it's a minority viewpoint.
Religion is (perhaps surprisingly) fairly rational, as in rationalism. However, fundamentally its truth is rooted in received wisdom and not subject to test by observation (and to some degree not to reason either). Where religion makes statements about the observable world, it can and often does conflict with empirical truth. Sometimes these things are called miracles.
It is not true that the realms of science, religion, and logic do not overlap. Religion does not always confine itself to the intangible. Scientific theories are always dancing on the limits of observation. Personally, I don't think it's useful to try to reconcile different ways of determining truth, and I think you and John Paul II are with me on this one. I'm not aware of any sensible way to establish a value relation among them; each is necessary in its own domain.
That said, while in my moments of intellectual honesty I am agnostic, believing strongly in something contradicted by empirical truth is not usually something I can take very seriously.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
God doesn't exist. That's about it.
Now, back to science so I can learn more about the world.
Catholic theology has always been tolerant and accepting of science. ... The church, however, has persecuted scientists many times, and surpressed scientific inquiry.
That is a distinction without a difference. Theology is not independent of the church, particularly in a hierarchical organization like the catholic church. Some may wander into other forms of theology but that is a different issue. And no, they have demonstrably not always been tolerant of science. Even today the catholic church has an uneasy relationship with science despite their occasional claims to the contrary. Church doctrine routinely contradicts scientific evidence and interferes with scientific inquiry, particularly when it comes to reproductive science and genetics in recent years.
science tells you how the world works. religion tells you how to live in the world
I don't follow a religion and don't need one to tell me how to live in the world. Billions of people around the world do not utilize or require religion to tell them how to conduct their lives. QED your argument is bogus.
of course there will be people who will insist religion and science do conflict.
They frequently do because the religious zealots continue to try to push their unsubstantiated beliefs into science. They keep trying to push creationism into science classrooms. They keep trying to interfere with genetic research and reproductive science. They try to deny the evidence of evolution and push their theology into textbooks. It happens constantly.
science and religion simply do not conflict. they examine entirely different realms that do not interact.
Demonstrably false. The conflict regularly and interact frequently. Mostly of the conflict is from religious people trying to force their beliefs on others and scientific people defending society from their lunacy.
The old-timey religions with their outdated dogma, fearful worship of imaginary beings and inability to grapple with reason and freedom, have become irrelevant to modern society.
In a last-gasp attempt to stay relevant, they are now co-opting the newest religion, that of eco-nuttism. This is not the kind of environmental study based on science and economics, it is the kind of green worship that is unhinged from reality, with a veneer of respectabilty. The function of Brother Guy is to provide that veneer to prevent a complete return to paganism.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Things like economies, law/morality, and mathematics are more or less intractable for science, and it cannot make many statements about supernatural beliefs.
Economics is very amenable to scientific inquiry. Don't know where you got the idea that it isn't. Economics is studied using the scientific method very effectively. It is a difficult field of study because of its complexity but that is no different from any number of other scientific fields such as meteorology, ecology, geology and others.
Science frequently informs and underpins laws and morals. It also can study their effects.
Mathematics is really a language used by scientists to describe the world. It describes the world around us with uncanny precision. It's not a science but virtually every scientific inquiry utilizes math.
Religion is (perhaps surprisingly) fairly rational, as in rationalism.
Religion is by definition NOT rational. It is faith in an unfalsifiable concept. What rationality it does have is largely argued from false or unprovable premises. Furthermore religions do not restrict themselves to purely logical conclusions from their premises. They frequently cherry pick arguments to support whatever view they wish to hold at the time. No, I disagree that religion is a form of rationalism.
Where religion makes statements about the observable world, it can and often does conflict with empirical truth. Sometimes these things are called miracles.
Those of us who are not beholden to religions call them fictional stories or sometimes unexplained phenomena instead of miracles.
yup, thank you
i have 8 replies to an obviously nontroll comment. so my comment provokes thought, but the 0 rating reflects the lack of intellectual honesty
Indeed. Two separate bodies of knowledge, an idea too big for such small minds.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
As opposed to Science which is amoral by definition !?!?
148 comments, and no "almost fanatical devotion to the Pope"? This place is really going downhill...
and if you think you know all there is to know about God, then your religious faith is at fault."
That's one way to put down the certain "one and the only way" Protestants. A form of faith that makes the believer angry and wanting to hurt others can't lead to the stated goals of the faith.
Don't confuse amoral with immoral.
And evolution is what has given us moral. Individuals who do not commit murder, torture and other disruptive actions have a greater chance of survival and their offspring surviving. With the exceptionally long time period from birth until the offspring can survive on their own, cooperation and herd rules have been selected for.
We don't need any religion to tell us what's moral and not.
Science doesn't tell us, but it sure explains it.
Considering that priests defined what modern science is I'd say you're incredibly wrong.
See subject & "read em' & weep" Dave420 http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* "EATING YOUR WORDS" != GOOD NUTRITION fool!
APK
P.S.=> How'd they taste, Dave420? Flavored with the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat", & washed down with your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH ramming them down?? LMAO @ U, fool... apk
See subject & "read em' & weep" Dave420 http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* "EATING YOUR WORDS" != GOOD NUTRITION fool!
APK
P.S.=> How'd they taste, Dave420? Flavored with the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat", & washed down with your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH ramming them down?? LMAO @ U, fool... apk
Science is completely deficient regardless of which semantic games you want to play.
As a mystic I find your stance on evolution to be highly ignorant. Parent's, especially mothers, have an innate ability to love their offspring. This has *nothing* to do with evolution although you can keep trying to pretend it does.
Science teaches The Iron Rule (Might Makes Right) which has long been the status quo.
Religion teaches The Golden Rule (Love *is* the highest principle)
> Science doesn't tell us, but it sure explains it.
No it doesn't. It will tell you how to build a bomb, but not whether you should use it or not. Trying to distill morality (who lives and who dies) down to a numbers game is inhumane.
> Individuals who do not commit murder, torture and other disruptive actions have a greater chance of survival and their offspring surviving.
Gee, if only the governments would get the message.
Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET agrees hosts = good security -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
Oliver Day (Symantec) does the same -> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts BOTH hosts & recommends my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
---
* HOW MANY REAL SECURITY PROS (not menial wannabe rookie like you) DO I NEED TO KNOCK THE CHOCOLATE OUT OF YOU SOME MORE?
---
Those security pros?
They INCLUDE ME too you noobie rookie obvious dimwit as I work with those guys from malwarebytes' hpHosts on a fairly regular basis!
I've worked professionally for decades as a combined domain-wide network admin & software engineer professionally since 1994 (with ME showing you HOW to migrate a hosts file across an enterprise -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
(I've also been securing computers + WRITING GUIDES (which you told me you learned from guides) + WARES TO DO IT 1,000's to MILLIONS USED, probably LONGER THAN YOU HAVE BEEN ALIVE possibly BEING PAID FOR IT -> http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn... )
You're all TALK & can't back it -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
APK
P.S.=> YOU say "hosts=bad" (yet they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitches on admin privelege (first) to UPDATE them vs. threats online:
"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)
Hypocrite - You admit using admin priv yourself & how else could I programmatically update hosts minus it inside Windows?
"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)
Since you're MENIAL ASS limited in skills self doesn't code (& didn't even KNOW that) & CLUE/FACT:
Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best there is) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security toolsl... apk
http://www.christianpost.com/n...
There are things that no one can explain. Science doesn't have all the answers.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET agrees hosts = good security -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
Oliver Day (Symantec) does the same -> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts BOTH hosts & recommends my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
---
* HOW MANY REAL SECURITY PROS (not menial wannabe rookie like you) DO I NEED TO KNOCK THE CHOCOLATE OUT OF YOU SOME MORE?
---
Those security pros?
They INCLUDE ME too you noobie rookie obvious dimwit as I work with those guys from malwarebytes' hpHosts on a fairly regular basis!
I've worked professionally for decades as a combined domain-wide network admin & software engineer professionally since 1994 (with ME showing you HOW to migrate a hosts file across an enterprise -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
(I've also been securing computers + WRITING GUIDES (which you told me you learned from guides) + WARES TO DO IT 1,000's to MILLIONS USED, probably LONGER THAN YOU HAVE BEEN ALIVE possibly BEING PAID FOR IT -> http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn... )
You're all TALK & can't back it -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
APK
P.S.=> YOU say "hosts=bad" (yet they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitch about using admin privelege (first) to UPDATE them vs. threats online:
"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)
Hypocrite - You admit using admin priv yourself & how else could I programmatically update hosts minus it inside Windows?
"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)
Since you're MENIAL ASS limited in skills self doesn't code (& didn't even KNOW that) & CLUE/FACT:
Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best there is) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security toolsl... apk
Guy also wrote a wonderful book for observational astronomers called "Turn Left at Orion" He speaks well with lay people.
There's more to it than this.
Catholic theology has always been tolerant and accepting of science. ... The church, however, has persecuted scientists many times, and surpressed scientific inquiry.
That is a distinction without a difference. Theology is not independent of the church, particularly in a hierarchical organization like the catholic church. Some may wander into other forms of theology but that is a different issue. And no, they have demonstrably not always been tolerant of science. Even today the catholic church has an uneasy relationship with science despite their occasional claims to the contrary. Church doctrine routinely contradicts scientific evidence and interferes with scientific inquiry, particularly when it comes to reproductive science and genetics in recent years.
When? I don't ever see where the Catholic Church contradicts science. The Catholic Church, unlike Protestant denominations, has always held that there is an objective truth and that true science reveals God to us.
I see that the Church has contradicted science in terms of ethics, e.g., fetal stem cell research. That only makes sense if you want to prevent the fetus from being a commodity. The scientific community has failed to condemn Planned Parenthood for the sale of fetal tissue. There's your ethic to live by. Kill someone to benefit from their organs. I don't know that I would take advantage of a cure if I needed to use the tissue of an aborted fetus.
The Church has never been fearful of the Truth.
Georges Lemaitre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre) explored the expansion solution of Einsteins General Relativity Field Equation which Einstein initially resisted. Georges called it the "cosmic egg" (until detractor Fred Hoyle named it after British slang for ejaculation). Note both Guy and Georges studied at MIT.
Who held the candle between the Greeks and the Renaissance.
He also wrote 'Turn Left At Orion', one of the best introductory books for amateur astronomers.
Why do these sufferers from extreme delusions garner so much press? This is just going to encourage copycats to form similar cults.
There are things that no one can explain. Science doesn't have all the answers.
The link you give points to an advert for one of the many collections of miracle anecdotes that evangelical Christians like to read (and the Muslims, Jews, etc have their own versions, of course). The problem with such stories, nice as they are, is that they are not consistently reproducible. Every attempt at reproducing them fails - so, science has to conclude that the reasoning behind the story was wrong. There's no shame in that - scientists are proven wrong all the time, and usually don't mind too much. That is the thing about science and the scientific method: it can't prove that something is absolutely true, but it can definitely prove that something is false with absolute certainty. If your predictions based on your hypothesis fail, then your hypothesis is wrong in the absolute sense.
And of course there are lots of things nobody can ever explain - why did a lightning follow one rather than another of many equally possible paths? Science doesn't know, and nobody thinks they have all the answers - except the religious. It isn't desperately important for us to have absolute certainty about anything, except perhaps the scientific method; and even that one we only accept because there is no alternative. Scientists are doubters through and through, who positively revel in asking probing questions.
Planned Parenthood has not sold fetal tissue. They donate it. There are costs involved with the donation, and I would presume that those costs are grounds for negotiation. It's illegal for them to make a profit, and I don't think they do. Therefore, they're probably losing money with the donations, and they aren't benefiting from the transaction.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You're not going to get anywhere. See, you actually believe that an awful lot of science has been done on the various topics you hint at. In reality, very little has been done. Certainly not enough to draw any sort of conclusion or even form a reasonable position.
Let's start here:
Every attempt at reproducing them fails - so, science has to conclude that the reasoning behind the story was wrong.
What I'd like you to do is try to find an example or two written up in a proper peer-reviewed journal. You'll find it incredibly difficult.
You'll find a lot of modern "scientific" beliefs have absolutely no actual science behind them.
It isn't desperately important for us to have absolute certainty about anything, except perhaps the scientific method; and even that one we only accept because there is no alternative.
Science, as it happens, is not the end of epistemology. Neither is it some static and unchanging thing necessarily beyond question. It also has its share of well-established issues; it's not perfect. (Note: I'm talking about science as a method of inquiry here, not sciences as a body of knowledge. ) These are not controversial statements among those with a formal background in science. It's simply reality.
I'm concerned that you've elevated science the same way a religious zealot would elevate some sacred texts. (This is not uncommon among the lay science fans.) When you treat science like a religion, you tend to ascribe to science things which you believe for reasons unrelated to science and make bold pronouncements like the ones you've made here. When someone checks up on those and finds out that there is no science behind those scientific claims, what will they conclude? How will that color their impression of science and scientists? You may end up doing far more harm than good.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Religion, Science and politics work together in mysterious ways. They form a three body system that forces us to evolve at the right pace. Religion is like a proton, It changes very slowly. Science is the neutron it changes too fast. Politics is like an electron, you can never tell where they truly are. Together they magically make our species evolve at the right pace.
You're not going to get anywhere.
I knew already when I replied, that I wouldn't be able to convince you - but I think even a futile discussion can have a wider impact. If your well-meaning, but false ideas are not countered, some might think you have a point, which you don't.
What I'd like you to do is try to find an example or two written up in a proper peer-reviewed journal. You'll find it incredibly difficult.
Nope - it doesn't work like that. If you want you hypotheses to be taken serious, you work out the logic, design experiments, predict the outcome etc. No religious thinker has, as far as I know, ever done that and got a reliable result. Don't expect scientists to go and do your work for you; we have our own projects - that we are getting paid for doing.
Science, as it happens, is not the end of epistemology. Neither is it some static and unchanging thing necessarily beyond question.
Well, that is rather the point of science, isn't it? Scientific method is a tool by which we can improve our knowledge, false as it inevitably is, by cipping away the falsehoods and hopefully getting closer to some form of truth, that can actually be relied upon independently of whether any given individual actually believes in it or not. It is search for reality, if you will - as real as a brickwall.
I'm concerned that you've elevated science the same way a religious zealot would elevate some sacred texts.
I don't think you sincerely feel any concern about that, if I'm honest. You just trying to see if you can find a crack in my conviction, that you can pry open. But why don't you propose a better way of testing a hypothesis than the process known as the scientific method? Scientists are practical people - the Method is a tool, and we would all welcome one that is better.
I knew already when I replied, that I wouldn't be able to convince you
I'm not the guy to which you replied. This may explain why your reply seems so confused.
Nope - it doesn't work like that.
My point was that many of the "scientific" claims you were making were not backed by any actual science. You believe that some research had been done which had not been done. That's why I suggested you go looking for it. What do you call someone who tries to attribute scientific credibility to a claim not backed by actual science? Do you want to fall within that camp?
But why don't you propose a better way of testing a hypothesis than the process known as the scientific method? Scientists are practical people
First, there isn't some monolithic thing called "the scientific method", rigid and unchangeable. It, along with our understanding of science, changes over time and with the area of inquiry. This is an important point, often missed by laypersons without a formal background in science. (It seems to reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of science on your part.) There is an awful lot of misinformation about the nature of science, it's scope, and it's accomplishments spread by misguided science fans. That does surprising amount of harm to the public understanding of science. Far more harm, I suspect, than the nastiest creationist could ever hope to accomplish.
As for something better, I'll remind you that science is not the end of epistemology. I'll add to that the simple fact that the scope of scientific inquiry is bounded. This has been understood for centuries. To deny this is to deny science. What purpose could that serve? So that more lay people can "believe" in some odd parody of science? What good will that do?
Bringing back an earlier objection: To credit to science things which are not science is the hallmark of pseudoscience. Be it scientific claims not backed by actual science or to expand the scope of science beyond its reach. I would assume that you'd rather not align yourself with pseudoscience. If that is the case, please, make sure that you're not spreading it in your quest to defend science. It is, presumably, counter to your goals.
Required reading for internet skeptics
I'm not the guy to which you replied. This may explain why your reply seems so confused.
Whatever - the same observation holds. After comparing this reply to your previous one, I can see that you are simply repeating the same statis arguments combined with the same attempts at spinning mine as ill-conceived. In short, you argue like a Jehovah's Witness and it seems disingenious. I'm willing to discuss subjects in both science and religion, but a discussion is not what we are having, and there is no point in continuing.
science tells you how the world works. religion tells you how to live in the world
If religion was happy to limit itself to being a branch of ethics, which in itself is a branch of philosophy, then we could all have nice academic discussions if we were philosophy students and let everyone else get on with our lives.
Unfortunately, religion is a lot more tangled up in the real world and politics than that.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Parent's, especially mothers, have an innate ability to love their offspring. This has *nothing* to do with evolution although you can keep trying to pretend it does.
I'd have thought it was pretty obvious that parents who love their offspring and therefore don't neglect them give their kids a better chance of reaching maturity, having children of their own, and passing on their genes.
This doesn't minimise the depth of love involved.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I was simply pointing out that there are things which science has so far been unable to explain. The specific examples were likely bad as most were hearsay, but here is a pretty good one that has been examined by science:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You can try to attribute that I am somehow blinded by religion, but I can only say that I personally don't believe in miracles, though I am Catholic.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
So, if you think he is so wrong, why don't you point to the scholarly articles disputing such miracles as:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you are right, it should be a simple thing to find the published scientific article that explains how the woman regained her hearing, and how the statue produced tears; which was incidentally filmed happening. It should be rather easy to do.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Can you explain this mysterious spin? I've done two things. I've pointed out that you're attributing to science finding that have no science behind them. I've also explained why this is bad.
I can't stop you from engaging in pseudoscience, but I can at least point it out.
Required reading for internet skeptics
YOU say "hosts=bad" (but they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitch on admin privelege to UPDATE them vs. threats online:
"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)
Hypocrite - You admit you use admin priv
&
How else could I programmatically update hosts minus it inside Windows?
---
"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)
FACT:
Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!
---
Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET says hosts = good security -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
Oliver Day (Symantec) does too -> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts hosts & recommends my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
---
* HOW MANY SECURITY PROS MORE DO I NEED TO KNOCK THE CHOCOLATE OUTTA YOU?
---
Those security pros INCLUDE me: I work w/ those guys from malwarebytes' hpHosts on a regular basis!
I've professionally worked for decades as a combined domain-wide network admin & software engineer since 1994 (Even showing you HOW to migrate a hosts across an enterprise -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
I've also been securing computers + WRITING GUIDES using CIS Tool (who took fixes from me too - bonus) http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...
You told me you learn from guides? I write 'em (good ones) that MILLIONS USE & was PAID FOR IT http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn...
+ WARES TO PROTECT USERS that're endorsed & hosted by security pros -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
You did all that? No & that's a small part of what I could put out.
APK
P.S.=> You're all TALK -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & a "ne'er-do-well" as far as security
...apk
YOU say "hosts=bad" (but they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitch on admin privelege to UPDATE them vs. threats online:
"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)
Hypocrite - You admit you use admin priv
&
How else could I programmatically update hosts minus it inside Windows?
---
"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)
FACT:
Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!
---
Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET says hosts = good security -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
Oliver Day (Symantec) does too -> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts hosts & recommends my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
---
* HOW MANY SECURITY PROS MORE DO I NEED TO KNOCK THE CHOCOLATE OUTTA YOU?
---
Those security pros INCLUDE me: I work w/ those guys from malwarebytes' hpHosts on a regular basis!
I've professionally worked for decades as a combined domain-wide network admin & software engineer since 1994 (Even showing you HOW to migrate a hosts across an enterprise -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
I've also been securing computers + WRITING GUIDES using CIS Tool (who took fixes from me too - bonus) http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...
You told me you learn from guides? I write 'em (good ones) that MILLIONS USE & was PAID FOR IT http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn...
+ WARES TO PROTECT USERS that're endorsed & hosted by security pros -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
You did all that? No & that's a small part of what I could put out.
APK
P.S.=> You're all TALK -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & a "ne'er-do-well" as far as security
...apk
I was simply pointing out that there are things which science has so far been unable to explain.
- and you were implying that this somehow has a bearing on the veracity of your faith. That's OK with me - each individual has the responsibility for their own conscience and therefore the freedom to choose their own reasons. To me, the fact that science doesn't know everything is comforting - the joy of science lies in the discovery, not in the knowing.
I have studied the article about 'Our Lady of Akita'; but again, it does not offer anything for a scientist to work on. There is no coherent, logical hypothesis that leads to predictions which can be tested. Why would God or any other supernatural entity choose to make a statue produce tears? Why would he choose to cure one person om disease and not somebody else? It is not difficult to think of many, natural explanations - the church or monastry that own a weeping statue can make loads of money from the increased number of visitors, for example, and it is not difficult to make a statuse produce 'tears' by fitting thin tubes in the right place, and as the many revelations about child sex abuse by Catholic priests all over the world show, the Catholic church is not above such things.
You can try to attribute that I am somehow blinded by religion,...
Not necessarily - mabye you see something that I can't. But if you start to talk about science to a scientist, then you will be met with the arguments of a scientist.
Scientists aren't the ones to investigate weeping statues, they are too honest and unfamiliar with flim-flam.
Someone like James Randi, well-versed in techniques of deception, is the best choice.
With your mouth full as you "eat your words":
"it patently clear no-one else agrees with your position" - by dave420 (699308) on Friday September 25, 2015 @04:44AM (#50595241)
Here's some that are QUITE contrary to yours from /. users + experts in the field:
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)
&
"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)
---
* Let's see - a TOP antimalware company hosts AND RECOMMENDS my ware, & real users here like it - you're outnumbered, outthought, & OUTSMARTED, easily as usual, by "yours truly"...
APK
P.S.=> To top all THAT off? Better people that a "ne'er-do-well" MORON troll who's never accomplished a thing of good note in computing in yourself AGREE with me hosts are good security:
Quote of Aryeh Goretsky of NOD32/ESET doing so in fact -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
You UTTER blowhard do nothing "ne'er-do-well" troll... "eat your words" & tell us:
HOW DID THEY TASTE?
Flavored with the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat" since your mouth wrote checks your dimwit brain can't cash? Rammed down YOUR THROAT since you stuck your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH too?? LMAO...
... apk
"it patently clear no-one else agrees with your position" - by dave420 (699308) on Friday September 25, 2015 @04:44AM (#50595241)
Here's some that are QUITE contrary to yours from /. users + experts in the field:
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)
&
"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)
---
* Let's see - a TOP antimalware company hosts AND RECOMMENDS my ware, & real users here like it - you're outnumbered, outthought, & OUTSMARTED, easily as usual, by "yours truly"...
APK
P.S.=> To top all THAT off? Better people that a "ne'er-do-well" MORON troll who's never accomplished a thing of good note in computing in yourself AGREE with me hosts are good security:
Quote of Aryeh Goretsky of NOD32/ESET doing so in fact -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
You UTTER blowhard do nothing "ne'er-do-well" troll... "eat your words" & tell us:
HOW DID THEY TASTE?
Flavored with the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat" since your mouth wrote checks your dimwit brain can't cash? Rammed down YOUR THROAT since you stuck your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH too?? LMAO...
... apk
Economics is very amenable to scientific inquiry. Don't know where you got the idea that it isn't. Economics is studied using the scientific method very effectively. It is a difficult field of study because of its complexity but that is no different from any number of other scientific fields such as meteorology, ecology, geology and others.
No, it's really not. Microeconomics can be studied in a more-or-less scientific way. As for macroeconomics, the day that economists start making meaningful and accurate predictions is when I'll start taking them seriously. I'm far from alone in this.
Science frequently informs and underpins laws and morals. It also can study their effects.
We don't run experiments to determine whether homicide is good. Courtrooms are not scientific trials. The "test of truth" for morality is not something decided on the basis of repeated observation. Empiricism is not a one-size-fits-all tool.
Mathematics is really a language used by scientists to describe the world. It describes the world around us with uncanny precision. It's not a science but virtually every scientific inquiry utilizes math.
You're really failing at the core concept here. Mathematics is a formal system, probably best described by rationalism. Mathematical truth is the product of logic, not observation. The real world can frequently be modeled with mathematics, and with the right chosen axioms so can many other fictional worlds.
Religion is by definition NOT rational. It is faith in an unfalsifiable concept. What rationality it does have is largely argued from false or unprovable premises. Furthermore religions do not restrict themselves to purely logical conclusions from their premises. They frequently cherry pick arguments to support whatever view they wish to hold at the time. No, I disagree that religion is a form of rationalism.
I did not say religion was a form of rationalism. However, having absurd or unprovable axioms does not mean logic can no longer be applied. But when your system of logic is not based on "objective" observation, petitio principii is hard to avoid. Wait, are we talking about religion or economics here?
Where religion makes statements about the observable world, it can and often does conflict with empirical truth. Sometimes these things are called miracles.
Those of us who are not beholden to religions call them fictional stories or sometimes unexplained phenomena instead of miracles.
And those of us who are from Alpha Centauri call them "kkrgch'n". I'm pretty sure that, assuming you understood it, you agree with the point I was making there. I guess sometimes you're just so argumentative, even a semantic argument will do.
You need a Philosophy of Science 101 course. Religion, mathematics, and empiricism are all ways to determine truth, and empiricism (practiced as science) is not without its flaws. Namely, you can only verify what you can observe repeatedly, there is no absolute truth, and given that all observations have an error factor, all observations and theories are at least a tiny bit wrong. This is why science deals with levels of certainty, not proven facts.
Proof is the realm of mathematics. Not being dependent on this reality gives it the ability to express universally true statements. It can be used to model the world very accurately, but per Gödel it can either be complete or consistent but not both. And again, with any non-empirical system you cannot be sure that your truth applies