It's about models and which of these models best explains observations. A geocentric view of the solar system isn't as efficient as a heliocentric one, not by a long shot.
You won't get any argument on that point from me. The system we have right now is the way it is because it's the *simplest* way to do so.
It's clear to practically everyone that the sun is, indeed, at the center of the solar system, and that the Earth orbits the sun.
It's "clear to practically everyone" because that's what we've taught for 400 years. But academnic inertia doesn't change the fact that we can arbitrarilly pick any point in the cosmos to be "stationary" and be just as technically correct.
You can argue until you're blue in the face over the definition of 'center', but the physics of the entire system become a hell of alot easier if you state that the center is the largest gravitational mass - the Sun, which is what we've been doing for the last 400 years.
Yes. And for teaching physics, or the outlay of the system, it's just plain easier to center it on the large thing that everything else has a relative orbit to.
But lets say, oh, that you've got a terrestrial star chat that includes the motions of the plannets through the sky. That's a model of the system (and the constellations beyond it) that is centered on the earth and useful.
Yes, this is a very rare case when an earth-centered view is useful--but it's still every bit as "correct" as the simple physics-teaching sun-centered model.
And now, having forgot what this damn thread was about in the first place, I'm going to stop responding.:)
You *don't* have to account for any extra forces. "The Sun's Gravity" works fine.
Astronomers weren't "unable to reproduce the exact path" of the system due to a lack of measurement, not some inability to record how the stars all travel.
Galelio wasn't even the first bloke to figure out that everything orbited the sun. He was just the first one with the cojones to stand up to the Church.
Short physics lesson: *ALL MOVEMENT IS RELATIVE!!!*
It is as correct to define *any* point as the center as any other. It is literally just as correct to say that the Sun orbits the Earth as it is to say that the Earth orbits the sun--relative to the Earth, the sun moves. Relative to the Sun, the earth moves.
Gravity explains an Earth-centered model of the system just as easily as a it does a sun-centered model. The model's just a bit easier to chart out into a diagram if you center it on the sun.
Don't believe me? Look it up yourself. The sun and the moon would have a circular orbit, and the rest of the system would have an orbit that looks like a stenograph toy's design--a looping orbit that circles again and again.
Assume h is units of happiness. Would it be OK to take 100h from person A if it would give person B 101h? How about if you took 50h each from 2 people to give a third 101h? I don't think it's that easy, even conceptually.
Of course it isn't. But that's the basic idea behind an objective morality test: would you want to live in a world where everyone followed that moral code? If so, it's probably Good. If not, it's probably Bad.
That's simply evidence that a creation story is one of the oldest stories in existence, or evidence that all human cultures come up with a creation story. It doesn't have any bearing at all on whether or not said story is actually true.
Of course it does. If a hundred people tell me that their parents witnessed a grand event--like, oh, the assassination of John F. Kennedy--that's evidence that the event happened.
(As a side note, it wouldn't prove anything about the creation of the universe anyway, as even if a story would be true, it, by defination, has to be second hand information, as no creation story claims people were around during creation, and thus the 'gods' could be lying to them. And provably are, given the conflicting versions 'they' are telling.)
Well, if we're going down that note--all I was trying to prove is that we were "created." Existence of "Gods" at all is evidence towards that, even if the accounts are so different.
(side note: There could be multiple creation stories because of multiple times of creation.)
No, you're wrong. Well, sort off anyway. You see, off course you can say that the earth is the center, ignoring gravity and all that stuff.
But. If you try to find a scientific theory for explaining how the planets move about in the solar system, you simple have to use the sun as the center; if you don't, you'll have to invent all sorts of weird forces that keep the earth in its place and stuff.
Nope. I can just say that that the sun orbits the Earth, and that the rest of the system is pulled into their odd orbits because of the sun's gravity.
The heliocentric model is *simpler*, but it's no more "correct" than the palenocentric. (sp?)
You see, I used to think that it was possible to just think of the earth as the center. But if you try to picture the solar system, with the earth in the center, and the sun circling around it, and then all the planets around the sun, it just doesn't work. You'd have to nail the earth to it's place, and connect the sun and the planets with strings and stuff, effectively inventing forces.
If you're getting into forces, of course the planets are pulled along their orbits by the sun's gravity. But speaking of a simple astrological model, we can pin the earth as "never moving" (since, to us, it doesn't) and then chart all the rest of the planets on their path relative to our own.
The model would be more complex, but I'd wager it'd be a bit simpler to actually use. (i.e., to find a planet.)
We could even say that the Moon is the center of all creation, and so then the Earth orbits the moon, the Sun orbits the Earth, and everything else orbits the sun. This model wouldn't do us very much good unless we were on the Moon, though.
And note this: do we believe in a Earth-centric solar system any more? No. Galileo's ideas were accepted, albeit slowly (and not rejected because of empirical science but the ludicrously anthro-centric 'science' imposed by the catholic church)
It is as correct in an infineitly expanding universe to say that the Earth is the center as it is the sun. Nothing makes it "more correct" to place the sun as the center as opposed to the Earth.
Hmm is that the set of morals that includes,
"man should not lie down with man as he does with women".
That's a misquote. The actual prohibition is "Man shalt not lie with a man as he would a woman in a woman's bed."
I'm sure you can find a person from any religion, including satanism, that would claim the world would be a better place if only we all lived by their one "objective" set of morals
Please pay attention. I did not say that my morals were objective. I said that they were objectively *good.*
The test is, "if everyone on the world lived by these, would it be a better place?"
An example of a morality that fails this test is "kill anyone I want to."
Curious that you would specifically include this sub-group in the statement......
Not really. I just happen to be a Christian, and we're known as a religion for rampant hypocricy. Every other religion is known from it (from the Taliban to Wiccans who add on "I'll harm you if you harm me" to the Rede.)
_Sum of All Knowedge_ is a term that nicely answers your question, btw. God can make a mistake when He is making something new, as it's a NEW knowledge.
Re:Not based on faith, rather on *trust* and doubt
on
God's Debris
·
· Score: 1
And, of course, 'multiple personality disorder', or at least the symtoms, actually does exist. It's just been reclassified as a subset of disassociative disorder. I don't know why you don't appearly believe in it.
I do. It's just a convenient example of psycologists creating people more messed up that they were before, just like David Koresh was an example of a religous leader causing people to know _less_ truth instead of more.
I don't consider Psycology a science anymore than I consider Scientolgoy a religion.
And don't try to pass the bible off as 'evidence', the bible is the *theory*. It states what it thinks happens, you can't use it to prove that what it states did happen. Evidence is external to the theory, you can't use a theory to prove itself.
The evidence is that so many normally seperate cultures have a creation myth where a great and powerful being creates the world. There are also a number of historical beings preaching very similar messages ("this world is not all that there is." "Be cool." "You will be judged after this life.")
The bible is not a *theory.* It's not a scientific document. Science and religion are seperate--but they both should be approached with a similar state of mind of "what if."
If everyone were to say this, we would never have had Nazis ("The german people are scientifically superior" "What if they're not?" "Then we'll all die." "Go away.") or the Inquisition ("These pagans are going to hell!" "What if they have a different message?" "Then we won't find basic contradictions" "Oh, look. They're saying "be cool" too.")
OK, so I'm overstating, But it's still a good idea to always ask "What if this is wrong."
Whereas in religion, you can't test anything, and, in Christianity at least, are told not to test God.
Where? The same place you're told to drink the blood of the dead?
God said "I give you doubt to test your faith." There are easy ways to test this, and the answers are there for the finding if one cares to look.
Of course, there are ways to test the faith, and ways not to. Just like there are ways to test the lethallity of a bullet aside from pointing it at someone and firing.
Just don't forget that God wants to hide proof of his existance; if you go looking for aboslute scientific proof of His existance, you'll come up blank.
It's part of the creative process, RetroGreek. God (She doesn't care what gender you call Him) is all-powerful and all-knowing, but that "all-knowing"
thing only applies to extant things. When creating something new, like life, mistakes will be made even given the sum total of all knowledge and limitless power.
I believe that God exists outside of time for us--She can travel back and fix a mistake if He chooses, and the fossils could be left just as a testament to this auspect of Her being.
And I answer the "what if" question with "it doesn't matter; the world would be a better place if everyone, including all christians, followed the Christian morals, so they're objectively good."
Yup. I tested gravity in school. Used a paper tape and a clapper. Every time I ran the experiment it produced the same result. Everyone else in the class had the same results.
And you concluded by this that gravity never changes? Because that's not what the experiment tells you. Your experiment tells you "gravity does not change in one afternooon in a classoom within the range of human perception."
That fact is a good precdent to lend to the hypothesis "gravity just doesn't change", but that's all it is.
Science can be tested and verified. Religion cannot. In Religion, you must take everything on faith.
If you cannot see the difference, then your are deluding yourself.
Harsh words, and bad grammar, too. (It's "you're deluding yourself," btw)
The whole point that was made by the parent was "what if..." I agreed with it--every scientst and person seeking Truth, religious or otherwise, should consider the "what if" question. This is the proper mindset for the seeking of truth, be it spiritual (religion) or physical (science.)
Spirituality refuses to be reproduceable, because of the inevitable memory of the previous event which clouds any and all attempts to reproduce it.
I never said that there was no difference between science and religion. Science is definite, but simplistic and often wrong (due to parimony). Religion gives answers that cannot be independantly verified.
Both of these disciplines need to be able to ask "what if this is all wrong?" The answer should be "so what? It doesn't matter" or you've got something wrong with the discipline.
Re:Not based on faith, rather on *trust* and doubt
on
God's Debris
·
· Score: 1
Trust has to be earned. Science is by default skeptical, you have to prove that your theory is a good approximation of the phenomena that you are describing, or else it is bunk. It must be predicatable and repeatable. I do not put faith in scientists, as I trust them, since they describe and predict phenomena much better than say, David Koresh ever would.
Very nice. It's good to see someone who knows how to form an intelligent rebuttal on/.
The truth is, for physical and reproducable phenomina I give Scientists a lot of credit and trust. But for history and human nature, I find that they're often lacking.
Religion has not come up with silly ideas such as, oh, Multiple Personality Disorder. (Exorcisms, which seem to be just as bad, actually can have a profound psycological effect on someone who believes in the ceremony and that they are poesssed.)
Faith in what comes before? Not in science. If it isn't demonstrable and reproducable, it isn't accepted.
True. But have you actually tested to make sure that gravity doesn't change? Or have you calcuated E=MC(sq) yourself?
Faith is a part of Science as much as it is a part of religion. A good Christian will be able to have their own connection with God and their own understanding of the universe, which is something very different than the kind of "faith" that both science and organized religion require.
By your logic then, anthropology, cosmology, paleontology - heck, even astronomy - are a total waste of time, since "It might not be what it looks like."
Hardly. Human curiosity is one of our motivating factors; but grand claims ("The universe is always expanding!" "God comes next week!") should always be taken with a grain of salt, be they from science or religion.
Evolution as history is not a misapplication of science. As I've said, you can come up with an infinite number of nondisprovable theories about the creation of species, none of which have a whit of evidence. As a scientist, until I see some evidence for one of these theories, the only logical thing to do is assume things are as they appear: Life evolved slowly over billions of years.
There is more than "one whit of evidence" that we were created. In fact, we have as much evidence that we were created as we do that, say, Ceaser ruled Rome. This evidence is often dismissed, but it's still evidence.
Now, what evidence have we that life evolved very slowly? A fossil record? OK, I'll grant that as evidence--but it's not proof that we weren't created, nor do I find it automatically more compelling than the counter-evidence. (Side note: it's even possible to correllate the two. God could have created many different forms of life, and then tweaked them, replaced them, et al. Or He could have caused all of the animals to evolve, and then have created man.)
The point is, a rational mind should weigh each piece of evidence, no matter how slight, and then reach their rational conclusion. People who blindly beleive what a priest tells them are no more "opiated" than those that blindly believe what a scientist tells them.
And a scientist who considers all examples and evidence set before him when seeking Truth is as wise as a theologian who seeks the word of God everywhere.
And there's the difference between faith and science. There's a large amount of evidence supporting quantum mechanics and little supporting the existence of God. Science isn't a crutch for anything.
There is a great deal of faith that goes into Science. Faith in Parsimony. Faith in the workings of others. Faith that there isn't a great big cosmic being trying to hide things from you.
There is a big "if" in front of this statement, as the scientific method is logically sound. But we have as much evidence that God was made up as that he exists and is just hiding. What an athiest might see as an exchange of myths, a religous person sees as different views of the same Truth.
You hold yourself to strict rules of evidence, and bit by bit, fact by fact, crawl toward a greater understanding of physical phenomena.
The problem with science is that the bit-by-bit part takes so long, that you have to have faith in what has come before. Plus, it's applied too liberally, and all too often illogical conclusions are reached.
For example, take evolution. It's a scientific fact that life evolves from its present state into a state most ideal for its environment. No one can dispute this; just look at Dog breeding.
Now, it's popular in the "scientific" community to equate evolution with the backwards extension of evolution. This is what modern day creationists have a problem with--the intelligent ones, anyway.
The simple fact is that science has no sound evidence that the world was not created two hundred years ago and we're all just believing what we were told. It probably wasn't, and there's no real idea that it was created two hundred years ago--but it's a very common religious idea that the world _was_ created, by a great and powerful being in prehistoric times.
Evolution as breeding = irrefutable science.
Evoltuion as history = a misapplication of the above science.
Anyway... "Science" is a crutch for the weak mind.
So is religion. But they're also both very powerful tools towards finding Truth. ANyone who tells you otherwise is a bigot. (Even to an atheist, religion is an embodiment of man's moral code, and thus the Truth about man.)
Technically, copying an artist's song w/o paying for it isn't stealing. It's infringment.
It's no more theft than if I were to take a few pictures of you having sex, sell it on the web, and ship them to you and your parents.
It might be wrong or criminal, but it's hardly theft. It's just called that to get the point of it being wrong across.
Now, RIAA might be disgusting slime--but they still are the ones who have the disgusting job of making sure the artist (and all the other creative people who help make an album!) get compensated for their effort.
If I don't control it, I would rather have an entity that exists to serve me ("goverment") controlling it than an entity that exists to serve itself ("corporation.")
Yes, I trust the government--I trust them to do their job, and as I am neither dead because of crime, a hostage of a hostile country, or killed because some corp was too cheap to be safe, I think they're doing their job just fine.
Slashdot Mirror
The US First Contact Protocol is based on science fiction scenerios.
I was not aware that the US even had a formal First Contact proposal. Do you have a handy link, or shall I shlep search engines for it myself?
Simple. "Time" exists in the exact same way that 3-space does--it's a long stream where one moment follows the next, even if man doesn't measure it.
Heck, if time was just a human invention, it'd be EASIER to travel through it.
don't mind me, just marking links so I can see them when I get home.
Gotta load some of those on my wife's Palm M105. She'll love 'em!
On a side note, does "Internet" really need to be capatilized anymore?
Yes. But it no longer has to be in quotes.
It's about models and which of these models best explains observations. A geocentric view of the solar system isn't as efficient as a heliocentric one, not by a long shot.
:)
You won't get any argument on that point from me. The system we have right now is the way it is because it's the *simplest* way to do so.
It's clear to practically everyone that the sun is, indeed, at the center of the solar system, and that the Earth orbits the sun.
It's "clear to practically everyone" because that's what we've taught for 400 years. But academnic inertia doesn't change the fact that we can arbitrarilly pick any point in the cosmos to be "stationary" and be just as technically correct.
You can argue until you're blue in the face over the definition of 'center', but the physics of the entire system become a hell of alot easier if you state that the center is the largest gravitational mass - the Sun, which is what we've been doing for the last 400 years.
Yes. And for teaching physics, or the outlay of the system, it's just plain easier to center it on the large thing that everything else has a relative orbit to.
But lets say, oh, that you've got a terrestrial star chat that includes the motions of the plannets through the sky. That's a model of the system (and the constellations beyond it) that is centered on the earth and useful.
Yes, this is a very rare case when an earth-centered view is useful--but it's still every bit as "correct" as the simple physics-teaching sun-centered model.
And now, having forgot what this damn thread was about in the first place, I'm going to stop responding.
Did you even read what I wrote?
You *don't* have to account for any extra forces. "The Sun's Gravity" works fine.
Astronomers weren't "unable to reproduce the exact path" of the system due to a lack of measurement, not some inability to record how the stars all travel.
Galelio wasn't even the first bloke to figure out that everything orbited the sun. He was just the first one with the cojones to stand up to the Church.
Short physics lesson: *ALL MOVEMENT IS RELATIVE!!!*
It is as correct to define *any* point as the center as any other. It is literally just as correct to say that the Sun orbits the Earth as it is to say that the Earth orbits the sun--relative to the Earth, the sun moves. Relative to the Sun, the earth moves.
Gravity explains an Earth-centered model of the system just as easily as a it does a sun-centered model. The model's just a bit easier to chart out into a diagram if you center it on the sun.
Don't believe me? Look it up yourself. The sun and the moon would have a circular orbit, and the rest of the system would have an orbit that looks like a stenograph toy's design--a looping orbit that circles again and again.
Assume h is units of happiness. Would it be OK to take 100h from person A if it would give person B 101h? How about if you took 50h each from 2 people to give a third 101h? I don't think it's that easy, even conceptually.
Of course it isn't. But that's the basic idea behind an objective morality test: would you want to live in a world where everyone followed that moral code? If so, it's probably Good. If not, it's probably Bad.
That's simply evidence that a creation story is one of the oldest stories in existence, or evidence that all human cultures come up with a creation story. It doesn't have any bearing at all on whether or not said story is actually true.
Of course it does. If a hundred people tell me that their parents witnessed a grand event--like, oh, the assassination of John F. Kennedy--that's evidence that the event happened.
(As a side note, it wouldn't prove anything about the creation of the universe anyway, as even if a story would be true, it, by defination, has to be second hand information, as no creation story claims people were around during creation, and thus the 'gods' could be lying to them. And provably are, given the conflicting versions 'they' are telling.)
Well, if we're going down that note--all I was trying to prove is that we were "created." Existence of "Gods" at all is evidence towards that, even if the accounts are so different.
(side note: There could be multiple creation stories because of multiple times of creation.)
Well, since you asked...
A 'better place' would be where the total of all happiness in the world was greater.
No, you're wrong. Well, sort off anyway. You see, off course you can say that the earth is the center, ignoring gravity and all that stuff.
But. If you try to find a scientific theory for explaining how the planets move about in the solar system, you simple have to use the sun as the center; if you don't, you'll have to invent all sorts of weird forces that keep the earth in its place and stuff.
Nope. I can just say that that the sun orbits the Earth, and that the rest of the system is pulled into their odd orbits because of the sun's gravity.
The heliocentric model is *simpler*, but it's no more "correct" than the palenocentric. (sp?)
You see, I used to think that it was possible to just think of the earth as the center. But if you try to picture the solar system, with the earth in the center, and the sun circling around it, and then all the planets around the sun, it just doesn't work. You'd have to nail the earth to it's place, and connect the sun and the planets with strings and stuff, effectively inventing forces.
If you're getting into forces, of course the planets are pulled along their orbits by the sun's gravity. But speaking of a simple astrological model, we can pin the earth as "never moving" (since, to us, it doesn't) and then chart all the rest of the planets on their path relative to our own.
The model would be more complex, but I'd wager it'd be a bit simpler to actually use. (i.e., to find a planet.)
We could even say that the Moon is the center of all creation, and so then the Earth orbits the moon, the Sun orbits the Earth, and everything else orbits the sun. This model wouldn't do us very much good unless we were on the Moon, though.
And note this: do we believe in a Earth-centric solar system any more? No. Galileo's ideas were accepted, albeit slowly (and not rejected because of empirical science but the ludicrously anthro-centric 'science' imposed by the catholic church)
It is as correct in an infineitly expanding universe to say that the Earth is the center as it is the sun. Nothing makes it "more correct" to place the sun as the center as opposed to the Earth.
It just makes it a SIMPLER model. That's all.
Hmm is that the set of morals that includes,
"man should not lie down with man as he does with women".
That's a misquote. The actual prohibition is "Man shalt not lie with a man as he would a woman in a woman's bed."
I'm sure you can find a person from any religion, including satanism, that would claim the world would be a better place if only we all lived by their one "objective" set of morals
Please pay attention. I did not say that my morals were objective. I said that they were objectively *good.*
The test is, "if everyone on the world lived by these, would it be a better place?"
An example of a morality that fails this test is "kill anyone I want to."
Curious that you would specifically include this sub-group in the statement......
Not really. I just happen to be a Christian, and we're known as a religion for rampant hypocricy. Every other religion is known from it (from the Taliban to Wiccans who add on "I'll harm you if you harm me" to the Rede.)
_Sum of All Knowedge_ is a term that nicely answers your question, btw. God can make a mistake when He is making something new, as it's a NEW knowledge.
And, of course, 'multiple personality disorder', or at least the symtoms, actually does exist. It's just been reclassified as a subset of disassociative disorder. I don't know why you don't appearly believe in it.
I do. It's just a convenient example of psycologists creating people more messed up that they were before, just like David Koresh was an example of a religous leader causing people to know _less_ truth instead of more.
I don't consider Psycology a science anymore than I consider Scientolgoy a religion.
What's the evidence we were created?
And don't try to pass the bible off as 'evidence', the bible is the *theory*. It states what it thinks happens, you can't use it to prove that what it states did happen. Evidence is external to the theory, you can't use a theory to prove itself.
The evidence is that so many normally seperate cultures have a creation myth where a great and powerful being creates the world. There are also a number of historical beings preaching very similar messages ("this world is not all that there is." "Be cool." "You will be judged after this life.")
The bible is not a *theory.* It's not a scientific document. Science and religion are seperate--but they both should be approached with a similar state of mind of "what if."
If everyone were to say this, we would never have had Nazis ("The german people are scientifically superior" "What if they're not?" "Then we'll all die." "Go away.") or the Inquisition ("These pagans are going to hell!" "What if they have a different message?" "Then we won't find basic contradictions" "Oh, look. They're saying "be cool" too.")
OK, so I'm overstating, But it's still a good idea to always ask "What if this is wrong."
Whereas in religion, you can't test anything, and, in Christianity at least, are told not to test God.
Where? The same place you're told to drink the blood of the dead?
God said "I give you doubt to test your faith." There are easy ways to test this, and the answers are there for the finding if one cares to look.
Of course, there are ways to test the faith, and ways not to. Just like there are ways to test the lethallity of a bullet aside from pointing it at someone and firing.
Just don't forget that God wants to hide proof of his existance; if you go looking for aboslute scientific proof of His existance, you'll come up blank.
God makes mistakes? Is He/She not Omnipotent?
It's part of the creative process, RetroGreek. God (She doesn't care what gender you call Him) is all-powerful and all-knowing, but that "all-knowing"
thing only applies to extant things. When creating something new, like life, mistakes will be made even given the sum total of all knowledge and limitless power.
I believe that God exists outside of time for us--She can travel back and fix a mistake if He chooses, and the fossils could be left just as a testament to this auspect of Her being.
And I answer the "what if" question with "it doesn't matter; the world would be a better place if everyone, including all christians, followed the Christian morals, so they're objectively good."
Yup. I tested gravity in school. Used a paper tape and a clapper. Every time I ran the experiment it produced the same result. Everyone else in the class had the same results.
And you concluded by this that gravity never changes? Because that's not what the experiment tells you. Your experiment tells you "gravity does not change in one afternooon in a classoom within the range of human perception."
That fact is a good precdent to lend to the hypothesis "gravity just doesn't change", but that's all it is.
Science can be tested and verified. Religion cannot. In Religion, you must take everything on faith.
If you cannot see the difference, then your are deluding yourself.
Harsh words, and bad grammar, too. (It's "you're deluding yourself," btw)
The whole point that was made by the parent was "what if..." I agreed with it--every scientst and person seeking Truth, religious or otherwise, should consider the "what if" question. This is the proper mindset for the seeking of truth, be it spiritual (religion) or physical (science.)
Spirituality refuses to be reproduceable, because of the inevitable memory of the previous event which clouds any and all attempts to reproduce it.
I never said that there was no difference between science and religion. Science is definite, but simplistic and often wrong (due to parimony). Religion gives answers that cannot be independantly verified.
Both of these disciplines need to be able to ask "what if this is all wrong?" The answer should be "so what? It doesn't matter" or you've got something wrong with the discipline.
Trust has to be earned. Science is by default skeptical, you have to prove that your theory is a good approximation of the phenomena that you are describing, or else it is bunk. It must be predicatable and repeatable. I do not put faith in scientists, as I trust them, since they describe and predict phenomena much better than say, David Koresh ever would.
/.
Very nice. It's good to see someone who knows how to form an intelligent rebuttal on
The truth is, for physical and reproducable phenomina I give Scientists a lot of credit and trust. But for history and human nature, I find that they're often lacking.
Religion has not come up with silly ideas such as, oh, Multiple Personality Disorder. (Exorcisms, which seem to be just as bad, actually can have a profound psycological effect on someone who believes in the ceremony and that they are poesssed.)
Faith in what comes before? Not in science. If it isn't demonstrable and reproducable, it isn't accepted.
True. But have you actually tested to make sure that gravity doesn't change? Or have you calcuated E=MC(sq) yourself?
Faith is a part of Science as much as it is a part of religion. A good Christian will be able to have their own connection with God and their own understanding of the universe, which is something very different than the kind of "faith" that both science and organized religion require.
By your logic then, anthropology, cosmology, paleontology - heck, even astronomy - are a total waste of time, since "It might not be what it looks like."
Hardly. Human curiosity is one of our motivating factors; but grand claims ("The universe is always expanding!" "God comes next week!") should always be taken with a grain of salt, be they from science or religion.
Evolution as history is not a misapplication of science. As I've said, you can come up with an infinite number of nondisprovable theories about the creation of species, none of which have a whit of evidence. As a scientist, until I see some evidence for one of these theories, the only logical thing to do is assume things are as they appear: Life evolved slowly over billions of years.
There is more than "one whit of evidence" that we were created. In fact, we have as much evidence that we were created as we do that, say, Ceaser ruled Rome. This evidence is often dismissed, but it's still evidence.
Now, what evidence have we that life evolved very slowly? A fossil record? OK, I'll grant that as evidence--but it's not proof that we weren't created, nor do I find it automatically more compelling than the counter-evidence. (Side note: it's even possible to correllate the two. God could have created many different forms of life, and then tweaked them, replaced them, et al. Or He could have caused all of the animals to evolve, and then have created man.)
The point is, a rational mind should weigh each piece of evidence, no matter how slight, and then reach their rational conclusion. People who blindly beleive what a priest tells them are no more "opiated" than those that blindly believe what a scientist tells them.
And a scientist who considers all examples and evidence set before him when seeking Truth is as wise as a theologian who seeks the word of God everywhere.
And there's the difference between faith and science. There's a large amount of evidence supporting quantum mechanics and little supporting the existence of God. Science isn't a crutch for anything.
There is a great deal of faith that goes into Science. Faith in Parsimony. Faith in the workings of others. Faith that there isn't a great big cosmic being trying to hide things from you.
There is a big "if" in front of this statement, as the scientific method is logically sound. But we have as much evidence that God was made up as that he exists and is just hiding. What an athiest might see as an exchange of myths, a religous person sees as different views of the same Truth.
You hold yourself to strict rules of evidence, and bit by bit, fact by fact, crawl toward a greater understanding of physical phenomena.
The problem with science is that the bit-by-bit part takes so long, that you have to have faith in what has come before. Plus, it's applied too liberally, and all too often illogical conclusions are reached.
For example, take evolution. It's a scientific fact that life evolves from its present state into a state most ideal for its environment. No one can dispute this; just look at Dog breeding.
Now, it's popular in the "scientific" community to equate evolution with the backwards extension of evolution. This is what modern day creationists have a problem with--the intelligent ones, anyway.
The simple fact is that science has no sound evidence that the world was not created two hundred years ago and we're all just believing what we were told. It probably wasn't, and there's no real idea that it was created two hundred years ago--but it's a very common religious idea that the world _was_ created, by a great and powerful being in prehistoric times.
Evolution as breeding = irrefutable science.
Evoltuion as history = a misapplication of the above science.
Anyway... "Science" is a crutch for the weak mind.
So is religion. But they're also both very powerful tools towards finding Truth. ANyone who tells you otherwise is a bigot. (Even to an atheist, religion is an embodiment of man's moral code, and thus the Truth about man.)
Technically, copying an artist's song w/o paying for it isn't stealing. It's infringment.
It's no more theft than if I were to take a few pictures of you having sex, sell it on the web, and ship them to you and your parents.
It might be wrong or criminal, but it's hardly theft. It's just called that to get the point of it being wrong across.
Now, RIAA might be disgusting slime--but they still are the ones who have the disgusting job of making sure the artist (and all the other creative people who help make an album!) get compensated for their effort.
I would rather control it myself, but...
If I don't control it, I would rather have an entity that exists to serve me ("goverment") controlling it than an entity that exists to serve itself ("corporation.")
Yes, I trust the government--I trust them to do their job, and as I am neither dead because of crime, a hostage of a hostile country, or killed because some corp was too cheap to be safe, I think they're doing their job just fine.
"Captain Corelli's Mandolin."
Don't ask, just go see it. I know what you mean about movies being spoiled by previews, and this one didn't.