Quote:
In the 70's, many said we'd never find planets other planets.
This not true at all.
In the 70's, many said we'd never find planets other planets.
This not true at all.
Two New Planetary Systems Found
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
As the equipment keeps getting better and better more and more planets are being found. So clearly there are planets around a large number of stars.
So the question really becomes are there Earth like planets that can have life and maybe even intelligent life on them. That is unknown. As more and more is discovered about the Earth and not just the Earth but the Earth and Moon double planet it becomes more and more likely that very precise conditions might be required for the development of life. If the conditions for the formation of life are too many and too unlikely than there may be very few planets with life. It could even be possible that only the Earth has life. Very precise conditions were required for life to develop on the Earth and few people know about the importance of the Moon. How likely is it for there to be Earth like planets that have moons?
So there could be anything from only the Earth having life in the entire Universe or there being many planets that have life.
As for intelligent life there has already been a search for radio signals and this search has been almost 100% negative (except for a few mysterious brief radio signals). Of course alien life forms could have some unknown means of communications.
There is a limited amount of evidence that some sort of intelligent beings could have visited the Earth in the past. Some of the best evidence for that is in South America where there are very hard stones with extremely precise cuts that would have required diamond cutters and probably machines.
So the question really becomes are there Earth like planets that can have life and maybe even intelligent life on them. That is unknown. As more and more is discovered about the Earth and not just the Earth but the Earth and Moon double planet it becomes more and more likely that very precise conditions might be required for the development of life. If the conditions for the formation of life are too many and too unlikely than there may be very few planets with life. It could even be possible that only the Earth has life. Very precise conditions were required for life to develop on the Earth and few people know about the importance of the Moon. How likely is it for there to be Earth like planets that have moons?
So there could be anything from only the Earth having life in the entire Universe or there being many planets that have life.
As for intelligent life there has already been a search for radio signals and this search has been almost 100% negative (except for a few mysterious brief radio signals). Of course alien life forms could have some unknown means of communications.
There is a limited amount of evidence that some sort of intelligent beings could have visited the Earth in the past. Some of the best evidence for that is in South America where there are very hard stones with extremely precise cuts that would have required diamond cutters and probably machines.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
Begging the question is most often found with religions. But we can't discuss that here.
Begging the question is one of the fallacies discussed in a Philosophy of Science course called, "Logic and Language," which is taught in most secular universities.
Buster, you severely lack knowledge of the real world and how science really functions, and when you can't make a logical argument or debate properly, you try some silly back door ad hominem tactic, resort to totally irrelevant inferences, and then think that arguing from argumentum ad verecundiam means anything.
I am never impressed by some PhD who is a television celebrity and who is so arrogant to think he hold holds the truth.
So have fun in your fantasy world.
Molekule, your responses are never on point and lack true scientific integrity. You claim to be an expert physicist, chemist, formulator, astronomer and to know more than anyone on every topic by the way you post, yet I see very little backing up your claims other than your own opinion. You don't bring any data into the discussion, just your own "beliefs". You did this with economics, yet you have no formal education in economics in terms of how the monetary system and banking system work. You also misconstrue many economic labels/terms. Yet you're a man of science? If you're a man of science, you wouldn't say some of the things you do.
I'm disappointed that a man who claims to be a man of science is more of a preacher.
Please educate yourself in economics, unless you have a Phd in that too....oh wait, that doesn't mean anything.
You're in the fantasy world my friend.
Quote:
Begging the question is most often found with religions. But we can't discuss that here.
Begging the question is one of the fallacies discussed in a Philosophy of Science course called, "Logic and Language," which is taught in most secular universities.
Buster, you severely lack knowledge of the real world and how science really functions, and when you can't make a logical argument or debate properly, you try some silly back door ad hominem tactic, resort to totally irrelevant inferences, and then think that arguing from argumentum ad verecundiam means anything.
I am never impressed by some PhD who is a television celebrity and who is so arrogant to think he hold holds the truth.
So have fun in your fantasy world.
Molekule, your responses are never on point and lack true scientific integrity. You claim to be an expert physicist, chemist, formulator, astronomer and to know more than anyone on every topic by the way you post, yet I see very little backing up your claims other than your own opinion. You don't bring any data into the discussion, just your own "beliefs". You did this with economics, yet you have no formal education in economics in terms of how the monetary system and banking system work. You also misconstrue many economic labels/terms. Yet you're a man of science? If you're a man of science, you wouldn't say some of the things you do.
I'm disappointed that a man who claims to be a man of science is more of a preacher.
Please educate yourself in economics, unless you have a Phd in that too....oh wait, that doesn't mean anything.
You're in the fantasy world my friend.
Quote:
Whether it is, or isn't is functionally irrelevant. Science has produced mathematical representations that describe billions of phenomena. If a situation is found to violate the representation, the representation is modified or the phenomenon represented is modified. This doesn't invalidate science, it is part of what reinforces it.
Man has split atoms, sent probes outside the solar system, landed rovers on surfaces 42 million miles away, built building 1000 ft high; if the equations that allowed us such feats can be violated with particular circumstances, these circumstance have not been reliably identified to the point where progress is significantly hindered due to our current understanding.
Whether it is, or isn't is functionally irrelevant. Science has produced mathematical representations that describe billions of phenomena. If a situation is found to violate the representation, the representation is modified or the phenomenon represented is modified. This doesn't invalidate science, it is part of what reinforces it.
Man has split atoms, sent probes outside the solar system, landed rovers on surfaces 42 million miles away, built building 1000 ft high; if the equations that allowed us such feats can be violated with particular circumstances, these circumstance have not been reliably identified to the point where progress is significantly hindered due to our current understanding.
Thinking oneself to be infallible is a big problem, both for those who believe in science and those who don't.
Not believing that scientific method has an important role to play in determining the truth is just dumb as it creates implications in all walks of life.
It gives people a license to reject things that used to be straightforward. Eg you could dispute the findings of an accident investigator because you refuse to believe you were driving that fast or didn't drink that much.
But it is fair to question that there is a lack of trust and competency in so many aspects of our society that this anti science feeling might be more a reaction to that.
Btw Molakule, Germany and other Northern European countries are socialist and have liberty. I don't see mediocrity in Germany and there's more trust there than here. Plenty of ability and character and strength there too.
Not believing that scientific method has an important role to play in determining the truth is just dumb as it creates implications in all walks of life.
It gives people a license to reject things that used to be straightforward. Eg you could dispute the findings of an accident investigator because you refuse to believe you were driving that fast or didn't drink that much.
But it is fair to question that there is a lack of trust and competency in so many aspects of our society that this anti science feeling might be more a reaction to that.
Btw Molakule, Germany and other Northern European countries are socialist and have liberty. I don't see mediocrity in Germany and there's more trust there than here. Plenty of ability and character and strength there too.
I don't see an anti-science feeling, it is more a recognition that science isn't always right. Different theories and ideas have cropped up and replaced old ones. So the old theories were wrong, correct? Doesn't that mean that some of our current theories are wrong too? And once they are proven wrong, then we just continue to say science is truth? Certainly science has found many truths, but it still has many theories and is and should be willing to adjust as new data comes to light. After all, isn't the pursuit of that data and what it means really scientific? When I was a kid, dinosaurs drug their tails, Christopher Columbus discovered America (in spite of other people being there first), etc, etc.
ref
ref
Originally Posted By: refaller
I don't see an anti-science feeling,
I do...
when the response to some scientists who have made observations, and produced theories as to what those observations mean is described as "making stuff up", or dismissed as plain wrong, by those who have not reviewed even the base data itself is anti science.
E=MC^2 is somewhat heretical, but still demonstrable.
I don't see an anti-science feeling,
I do...
when the response to some scientists who have made observations, and produced theories as to what those observations mean is described as "making stuff up", or dismissed as plain wrong, by those who have not reviewed even the base data itself is anti science.
E=MC^2 is somewhat heretical, but still demonstrable.
I am not anti-science. But I am old enough and have lived long enough so that I can see that science is the same as any other human institution. Certain people become very powerful and it is their beliefs or the highway.
It does not matter if you are talking about scientists or some religious organization or whatever-some people may have too much power and actually prevent progress. Look at Microsoft-one man had too much power and influence and was able to force the removal of the start button in Windows 8.
Somebody will become very powerful in scientific circles and will have done some research in the past that indicated such and such. If young new researchers come along with new theories that go against that older research they will be ignored, suppressed, etc. Eventually a lot of science and history books will have to be re-written.
Just one good example is the exploration of the Americas by Europeans and others. It is highly likely that there were many (Chinese?, Japanese, Irish, Vikings, Knights Templar, English, etc.) who came to the Americas long before Columbus. But powerful people are still resisting the discoveries that indicate all of this. And yet school children are still taught, 'In 1492, Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue...' Yes he did. But he was far from the first. And people in Europe were definitely aware of the Americas after Columbus. He deserves a lot of credit, but he most definitely was not the first-not by a long shot.
I can remember when some powerful people were saying that it was impossible to build a spacecraft that could travel at the speed of light. Well, people have come up with some ideas that would probably work. But we don't know how to make enough anti-matter (economically at least) and there are bigger problems-like how to defend the spacecraft from even minute particles of dust once you are travelling that fast. But it has gone from being IMPOSSIBLE, to being highly IMPRACTICAL. Big difference.
I don't like when certain people put science on some sort of glory stand. The world of science is made up of human beings with human failings the same as anything else. The people who have made the earlier research discoveries and now have powerful positions at universities and in industry and the government will resist the research and discoveries of the young researchers who would replace the older research. Human beings are human beings.
It does not matter if you are talking about scientists or some religious organization or whatever-some people may have too much power and actually prevent progress. Look at Microsoft-one man had too much power and influence and was able to force the removal of the start button in Windows 8.
Somebody will become very powerful in scientific circles and will have done some research in the past that indicated such and such. If young new researchers come along with new theories that go against that older research they will be ignored, suppressed, etc. Eventually a lot of science and history books will have to be re-written.
Just one good example is the exploration of the Americas by Europeans and others. It is highly likely that there were many (Chinese?, Japanese, Irish, Vikings, Knights Templar, English, etc.) who came to the Americas long before Columbus. But powerful people are still resisting the discoveries that indicate all of this. And yet school children are still taught, 'In 1492, Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue...' Yes he did. But he was far from the first. And people in Europe were definitely aware of the Americas after Columbus. He deserves a lot of credit, but he most definitely was not the first-not by a long shot.
I can remember when some powerful people were saying that it was impossible to build a spacecraft that could travel at the speed of light. Well, people have come up with some ideas that would probably work. But we don't know how to make enough anti-matter (economically at least) and there are bigger problems-like how to defend the spacecraft from even minute particles of dust once you are travelling that fast. But it has gone from being IMPOSSIBLE, to being highly IMPRACTICAL. Big difference.
I don't like when certain people put science on some sort of glory stand. The world of science is made up of human beings with human failings the same as anything else. The people who have made the earlier research discoveries and now have powerful positions at universities and in industry and the government will resist the research and discoveries of the young researchers who would replace the older research. Human beings are human beings.
I heard an interesting TED talk where the guy said that the universe is expanding ever more rapidly. That means eventually everything will be so far away and going so fast, we will not be able to see it anymore. Will scientist of that day, with more and better instruments, still believe the scientist of today who reported that there are other stars and solar systems? Good question.
ref
ref
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: buster
Molekule, your responses are never on point and lack true scientific integrity. You claim to be an expert physicist, chemist, formulator, astronomer and to know more than anyone on every topic by the way you post, yet I see very little backing up your claims other than your own opinion. You don't bring any data into the discussion, just your own "beliefs".
Welcome to the world of Education
Truth is relative. My sister has a PhD in Mathematics and we've had a similar discussion. Proving theories based on theories of theories.... If something changes downstream, then what is truth? Well the truth changes.
My father (PhD) is a professor of Anthropology. His research changes what is "true" as well.
This isn't religion where what is "real" is based on contrived nonsense. But just because something in science is believed to be true based on the works of an individual, doesn't mean that somebody else's research isn't going to change it later on.
I think that's the point that Molakule is driving at here. Too many say that because something is scientific that it is unquestionable. By definition, EVERYTHING in science is questionable. That's how science advances. And that means that what is perceived as the truth with respect to a lot of what we "know" changes with time.
Molekule, your responses are never on point and lack true scientific integrity. You claim to be an expert physicist, chemist, formulator, astronomer and to know more than anyone on every topic by the way you post, yet I see very little backing up your claims other than your own opinion. You don't bring any data into the discussion, just your own "beliefs".
Welcome to the world of Education
Truth is relative. My sister has a PhD in Mathematics and we've had a similar discussion. Proving theories based on theories of theories.... If something changes downstream, then what is truth? Well the truth changes.
My father (PhD) is a professor of Anthropology. His research changes what is "true" as well.
This isn't religion where what is "real" is based on contrived nonsense. But just because something in science is believed to be true based on the works of an individual, doesn't mean that somebody else's research isn't going to change it later on.
I think that's the point that Molakule is driving at here. Too many say that because something is scientific that it is unquestionable. By definition, EVERYTHING in science is questionable. That's how science advances. And that means that what is perceived as the truth with respect to a lot of what we "know" changes with time.
Like a famous scientist said, 'Science advances one death at a time.' The people who hold the power at universities, in industry and the government are gradually replaced by people who have made new discoveries, and those new discoveries may not be supported by those in power and not come into common belief until the power people of the past are gone. Human beings are human beings.
I don't believe that everything is relativistic. I think there are, or should be, certain human values and certain moral values that we need to hang on to. The Golden Rule being one-'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' A lot fewer problems if everybody follows that rule. Too much relativity when it comes to human behavior can get us into trouble. Too much relativity when it comes to human behavior and suddenly it is okay for the Boston Marathon bombers to do what they did.
And yes it should be possible to question everything. But in the real world it depends on who is in power. The people in power may not support questioning of certain things and they may have the power to prevent research in areas where they do not want for there to be research.
Look at UFOs. Few scientists will even consider doing any research in that area. But if it is possible to question everything why can't anybody do research in that area? You see-certain areas are taboo. If any area is taboo then the world of science is not quite as open minded as we thought-correct? If there is any possibility at all that some of these UFOs are real alien spacecraft scientists are going to look pretty silly someday. Who is going to make the big discovery-non-scientist Joe Billy Bob on Forgotten Lane?
Belief systems can get in the way. If in the current belief system there can be nothing beyond death that sort of interferes with research into ghosts.
I don't believe that everything is relativistic. I think there are, or should be, certain human values and certain moral values that we need to hang on to. The Golden Rule being one-'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' A lot fewer problems if everybody follows that rule. Too much relativity when it comes to human behavior can get us into trouble. Too much relativity when it comes to human behavior and suddenly it is okay for the Boston Marathon bombers to do what they did.
And yes it should be possible to question everything. But in the real world it depends on who is in power. The people in power may not support questioning of certain things and they may have the power to prevent research in areas where they do not want for there to be research.
Look at UFOs. Few scientists will even consider doing any research in that area. But if it is possible to question everything why can't anybody do research in that area? You see-certain areas are taboo. If any area is taboo then the world of science is not quite as open minded as we thought-correct? If there is any possibility at all that some of these UFOs are real alien spacecraft scientists are going to look pretty silly someday. Who is going to make the big discovery-non-scientist Joe Billy Bob on Forgotten Lane?
Belief systems can get in the way. If in the current belief system there can be nothing beyond death that sort of interferes with research into ghosts.
Originally Posted By: FoxS
Why the bedroom eyes, Tyson?
No idea, but for some reason I really want to drink a Colt .45
Why the bedroom eyes, Tyson?
No idea, but for some reason I really want to drink a Colt .45
What is accepted in science is not necessarily true. There was a time, for example, when many scientists believed that some human beings were inferior in intelligence and in other ways to other human beings. There are still many scientists, in certain parts of the world, who are willing to support these kinds of beliefs.
What makes science true or not are the human scientists who do the research and how accurate their research is. And if they are allowed to do accurate research because sometimes for various reasons research has been suppressed and concealed and even falsified.
Behind all scientific research are human beings.
What makes science true or not are the human scientists who do the research and how accurate their research is. And if they are allowed to do accurate research because sometimes for various reasons research has been suppressed and concealed and even falsified.
Behind all scientific research are human beings.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: buster
Molekule, your responses are never on point and lack true scientific integrity. You claim to be an expert physicist, chemist, formulator, astronomer and to know more than anyone on every topic by the way you post, yet I see very little backing up your claims other than your own opinion. You don't bring any data into the discussion, just your own "beliefs".
Welcome to the world of Education
Truth is relative. My sister has a PhD in Mathematics and we've had a similar discussion. Proving theories based on theories of theories.... If something changes downstream, then what is truth? Well the truth changes.
My father (PhD) is a professor of Anthropology. His research changes what is "true" as well.
This isn't religion where what is "real" is based on contrived nonsense. But just because something in science is believed to be true based on the works of an individual, doesn't mean that somebody else's research isn't going to change it later on.
I think that's the point that Molakule is driving at here. Too many say that because something is scientific that it is unquestionable. By definition, EVERYTHING in science is questionable. That's how science advances. And that means that what is perceived as the truth with respect to a lot of what we "know" changes with time.
I agree with everything you said. My point was what I think (and maybe this is wrong)NdGT was saying is when you prove something using the tool of science, and there is no disputing it, science gives you the truth whether you wanted to believe the results or not.
For example, we know that evolution is biological fact and theory. We know that because of science. Science provided us with an understanding of how nature works. Whether you want to believe it or not doesn't matter. If that is what science has proven, and it has, the science behind it is the truth. The truth is that species evolve over time. You arrive that that truth by using science.
Quote:
Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
Originally Posted By: buster
Molekule, your responses are never on point and lack true scientific integrity. You claim to be an expert physicist, chemist, formulator, astronomer and to know more than anyone on every topic by the way you post, yet I see very little backing up your claims other than your own opinion. You don't bring any data into the discussion, just your own "beliefs".
Welcome to the world of Education
Truth is relative. My sister has a PhD in Mathematics and we've had a similar discussion. Proving theories based on theories of theories.... If something changes downstream, then what is truth? Well the truth changes.
My father (PhD) is a professor of Anthropology. His research changes what is "true" as well.
This isn't religion where what is "real" is based on contrived nonsense. But just because something in science is believed to be true based on the works of an individual, doesn't mean that somebody else's research isn't going to change it later on.
I think that's the point that Molakule is driving at here. Too many say that because something is scientific that it is unquestionable. By definition, EVERYTHING in science is questionable. That's how science advances. And that means that what is perceived as the truth with respect to a lot of what we "know" changes with time.
I agree with everything you said. My point was what I think (and maybe this is wrong)NdGT was saying is when you prove something using the tool of science, and there is no disputing it, science gives you the truth whether you wanted to believe the results or not.
For example, we know that evolution is biological fact and theory. We know that because of science. Science provided us with an understanding of how nature works. Whether you want to believe it or not doesn't matter. If that is what science has proven, and it has, the science behind it is the truth. The truth is that species evolve over time. You arrive that that truth by using science.
Quote:
Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
Quote:
Too many say that because something is scientific that it is unquestionable. By definition, EVERYTHING in science is questionable.
I never thought otherwise. Science is a tool. Theories change as the facts change. Science as a tool is a good way to arrive at the truth, as much as truth can be proven depending on what you're talking about.
We know the sun exists. We know that the sun is the center of our solar system. We know that because of science. What people thought in the 1500's was based on belief, and obviously later proven to be wrong.
Too many say that because something is scientific that it is unquestionable. By definition, EVERYTHING in science is questionable.
I never thought otherwise. Science is a tool. Theories change as the facts change. Science as a tool is a good way to arrive at the truth, as much as truth can be proven depending on what you're talking about.
We know the sun exists. We know that the sun is the center of our solar system. We know that because of science. What people thought in the 1500's was based on belief, and obviously later proven to be wrong.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: buster
Quote:
Too many say that because something is scientific that it is unquestionable. By definition, EVERYTHING in science is questionable.
I never thought otherwise. Science is a tool. Theories change as the facts change. Science as a tool is a good way to arrive at the truth, as much as truth can be proven depending on what you're talking about.
We know the sun exists. We know that the sun is the center of our solar system. We know that because of science. What people thought in the 1500's was based on belief, and obviously later proven to be wrong.
True. But there are various scientific theories regarding the life of the sun for example, how long it will last....etc. These values were touted as "facts" when I was a child, but I know that has changed. So they were facts then, and now those facts are different?
I think where the disconnect/disagreement here is (with respect to your argument with Molakule) is that when something is fact, it is unquestionable. It is THE truth, and therefore, never changes. That is often the argument put forth by those touting that science is the truth. However, they don't factor in exactly what we are discussing and that is the fact that what is "factual", ergo what is the "truth" is often in flux. It is not constant. It is a state of belief based on what is generally accepted as the "facts" at a given point in time. But by extension, how can it be "the truth" if by its very nature, it can change?
Science and the scientific method, these have allowed us to develop a much firmer grasp of the world and universe around us than we ever have had in the past. Certainly much further than the theories surrounding cloud giants and guys in loin cloths tossing lightning bolts through the sky
But the moment we start viewing science and everything it represents as an absolute is the day that we stop learning. I think we are in agreement on this point and so is Molakule. It is the use of the term "truth" here that you two are opposed upon and I am going to side with Molakule here, because I believe that the term "truth" defines an absolute, something that cannot change. And while I certainly believe that science provides us to the PATH to the truth, and that there are certain truths in science, that science is of itself, NOT the truth. Because it represents things that not only can, but DO change. And if change to what is defined happens, then it is not an absolute, and is subsequently not truth.
Quote:
Too many say that because something is scientific that it is unquestionable. By definition, EVERYTHING in science is questionable.
I never thought otherwise. Science is a tool. Theories change as the facts change. Science as a tool is a good way to arrive at the truth, as much as truth can be proven depending on what you're talking about.
We know the sun exists. We know that the sun is the center of our solar system. We know that because of science. What people thought in the 1500's was based on belief, and obviously later proven to be wrong.
True. But there are various scientific theories regarding the life of the sun for example, how long it will last....etc. These values were touted as "facts" when I was a child, but I know that has changed. So they were facts then, and now those facts are different?
I think where the disconnect/disagreement here is (with respect to your argument with Molakule) is that when something is fact, it is unquestionable. It is THE truth, and therefore, never changes. That is often the argument put forth by those touting that science is the truth. However, they don't factor in exactly what we are discussing and that is the fact that what is "factual", ergo what is the "truth" is often in flux. It is not constant. It is a state of belief based on what is generally accepted as the "facts" at a given point in time. But by extension, how can it be "the truth" if by its very nature, it can change?
Science and the scientific method, these have allowed us to develop a much firmer grasp of the world and universe around us than we ever have had in the past. Certainly much further than the theories surrounding cloud giants and guys in loin cloths tossing lightning bolts through the sky
But the moment we start viewing science and everything it represents as an absolute is the day that we stop learning. I think we are in agreement on this point and so is Molakule. It is the use of the term "truth" here that you two are opposed upon and I am going to side with Molakule here, because I believe that the term "truth" defines an absolute, something that cannot change. And while I certainly believe that science provides us to the PATH to the truth, and that there are certain truths in science, that science is of itself, NOT the truth. Because it represents things that not only can, but DO change. And if change to what is defined happens, then it is not an absolute, and is subsequently not truth.
Well said. I really don't disagree with any of that. I would add that there are scientific truths though. I can see where technically you could criticize NdGT here, but I believe he was using it in the context that you stated, that science provides us to the path of truth, and I think that is what he most likely meant. Just a guess. If you're not using science, then you have to convince me your method or alternative is better because I don't know of any.
And the reality is the alternative, faith, has actually prevented progress throughout human history. The Arab world is just but one example. One could even argue that we would be where we are now, 200 years earlier, if it wasn't for faith based thinking and the fear and perpetuation of human myths.
FWIW, for those that think I'm some ignorant atheist (I'm not). I read "Proof of Heaven" by Dr. Eben Alexander. He is confident in his NDE that there is an afterlife. Harvard Neurosurgeon. Excellent book and I highly recommend it. There are some things we simply can not explain and may never be able too.
And the reality is the alternative, faith, has actually prevented progress throughout human history. The Arab world is just but one example. One could even argue that we would be where we are now, 200 years earlier, if it wasn't for faith based thinking and the fear and perpetuation of human myths.
FWIW, for those that think I'm some ignorant atheist (I'm not). I read "Proof of Heaven" by Dr. Eben Alexander. He is confident in his NDE that there is an afterlife. Harvard Neurosurgeon. Excellent book and I highly recommend it. There are some things we simply can not explain and may never be able too.
- Status
