Skip to main content
news

Re: Queen mother (of Britai...

Graeme
Google Google
SubjectRe: Queen mother (of Britain) has died
FromGraeme
Date2002-04-10 21:58 (2002-04-10 21:58)
Message-ID<20020410155822.18149.00002690@mb-fd.aol.com>
Client
Newsgroupsalt.fan.tolkien
FollowsAnnatar
I disagree. While I admit that a poll between scientist doesn't have any real

significance, it has some interest, when the points in discussion has some relation to their fields.

Interest, yes. But just because a scientist can split the atom doesn't mean he can tell you who to vote for in the next election. Granted, he's probably one of the more intelligent members of society, and may have a "leg up" in that regard, but his *knowledge* of the one doesn't grant knowledge of the other. Einstein didn't play chess, which means that your average Class B and C duffer could probably dispatch him without difficulty. His superior knowledge of atomic theory would be of no advantage in that situation. (though he'd probably have been smart enough to get his old friend Dr. Lasker, the world champion, to play the game for him.)

I don't buy the theory that religion has nothing to do with science and they

can coexist happily (but then, I have a PhD in Physics and I am an atheist).

The history of the religious explanation of the world is the chronicle of a

constant retreat pushed by the science. The Earth is no longer flat, it is not in the center of the Universe,

You're describing *scientific* theories that were invalidated, not religious ones. Even the Greeks, who disproved the flat earth theory, still held to the Terracentric view of the solar system.

It's true, that the religious tend to take the latest scientific thinking, and incorporate it into their theology ("Yeah, yeah, this is all perfectly in line with what we're thinking"), a trend which continues to this day. But to blame them for bad science doesn't make much sense.

the planets are not moved by angels,

I couldn't tell you if they are or not (though certainly it isn't necessary to *express* it in those terms, granted), but your statement steps outside of science proper. Science can observe and measure forces, but when you get to questions about *why* these forces exist the way they do instead of some other way, you're veering off into religion and philosophy. Sagan used to do that all the time too.

the Universe was not created in seven days

On this question, science has no real alternative answer, so the jury is out...

God did not create the man directly,

Maybe not all in one *step*, but right or wrong, you're stepping outside of science in saying this.

diseases are not a punishment...

Individually they aren't. Collectively? Who knows? I couldn't tell you.

Today, many religious pepole are content believing in a God that created the

Universe and created life. What is surprising is that they can argue that these are the same beliefs that had some goat herders in Palestina 2000 years ago.

The two beliefs you just described ARE the ones that were believed 2000 years ago. The big change is that we understand a lot more about the mechanisms now, but I don't see the relevance of that. It's like saying you can't believe in an automobile unless you understand how an engine works.

And, with respect of Carl Sagan, I am a big admirer of him. I think that "The Demon-haunted World" is a splendid book and shows us the attitude that, we the scientists, should have: explain the science to non-scientists, make the science part of our lives and our culture, and fight the irrationalism.

Annatar

I haven't read the book, so I have to reserve judgment there. But as far as explaining the science goes, I'm all for that. I wouldn't go so far as to call obsolete scientific ideas "irrational" though. The terracentric view, for example, isn't "irrational" as such. It made sense once, given the knowledge we had at the time. It's been superceded now.