God & the Fairy Tree

Three wordsMEASURABLE VERIFIABLE PREDICTIONS

Irrational and irrelevant jibberish. We need to stick to the facts only. The facts tell us we are deceived by our emotions to believe it really matters if we live or die or if biological systems flourish or expire into extinction.Thus, by giving into our emotions and acting as if it does matter we will leave a legacy of irrationality. We will be remembered as nothing more than hacks falling prey to our petty emotions and deceptions.

Here in the 18th century Ptolemeyism is verifiable by observation, it is measurable, and it predicts with utmost accuracy. There has not been one observation that contradicts Ptolemeyism and it's system of epicycles and deferrents. Why should I fall prety to forces that go bump in the night? This is the 18th century man - We are no longer in the stone age running on all fours frightened of the moon.A force emanating from every object in the universe? Oh please. Do you know how rediculous this sounds? Why not just say God has little angels pushing the planets around on their paths?Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

We are all human. Emotions are important to humans regardless of their cosmic significance.
If there are no gods to tell us what is and what is not important, as I belive, then it is up to us to define for ourselves what is important. It is inevitable that emotions will feature in any such human decision.Don't be too quick to dismis the importance of emotions. After all who is there to tell us that there is anything more important>

Emotions are dangerous as they cause us to believe and act in ways that are irrational. To believe it matters if the organic compounds which comprise all organisms remain intact or are scattered back into the star dust from whence they came is irrational and irrelevant mumbo jumbo. Anyone who acts as if it does matter has let their emotions get the better of their reason. It is a High Crime against reason and should be purged.

Very few of us are memorable for our rationality. Except for "petty emotions" we wouldn't be remembered at all.Edited by Ringo, : Spelllling.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

If -1) Ptolemeyism and the theory of gravity give equally accurate accounts of ALL observable phenomenon
2) And the theory of gravity is able to provide no new or more accurate predictions of observed phenomenon (e.g. predict the location of as yet unobserved heavenly bodies or more accurately predict the orbits of those already observed)Then there is indeed a battle to be had between the two theories.How, in your opinion, should we objectively asses the validity of the two theories?
In addition is the phenomemnon known as magnetism not an example of the sort of 'action at a distance' force that is being dismissed?

There are times when being rational is necessary and the best means of achieving the aims that our irrational humanity imposes on us.In the quest for truth rationality is essential.But the thing that drives us on that quest for truth is completey irrational and no less important for it.

Follow only your emotive responses can be dangerous, but emotions themselves are not the problem. Are you suggesting that the interest into the investigation of the origin of life is irrational, or at best, inconsequential? If so, then 99% of science is meaningless mumbo jumbo.It is a High Crime against reason and should be purged.[/qs]That sounds pretty fascist for a naturalist.

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

It is not a question of choice of theory. In the 18th century the idea of unexplained action at a distance and unexplained forces was so removed and alien to any of the currently held scientifc ideas of the time. It would be similar to someone today conjecturing that there was some strange and unknown NATURAL process that accounts for certain functions of biological origanisms.Think about it - the notion that there was a force emanating from everything in the unverse was strange enough to Newton's contemporaries. It smacked of supersitition. Even worse some saw his mathematicas as akin to postulating the incredible shrinking man - the idea of infinistemials.The inability on the part of Newton to explain what this force was, where it originated, or how it worked would be met wiht total skepticisim in today's age. Newton would respond to criticism by stating we must simply accept it as is because it is capabale fo explaining how thngs are. Worse yet we would be told we should accept it over the present theory which is perfectly capable of explaining every observation with complete accuracy.Unexplained forces- why not just say there are invisible angels pushihng bodies around in accordance with the mathematical description newton presented. Neither could be seen, touched, or measured accept for the effects they produced. To some it was utter nonsense - many saw it as supersititious nonsense proposed by an individual who believed in divine providence.By today's standards Newton would not have any academic credibility as one would claim his belief in divine providence in nature prevented him from being objective. Dawkins would tear to shreds his idea of unseen and unexplained forces. He would be accused of putting forth fairy tales. He would probably be gagged and silenced by many.I see this persistence in today's paradigm to hold up theories as holy grails whose truths are as self evident as those of Ptolemy. To question that even in the future some other mechanism might account for what we now see is seen as ludicrous. In the future any scientists who would dare propose such mehcnanisms would likely be run out of town and demonized to the point where his voice would be silenced. Out of a knee jerk reaction to the religious community the scientific establishment is building a 'mount improbable' of it's own. It is making it virtualy impossible for any future ideas or theories to gain any consideration study before before being run out of town and demonized.I do not believe in dogmatic devotion to any theory. If history shows us anything it is that 100-200 years from now many of our current theories will have little resemblence to their current form.If I were a betting man I would lay money down on the idea that in the distant future our ancestors(if we are still around) perhaps might look back and laugh with candor at the simpletons believing random mutation is the only mechanism of change that drive originalilty and complexity. Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

That sounds pretty fascist for a naturalist.[/qs]I am being tounge-in-cheek nemesis.

Your whole point fails to grasp the true pragmatism of scientific discovery.A theory that predicts more accurately and more successfully than any rival theory will eventually win out.
Anyone who comprehends the scientific method and what it aims to achieve appreciates this.Yes there may initially be sociological resistance due to deeply held beliefs about the workings of the world and our place in it. Yes there may be resistance from those who have made staked their reputation on the established theories of the day.
BUT if the history of science teaches us anything it is that such resistance is futile in the face of a accurate and measurable predictions.Dawkins, and any other scientist or scientific commentator, would agree wholeheartedly that what works should always supersede what is comfortable and established.Nobody with an understanding of science would ever claim that the established theories of today will remain 100% unchanged but in the case of evolution the broad basic foundations of replication with modification and adaptive selection seem deeply unlikely to alter. The details of the exact mechanisms involved are being avidly researched as we speak and who knows what the future holds as regards that.
Who is claiming that todays prevalent detailed theory is unquestionably correct and subject to no modification in the future?Any form of refutable prediction is glaringly missing from any ID or creationist theory.
Until that is addressed these "theories" remain in the same arena as the fairies that the OP discusses.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Not one observation? By the eighteenth century? It's off topic here, but if you want to start a topic on the history of astronomy making that claim, it might be interesting. Accepting the existence of such a force would hardly be difficult to cultures which had navigated to all hemispheres of the earth, and observed that nothing falls off it! Modern people with a naturalistic view consider the theories that best fit observations to be the strongest, so they would certainly have considered Newton's (seventeenth century) theories to be strong had they lived in the eighteenth century.It seems strange that you choose to imagine otherwise.

What I see as dangerous to progress is the glorification of any scientific theory as a Holy Grail of Truth. This is the current paradigm. Evolutionary biologists have become Reactionaries to a belief and in so doing demonize anyone who would question the self evident Truth.In the future it makes it all the more improbable that any competing naturalistic idea or theory would be given any consideration - the hierarchy would simply not allow it. It would be brushed off as giving credence to the positions of those who hold a belief to the contrary.Evolutionary bioligsts have publically become warriors in a battle against a belief. They are covertly telling scientists who do conduct research if you question the consensus you will be met with ridicule. The result is a reluctance to propose any new hypothesis should the opportunity present itself as one will put one's career in jeapordy. Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

On the contrary action at a distance was met with fierce opposition by some for the very reason I stated - it was so bizarre an idea that it smelled like supersitition to some naturalists of the time.Action at a distance impied an object could influence another without comming in contact with anything in between. Newton was unable to explain to his detractors what the force was, why it was there, or how it worked. It was a strange idea that was contrary to any notion of how the world worked.In todays parlance the idea of forces emanating from all objects in the universe would cause one to quip about light sabers and death stars.I can imagine the detractors of today having fun with the idea showing cartoons of Newton holding a light saber and rising over the pond of Endor with Yoda at his side. Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.