Vatican Debates Possibility of Alien Life 721
Pickens writes "The Telegraph reports that the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences is holding its first ever conference on alien life, the discovery of which would have profound implications for the Catholic Church. For centuries, theologians have argued over what the existence of life elsewhere in the universe would mean for the Church. Among other things, extremely alien-looking aliens would be hard to fit with the idea that God 'made man in his own image' and Jesus Christ's role as savior would be confused; would other worlds have their own Christ-figures, or would Earth's Christ be universal? Just as the Church eventually made accommodations after Copernicus and Galileo showed that the Earth was not the center of the universe, and when it belatedly accepted the truth of Darwin's theory of evolution, Catholic leaders say that alien life can be aligned with the Bible's teachings. 'Just as a multiplicity of creatures exists on Earth, so there could be other beings, also intelligent, created by God,' says Father Jose Funes, a Jesuit astronomer at the Vatican Observatory and one of the organizers of the conference. Others do not agree. 'If you look back at the history of Christian debate on this, it divides into two camps. There are those that believe that it is human destiny to bring salvation to the aliens, and those who believe in multiple incarnations,' says Paul Davies, a theoretical physicist. 'The multiple incarnations is a heresy in Catholicism.'"
Of course, there is another solution (Score:4, Insightful)
The hypothesis that no deity of any kind exists solves the problem in an unbeatably elegant fashion.
Is it just me (Score:3, Insightful)
or is this just a "cover our own backs" maneuver to avoid what happened with Galileo, Copernicus and others? Those cases weren't exactly the best publicity they've had.
Re:Of course, there is another solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Except it may not be a good answer. There is more to life than what you can prove scientifically.
As of now, yes - but who knows what will be possible in 1-5-10-50-100 etc. years.
However, it is the person who makes the claim that should prove it. So that there's a deity is up to the church to prove, and not for the science to disprove.
Re:Spread the word! (Score:5, Insightful)
As a Catholic, I have a bit of a problem with this being filed under "humor". Yes, yes, most religious questions are a big joke to /. editors and posters (Cf. parent), but when institutions look as these low-level problems they frequently have
a) a faction that gets it really wrong and embarasses the institution; and
b) a faction that gets it right (or close) and enriches the institution
"what are the ramifications if there are nonhuman beings who experience conscience and guilt?" is a fascinating question, just like
"what are the ramifications if the earth goes 'round the sun"
"what are the ramifications if indigenous people are fully human and have as much God-given dignity as Western Europeans?"
etc.
Re:Of course, there is another solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course, there is another solution (Score:1, Insightful)
Your bold statement is no answer, but an unprovable claim. It is also logically dubious, and furthermore shows that you have no grasp of what science is all about. Science never proves anything, it only disproves things and the ultimate guide in elaborating new theories is always elegance. I did not claim anything beyond that. I only chuckled as usual at the eternal raving rage of theologists for reasoning ad nauseam from an unprovable (and ever-changing) set of dogmas.
Re:Is it just me (Score:2, Insightful)
or is this just a "cover our own backs" maneuver to avoid what happened with Galileo, Copernicus and others?
No, because the universe is so fucking huge that the probability of aliens visiting Earth or humans visiting Rsdflkjasd is zero.
There is extraterrestrial life - it's just that nobody will ever get to confirm it.
I think Vatican is just trying to get some attention. Ever since the good pope died, nobody truly cared about them. The panzer pope just feels... vile.
So can science define existence? (Score:3, Insightful)
'Cause that would seem to be an important preliminary to your definition of science?
The problem: existence is the thing that *everything that *exists has in common, and scientific articulation of its meaning would require a comparison between the things that do and don't exist. Which comparison it cannot make, because as you rightly point out scientific inquiry cannot be made into non-existent things.
btw the 'which' in "things which don't exist" is a funny word misusage in this context -- do you see why?
Re:Of course, there is another solution (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with religion (Score:5, Insightful)
This is one of the fundamental problems with modern religions.
When religion and scientific evidence are in direct conflict with each other, enlightened people accept the scientific evidence. Enlightened religious people accept the scientific evidence and try to find ways to resolve it so that their religion remains logically consistent. (Yes, sometimes jumping through hoops to do so, but at least they don't look at scientists as some kind of evil tricksters or conspirators.)
The dumb ones, though, continue to argue against the scientific evidence not because of any particular keen insight, but because of what they think they know about an invisible guy who reigns supreme and, for the most part, what a two-thousand-year-old book that was written in an ancient language by ancient people and interpreted through various political and theological lenses says.
And, of course, most modern religions (and in particular, most modern people pushing it) are out there trying to convince people that if you question their interpretation of the "facts," that you'll burn in hell for eternity.
The church shouldn't even be having this argument. Science points towards an almost certainty of intelligent alien life out there, even if we never meet it face-to-face. They need to resign themselves to the fact that it exists, and adjust their thought accordingly. A biblical reference to the "four corners of the earth" doesn't mean that the earth literally has four corners (i.e. it's flat). A biblical reference to God making man in his own image doesn't mean that the god they worship literally looks like we do.
Duh.
As for the whole Christ thing, well, I'm guessing that alien cultures probably have their own religions, and some of them are probably even more interesting than ours. If we ever do have the pleasure of meeting some of them, we'll probably do what we've done throughout our entire history of existence. Figure out some way to meld them together to make ourselves feel better about ourselves and go on with life.
How to be more funny? (Score:2, Insightful)
Argh! Can't... find... anything... to... say... that's... more... funny... than what they're already saying!
The holy book heads' battle with science a.k.a. lucency a.k.a. anti-brainwash a.k.a. non-bullshit is much akin to a talking monkey trying to explain the passing of seasons as somehow being ultimately tied to the taste of bananas.
They're just so funny!
Except, of course, when they go postal with the crusading, and the suicide bombing, and the child molestation, and the... Ah well, maybe it's not so funny after all...
AHEM... (Score:0, Insightful)
I wonder what the writer's credentials REALLY are. If you do as little as attend a few Sunday School classes, you will quickly find out that God making man in his own image means that he made him ORIGNALLY perfect and holy.
Where is this guy getting off with such a shallow interpretation, that it is a physical "image?" Either he is clueless about the conventional interpretation that just about everyone takes, or he knows and is poisoning the well by utilizing an uncommon interpretation that he is implying to be common because the readers may not know any better.
Re:Of course, there is another solution (Score:2, Insightful)
So, if I were an intelligent entity (you can say God if that sounds close enough), and I had a finite source of quantum computation (but really really big), I'd want to do several things with that computation to get the biggest bang for my limited buck:
- I would never compute the position of every particle in the universe at every quantized point of time. Instead, I'd use an event-driven simulation, and only compute interactions between particles. Kind of like we see in quantum mechanics.
- No point letting the universe seem grainy. I'd hide my integer based math with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Of course, both of those are highly flawed ideas, however I see no proof that the universe is truly "infinite" in any way. God can use integers.
Early humans could feel their "aliveness" or "conscience" even before they could imagine math or science. They naturally assumed the simplest possible solution: some God who looks like them gave them a soul, which gives them this feeling of being alive. All these years later, we know so much about science and technology, but nothing about that feeling of being alive. It's there, and unexplained in any way so far. Without it, our lives would be simply meaningless computation. There's still some magic in the universe we need to explain. "no deity" as a refutation of the literal truth of the Bible is very logical. However, don't throw out the baby with the bath water - there is something magical about being alive, and cause to be "spiritual".
Keep It Simple (Score:4, Insightful)
The Catholics need not confront alien life issues at all. The idea that God's truth had to be delivered to the population of this world in such a way that they could understand and make use of it is sufficient. Can any of us imagine a Holy book being delivered two thousand years ago that babbled about relativity, the Higg"s Boson or multi dimensional universes?
We can trust that the message has been delivered to others in a format that they can both understand and make use of.
Re:Of course, there is another solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh well. (Mods self -1, Redundant.)
Re:So can science define existence? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, science, scientific method, certainly aims to determine that something has happened (or haven't). That something was present...or wasn't. Yes, "as far as we can tell", but determination of existence is at the heart of experimentation. it has very specific standards.
Religions...don't give you anything above blank state. For starters, which dogmas should you follow? Surely "my parents followed it" isn't ANY indicator of corectness of this one particular myth, right?
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:AHEM... (Score:2, Insightful)
If you do as little as attend a few Sunday School classes, you will quickly find out that God making man in his own image means that he made him ORIGNALLY perfect and holy.
Yes, because there is no chance that the modern Sunday School interpretation could be the wrong one.
Re:Of course, there is another solution (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm not stating "science knows everything". I'm stating that, if it's in the realm of existence, it is in the realm of science. If it exists, something of it *can* (though not necessarily "will") ultimately be understood, if not directly measured.
Re:Is it just me (Score:3, Insightful)
And if near instantaneous travel is discovered? Technology in 2000 years will be unrecognizable to us. I wouldn't make that bet. Also, maybe we've been visited but we weren't interesting or habitable for visitors. Assume visitors would only be interested if we have technology. Human technology of any value we appreciate has only been in existence for a very narrow slice of time--several thousand years. Not much on the galactic scales.
Lastly, how do you know we're not visited and studied now under a Prime Directive rule?
Re:So can science define existence? (Score:5, Insightful)
'Cause that would seem to be an important preliminary to your definition of science?
The problem: existence is the thing that *everything that *exists has in common, and scientific articulation of its meaning would require a comparison between the things that do and don't exist. Which comparison it cannot make, because as you rightly point out scientific inquiry cannot be made into non-existent things.
btw the 'which' in "things which don't exist" is a funny word misusage in this context -- do you see why?
That's just silly. A 3,000 meter tall solid gold badger watching over Madison Wisconsin doesn't exist. We can easily compare it to a small ceramic badger from the University of Wisconsin gift shop that in fact does exist. Now, there is no logical reason that the giant golden badger cannot exist, it just doesn't. However, a square with only 3 sides does not exist anywhere in the universe, because it is logically impossible for such a thing to exist. It is easy to compare this with an equilateral triangle which in fact might exist, or one that does exist.
This is related to the history of argument about the existence of God. Thomas Aquinas made a similar distinction between things which exist and things which don't exist, things which cannot exist and things which just happen not to exist. In this ontological argument he attempts to prove that God logically must exist.
Re:Catholics are quite clever (Score:1, Insightful)
Catholic Catechism is quite internally consistent.
Well, you make shit up as you go along...of course it all fits when you can just dream up something else & call it 'church fact'
Re:Of course, there is another solution (Score:5, Insightful)
It's rather trivial to "prove" any random claim when you don't have to bother with the same rigorous criteria for what constitutes valid proof.
Thus, religions appear to have lots of "answers" that science doesn't have. Of course, unlike science, no one - even within the same religion - can come to agreement about the details of those answers, just that they're there.
Re:Is it just me (Score:3, Insightful)
And if near instantaneous travel is discovered?
Given that *any* manifestation of the technology to do that would require harnessing massively amazingly awesome amounts of energy, if by some miracle it is discovered, I'm pretty sure it will be used to vaporize every creature on this rock before we go to an alien planet and GPs assertion holds on us going to Wwerqwdsrf.
OTOH, I'm pretty sure we were visited. Once. Those guys went back and made sure everyone in all nearby galaxies knows that we're the Alabama of the quadrant. Now they just watch us from behind Mars and giggle.
Re:So can science define existence? (Score:4, Insightful)
To be precise, a square with 3 sides does not exist, because we have DEFINED a square to have 4 sides. But a square itself doesn't exist either. You don't walk down the street or through the park and say "look, a square". A square is a pure mathematical ideal, and exists as such only in our heads.
Re:Of course, there is another solution (Score:5, Insightful)
I did find it interesting in the summary that the Catholic priest was positing multiple creations on multiple earths, while the theoretical physicist was insisting that was heresy to Catholics. I think I'll trust the priest on what's heresy and what's not to Catholics.
While people like to bag on the Catholic church for its persecution of scientists hundreds of years ago, in its acceptance of evolution, and williningness to cnoser things like the role of alien life, it's actually among the most progressive religion around in the realm of the sciences. Unfortuntaley, that typically doesn't fit in with critics' political world-view, so it's conveniently ignored.
Re:Of course, there is another solution (Score:5, Insightful)
You're implying that life, itself, is not entirely meaningless. It could very well be a meaningless computation. I propose that life itself is, in fact, 100% devoid of any inherit worth.
Now, hold on, put down your pitchfork and torches. I'm not advocating hedonism or "killing people 'cause their lives aren't worth anything." I said "inherit" worth. We, as a species, can attribute meaning into things. I wouldn't say "being alive is magical," as you would put it. Rather, I would say that we don't know what it's like to be anything other than alive. Thus, we can use the time we have to apply meaning of our own. Do what makes you happy, to a reasonable extent. Expand your mind. So what if your dream of constructing the largest scale model of The Taj Mahal using gum drops seems like a waste of time to someone else?
My basic point is, people search for meaning in life. That's why we have religion. We want to be given a purpose, a reason to get up in the morning instead of just putting a gun in our mouths and ending it. But "meaning" is a totally human created concept. As such, it cannot be found, only made. Thus, I feel any attempt to "find" meaning through spirituality is merely a false hope. People take it as the shortest route, but never truly arrive.
Re:Of course, there is another solution (Score:4, Insightful)
All these years later, we know so much about science and technology, but nothing about that feeling of being alive.
But what does it mean to feel alive? Is it our sense of self within our bodies, our emotions, our abilities to know how we fit into the world around us, our intelligence, our memories?
Whatever you choose, somewhere in the world there are people who do not have that attribute due to some disorder or injury. There are people who feel that their bodies (or parts of their bodies) do not belong to them. There are people who cannot feel emotions, or cannot connect with the rest of the world. Pick up any Oliver Sacks [oliversacks.com] book and you will find the stories a lots of people who lack some aspect of the "feeling of being alive".
These people are valuable to scientists, because by seeing how they are different to the rest of us they can understand what makes us who we are. Over the years, these scientists have created drugs to change our emotions and alter our perceptions & desires. They have studied how memories are formed and have even artificially created memories in animal brains.
I think that it is fair to say that science has made great advances in discovering what makes up human. They don't just sit back, scratch their heads and say that it is too hard for them.
You might say that all this takes the joy and magic out of life, but I say just sit back and enjoy the chemical reactions!
First cause (Score:4, Insightful)
To paraphrase your argument: "Everything must have a cause except the thing that doesn't need a cause."
1) Why are you satisfied by calling the uncaused cause God? Why can't you define the Universe to include the uncaused cause and accept that not all effects have identifiable causes?
2) If you do decide to call the uncaused cause God, how do you jump from that to believing that God cares about you and listens to your prayers? Wouldn't that be like the flames of a forest fire praying to the lightning bolt that started the fire? Is the lightning bolt watching over His creation and deciding which flames get a happy afterlife?
3) Mathematically, you can have a function with periodic boundaries that depends only on itself without a beginning or end. If the Universe is mathematical and time is a characteristic of the Universe (not a supernatural clock existing outside the Universe), then the Universe could exist in a self-consistent state without any need for a beginning. Time is an illusion experienced by hunks of matter present within the Universe. The Universe, including all of time and all possible states, simply exists.
4) If you argue that what I have just describe as the Universe is actually God, then we need to have a long discussion about Baptism, Communion, Marriage, Sin, Heaven, and Hell.
Re:Of course, there is another solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Early humans could feel their "aliveness" or "conscience" even before they could imagine math or science. They naturally assumed the simplest possible solution: some God who looks like them gave them a soul, which gives them this feeling of being alive. All these years later, we know so much about science and technology, but nothing about that feeling of being alive. It's there, and unexplained in any way so far. Without it, our lives would be simply meaningless computation. There's still some magic in the universe we need to explain. "no deity" as a refutation of the literal truth of the Bible is very logical. However, don't throw out the baby with the bath water - there is something magical about being alive, and cause to be "spiritual".
The "feeling of being alive" is just an illusion that simply arises out of enough meaningless computation.
Sure we don't fully understand the workings of the brain yet, but historically every time the workings of something is declared to be "magical" it is later found to have a mundane, rational explanation. Such as: The movements of the Sun and the Moon, contagious illnesses, the tides, the seasons, and on and on.
Consciousness is a product of our brains, and our brains operate within the laws of physics, there is no "magic" only "feelings of magic". Some people "feel Jesus", a few "feel Satan", others probably "feel Zeus", sometimes you have to ignore what you feel.
Re:Spread the word! (Score:1, Insightful)
"what are the ramifications if there are nonhuman beings who experience conscience and guilt?" is a fascinating question
Why is guilt so fascinating to you papists?
Also, why is this fascinating? Is it fascinating because you'll have to spend decades performing another set of mental gymnastics to try and fit your holy scripture around reality? Again?
Can we drop the old-time superstitions yet? Please?
Re:Of course, there is another solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether or not I believe in invisible sky daddies, flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns, or whatever, has zero affect on what does and does not happen within the realm of reality. What I believe may influence how I interact with that reality, but that is not the same thing as directly affecting that reality.
Re:Of course, there is another solution (Score:1, Insightful)
Not sure why imaginging God would be the simplest answer to Mankind's questions about themselves. It actually seems sort of like an idiotic idea. "Huh, I'm alive. Clearly an invisible omnipotent creator made me, even though I've seen no other evidence." In my opinion, the "god is a simple answer for primitive people" stance is a straw man.
I did find it interesting in the summary that the Catholic priest was positing multiple creations on multiple earths, while the theoretical physicist was insisting that was heresy to Catholics. I think I'll trust the priest on what's heresy and what's not to Catholics.
While people like to bag on the Catholic church for its persecution of scientists hundreds of years ago, in its acceptance of evolution, and williningness to cnoser things like the role of alien life, it's actually among the most progressive religion around in the realm of the sciences. Unfortuntaley, that typically doesn't fit in with critics' political world-view, so it's conveniently ignored.
It's conveniently ignored because these people believe in talking snakes, burning bushes, people being created from ribs, and unicorns. They do have to get recognition for trying to reconcile their myths with reality in recent years, but for me, when they just decide to pick and choose to ignore the rest of the myths is when I'll consider them to be worthy of taking seriously.
Re:Of course, there is another solution (Score:3, Insightful)
...However, it is the person who makes the claim that should prove it....
Jesus Christ did prove it by rising from the dead and accurately predicting the future.
Proof please? (And not anything based on a fairytale book from 2000 years ago).
Elvis Presley was seen many times after his death too, but that is no proof he did not die.
Tell me again why... (Score:2, Insightful)
. . .this is modded insightful when it's clearly flamebait. You may have a valid point, but calling Catholics stupid clowns is far from a logical argument and does nothing to support your conclusion that they shouldn't be tax exempt. Typical Dawkins thinking: logic only matters when dealing with science. Science was an unknown concept (it's a method of discovering knowledge, btw, not a book of answers) to Aristotle yet he considered many philosophical questions utilizing logic. Science likewise employs logic, it's dependent on it, but logic is in no way dependent on science. So regardless of how well formed you may believe your argument to be, "they're stupid clowns" is an ad hominem fallacy. I love how up-modded comments on Slashdot tend to be logical and are called out for their fallacies, but it pisses me off how this standard never seems to apply to religion. If I said Linux was crap because Linus Torvalds is a stupid weird clown everyone would be up in arms, the comment would be buried. But apply that same fallacious logic to the pope and it's insightful.
Re:Two words: Giordano Bruno (Score:3, Insightful)
A march against reason is a march against science. And, wow, you must not be reading the same Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] as I am. It is very clear that the church was the murderer, and after seven years of holding him captive and threatening him, they then used the state as the gun.
Fuck the church. It should be destroyed like it destroyed so many countless innocents.
Re:You know what this means! (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not as ridiculous as you think because if you're an intelligent alien life form and you want to eventually reveal yourself publicly to the world, who would you want to contact first? Besides political leaders and military leaders, it has to be the highest religious authorities because such a revelation would cause a gigantic shock in the belief system of the locals living on that planet. As such, I would not be surprised if the extraterrestrials may have been quietly communicating with the likes of the Pope, the Archbishop of Cantebury (who heads the Anglican Church), the major imans and mullahs in the two major sects of Islam, the Patriarch of Moscow (who leads the Russian Orthodox Church), the Dalai Lama, and so on.
Re:AHEM... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Of course, there is another solution (Score:2, Insightful)
As God is said to be a supernatural and transcendent being, it follows that no science can ever tell us anything about either his existence or non-existence.
Yet God is also said to interact with the natural world, and as such, there should be solid evidence for his existence. The fact that there isn't suggests that either he doesn't interact with the natural world (the Deist position), or that he doesn't exist. Between those two positions, Occam's Razor tends to reject Deism.
there is no scientific proof nor disproof of God's existence
Correct, because there is no scientific proof nor disproof of anything. There can, however, be evidence for and against a claim.
For example, if you claim that God answers prayers, there have been scientific studies done which show that prayer has no measurable effect. Now again, it's possible these studies were incomplete, and that a future study will show a very definite effect, but given the current evidence, the sane default position is that prayer has no effect.
And again: If science were to show that prayer had an effect, that wouldn't be "proof" of an omniscient, omnipotent, transcendent being. It would, however, be evidence to suggest that there is something which answers prayers, and it would be more evidence than exists to date for a god's existence.
Re:Of course, there is another solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. E=MC^2 is simple to deduce; read Einstein's Theory of Relativity, downloadable from Project Gutenberg. Special theory talks about dropping a ball from a moving train; general (the E=MC^2 one) talks about a man in a closed box with a string on the outside, and something pulling the string, and the forces the man experiences. The rest is just math, and fairly simple math at that.
Recent history (Abraham Lincoln) is documented in photographs, paintings, and newspapers.
More distant history is of course more difficult to ascertain. But saying that "religion relies on the same evidence as science" is ridiculous on the face of it. Thanks for playing.
(Hint: religion is not falsifiable; science is. What this means: science can say "here is something I want to disprove using what I've already learned; and here is an experiment that should disprove it, depending on the outcome of the experiment." Religion has no such utility; religion is always "close your mind to the abject reality around you, and substitute this one with a sky fairy where most people burn for eternity upon their death.")
Re:Of course, there is another solution (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet we continually believe the "questionable testimonies" of people for almost all of our other knowledge.
No we don't. Where did you get that idea?
How do you know E=MC^2? Did you figure it out yourself, or did someone in authority tell you it was true?
When you study physics, you're taught both how theories have been developed and how you can test them for yourself. Thus you can eventually, when you get far enough in your studies, both understand E=MC^2 and experiment yourself to see how the theory fits observations in reality.
How do we know Abraham Lincoln was a president of the US? Did you see him become president? Or did you rely on the authority of some written documents to tell you that he was? How do we know Julius Caesar was an emperor of Rome? Where you there or are you relying on documents the earliest of which come from around 1000AD?
Historical documents are studied and those doing so look for contradictions and try to establish the truth. If I was really interested in history, I could do that myself but most people are content relying on historians, if their conclusions are consistent and contradictions absent, it is likely that what they state is true. Maybe not with absolute certainty but with much higher certainty than anything claimed in religion.
How do you know that person A murdered person B even though you haven't found the murder weapon? Is it because you performed some scientific test to determine it or is it because the bag lady across the street and said she saw him enter the apartment just before it happened and the neighbor said he saw him leave with a bloody knife?
Forensic science and testimonies constitute the process of trying to convince a jury of a certain chain of events having taken place. An explanation of what the methods show is of course also part of the trial. Some absolute certainty about what actually happened might not be within reach, which is why a guilty verdict only requires proof "beyond reasonable doubt".
Religion has all the evidence that everything else we rely on has.
No, that's precisely what religion doesn't have. Religion is based on accounts and documents that believers don't permit you to question. In science, questioning theories is precisely what is welcomed since it might lead to either better verification of the existing theories or new, better theories.
You simply make the assumption that religion is false and then you are able to deny the testimony of witnesses (by calling them suspect) simply because of your assumption.
Scientifically-minded people don't make that assumption directly. They only hold religion accountable to the same degree as any other proof of anything and religion fails to reach that level. Furthermore, when evidence that can be held accountable to that higher degree contradicts religious claims, it proves that at least those contradicting parts are false. The best example is probably the age of the earth. The process of carbon dating can be replicated over and over again so that anybody that doubts it, can verify how it works for themselves. The results carbon dating yields contradict religious accounts to such extent that it proves certain religious claims wrong. Inevitably, it might also lead people to doubt other claims made in religion.
Remove that assumption and the stories suddenly corroborate much more than is comfortable.
By "remove that assumption" you mean that proof in religion should be held to a lower standard than anywhere else and I'm quite curious to know why. Your logic is circular: "you're not allowed to question whether it is true since it is true".
Re:Of course, there is another solution (Score:3, Insightful)
When I tell a scientist that E=MC^2 is wrong and I prove it using the same standards for proof used for forming his original opinion, he will believe me, hail me, and probably proclaim me to be the greatest scientist ever.
When I tell a religious person that his god does not exist and that actually I am God and I prove it using the same standards for proof used for forming his original opinion (ie. someone told him) I will be laughed at. If I am lucky. In some parts of the world it is questionable if I would survive.
That discrepancy is why religious testimonies are to be qualified as 'questionable'. They usually come from people who have a very high discrepancy in the level of proof they offer with their testimony compared to the level of proof they require in order to change their opinion.
Religion makes no falsifiable claims (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you know E=MC^2? Did you figure it out yourself, or did someone in authority tell you it was true?
I did calculate it myself when I was a sophomore in college. The mathematics of it actually aren't all that hard.
How do we know Abraham Lincoln was a president of the US? Did you see him become president? Or did you rely on the authority of some written documents to tell you that he was?
As evidence we have written history, photographic evidence, copious reliable documentation, archaeological evidence, birth records, and much more - most of which is available for you to peruse yourself. There is even DNA evidence from known descendants. Furthermore there is not a single claim to a supernatural act in any of the above and I can tell you exactly what evidence would be needed to disprove the claim that he was President.
How do we know Julius Caesar was an emperor of Rome? Where you there or are you relying on documents the earliest of which come from around 1000AD?
See the above, minus the photographs and with fewer surviving records and other bits of evidence. Again, no supernatural claims exist with regard to the existence and historical record of Julius Caesar and I can tell you exactly what it would take to convince me that he was not actually the emperor of Rome.
How do you know that person A murdered person B even though you haven't found the murder weapon? Is it because you performed some scientific test to determine it or is it because the bag lady across the street and said she saw him enter the apartment just before it happened and the neighbor said he saw him leave with a bloody knife?
It depends on the nature of the evidence. If the "bag lady" also claims to have seen a ghost rising to heaven or some other supernatural act, her credibility is rightly going to be suspect. Witnesses alone are rarely enough to convict someone of a capital crime.
Religion has all the evidence that everything else we rely on has.
WRONG. Religion makes no falsifiable claims. There is no way I can disprove the assertion that Jesus Christ was the son of "God". I can accept the assertion or not but I can not disprove it. Science and history actually do make falsifiable claims. I can find evidence to disprove a theory or a historical narrative. It might not be easy to do so but it is possible and I can tell you exactly what evidence I would need to disprove a scientific or historical theory. The worst abuses of religon come when historical fact is conflated with religious dogma. Much of the evidence from 2000 years ago is of course lost so it makes it easier for the charlatans who sell religion to dupe the unscrupulous and naive.
Re:Of course, there is another solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Of course, there is another solution (Score:2, Insightful)
"Appeal to the masses" is a fruitless line of inquiry. You should be embarrassed for bringing it up. It does not matter one iota what "most of us rely on". That only speaks to the laziness of "most of us" (I, for one, try to read the sources involved where applicable. I don't just take things at face value).
The fact of the matter is that it is not whether or not an individual knows about a topic that validates it. What validates it is its capacity to be verified or falisified. Religion utterly, painfully fails here. It is capable only of making interpreted assertions based on a 2000+ year old fairy tale. Even tales of Ceasar have multiple records for varied individual with corresponding archaelogical evidence that agrees with this. Religion cannot do this.
So far as E = mc^2, read the 1905 paper by Einstein. It's fairly short and a pretty easy read (it is actually a supplement to his main paper of "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"). It has two testable assumptions (c = 299792458 m/s for all individuals and physics acts the same for all individuals), and the rest falls out of nothing but those assumptions.
Re:Of course, there is another solution (Score:2, Insightful)
Um. No.
Or, (slightly) more eloquently:
This is wrong or misleading on a few levels.
To date, there has been no evidence to suggest that there is anything that is fundamentally excluded from a rational, evidence-based theoretical construct. The truly ridiculous thing is to ever act on "miracles", because there is no such thing, and there is no evidence to suggest there ever has been.
The idea that religion is valuable is also questionable. Lack of religion promotes value in life, society, and your fellow human beings because this is all you have. On a not-so-practical level, it's also more honest — you're not being nice to play to a deity's favor, you're doing it to operate well in society and treat your fellow humans well. You never see humanists/atheists glorifying death, because, well, such an idea is perverse if life is all there is to things.
Calling this a "belief", "religion", or "faith" is like saying "I don't watch baseball" is my favorite baseball team to win the World Series.
Things like your chatter about people being woken up after being clinically dead? Well, there's a reason that qualifier is there. They quite obviously were not dead. When someone has been dead for three days, is cold, succumbing to rigor mortis, decomposing, and dessicating, then wakes up -- give me a call. If you actually believe that can happen, well, I lost this discussion before I started.
Apologies if the discussion is disconnected/rambly. I went up and down editing what I said a few times, so it makes sense in my head. Maybe not so much on-screen.
belief in god is self-emergent phenomenon (Score:3, Insightful)
take 500 random humans, put them on a desert island in isolation, and in a couple of dozen generations they will have an advanced religious mythology, definitely involving demigods if not a monotheism (and a couple of nonbelievers for good measure)
repeat this experiment, and you will get a different religious mythology, but you will still have a religious mythology
if you had a magic wand, and you waved it, and christianity, islam, judaism, hinduism, sikhism, etc. were magically stamped out, new religions would spring into being overnight to fill the void. and it is a void: there is a place in every human society that religion inhabits. there's no doing away with it. ever
in other words, i don't believe in god, but i believe that belief in god is inescapable in the part of a large part of society
so you need to make peace with belief in god. not because god is real, but because no matter what you do, a lot of people will believe in it, and you can't ever change that, its inevitable
Re:WTF? Of course it affects reality. (Score:2, Insightful)
To date, I don't believe anyone has come up with an answer to that, although you could easily come up with numerous answers to the opposite: unethical or immoral that could only come from having belief in a deity. History is rife with examples.
Re:Of course, there is another solution (Score:3, Insightful)
When you watch a magician performing pulling a rabbit out of his hat or sawing a girl in half, do you first assume that he's really doing magic? Why not? Of course not, you assume that it's a trick. Why? Because you know that rabbits don't appear out of thin air and girls die if you really saw them in half.
And you are still dodging the question. How many times has a court ever been convinced of a supernatural explanation for a crime or whatever? What if I claimed that I had been resurrected after 3 days of death, and all my friends testified to it. Would you believe me? Would you worship me as the returned savior if I said I was? Why not?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "Because they said so" doesn't really meet that definition, at least not for me. Christopher Hitchens also has a nice saying: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Maybe specifically it DID happen to Jesus, but without some better evidence than "they said so", at least I won't be convinced. If you say that it all comes down to having faith, then I'm sorry but I just don't have any respect for that viewpoint.