The end of god?
Crapaud
Posts: 2,483
The End of God?: A Horizon Guide to Science and Religion BBC4 tonight. Could be interesting
I wonder if they'll touch on the rise of the fruitloops?BBC 4 wrote:As the Pope ends his visit to Britain, historian Dr Thomas Dixon delves into the BBC's archive to explore the troubled relationship between religion and science. From the creationists of America to the physicists of the Large Hadron Collider, he traces the expansion of scientific knowledge and asks whether there is still room for God in the modern world.
A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject - Churchill
0
Comments
-
hahahah!
that woman is barking- perhaps her dna has been mixed with dog dna
'dont forget lads, one evertonian is worth twenty kopites'0 -
The worrying thing is that she's just won something political in the States and is endorsed by Sarah Palin. Totally barking!A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject - Churchill0
-
The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.0 -
fast as fupp wrote:hahahah!
that woman is barking- perhaps her dna has been mixed with dog dna
Her belief in mice with human brains seems pretty reasonable when you think about it...after all, we've just heard a human with mouse brains, haven't we?0 -
Quote "and explains how some of our most famous scientists have seen God in the grandest laws of the universe" (presumably yhe book of nature).
I hope he does actually do that.
If at any point he suggests that the majority of 1st-18th century "scientists" weren't driven by a belief in the/a God he's downright lying.
See especially Newton, Giordano Bruno, Paracelsus, Descartes.
As an historian I don't have much time for a 1 hour program that attempts to cover the "History of science".
You just can't cover the subject matter in any meaningful way. The constricted time means you can only look at 4 or 5 key events max (over 500 years...), and the ones that you choose to look at will significantly alter the message that you are trying to portray.
Imagine looking at the 20th century based on 1 event. World war 2 maybe? But quite a lot happened before/after that, and without the context its completely meaningless.
You could say it was a war of liberation, national self interest, American imperialist aggression perhaps?
Then extrapolate that for the century as a whole, it's bollox.
Rant over."I hold it true, what'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost;
Than never to have loved at all."
Alfred Tennyson0 -
As God never existed, how can there be an 'end of god' ?Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0 -
nolf wrote:As an historian...
.
Nolf - as something I have grappled myself with for many years, it's ultimately "a" historian, rather than an.
H is a consonant, and ultimately, that decides the an or a rule.
When I was doing my history degree I had to avoid all history TV for fear of exploding. Handy for uses of history courses mind...0 -
MattC59 wrote:As God never existed, how can there be an 'end of god' ?
Fair point - either God exists, and by definition cannot end, or God doesn't exist, and by definition cannot end.
As for whether or not God exists, your belief comes down to faith. Either way.Bike lover and part-time cyclist.0 -
End of the concept/idea/belief in? aside from that I agree.MattC59 wrote:As God never existed, how can there be an 'end of god' ?
The prog wasn't anything I haven't heard before. Distinctly on the pro-science side. The briefness of the prog really highlighted that 'intelligent design' is a made-up idea after the courts ruled that creationism shouldn't be promoted in the classroom.in th US.A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject - Churchill0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:nolf wrote:As an historian...
.
Nolf - as something I have grappled myself with for many years, it's ultimately "a" historian, rather than an.
H is a consonant, and ultimately, that decides the an or a rule.
Never met a cockney? 0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:When I was doing my history degree I had to avoid all history TV for fear of exploding. Handy for uses of history courses mind...
I found a fantastic Reader's Digest video on Ancient Athens once.
"The Greeks liked having parties, and at many of these parties the star guest would have been Socrates..."
I think my reaction could be summed up as follows: :shock: :?
:roll: :x :evil:
Needless to say I watched it for about 2 minutes.0 -
-
-
The only problem is that the "social phenomenon" of God is still alive and kicking, and not just amongst nutjobs in America. There are probably more people on this planet that believe in God than don't, and to dismiss them as ignorant or simply behind the times is beyond arrogance.Bike lover and part-time cyclist.0
-
All religious zealots out there may have belief in 'their' god, but do not have faith. The concept of god involves a being that is all knowing and all powerful, omnipotent in a word. If that was so, god could stand up for itself and not rely on zealots going to war in the name of god.To err is human, but to make a real balls up takes a super computer.0
-
AidanR wrote:As for whether or not God exists, your belief comes down to faith. Either way.
I take it you've never come across the various obvious rebuttals to that statement along the lines of:
"If having no religious beliefs is a faith, then not playing football is a sport."
"If having no religious beliefs is a faith, then bald is a hair colour."
Basically, it's that atheists do not believe there is a god rather than atheists believe there is no god.Never be tempted to race against a Barclays Cycle Hire bike. If you do, there are only two outcomes. Of these, by far the better is that you now have the scalp of a Boris Bike.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:nolf wrote:As an historian...
.
Nolf - as something I have grappled myself with for many years, it's ultimately "a" historian, rather than an.
H is a consonant, and ultimately, that decides the an or a rule.
When I was doing my history degree I had to avoid all history TV for fear of exploding. Handy for uses of history courses mind...
+1 On avoiding history tv.
An/A: Most historians I know say "an historian". Just because it starts with a consonant is irrelevant, as you say "an hour", not "a hour".
In general it depends on your pronunciation of "historian", personally I say "hiss-tore-ian", and it just sounds better with an "an" at the front."I hold it true, what'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost;
Than never to have loved at all."
Alfred Tennyson0 -
Perhaps I'm missing the subtlety of your point, but there's belief either way. There's no God either way.
Philosophical views are based on a set of assumptions, whether they be for or against the existence of a deity. That is where faith comes in. You can wholeheartedly believe in the validity of the scientific method, as I do, but that is separate from a belief that God does or doesn't exist. That belief is not provable nor disprovable, and thus falls outside of the realm of scientific reason by definition. If you believe there's a God, then that's faith; if you believe there is no God, that's faith; if you do not believe there's no God, that's faith; if you do not know, then you haven't reached a conclusion so can't fully engage in the debate.Bike lover and part-time cyclist.0 -
AidanR wrote:MattC59 wrote:As God never existed, how can there be an 'end of god' ?
Fair point - either God exists, and by definition cannot end, or God doesn't exist, and by definition cannot end.
As for whether or not God exists, your belief comes down to faith. Either way.
+1
If God really is powerful, omnipotent, and eternal then surely it's impossible for us mere humans to 'prove' or 'disprove' God through some little lab experiment or other.
The main reason humans attempt to disprove God is because mankind is arrogant beyond belief and thinks himself as god.
Apparently 'we' invented science, and science will ultimately prove God doesn't exist.
Ignoring the fact that if God created the universe and everything in it, then He also created all the stuff we've labelled 'science'. Durrrrr.
Why is evolution taught as fact and not as the theory that it still actually is?
Because it's a neat little way of removing God from the equation.
Ultimately, you can't prove or argue the existence of God - it comes down to faith.
Whether you choose to believe in God, or not to believe in God, is a personal choice.
I believe He exists.
Perhaps you don't.
Through personal experience through my faith I am convinced He exists.
I hope you'll be able to say the same some day.0 -
shm_uk wrote:AidanR wrote:MattC59 wrote:As God never existed, how can there be an 'end of god' ?
Fair point - either God exists, and by definition cannot end, or God doesn't exist, and by definition cannot end.
As for whether or not God exists, your belief comes down to faith. Either way.
+1
If God really is powerful, omnipotent, and eternal then surely it's impossible for us mere humans to 'prove' or 'disprove' God through some little lab experiment or other.
The main reason humans attempt to disprove God is because mankind is arrogant beyond belief and thinks himself as god.
Apparently 'we' invented science, and science will ultimately prove God doesn't exist.
Ignoring the fact that if God created the universe and everything in it, then He also created all the stuff we've labelled 'science'. Durrrrr.
Why is evolution taught as fact and not as the theory that it still actually is?
Because it's a neat little way of removing God from the equation.
Ultimately, you can't prove or argue the existence of God - it comes down to faith.
Whether you choose to believe in God, or not to believe in God, is a personal choice.
I believe He exists.
Perhaps you don't.
Through personal experience through my faith I am convinced He exists.
I hope you'll be able to say the same some day.
I think bringing evolution into the argument without being careful is a dangerous thing to do. Evolution is not (or at least should not) be taught as an absolute fact as you are correct, it is a scientific theory, albeit one with a lot of weight behind it. No science should be taught as absolute fact, as that is an affront to the scientific method. This is not mathematics - there's no such thing as a complete proof, and (with apologies to the historians here) history has shown as time and again that what is held as scientific fact in one age is often overturned or at least refined in another. That is one of the great strengths of science - its ability to admit it's wrong when challenged with new information.
God should not come in to the teaching of evolution as it's not part of the subject of science. Equally, it is dangerous to teach evolution as a philosophy. Intelligent design can be taught as a philosophy but it is not science, and should not be taught as such.Bike lover and part-time cyclist.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:When I was doing my history degree I had to avoid all history TV for fear of exploding.
A friend is a History lecturer at the local uni, in the pub last night he said his first lecture this year is "Why Horrible Histories is better historical tv than The Normans", the second lecture is "Please forget everything you saw on The Normans" etc.0 -
nolf wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:nolf wrote:As an historian...
.
Nolf - as something I have grappled myself with for many years, it's ultimately "a" historian, rather than an.
H is a consonant, and ultimately, that decides the an or a rule.
When I was doing my history degree I had to avoid all history TV for fear of exploding. Handy for uses of history courses mind...
+1 On avoiding history tv.
An/A: Most historians I know say "an historian". Just because it starts with a consonant is irrelevant, as you say "an hour", not "a hour".
In general it depends on your pronunciation of "historian", personally I say "hiss-tore-ian", and it just sounds better with an "an" at the front.
If you pronounce the H, it's not "an".
"It was an hiccup" sounds wrong.0 -
shm_uk wrote:Why is evolution taught as fact and not as the theory that it still actually is?
Because it's a neat little way of removing God from the equation.
No, it's taught as theory. And evolution is not a way of removing God from the equation, as it isn't incompatible with God. You can believe in God(s) and accept that evolution is his/her/their way of doing things.
Also, God should never be taught in science lessons, because there is no way of testing.
God = RE lessons. Teach all religions in a neutral way and let the pupils decide.
Evolution, thermodynamics, molecular bonding = science lessons.0 -
johnfinch wrote:shm_uk wrote:Why is evolution taught as fact and not as the theory that it still actually is?
Because it's a neat little way of removing God from the equation.
No, it's taught as theory. And evolution is not a way of removing God from the equation, as it isn't incompatible with God. You can believe in God(s) and accept that evolution is his/her/their way of doing things.
Also, God should never be taught in science lessons, because there is no way of testing.
God = RE lessons. Teach all religions in a neutral way and let the pupils decide.
Evolution, thermodynamics, molecular bonding = science lessons.
Absolutely. Teachers have to point out it's only a theory an there are others, such as creationism etc. Suffice to say, when my teacher gave that particular caveat, it was met with boos.
Religious education is also compulsary and there you learn of the other "mainstream" theories.0 -
Rick and Nolf - why are you against history on TV - is it the idea or the execution you don't like?
And what do you suggest as an alternative way of doing things?
Take me as your core audience - I'm interested in history, but haven't got much time or money to invest in the subject.0 -
AidanR wrote:
Evolution is ... a scientific theory, albeit one with a lot of weight behind it.
I've done a fair bit of reading around the subject over the years, and I've not come across any real 'weight' behind the theory ... nothing that undoubtedly indicates one species evolving into another.
What annoys me most is the attitude in the scientific world that seems to be "evolution happened, all that remains is to prove it" ... hardly an objective stand-point to be starting from ...
If mankind put aside his arrogance and worship of science at the expense of anything else, perhaps we would have a clearer perspective and be more open to other possibilities ...
There are many documented observations from science & nature that can be attributed to the Biblical report of creation, just as much as there's stuff that could suggest evolution ...0 -
johnfinch wrote:Rick and Nolf - why are you against history on TV - is it the idea or the execution you don't like?
And what do you suggest as an alternative way of doing things?
Take me as your core audience - I'm interested in history, but haven't got much time or money to invest in the subject.
It's a bit like reading the paper when you actually know about the story first hand - it's usually wrong.
I don't know about other history courses but mine was very focussed on historical theory which puts conventional one-narrative-led history to bed good and proper.
They brush over important details (which often lead to glaring mis-interpretations), focus on the unimportant or even uncessary, and often present theory and conjecture as fact, often without the necessary caveat that it's widely disputed, blah blah.
Msot of the time though they're just flat out wrong.
Edit: Also... I have a particular issue with trying to make it relevant to the average TV veiwer's life (which it often isn't, since it's in the past!!), usually with some grand narrative which is conveniently succint, and as such whoely innacurate, and so general it means little in real terms. They make assumptions which are often wrong and they go unsaid. Indeed, what I learnt from history was that the study helped me challenge the assumptions we make when appraching anything in the first place. The distance of the past helps us to do that. TV does the opposite.0 -
johnfinch wrote:shm_uk wrote:Why is evolution taught as fact and not as the theory that it still actually is?
Because it's a neat little way of removing God from the equation.
No, it's taught as theory. And evolution is not a way of removing God from the equation, as it isn't incompatible with God. You can believe in God(s) and accept that evolution is his/her/their way of doing things.
Evolution is referred to as 'The Theory of Evolution', but from my experience is taught as fact, and is used as the factual basis for stuff (i.e. just watch any of Sir David Attenboroughs superb documentaries - constantly referring to evolution).
My personal belief is that God and Evolution are contrary to each other and therefore incompatible.0 -
shm_uk wrote:johnfinch wrote:shm_uk wrote:Why is evolution taught as fact and not as the theory that it still actually is?
Because it's a neat little way of removing God from the equation.
No, it's taught as theory. And evolution is not a way of removing God from the equation, as it isn't incompatible with God. You can believe in God(s) and accept that evolution is his/her/their way of doing things.
Evolution is referred to as 'The Theory of Evolution', but from my experience is taught as fact, and is used as the factual basis for stuff (i.e. just watch any of Sir David Attenboroughs superb documentaries - constantly referring to evolution).
My personal belief is that God and Evolution are contrary to each other and therefore incompatible.
Just out of interest - why?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:
It's a bit like reading the paper when you actually know about the story first hand - it's usually wrong.
I don't know about other history courses but mine was very focussed on historical theory which puts conventional one-narrative-led history to bed good and proper.
They brush over important details (which often lead to glaring mis-interpretations), focus on the unimportant or even uncessary, and often present theory and conjecture as fact, often without the necessary caveat that it's widely disputed, blah blah.
Msot of the time though they're just flat out wrong.
Edit: Also... I have a particular issue with trying to make it relevant to the average TV veiwer's life (which it often isn't, since it's in the past!!), usually with some grand narrative which is conveniently succint, and as such whoely innacurate, and so general it means little in real terms. They make assumptions which are often wrong and they go unsaid. Indeed, what I learnt from history was that the study helped me challenge the assumptions we make when appraching anything in the first place. The distance of the past helps us to do that. TV does the opposite.
And what do you make of TV as a way of saving first hand sources for study? The People's Century, for example.0
