The end of god?

rick_chasey

Oh yeah, that's a valuable resourch.

Ultimately, the history you encounter at university is extremely highbrow and cutting edge (at least, you hope it is), and as such, has little relevance to the average, non-historian person.

Indeed, it's not for nothing the final paper on my course was "the uses of history", where we cover the issue of TV and popular TV in general.

Stewie Griffin

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

Fowler's Modern English usage says its "a" and not "an", although I have a first edition so it has probably changed :P

finchy

So coming back to my original question, how would you use TV to better effect for educating a wider audience?

finchy

Stewie Griffin wrote:

Fowler's Modern English usage says its "a" and not "an", although I have a first edition so it has probably changed :P

And as you're a Londoner, it's probably more like "I'm an 'istorian, I study 'Itler an' all them uvver dicta'ors."

rick_chasey

johnfinch wrote:

So coming back to my original question, how would you use TV to better effect for educating a wider audience?

I wouldn't I guess.

Any TV prog I'd make would be so dry...

TV is ultimately about entertainment, and for the vast majority of people, what I call 'proper' history just isn't entertaining. No-one would watch it.

Proper history, and the theory that allows you to practice it, is hard work - some of the theories and approaches took very long days and weeks in the library trying to get my head around them, and years to learn how to use them. That doesn't translate to TV.

pastey_boy

early man invented god to explain things he didnt understand. the bible is a story book also written by a man/men. men latched onto the idea that religion could be used/abused to control the masses and amass great wealth (catholic church). ive seen sci fi films that are more believable than the bible, who,s to say that in 2000 years time a religion could be born based on the starwars films with disciples bowing down to the force, it sounds daft but its already happened. when people are born they are not born catholic/muslim/jewish and so on, they have their parents chosen religion thrust upon them so many do not have a choice, it is sneakily placed into everyday life as hyms at school and church visits. if god exists then why cant people find god on their own ?

AidanR

shm_uk wrote:

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 ...

There is far too much arrogance in many forms of human behaviour - there are arrogant scientists, and there are arrogant theists. Ironically both fields, at their best, teach humility. I agree that evolution shouldn't be taught as fact, just as religion shouldn't be taught as fact. As the parallel discussion about history has alluded to, there is a great tendency towards presenting things simplistically and as fact when there is actually a great deal of doubt surrounding them.

Personally I believe in evolution, and don't see it as incompatible with God, even if that means I have to avoid taking certain things literally in the Bible.

AidanR

pastey_boy wrote:

early man invented god to explain things he didnt understand. the bible is a story book also written by a man/men. men latched onto the idea that religion could be used/abused to control the masses and amass great wealth (catholic church). ive seen sci fi films that are more believable than the bible, who,s to say that in 2000 years time a religion could be born based on the starwars films with disciples bowing down to the force, it sounds daft but its already happened. when people are born they are not born catholic/muslim/jewish and so on, they have their parents chosen religion thrust upon them so many do not have a choice, it is sneakily placed into everyday life as hyms at school and church visits. if god exists then why cant people find god on their own ?

That's your opinion, and fair enough. But please don't try and present it as fact!

And for what it's worth, I found God on my own - neither of my parents believe.

pastey_boy

AidanR wrote:

pastey_boy wrote:

early man invented god to explain things he didnt understand. the bible is a story book also written by a man/men. men latched onto the idea that religion could be used/abused to control the masses and amass great wealth (catholic church). ive seen sci fi films that are more believable than the bible, who,s to say that in 2000 years time a religion could be born based on the starwars films with disciples bowing down to the force, it sounds daft but its already happened. when people are born they are not born catholic/muslim/jewish and so on, they have their parents chosen religion thrust upon them so many do not have a choice, it is sneakily placed into everyday life as hyms at school and church visits. if god exists then why cant people find god on their own ?

That's your opinion, and fair enough. But please don't try and present it as fact!

And for what it's worth, I found God on my own - neither of my parents believe.

when i first started school i used to go into assembly every morning and sing hyms and say prayers, i never really questioned it until i hit my teens. if religion is so great why do we as children have it force fed to us ? most people find "god"when they are at a low point and need to way of quantifying whats going on. you dismiss my opinion as non factual but if you read what i have said i would love for you to disprove anything i have written

nolf

Rick Chasey wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

So coming back to my original question, how would you use TV to better effect for educating a wider audience?

I wouldn't I guess.

Any TV prog I'd make would be so dry...

TV is ultimately about entertainment, and for the vast majority of people, what I call 'proper' history just isn't entertaining. No-one would watch it.

Proper history, and the theory that allows you to practice it, is hard work - some of the theories and approaches took very long days and weeks in the library trying to get my head around them, and years to learn how to use them. That doesn't translate to TV.

+1000000000000000000000000

To everything John Finch has said so far, however I do think TV can have a very limited use in the teaching and understanding of history.

Some historical theorists (people who theorise about the study of history), have suggested that one of the key necessities to properly analyse and understand history is empathy. To be able to recognise that the past IS different (another planet essentially), but to be able to put yourself in that position, and see things as they would have.

Imagination is therefore a key skill. This is where TV can help, having a program that attempts to re-create the past and present how people lived, can be a useful aid to the imagination.

Medievallists are infamous for dressing up at weekends, role-playing etc (almost all I know are archers), because it can help place yourself better in the past.

So an an imaginative aid rather than a factual representation.

guinea

AidanR wrote:

I agree that evolution shouldn't be taught as fact, just as religion shouldn't be taught as fact.

Are there any other peer reviewed scientific theories you aslo think shouldn't be taught.

Gravity? E=mc^2?

Elston

Evolution is most certainly not JUST a theory. It may have started out as just a theory, but is now a theory that is supported by an enormous weight of scientific evidence. It also has great predictive and explanatory power, and by virtue of these properties should be taught with greater priority than other less well supported theories. It may be possible to believe in god and in evolution, but the point about evolution is that it does away with the need to invoke a supernatural creator to explain all the complex living things we see around us.

Jez mon

shm_uk wrote:

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 ...

Nope the attitude of the scientific world is since Darwin published the theory, no evidence has been found which disproves it and plenty of scientists who have been persuaded by it and found evidence to support it...

Personally though, I don't feel that (if true) evolution disproves god, maybe the idea of a Christian God who created the world in 6 days though.

Ultimately, perhaps if religion hadn't attempted to stifle scientific progress, we might be driving around in hover cars by now

finchy

Jez mon wrote:

Ultimately, perhaps if religion hadn't attempted to stifle scientific progress, we might be driving around in hover cars by now

Yeah, great, then we cyclists could get decapitated by an idiot in a flying BMW!

tebbit

Ultimately, perhaps if religion hadn't attempted to stifle scientific progress, we might be driving around in hover cars by now


Yeah, great, then we cyclists could get decapitated by an idiot in a flying BMW!

Ah the law of unintended consequences, don't you just love it

When I was in primary school back in the 70s, it was Catholic primary, benediction in latin, regular masses, that sort of school, they wouldn't have dreamed of telling the older children that God created the world in six days back. In the early infant stages yes, but dinosaurs being hundreds of millions of years ago pretty much b*gg*red up a lot of the teaching and dinosaurs were fun. So we did all the religious stuff and they told us about evolution and the priest told us how to calculate the odds on horses and that if you turned the sound on the TV when the football was on, you could listen to horses on the radio, always good when you've a bet on.

AidanR

guinea wrote:

AidanR wrote:

I agree that evolution shouldn't be taught as fact, just as religion shouldn't be taught as fact.

Are there any other peer reviewed scientific theories you aslo think shouldn't be taught.

Gravity? E=mc^2?

You misunderstand me. Evolution should be taught, but as with all science it needs to be presented in the proper manner. Scientific theories should not be presented as immovable facts - science constantly tests its theories and every now and again they get revised, even the big ones.

AidanR

pastey_boy wrote:

AidanR wrote:

pastey_boy wrote:

early man invented god to explain things he didnt understand. the bible is a story book also written by a man/men. men latched onto the idea that religion could be used/abused to control the masses and amass great wealth (catholic church). ive seen sci fi films that are more believable than the bible, who,s to say that in 2000 years time a religion could be born based on the starwars films with disciples bowing down to the force, it sounds daft but its already happened. when people are born they are not born catholic/muslim/jewish and so on, they have their parents chosen religion thrust upon them so many do not have a choice, it is sneakily placed into everyday life as hyms at school and church visits. if god exists then why cant people find god on their own ?

That's your opinion, and fair enough. But please don't try and present it as fact!

And for what it's worth, I found God on my own - neither of my parents believe.

when i first started school i used to go into assembly every morning and sing hyms and say prayers, i never really questioned it until i hit my teens. if religion is so great why do we as children have it force fed to us ? most people find "god"when they are at a low point and need to way of quantifying whats going on. you dismiss my opinion as non factual but if you read what i have said i would love for you to disprove anything i have written

Can I disprove what you've said? Well, I can disagree with it, but parts I don't have the knowledge to argue against and parts of it aren't disprovable by their nature. Parts I even agree with to an extent - there has been a history of the Church wielding political power which I am uncomfortable with.

I don't see singing as hymns and saying prayers as force-feeding religion to kids. If you believe something is true and good, it's only natural that you'll want your kids to believe it too. The fact is you *did* question it, and you considered it, and you rejected it. That's fair enough. OK, maybe it wasn't until you're a teenager, but then you probably didn't have the necessary skills to do that kind of questioning until then. Ultimately you were free to choose. I imagine that you won't bring up your kids with any religion whatsoever. I imagine you will instill many of your beliefs in them, deliberately or not. And perhaps one day they will reject them in the same way you rejected your parents' views.

attica

shm_uk wrote:

The main reason humans attempt to disprove God is because mankind is arrogant beyond belief and thinks himself as god.

Strange I rather remember the late Great Douglas Adams postulating that we are somewhat arrogant to think that this world/solar system/universe was made specifically for us.

Douglas Adams wrote:

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for

father_jack

I don't see singing as hymns and saying prayers as force-feeding religion to kids.

I do, and of course it is. All little things to make people believe. I think if you surround yourself with everything to do with religion, you almost make yourself believe that it exists. Kinda making yourself delusional, without knowing you're making yourself delusional. If I were to hang around paranoid conspiracy theorists long enough, read enough (true or not) I'd probably become like them too. Imagine handing your children this sort of stuff, you can see it can happen. Also since kids follow parents instintively then the indoctrination of them is more certain. How many kids take up football because their dad is into it? (and the same team also) The kids then go to school, and hyms are sung, prayers said...kids follow the pack and treacher/priest because don't want to be "different" mate went to Roman Catholic school, mum did also and looking back on it now, see why it's a horrible thing. And of course a certain religion has toddlers being able to recite it even before they can learn other books too.

stigofthedump

I think that the point of this documentary and Steven Hawking's new book is to point out that Physics can explain the structure and development of the universe without the need for a 'creator'. You and I might not be able to access the mathematics of it all, and we might not have the time or inclination to find out, but someone has and this is what they have found, had published and peer reviewed.

As pointed out by others, God is a rather lazy way to help people believe what they cant explain. How does that work? God did it. Easy.

Lastly please don't give us that great fall back of all creationalists."I have looked at lots of stuff and there is no real evidence for evolution". No you haven't and yes there is. Contact Richard Dawkins for further information.

AidanR

Father Jack wrote:

I don't see singing as hymns and saying prayers as force-feeding religion to kids.

I do, and of course it is. All little things to make people believe. I think if you surround yourself with everything to do with religion, you almost make yourself believe that it exists. Kinda making yourself delusional, without knowing you're making yourself delusional. If I were to hang around paranoid conspiracy theorists long enough, read enough (true or not) I'd probably become like them too. Imagine handing your children this sort of stuff, you can see it can happen. Also since kids follow parents instintively then the indoctrination of them is more certain. How many kids take up football because their dad is into it? (and the same team also) The kids then go to school, and hyms are sung, prayers said...kids follow the pack and treacher/priest because don't want to be "different" mate went to Roman Catholic school, mum did also and looking back on it now, see why it's a horrible thing. And of course a certain religion has toddlers being able to recite it even before they can learn other books too.

As you point out, people are (in part) a product of what is around them. Their families' beliefs, their friends' beliefs, their culture. My Dad watched a lot of rugby when I was a kid (and was a pretty decent player in his day), so I was exposed to quite a bit of rugby. Would I say I was force-fed it? No. We've got to be surrounded by *something* - we don't grow up in some sort of neutral vacuum. To single out hymns and prayers as examples of "force-feeding" seems a little unfair.

The most important thing is to teach our kids how to think critically, and for themselves. Good education should teach this - religious education and scientific education.

1footedninja

'God' is a three letter word. What you attach to the 'meaning' of that word is of course, entirely up to yourself & also others in how they 'interpretate' their own meaning. It goes without saying that others also have a habit of 'pushing' their own view of what that word means to them on others. Now go play safely, you crazy cats.

Crapaud

1footedninja wrote:

'God' is a three letter word. What you attach to the 'meaning' of that word is of course, entirely up to yourself & also others in how they 'interpretate' their own meaning. It goes without saying that others also have a habit of 'pushing' their own view of what that word means to them on others. Now go play safely, you crazy cats.

I believe that you are George W Bush and ICM£5.

jc4lab

Find a Gods .Temples And festivals theme included in any tour really facinating..India ,Bali,Cambodia ,Burma etc..Lots of lonesome time on the road make you think about whats the connection

IronHorse100

jc4lab wrote:

Find a Gods .Temples And festivals theme included in any tour really facinating..India ,Bali,Cambodia ,Burma etc..Lots of lonesome time on the road make you think about whats the connection

Que?

the_hundredth_idiot

One of the big misunderstandings (which God-squad types try to make mileage out of) is the meaning of the word "theory". Many people incorrectly assume it means theory in the colloquial sense - the "I've got a theory ..." usage where those words are usually followed by, at best, a hypothesis.

In the scientific sense, "theory" means more of a framework which binds together many facts, explains them and enables predictions to be made. Theory of Evolution, Theory of Gravity, ... . I'm not aware of many people out there trying to claim that gravity is "only a theory", though it has certainly been refined since Newton's days.

So it wasn't that Charles Darwin had a few shandies one night and started spouting off to his mates down the pub, it was that he brought together an awful lot of factual observations and put a framework around it. In the intervening 150 years, this theory has been repeatedly tested and refined. And it works so far, unlike any other such "theories" to explain why life on earth is as it is today. The only way a science class could raise creationism, for example, would be to say that some people believe this but there is no evidence to support it and it can not be considered a scientific theory.

However, you can't prove the Theory of Evolution beyond doubt - it only takes one contradictory observation to disprove it and it is always possible that contradiction could be found. But good luck if you plan on trying - there is nothing identified to date which contradicts evolution, despite what some dishonest "creationists" might try and persuade you. In that respect, evolution is very different from the myriad God/god/gods hypotheses which are impossible to disprove (God of the Gaps, and all that) - something the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Bless His Noodly Goodness) illustrates to great effect.

shm_uk

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

... there is nothing identified to date which contradicts evolution ...

... other than the complete lack of a single fossil or anything that the scientific community conclusively agree shows one species transitioning to another ...


Although this in itself doesn't contradict Evolution.
But it doesn't support it in any way either.

One thing that's always bugged me about evolution is the fossil record: seeing as there are hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of fossils that have been found, and continue to be found, all over the world, surely the laws of probability dictate that by now there would be quite a few examples that demonstrate evolution in process.

But there's none.

So, either this is a case of extraordinary bad luck, or they simply don't exist.

But of course, the latter is never an acceptable consideration is it

rick_chasey

shm_uk wrote:

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

... there is nothing identified to date which contradicts evolution ...

... other than the complete lack of a single fossil or anything that the scientific community conclusively agree shows one species transitioning to another ...


Although this in itself doesn't contradict Evolution.
But it doesn't support it in any way either.

One thing that's always bugged me about evolution is the fossil record: seeing as there are hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of fossils that have been found, and continue to be found, all over the world, surely the laws of probability dictate that by now there would be quite a few examples that demonstrate evolution in process.

But there's none.

So, either this is a case of extraordinary bad luck, or they simply don't exist.

But of course, the latter is never an acceptable consideration is it

As a relative of a very well respected paleontologist, I can confirm you are talking/writing bollocks. They do show evidence of evolution. That's pretty much the entire point of the study of fossils.

shm_uk

stigofthedump wrote:

I think that the point of this documentary and Steven Hawking's new book is to point out that Physics can explain the structure and development of the universe without the need for a 'creator'. You and I might not be able to access the mathematics of it all, and we might not have the time or inclination to find out, but someone has and this is what they have found, had published and peer reviewed.

Of course, if there is a Creator, then by creating the universe & everything in it would mean they also created all the laws, principles etc that we call 'physics' ... therefore science is not an laternative to a Creator, but is just revealing to us the incredible stuff that they created.

Personally, I dion't think there's a need to treat a Creator (God) and Science as two incompatible or conflicting things.

stigofthedump wrote:

As pointed out by others, God is a rather lazy way to help people believe what they cant explain. How does that work? God did it. Easy.

Not really.
I think it takes more to follow something you can't totally understand etc ...

stigofthedump wrote:

Lastly please don't give us that great fall back of all creationalists."I have looked at lots of stuff and there is no real evidence for evolution". No you haven't and yes there is. Contact Richard Dawkins for further information.

There's evidence that suggests evolution might have happened.
There's no evidence that proves evolution happened.

You're not really in a position to assume what people have or have not read, so I'll ignore that part of your comment.

shm_uk

Rick Chasey wrote:

shm_uk wrote:

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

... there is nothing identified to date which contradicts evolution ...

... other than the complete lack of a single fossil or anything that the scientific community conclusively agree shows one species transitioning to another ...


Although this in itself doesn't contradict Evolution.
But it doesn't support it in any way either.

One thing that's always bugged me about evolution is the fossil record: seeing as there are hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of fossils that have been found, and continue to be found, all over the world, surely the laws of probability dictate that by now there would be quite a few examples that demonstrate evolution in process.

But there's none.

So, either this is a case of extraordinary bad luck, or they simply don't exist.

But of course, the latter is never an acceptable consideration is it

As a relative of a very well respected paleontologist, I can confirm you are talking/writing bollocks. They do show evidence of evolution. That's pretty much the entire point of the study of fossils.

I will accept that the fossl record can lead to the suggestion that species evolved. As one possible explanation, evolution is fair enough.

But if there had been conclusive proof that evolution is actually happening then surely there'd be a massive song and dance about it all in the media?