1. Prayer can improve physical health

Comment #43758 by Humble Pie on May 22, 2007 at 1:08 pm

I agree with you, Stephen (and others). This article is dire beyond belief.

"COMMUNICATING with God or other spirits can improve your physical health, Australian researchers suggest." So they exist, then? Thanks for clearing that one up.

"A new report has reviewed controversial scientific evidence that religious or spiritual prayer can boost a believer's emotional and physical wellbeing." Oh, it's reviewed it, has it? Well, goody!

"Mr Jantos and co-author Professor Hosen Kiat, from the University of NSW, said the Bible offered several references to making a sick person well..." Gosh! I never knew that before! "...and Jesus himself was known for his personal practice of prayer and for his miraculous healings." His "personal practice of prayer", eh? Oh, so he went in for that, did he? Well, well. You learn something every day. And he had a line in miraculous healings too? My my! And you tell me he was "known" for this, was he? Well, you are an educator and no mistake.

I mean, my Imaginary Deity! The 74% of Australians who believe in a "higher power" sure know their bible, don't they?

"The researchers warned that while this area was often dismissed as being beyond the reach of science, it should not be underestimated." "Warned"? "Should not be underestimated"? Ah, now I'm beginning to get it. This is just a wind-up, isn't it? One of those "well-actually-I-was-being-sarcastic-but-you-missed-it" gags?

What do you mean, "Well…actually…no"?

2. Goodness without Godliness

Comment #43277 by Humble Pie on May 21, 2007 at 3:39 am

Going back a long way upthread to Reg's post on agnosticism (Post 8), I just love the come-back: "Only a fool would try to sit on an imaginary fence". Brilliant! Deserves to be preserved in amber for all time!

3. Hubble Finds Ring of Dark Matter

Comment #43223 by Humble Pie on May 21, 2007 at 12:19 am

Hi, D'Arcy! Thanks for your clarification. Just one small gripe of my own - not with you, of course, but stimulated by your post.

You say: "Whatever way you look at it, 2 billion or 5 billion years, the mere observation blasts great holes in the Genesis account of creation and the biblical stories which followed". No doubt you're right but, in my view, with or without this "mere observation", we can easily blast great holes in the Genesis account of creation. I'm sometimes troubled by what I can only call the "boys'-book-of-science" reaction to new "discoveries". Scientists get things wrong all the time. It's all part of the trial-and-error of the scientific endeavour. Old theories are demonstrated to have been erroneous in some respect and new theories are offered in their place. Subsequently, these new theories are demonstrated to have been erroneous in some respect, and so the whole exciting but difficult and painstaking process goes on. In the end, all we know is that, at present (and perhaps forever, given the limits of our brains), we know very little. Well, no. That needs correcting too! On the human scale, we know a hell of a lot, thanks to the work of scientists way, way beyond my mental capacity. But on the universal or absolute scale? Very little. Very, very little. But cheer up! One thing you can be absolutely sure of. The Judaeo-Christian god is, was and forever shall be entirely man-made.

4. Hubble Finds Ring of Dark Matter

Comment #43220 by Humble Pie on May 20, 2007 at 11:37 pm

Thanks, Rick. Good of you to take the time to reply. However, I still can't get my (dull) brain round it, I'm afraid. If the cluster is located 5 billion light-years from Earth (give or take!), surely "what we're seeing now" happened 5 billion years ago?

5. Hubble Finds Ring of Dark Matter

Comment #43019 by Humble Pie on May 20, 2007 at 9:30 am

Of course not, Ryan. Why would they? It's entirely your own business and none of ours whatsoever.

6. Hubble Finds Ring of Dark Matter

Comment #43009 by Humble Pie on May 20, 2007 at 9:19 am

This, of course, is awe-inspiring and, as someone else mentioned upthread, humbling. However, forgive me if I'm being dense (quite likely), but isn't there something slightly amiss here? According to the fourth paragraph, this cluster is "located 5 billion light-years from Earth". On the other hand, in paragraph eight, we're told that "Jee found previous research that suggested the cluster had collided with another cluster 1 to 2 billion years ago". If the cluster is located 5 billion light-years from Earth, how can we be looking at the results of something that happened 1 to 2 billion years ago? Not that this affects the central point of the article, of course, but even so…