Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Steve Zara


1001. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170831 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 4:46 am

Comment #170823 by Quetzalcoatl

Of course how an all-loving, perfect being can truly be called such if he allows things such as natural disasters to occur, is a different point, and may be stretching the definitions somewhat.


As far as I can tell, the only justification for believing that God is good is that we are really screwed if he isn't.

1002. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170782 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 1:57 am

Bizarro-

If God's nature is all-loving and He must be consistent with His nature to be defined as God, then any action perpetrated by God is a loving action.


If God's nature is green, and he must be consistent with his nature to be defined as God, then any action perpretrated by God is a green action.

It's all just word-play, innit?

1003. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170774 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 1:47 am

Melissa-

I'm not some made-up person here to strive with you. In fact, I will probably leave this discussion, because I don't think I am doing much good here.


It depends what you mean by "good".

This is a site that tries to promote reason and clear thinking. Why does it do that? Because it is unhealthy to be gullible, and dangerous to be fooled.

How do we try and avoid being fooled? It really isn't that hard. We use the principles of science. Science isn't some cold institutionalised process, it is really pretty simple. It is something like this:

1. Ask for good evidence for what people tell you.
2. Don't trust feelings alone.
3. Discuss things with others.
4. Pick the simplest explanation when you have several alternatives.
5. Rumour isn't fact.
6. Be prepared to give up a belief when a simpler one comes along, and there is evidence for it.

I could go on, but I think you get the message.

Now, put yourself in the place of someone with a scientific approach who had never heard of Jesus, or the Bible. Do you really, deep down, honestly, expect them to believe any of it? I mean, seriously? I am not mocking - this is a serious question. How would they react when you said that "faith" was required? I think they would walk away, thinking you were gullible.

So why aren't you walking away?

1004. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170280 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Comment #170279 by Bonzai

1985

1005. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170278 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 2:44 pm

Steve, do you mind a personal question? How did you end up coding software notwithstanding your preeminent scholarship in biology?


I started coding software first, in my teens, as a hobby. My biological studies have always been associated with software. My Ph.D. has 68000 assembler code as an Appendix.

1006. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170256 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Comment #170232 by MPhil

So far, those papers have not convinced me. Just try replacing "God" with "Kiwi" and see how they sound :)

1007. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170233 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Apart from that, since they all wear figure hugging lycra it is tough to tell them apart.


Indeed.

1008. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170227 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Comment #170224 by Diacanu

Because they assume that their minds are supernatural.

1009. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170221 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Comment #170217 by Kardashovel

Whatever humans can do to this planet, at least within the next century, even total nuclear war, it is not going to be an apocalypse.

1010. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170210 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Comment #170206 by riandouglas

I am warming to Stenger, even though I am not his greatest fan.

1011. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170202 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Comment #170183 by riandouglas

Didn't he respond saying the super intelligent robots destroy enough barryons to take the state of the higgs field to a minimum energy level, therefore reducing the effect of dark energy and causing the universe to collapse?


Yes, yes, he did, OK! Just don't quote Tipler anymore I can't take it

(Knowing Tipler, I would not be surprised if he said that the universe could be closed by sufficient "Barrys")

1012. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170199 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Comment #170187 by Diacanu

Ah, but would that fuzziness in regards to the definitions of time and space compell you to sconsider bowing to it faithfully?


No.

1013. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170172 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 1:06 pm

Comment #170166 by riandouglas

Not sure about you, but a story which requires Jesus converting all of the matter in his body into neutrino's and back again to carry out his appearances to the apostles is a bit of a stretch.


Have you followed discussions with Kardashovel?

1014. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170169 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Comment #170144 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

By "Universe", Dawkins means "everying". He is talking about God as the ultimate first cause.

I really think you are nit-picking to try to limit Dawkins' point to cover just our universe.

1015. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170163 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Comment #170158 by Kardashovel

Neither am I.

1016. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170161 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Comment #170154 by Kardashovel

I suspect you will enjoy it :)

As I understand, it is science stretched to its limits to try and allow for ideas of enternal life. It is pretty ingenious, although suffered a bit of a blow when it was discovered that the universe was open (Tipler's initial formulation required that the universe would collapse).

If you get too carried away about it here, there is a major rebuttal of Tipler's ideas by David Deutsch, that I will use against you :)

1017. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170152 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Comment #170146 by Kardashovel

Don't assume that people aren't already at peace. They may be defending that peace for themselves and others. Irate has demonstrated considerable patience on many occasions.

However, on this occasion, I tend towards the views of Diacanu, and Paula.

1018. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170142 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Comment #170136 by Diacanu

You are basically right, although terms like "cause" and "regress" are difficult to use, because the new created universes would have their own isolated time dimensions.

There is a novel by Gregory Benford which discusses this matter - "Cosm". I can recommend it.

1019. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170137 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 12:37 pm

Comment #170135 by PLAYBALL

It is fun watching someone first reaction to the lifestyle of Bonobos.

1020. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170132 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Comment #170118 by John Desclin

People can go on clinging to the use of the term, but we know that this really isn't necessary, even for comfort; even for religion. There are many, many Buddhists who live happy lives without any concept we would recognise as "god".

So, I would say it is clear that belief in "God" is obsolete both scientifically and psychologically.

1021. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170128 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Comment #170125 by Clive

A serious interest in what existed before the big bang must surely conclude that there is some sort of infinity.


Why?

1022. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170115 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 12:01 pm

Comment #170083 by Cartomancer

Wow.

1023. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170093 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 11:20 am

Comment #170089 by lostpoet

We exist... so that is supposed to be evidence for an "original causal agent".

Theology can be little more than word games that give the illusion of deep truth.

"First cause" probably makes no sense within the Planck Time interval.

1024. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170084 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 10:55 am

Comment #170081 by lostpoet

All the business about god as "necessary beings" required to somehow think the universe into existence.

1025. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170067 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 10:32 am

Comment #170066 by Cartomancer

Men like him can be forgiven for lack of facial hair.

1026. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170064 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 10:27 am

Comment #170058 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

You assuming God is supernatural.


People tell me he is.

What human religions have conceived of God don't have to be supernatural.


Indeed.

An incredible alien could answer prayers create universes etc.


Sure.

Why would this not satisfy you as being a god or gods.


Because people have told me gods are supernatural. If there are things that seem to be gods, but aren't supernatural, then they don't fit the definition.

I'm not going to worship just anyone.

1027. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170054 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 10:13 am

Comment #170052 by Bonzai

I haven't a clue. I am talking about who wants to shag whom.

1028. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170048 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 10:08 am

Supernatural? A power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. An alien could conceivably hear prayers and interfere in our universe. Doesn't have to be supernatural to do the things god is supposed to do.


I would say that supernatural is about a power that does violate or go beyond natural forces.

I consider that pretty hard to demonstrate, if not impossible.

This is why I hold the perhaps controversial view that the existence of gods is impossible to demonstrate. It could always be a really clever alien lying.

1029. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170047 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 10:06 am

I think if you look at Bonobos for clues of homosexuality you will get some very different data than say,from looking at goats and birds.


Generally speaking, if you want to look at how features arose in a species, you look at the more closely related ones. We are most closely related to Bonobos. I would say that it shows!

1030. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170043 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 9:56 am

Comment #170020 by riandouglas

I would say that gods need that extra bit of magic to earn the title: No proven supernatural nature, you don't get to call yourself the big "G".

1031. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170042 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 9:54 am

Comment #170036 by Border Collie

So many of these simplistic questions beg simplistic answers and there aren't any simplistic answers.


I tend to think that there are, and most of the answers are "No":

Do we need gods to explain consciousness: No.
Do we need god as a "necessary being" to explain creation: No.
Do we need god to explain the origin of life: No.
Do we need god to explain how complex life appeared: No.
Do we need god to explain why people feel in contact with god: No.

1032. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170038 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 9:48 am

I am always cautious about attempts to directly apply observations of the animal world to humans. You are assuming procreation must be the goal of dating, what if the ladies just want to have fun?


Heard of Bonobos? Everyone wants to have fun!

1033. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170030 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 9:37 am

Epeeist:

Sorry, the earlier conversation we had here may be put into context by the fact that I only just noticed your PM from two days ago!

1034. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170021 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 9:22 am

Comment #170017 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

I see no difference between Dawkins and Shermer on this matter.

1035. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170016 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 9:14 am

Comment #170013 by riandouglas

According to Terry Pratchett, yes, as there are Small Gods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Gods

1036. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170012 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 9:09 am

Comment #170010 by John Desclin

Why should a belief based on no evidence at all be obsolete or not?


People believe there is evidence:

The requirement for a creator.
The appearance of design.
Conversations with internal voices.

and so on.

As science can probably deal completely with all those cases, what gap does it leave for gods?

My view is that yes, science does make belief in gods obsolete. The reasons why people have believed in gods for millenia have been just about conclusively shown to be mistaken.

Theologists may attempt to push gods into the background, beyond whatever reach science currently has, but I would say that makes belief obsolete.

The term "obsolete" is a good one, as it does not mean the existence of gods has to be conclusively disproved; simply shown to be not reasonable, and not useful in an understanding of the world.

1037. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169998 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 8:40 am

Comment #169994 by riandouglas

You can also have a sexual relationship with a man and keep him as a friend (14 years so far).

Which shows how mistaken the following joke is:

What does a lesbian bring on the second date?
Her cat and a mortgage.

What does a gay man bring on the second date?
Second date - what is that?.

1038. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #169995 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 8:33 am

Comment #169992 by riandouglas

Keeping up is so bad, I am tempted to write a "conversation tracker" application. It would notify in real time if a particular conversation has changed, or keep track of what has changed since last viewing.

If only I had the time...

1039. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #169989 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 8:22 am

Comment #169986 by riandouglas

See - this is an example of why you should not stop posting.

1040. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169982 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 8:12 am

Comment #169981 by Corylus

We are, I presume, talking about doing more than one thing with one's mind. (No comments about where part of men's minds are located, please)

1041. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169980 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 8:06 am

You mean there are actual women who read and post here.


http://richarddawkins.net/article,2446,Discussion-between-Richard-Dawkins-and-Paula-Kirby,UHI

1042. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #169979 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 8:00 am

Comment #169976 by Ejp

GO where the evidence leads you and to Blazes with the Ideology of EITHER side of the fence!


This is a profoundly mistaken way of describing the situation.

There isn't science on the ID side of the fence.

There are no hypotheses. There is nothing testable. The irreducibilty of design is something that can, probably in principle, never be demonstrated. Those who have claimed to have evidence of design have simply refused to accept when that evidence has been shown to be invalid (as in the case of the bacterial flagellum).

Adaptation has been clearly shown to be responsible for "macro-evolution". Species have arisen in single generations and have been selected for. We have seen this happen.

There is no scientific controversy regarding ID. The division is between those who are prepared to use the principles of science to study how life evolved, and those who want to destroy science.

It really is that simple.

1043. Yoko Ono sues over use of John Lennon videos

Comment #169961 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 6:26 am

Comment #169959 by Geoff

That is pretty bad (I think). On the other hand, if someone can't be bothered to defend against such tactics.....

1044. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169946 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 5:36 am

I did think his idea was very much like Tiplers OPT


It certainly was. It is also something like the plot of Stephen Baxter's novel "Time".

1045. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169940 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 5:29 am

Comment #169922 by Geoff

The female gender is quite simple to explain. They are just like people, only more complex. They can do things like multitasking and remembering precise details from 20 years ago.

1046. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169935 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 5:22 am

Comment #169926 by Quetzalcoatl

As Quetz says (genuflecting several times in his direction) perhaps the areas where their beliefs inform their opinions is probably the most generic way of putting it, though I still think is probably too limited.


Ah, OK. I think I am beginning to get it now!

1047. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169923 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 4:58 am

Comment #169916 by epeeist

That would be a first.


Not at all. You made a comment a while back about how I dealt with Vox Day, and it took me ages to finally see what you meant.

On top of that my job in IT is mainly concerned with usability an accessibility on systems used by a wide variety of people. Hence my emphasis on flexible strategies.


My husband and I work on something similar - high volume public-facing websites (he does most of the public-facing code).

The insistence on making theists defend their own territory and not letting them simply whine about ours or escape into byways comes from more recent readings in informal logic and techniques in argumentation.


If I understand you right, does this mean that we keep them talking about religion? But isn't our territory science and reason (well, for many of us)?

1048. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169914 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 4:41 am

Comment #169909 by Cartomancer

The whole "gay men get on well with straight women" stereotype is very far from my experience indeed.


One can't generalise, but that describes me perfectly. All my fumbling attempts to initiate relationships with women when I was younger ended up with me as close friend. Most of my friends are women.

1049. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169911 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 4:38 am

Comment #169902 by epeeist

Have we learnt anything over the past few days about handling a variety of theists, from thisisme and seeker_of_truth to the likes of Remnant and TheTruthID?


I am not sure I have learned anything that significant. I may be being a bit dense. This reminds me a bit of when I tried to learn golf as a teenager, and I was given hints about how to hit the ball, but nothing specific enough for my dull brain, so I was never quite sure what to do.

I have learned a new approach, which is to emphasise the point about creationism and ID not being science, so that any reference to the Bible to justify views on geology or mutation or cosmology is just not even worth discussion. They have to agree to the rules first, and ask polite questions.

1050. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169877 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 3:00 am

Paula-

Can anyone (preferably someone reasonably SANE) please tell me why so many people are so completely obsessed with all this End Times stuff?


I hope I meet your requirements.

My feeling is that it comes from a tremendous and comforting sense of self-importance. It emphasises that one is a vital part of the design of the world - so important that the cosmos need not exist afterwards. God's creation has got to me, and that is all it needed to do....

Funny how so many people say Christianity is about humility.

More Pages: Previous | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 | Next