Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 22nd Feb 2017 22:43 UTC
In the News

Not just one, but seven Earth-size planets that could potentially harbor life have been identified orbiting a tiny star not too far away, offering the first realistic opportunity to search for biological signs of alien life outside of the solar system.

The planets orbit a dwarf star named Trappist-1, about 40 light years, or about 235 trillion miles, from Earth. That is quite close, and by happy accident, the orientation of the orbits of the seven planets allows them to be studied in great detail.

One or more of the exoplanets - planets around stars other than the sun - in this new system could be at the right temperature to be awash in oceans of water, astronomers said, based on the distance of the planets from the dwarf star.

Science is awesome.

Thread beginning with comment 641222
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Nice to hear
by StephenBeDoper on Fri 24th Feb 2017 03:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice to hear"
Member since:

I like many physicists, believe in the presence of a God, an unknowable entity behind creation, because I believe in the presence of a soul.

What's the significance of there being physicists who believe in a god? That seems like the "honour by association" fallacy (the inverse of "guilt by association). Einstein married his first cousin - yet the fact that he was a noted physicist doesn't automatically make that a good idea.

know a lot of intellectuals disagree with this notion of spirituality, but science and religion or science and faith go hand in hand. To have faith in there being something greater than ourselves outside of our understanding takes no greater leap of faith than believing science is the true answer to everything.

False Equivalence. The only aspect of science that's taken on "faith" is the assumption that natural phenomena have natural, non-magical causes. No one who properly understands science would claim that it is (or is intended to be) "the true answer to everything."

Really our greatest problems will be solved when we embrace both science and faith - faith to give us a moral and social grounding and science to advance us and our understanding of our surroundings.

Except that no positive correlation between religious faith and moral behaviour has ever been shown. In fact, there's statistics suggesting it's the opposite (at least when measured by the moral standards of most religions): the most religious areas of the US also have the highest (per capita) rates of divorce, teen pregnancy, abortion, unwed mothers, etc.

To dismiss the spiritual is to bite off your nose to spite your face.

False dichotomy - a scientific worldview in no way precludes spirituality or religious belief. Off the top of my head, that's demonstrated by people like Kenneth Miller (a cell biologist & well known opponent of creationism, who's also a Catholic) and Robert Bakker (a paleontologist who's also a Pentecostal minister) - as well as the "physicists [who] believe in the presence of a God" that you mentioned earlier.

Many biologists are fixated on evolution as this disproves the creation stories in the Bible and therefore equate this to mean that its all a bunch of lies.

By "many," I take it you mean Dawkins? And who else...? Also, not sure if you're aware, but that's one of the favourite arguments used by "Young Earth" creationists - though it's usually stated a bit less subtly, along the lines of "people only accept evolution as a excuse for not believing in God."

In reality, biologists are "fixated" on evolution because it's a well-supported, robust theory that's also a major aspect of their fields of study. Would you also criticize computer scientists for being "fixated" on programming languages?

intelligence doesnt just pop into existence, our self awareness didnt just evolve there is a reason for our existence, we evolved, but our evolution was designed and intended to produce us.

I was agreeing that the rest of that paragraph, right up until this sentence. First of all, that claim doesn't pass the "Hitchen's Razor" test: "Positive claims require positive evidence; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; and claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Secondly, while my interests are more in cosmology and astronomy, I'm aware of several scientific explanations that have been proposed for the evolution of consciousness/sapience - for example:

Third, no one claims intelligence "pop[ped] into existence" (no one honest/informed, at least). It almost certainly came about as the result of a series of many small successive changes that compounded over large periods of time - just like every other trait that came about via evolution.

Its crazy how history gets corrupted, I mean at school I was taught that people actually believed the earth was flat, and scientists where killed trying to prove the earth was a sphere.

That's correct, though there are plenty of valid examples of religion holding back the advancement of knowledge by hundreds of years - with the persecution of Copernicus & Galileo (and anyone else who challenged Ptolemaic geo-centrism) being the obvious examples.

Without balance, without understanding, without morality, without humility we are all screwed.

On that point, I agree with you. But I see no reason to believe that religious faith is the only way, or the best way, or even a particularly good way to achieve that.

I'll cherry-pick humility, since this is already getting fairly long: in terms of making one conscious of their own insignificance in the grander scheme of things, religion doesn't hold a candle to science - especially the "big picture" fields like cosmology. The sum total of human history is barely even a rounding error when measured against the scales of time, size, and distance of our universe; every single atom that makes our bodies was part of something else before we existed, and will go on existing long after we're dead. I wouldn't exactly describe the comprehension of those concepts as "spiritual" experiences (if only because that seems horribly pretentious to me) - but to the extent that I've ever had any use for spirituality, that's been more than sufficient.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Nice to hear
by delta0.delta0 on Sun 26th Feb 2017 04:01 in reply to "RE[2]: Nice to hear"
delta0.delta0 Member since:

Im actually really happy reading a lot of the rebuttals to my original comment. Its good to see and read other view points. In some I can see the questions we set ourselves (independent thought is a great thing) and the general agreement that there are wider issues at hand.

I am sorry for strongly wording some of my views. It is just my view, that's all. Its as correct or incorrect as your own.

I agree there is no positive correlation between labelling yourself as being a particular religious denomination and morality, or for that matter that being religious somehow makes you morally superior, but ask yourself this what do those studies you linked to actually show ? Think about it. There is a big difference between what you practice, what you believe and what you say you believe.

With regards to science and faith:

This is quite interesting, and worth a read.

If you read the comments Paul Davies, points out the following:

Historians of science are well aware that Newton and his contemporaries believed that in doing science they were uncovering the divine plan for the universe in the form of its underlying mathematical order. I am depressed that reminding scientists of this well-known historical fact should elicit such a shock-horror response. As Scott Atran points out, the argument that science is based on faith is not new. Evidently Western society is so steeped in monotheism that the monotheistic world view, which was appropriated by science, is now regarded as "obvious" and "natural." As a result, many scientists are unaware of its theological origin. Nor do they stop to think about the sweeping hidden assumptions they adopt when they subscribe to that scientific/theological world view, assumptions that are in fact are not shared by most other cultures.

again most notions of religion from a western perspective anyway is the Christian (specifically Catholic) Doctrine, but this raises what I was trying to say about scientific faith more succinctly and eloquently than I could ever hope to do so.

Personally I believe there is a good amount of faith associated with science and you can deny this if you wish, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in all scientists (I am a "scientist" as well). Currently its become popular to bash religion and for good reason, but in a hundred years time our world view will be significantly different to what it is now and in a thousand years time even more so. What is popular now, might not be so popular then and some of what we take as fact now, will probably also be disproved (its happened before and will happen again). Our understanding will continue to evolve and we will probably have religious debates still.

With this said never underestimate ego, we all suffer from it.

I agree we will probably start mining asteroids very soon even before Mars (I did actually think this, but went with Mars anyway) Mars I am sure will be our next target and a place where we will eventually colonise. Venus is an interesting planet too - if its atmosphere can be fixed it could be habitable

We have 2 planets in the habitable zone and 1 with sentient life - a system with 7 planets, 6 in the habitable zone I wonder how many are habitable and how many have sentient life and how wildly different life would be on each planet.

Reply Parent Score: 2