God Versus Science: A Futile Struggle [sciencetechnology-center.blogspot.com]
www.youtube.com Click here to watch HUNDAR HUNGERS - The Walking Dead! Episode One Part THREE!! HUNDAR HUNGERS - The Walking Dead! Episode One Part FOUR FINALE! Hundar means Dogs in Icelandic and today there's gun violence and horrible deaths in Telltale's The Walking Dead game. The final fourth chapter of a bloody series! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - This video will show you how to... How to just let her do it already How to choose between Doug and Carly How to think about killing that old guy - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - FOR MORE MACHINIMA, GO TO: www.youtube.com FOR MORE GAMEPLAY, GO TO: www.youtube.com FOR MORE SPORTS GAMEPLAY, GO TO: www.youtube.com FOR MORE MMO & RPG GAMEPLAY, GO TO: www.youtube.com FOR MORE ANIMATIONS & SHORTS, GO TO: www.youtube.com FOR MORE TRAILERS, GO TO: www.youtube.com Tags: "The Walking dead" "Hundar Hungers" "hundar walking dead" "surv ival horror" "the walking dead telltale" "telltale games" "zombies walking dead" Atlanta Glenn "Lee Everett" zombies Machinima Realm Hundar Science Fiction" RPG Adventure Epic Win Fantasy "role play" Games Massively "How to" Multiplayer online PC Clementine "Robert Kirkman" "walking dead game" "Rick Grimes" "seriously lets kill the old guy"
Hundar Hungers - The Walking Dead! Episode One Part FOUR FINALE!
In 2006 the eminent biologist Richard Dawkins published his best-seller 'The God Delusion'. Six years later Rupert Sheldrake, a biochemist, published his response, 'The Science Delusion' (2012). Dawkins dismisses God while Sheldrake dismisses science. Who if either wins the argument? We start with 'The God Delusion'.
Dawkins' title is intentionally aggressive, implying that anyone who believes in God is suffering from a delusion. Dawkins defines his target as the belief that 'there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us'.
But people who believe in God would not put it that way. Some, for example, might simply say that they believe in God and that God is eternal Love. They might feel hurt to be told that they are deluded.
It is easy, and sometimes useful, for Dawkins to target outmoded religious dogma and practice. The assertion that God created the world in 7 days (and so on) is an easy target. Whether it is a useful one to get worked up about is questionable since, as yet, there no complete and rational alternative: neither Darwin's theory of evolution nor the science of cosmology explain the event of creation. In contrast, the scandal of state-subsidised religious schools is a tricky target yet a laudable one. But such topics of detail take attention away from the real issue.
Dawkins knows that he cannot prove that God does not exist so he makes the weaker assertion that the existence of God is 'improbable'. But God is not a horse running in the Derby and there is no rational basis for betting on the probability of his existence.
The great biologist Stephen Gould wrote a book about the rules for engaging in arguments such as this. In effect Gould says that in any argument about science and religion, the participants must recognise two Zones of thought:
Zone 1 - The material world of science which examines thi ngs as they are.
Zone 2 - The non-material human world of the mind and morality where we wonder who we are and how things ought to be.
Dawkins has read Gould's book but does not heed his wise advice. Wielding all his scientific weaponry, he storms across the boundary in a flood of words that drowns the main issue.
For starters, he derides an astronomer who, in conversation, once suggested that ultimate questions about the universe were the province of the chaplain. Dawkins wishes he had scored a point by replying 'Why not the chef?' But that would have been an own goal: the chef's expertise is cooking, Zone 1. Whereas the chaplain's expertise is religion in Zone 2 where the chef's expertise is irrelevant.
Dawkins cites Einstein in support of his attack on religious belief but Einstein would not have given this book a favourable review. Einstein believed that there is a metaphysical world beyond the scope of science. Or in Shakespeare's words, 'there a re more things in heaven and earth... than are dreamt of in your philosophy' (Hamlet). As a knowledgeable Darwinist, Dawkins knows that homo sapiens is in a fortuitous state of evolution, confused by the 'human condition'. Perhaps Dawkins should renounce materialism and align himself with Einstein and Hamlet.
Now let us turn to 'The God Delusion'. Throughout, Sheldrake makes one thing very clear: he rejects materialism. Fine. He only needed to point out the fundamental flaw of materialism and he would win a knockout. Unfortunately he goes on to make a huge error: he equates materialism with science. But materialism is a personal philosophy or belief; whereas 'science' is the application of human reason to the physical world. Materialism (and its partner, reductionism) are worthy targets but science is not.
In his attempt to refute materialism he makes claims which go against mainstream scientific opinion. For example:
- He suggests that people claiming to l ive without food and water for months may be drawing energy from the air or the quantum vacuum.
- He defends homeopathy on the grounds that people get better if they think they are being treated. This is close to approving of doctors lying to their patients.
- 'Nature' is in 'morphic resonance' with its past, present and future. If one person starts skateboarding others learn by 'resonance'.
- Sheldrake disputes the scientific view that the fertilised egg contains all the information required to produce an offspring. He claims that genes do not determine the form of organisms. A developing embryo responds in 'morphic resonance' to the 'morphic fields' of its species.
He does however almost land a punch. Materialists believe that matter is unconscious, a tenable opinion. But they also believe that consciousness is an illusion. That belief is absurd, almost madness. How can materialists deny the reality of their own consciousness? But consciousness does pose a dilemma. Either (1) Consciousness is a non-material phenomenon; or (2) Some degree of consciousness exists in matter. In option 2, the degree must vary from its high level in humans, through a much lower level in higher animals, down to the lowest level in insects, worms and plants. Sheldrake adopts option 2 and includes stones, molecules and all matter. Sheldrake sees the dilemma while Dawkins apparently does not. But by preferring option 2 to option 1, Sheldrake fails to land his punch.
To sum up, neither author wins the argument. Sheldrake could have won had he not confused materialist philosophy with science and not indulged in pseudo-science. Dawkins comes across as by far the better scientist and debater but takes aim at a target that a materialist can never destroy: human aspiration for a world not of the flesh but of the spirit.
Suggest God Versus Science: A Futile Struggle TopicsQuestion by alfeebester: Can anyone explain how spaceships in popular science fiction might work? Ships like the Millennium Falcon from Star Wars or the Enterprise from Star Trek are mainstays in science fiction. However, I haven't been able to find anything about how these ships might work that is specific. Can anyone explain to me how these types of ships might work and what technology might be needed to create one? Best answer for Can anyone explain how spaceships in popular science fiction might work?:
Answer by Dude
energy source would have to be HIGHLY efficient, probably fusion or anti-matter. They would need some shielding to protect when traveling near the speed of light
Answer by Morningfox
Since these spaceships would have to violate the currently known laws of physics, I don't think there is any realistic way to explain how they work. In the stories, they work by magic. The author throws in a magic incantation, with words like "dilithum crystals", "warp speed", "eye of newt", "tail of frog" (or is it tail of newt and eye of toad? I can never remember).
Answer by Irv S
It is fiction. They work however the author says they work. Generally some genius creates a widget that violates one or more natural laws, and allows the thing to work. EE Smith took the easiest route by positing a device that cancels inertia.
Answer by starryskyn
I saw a Universe show on History Channel just the other night about making faster space ships. Theories only: Folding space to make the ship "seem to travel" a long distance. Like a wormhole between star systems. Problem is how to survive the gravity field in a black hole, how to connect two of them to make a wormhole, and how to make it stable over time. Make space fold like accordian in front of ship, and expand behind. This would be a "warp drive" that makes a seperate space-time existence surrounding just the ship. This may be possible on a quantum level with sub-atomic particles, but no one is sure. Make a "Stargate" of two identical space-time bubbles, and transport one of them to another planet or star. Since the space-time is identical in the twin bubbles, one can step into the near one, and emerge from the far one instantly. Conversely, if you make two that are at first light-years apart, and transport one at light speed until it's next to the other, you can step from one into the other, which would be time travel. Very confusing. Anti-matter drive would supply enough energy to travel at almost the speed of light between planets in a few hours, or between star systems in a few years instead of centuries. We can make anti-matter in a giant accelerator now, but only a few hundred atoms at a time. Making enough to power a spaceship would bankrupt our country. Space ramjet would compress hydrogen gas molecules from between planets and stars with giant magnetic scoops in front, and a fusion power plant to heat them for thrust out the back. This technology is a long way in the future, but we have the theory now. Problem is how to protect crew from radiation. Laser beams push sailing spaceships. Projectors on the Moon powered by fusion or solar panels would beam intense light to miles-wide sails to get astronauts to other planets in a few months. Not for star trips. Sleeper ships with suspended animation chambers to let the crew sleep for centuries on star voyages. We can almost do that now. But what would happen to a crew taking hundreds of years to arrive, and finding everyone had beat them there by using one of the above technologies? Entire societies in a giant ship hollowed out of an asteroid could travel for hundreds or thousands of years across the galaxy. But who among the descendants would remember what to do at destination?
Answer by tick tock
Contrary to popular belief, even amongst scientists (for good reason), there is really no physics prohibition against traveling Faster Than Light. Now, in defense of all the physicist bristling at this suggestion, it IS a mite difficult to imagine how something can get to FTL speeds without passing the Speed of Light, which there IS a prohibition against... a BIG one. Still, you should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light
Answer by mighty_mic_53
How they work is largely the FICTION part of science fiction. Some authors spend more time on discussing the specific propulsion concepts than others, but all that is needed is to draw the reader into accepting the concept. Some have multiples propulsion systems such as Star Trek, or limitations based upon the gravity wells of the stars. Most with regular interstellar travel deal with getting around the limitations of the speed of light, so that the story can deal with those distances within a single human lifetime. Some achieve this by postulating inter-dimensional travel, others by bending the space/time continuum. If you read "On Basilisk Station" by David Weber, you will see a fairly detailed discussion of their space craft's propulsion system. Many authors, merely ignore the systems, assuming that by reading the book the reader has assumed the concept will exist in the future.
0 comments:
Post a Comment