The Problem with Religious Moderation

[billw55]

Tell me a bit more about this giant collider.

You have access to a computer and the internet. Use it. Hint: ever heard of google or wikipedia?

Agree, but I will help you just a little. Google "LHC".

[32519]

We were for many years convinced that the earth was the literal centre of the universe and that the moon, the sun, and the planets revolved about it. The stars, being less mobile, had varying explanations, including the idea that the earth was surrounded by a sphere, that itself rotated, and that the stars represented holes in the sphere through which the light of heaven shone.

 

Then we realized, slowly and often reluctantly, that the earth revolved around the sun, and that the stars were suns a long way away.

 

Then we realized that not only was the sun merely one star in a galaxy but that our Milky Way was but one galaxy in an entire universe.

 

The universe 'is'. It has been around for 14,500,000,000 years, give or take, and humanity for about 100,000 of them...or about 0.0007% of the universe's existence. IOW, the universe got along without us for 99.9993% of its existence so far, and we occupy about the same volume of the universe as a grain of sand on the floor of the Pacific Ocean occupies of the entire solar system.

I’m still trying to figure this whole thing out. We had a BIG BANG 14 500 000 000 years ago. Then from this somehow everything in the universe, first developed, before slowly arranging itself into the beautiful symphony as we now know it. Planets and moons began orbiting around a star (sun), each one in its own perfect orbit. What keeps each one in its orbit? If the earth for example, moved out of its orbit, too close to the sun, we would all fry. Conversely if it moved too far from the sun we would all freeze? So how did it get to start orbiting in the first place, and then stay in the same orbit?

[Winstonm]

I’m still trying to figure this whole thing out. We had a BIG BANG 14 500 000 000 years ago. Then from this somehow everything in the universe, first developed, before slowly arranging itself into the beautiful symphony as we now know it. Planets and moons began orbiting around a star (sun), each one in its own perfect orbit. What keeps each one in its orbit? If the earth for example, moved out of its orbit, too close to the sun, we would all fry. Conversely if it moved too far from the sun we would all freeze? So how did it get to start orbiting in the first place, and then stay in the same orbit?

 

Let me ask you a question: why do you assume a super-hero must have been responsible?

[billw55]

These are not especially difficult questions, all have well established scientific answers. Per my own best understanding:

 

I'm still trying to figure this whole thing out. We had a BIG BANG 14 500 000 000 years ago. I believe the current best estimate is about 13.7 billion years. Not a huge difference comparatively, but it can't hurt to be as accurate as possible.

 

Then from this somehow everything in the universe, first developed, before slowly arranging itself into the beautiful symphony as we now know it. Correct.

 

Planets and moons began orbiting around a star (sun), each one in its own perfect orbit. Yes, but calling the orbits "perfect" sounds odd. What do you think is perfect about them? They are not perfectly circular (although close), nor perfectly aligned in a single plane.

 

What keeps each one in its orbit? Simple answer: gravity. More advanced answer: nothing is needed to keep the planets in their orbits. Each one merely follows a straight line (called a geodesic) in a curved space. The curvature is caused by the mass of the various solar system objects, mostly the sun.

 

If the earth for example, moved out of its orbit, too close to the sun, we would all fry. True Conversely if it moved too far from the sun we would all freeze? Also true

 

So how did it get to start orbiting in the first place, The solar system formed out a collapsing cloud of interstellar dust and debris. As the system contracts, rotational speeds increase, because the angular momentum must be conserved - much like a figure skater spins faster when she pulls her arms and legs in closer to her body. The orbiting debris also tends to lump up due to gravity. Voila, planets!

 

and then stay in the same orbit? See above about gravity. Also, objects in orbits that are close to circular are more likely to survive the evolution of the solar system, because they do not collide with each other.

[Vampyr]

If the earth for example, moved out of its orbit, too close to the sun, we would all fry. Conversely if it moved too far from the sun we would all freeze?

 

This reminds me of a wonderful Twilight Zone episode, "The Midnight Sun". I think there is a Twilight Zone site where you can watch it online.

[Vampyr]

[/size]

 

Or get rid of the wrong religious beliefs that inspire hate, and keep only the important beliefs that inspire love. And the world would be a much better place even better than one with only atheists.

 

Why do we need religion to tell us to love one another? Is it something we won't do unless there is a promise of a reward after we die?

[gwnn]

This reminds me of a wonderful Twilight Zone episode, "The Midnight Sun". I think there is a Twilight Zone site where you can watch it online.

Yes 32519 if you ever read any of the replies in this thread, read this one! A great episode!!

 

 

In unrelated news, a=v**2/r

[32519]

This whole science thing is all very confusing.

 

Isaac Newton figured out that gravity keeps my feet on the ground. But when I leave the earth’s atmosphere, the law of gravity no longer applies. Suddenly I have become weightless. So why then isn’t the earth or moon etc also weightless, drifting off into the never never as they orbit? What exactly is holding them in their orbits year in and year out, and has done so for the past 14 500 000 000 years?

[32519]

This BIG BANG Theory must surely be a candidate for the most bizarre theory ever put forward by anyone? Why? It defies all logic and all other known physics. How can that be? Every known BANG (big or small) destroys. Just a few examples –

1. A bomb exploding (BIG BANG)

2. A gun firing (BIG BANG)

3. Two vehicles colliding (this can be a BIG BANG or a small bang depending on all sorts of variables e.g. the speed at which they were travelling)

4. A balloon popping (small bang)

5. A packet bursting (small bang)

6. A bubble bursting (small bang; oops – shouldn’t have included that one as someone may just get upset)

7. A building collapsing (BIG BANG)

8. Etc

 

So how is it that this BIG BANG of science did not further destroy? Instead it supposedly created (or brought about the creation) of our universe and everything in it? Or why is it that whenever science cannot explain anything they create theories in defiance of everything else that is already known. A BANG that creates instead of destroying?

 

Science is fun!

[32519]

I see that the Nobel Prize in physics has been awarded for successful work on the Higg's boson. There were papers in 1964, there was much discussion, there was work with a giant collider, and although success was not assured it seemed possible and in fact occurred.

Can you see the flaw in this model? If this giant collider won the Nobel prize the other entrants must have been really bad.

Are you sure it was the Nobel prize?

Was it not perhaps the Noble prize, as in, “That is a noble idea but there is a flaw in your model?”

Or maybe the No-Bell prize, as in, “Dong! You’re out – Next!!”

[32519]

Whether most in these forums care to admit it or not, mankind is fixated with the idea of an all-powerful or super-natural being or otherwise. This fixation has seen the creation of e.g.

1. Superman

2. Batman

3. Spiderman

4. The Incredibles

5. Thor

6. etc

 

Then others turn these characters into full-length films. But craziest of all? The billions raked in at the box office from you and me and everyone else who pays good money to watch this nonsense!

 

The first Matrix Movie appeared in 1999. At the time I read somewhere (I can’t remember where) that it was rated as the best science fiction movie ever produced. Do you want to know why? Click here and you can find out. At the time, the Wachowski brothers made no secret of the fact that the film was a deliberate parody of the most popular book ever written. Make a printout of the link and then sit and watch the movie again.

[32519]

why does there have to be any externally imposed purpose?

 

The story of Western civilization over the past 600 years or so has been the change in the way educated people see the significance of our species in the universe.

 

We were for many years convinced that the earth was the literal centre of the universe and that the moon, the sun, and the planets revolved about it. The stars, being less mobile, had varying explanations, including the idea that the earth was surrounded by a sphere, that itself rotated, and that the stars represented holes in the sphere through which the light of heaven shone.

 

Then we realized, slowly and often reluctantly, that the earth revolved around the sun, and that the stars were suns a long way away.

 

Then we realized that we were biologically related to all other animals, and weren't actually 'created in god's image' as stand-alone creatures with no ancestral links to other creatures.

 

Then we realized that not only was the sun merely one star in a galaxy but that our Milky Way was but one galaxy in an entire universe.

 

Now we learn that in all likelihood, the kind of matter of which we are made, and the earth, the sun, the stars and the observable universe, is a small part of reality: that dark matter accounts for perhaps 80% of the mass of the universe.

 

An author whose book, The Beginning of Infinity, I am currently reading refers to humanity as a scum on the surface of a small planet circling a nondescript star in a typical galaxy.

 

Part of who we are as human animals appears to require that we seek answers. Indeed, it seems self-evident to me that religions arose in part as a result of this, and the limitations that our senses imposed on our ability to perceive more than a tiny part of the information with which we are surrounded. Our eyes see only a narrow range of electromagnetic radiation, our ears a narrow range of sound, and neither have really powerful resolution and so on.

 

It seems to me that one of the attractions of religions is their apparent, but ultimately meaningless, ability to tell us that we are here for a purpose. Comforting tho it may be, there seems no reason to suppose that such religions are correct.

 

The universe 'is'. It has been around for 14,500,000,000 years, give or take, and humanity for about 100,000 of them...or about 0.0007% of the universe's existence. IOW, the universe got along without us for 99.9993% of its existence so far, and we occupy about the same volume of the universe as a grain of sand on the floor of the Pacific Ocean occupies of the entire solar system. The entire history of our entire species has far less importance in the universe than the most insignificant rounding error in calculating the US national debt.

 

Yet this doesn't stop believers from claiming that god created us for a purpose. I'm not sure whether to laugh at the arrogance or feel pity for the desperation that underlies the need or justification for this belief.

MikeH – Reread this post of yours which you so proudly posted here. Thus far science is bit by bit figuring out how the things in our universe or on our planet FUNCTION. Science has yet to figure out how all this diversity CAME ABOUT. So they come up with bizarre theories and then spend (waste) huge amounts of money trying to prove these bizarre ideas (e.g.giant collider).

 

Maybe, just maybe – they are looking for the wrong answers.

[Vampyr]

32519, take a break from posting. You are becoming incoherent.

[mikeh]

MikeH – Reread this post of yours which you so proudly posted here. Thus far science is bit by bit figuring out how the things in our universe or on our planet FUNCTION. Science has yet to figure out how all this diversity CAME ABOUT. So they come up with bizarre theories and then spend (waste) huge amounts of money trying to prove these bizarre ideas (e.g.giant collider).

 

Maybe, just maybe – they are looking for the wrong answers.

You're obviously an irredeemable troll: please return to the village that is missing its idiot, and don't bother me anymore.

[Vampyr]

Anyway, the recent posts in this thread have given an important answer to the question in the OP -- one of the scariest aspects of religion is the anti-science aspect. Perhaps this viewpoint is developed by fanatics, but many "moderates" believe them. And of course it is religious moderates that lend legitimacy to the fanatics. If there weren't moderates, the fanatics would not be a more extreme wing of an accepted group, but would just be a bunch of nuts out in left field, and would have no influence on anyone.

 

I honestly had not thought that there was a single person in the developed world who had never heard of the LHC or the Higgs Boson. I do not see how someone can be anti-anything from a position of mindblowing ignorance.

[nige1]

Every schoolboy knows who imprisoned Montezuma, and who strangled Atahualpa.

I honestly had not thought that there was a single person in the developed world who had never heard of the LHC or the Higgs Boson.

You mean the God particle? :)

I do not see how someone can be anti-anything from a position of mindblowing ignorance.

Ad hominem argument demeans you vampyr :(

[PeterAlan]

I know I'm going to regret this ...

 

But when I leave the earth’s atmosphere, the law of gravity no longer applies.

Oh yes it does.

 

So why then isn’t the earth or moon etc also weightless, drifting off into the never never as they orbit?

Gravity.

 

What exactly is holding them in their orbits year in and year out, and has done so for the past 14 500 000 000 years?

Gravity - it's everywhere. Try and find out something about it.

 

(BTW it's the universe that's been around for 14 billion years or so - the earth and moon only for the last 4.5 billion-odd. Try and find out something about the solar system too. Why is this increasingly sounding like a 9-year old's school science project?)

 

And these are just the questions before you really got going ...

[hrothgar]

This whole science thing is all very confusing.

 

Isaac Newton figured out that gravity keeps my feet on the ground. But when I leave the earth’s atmosphere, the law of gravity no longer applies. Suddenly I have become weightless.

 

This may very well be the most ignorant post ever made in the Watercooler.

I hope that you appreciate the magnitude of this achievement.

 

The following provides a decent introductory primer

 

http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm

[blackshoe]

But when I leave the earth’s atmosphere, the law of gravity no longer applies.

That turns out not to be the case. The law still applies, but the farther you get from gravitational masses (the Sun, Earth, the Moon, other planets) the less influence that mass has on you.

 

Suddenly I have become weightless.

Nope. See above. Or Google "microgravity".

 

So why then isn’t the earth or moon etc also weightless, drifting off into the never never as they orbit? What exactly is holding them in their orbits year in and year out, and has done so for the past 14 500 000 000 years?

 

F=G*m₁*m₂/r², where

 

• F is the gravitational force between two masses
  
• G is Newton's gravitational constant
  
• m₁ is the mass of the first object
  
• m₂ is the mass of the second object
  
• r is the distance between them.
  

 

F is non-zero as long as r is not infinity.

[ArtK78]

I don't think we need sophisticated responses to the drivel being spouted by 32519.

[RSClyde]

Having thought this over, I now conclude that Harris is not holding the "believer" culpable but the "belief" itself - and the point he may be making is that moderates should take the next step and abandon the belief altogether in order to move mankind as a whole toward a reason-based approach to problem-solving.

I read Harris's book some time back. Yes I think that is his point, though we have departed from this topic for more general discussions it would seem.

He isn't so interested in who's to blame, but rather in what to do. His point is that moderation is not the end game for humanity because there are problems with it which he outlines and I won't go through here. To be clear I heard him say in an interview that moderation is definitely better than fundamentalism: adding that no one flies a plane into a building because they're a moderate.

[kenberg]

Possibly he has a point, in a purely sociological sens. But it goes against the grain of many, or at least I react badly to it. Try varying the question. Were moderate liberlas responsible for the excesses of the Weather Underground? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground if you are young.

 

I take responsibility for my views and, especially, for my actions. I do not accept responsibility for the actions of some guy with a nutty variant on my views.

[Vampyr]

You mean the God particle? :) Ad hominem argument demeans you vampyr :(

 

I was not making an ad homimen argument. I was making a comment directed towards a specific poster, concerning the subject at hand. 325 knows nothing about science, yet is vehemently anti-science.

[Winstonm]

Possibly he has a point, in a purely sociological sens. But it goes against the grain of many, or at least I react badly to it. Try varying the question. Were moderate liberlas responsible for the excesses of the Weather Underground? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground if you are young.

 

I take responsibility for my views and, especially, for my actions. I do not accept responsibility for the actions of some guy with a nutty variant on my views.

 

I feel as I have to take some blame for posting this without enough clarification - but my understanding of the Harris argument is this: 1, beliefs drive actions 2. some beliefs encourage violence 3. remove the belief and there is no further reason for that type of violence.

 

I don't think Harris uses the word culpable to describe moderates, but he does say that because they foster and encourage the following of irrational belief systems their arguments against radicals' beliefs are dismissed as a misreading or misunderstanding of holy books or of which irrational belief system is right.

 

In that sense, would the violent Weathermen Underground have risen without the social approval of the anti-war movement itself? Not that any one person opposed to the Vietnam War would be considered culpable for the Weathermens' violence, but providing a cradle of anti-government, anti-war social acceptance led to the birth and existence of that extreme group.

[Trinidad]

This whole science thing is all very confusing.

Why is science so confusing to you?

 

Saying that "this whole science thing is all very confusing" sounds to me like: "This whole grammar thing is very confusing" or "this whole arithmetic thing is very confusing", because I learned these things (science, grammar and arithmetic) in school.

 

I don't know much about South Africa. Do they teach Science in South African schools? What do you learn in a South African school?

 

Again, I don't know, but I could imagine that you never went to school (or went to school for a much shorter time than most forum posters). For Europeans or North Americans it is not easy to realize that school is not a universal thing. We will automatically assume that anybody we talk to will have had at least about 12 years of school... And in the modern days of internet we may be very wrong about that.

 

Rik