There is a difference, though. The EFFECTS of gravity, viruses (virii?) etc. could be seen, or touched, or measured. How do we measure the effects of God?
Yes, which is why we cannot absolutely say that something does not exist, only that we do not YET have evidence for its existence.Our whole history of science is one of keeping discovering things, species articles, vira and what not we did not know existed. But they were there all the time, even if we did not know it.
True. But if we not only cannot measure it, but cannot see any effects of it?I think it is a narrow and - speciescentric? - way of seeing things: If we cannot measure it, it isn't there.
In this case, we have been searching for those effects, and that evidence for thousands of years. People, including reputable scientists, are STILL searching for evidence of gods. That does not imply a lack of curiosity, does it?Isn't that a quite narrow and uncurious way of seeing things?
I agree.What is very likely is that as long as we funtion the way we do now, we'll keep finding new things about our world we did not know.
Kinda sounds like prayer. Which is fitting, since religion in general, and prayer in particular, do seem to act very similarly to a placebo.Actually, noone knows how placebo works. and it has puzzled reserachers for awhile. Theories abound, but noone can prove how it works
I know a lot of scientists who would love to see some of that money!I read your words almost as if 'science' is some independent force that can be of assistence. But science is inseperateble from the society in which it works, and nowadays sciene has one purpose, and one purpose only: to make money.
Partly true. More accurate is that such research has become prohibitively expensive, as the cost of equipment soars. But I would ask you, where is the profit in sending rovers to Mars? Where is the profit in the Galileo probe at Jupiter, or any of the vast number of other missions probing our universe? In fact, it's the very LACK of profit that has the anti-science types protesting about the money invested in space research.General reserach which is the kind that really finds out new things is almot non-existent, because it does not immidiately mean profit.
Very bad indeed. And just where do you see that happening?Add to that the idea that 'search for knowledge' justifies any means to that end, and you have a very bad situation.
Since we cannot (as yet) go backward in time, we are always moving forward. Whether or not such movement is better or worse is generally a matter for the historians to solve. Change is usually chaotic, and an be downright painful, even when it is for the benefit of all.What is it with this idea that 'progress' is enevitable, that all new stuff must neccesarily be better than the previous, that we are 'gong forward'?
Darwin never implied that evolution was always moving forward. Evolution is a slow, natural process with many side branches and reversions. Sometimes species decline and go extinct, sometimes they evolve into other species. Tracing back the evolution of humanity we tend to assume that we are at a pinnacle, but that is just hubris. There is still more evolution to come, even for humans, and only future species will be able to determine whether we were a successful evolutionary branch or just another failed twig.I think it has to do with Darwin, and the idea that 'evolution' equal 'preogress' or getting better, when what is acutaly means is arbitary change which sometimes turns out to be benificial, sometimes not, and something else takes over.
Once again, scientists are people, just like politicians and priests. All we can say is that scientists, in general, are trying to find the truth, objective truth. Sometimes they fail, sometimes they succeed. Politicians and priests, however...Yes, after a number of people have died, and with great difficulty.
How many scandals are still out there, which will never be revealed?
In this context I mean the search for reality. Progress means learning more about the way the world, the universe, actually works. And it is NOT inevitable. As long as we continue to study and to learn, we can hope to make progress. Everyone may not be happy with this progress, but to my mind it is better to understand the truth (reality) of how things work than not. And this is my biggest problem with dogmatic religions. They would have us stop the search, put away our telescopes and test tubes, and just accept that "God Did It".Will you define for me excatly what you mean by 'progress', and why it is enevitable?
Again, I know many scientists who would like to see some of that money.I so wish science was all about a better understanding of reality. But it is only about one thing: MONEY.
And if you can accomplish ANYTHING in this life WITHOUT money, I'd like to know what it is. In my experience, without money you don't eat, you don't wear clothes, you don't travel. You die.