Science and God

oh you are so right 1legspider so right......... :o))))))

On the "Mother Love" and chimps thing, I've done a few articles on Attachment Theory - the chimps will go to a wire-model covered in fur for love and comfort, but even if an electric shock is applied when they do, they will continue to take the comfort from hugging the attachment figure. (I'm not claiming this is nice, or particularly ethical science, but done at a different time. ) Dawkins' book "The Selfish Gene" is a good explanation of why altruism and family love is hard-wired into animals and humans. I think as Sebastien said, Mykle's problem is not necessarily with science, but the misreporting of science. We live in a time where the media broadcast to short attention spans (or so they have decided), so everything gets reduced to very simplistic claims which are far away from what the theorum actually says. The example above about the sun going out is absolute drivel and I simply cannot believe that any scientist would ever make such a claim (that we wouldn't know until hundreds or thousands of years afterwards). I can, however, belive that the media might misreport this. There are stars in the galaxy whose death we might not see for thousands of years after it happens, but not the sun. There is plenty of scientific hubris about and science has not always been right - but when it is wrong and proved to be, it moves on.

I think it's important to remember that science is not an entity as religion or God is. Science is what we do ever time we test and evaluate. As said in my piece "Science and God" it is the way we learn almost everything we have learnt. We are all scientists. Science is a way of gaining knowledge through the senses not the thing external to ourselves, or the thing that only certain people in white coats use.

"The Selfish Gene" R. Dawkins, excellent book.

"I have come to the point in my life where to deny a spiritual realm, a creator, is not only highly irrational but from a puny human point of view incredibly presumptuous." Hypocrisy. Is it not equally as presumptuous to say there IS a creator when there is no proof either way? I doubt the existence of God and of supernatural spiritualism but I am not irrational nor am I being presumptuous. When in debate upon such matters I think we should remember that our opponents have their reasons and that we ourselves could well be wrong. I believe one should never dismiss someone as "irrational" when they have display a clear argument that supports itself well even if you do not agree with that viewpoint. That is a mistake morally and practically. Oh know, I beginning to sound like John Locke lol

Andrew The Sun has gone out was an item on Tomorrows World (I think it was in the 70's).

Here is an excerpt from Encarta 2000: The energy thus produced is transported most of the way to the solar surface by radiation. Photons of light may take as long as 100,000 years to emerge from the core, undergoing a "random walk" outwards through the Sun's dense interior.

I have to say that of your list of those who you think I have blamed :Capitalists, Fundamenalists, puppetmasters, the system, parents - I have not knowingly attacked either parents or fundamentalist and if I have given that impression I appologise. As for Capitalism, the System and Puppet Masters - I belive that Capitalism is the System and that the Puppet Masters are the hidden direction behind the way that the System is being used to control that System for the gain of the few at the expense of the rest! I agree that taking personal responsibility for ones own actions and choices is important but I argue that propaganda effects the choices we make by biasing the decision process. I think Global Warming and the resulting changes in weather patterns is just one of the issues that will affect millions of people adversely - but it is hard to see how I can effect a change in, say, the American decision to increase the burning of fossil fuels although I did E-mail Bush to make my protest. Sometimes all you can do is bring these issues to the attention of as many people as possible and hope sanity will prevail. Millions go hungry every day and if nothing changes that will continue...

\ / cone of future \ / \ / \/ O photon present /\ / \ / \ / \ cone of past this is the photon cone theory of geometry of time and space. it indicates that the photon has covered with its immense speed all distances in all dimensions and returned to its first position enlightening past and future. it is an alternative theory of course and I guess many will laugh at it - well I don't mind if they do... I don't have a problem with laughters! :o))))) =============skydolphin

oh, Sebastian GREAT THREAD !!!!!!!!!!!!!! :o)))))))))

\ / future \ / \/ O present (photon) /\ / \ / \ past i tried to make it better .... if it doesn't appear as it should then sorry, there are no autoshapes on the threads hehehehe ===========skydolphin

1legspider you said "perhaps we (humans) need to move on to a new foundation that is believably more embracing, that incorporates both without necessarily using the tired old rhetoric of either...". This is a point I can't accept as aplicable to our species as a whole. It may be that you think my view is "ignorant" and I don't mind particulary but you seem to want to suggest that there is something wrong with people beliveing what they believe. If you ask me spirtualism can be achieved from a synagogue, Catholic Church, Buddhist temple or a Mosque. But it sounds like your saying these people are wrong. Please correct me if I'm mistaken about what you are saying, but isn't this a close minded view.

I think that Science can be considered as a God. The God of progress, acquisition and power. But I think too many people invest too much of their energies into it in the hope that personal individual needs may also be satisfied in the same way, with progress, investing time in the form of work.

In retrospect I find myself agreeing with Andrew that my problem is not necessarily with science, but the misreporting of science. In fact I would go further and say I have a problem with misreporting in general! It seems to me that the media thrive on hype and deliberately put their own spin on whatever they report regardless of the facts. The danger of this is that those whose only source of information on these subjects is from the media are given a false and misleading impression. This then becomes popular ‘fact’ and obscures the truth. In the end do we get the ‘News’ or today's version of it from the propaganda factory? I argue that since we cannot rely on these popular ‘facts’ they are not useful in the debate as to whether science has removed the need for God. All that we can be sure of is that there is a popular myth that science can explain everything and that God is no longer needed in the equation. In fact many of the better scientist are deeply religious and find no problem seeing science as an explanation of how God works. Somehow the media never get around to reporting that.

I think the fact that the many of the "better scientists" believe in God is irrelevant. No matter how smart you are, no matter how high an IQ you have you are still subjected to the same passions and desires as all other humans and in deed inteligence could be a disadvantage if your wit means you find your self contemplating these passions too much. And those passions (in my opinion and I could well be wrong) are what drive us to believe in God. Passions and desires rather then facts.

My point about the scientists believing in God was more that they are in a much better position than most to know what the present state of scientific belief is. If it does not deter the scientist from believing in God then surely there is no reason that it should the layman. As for belief in God being the result of passions and desires I think that may be something more personal to you Sebastian. It may be that your passions and desires are toward finding an understanding God but your logical mind is frightened of being let down. Certainly there can be no facts that prove or disprove the existence of God - hence faith.

in a message above I was talking about a thread that I would create....... after I finished typing it I let my cousin in front of the pc and left to prepare dinner... :o( what happened next? He created a thread called satanism in Europe. I wanted to create a thread about drugs. I am so unhappy right now...... I am crying to be honest. I returned to see my work deleted all of my cherries gone all of my five stars as well by a relative that I trusted. I will stay away from any posts for quite some time thank you all for your understanding....... goodbye.

A fair point Mykle. I think it would be wrong of me to think that it was impossible that I might be the one who is deceived. That potential as contrary to my belief system.

sounds like your cousin needs a good slapping...

Sorry change that last line. I meant to imply that the potential to ignore that I might be wrong is contrary to my beliefs.

Sebastian, there can be certain times and situations when belief in something is the only thing that can get you through. Belief in yourself will not cut it because part of the process is loss of ego and self doubt. I don't say that you need to believe in God at these times but you do need to have faith in something positive and benevolent to see you through and I seriously doubt that faith in science will cut it!

In retrospect I suggest you start a new thread called Science and Religion. I think it might be interesting to compare the differences between faith and belief. How many of us actually have faith in science? I think religions with many gods, or no gods at all, are just as threatened by scientific propaganda. The main question to me is why and who is behind this push to discredit religion - particularly Christianity. I suppose it could just be a matter of start at the top and work down. PS I don't suppose you know anything about 'The Zombie Within'? I've tried reading a few articles but I just too tired at the moment to get to grips with the terminology.

I've posted a peice called "Confusion" which is quite apro pos to the things that this thread has had me thinking. I think you will enjoy it if you read it. And now - I'm off hunting Zombies. Hope to catch you later if the Puppet Marster don't get me in the meantime.

The sun example Mykle gives, together with back-up is a good example of misreporting of science. Okay, scientific theory says that photons can take thousands of years to come out of the sun (given that they travel at speed of light and the sun isn't a ball thousands of light years in diameter, this is odd, but I'll consider it as a possibility. There's gravity and stuff to factor in. ). What that says is effectively that the burning out process may take thousands of years to finish. If the media report - sun could go out and we wouldn't know for a hundred years, that is not right. The sun could begin to go out but if it actually goes out, we would know very quickly. There should presumably be a way of measuring the intensity of the suns rays to see if this dwindling process has begun, which is probably what the scientists were trying to do and miscalculated. But that's not a very interesting story, that the sun might have begun a burning out process which takes thousands of years. Much more snappy for the news to say "Scientists say the sun has gone out. "

Actually the way that scientists monitor the sun is by its Neutrino levels - which are less than half of what their models predict. As Andrew says when Tomorrow’s World did a piece on this they were probably going for a 'grab em' headline. I have tried to remember and it could have been "Has the Sun gone out?" So what are Neutrinos? Encarta says : Neutrino, an elementary particle that is electrically neutral and of very small—possibly zero—mass. Neutrinos are created in many types of interaction between elementary particles. Enormous numbers of neutrinos travel through space in cosmic rays. They react so rarely with other particles that they can travel through the whole Earth with only a tiny proportion being absorbed. Trillions pass through every human being in every second, yet we are completely unaware of them. The main point is that Neutrino's are only affected by the weak force and so do not interact with normal matter (well very, very, rarely) and so can escape from the suns interior without delay. Photons bounce around in the interior and take (so they tell us) thousands of years to escape. The latest thinking is that : 1 the Neutrinos may change into something else and that's why there are so relatively few detected on Earth. 2 All their models are wrong and they know a lot less about stars than they thought. (I’m amazed they are finally admitting this possibility). As I have argued before: if scientists can’t get it right in their own backyard what hope is there for them in the Universe at large.

I don’t really know much about philosophy, nor philosophers, but occasionally I hear something that has a lasting effect. Nietzsche is famous for his “God is dead.” but I think he was lamenting the fact. I’m sure all the scholars will be up in arms full of facts and figures that prove I’m wrong for a thousand different reasons but I don’t care - that’s what I believe. He was sorry that God was out of fashion. What really had a deep and lasting effect was something else. Nietzsche also said “What does not kill me strengthens me.” When I first heard this I was outraged. Nonsense I thought. Later it occurred to me that the reason I objected to it so strongly was because it was so unbalanced. With kill on one side of the equation and strength on the other. If he had said “what doesn’t weaken me strengthens me.” I might have been less opposed to it. Then I realised that it was not a philosophical statement at all - it was an attitude. Love him, or hate him, Nietzsche was not all talk, he practised what he preached and I often wonder if he just wanted to be strong too much: he wanted to be a hero and drove himself over the edge.... Was he a hero, albeit tragic hero, in the end? I think he was and like most heroes tragically misunderstood. But, regardless, hero or not, no one can ever say he didn’t try. That’s what inspired me to write Sunshine Superman - I didn’t want other would be heroes driving themselves over the edge by pushing themselves too hard. So has science replaced God - is He dead - and if so does it matter? What is more important God or what He stands for? Do we need heroes like Christ to suffer agony and torment to lead us back into the light? I think we do - but it’s awfully sad!

Just to comment on what Mykle said about faith a few posts up. I have no faith in God or anything benevolent and I certainly have no faith in science that is the point of my piece. And I have made it through ok, but I accept that it must help some people and probably could help me if I COULD believe in any such a thing. I do believe in benevolent things but I would never say I had faith in them. As for Zombies, know nothing sorry.

Could you tell why don't you believe in anything benevolent? Do you believe that malevolent things exist? I think that people are so fed up with bad things happening all the freaking time that ended up in believing that it is very scarce if not impossible for good to prevail thus stop believing in it. But Sebastian you are probably a nice person can't you focus on that, can't it be that the EXISTENCE of YOU proves of the opposite??????? :o))) what a thread! ==============skydolphin

I’ve been thinking about what AmordantBaron said about the two sides not talking. It made me wonder if this apparent split between God and science has not been created, or at least fuelled in an attempt to distract people from other things. Divide and conquer has always been a policy of those either in power or striving for it. Maybe the real question is - do we have faith in Capitalism especially the way it is practised by the Americans!? I’m also worried about the global control of the media by a handful of people - hence the Puppet Masters. Are they a necessary consequence of advanced Capitalism?

It just occured to me that I had better be careful what I say lest I be branded a terrorist and shipped to Cuba! I was only joking Puppet Masters - honest.

Can we stop them, do we dare? It’s easier to say you just don’t care. Big Brother is watching with eyes in the sky Searching for those who still question why. Shooting the shepherds and bombing the sheep. Feeding us dreams to help us to sleep!

I am a Scientist (Biochemist/ Zoologist), and a theist. The two do not need to be combined because they are one and the same thing. The Corporeal world (or universe) is simply a manifestation of the spiritual. Traditional arguments for the existence of God have been made obsolete by science, for example Aristotle's First Cause argument (that was Christianised by St Thomas Aquinas) stated that nothing can come from nothing, everything must have a cause, therefore there must be a first cause which itself has no cause - is eternal. However quantum physics has shown that matter (something) can indeed come from a vacuum (nothing) making this argument less useful. Eventually every scientist has to turn to philosophy. The most hard-core non-spiritual scientist will probably be an existentialist (nothing means anything - it is that way purely without design or purpose). Yet that is still a philosophy, born out of our nature as human beings. There are many philosophies our intellect can toy with, the debate will go on as long as we exist. I used to love playing with such ideas until it drove me slightly insane! anyway - Sebastian, try these sites www.godandscience.org/ www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/stenger_19_1.html www.crosscurrents.org/godand.htm Jude

Thanks Judith. I like the way you seem to approach from a pantheistic perspective (or maybe you don't). I think if I were a believer I would think along those lines rather then traditional ones. I just don't see why there MUST be a deity. I will look at those sites though.

How is this attacking parents 1Leg? I think one of the main tenets of most religions is that of free will. Like a good parent that can see the mistakes that his children will make may give advice but not interfere beyond that. Sometimes making mistakes is the only way to learn and if we can learn from these mistakes then perhaps they were not mistakes after all but a way to grow. In the Prophet Gibran has him answering questions on children. The Prophet says that children are like arrows and the best a good parent can do is to be a strong and sturdy bow, take careful aim and let the arrows fly where they will. I was actually using this as an metaphor to explain why God allows us Free Will and does not interfere. As for: “New York and London - can you cook up an excuse to justify military attacks on these religious fundamentalists?” That comes from the story "Puppets" and stems from the Puppet Masters inability to control the fundamentalists with their propaganda. How is that attack Fundamentalists? Perhaps you have been visited by a cousin 1Leg...

In response to skydolphine's comment "Could you tell why don't you believe in anything benevolent?" I never said I didn't believe in anything benevolent I said I had not **faith** in anything benevolent. A vital distinction. :o)

I am often misunderstood as being anti-science (which I am not). I feel that science is the study of God while religion is the service. What I find offensive is the current fashion for scientist to claim unproven theories to be fact. Even the Big Bang is only a theory and may yet be proved to be wrong. Buddhism claims a constantly expanding and contracting universe which is just as likely as a once and for all Big Bang . At one time no one pretended they knew whether the universe would continue to expand, slow to a standstill, or eventually contract again. It’s not long since I read that all the predictions were wrong and the universe was unaccountably still accelerating in its expansion. I remember the assertion the Einstein must have been wrong and that Newton definitely had been. Of course, since then they have invented Dark Matter to help solve their theoretical short comings. As for Quantum Physics I noticed that the joke started by Albert and Max - entangled particles - has since been enshrined into Quantum Physics and it is now claimed : Spooky Particles Survive Einstein's Trap The most unnerving idea in quantum mechanics may be "spooky action at a distance.” Perhaps it’s Schrödinger's cat being playful in it’s indeterminate state. Build your own teleporter is likely to be the next claim. Again it’s all theory! I don’t really care how the Universe is sustained so long as it is - but what I don’t like is people pretending to know what they don’t and worse trying to force it down everyone's throat as the truth. People tend to trust scientist in the way they used to trust the clergy and now many believe that science has proven that God does not exist. All that has really been proven is that you can’t really trust anyone but God.

Science hasn't replaced God, but it has replaced a faith in Him somewhere. I think the problem is so many people confuse `Religion`, man's attempt at translating God, under the `will` of God. I think to fully understand God you need to look at Christ, who He was, what He did. He said `Follow Me`, not my followers. I have doubts about Christian doctrine all the time! But not in Him!

I understand your point completely Mykle and at times agree with you at least in part. But I have three main problems with what you say. 1. Your criticism of theory being treated as though it were fact. Well the Big Bang's a controversial one (and one that isn't necessarily contradictive to that of the expanding - contracting universe if you don't believe in linear time) but your criticism seems to really be aimed at certain people, partially in the media, who grab hold of ever new theory and pretend that it's gospel not the scientific community in general. Still your point stands. But at times theories such as evolution are accepted due to the fact that there is a lot of evidence for them and this evidence far outweighs that against it. 2. Your comment about science being an understanding of God is interesting. But isn't your faith in God equally a reason or faith based theory so are you not guilty of the same crimes as the certain scientist you dislike so much? Maybe no but I think it’s a relevant question. 3. Science and God’s existence. Personally I confess to being virtually an atheist and I’d say that though science can’t prove that there is no God it can provide us with a universe that has an absence of him. I would argue that there is no evidence for or against God’s existence and so one should suspend complete judgement but also relate back to what they know and evaluate the evidence that leads me to agnosticism on the borders of atheism.

Just read "Puppets" and really liked it. You raise some good point Mykle but it doesn’t support the argument that your “misunderstood as being anti-science” when you argue that scientists are outer space aliens who are contaminating that planet in order to make it inhabitable for themselves.

I take your point Sebastian - that inadvertantly I may be trying to thrust my beliefs onto others. I must say that I have never tried to define God as anything more concrete than a benevolent power. I am as happy to go along with the Buddhists who have no God as such but a kind of Cosmic Conciousness as I am with the Christian or Hindu trinities. I feel that the real danger is that man in his arrogance will someday make a fatal mistake that may well bring destruction on us all. The danger with science at the present is that it seems to reinforce materialism and deny the spiritual aspect of our nature. I argue that it is this spirit that makes us what we are and allows us to percieve the beauty and mystery of the Universe. If we are not careful we may lose God and become mere machines - efficient perhaps but Human no. The real message of God for me is that of Universal Love and without that I see no point to existence. I firmly believe - you don't know what you've got till it's gone.

It's obvious scientists have become gods if they can know what's happening billions of light years away! Here is a snippet from a popular science site about entangled particles, a phenomenon first suggested by Einstein and Planck as a joke, but now enshrined in Quantum Theory: Spooky action requires "entanglement," an intimate linkage between quantum particles. In a classic example, one of a pair of entangled photons is measured, which forces it to choose a polarization. Instantly, its twin must assume the opposite polarization--even if it's billions of light-years away. Somehow the first photon has sent a signal to its distant twin--a counterintuitive phenomenon that's been shown many times.

You must have posted while I was typing my reply to your earlier post Sebastion. I think 'Krazy' is closer to my real stand on the science issue. The hype and false promises we get made in the name of science - remember cold fusion, time travel via wormholes, how were we going to cope with living to be 1,000 etc. ? It's not really science I have the arguement with it's scientists! Having said that - are you certain that the puppet masters are not reading this at this very moment? Let's hope they have a sense of humour. *smile*

I've just read a posting from Funky on a related thread and I think he is right. Time for a rest. God, what a headache!

I agree that when pursuing materialistic desires one must be cautious. But I also believe that all pursuits are materialistic, spiritual included. So I can't support the notion that there is something wrong with only having materialistic pursuits, I think that's all we've ever had. But there are good and bad materialistic pursuits. These have to be judged on a utilitarian basis. As for humanity as machines. Well if by that you mean that we are nothing more then conscious matter with nothing but contingent substance or with no soul in the supernatural sense, well I guess I'd have to say we yes, that’s true. It's not a matter of what I want to believe it is only what I have to belief when presented with the facts that are before me. I haven't got the choice to believe in a soul unless I choose to delude myself. This is not to say that everyone who believes in souls are deluding themselves but rather that I as a specific example, and seeing the world as I do, would be. And I've got to say despite my debatably cold philosophy I don't think I'm a bad person or a depressed person. I feel quite comfortable in the knowledge that one day hopefully far away I'll return to the earth from which we all came. Boy this is a long winded reply, sorry.

Puppet masters. Scary thought. I feel like I'm doing their dirty work for them.

I can't (and don't want to) argue with that Mark. I think, slowly, people are starting to realise that scientists are not the prophets of Paradise they have been made out to be - and once this has fully percolatated people will return to the old religions. I still think that what God stands for is more important than the particular God you believe in. Buddhism which does not have a God, as such, is just as valid a religion as Christianity and also has the distinction of never having any wars fought in its name. I think God wants us to be 'good' and living by His laws are more important than what you actually choose to believe. All you need is love!

Hi Sebastian. Do you recall any research that was done on infant chimps that showed they could not survive without a mother figure - even if it was only a mockup that they could hug? I mention this to show how important love is even to a chimp. Where does love fit in science. A materialistic need for body warmth, a survival instinct (mother love - sacrifice for offspring), an aid to reproduction? The fact that a mockup worked at all - though not very satisfactorily - must mean it reflects a need in the infant. Why would a machine need this? There was also some interesting research that suggested that cells in the body might die from loneliness (commit suicide) - this suggests that we are not machine like even at a cellular level. I think I may have lost the thread - really tired! I'll get back to you. Regards Mykle.

Love is merely a beautiful product of the complex course of evolution. It might be more, but I see no reason why it should be. It doesn't make it any less amazing to know why we yearn for it. As for the whole cell thing, we're different from our machines in that we are far more complex and organic. That is the logical answer to why we vary from them in my view. I doubt greatly that any of my cells have any consciousness (except in a collective sense as with brain cells).

Mykle, a bit of misreporting on my part.. apologies, I meant that fundamentalists, parents, governments, capitalists, communists etc are examples of the 'THEY' responsible for all our ills, mentioned on these boards at various times. My general point still stands, misreporting, exaggerated claims, are quite common (see above): advertisers promising new lifestyles from their products, religious leaders promising heaven and nirvana, not to mention a giggle (is that the correct collective term) of virgins, science pundits hyping the latest discoveries.. It takes quite a mind to knit a mega conspiracy from this.. The truth is we live in an increasingly complex world, where day by day there is more information to sift through and try and make sense of as more people come on stream to have their say.. we do have a modicum of free will to operate in, whatever our situation (its true to say some have more choices than others), but you have to recognise that your starting point is here and now, this is where you start to carve out your future and our collective future, not some theoretical 'what if' place.. this is the only existence there is, there ever was. Shockingly, the reality is, we live in a perfect world.. has to be as it is unique, everything else is just theory unless we individually and collectively go out to create it, so.. the starting point is here.. (and not if the Roman empire had not happened.. Genghis Khan/Hitler had been nice men, America was not colonised.. Slavery had never existed.. Western Imperialism etc.. the general territory of poor fiction) As for God, what does that even mean? What is easy to say that all evidence points to a universe that is getting more complex, more varied.. more than that.. one that creates new order and structure day by day.. that there was a time before stars and galaxies were formed, solar systems and planets, weather systems and life, intelligent life, technology and computers, whatever next??? designed humans?? And these are only the things we know about!! So the common thread if one wishes, is a drive invested in the very essence of matter to create, to create new forms, new spirit even (tell me why that has to be static?) We humans and our creations.. be it values, morality, science, culture, tools, technology, curries etc are a part of this universal process.. perhaps we see ourselves as the vanguard of this urge to create impetus (how can we not).. in most cases we don't recognise it as such, yet we are drawn to procreate, to the new and original, to create (live out our) stories, art, this incessant drive to learn and create.. and artists and technologists are our new gods.. Why? I suggest we are getting to understand ourselves better. It is why all those who look backwards, to times that were 'better', simpler etc are doomed in their ideas.. the only way is progress, up and onwards, forwards, always learning and forging and creating the future that we think we want.. In the march of time, systems that are less flexible, or have reached their limits, are replaced.. this is as true of evolution.. as it is of human idealogies and institutions that proclaim to have answers for all time.. Flexibility, and the openness to re-evaluate and adjust to new circumstances.. always choosing the path of more options.. that is the key to success.. We have seen this even in our short lifetimes... America is succesful not because its Gods are more powerful.. but because of its systems (more in cultural then political life) that allows it to embrace change and make it the creative powerhouse of the world.. So fundamentalists, dictatorships, communists, fascists who live lives out closed books.. whose large portions of their idealogies are closed permanently to new ideas.. are doomed in time, only to be survived by relatively more open idealogies like democracy, the market place (those who decry capitalism in its entirety, reflect that there is no saner place on earth than a thriving marketplace for real goods for people)... As for the process of science, which is no more than a formalised method for distilling useful principles from empirical evidence through the use repeatable experiments... the essence of learning.. what is the big deal? Science provides knowledge of things past, the world that was. (If this sounds controversial then reflect on whether science would have been able to 'predict' humans in the age of the dinosaurs). Science does not determine how the future should be.. it provides us with knowledge and tools, that is it. Now here is the rub, If the universe creates new meaning/structure/spirit/form everyday, science will always lag behind.. there is now a whole science of the internet to explore, we have barely touched upon it.. So who are on the vanguard of the new creation then.. you, me, chefs, politicians, artists, technologists.. ie all of those in their jobs who channel their activities into creations (of any sort) rather than indulging in navel gazing cynicism.. who celebrate life and its possibilities than walk into the cul de sac of destruction.. And where is all of this creation stored, in that giant video recorder we call time, where all all past is fused in a connected whole we call the present. So you and I live forever in time, in the very fabric of our universe.. certainly cheers me up.. especially as I am still alive to add a little bit to that story of stories. End of rant.. I hope it makes some sense.. apologies to those who like fluffy short messages.. but I guess you are probably not on this thread anyway... Did not mean to write all this, but now it's done, it hopefully serves as an alternative, an antidote to angst ridden, guilt ridden, 'what if' merchants... who think they are the 'realists'.

Fine discussion, folks; IMHO, better minds than mine have treated this issue quite well and thoroughly: CP Snow, in 1959 in his Rede lecture, argued that the world's problems tend to be perpetuated largely due to these 'two cultures', as he termed them, science and humanities(including theology, a branch of philosophy) by virtue of their not talking with each other vs. at each other/over each other. Today we see many scientific findings converging with preexisting philosophical findings, a so-called Third Culture; this is good news, inasmuch as reductionism and its overspecialization has gutted science (isn't is called the search for the Truth?) and largely coopted it via corporate and other agendas. Call to mind the blind men manipulating the elephant and you have reductionism: now, I feel that this has been a false dichotomy; perhaps Nietzche had it right: philology, the adjudicating science, is virutally forgotten in such a way that both 'sides' have failed to examine their foundational belief systems. Submitted for your approval......see also Francis Bacon, The New Atlantis and Game Theory, a virtual math of both life and history.