You said:
“And it is my guess that despite all the scientific jargon that they -- and no
doubt you …”
Yes I agree that scientists do far too much of this, which is a shame because the concepts of The Theories of General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Mechancis (QM) are really very simple. But the lay person gets put off by high-falutin (often Latin) terminology. The mathematics are tough, but one doesn’t need to reveal the mathematics to explain what is going on. It’s a crying shame that professionals (medical, legal, computing … whatever) invent this world that they feels sets them apart – perhaps it makes them feel safe?
On “Lighties” – they sound like delightful creatures and indeed may be “The Absolute Truth”. The first point to remember is that good scientific theories predict phenomena. The capricious whim of a “lighty” turning his handle bar is not a good theory, for instance, what is to stop the “lighty” turning it the other way? However, a “lighty” travelling in a straight line (no turning of handlebars required) through four dimensional spacetime will give the observed bend in three special dimensions. The “lighty” does not have to do anything at all except do what he was doing before, ie. travelling in a straight line. This is one of the reasons why Einstein’s GR is better than the “Lighty Theory”.
You said:
“Two objects of different mass will accelerate at the same rate absent the
effect of wind resistance?”
Yes, but I prefer to think of them carrying on as they were, moving at a uniform velocity in a straight line between two points in curved spacetime. This translates to accelerating in 3d space of course. When you think of it like this how could they possibly accelerate at different rates?
You said:
“Ever seen a quark? Ever held a neutrino in your hand and determined that it in
fact had no mass whatever? Then how do you -- deep.thought -- know that it is
true?”
I don’t know that subatomic particles such as those given the name “quark” or “neutrino” are “true” because I don’t believe that science can give us the Absolute Truth. I hold the probability of such things existing as quite high, because they help to explain how particles can have different quantum mechanical spins, and the QM spins (a theory) evidence themselves in physical properties (a fact?) of certain media. I also believe there are large chambers of water that mankind buried deep in the Earth that contain photoelectrical measuring cells that have physically measured the after effects of neutrino bursts from the sun.
Again: science does not deal with the Absolute Truth. Science deals with theories – and these theories are (and will be) modified over time.
Note 1: There are many abstract theories of science (like multiverses) which have no basis in physical evidence at all: these I do not subscribe to as science, they are more like Philosophy, and when held up as science I have a very low regard for them. But they make good reading nonetheless, just as Philosophy does.
Note 2: I studied Physics and our curriculum contained many laboratory experiments, so I have some knowledge of how scientific theory (not truth!) relates to the real world, but my direct knowledge gained through experiment is somewhat limited I agree.
You asked:
How can something be morally acceptable based on the intentional lack of
knowledge?
Well to me it could not be. But unless we agree on our morals we cannot all answer that question with the same answer can we? The question of abortion is one that will run and run for I guess as long as women (and men) decide that they want to have babies. I mentioned earlier that I believe creatures displaying moral characteristics want to preserve life, regardless of its sexual orientation. I am not judging whether being “moral” or “amoral” is good here, as I think this is something that needs looked at on a case by case basis rather than making a blanket law.
***
I watched the Passion of The Christ again on Saturday evening, I was expecting the violence this time – so I managed to look past my emotions (at times!) as to what Gibson was doing. The savage beating he portrays Christ receiving seems too savage to me, are people really capable of behaving (with such relish) like this?
The other thing I considered was Judas Iscariot. A have a couple of questions … firstly, just why is Judas hated and vilified by everyone? His betrayal of Christ led to the Crucifixion and the saving of all mankind after all.
Secondly, for the Biblical inerrant you :-) … what actually did happen to Judas after he betrayed Christ? How did he die?
Was it (as Gibson portrayed in the movie):
So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
Matthew 27:5 (NIV)
Or:
With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell
headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled
out.
Acts 1:18 (NIV)
Is this a simple case of a) Matthew forgetting (or not bothering) to mention that Judas went back into the temple to get the money he had thrown into it, left and then bought a field b) Acts not bothering to mention that Judas hanged himself and c) assuming both accounts are correct, they both neglected to mention that the rope broke. It’s stuff like this that Biblical inneracists come up with to shoe horn the Bible into – I just can’t accept it. Your view is appreciated!
Your Cornerstone #4, Sir?
Current Song: “The Whole of the Moon" -- The Waterboys
No comments:
Post a Comment