Terry Pratchet finds religion

[PeckhamRose]

Oh wow that film sounds like a barrel of laughs.

Can't wait, will it be banned in USA like XTCs Dear God was (and which action made them!)

[david_carnell]

Oh man, that looks awesome. He even visits one of those UFO cults. Shooting fish in a barrel.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Let's hope when Pratchett does go, this lot don't decide to pickett his funeral

What.. mopes!

[mockney piers]

I remember Louis Theroux's programme on them. Strange bunch, but I really felt sorry for the kids, what a childhood; little surprise that they almost all leave home the moment they're old enough.

[bignumber5]

Atheism is not a religion. It is the absence of belief in a deity not a form of belief.

In one of TP's books (feet of clay, i think it was) a coldly logical character points out that atheism is not an absence of belief, it is the confident belief that there is no higher being, which is a valid religious standpoint.

Does that make it a religion? "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" sounds like a good summary of what it means to be a true Atheist. To be Agnostic, on the other hand, is to lack a set beliefs.

So it comes down to how certain you are, I suppose...

[Huguenot]

I always found it necessary to separate the god debate from the religion debate.

The anthropic principle - that all the fundamental natural laws are so finely balanced at the point that they support life implies some sort of selection process - does seem to be intrinsically plausible.

The scientific community sidesteps the issue by explaining that since the issue is untestable it isn't worthy of inclusion with their discipline. All a little bit convenient.

In this sense a rational scientific debate would have to conclude that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a 'god'. Science merely suggest that if there is a god then he/she hasn't had their fingers in the pot much since they set the initial rules and regulations.

Sod all to do with beardies and dogma. I think we have to ask ourselves serious questions about self obsession if we think that whoever this god was, that they were even remotely interested in appearing as a pater familias and sending their son to earth over concerns about our moral hygeine.

[david_carnell]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The anthropic principle - that all the fundamental

> natural laws are so finely balanced at the point

> that they support life implies some sort of

> selection process - does seem to be intrinsically

> plausible.

>

> The scientific community sidesteps the issue by

> explaining that since the issue is untestable it

> isn't worthy of inclusion with their discipline.

> All a little bit convenient.

Do you mean the theories explaining why Earth is capable of supporting life compared to other planets or the reasons for the origin of life itself?

Both have been widely covered by the scientific community but I'm not sure which one you mean. The anthropic principle can apply to both the cosmos or to Earth only so to be clear......

[Brendan]

See Huguenot gets it.

The reason I say the Science/Religion debate is pointless is because in my point of view and I think most people?s, science won ages ago. It may hold some socio-political credence for ill-informed communities in places like America but has little value in a discussion on the nature of knowledge and the human experience of the universe.

[mockney piers]

I think that's what I was trying to get to with the whole agnostic/ignostic thing, but there you go.

The anthropic principle will apply to earth in that the it begs the question, we are alive here therefore we exist in a cosmos/time/bit of the universe that permits life.

There is no particular inherent implication that other than that we are particularly exclusive or special.

The big bang set the cosmological parameters by which life is possible. Our moment in time within which these conditions pan out to be able to support life is staggeringly huge, and as for our narrow band in the solar system, in case you hadn't noticed, and to quote the master "Space is big" ;-)

[david_carnell]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> See Huguenot gets it.

Well then I must be being rather dense or rather argumentative because I'm afraid I do not.

> The reason I say the Science/Religion debate is

> pointless is because in my point of view and I

> think most people?s, science won ages ago. It may

> hold some socio-political credence for

> ill-informed communities in places like America

> but has little value in a discussion on the nature

> of knowledge and the human experience of the

> universe.

Science has won?! Really? If I thought that were true Brendan I would be a very happy bunny, but alas I rather think the battle has only just got going.

If science had really won (outside of your percieved religious bolt-holes in America) then why is a creationist school opening in East Dulwich? Why do people blow themselves up in the name of religion on a daily basis? Why are heretics and heathens still subjected to the death penalty? Why are arguments being fought over patches of desert by two offshoots of Abrahamic religions? Why are religious leaders still seen as community spokesmen?

I think I'm beginning to understand your point that human knowledge is limited by our understanding of the universe and the laws of nature but I'm unsure where you plan to run with the point. Does this mean we abandon that kowledge to free our minds or give up critically thinking about the nature of life and the origins of the universe?

Edit - well put Mockney. The following, also I think from Adams sums up the anthropic principle rather well:

Imagine a puddle of water waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

[Brendan]

Stop looking for definites grasshopper.

There aren?t any.*

*Or perhaps there are. Who knows?

[Huguenot]

DC I was just sweepingly applying it to the Cosmos :) I think science came up with a few different theories, and hasn't discounted any of them.

I recall the 'absurd universe' (that's just the way it is, so there), the 'multiverse' (all the other universes with different laws are also there, we're just not in them to see them), the 'theory of everything' (there's an underlying law we don't understand which makes it this way) and several others.

Also within that list must be 'Intelligent Design' (someone set up the 'physical' rules, but please don't confuse this with arguments about evolution) and 'Virtual Reality' (we're all in a simulation like The Matrix).

It would be illogical for an empirical scientist to deny either of the last two options alongside the earlier proposals, since there is no evidence for any of these solutions.

The thing that I find frustrating about those with the religious bug is that in this respect science is warm and huggable. It allows for the existence of a 'god' (or a whole fugging pantheon if you want) with equal status alongside less spooky ideas.

However, historically those with the god bug haven't returned the favour with a similar open mind, instead they'vew been down the DIY store looking for an accellerant.

Who says science is a cold-hearted pursuit? Red-hot more like!

[Keef]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I remember Louis Theroux's programme on them.

> Strange bunch, but I really felt sorry for the

> kids, what a childhood; little surprise that they

> almost all leave home the moment they're old

> enough.

I watched that too (and have since taken an interest in the nutters), "the most hated family in America" (not surprisingly really), and I had exactly the same thoughts about the poor kids, taking a 5 year old to picket a funeral and shouting "God hates fags" at people... Nice :-S

It's all headed up by Fred Phelps, a very nasty character indeed!

What I always found really odd was that there was another guy there who had also gone in as a TV reporter making a documentary, and he got totally sucked in to the whole thing!

Slightly off topic, the thing about the kids getting out of it is interesting, and reminded me of Nazi Pop Twins, a documentary made by James Quinn, which showed the 2 twin girls known as Prussian Blue obviously becoming uncomfortable and embarrassed by their horrific neo nazi mother!

[mockney piers]

Always a good time to bring up this website

Starlight Problem

and my old favourite Kangaroo which seems to propose that pangea broke apart less than 4000 years ago.

notice how it's all science in reverse.

We have a theory, science presents a 'problem' so we come up with solutions to address or attack the problem.

Why bother, if things are 'because they are' then they just are, why then bother to come up with such outlandish theories as 'light created in transit' or 'decrease in the speed of light'?!?!