Is it true that the scientists discovered parallel worlds, and who lives in them?

[Tom 1]

I reckon a documentary maker would have to pick their physicists pretty carefully to give that impression - or use plenty of selective quoting... but sadly that's what a lot of documentary makers do for channels like Discovery, etc. He who pays the piper calls the tune...

Yeah I’m sure that happens a lot. This was on the BBC though, which tends to be pretty science friendly. Generally speaking I don’t pay a lot of attention to what is going on in the world of science, just reading the odd article or where something becomes relevant to my job. I don’t have a problem with any of it, meaning that I don’t consider the processes by which the universe came to be and how it operates to have any relevance to my faith.I just remain unconvinced by what I tend to think of as science ‘PR’, i.e the kind of presentation of a smooth progression from one set of theories to the next. That doesn’t seem to match up with what I see and read about in history, philosophy of science and other related info. This isn’t much more than a vague impression really, made up of a few things. My closest contact with the world of science, apart from my grandad who started his working life as a chemist, was with psychiatric medicine in my previous area of work. What frankly astonished me and quite often was the level of denial about the problematic history of psychiatric medicine and medical treatments. Both in(admittedly not very many) personal conversations and more often at conferences I was honestly flabbergasted at the kind of indoctrination that seemed to have imprinted an entirely phony version of the development of the field in the minds of trained professionals, something along the lines of a smooth progression bringing benefit to all and that everything was the best it could possibly be, and those wrong ideas about schizophrenia which were replaced by other ideas weren’t actually wrong and anyway we have it all right now etc etc., which is kind of like re-writing history. Another is the quality of the ‘public face’ if I can call them that, of scientific atheism in the UK, mainly thinking of Richard Dawkins - knows a lot about biology, but appears to suffer from an almost total absence of any self-awareness when it comes to tackling anything else. Add to that where there are conflicting ideas you can find scientists on either side who will speak with absolute conviction about their version of whatever it is, offering proofs, and another who will say ‘oh that guy isn’t a good scientist’, and do the same. When the odd truly gifted person comes along with a genuinely new idea, more often that not its their fellow scientists who refuse to accept or even listen to it, displaying an unwillingness to have their own ideas challenged. These things together make me dubious, not necessarily of some of the theories discussed above, but of the overall consistency of the world of science as it tends to present itself. From the outside it looks more like I imagine the world of religion must look like to people new to it.

 

[joinfree]

..... you can find scientists on either side who will speak with absolute conviction about their version of whatever it is, offering proofs, ....

There are no proofs of atheism. They say, that burden of proofs is not on the atheists. Can you present a single proof of atheism?

 

[Radagast]

Is it true that the scientists discovered parallel worlds, and who lives in them?

If by "science" you mean physics, astrophysics, the mainstream science, that answer is "no" from my routine reading of recent discoveries.

I agree.

 

[joinfree]

I agree.

What about my text?

 

[Radagast]

What about my text?

Well, I'm sorry, but the parts I could understand I disagreed with.

 

[Gene2memE]

Can you present a single proof of atheism?

The absence of reliable evidence justifying justified belief in the existence of gods.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yeah I’m sure that happens a lot. This was on the BBC though, which tends to be pretty science friendly. Generally speaking I don’t pay a lot of attention to what is going on in the world of science, just reading the odd article or where something becomes relevant to my job. I don’t have a problem with any of it, meaning that I don’t consider the processes by which the universe came to be and how it operates to have any relevance to my faith.I just remain unconvinced by what I tend to think of as science ‘PR’, i.e the kind of presentation of a smooth progression from one set of theories to the next. That doesn’t seem to match up with what I see and read about in history, philosophy of science and other related info. This isn’t much more than a vague impression really, made up of a few things. My closest contact with the world of science, apart from my grandad who started his working life as a chemist, was with psychiatric medicine in my previous area of work. What frankly astonished me and quite often was the level of denial about the problematic history of psychiatric medicine and medical treatments. Both in(admittedly not very many) personal conversations and more often at conferences I was honestly flabbergasted at the kind of indoctrination that seemed to have imprinted an entirely phony version of the development of the field in the minds of trained professionals, something along the lines of a smooth progression bringing benefit to all and that everything was the best it could possibly be, and those wrong ideas about schizophrenia which were replaced by other ideas weren’t actually wrong and anyway we have it all right now etc etc., which is kind of like re-writing history.

Yes, the medical side of mental and behavioural science has lagged behind the physical sciences - many would argue that psychiatry is still in the process of becoming a science... but this is understandable when dealing with the subtleties of a system orders of magnitude more complex than any other we encounter, that we have only a crude and superficial understanding of, and that is unique to each individual.

Another is the quality of the ‘public face’ if I can call them that, of scientific atheism in the UK, mainly thinking of Richard Dawkins - knows a lot about biology, but appears to suffer from an almost total absence of any self-awareness when it comes to tackling anything else. Add to that where there are conflicting ideas you can find scientists on either side who will speak with absolute conviction about their version of whatever it is, offering proofs, and another who will say ‘oh that guy isn’t a good scientist’, and do the same. When the odd truly gifted person comes along with a genuinely new idea, more often that not its their fellow scientists who refuse to accept or even listen to it, displaying an unwillingness to have their own ideas challenged. These things together make me dubious, not necessarily of some of the theories discussed above, but of the overall consistency of the world of science as it tends to present itself. From the outside it looks more like I imagine the world of religion must look like to people new to it.

Scientists are people too, subject to the same biases, obsessions, emotions, conflicts, etc., that everyone else is (and the most driven and opinionated tend to make the best news for the media). This is why it has been necessary to devise the scientific method, and all the organisational structures to support it, hoping to allow a considered consensus to emerge over time.

The reluctance to accept radically novel ideas is understandable - no-one wants years of career work to be sidelined or devalued - and has received plenty of attention, especially after Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' reimagined the progress of science as a series of paradigm shifts as the old guard died off and were replaced by upcoming youngsters more open to fresh ideas and novelty; but though there is some truth to it, it was rather exaggerated.

The reluctance to accept radically novel ideas is natural and can also be seen as establishing a threshold of skepticism helping to protect a hard won body of established knowledge; if you're going to challenge or extend that knowledge, it had better be good. The competition between young scientists forging their careers can provide access for novelty, and the conservatism of the more established, experienced scientists can provide a filter for them. This system may slow progress at times, and may sometimes neglect or reject valid ideas, but it's a human endeavour limited by financial constraints, sponsors interests, etc., so it is what it is.

 

[Tom 1]

Yes, the medical side of mental and behavioural science has lagged behind the physical sciences - many would argue that psychiatry is still in the process of becoming a science... but this is understandable when dealing with the subtleties of a system orders of magnitude more complex than any other we encounter, that we have only a crude and superficial understanding of, and that is unique to each individual.


Scientists are people too, subject to the same biases, obsessions, emotions, conflicts, etc., that everyone else is (and the most driven and opinionated tend to make the best news for the media). This is why it has been necessary to devise the scientific method, and all the organisational structures to support it, hoping to allow a considered consensus to emerge over time.

The reluctance to accept radically novel ideas is understandable - no-one wants years of career work to be sidelined or devalued - and has received plenty of attention, especially after Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' reimagined the progress of science as a series of paradigm shifts as the old guard died off and were replaced by upcoming youngsters more open to fresh ideas and novelty; but though there is some truth to it, it was rather exaggerated.

The reluctance to accept radically novel ideas is natural and can also be seen as establishing a threshold of skepticism helping to protect a hard won body of established knowledge; if you're going to challenge or extend that knowledge, it had better be good. The competition between young scientists forging their careers can provide access for novelty, and the conservatism of the more established, experienced scientists can provide a filter for them. This system may slow progress at times, and may sometimes neglect or reject valid ideas, but it's a human endeavour limited by financial constraints, sponsors interests, etc., so it is what it is.

Good answer! Thanks

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There are no proofs of atheism. They say, that burden of proofs is not on the atheists. Can you present a single proof of atheism?

What is there to prove? atheism is a lack of belief in gods; it's not a statement of fact about states of affairs in the world.

I don't collect stamps either, I'm an aphilatelist. Does it make sense to ask for a single proof of aphilately? I guess you could go through all my belongings looking for a stamp collection, but when it comes to belief, you just have to accept a person's word and take their behaviour as supporting evidence. Is there a proof of your lack of belief in cheese pixies?

 

[joinfree]

Well, I'm sorry, but the parts I could understand I disagreed with.

List these parts and reasons of disagreements, if latter are not plain hatred and disrespect.

 

[Radagast]

What is there to prove? atheism is a lack of belief in gods; it's not a statement of fact about states of affairs in the world.

I assume that what was meant was: can atheists prove the nonexistence of god(s)?

After all, atheism makes a statement about the state of affairs in all-that-is: it says that god(s) do not exist.

 

[joinfree]

The absence of reliable evidence justifying justified belief in the existence of gods.

Is belief in atheism the knowledge? If yes, then faith is faithfulness to knowledge?

 

[Radagast]

List these parts and reasons of disagreements, if latter are not plain hatred and disrespect.

Too much work. Also, I don't appreciate the accusation.

 

[joinfree]

.........
I don't collect stamps either, I'm an aphilatelist. Does it make sense to ask for a single proof of aphilately? .........

The aphilately can be proved following way: 1) there are such people, 2) That's it.
The proof of atheism is not the proof of atheists. If I say, that in my pocket are no coins, then it can be proven. If atheists say, that in the pocket is no God, they must prove it!

 

[joinfree]

Too much work. Also, I don't appreciate the accusation.

You are Christian and not used to accusations? Are you friend of the world then?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I assume that what was meant was: can atheists prove the nonexistence of god(s)?

The answer to that should be obvious.

... atheism makes a statement about the state of affairs in all-that-is: it says that god(s) do not exist.

Atheism makes a statement about belief in gods, not their existence; some atheists deny they exist - these would be gnostic atheists, or possibly antitheists.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The aphilately can be proved following way: 1) there are such people, 2) That's it.

If the proof of aphilately is that some people don't collect stamps, then the proof of atheism is that some people don't believe in gods.

If atheists say, that in the pocket is no God, they must prove it!

If they were to say that, they would have a secondary burden of proof to those who claim God is in the pocket. Unless the claim that something exists can be substantiated, a denial of that existence bears no burden of proof.

However, the atheist claim is about belief, so it would be that they don't believe a god is in the pocket. Proof of belief and proof of the subject of belief are different things.

 

[Gene2memE]

Is belief in atheism the knowledge? If yes, then faith is faithfulness to knowledge?

You still don't understand what atheism is, do you?

Atheism is not a belief claim
Atheism is not a knowledge claim

Atheism is a position of non-belief of theistic claims about the existence of god(s).

You can't believe in atheism. Atheism is a response to the positions of others on a single question. Atheism is not a position that you can establish a belief in.

 

[Radagast]

Atheism is not a knowledge claim

Atheism is a position of non-belief of theistic claims about the existence of god(s).

It is a knowledge claim, in that it asserts that theistic statements are false.

 

[Gene2memE]

It is a knowledge claim, in that it asserts that theistic statements are false.

Nope.
It's a failure to accept theistic statements as true.
That is not the same as asserting those statements are false.

If you claim a penny came up heads, and I say I don't believe you and I need evidence, that's not the same as saying the penny came up tails.

Similarly, if you claim a god exists, and I say I don't believe you and I need evidence, that's not the same as saying no god exists.