View Full Version : Consensus of opinion?
It was said in the film 'Contact' that an atheist should not be the first to meet aliens from outer space because he/she does not represent the opinions 95% of the world's population. However, global warming sceptics and intelligent designists maintain that consensus of scientific opinion does not indicate the truth, even though they are in the minority and they invariably never come up with an alternative theory that stands up to scrutiny.
Is it possible to debunk what other people say purely on the basis that they are in the minority?
Can we get a consensus on this?:D
Whilst I liked 'Contact', I found Matthew McConaughey's character made me somewhat uneasy. I'd certainly not be happy if a blinkered religious person insisted on speaking for all humanity.
Bobinovich
28-Jun-06, 22:29
I too liked 'Contact' and, as a semi-athiest, found the scientific explanation far more pausible than the religious side taken in the film. Without wanting to stir the wrath of those FMs who are of any religious faith, I find the blind belief in a greater being - without any physical proof - to be beyond comprehension.
Reasons? Well to start with the various faiths take in massive amounts of money from their respective 'parishoners', but once all REASONABLE operating costs (a fact of everyone's lives) have been taken off, the rest should be distributed to those in need throughout the world. This would then be truly a worthwhile reason for attending religious ceremonies - i.e. to give charitable aid.
Secondly, numerous faiths have incredulous attitudes towards others - wars have been waged and millions of lives lost due to this over the course of humanity - surely this is against any greater being's wishes???
Instead of living by the rules set by some supposed supremo, just follow some common sense rules instead...
work hard but live life to the full - overworking at the expense of a family and/or social life is just daft
try and get on with people - if you can't then just ignore them
murder, rape and other crimes are simply wrong - just don't do them
money is not the meaning of life - health & happiness are FAR more importantDON'T BITE MY HEAD OFF! I know that the nature of man means that not everyone will follow these rules - they just seem like common sense to me!!! ;)
George Brims
28-Jun-06, 23:40
I hated that movie. The Arroway character was just annoying. I couldn't listen to her for fear she would describe the alien instructions as a "primmer" again (20 years in the US, you would think I would have got used to the weird pronunciation by now!).
But the worst part to me was the gruesomely patronizing attitude towards people of religious faith from the "scientific" side. Just for background, I myself am both a scientist and an atheist, but I thought it was smug and mean.
now i will have to go watch the movie again , i cant remember anything..
now i am saying this as a very relgious person..
imho. here....
i do not think religion has any place in meeting a new race.
lots of delegations.. and loads and loads of work..
aliens will have their own beliefs as we do ours..
and how arogant would it be for us.. to from the get go throw God in their faces.. and possibly insult them?
i still shudder at how christianity over the years has had the convert or die regime.
I have great faith and love in God. however i would never ever impose my views on others.
if we were in that situation.
once we had made contact.
i would say during relations that yes bring up religions ,
find out what theirs is and let them know about all the myrid ones on earth..
do you think they would think us grown up.. if we acted like school children and chanted.. "my God is better than your God"
when basically God is God no matter what God is called?
they are just dif. ways of ackowledging (cant spell to early) Him.
i would never ever impose my views on others.
Aliens or not, I bet you have with your kids. Has it ever occurred to you to keep them from a religion so that they can decide for themselves because once you have introduced it then you have imposed it, you know what learning machines they are and how susceptible they are to new things...:D
Aliens or not, I bet you have with your kids. Has it ever occurred to you to keep them from a religion so that they can decide for themselves because once you have introduced it then you have imposed it, you know what learning machines they are and how susceptible they are to new things...:D
And if they know nothing about it, what have they got to make up their minds between?
And if they know nothing about it, what have they got to make up their minds between?
Their own minds? Our kids aren't stupid...
But they do get influenced at Primary school with regards to Religion, in assembly etc. Unless you object to your child being taught it!
Hmmm..........I enjoyed Contact.
Should the deeply religious greet an alien race? Well aliens don't exist so its never gonna happen (there's another thread in there somewhere)....but speaking in a purely hypothetical sense: if aliens have credit cards it would be hard to stop most religions having a go.... ;)
It was said in the film 'Contact' that an atheist should not be the first to meet aliens from outer space because he/she does not represent the opinions 95% of the world's population. However, global warming sceptics and intelligent designists maintain that consensus of scientific opinion does not indicate the truth, even though they are in the minority and they invariably never come up with an alternative theory that stands up to scrutiny.
Is it possible to debunk what other people say purely on the basis that they are in the minority?
Can we get a consensus on this?
Galileo was definitely in a minority, but the moons of Jupiter are there none the less.
However, the fact that there is no proof of something does not mean it cannot be true.
For a long time there was no "proof" that the earth was round but it was none the less.
Evolution is only a theory for which there is no proof. Most people believe that it does occur but there is no agreement on the method by which it happens.
Global Warming is happening but there is no definite proof as to it's cause.
Those who question if it is purely created by Human activity are paraded as denying it is occurring at all.
Personally I would suggest that the sudden rapid increase in Global Warming since the 1960s is due to the Clean Air Act and similar legislation in other Countries.
The pollution pumped out in the couple of centuries prior to that was almost pure filth which blocked out the heat from the sun.
"Global Warming" is just the earth catching up to the temperature it would have achieved had the sun's heat not been blocked out in the first place.
One thing I do know is that if Aliens ever do visit Earth they will need a good Psychiatrist by the time they leave whoever it is the meet first.
The main problem I have with Intelligent Design is the whoever designed Humanity must have been suffering a “Bad Brain Day” at the time! ;) [lol]
Evolution is only a theory for which there is no proof. Most people believe that it does occur but there is no agreement on the method by which it happens.
I really canna be bothered getting involved in the usual nonsense this type of thread evokes. Neither do I want to challenge jaws about the above quote i picked from his post. I just want to point out to anyone who may be a follower of jaws that on this occasion he is talking through a hole in his head.
Sure, evolution is only a theory but it's a theory that stands the test of time. It's the proof that jaws says is lacking that makes evolution such an attractive idea. No need for me to go into it. If people were as interested in the scientific world as they are of the world of their dreams then there would be no need to explain it to anyone.
As for no agreement on the method by which evolution happens, If I had the time and the notion to make this a debate, Jaws would be condemned by his own words. The theory of evolution had been discussed before Darwins time, but it was Darwins idea that evolution happened by a process of natural selection that cemented the theory into a practical way of viewing the world and inform us as to how things are. Contrary to common belief, natural selection is not survival of the fittest. That's a warped form of social Darwinism and has no connection with the theory of evolution by natural selection.
I'm sure if aliens ever landed on earth, their own knowledge would include evolution by natural selection to explain how the whole universe evolved. As for Gods and all that stuff, science can explain that too, but, as long as people beiieve it, then it's real.
I really canna be bothered getting involved in the usual nonsense this type of thread evokes. Neither do I want to challenge jaws about the above quote i picked from his post. I just want to point out to anyone who may be a follower of jaws that on this occasion he is talking through a hole in his head.
Sure, evolution is only a theory but it's a theory that stands the test of time. It's the proof that jaws says is lacking that makes evolution such an attractive idea. No need for me to go into it. If people were as interested in the scientific world as they are of the world of their dreams then there would be no need to explain it to anyone.
As for no agreement on the method by which evolution happens, If I had the time and the notion to make this a debate, Jaws would be condemned by his own words. The theory of evolution had been discussed before Darwins time, but it was Darwins idea that evolution happened by a process of natural selection that cemented the theory into a practical way of viewing the world and inform us as to how things are. Contrary to common belief, natural selection is not survival of the fittest. That's a warped form of social Darwinism and has no connection with the theory of evolution by natural selection.
I'm sure if aliens ever landed on earth, their own knowledge would include evolution by natural selection to explain how the whole universe evolved. As for Gods and all that stuff, science can explain that too, but, as long as people beiieve it, then it's real.The theory that everything was formed from Earth, Air, Fire and Water stood the test of time. It lasted not for a couple of Centuries but for a couple of Millennia but that didn't stop it being wrong in the end.
All that “standing the test of time” means is that nobody has produced a better idea so far. That does not mean that tomorrow, next week, next century or even in the next millennia the whole theory might prove to be wrong and supplanted by a better one.
I would reword one point I made. I should have said that Evolution is a Theory for which there is no Definitive Proof. Yes there are examples which would appear to support it, but that is what they are, examples. There is no agreement as to whether it occurs by small improvements over long periods of time or by sudden, freak changes causing huge leaps which creates sudden improvements in a species. Darwinian Evolution is only one idea amongst many. All Darwin did was to thrust the whole subject into the public consciousness and for quite a while he too was in a Minority with his ideas.
Evolution in some form, from what little I know about it, I will agree sounds the most likely explanation of how we all arrived at where we are now.
But that is only a belief and to that extent I am quite happy for others to believe otherwise until Evolution ceases to be a Theory and becomes an explained and provable fact.
Personally, were Little Green Men to ask me who they should contact, I would point them in the direction of the nearest Dolphins. Provided, that is, I didn’t offend the real Creators of the World, the mice! :eek:
The theory that everything was formed from Earth, Air, Fire and Water stood the test of time. It lasted not for a couple of Centuries but for a couple of Millennia but that didn't stop it being wrong in the end.
The reason we know it is wrong is evidence.
All that “standing the test of time” means is that nobody has produced a better idea so far. That does not mean that tomorrow, next week, next century or even in the next millennia the whole theory might prove to be wrong and supplanted by a better one.
No, it means there is no evidence for any other theory. Evidence based science shows what our world is like. It doesnt tell us how to live or whether we should believe in Gods although the evidence seems to suggest that believing in a God helps.
I would reword one point I made. I should have said that Evolution is a Theory for which there is no Definitive Proof. Yes there are examples which would appear to support it, but that is what they are, examples. There is no agreement as to whether it occurs by small improvements over long periods of time or by sudden, freak changes causing huge leaps which creates sudden improvements in a species. Darwinian Evolution is only one idea amongst many. All Darwin did was to thrust the whole subject into the public consciousness and for quite a while he too was in a Minority with his ideas.
There is total agreement about how the changes occur.
Evolution through natural selection is the only theory backed by evidence.
All Darwin did was to write a book that he kept hidden for 20 years for fear of ridicule. He also said if there was any evidence to the contrary, then his theory would fall. So far, the theory of evolution through natural selection has grown stronger. Other theories, like intelligent design have changed their approach because of the strength of Darwins work. It's ok not to believe it, but it's not ok to give false information about it.
If all the people on Planet Earth believed the same untruth, it would not make it true. A million people can be wrong and are, frequently. Three billion Christians do not ensure, by their beliefs, that there is a figment of truth in the Christ mythos.
Saveman believes that there are no such thing as aliens. He has the same chance of being right or wrong as anybody else but his beliefs are as unprovable as all the religious beliefs of the people of our planet.
No, it means there is no evidence for any other theory. Evidence based science shows what our world is like. It doesnt tell us how to live or whether we should believe in Gods although the evidence seems to suggest that believing in a God helps.
There is total agreement about how the changes occur.
Evolution through natural selection is the only theory backed by evidence.
All Darwin did was to write a book that he kept hidden for 20 years for fear of ridicule. He also said if there was any evidence to the contrary, then his theory would fall. So far, the theory of evolution through natural selection has grown stronger. Other theories, like intelligent design have changed their approach because of the strength of Darwins work. It's ok not to believe it, but it's not ok to give false information about it.The reason why some sort God or Gods is necessary is that Humanity has to find some sort of Order in things. Those things which seem to be inexplicable must be controlled by someone or something unknown to us.
There is no explanation we know of so it must be the work of a superior force, i.e. a God.
We have an inbuilt need to find something orderly in what appears disorderly.
Darwin only wanted his Origin of Species to be published after his death because he knew that it’s implications would fly in the face of the orderly and perfect World created by God whereby Man was created in God’s own Image.
It was only when he received a letter from somebody (I can’t mind his name but somebody will know) in Germany was coming to the same conclusions by a different route that he decided he had to publish.
The eventual description of Darwin’s Theory as “Survival of the Fittest” as far as I can see would be better described as “Survival of those which became Best Adapted”.
A slight change which was beneficial would be more successful and would keep slowly improving until it was best suited to what was required.
There is another Theory which, I understand, suggests that, instead of small changes over a long period of time, an accidental change in DNA creates a sudden change. If that change is detrimental then it will almost immediately disappear. If it is of great benefit then it will be hugely successful and the original form of the species will rapidly become extinct and a new species or sub-species in created. (Not in the Biblical sense I hasten to add).
One Theory relies on small but continuing improvements over a period of time, the other relies on freak accidents, lots of failures and the odd huge success.
I certainly don’t recall making any claims about the correctness or otherwise of Intelligent Design other than those who believe in it are entitled to their beliefs.
I would agree that accepting Genesis as being an “Absolute Truth” is a virtual impossibility other than as an act of Faith, simply dismissing it in it’s entirety is simply to close ones mind to why it has lasted.
Remember, Troy was a figment of an over active imagination until somebody dug it up, even if it did take those with a more scientific approach to find the correct level..
Aliens or not, I bet you have with your kids. Has it ever occurred to you to keep them from a religion so that they can decide for themselves because once you have introduced it then you have imposed it, you know what learning machines they are and how susceptible they are to new things...:D
then you would also have to keep them from science. Isn't it better to expose them to ALL beliefs?
By keeping them from religion only, you would then be imposing YOUR beliefs on them.
then you would also have to keep them from science. Isn't it better to expose them to ALL beliefs?
By keeping them from religion only, you would then be imposing YOUR beliefs on them.
Science is not a belief, so no, I do not think keeping them from science is recommended.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.