Download while you can:
http://www.scientomogy.info/videos/southpark.rm
South Park is the highest-rated show on Comedy Central thanks to its willingness to slaughter sacred cows, but sources say even show creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone are a bit nervous about the blowback from tonight’s episode. Entitled “Trapped in the Closet,” the duo set their crudely animated sights on Scientology and Tom Cruise—topics previously deemed “off limits” due to the actor’s close ties to Comedy Central’s sister company, Paramount Pictures, we’re told.
According to a source who has read an early draft of the script, it begins with Stan visiting a Church office only to be hailed as a savior by the leaders of Scientology because of his off-the-chart results on an E-meter test. A group of Hollywood A-listers quickly gather outside Stan’s house, we’re told, with Tom Cruise somehow ending up stuck in a closet—leading a news crew stationed at the scene to report that Cruise’s fans fervently want the actor to “just come out.”
My observations regarding science versus religion:
Yes the episode is excellent and scientology is insane. There is a very good diary online somewhere detailing a guys experience all the way up to “clear” status and how it screwed up his life. Google should find it for you.
As for God and creationism versus Evolution. Well, evolution is a theory and a weak one at that. The evidence only suggests an outcome not proves one. Consider this (from Gods Debris)
“Imagine that an asteroid lands on Earth and brings with it an exotic bacteria that kills all organic matter on Earth and then dissolves without a trace. A million years later, intelligent aliens discover Earth and study our bones and our possessions, trying to piece together our history.
They might notice that all of our cookware—the pots and pans and plates and bowls—all seemed to be related somehow. And the older ones were quite different from the newer ones. The earliest among them were crude bowls, all somewhat similar, generally made of clay or stone.
Over time, the bowls evolved into plates and coffee cups and stainless-steel frying pans. “The aliens would create compelling charts showing how the dishes evolved. The teacup family would look like its own species, related closely to the beer mug and the water glass. An observer who looked at the charts would clearly see a pattern that could not be coincidence.
The cause of this dishware evolution would be debated, just as we debate the underlying cause of human evolution, but the observed fact of dishware evolution would not be challenged by the alien scientists. The facts would be clear. Some scientists would be bothered by the lack of intermediate dishware species—say, a frying pan with a beer mug handle—but they would assume it to exist somewhere undiscovered.”
“That might be the worst analogy ever made,” I said. “You’re comparing people to dishes.”
The old man laughed out loud for the first time since we began talking. He was genuinely amused.
“It’s not an analogy,” he said with a twinkle in his eye. “It’s a point of view. Evolution is compelling not because of the quality of the evidence but because of the quantity and variety of it. The aliens would have the same dilemma. There would be so much evidence for their theory of dishware evolution that opponents would be mocked. The alien scientists would theorize that forks evolved from spoons, which evolved from knives. Pots evolved from bowls. Dinner plates evolved from cutting boards. The sheer quantity and variety of the data would be overwhelming. Eventually they would stop calling it a theory and consider it a fact. Only a lunatic could publicly doubt the mountain of evidence.”
Now, creationists are frankly guilty of wishful thinking. They WANT the universe to be in the hands of a God that loves them like a father and cares for them like a mother. They are quite prepared to ignore any other point of view and dismiss any evidence to the contrary whilst at the same time having no evidence for their own view other than belief. This has always struck me as a particularly grim human talent.
However, what also disturbs me is the mounting amount of “belief” that can be found in adherents to the scientific view point. And what I mean by this is that scientists know that Evolution, the Big Bang, Dark Matter, Black Holes, even light are all theories that appear to be proven by scientific observation (apart from Dark Matter, of course, since no one has seen it - but you get my point). But, and it is a big but, they remain theories. Fully capable to be overturned when compelling evidence points a different way.
Common people (i.e. not scientists) are ascribing to these theories a sense of belief akin to religious faith. They see what they perceive as a weight of evidence suggesting fact and they jump upon that bandwagon and will even argue aggressively for the ideas.
This has therefore become a battle of one set of ideology against another, which is a complete waste of time. Xians are welcome to believe whatever they like as long as they keep it to themselves and foster peace and indeed so are people who accept the scientific viewpoint. The main thing to remember is that people who follow science should not believe in the theory but rather in the process that developed that theory: rigorous scientific observation. This process is FAR more powerful in its predictive scope than anything a faith can bring to the table and should therefore be more prevalent.
Basho
Basho & Cesca are traveling with:
Related Posts |
Digg it!
|
Share THIS |
November 28th, 2005 at 7:13 pm
Basho replies:
This one is easy:
1. Firstly, “here”? By here I presume you mean “perceived by my senses” since there is no way I prove that anything beyond my senses is “here”.
To be kinder to your question (solipsism is fun but not friendly to discussion). “Was the universe just always here?”, well I have yet to see any evidence one way or another. Personally, my opinion is that whenever people use terms like “always” (I.E. Infinity) then they are simply labeling something, they are not actually defining it. For example, it is like a paint-by-number childs picture. This image is a line drawing with various numbers written in boxes representing what paint you need to put down to make the picture.
The number is not the paint.
The concept of Infinity is like that. It is a label put there by minds unable to nail it down. A placeholder you might say.
/digression
Another such placeholder (that people dont realise) is “light”. Light has no mass. The so called speed of light is a joke. If I am travelling at 90% the speed of light you wold think that another 10% is all I would need to reach it. No! Because “light” is like the horizon. No matter how fast you travel the horizon stays the same distance away. Cool huh!?
/end digression
What seems infinite to us is not the problem of the universe merely a problem with our perceptive sight.
To be even kinder to your question: Well, Personally no. If the universe is there at all it suggested logically that some event occurred. Something changed from one thing to another and had a potential. Now, this is my own view, the view of a microscopic dot on a microscopic dot on a microscopic dot compared to the universe, and beyond that logic I really can’t say.
2. If it wasn’t always here then, where did it come from?
Not to insult your religion, but consider that a “god” in whatever form comes to Earth and rapes a Jewish girl for some bizarre reason, and then she gives birth and he watches as “his chosen people” are slaughtered and they turn upon his son and nail him up until he is dead. But he then comes back for a very short time and finally disapears.
Is that a basis for thinking that you can answer that question?
Myself, I really don’t have any idea where the Universe comes from. Of course I could invent any story I liked (I am actually writing a book at the moment with the start of the universe in it) but that means essentially nothing. Of all the ideas I have ever heard for the creation of everything the one I liked best and would hope was true was that in the book “The Star Maker”.
Essentially, does it matter? And even if it does matter, does it matter that it matters?
November 29th, 2005 at 6:06 pm
Warpfield wrote:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 6:54 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
You haven’t answered those two questions. However you did fill up space with a bunch of diatribe saying esentually: “If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one around to hear it, does it still make a sound?”
The fact you were not here when the universe was created therefore, you cannot say whether it was here or not is not a valid argument.
Matter, the thing that comprises things of substance, had to come from somewhere. It didn’t just pop into existance on its own. Even Einstein arrived at the conclusion that, although he didn’t actually mention God, the universe had a finite point at which it came into existance and that there had to have been some outside influence.
Here is another puzzle to ponder:
1. What is it exactly that causes life to occur in the first place? In other words, what is it that tells an individual cell to split and multiply?
Don’t try to pass this off as some compilation of random electrical signals. There has to be some intellegent design going here.
_________________
My reply
Of course it bloody is.
And you obviously didn’t read this “If the universe is there at all it suggested logically that some event occurred. Something changed from one thing to another and had a potential.”
Your amazingly narrow grasp of the terms you are using is clear.
Quote:
The thing that comprises things of substance, had to come from somewhere.
Somewhere? Does that sentence even scan?
You, a small mammal on a tiny little planet stuck out in a (unfashionable) end of the western spiral arm of the galaxy, in a cluster of twenty two such galaxies slowly making their way towards the Great Attractor amongst unimaginable hosts of others, deem to think that pointing out that we don’t have the blindest clue about the beginning of the universe is not a valid argument!?
Can man have become so arrogant in the face of his utter ignorance?
As for this question:
1. What is it exactly that causes life to occur in the first place?
I wonder if you consider these questions to be some sort of Zen Koan that by thinking about I will suddenly come to some sort of epiphany.
I tell you what, I will answer plainly. In my opinion the thing that causes life to occur is necessity. Reality does that which is necessary at any one time. This is reflected in our mode of speech by the word probability.
November 29th, 2005 at 6:06 pm
Warpfield wrote:
Quote:
Your amazingly narrow grasp of the terms you are using is clear.
Quote:
The thing that comprises things of substance, had to come from somewhere.
Somewhere? Does that sentence even scan?
I’m not sure what you don’t understand in that sentence. Perhaps it was the word at the beginning you missed: “Matter, the thing that comprises …”
You obviously refuse to take into account that there was in fact some intellegent design in the creation of the universe and ultimately humankind. The real debate is this:
Nature Designs Intelligently
Versus
Sophisticated Entities of Nature Emerge from Nothing
and without Intentional design
Even if life evolved naturally on earth with no outside interference, the existence of stars and planets, quarks and electrons, and the very laws of physics themselves can be presented as evidence for intelligent design to the universe.
There is the key word there, “evidence”, not proof. Someone mentioned elsewhere in this thread that people who believe in God, do so on faith. Many go on blind faith and others see the evidence and believe allowing faith to fill the holes.
The most common argument that is still given by believers when they are asked to present scientific evidence for a creator is: “How can all of this (gesturing to the world around us) have happened by chance?” The most brilliant argument of the case for evolution will not answer this question, because it still presumes the pre-existence of laws of physics and values of physical constants that had to be delicately balanced for human (and cockroach) life to evolve.
This brings two facts to mind that, should be, regarded as common sense:
1. You cannot get something from nothing.
2. The order of the universe requires the pre-existence of an active intelligence to do the ordering.
November 29th, 2005 at 6:07 pm
My reply:
[quote="Warpfield"]
Quote:
You obviously refuse to take into account that there was in fact some intelligent design in the creation of the universe and ultimately humankind. The real debate is this:
It is not a fact by any stretch, it is only a conjecture. If you are going to use the term fact please try and use it correctly. A fact is something that survives rigorous proving.
Nature Designs Intelligently
Versus
Sophisticated Entities of Nature Emerge from Nothing and without Intentional design
Nature? Nature designs by necessity not intelligence. You can’t tell me that the Duck Billed Platypus was intelligently designed.
And another thing; you use the word “Sophisticated” when you have no idea that any of the life on Earth compared to life elsewhere in the Universe could be considered sophisticated.
Quote:
…the very laws of physics themselves can be presented as evidence for intelligent design to the universe.
How? You look at the complexity of the world and say “there must be a god”. I look at it and say “there is nature”. Why do you have this need to ascribe a deity to it? The “evidence” you mention is ambiguous at best. It stands on both possible sides of the argument.
You see, the main difference is that one day scientists may wake up to meet a “God” coming to Earth. And when they do, they will test him, and measure him, and discuss it amongst themselves. They will forward some hypothesis, debate the conclusions of their investigations and ask this “God” many questions. Eventually, they might agree and decide that the evidence is overwhelming and they should kneel down now.
However, if the scientists one day wake up and suddenly realise the true nature of the universe and be able to scientifically prove it, what will the creationists do? They will ignore that proof. Because proof denies faith and without faith they are nothing. And faith is all about belief in the face of a lack of evidence or even in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Quote:
“How can all of this (gesturing to the world around us) have happened by chance?”
That is what science will one day answer. By then every term in that question, every inflection and every following term will be worked out. I hope the answer will bring us peace. Whether Gods face moved on the water, or whether some natural force from another dimension reacted to this one causing a big bang, whether any of those ideas are to any extent true, does it matter!? No.
Quote:
1. You cannot get something from nothing.
Look up Quantum Leaps. And also look up Light. Also look up Stephen Hawkins problem with Black Holes producing energy from nothing.
Quote:
2. The order of the universe requires the pre-existence of an active intelligence to do the ordering.
This one is unproven and remains your belief only. Especially the bit about “requires an active intelligence”, I don’t see how you can substantiate that. There is FAR more evidence that points to the scientific view of the beginning of the universe than for intelligent design.
Basho
March 1st, 2006 at 4:45 pm
I’m not as clever as you guys, but I do question how i’m able to percieve and think and make decisions. I’m here, i am consious of my existence.
I’m just gonna go out and say that science really hasn’t answered the question “Where did it all begin?”.
The big bang theory suggests a gas cloud explosion formed everything, but thats not the beginning, where did the gas cloud come from?
I believe that there is something more to us then the biological mass scientists say we are. If you built a super-intelligent robot would you think you were its equal? Would anyone think it might have a soul?
Personally I am open to anything logical, but when describe everyone as having a soul I kinda agree, theres gotta be something more.
- Thanks for reading.
March 24th, 2006 at 1:39 am
This is what drives me mad! Why does there have to be something more? What rule of nature that we have determined says this? None. The thing that makes us say “There’s gotta be something more” is arrogance. We like to think we’re at the top of the heap, and can’t really comprehend a world that doesn’t have us in it.
Oh, and the point is, science doesn’t claim to have answered the question. It’s just put a damn sight more effort into trying than the creationists.