At the risk of total destruction I'm just going to take a few minutes from my house-cleaning to agree with the first poster on Femitheist's blog (here) that this analysis is good, as far as it goes. But also that it needn't go any farther, unless it finds itself wanting to be a life's-work.
I am a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes from a long time ago and there was one particular "scene" that impressed me greatly. I had been meaning to look up the whole thing and quote it somewhere but instead, for now, I'll use Google results and point to an otherwise unrelated web page for the gist of it (quoted text in itallics):
Despite being brilliant, the great Sherlock Holmes is an ignoramus when it comes to the astronomical workings of the planets and stars. In the first Holmes novel, A Study in Scarlet, he accosts Watson on the subject: "What the deuce is it to me? You say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work."1 Holmes likens his mind to an attic, one he can only fill with the rights kinds of "furniture" necessary for his occupation as the world's first consulting detective. But even if Holmes does get an "F" in astronomy, there's no denying his influence on the genre of science fiction. - See more at:
http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/britt_11_10/#sthash.TCpZXKBH.dpuf
So, basically, science is useful... when it is useful. At other times, for anyone not making their living doing science it is as much a time waster as religion is, or maybe even more so. Please do look up the story though to get the full gist of it. I’ll have more to say on it later I think.
I find it so amusing that in all the debates among amateurs lately there is no discussion of the fact that most of the great minds on which our current basic understanding of science (such as laws of thermodynamics etc.) are based were in fact religious people, in many cases very much so.
I may decide to write further on this (and with better attributions) on the on this blog which Femitheist has been kind enough to let me run into the ground so far. I've let it more than languish and it needs either to be awakened or killed. Maybe in the next week or two (after the holidays). Update: I posted this here for length reasons, but I'll try and do a longer update in the time-frame mentioned.
Suffice it to say that for the average person today (almost) nothing I can think of in our modern life hinges around whether the universe was created by a sentient being or just popped into existence or (as some non-religious scientists once thought) has been around literally forever. The Big Bang theory in my opinion did more to fan the flames of science vs religion than it did to quell them.
I put the "(almost)" in there because I know that the science of the transistor and all its follow-ons was based on quantum theory and a better understanding of the basic particles that make up our universe will almost certainly find their way into useful devices for us. Bear in mind that I see little in various religious thought that says “don’t do science, it’s dangerous!” Of the religious people I know very few of them would take any note of the debate of divine creation versus evolution. Most are quite happy to relegate the first few chapters of the Bible to a mythology which fit the times and minds of the people it was written for (the early Jews).
Personally, I’d find it more meaningful to debate whether life originated on Earth at all, versus came here on an asteroid or some such natural conveyance, or maybe it came here on a spaceship. If,as most scientists and many of not most religious people believe there is life elsewhere in the universe, what makes us think that they have not solved problems we are still working on such as interstellar travel? There are so many possibilities such as that and I see them all ignored in favor of a 200+ year old debate in which there seems to be “nothing new under the sun”.
But in spite of the fact that Evolution is taught in all American schools, all European schools, and maybe with the exception of Islamic areas, all schools everywhere else as well, we don't really have much to show for it. I would be impressed if we could say that as a results of that teaching we have more scientists or better scientists, but I don't see that. In fact what I see is that much of science has stalled since last century and in my experience the average "joe" is dumber than he/she has ever been as regarding scientific principles.
When I was in college science fiction authors who are known for accurately predicting the future had posted that we would engage in manned trips to Jupiter's moons by when? By 13 years ago that’s when. And by three years ago we were to have gone back to Jupiter with even more impressive equipment, including sentient computers that we are nowhere near developing in the real world.
In the later part of the 20th century our imaginations finally passed a point where our actions could ever (seemingly) catch up. To put it another way, our reach has finally exceeded our grasp. The question might be asked “is this just a fact of life/science, or is there a sociological explanation for this state of affairs?” Personally, I think it is the latter. But the explanation for that is more than I have time for and I think it is much related to Femitheist’s mission, and she is probably far more suited to taking the work there than I could ever be.
I think Femitheist would agree that the current "debates" on the Internet between almost all parties engaging in them is shallow and meaningless. There is nothing being said that wasn't said by far greater minds in the 17th and 18th centuries. To do it right, you first have to review ALL of that so that you are not just re-covering old ground. Point me to one or more of the current flock of elevator-gurus who have done that.
Shouldn't we devote more of our time and mental energies to matters pertaining to the future rather than to esoteric arguments of the past?
I think so, and I hope we (as humanity) will get busy with that soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment