God (or Not), Physics and, of Course, Love: Scientists Take a Leap

The New York Times ^ | January 4, 2005

[snarks_when_bored]

This New York Times article is based on the January 4, 2005, edition of Edge. Go to the Edge website for additional resources.

[Matchett-PI]

As mathematician Dr. David Berlinski said 12/19/97 on William F. Buckley, Jr.'s Firing Line show on PBS:

"Darwin's theory of evolution [macro - not micro evolution] is the last of the great 19th century mystery religions. And as we speak it is now following Freudianism and Marxism into the Nether regions, and I'm quite sure that Freud, Marx, and Darwin are commiserating one with the other in that dark dungeon where disgarded gods gather."

[snarks_when_bored]

Ping

[snarks_when_bored]

Ping

[dead]

I believe that human consciousness is a conjuring trick, designed to fool us into thinking we are in the presence of an inexplicable mystery. Who is the conjuror and why is s/he doing it? The conjuror is natural selection, and the purpose has been to bolster human self-confidence and self-importance - so as to increase the value we each place on our own and others' lives.

I think, therefore I ain’t.

[Lazamataz]

But I know true love exists. I just can't prove it.

Neither can I.

*sigh*

[DarkSavant]

I'm taken with religious folks who argue that you not only can, but should believe without requiring proof. Mine is to not believe without requiring proof.

Sir, please prove two plus two equals four, or that you're a human being and not actually an asteroid. Here's a simple one, prove that your mental stimuli is accurate to the world around you. Can't prove it? Then what in blazes can you do?

Everything one knows is based on an element of faith that can't be proven.

I swear the more brilliant the scientist, the most insanely idiotic his metaphysical views. Must be a pride thing.

[snarks_when_bored]

Berlinski's an interesting guy, and I have a certain fondness for him because of his book Black Mischief, but he's also a bit of a flake.

[7thson]

Some of these people sound downright dangerous.

[snarks_when_bored]

Remember, the premise is: What do you believe but cannot prove?

[exnavychick]

While love is common, true love is rare, and I believe that few people are fortunate enough to experience it. The roads of regular love are well traveled and their markers are well understood by many - the mesmerizing attraction, the ideational obsession, the sexual afterglow, profound self-sacrifice and the desire to combine DNA. But true love takes its own course through uncharted territory. It knows no fences, has no barriers or boundaries. It's difficult to define, eludes modern measurement and seems scientifically woolly. But I know true love exists. I just can't prove it.

___________________________________________________________

I liked this one. :)

[snarks_when_bored]

Agreed. That was pretty eloquent.

[RobRoy]

I took the blue pill by accepting Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior.

[exnavychick]

From a scientist, no less, LOL!

[RobRoy]

>>I took the blue pill by accepting Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior.<<
Oops. I meant the RED pill...

I can only know that the Matrix exists, I cannot prove it to you until you come with me to the real world...

[Matchett-PI]

"...the premise is: What do you believe but cannot prove?"

There are rational and irrational beliefs.

Since I can't scientifically prove it, is it irrrational for me to believe that others beside myself have minds and aren't just pre-programmed robots?

Since I can't scientifically prove it, is it irrational for me to believe that God exists?

[GeekDejure]

I believe that I am what I am because you are what you are !!!

Oak Hay, smartypants... prove me wrong !!! ;-))

[HangnJudge]

"I believe that human consciousness is a conjuring trick, designed to fool us into thinking we are in the presence of an inexplicable mystery. Who is the conjuror and why is s/he doing it? The conjuror is natural selection, and the purpose has been to bolster human self-confidence and self-importance - so as to increase the value we each place on our own and others' lives."

The speaker self negates
I do not think therefore I am not
Why for heavens sake would anyone believe the thoughts
of one who does not believe his own thoughts are legitimate?

[LibWhacker]

Too many pseudoscientists on this list. Got my hopes all up, then . . . BANG! . . . in march the "emotionalists." Huh?

[snarks_when_bored]

Would it be your view that belief in 'other minds' is neither more nor less rational than belief in a deity?