The God Delusion discussion

cs wrote: "If you worked for Bloggs Pharmaceutical & Medical company and discovered a cure for the common cold.
It would not be..... Miss Hazel discovered a cure for the common cold, it would be 'Bloggs' Pharmaceutical & Medical company discovered a cure for the common cold. "

He used science to discover the heliocentric theory, not religion. Or are you saying he went on a mountain top and came down with carved stone tablets that explained it?

Like I said to cs earlier, research is good, so I have been doing some reading round. Here's a quick caption review of the history of heliocentrism, massively summarised, but essentially correct.

After copernicus published, (which he did the year he died, after holding back on publishing for fear of retribution until 13 years after he finished writing his work), the church stated that the heliocentric model was useful for computations, but would not be accepted as the official explanation, but that the geocentric system would still stand.

Then, after a few years (about 60 years, during which time the work was generally ignored) where no-one said much, because of the preface to copernicus's work the church added, to he effect of what I said above, people started paying attention, and the church claimed that it was heretical, and denounced the work.

A little later, along came Galileo, who picked up the idea, and continued with it. He was called upon to defend the heliocentric model, and the church again rejected it, stating it shouldn't be taught (sounds familiar, doesn't it). There are files in the vatican recording the ban they placed on galileo teaching the heliocentric model. Because he continued to expound onthe the idea, he was once again called to rome to defend himself, he was placed under arrest, and forced to recant his copernicanism. He was kept under house arrest for the rest of his life.

Keppler was also working at the same time as galileo, with slighlty different ideas, in that he proposed elliptical orbits in a heliocentric system. His work was placed on the index of prohibited works by the church.

The heliocentric model spread, despite the churches attempts to stifle it, Rene Descartes has an unfinished work on it.

Newton came along and gave meaning to Kepplers work, with his laws of motion, giving heliocentrism a proper theoretical foundation.

The church continued its rejection of the heliocentric system, but did not object to astronomy.

It wasn't until 1758 that the catholic church dropped their prohibition on heliocentric texts. In 1822, the pope of the time passed a decree to allow heliocentric texts to be printed. So scientists started to worry less about persecution and retribution for adhering to the heliocentric model that the church had so long tried to subdue.

So, as we can see, the religious camp was very much against the idea of the scientific heliocentric model, it is absolutely not an answer that fits the criteria that Shauns request set out.

Further to this, both the geocentric model and the heliocentric model were models of the universe, so though we know the earth goes round the sun, the heliocentric model of the universe is no longer accepted as correct either, as we now know that the sun is simply one star among billions of others within a galaxy among billions of other galaxies, and not the centre of the universe. So the heliocentric model of the universe is not the answer that sciense accepts anymore. And thus the heliocentric model of the universe is not something that science and religion agree on as correct, and does not fit the criteria, its an old model of the universe that has been rejected as incorrect.

Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "What you said and what you meant were not the same."

You're claiming psychic super-powers now? I'm pretty sure I'm the best judge of what I meant, but please elaborate. What did I mea..."

Sunrise and the sun rises. You know what I am saying you are stalling.

Pot. Kettle. Black. anyone?!?

cs wrote: "You know what I am saying you are stalling."

I think the irony levels have just become lethal

Oh, that is delightful.

At this point, cs, the only way you can leave this thread with any dignity is to put a pair of underpants on your head, a pencil up each nostril and start saying "Wibble" until some nice men in white coats gently lead you away.

cs wrote: "Sunrise and the sun rises. You know what I am saying you are stalling. "

I don't need to stall. According to the dictionary I used it exactly correctly and you are convinced you know word usage better than dictionaries.

Even seeing that the dictionary proves I used it correctly, you are still too cowardly to admit you were wrong.

Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "Sunrise and the sun rises. You know what I am saying you are stalling. "

I don't need to stall. According to the dictionary I used it exactly correctly and you are convinced you know w..."

You did not use the word SUNRISE so your dictionary tactic is just to throw others off the scent.

You said THE SUN RISES.

The sun does not rise. And using words like 'cowardly' just means that you are down to Shaun's level.

Hazel wrote: "Like I said to cs earlier, research is good, so I have been doing some reading round. Here's a quick caption review of the history of heliocentrism, massively summarised, but essentially correct.

..."

Ok. good research.

Science is a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws and religion is a set of beliefs....(a bit more research).

So the original statement is not about science and religion, it is about the people within those fields. And because the original statement, as I previously said, does not define in what context religion and science are being compared, the statement becomes very misleading. One might as well say science and history?

cs wrote: "Daniel wrote: "You did not use the word SUNRISE so your dictionary tactic is just to throw others off the scent.

You said THE SUN RISES.

The sun does not rise."

The sun DOES rise. You only think it doesn't because you don't know what the word "rise" means.

Once again, you make it clear that you did not read the definitions. I provided three DIFFERENT definitions. One for "sunrise", then one for "rise", then one for "set". You recognize that these are three different words, right? Under the definition of "rise", the dictionary gives, as an example of correct usage, the sentence "The sun rises at six."

There is nothing to be confused about. That is, in every significant way, the same sentence as mine. I say "significant" because the part that differs (the time frame) is not central to your disagreement.

If you do not believe me, feel free to check the definition of "rise" in a reputable dictionary.

I use words like "cowardly" because I can think of no other way to describe your behavior. You are so afraid of admitting being wrong in even the slightest way that is has paralyzed you so that you are unable to move forward.

Once again, I will include the link to the dictionary I used (a respected dictionary). Feel free to look up the definition of the word "rise". You will see that I pasted the relevant portion exactly from the text. Once again, because you did not read the post clearly, I will reiterate that we are talking merely of the term "rise", not the term "sunrise".

READ THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD "RISE".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/

If, by being "down to Shaun's level", you mean that I expect people to be a grown up and admit when they are wrong, then I am proud to be on his level. I appreciate honesty from others. It's a positive trait and I'm not sure why you dislike it so.

cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Like I said to cs earlier, research is good, so I have been doing some reading round. Here's a quick caption review of the history of heliocentrism, massively summarised, but essentia..."

there is no way you can twist this, it was a scientific discovery made by someone using scientific methods. He didn't pray for answers, it wasn't religious.

The religious folk held the view that the sun revolved around the earth, and that the earth was the centre of the universe, which is what scripture tells us, scientific research showed that the earth revolved around the sun, and postulated the sun as the centre of the universe. Since then, its been shown that isn't true either, by scientific research.

Very much something that science and religion differed on. Especially as holy books, at least of the abrahamic god, stated that the earth didn't move. The religious view was a stationary earth at the centre of the universe, science revealed this to be untrue, and the church, eventually, and very slowly, came to accept that the earth was not the centre of the universe.

The original statement was very much about religion and science. It asked for an example in which science and religion had come to a consensus on, something they'd previously disagreed on, in which it was the religious answer, ie scripture, that was accepted as correct. The only answers religion provides are in scripture, and they're repeatedly shown to be wrong.

You're trying to argue that the person who made the discovery makes the discovery religious, but thats not how it works at all, the method used makes it scientific. If it had been prayed upon, and the answer given in a vision, or if someone had made like moses, and disappeared up a mountain, returning with the answer as dictated by god, then I'd accept that it was a religious discovery.

cs wrote: "One might as well say science and history? "

Only if you believe that there was a continent-spanning organisation of historians who were determined to deny scientific evidence because of what it said in their historical books.

You know, instead of a continent-spanning organisation of religous followers who were determined to deny scientific evidence because of what it said in their religious books.

Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "Daniel wrote: "You did not use the word SUNRISE so your dictionary tactic is just to throw others off the scent.

You said THE SUN RISES.

The sun does not rise."

The sun DOES rise. ..."

Though I know scientifically that the facts are that the earth rotates, revealing different parts of it to the sun as it does so. The term the sun rises, and sunrise, and the terms sun sets and sunsets are all accepted terms to describe that action. Daniels link to the dictionary definitions have made me rethink my stance on this, and be happy with those terms.

Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "Daniel wrote: "You did not use the word SUNRISE so your dictionary tactic is just to throw others off the scent.

You said THE SUN RISES.

The sun does not rise."

The sun DOES rise. ..."

"The sun rises at six is incorrect. This should read Sunrise is at six.

More research: Although the Sun appears to "rise" from the horizon, it is actually the Earth's motion, not the Sun's, that causes the Sun to appear. The illusion of a moving Sun results from Earth observers being in a rotating reference frame; this apparent motion is so convincing that most cultures had mythologies and religions built around the geocentric model, which prevailed for over 1500 years until astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus first formulated the heliocentric model in the 16th century.[3]

cs, the dictionary specifically gives that as a correct sentence, "the sun rises at 6", If you take issue with it, contact the merriam-webster dictionary people. See what they have to say about it.

Hazel wrote: "Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "Daniel wrote: "You did not use the word SUNRISE so your dictionary tactic is just to throw others off the scent.

You said THE SUN RISES.

The sun does not rise."

The s..."

Of course you are, why would I even think you would question Daniel?

its not daniel that I'm listening to, its the dictionary, The dictionary gives it as an acceptable use of the terms. If you have issue with it, take it up with the dictionary people. In every day usage, its a perfectly acceptable term, and in daniels original comment, its acceptable too. If he was asking someone to prove the movement of the sun around the earth, or the movement of the sun over the horizon, or the movement of the sun at sunrise, I'd take issue, but he used an acceptable form of the english language.

Daniel knows well enough, from experience, that if I think he has something wrong, or has misunderstood something, that I will question him, or point it out.

Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Like I said to cs earlier, research is good, so I have been doing some reading round. Here's a quick caption review of the history of heliocentrism, massively summarised, b..."

"Science is a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws and religion is a set of beliefs".

The point is.... religion and science and every one else believed "that the sun revolved around the earth, and that the earth was the centre of the universe", much later science was able to correct this.

Science has also been wrong on many occasions,Albert Einstein got stuff wrong, but at the time science thought that 'stuff' was right, until science advanced and corrected things. Although we don't always know if the correction is correct we have to BELIEVE it is.

cs wrote: "Science has also been wrong on many occasions,Albert Einstein got stuff wrong, but at the time science thought that 'stuff' was right, until science advanced and corrected things. Although we don't always know if the correction is correct we have to BELIEVE it is."

The difference is, of course, that belief in a scientific principal is based on observations, accumulated data, evidence, and subjecting the claim to all manner of scrutiny to see how it stands up.

Which brings up back nicely to the claims you have made during this thread. None of which are based on observations, accumulated data, evidence, orsubjecting the claim to all manner of scrutiny to see how it stands up.

AH, so you admit that the idea that the earth revolves round the sun is a scientific explanation, finally.

And yes, we've said several times that knowledge is provisional. Interesting how you're now regurgitating what we've been saying to you all along.

Hazel wrote: "its not daniel that I'm listening to, its the dictionary, The dictionary gives it as an acceptable use of the terms. If you have issue with it, take it up with the dictionary people. In every day u..."

Original Statement: And it's a little like saying that someone has to show a picture of the sun rising every day in history in order to say that the sun rises every day.

Being acceptable does not mean it is correct.

cs wrote: "Being acceptable does not mean it is correct. "

Just like creation stories, hey?

Hazel wrote: "AH, so you admit that the idea that the earth revolves round the sun is a scientific explanation, finally.

And yes, we've said several times that knowledge is provisional. Interesting how you're n..."

split hairs.... they concentrate on tiny and unimportant details to find fault with something...comes to mind.

If I go out and buy a telescope tomorrow and on Monday discover a new planet, is that down to science alone?

no, its down to you and your use of scientific apparatus, and applying scientific techniques to investigating the galaxy. Its still a scientific discovery, and a scientific achievement.

cs wrote: "Being acceptable does not mean it is correct."
cs wrote: "split hairs.... they concentrate on tiny and unimportant details to find fault with something...comes to mind. "

I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. Who thought irony had such power.

cs wrote: "If I go out and buy a telescope tomorrow and on Monday discover a new planet, is that down to science alone? "

Actually, for you to discover a new planet with the sort of telescope that can be bought by a private individual in one day would pretty much take divine intervention...

cs wrote: ""The sun rises at six is incorrect. This should read Sunrise is at six. "

Okay, just so we're all clear, what you're saying is that when dictionaries don't agree with your opinion, then dictionaries are wrong. That is what you're saying, right?

The dictionary proves you are wrong, and you're contention is that the dictionary must be wrong because you are infallible?

cs wrote: "Being acceptable does not mean it is correct"

Being correct means it's correct. I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that the word "rise" has more meanings that you want it to have.

It really shouldn't be a big deal for you to say "I didn't have a full grasp of the word's meaning. I was wrong." What's wrong with just admitting it?

cs wrote: "Of course you are, why would I even think you would question Daniel?"

She questions me every time she thinks I am wrong. As a matter of fact, she disagreed with me at the beginning of this very issue. Do you not remember this conversation at all?

cs wrote: "Science has also been wrong on many occasions,Albert Einstein got stuff wrong, but at the time science thought that 'stuff' was right, until science advanced and corrected things. Although we don't always know if the correction is correct we have to BELIEVE it is. "

What does this have to do with finding a time that science and religion disagreed where the religious answer was ultimately determined to be correct and the scientific answer determined to be incorrect?

Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "Being acceptable does not mean it is correct"

Being correct means it's correct. I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that the word "rise" has more meanings that you want it to have.
..."
Even hazel in a roundabout way has said you are wrong, although she thinks it's acceptable as folk will understand what you mean.

Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: "If I go out and buy a telescope tomorrow and on Monday discover a new planet, is that down to science alone? "

Actually, for you to discover a new planet with the sort of telescope that..."

Avoiding the question again, splitting hairs and assuming that I could not afford a powerful telescope.

It was an analogy.

he didn't need to address it, I already had, do you want us all to repeat whats been said? And really, do you realise how ironic it is that you're complaining about someone avoiding the question.

The sun rise thing was an analogy too, but you've spent several pages trying, and failing, to pick it apart.

Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: "Being acceptable does not mean it is correct. "

Just like creation stories, hey?"

If you are using my words to correct me about 'creation', then you must agree with me and Hazel and not Daniel about the sun rise thing,"Being acceptable does not mean it is correct. "

Actually, due to the evidence presented by daniel, I accept the sunrise thing as acceptable use of language. Please, don't use me in a call to authority fallacy.

cs wrote: "Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: "Being acceptable does not mean it is correct. "

Just like creation stories, hey?"

If you are using my words to correct me about 'creation', then you must agree with me."

Why?

cs wrote: "Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: "If I go out and buy a telescope tomorrow and on Monday discover a new planet, is that down to science alone? "

Actually, for you to discover a new planet with the sort o..."

I'll admit it, it was a facetious answer posted for my own amusement. But you have had a serious one too, and there is no need for me to repeat what Hazel said.

Hazel wrote: "he didn't need to address it, I already had, do you want us all to repeat whats been said? And really, do you realise how ironic it is that you're complaining about someone avoiding the question.

..."
You and Shaun have asked me to repete what I have said,and asked me to redirect you prevoius posts.

I asked you to repeat what was said in a completely different thread. Purely because its easier all round if you reiterate than if we all trawl through reams of messages. Apples and oranges. I'm saying that surely you don't want each of us to basically make facsimiles of each others messages in response to each of yours.

Hazel wrote: "Actually, due to the evidence presented by daniel, I accept the sunrise thing as acceptable use of language. Please, don't use me in a call to authority fallacy."

As in a in a misconception or presumption? I did not presume.

Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: "Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: "If I go out and buy a telescope tomorrow and on Monday discover a new planet, is that down to science alone? "

Actually, for you to discover a new planet with t..."

Then I hope you were amused and were not just back tracking.

in that you tried to add weight to your argument by misusing what I had said.

cs wrote: "assuming that I could not afford a powerful telescope"

There is, literally, no way that you could find a new planet using any commercially available powerful telescope.

Did you not know that? You honestly think its just about buying a powerful enough telescope?

Now, if you have a few spare millions to set up a new radio telescope array, we might be in business.

But either way, the finding of a new planet would be a scientific venture, because there is no chance of it happening randomly

***

A better analogy might have been the finding of a brand new species of insect, as that is something that you could literally stumble upon by accident. In which case, the discovery would involve the practice of science on your part.

Its identification and classification would, though.

Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: "Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: "Being acceptable does not mean it is correct. "

Just like creation stories, hey?"

If you are using my words to correct me about 'creation', then you must agree..."

Because you were agreeing with me, re; the sun rise 'thing' by using my words to try and prove me wrong about creation. simples

cs wrote: "Even hazel in a roundabout way has said you are wrong, although she thinks it's acceptable as folk will understand what you mean."

That's not what she said, but it wouldn't matter if she had. The FACT is that the word is used correctly but you want to change the meaning of words to make yourself right all so you can avoid admitting to being wrong. But you are wrong. Why won't you admit it?

cs wrote: "If you are using my words to correct me about 'creation', then you must agree with me and Hazel and not Daniel about the sun rise thing,"Being acceptable does not mean it is correct. "

It's kind of sad that now you're trying to pretend that people agree with you who don't as if it would even matter. The word means what it means. Even if you got a huge group of people to agree with you, that would only mean that you are all wrong. Lots of people being wrong doesn't magically turn you into being right.

The word means what it means. You are wrong about what it means. All the intentional avoiding is just you trying to dodge owning up to the FACT that you are wrong and terrified of admitting it.

cs wrote: "Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: "Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: "Being acceptable does not mean it is correct. "

Just like creation stories, hey?"

If you are using my words to correct me about 'creation', t..."

really? You can't spot when someones using humour to laugh at your hypocrisy?

Hazel wrote: "really? You can't spot when someones using humour to laugh at your hypocrisy?"

I was thinking that exact same thing. Where's the +1 around here?

Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: "If I go out and buy a telescope tomorrow and on Monday discover a new planet, is that down to science alone? "

Actually, for you to discover a new planet with the sort of telescope that..."
Ok Shaun my tea is on the floor again, are you happy? because I'm pissing myself...

Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "If you are using my words to correct me about 'creation', then you must agree with me and Hazel and not Daniel about the sun rise thing,"Being acceptable does not mean it is correct. "
..."

Why would I be terrified?