"We have now sunk to a depth at which re-statement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." Orwell
"Men are so simple of mind and so dominated by immediate needs that the deceitful man can easily find those ready to be deceived."
MachiavelliThe fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one... credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.
Dr. S: Thanks for posting an interesting link. I like Brian Greene because he makes something complicated (physics) more understandable. Contemplating things that are more idea than fact, like String Theory, other dimensions or the Multi-verse requires a suspension of belief in what is tangible--a willingness to accept that forces like 'dark energy' permeate space and are associated with inconceivable things like repulsive gravity. I like thinking about this , but until physics can explain what 'fuel' ignited the big bang, people will believe in god. There is a place for belief in the unseen whether it be tiny strings or a divine creator--maybe they are part of the same. Acknowledging what we don't know and being humble in the presence of nature's intricacy should keep humans asking these important questions. It is when we don't question that problems arise.DD
I agree, DD. Although it's just as incumbent upon believers to explain what "fueled" the creation of god. Either way, you have to accept that something pretty complicated exists without "creation." Each "side" has to admit unknowing in that regard, so I go with knowing/seeking to know the discoverable.
On the one hand, it's great that people get to hear about these sorts of ideas, but on the other he's trying to convince people of things that are really, really remote possibilities, and that kinda gets my goat, having studied this stuff.For example, yes, sooner or later galaxies would go dark because they would be receding at the speed of light, but by that point the stars will have gone out anyway.So this seems to be sci-fi masquerading as science, but I might be overly sensitive about this. What do you think? How long do you think it's reasonable for someone like Brian Greene to go on advocating untestable theories without providing some objective rubric by which it can be judged?
Fair question, Timmyson, which I don't know how to answer, because I can't really judge the man's credibility. It's just that, in these depressing times, it's nice to listen to someone thinking beyond our miserable little existence; or, more particularly, our (meaning the US's) miserable politics.
Post a Comment