"為何我們存在?"
-
- 紅巨星
- 文章: 460
- 註冊時間: 週六 23 4月, 2005 15:07
- 來自: UCSD
- 聯繫:
Thanks for the evidence. Actually, my main point in writing that passage is just that there is no conflict between science and religion, just like what some people have raised in this thread.quantumkit 寫:
你冇證據, 但我有Nature article bor…
Dont need to argue on this point =)
我唔同意你d 字眼, describing the nature 沒有比 explaining the nature 低級, 佢地係中性, sometime one is more important than the other.
In physics of course there are some more "fundamental" principles (e.g. symmetries, conservation, least action etc), F=ma 只不過係一種interpretation, you can use momentum, Lagrangian, Hamiltonian method etc …
最後, scientific method 除左provide deeper understanding of how things work, 仲有prediction. 我唔知什麼宗教有可信的prediction.
算la, 其實e 個世界就係佢有佢信, 我有我唔信. 我只不過係不滿有部份人(i am not talking about anyone here) 唔去求真(when spreading information), 咁同周圍欺騙無分別
Even if I am given any survey result, I still think there is nothing wrong to be a religious scientist due to the reasons I have given. Also, those survey are still about the BELIEF of scientists about this issue. If we change the question for scientists to 'Do you have 100% proof for the non-existent of god', it will be interesting to see what the answers are.
Can surveys about the belief of scientists become a proof of the existent or non-existent of god?
From what I've read, I don't see any conflict with quantumkit. May be I've not explained well. I have not said that 'describing the nature is inferior to explaining the nature', I agree completely with you that they are both equally good things to pursue. When I mention 'describing' and 'explaining', I am just emphasizing the different nature between science and religion. The misunderstanding arises probably because I've used the word 'just' when saying 'just describing nature'. Guess I should have deleted that.
I use F=ma only as an example to illustrate the point that scientist find out the rules of nature rather than explaining why we have those laws. Of course, you are right about other ways to describe motion. Furthermore, F=ma is of course not the most fundamental law. But let's say we have found one super-equation some day that predicts everything, we are still left with WHY we have that rule in our universe and not another.
Yes, religion does not provide prediction. But that's not what religion is supposed to do. This is another source of conflict between religion and science: We seem to demand science to do what religion do (e.g. Imagine an extreme religious person says 'science is useless. It never answers moral questions!') Or we demand religion to do what science do (e.g. Religion is useless. It never predicts the weather tomorrow!)
We won't say that a table is useless because it cannot fly. Different disciplines have different uses.
If we accept that they are just different, dealing with different things and have different nature, and not mixing them up, then I believe there is no conflict.
Well, may be this is just my stupid belief..... cannot be proved by science. I can be absolutely wrong. Who knows?
As with regards to 'e 個世界就係佢有佢信, 我有我唔信', I also agree with you. We all believe in things, and we cannot find any proof to prove 100% that what we believe is true. So, no matter how much rational facts we consider in any problem, at some point, belief comes in.
What I hope is that when people believe in something, be prepared that it can be wrong. Once we start thinking that what we believe can be wrong, dialogue can begin. But this can be hard. Just imagine Muslim and Christian sitting together and say that what they believe may be wrong....should be an interesting meeting!
最後由 David 於 週五 23 5月, 2008 21:27 編輯,總共編輯了 7 次。
I am surprised that 'Almost 52 percent of scientists surveyed identified themselves as having no current religious affiliation compared with only 14 percent of the general population.'. So, there are still a lot of scientists (48%) who have to live with the so-called 'struggle' between 'conflicting nature' between science and religion.quantumkit 寫:here is the "easy-to-read" summary (instead of a 5-page paper)
http://www.buffalo.edu/news/8732
Also, the article states that "Our study data do not strongly support the idea that scientists simply drop their religious identities upon professional training".
When Tarepanda wrote that 'many scientists believe in god', perhaps he can be considered to be correct since 48% is quite a lot. Tarepanda did not say 'MOST scientists are believers'.
Nature, however, showed a very low figure. Perhaps the results depend on exactly how the survey was carried out, and I admit that I don't have time to check all the details out.
Just like all the research about the safety of mobile phones, we hear different stories every day. What do you believe?
最後由 David 於 週五 23 5月, 2008 20:44 編輯,總共編輯了 1 次。
Two quotes that, IMHO, summarise the main views of religion of Einstein:Tarepanda 寫:愛因斯坦,霍金等知名科學家
有沒人知道他信不信神的存在的?
1. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
2. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms—it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein
-
- 紅巨星
- 文章: 460
- 註冊時間: 週六 23 4月, 2005 15:07
- 來自: UCSD
- 聯繫:
你post 條link 的用意係??WFPC2 寫:有那些科學家信神?
http://blog.readnovel.com/article/htm/tid_460486.html
我也可以找一些list of 那些科學家唔信神
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_at ... technology
--------
1986年及2005年美國分別有兩場官司關於Intelligent design/creationism vs Evolution (whether or not teaching them in high school)
兩次都分別有72 及38 位Nobel prize winners support evolution (search wiki and you will find the list)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Support intelligent design o既 nobel prize winner = 0
唔知有冇人做過D survey 那些科學家信神而且係記名及他們親口講信神…
Stephen Hawking 算係比較religious la, 但我冇聽過或者讀過佢話神存在(of coz' one can show me where to read this). 上次佢係香港答左一句"maybe", 那份"天使心" 就大標題 "MAYBE!!"(要知道霍金講野冇語氣可言…簡直係一廂情願)
我唔係想傳福音,祗係想找一些有關科學家信神或宗教的資料作參考!quantumkit 寫:你post 條link 的用意係??WFPC2 寫:有那些科學家信神?
http://blog.readnovel.com/article/htm/tid_460486.html
http://www.sosick.org/forum/viewtopic.p ... 9&p=115798
誰在線上
正在瀏覽這個版面的使用者:沒有註冊會員 和 11 位訪客