Lunar Eclipse Coincides with Winter Solstice

[Sir Bandelot]

No, but if you are a pagan it might...

So I take it, you were wearing your sheepskins too MDcancer?

[M.Dancer]

So I take it, you were wearing your sheepskins too MDcancer?

Not since my vasectomy....

[bloodyminded]

No need to wonder. Just take a university course on astrodynamics and you'll know. Also, while the solar system is relatively flat, it is not correct to say that it is entirely two-dimensional. In particular, consider Pluto, which orbits in a plane considerably inclined to the 8 planets. The Galaxy is even less flat than the solar system, and our galaxy is flatter than most. Many galaxies are elliptical or irregular in shape and expand out comparable distances in all three dimensions.

The incidental angles that various celestial bodies happen to be oriented at you find "amazing"? Sure, the astronomical phenomena we can observe can be quite spectacular, but there is nothing that unusual about the Earth's tilt. Each planet has a different tilt.

---

All explainable by the force of gravity and the conservation of angular momentum.

It is a simple mind that observes something it does not understand and rather than seeking an explanation, defaults to thinking that only some omnipotent and unknowable power could explain such a thing.

Indeed. That old saw that "the sheer wonder of it all is proof of God" doesn't even vaguely make sense. It is dead false.

Of course there is terrific wonder and great beauty; and this proves the existence of God....how again?

Edited December 23, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

It's sad that you have lost the joy of wonder. And anyway, your answer begs the question. Randomness can be described but it cannot be explained.

There is no loss of "the joy of wonder" in not believing in god.

I suppose it's something of a tautology to point out that only a religious person could make that monumental error in reason...in fact, a monumental error in observation.

Edited December 23, 2010 by bloodyminded

[August1991]

There is no loss of "the joy of wonder" in not believing in god.

I suppose it's something of a tautology to point out that only a religious person could make that monumental error in reason...in fact, a monumental error in observation.

You're the one talking of God; not me.

I was objecting to Bonam's apparent certainty in explaining everything. And I was simply wondrous about this thing we call the Universe: its laws, and its randomness.

[Bonam]

You're the one talking of God; not me.

I was objecting to Bonam's apparent certainty in explaining everything. And I was simply wondrous about this thing we call the Universe: its laws, and its randomness.

There are plenty of things remaining unexplained, I never claimed that I or other scientists have an explanation for "everything". The mystery and wonder of the universe is what motivates scientists to want to discover more about it. But none of this suggests that a god is necessary. If anything, what we know now suggests that mankind's religions could not possibly have been more wrong in their notions of the universe or about what they describe as god.

[dre]

Indeed. That old saw that "the sheer wonder of it all is proof of God" doesn't even vaguely make sense. It is dead false.

Of course there is terrific wonder and great beauty; and this proves the existence of God....how again?

One the most interesting studies in religion is the cargo cults of the Melanaysian. I highly recommend reading about it because while abrahamic religions started so long ago that theres a certain ammount of speculation in how they began, cargoism is an established religion that we actually got to watch form... so it helps us understand why religion happens, and why human being are almost universally religious.

Basically what happened is these tribes in the South Pacific were living in the stone age... they had never encountered any kind of technology at all. Nothing. During the war western forces started using these islands as a staging area, and when the allies encountered these tribesmen they would give them boxes of canned goods, and trinkets.

After the war the western planes stopped landing there, and over a generation a fullon religion developed.

Westerners and their planes are quite literally these peoples "gods", and they perform all kinds of rituals with the hope the gods will return with more cool stuff.

They hack down huge swaths of jungle, and build mock airstrips... complete with primitive huts as air traffic control towers, which they staff with tribesmen who wear earphones made of bark and branches just like the westerners had when they landed a generation ago. They believe that if they build these mock airports the gods will return and give them more goods.

I mention this because when I read your statement...

Indeed. That old saw that "the sheer wonder of it all is proof of God" doesn't even vaguely make sense. It is dead false.

Which of course I agree with, I realized that it doesnt matter if it makes sense or not. Because thats JUST WHAT HUMANS DO, and always HAVE done, and probably always WILL do.

We create (slowly over generations) ellaborate constructs to fill in gaps in our understanding and to placate our fears and I really dont see that changing any time soon.

[dre]

There are plenty of things remaining unexplained, I never claimed that I or other scientists have an explanation for "everything". The mystery and wonder of the universe is what motivates scientists to want to discover more about it. But none of this suggests that a god is necessary. If anything, what we know now suggests that mankind's religions could not possibly have been more wrong in their notions of the universe or about what they describe as god.

Religions evolve though to stay relevant, as different things are "unexplained". Modern religions have found a nice niche and that is "purpose". People want to have a purpose. They want to think their life matters somehow, and theyre afraid to die. This is human nature. Its going to be harder for science to replace this type of mythology than it was for it to replace religions that answered more simple questions like a guy staring up at the sky and saying "what the fuck is that?!!" when they see planets are stars.

Science has been progressing quite rapidly for a couple of hundred years now, and pretty much everybody is still religious.

[bloodyminded]

You're the one talking of God; not me.

I was objecting to Bonam's apparent certainty in explaining everything. And I was simply wondrous about this thing we call the Universe: its laws, and its randomness.

But your response to Bonam was directly to this remark:

It is a simple mind that observes something it does not understand and rather than seeking an explanation, defaults to thinking that only some omnipotent and unknowable power could explain such a thing

"Unknowable" is one thing, granted, but "omnipotent" certainly refers to a god. And that's directly to what you were objecting--since you quoted it before responding--his dismissal of the need for belief in an "omnipotent" being.

Edited December 26, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Bonam]

Religions evolve though to stay relevant, as different things are "unexplained". Modern religions have found a nice niche and that is "purpose". People want to have a purpose. They want to think their life matters somehow, and theyre afraid to die. This is human nature. Its going to be harder for science to replace this type of mythology than it was for it to replace religions that answered more simple questions like a guy staring up at the sky and saying "what the fuck is that?!!" when they see planets are stars.

All science has to do is eliminate the need for death. A ways off yet, but far from impossible, and may be achieved within our lifetimes. Some living organisms do not age and can potentially live forever, so aging and dieing is not a biological necessity. And current research has already revealed many of the mechanisms for aging in humans and offered tantalizing hints at how to slow or circumvent it.

[August1991]

All science has to do is eliminate the need for death. A ways off yet, but far from impossible, and may be achieved within our lifetimes. Some living organisms do not age and can potentially live forever, so aging and dieing is not a biological necessity. And current research has already revealed many of the mechanisms for aging in humans and offered tantalizing hints at how to slow or circumvent it.

I don't think death is the main issue here although the possibility of "perpetuating conciousness" (to coin a phrase) would revolutionize our understanding of life and the universe.

"Unknowable" is one thing, granted, but "omnipotent" certainly refers to a god. And that's directly to what you were objecting--since you quoted it before responding--his dismissal of the need for belief in an "omnipotent" being.

Omnipotent, unknowable, God - these are your words.

You have chosen to reject religion because of how you it applied in politics on Earth. In doing so, you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The laws of physics (as they are understood now and particularly as they applied at the origin of the universe) and the role randomness plays are wonders. It is an intriguing question where these laws of relativity, and probability came from. At a very basic level, could there be a universe where 2+3=6?

------

On a similar theme, I started a thread entitled Intelligent Design and the Left.

[wyly]

Religions evolve though to stay relevant, as different things are "unexplained". Modern religions have found a nice niche and that is "purpose". People want to have a purpose. They want to think their life matters somehow, and theyre afraid to die. This is human nature. Its going to be harder for science to replace this type of mythology than it was for it to replace religions that answered more simple questions like a guy staring up at the sky and saying "what the fuck is that?!!" when they see planets are stars.

Science has been progressing quite rapidly for a couple of hundred years now, and pretty much everybody is still religious.

disagree education/science is pushing religion to irrelevance...where secular education rules atheism is growing in huge numbers, in a number of European countries atheists are the largest single demographic or soon will be...and canada is heading on the same path....

[lukin]

disagree education/science is pushing religion to irrelevance...where secular education rules atheism is growing in huge numbers, in a number of European countries atheists are the largest single demographic or soon will be...and canada is heading on the same path....

It's funny that the same thing was said in the 1800s. Sorry wyly, your utopia will never happen.

[Bonam]

It's funny that the same thing was said in the 1800s. Sorry wyly, your utopia will never happen.

And yet the relevance of religion in Western civilizations has been decreasing continually through the 1800s and 1900s, and now the 2000s. In the 1800s, the inquisition was still executing people for heresy and witchcraft. Today, religious institutions have far less power.

[wyly]

in the period 1990-2008 atheism in the US nearly doubled from 8% to 15% and they're numbers will more than double again in 20yrs as the boomer generation goes through it's great(and welcome)die off...

and Canada is far ahead of the US and a bit behind europe with atheism....More than half of Canadians in the 15-to-29 age cohort either have no religion or never attend a service of worship, says Statistics Canada....and just like in europeans new canadians are also leaving their faiths within one or two generations of arriving in canada, muslims, sikhs, hindus all becoming secular atheists at the same rate as christians...education is the destroyer of mythical ignorance...

Edited December 29, 2010 by wyly

[lukin]

in the period 1990-2008 atheism in the US nearly doubled from 8% to 15% and they're numbers will more than double again in 20yrs as the boomer generation goes through it's great(and welcome)die off...

and Canada is far ahead of the US and a bit behind europe with atheism....More than half of Canadians in the 15-to-29 age cohort either have no religion or never attend a service of worship, says Statistics Canada....and just like in europeans new canadians are also leaving their faiths within one or two generations of arriving in canada, muslims, sikhs, hindus all becoming secular atheists at the same rate as christians...education is the destroyer of mythical ignorance...

The king of chronic bullshit has spoken!!

Who's to blame for your ignorance?

[DogOnPorch]

Meanwhile...back in the world of science...the Mars rover Opportunity will be spending this New Years rooting about the Martian crater Santa Maria looking for signs of water, etc.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars-rover-santa-maria-crater-101229.html

Good map here...

http://www.universetoday.com/81838/opportunity-shoots-awesome-views-of-santa-maria-crater/

It's twin, the Spirit rover, hasn't phoned home in a while...perhaps lost.

[bloodyminded]

Omnipotent, unknowable, God - these are your words.

No...they were Bonam's words, to which you replied that he must not feel "joy or wonder"....since he does not believe in some omnipotent intelligence.

You have chosen to reject religion because of how you it applied in politics on Earth. In doing so, you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Nonsense; I became an atheist as a teenager, back when "politics" meant to me dull grey men muttering inscrutable mysteries about things of which I had no understanding or interest.

But your crude (and politicized) assumptions are duly noted.

The laws of physics (as they are understood now and particularly as they applied at the origin of the universe) and the role randomness plays are wonders.

Yes, as was clearly and unambiguously implied in my remarks.

How did you read "no sense of wonder" from my assertion of a profound sense of wonder?

I'm only positing that a belief in an intelligent entity is completely unnecessary for a sense of profound wonder.

On a similar theme, I started a thread entitled Intelligent Design and the Left.

This is "on a similar theme" only insofar as you appear to have greater trust in the State than I do.

Just for the record, I am not a proponent of communism!