Queerer than we can suppose: the strangeness of science.

In July, of 2005, Richard Dawkins gave a speech at TED. Mr. Dawkins opened with the following statement: "Queerer than we can suppose: the strangeness of science."

And moments later... Mr. Dawkins quotes J. B. S. Haldane (a biologist):

"Now, my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. I have read and heard many attempts at a systematic account of it, from materialism and theosophy to the Christian system or that of Kant, and I have always felt that they were much too simple. I suspect that there are more things in heaven and earth that are dreamed of, or can be dreamed of, in any philosophy. That is the reason why I have no philosophy myself, and must be my excuse for dreaming."

Out of context, yes, but that is beside the point. I understand where Mr. Dawkins is coming from.

In your humble opinion, do you think Mr. Dawkins is placing a "limit" on scientific pursuit?

An Atheist's Call to Arms

YouTube video

It is as much of a waist of time being an atheist as it is being a theist.

He is awesome when he talks about science.

And no, he's not suggesting limits, the fact that we've figured out what we have already is proof of that. Also there's computers to help us and the continuing process of evolution.

The problem is that while there are (to our knowledge) no limitations on what we can learn through science there is a limit to what we can truly understand. Eventually, we will be more like Subblebine than Horatio, we will find ourselves confounded by our own intellectual knowledge not unable to move science forward.

Even modern science suffers from the Subblebine effect (dibs on that, btw). We are forced to rely on metaphor to describe the extremes of reality, forgetting to mention to people that the metaphors are less true than what we know. My favorite example comes from a show on quantum mechanics that noted "the thing to remember about parallel dimensions is that they are neither parallel nor dimensions". The more we learn about the truth the less we can explain it to those who don't (or even to ourselves) thanks to the Middle World problem Dawkins describes.

Or to place it in a context appropriate for this forum. We no more have the words to properly describe a religious experience to a lay person than to describe the Copenhagen Interpenetration to a child.

In essence we have no limits on what we can know but we may suffer from limits on what we understand.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is as much of a waist of time being an atheist as it is being a theist.

Why "waist" your time on Buddhism?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why "waist" your time on Buddhism?

I try not to waist any time.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is as much of a waist of time being an atheist as it is being a theist.

There is more evidence in science that the atheistic view is correct, than there is saying that theistic worldviews are on an equal footing, realistically.

Check out Christopher Hitchen's works also. He is an Anti-theist.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is as much of a waist of time being an atheist as it is being a theist.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
There is more evidence in science that the atheistic view is correct, than there is saying that theistic worldviews are on an equal footing, realistically.

Check out Christopher Hitchen's works also. He is an Anti-theist.

You are so silly. 😆 You have no idea what I was saying.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
That is a weird statement coming from you? How is being an Atheist a waste of time? I could see being an Atheist activist, but how is not believing in gods a waste of time?

Context!

Quoting Dawkins to represent Atheism is like quoting Falwell to represent Christianity....its invalid.

And yes, there is a limit on science. Its limits are the observable.

Originally posted by Ordo
Quoting Dawkins to represent Atheism is like quoting Falwell to represent Christianity.

👆

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Context!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In essence we have no limits on what we can know but we may suffer from limits on what we understand.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
There is no context in here, get that gay context out of my face 😠 😛

😆

Some Theists point a finger at Atheists and say "they are the enemy". While some Atheists point a finger at Theists and say "they are the enemy".

Do you see the commonality?

Theists are not the enemy of Atheists, and Atheists are not the enemy of Theists.

The enemy is extremism.

but extremism is not the enemy, it is them pesky dwarfs. 😑

Originally posted by Da Pittman
but extremism is not the enemy, it is them pesky dwarfs. 😑

🙄

I never quite understood the Dawkins stigma. He always seems like a reasonable guy to me, and his scientific work is brilliant. Hitchens-hate, that I get.

But yeah, basically it's just saying that our minds weren't evolved to handle the ultra-complex mathematics of modern physics. Can you imagine a 3-dimensional structure? Of course. 4 dimensions? Sure, since we have a working idea of time. 5 dimensions? 6? 10?! There are numerous mathematical models that suggest to us that these things are possible or even likely. But our minds literally cannot imagine them.

So there's the block. It's not that there's limits. It's that there's obstacles, and our current understanding is most likely skewed by those obstacles.

Also, shakya, nothing's a waste if you're happy. We all have to make some decision regarding a belief system, and stating one to be worthless is tantamount to damning them all.

Originally posted by Digi
Also, shakya, nothing's a waste if you're happy. We all have to make some decision regarding a belief system, and stating one to be worthless is tantamount to damning them all.

This is sound. I like it.

and....

Samurai Champloo!

Originally posted by Digi
...
Also, shakya, nothing's a waste if you're happy. We all have to make some decision regarding a belief system, and stating one to be worthless is tantamount to damning them all.

But I did not say anything was a waist. I said...

"It is as much of a waist of time being an atheist as it is being a theist." That means any waist on one side is equal to the waist on the other side.

Deism's awesome.