"Prove" the existence of a divine being (or several) and science can always redefine omnipotence within a new framework using energy, particles and waveforms that we have yet to fully explain.

"Prove" the lack of a divine entity and religion can always gently scold us for failing to understand that we can't find god simply because he does not want to be found.

(Prove in both cases is only in quotation marks as neither proof could ever be taken as empirical evidence by the parties proved wrong.)

But you're right, there would be a fair degree of ire directed at you by one of the groups in particular.

 Reply

It would be nice if the goal of the religionists was to prepare for humanity's future in this world, but they demonstrably do not care about it. Many of them want to hasten its end and welcome war and climate change and extinction!! Not much of a future there I'm afraid.

 Reply

Its hard, isn't it, when you don't fully understand the underlying information on a topic to make a good point.

Not everyone has the same explanation of the proof or disproof of a divine being.

 Reply

I wasn't aware I made such a broad generalisation as to assume everyone had the same views on proving the existence (or not) of a god. The italicised portions of text in my reply were intended as an example of one possible rebuttal of either hypothetical proof. I'm sorry I didn't make that clearer to you.

Aethelred suggested aetheists would be amenable to proof and religious fundamentalists angry. I tend to agree with his interpretation simply because aetheists tend not, on the whole, to kill people for the crime of heresy.

Now, before you pat me on the head and tell me to go play in the sandpit, I would point out that I am not suggesting that belief in god is a bad thing or that anyone with an ounce of spirituality is an intolerant zealot; nor that aetheists or sceptics are shining beacons of tolerance.

Bearing that in mind, I still hold (as a personal opinion, which you are welcome to patronise me for having) that religion is responsible for more pain and suffering than scientifically-minded actions and therefore is far more likely to react badly to a proof defeating its long-cherished beliefs.

 Reply

A creation myth is not a religious thing. It's EVERY religion's thing. Each has one. Which means that on some level, the myth of origins is necessary to the human psyche. At least, the preoccupation of origins is. It's the same way with modern science, whose preoccupation with genetics and behavioral science can be simply stated as another creation myth.

Now the idea of a creation implies as predicate the idea of an ending, as those two things are indissolubly bound. The greeks had it right when the basically coined Ontos and Telos as the two sides of the same coin, and Aristotle bound up the two in his definition of a thing.

So SF as concerned with the endings of man and his far future and creation mythology as concerned with the origins of man are basically separated by a thin conceptual thread.

@Discodave: @Aethelred: I'm happy that you guys are busy repeating the kind of stale, self-aggrandizing arguments that atheists keep repeating. It makes me proud of the stability of the world that with every new generation of young people the same tires arguments keep re-surfacing.

a) the amount of STRICTLY religious violence in the history of the world is minuscule. Religions, like every human political power structure, are always bound up with the ambitions of the people involved. What used religion as an excuse in the middle ages used nationalism and patriotism as an excuse in the beginning of the 20th century.

b) the 20th century probably killed more people than the entire dark ages/middle ages. Don't quote me on this, but WWI and WWII were totally secular and killed tens of millions.

 Reply

Moreover, you're presuming a materialistic source for the necessity of the creation myths as being rooted in human consciousness, rather than divinely-mandated states of being--which is fine, on the face of it, and is a position that I happen to agree with--but it's essentially unprovable in light of the religious alternative.

Also, you can be disappointed if you want to, but there's no one here looking for your approval; it might be worth it, in the long term, to keep your dickery to yourself.

 Reply

@braak: Thank you.

I have to go not have Internet again. Tomorrow morning, though, it will come to our apartment. Hooray!

 Reply

Omg. I absolutely back you on this one. I could probably help you support your point with reams of clinical data. There is nothing even approaching a chemical "customization" of the human mind unless you want to somehow include the use of stimulants and psychotropic substances.

On the Joss Whedon tip - I'd be more shocked if all of his friends and associates were somehow not mentally ill and on some sort of SSRI or mood stabilizer. It is Hollywood after all.

 Reply

I found that quote interesting considering the author was able to ignore Heroes in the article completely when it's by far the most transhuman storyline on popular television.

People are modifying themselves to change their essence. (Mostly for physical abilities not mental or spiritual changes. A singular problem with the show.)
People are discovering that the future is deterministic and that it can be changed through empirical modification to the environment.
People are strugling with seemingly uncontrollable urges and the outcomes of their lives are often more the result of someone's else's decisions than their own.

Sylar is an interesting experiment in free will. In one timeline he *SPOILERS* turns good. In another he relishes evil.

The heroe's universe is really lacking however transhuman psychology. Where is the character who doesn't just get angry and aggressive but instead becomes saintly in their compassion and non-aggression?

Where is the hive superpower where a set of twins become almost a single organism.

Perception and desire are the two most important variables in one's choices and yet Heroes simply addresses the only the mundane physical realm. A lost opportunity if you as me. But still easily the most posthuman show on television or the big screen right now.

 Reply