The reason why we respond to these questions is that it shows atheism is falsifiable. (Well strictly speaking saying you lack belief isn’t, but you know what I mean.) Writing a message using real stars, visible from all over earth and the Hubble might do it for me. I don’t mind giving this response since no one is going to show it to me, God not existing and all.
A good example is that half the so-called miracles in the Bible could be reproduced easily today. Sun standing still? A big helicopter with a hulkin’ big spotlight would look like that to a primitive tribe. I bet any reasonable doctor could revive Jesus. Pontoon bridge over the Red Sea? Dye in the Nile. Easey Peasey. NatLamp’s Not the Bible gave instructions on how to do the walk on water trick. What looked like magic to them is technology today.
Then you would be pretty surprised if he did.
This is like you saying that technology that violates our current understanding of the universe doesn’t exist, so discussions about it are irrelevant. How do you know that our knowledge of the universe is that complete?
I’m coming from exactly the opposite direction than your purported atheist vs theist argument. It’s more, “If god appeared in front of you, check for the wires and cables.”
No, I am saying that if something appears to be magical, it actually has a scientific explanation, just one we do not currently understand.
I cannot use as an example something that is understood by our current knowledge of the universe and have it be something that would be outside of our understanding of the universe.
If it’s trivial for them, and it makes you think that they are gods, then sure, they may consider it to be a net gain.
If I give you access to that machinery and the tools and knowledge to explore it, sure.
How much do you think you would learn about sub-space and warp drive from a tour of Star Trek’s Enterprise’s engine room?
Or even the smartest and most knowledgeable team of physicists and scientists Earth has to offer.
Right, by our understanding of the universe, things that violate our understanding of the universe should be impossible. And honestly, I do have a fair amount of “faith” in our understanding of the universe, and don’t expect there to be technologies that violate it. But that just means it’s even more baffling if there are.
And by “bit of time” it may be generations.
And that’s the reason for Clarke’s law. If that happened, that means that there is a really powerful entity or entities out there that are able to do things that defy our understanding of the universe, but that does not mean that they are gods or supernatural in any way, just really powerful and advanced.
If they demand worship, I may do so, as they gave a pretty impressive display of power, and who am I to question them when they say they are gods? But I’d still want to try to figure out how they actually did it.
It was a statement that, by it’s own semantic logic, will always be true. “sufficiently advanced”.
Re-reading the OP, I think I see what part of the problem here is.
The title asks one question, whether or not Clarke’s law is still true, and it will always be true, as you can never rule out unexpected advancements in science and technology.
Then at the end of the OP, it asks the question, “Can you think of anything that might actually happen that would cause you to believe in magic?”, which is an entirely different and barely related question to the one in the title. To that question, I answer, “No, anything indistinguishable from magic is actually sufficiently advanced technology.”
Some of us have been responding to the question in the title, and some to the final line of the OP, and I think that’s causing a bit of talking past each other.
A lot of people have said that everything in the Universe can be explained, even if it can’t be explained by us, personally. But that’s just not true. There are some things in the Universe that can’t be explained, at all, by anyone, even by hypothetical anyones far more intelligent and learned than us. The trick is that we don’t know which things those are, and so, every time we find anything we can’t explain, we attempt to explain it. But even if we can’t tell what the unexplainable things are, we know they exist.
No one has said that everything in the universe can be explained. This thread and the quote is about technology. And technology can be explained, even if not by us, then by the ones who made it, even if they are now long dead. And if it was understood by them, then it can be understood by us, given enough time and access to it.
There certainly are some things in the universe that may not ever have a good explanation. How an individual U-235 atom decides when it is time to decay, or which slit the electron traveled through to make a diffraction pattern, for instance. Maybe we’ll figure it out, but having that knowledge would violate what we currently understand about the universe, so I doubt it.
Even if we don’t know exactly how an atom decides when it is time to decay doesn’t mean we can’t use technology to harness that in an RTG.
And we’ve done well so far. We’ve certainly pushed back the veil of ignorance considerably, and we’ve also come up with some questions that we are pretty sure cannot be answered.
Of course the world is different today. First, people have a mix of belief in magic and the explainable. 100 years ago with rare exceptions people had a strong belief in magic carrying through history up to that time, and little understanding of science. The reason was technology, and people were in the process of changing from a the majority belief in magical explanations to the opposite, where we have arrived now, where people find technology as the explanation for what they don’t initially understand. Radios and telephones were still scorned by many as the “Devil’s work” 100 years ago, virtually no one now believes that because people have great experience using technology that can seem magical to their own benefit. You don’t have to understand how all technology works to appreciate it is more consistent and reliable that magic is. The modern fear of technology is in it’s entirely non-magical potential harm as used by non-magical people, not some innate characteristic of the technology itself. The world is incredibly different in regard to people’s beliefs concerning magic and technology today.
So we agree, science is based on not accepting a magical explanation for what your senses initially tell you. No need to discuss this further.
This is entirely wrong. I can’t recall anyone who ever believed science was not to be questioned, except for perhaps someone who the title ‘scientist’. People in general don’t believe science makes anything impossible, even when it seems to do that people believe some loophole will be found. The common belief in science, far more sophisticated than you give people credit for.
It is the common belief in magic that is important in this discussion and that has changed. The belief in magic considered as an inherent quality in primitive man 100 years ago is not applicable anymore, even if it ever was a valid belief. We don’t have to assume that people will drop to their knees and worship godlike magic when faced with something they don’t understand. The understanding of the details doesn’t govern that belief. “What does God need with a starship?”
How old do you think that Clarke is? The quote was made more like 50 years ago, rather than 100. And even 100 years ago, most people were more excited by science than they are today. They watched as science replaced horses with cars, oil lamps with electricity. Scientific American was first published 175 years ago. The majority of the people who would have been Clarke’s audience would have easily had at least a layman’s understanding of science.
By a very small few, not by many. Most welcomed these new devices into their homes, hence why they ended up in people’s homes.
And once again, I have no idea why you are talking about 100 years ago, that’s completely irrelevant to a quote that is barely 50 years ago.
I’ll agree when I don’t see a dozen churches on my daily commute.
Even if you were correct about belief in magic 100 years ago, what does that have to do with 50 years ago?
No, it is not. What is important in this discussion is what Clarke actually said. He didn’t say he believed in magic, and the quote is the direct opposite of claiming that magic exists.
He was born in 1915. The experiences of his life and the people of that time were greatly different in future generations. It is absurd to believe that the ethos of our culture remained static over a century. In particular the century that has advanced in technology further than any previous century, just as each future century starting today may well repeat. Pointing out random unquantified similarities between the past and the future are not much of an argument.
So, how much of his experiences come from 100 years ago?
It would be absurd to think that anyone has suggested that.
This is entirely irrelevant to a quote made in the 70’s that was intended to suggest that people, both contemporaneous and in the future, should think science rather than magic when they see things that they do not understand.
It is only relevant to your insistence that the world hasn’t changed in the past 100 years in a manner relevant to this discussion.
There is further to go than the narrow confines of Clarke’s specific wording because it was far from an original thought at all. It is an expression of the basic belief that savages will see the wielders of advanced technology as gods. It happened in real life and fiction for centuries before his restatement of that philosophy. It might make for a decent Law of Science Fiction, but for reality it is too simplistic, and no longer really applicable except when the parameters are stretched to the point where it becomes a tautology. Perhaps not much stretching is need for that anyway.
I made no such instance, so nothing else you say is relevant.
No offense, but I see nothing useful to be had in continuing to respond to your non-sequiturs and irrelevancies, I’m bored of beating my head against this wall in such a non-productive manner. I’m done.
Checking for wires is the first thing you do, agreed. But I lack belief in the supernatural (and in God) because there is no good evidence either exists, not because I a priori reject them. No god and no supernatural is definitely the null hypothesis, but that’d different.
I know many atheists disagree, which is fine, but I’m trying to act like a true scientist, not like one in the movies who deny evidence in front of their faces. I’ve not met many of them, and they’d probably be rotten scientists anyhow. Being skeptical of evidence is different from outright rejection of it.
ETA: Clarke’s law is really about how technology can do such wonderful things that those unaware of it might consider it magic, not that magic can’t possibly exist. But he would want to see its Mars license plate, as he once said of flying saucers.
My father-in-law was born in 1916 and lived to over 100, and I don’t think his worldview was significantly different in this regard from mine or even my kids. I taught him to program at 65.
Sure there were people who rejected science for magic then, but there are plenty who do so now. Let me introduce you to an anti-vaxx flat earther I know.