We can take each theory and say, okay, supposing this is true, then what…?
Like string theory
Come up with a way to make the universe simpler.
Or maybe we can trade in the universe for one that we like better.
This is a bit off topic, but since science vs. religion has come up a number of times on this discussion, it may be worth mentioning.
There often seems to be an assumption that scientist = atheist, and that there is an absolute conflict between science and religion. What do professional scientists actually think?
A large survey of US scientists was done in 2009 by the Pew Research Center.
Religion and Science in the United States | Pew Research Center (4 page article)
Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media | Pew Research Center (10 page article)
Pew survey on religion and science.
Religious belief among scientists:
51% Believe in God, or a universal spirit or higher power
41% Don’t believe in either
7% Don’t know/refused
Physicists and astronomers:
43% Believe in God, or a universal spirit or higher power
46% Don’t believe in either
11% Don’t know/refused
In 1914, a survey was conducted of about 1000 scientists in the US. About 42% said they believed in a personal God and about the same number said they did not. So interestingly, not much has changed during a century of huge scientific advances. Scientists have not become less religious in the past century.
Religious affiliation among scientists:
16% Mainline Protestants
4% Evangelical Protestants
10% Catholic
8% Jewish
10% Other religion
17% Atheist
11% Agnostic
20% Nothing in particular
4% Don’t know/refused
From a worldwide survey in 2015 of scientists by researchers at Rice University.
Only a minority believe there is a conflict between science and religion.
UK - 32% of scientists said there was a conflict between science and religion
US - 29% said there was a conflict
In Hong Kong and Taiwan scientists are more religious than the general public.
“39 percent of scientists in Hong Kong identify as religious compared with 20 percent of the general population of Hong Kong, and 54 percent of scientists in Taiwan identify as religious compared with 44 percent of the general population of Taiwan.”
I have no conflict between the two because, to me, science is all about “how”, and religion is all about “who”. Instead of viewing evolution as somehow being the enemy of religion, I view evolution as creation’s methodology. So, although I feel religion has no place in science, I can accommodate both without a problem.
The universe is both a mathematical equation, and a work of art.
It seems that our work of art was initiated sometime in the past from unknown causes and for unknown reasons. But it is possible that this seeming passage of time is a function of the art itself, it may only be occurring within the artwork. A gestalt, an entire picture that only seems to be moving and evolving but is not. Time is a function of space, or they are two terms that we use to describe the same thing. One cannot exist without the other. It is right there in the equation, at least the parts we understand so far.
To speak or think of before, past, and future, is to buy into a probably false set of values for this place we call the universe.
The worm wishes to understand the meaning of dirt. Why so much of it exists and appears to have been created just perfectly for the worm. The worm is quite right that the dirt was created for him but does not, and cannot, understand the much, much, bigger reasons why I need to mow my lawn.
Those two halves of the sentence seem to contradict each other.
Though we’re getting into GD territory here, you seem to be viewing “religion” as monolithic. Evolution is not the enemy of many religions, but is certainly the enemy of those who believe in an inerrant Bible and a young earth.
As for your numbers on the beliefs of scientists, the number of non-believers is much higher than in the population as a whole. I believe I’ve seen studies of top scientists (in the National Academy of Science, I think) which show the percentage of nonbelievers there is higher than that of scientists as a whole.
I also wonder which scientists were polled. A chemist is unlikely to run into things which would contradict his religious belief in his work.
Your question is in error.
You ask it as if there is a “before” to the universe.
TIME itself, is a side-effect of the existence of the universe. No universe, no time. No time, no “before”.
I am only concerned about the way the public can make use of science to enhance its knowledge and understanding. Science is supposed to generate knowledge and understanding, and the Straight Dope claims to fight ignorance.
It is obvious that an individual cannot master all the science that explains every phenomenon s/he may come across. That doesn’t mean scientists should no longer provide the knowledge that allows mankind to understand, for instance, how diseases can be tackled or technology improved.
What I am disappointed about is the way mere theories are popularized ad nauseam in a sensationalist manner in mass media (including the apparently respectable National Geographic or Discovery, where scientists seem to be complicit) to such an extent that the majority of the public that identifies itself as science-oriented seems to take concepts like the multiverse or the idea that in a few centuries robots will take over the world for granted. Whoever dares to consider these ideas mere assumptions will be regarded as a stubborn ignorant who asks the wrong questions and fails to grasp sophisticated notions.
High popularization of what scientists assume rather than what they know for sure tends to provide an unexpected theoretical arsenal to pseudosciences dealing with people’s fate, paranormal activity, the aliens’ presence on Earth, etc. I for one advise the young people in my family to watch Da Vinci Learning or BBC Earth but I can see that in general children are bombarded with ‘scientific’ theories about alternate universes and extraterrestrial activity alongside with warnings about the accelerate global warming, and they’re not sure global warming is real.
Rigorously speaking myths and ignorant opinions can’t be regarded as competing with scientific models of reality, but in fact they do compete. This is the reason why one of the goals of science is to influence the policies that decision-makers devise and implement. These policies often depend on whom the people vote for, which makes me think science does need ‘better marketing so that it is relatable to the common ignoramus’.
I’m not really sure where you experienced this, but it sounds like you deal with a lot of “science-oriented” people who have trouble distinguishing science from science fiction.
Although, it is actually getting harder to distinguish between the two in the real world. We aren’t anywhere near Matrix or Terminator levels of tech yet, but machine learning, AI, predictive analytics and automation are very real aspects of the modern business world. And indeed many people are having trouble distinguishing the reality from marketing bullshit. But make no mistake, people and companies are starting to struggle coming to terms with a world where much of the actual work is automated.
“Multiverses” is an interesting concept that has largely come about through research in quantum physics. But we are a long way off from opening up a wormhole to an alternate New York where the Brooklyn Bridge is purple.
Wendell has the correct answer … if there was nothing before there was something then nobody knows what the something was.
That’s because there is no such thing as purple.
I’m currently trapped in this weird alternate universe where Donald Trump, of all people, was elected president. It’s bizarre. It’s like Part 2 of that movie Return to the Future with Michael K. Fox. (Do you guys even have this movie in your universe?)
Please, please, someone tell me how to get back to my own universe where Bernard Sanders is president. I’ve never heard of the Brooklyn Bridge, but we have a Brooklen Flyover, which is indeed purple. :(
It’s easy, just go to the universe with the alternate ending to Big. If you get lost, Sinbad the Genie can Shazaam you back on track.
If you can find a way to get to that universe, let me know. I may join you.
Does it have single payer health care?
God. Or nothing. Or another universe. Or a smashed version of this universe. Or an eddy in the middle of an incomprehensible series of universes. Or a fart blown out of a Titan’s backside.
Realistically, barring a transcendent afterlife where a wise black lady whispers all the secrets of existence into our ears while slow jazz plays in the background, we will never know. It is in all probability beyond our capability of knowing. There are no tools that are known or that we can even conjecture as possible that would allow us to know. Your best bet is to die and then you’ll either be able to ask the question or you won’t be around to know that you can’t ask it. In the words of the Princess Bride: “I must know” “Get used to disappointment.”
They certainly do unless you can envision and factor in the fact that mass warps space. The mass of a Black Hole is so great that space is warped down to a singularity. It really has no physically measurable existence in our universe at that point.
Hmm … I checked my post. I don’t see where I posted any numbers or even any opinion on the beliefs of scientists in general. I was merely stating my own personal view of science vis-a-vis religion.