3 ms·
Agree. The difficulty is that as we learn more, we often (not always) tend to believe that we have most of the answers and become less open to other possibilit
by dev_tty01 6y ago
Agree. The difficulty is that as we learn more, we often (not always) tend to believe that we have most of the answers and become less open to other possibilities with respect to God or simply more understanding. We have to keep in mind how much of our current knowledge has been acquired in perhaps the last one or two hundred years. In other words, we are probably complete neophytes with respect to our understanding of the universe as a whole. As a result we have to resist our more arrogant tendencies and try to keep an open mind to things that we may not yet be able to sense or measure. As scientists, I think we have to recognize that God may not exist, but we must also recognize that it may exist, keeping in mind that our definition of "God" is probably way off base from what we might eventually come to recognize.
- ksk 6y agoYes, and we have to guard against knowledge regressions (dark ages) too. It is critical that we preserve our human tradition of passing inter-generational knowledge to the next generation. As an example, I see several older nerds complain that the new generation keeps re-inventing the same-old same-old tech, and I do see a small grain of truth there, but by and large I think we have successfully managed to transfer our knowledge and experience to the new generation so that they can push the boundaries even further. I remember reading (think it was Neil Tyson) that at some point in the future, if the universe continues at its current rate of expansion, we (earth) might arrive at a future state where we cannot detect the cosmic b/g radiation and other markers which confirm certain physical characteristics of the universe. I wonder if the future humans will accept that the humans who came before them really observed this phenomenon and that they can rely on that data :)