In recent days I have seen some of a series of videos, where a nice gentleman with the thin-rimmed glasses said, in a logical and scientific reasons for its being an atheist. I left a few comments, and listed a couple of videos. From agnostic to share much of his arguments, which then are those "classic" that have always compelled theologians to scrambling to avoid the collapse of their whole house of cards. I find that the channel Calogero, this is the name the author, is a teacher. This explains the sake of explanation and linear (but absolutely devoid of pedantry is peculiar to some "professors") of his "Lessons of atheism." I send the invitation.
This, in itself, would not be so important to open up a blog, as I did a few hours ago (let me greetings, friends!: P), except that I was presented a golden opportunity to address a topic that is close to my heart: the differences between the forms of thought-called religious and scientific thought.
The pretext is offered to me by the comments of someone who, after a few posts in which accusations of stupidity, ignorance, "not wanting to see" (note in this expression, which will take up later), and the like people that do not follow the teachings of the Bible, and stating that atheists believe in "many things that science does not see" (it's still to "see" Pay attention!), argues more or less like this:
At Cambridge University there is an inscription that says, considering the wingspan and wing beat frequency, related to weight, is scientifically proven that a beetle can not fly.
From this sentence the commentator argues that Calogero, who he said believe in "science stuff", should not believe that the beetle flight (or even deny the very existence of the beetle!), And in a few post that suggests Non-believers develop an 'open-mindedness "(exact words: D) that would start believing in God, that would be the real explanation.
These arguments I responded by saying, in summary, that the fact that the beetles fly falls in the laws of nature, and could not be otherwise,-as it happens! - and that, if anything were true the assertions of the "cartel of Cambridge, mean I just do not know the law governing that phenomenon.
In addition to the above have given a proof by contradiction: if the phenomenon to happen outside the laws of nature, we would (by definition!) In front of a Miracle: Miracles are events that in fact contradict the laws of nature, and that can be explained only by recourse to a god. If a fact can be explained "by nature" is not a miracle. I think that we can not escape this tautology, if not introducing other categories ... "supernatural" like magic, of course: D
If the flight of the beetle was a miracle, however, could only draw conclusions that, in my post, I have called "ridiculous" You do not see why a god would create the laws of nature to regulate the universe, and then create an entire order of insects, beetles, who systematically violate the principles which he himself had established. The beetles, among others, are the largest taxonomic group of organisms on the planet, with a few million different species.
Equally ridiculous would be to think of a god, every time one of the multi-trillion of beetles living decides to flap its wings, and forced to work a miracle on demand. What would be particularly unfair, I would now add, in Mrs Cesira, the old caretaker of my building, which he continued to go to church and light candles to ask her little miracle. It takes only one him, poor thing ... and for once: D
The sense of my post was misinterpreted, cmq, I've seen responding (in truth after an honest admission of not understanding my speech), which is my a theory idiot (literally: "theories so stupid I had never heard"), and that the best explanation would be a god that "anything can" (The old "omnipotence" so dear to St. Augustine) and we can not understand. The "we" would not include non-believers, needless to say. Those who have faith in God, (and in the Bible), has already solved the problem ... of course!
I replied back explaining the paradox, (which is obviously a stupid theory if only misrepresents the nature of paradox, you take it seriously), and concluded with two small questions: "Sure, then, that the sentence is true? You have the mathematical and physical evidence? ".
I was certain that these tests were not there, given the enormity of the topic, but I also wanted to do a search online to find the answer from me, and here's what I found:
The fact that the flight of the beetles can not be explained scientifically is just an urban legend! : D
Like all urban legends, there are many versions, some change in the name of the insect, which is not a generic beetle but from time to time, a bee, a bumblebee, a hornet, etc. etc. In some cases the university to be different, becoming one of Gottingen in Germany, and others scattered in Switzerland, Australia, or wherever the fancy of the narrator decides to set the story.
Even the characters that the fact that it relates is sometimes described as a group of researchers "engaged" in a trip to the countryside, sometimes as university professors, etc.. In a case of precise references are provided, I have not checked cmq: everything would be mentioned in the book "Le Vol Des Insects" (1934), 's French entomologist Antoine Magnan, covering some calculations made by his laboratory assistant, that André Sainte-Lague, about the lift force which is carried on the wings of a bumblebee, and which show that the insect in question could only hold about half of its weight.
stripped the many aspects of the legend, remains a fundamental fact: someone (no matter if the already appointed Sainte-Lague, German physicist Prandlt or others) have tried to apply the fly beetle any of our physical principles that apply to airplanes, which have fixed wing and create (relatively) little turbulence. In other words, these calculations show that only the insect in question could not stay in the air ... if he were to apply the same principles as for airplanes!
The reality is that the same insect wings create a large turbulence in the fluid (air) in which the insect moves, which subsequently reacts in a form different from that applicable to a plane (not known to beat their wings). Those interested the scientific details can start a search on "Reynolds number" and "turbulent". The interesting stuff is available on the net a lot, even in our language.
Another remarkable fact: in my research I found many pages where it is stated that in fact the famous "Written at Cambridge" (or in Gottingen, or anywhere else), does not even exist. For example, this would not be any reference to it on the sites related to famous universities, compared to a lot of posts that deny its existence, there is none that indicate directly.
deny the existence of a thing, as you know very well who was in charge of problem of God, is an extraordinarily difficult task, but until someone makes me see (that word again here that often!) the famous scroll, I can only assume that it probably does not exist. The thing is however not conclusive. If only I have confirmed that between the flight of the bumblebee (or whatever it was), and the laws of science there is no contradiction.
For now I think I have dwelt enough, and I refer to the near post the promised clarification of the difference between scientific method and the method (if I may say so!) Of faith.
The provisional conclusion of my story is at this moment: is Rest easy on our fellow believers. Prof. Calogero can continue to rely on the testimony of his eyes, that tell you that the beetles fly, no need to postulate the existence of a god, something on which part of the discussions, or any other of which are aware, was not given any evidence.
The rest I'll explain next time. :-)
