That seems overly simplistic, given the diverse claims as to the nature of God/Gods.
To pick one, the Judaeo-Christian god seems to be unwilling to allow proof of its existence. This seems to be intentional, to place the acceptance/rejection of its existence onto a plane of personal faith, rather than provable fact.
"I feel like Google isn't doing a good service by providing quick and very biased answers to very big questions."
Probably not. But I think the alternative -- Google choosing what it (or rather, an internal committee) thinks is the best answer and providing it -- may even be worse, depending on the topic and your personal opinions.
If Google were the United States government, we'd probably be having fits over such a possibility. Heck, people (rightly) have had fits over such instances. I have equal distaste over a large multinational corporation doing the same.
I suppose this is the fate of those that trust Google as their source of worldview - biased answers.
However, when asking actual questions about physical things like fixing cars, resetting mac OSX images, and keeping meat in the fridge for more than 5 days - it works great! I love it!
Xin Luna Dong at Google works on the problem of web site factual credibility. See her talk at Stanford.[1] There's a database of well-known facts, and when web sites mention those subjects, their credibility is rated by detecting disagreements with those facts. This in turn affects their search ranking. This helps detect satire sites, fantasy baseball vs real baseball, Obama "birthers", and such. She said the system is live for some topics, but not fully rolled out yet.
To the parent comment: I really hope that such a system is used only to filter very very concrete "facts", because especially in the area of science, things can change quite quickly and it would be horrible if something really true in new research got smothered by that.
It's hard to give any new examples precisely because those things tend to be "unthinkable", so this will be a rather contrived and anachronistic one, but imagine if Google thought the Sun rotated around the Earth based on the large body of knowledge society had accumulated in the past, and penalised new research that indicated otherwise...
Even only filtering by very concrete facts is going to not work, especially for the social sciences.
For example, the NISVS 2010 shows that quite factually, female rapes within the last year vastly outnumber male rapes... using a definition of rape that excludes the majority of cases where men are forced to have sex against their will. I highly doubt that a factual database would include such intricacies as the specific definitions used to give a fact.
Or for a less charged and more natural sciences inclined example, consider facts about gravity. Newtonian gravity isn't quite correct, but it can safely be treated as a fact by the general population who aren't familiar with the physics behind gravity.
I long for an age where pre-medieval superstition are expunged from popular culture. It's truly embarassing to see a large percentage of humanity still in the grip of ideas promoted by decrepit old men wearing funny hats.
Men who have contributed absolulely nothing to the advancement of society, culture, science, medicine, engineering or any of the real things that improve the human condition.
These people truly need to be laughed at and ridiculed. From the Pope all the way down the hierarchy and similarly for all religions.
Think about what these people do and contribute every day versus what teachers, scientists, doctors, engineers, construction workers and business people contribute. There is zero comparison.
It's 2015. Ridicule them. Don't apease or respect them. And please, oh, please, do not give them the respect of having equal standing to scientific theories on the internet. A search for anything creationist should only deliver solid explanations of how utterly ridiculous it is to even begin to consider any part of the entire contrived framework.
How much longer are we going to tolerate the men with funny hats piss all over centuries of accumulated and massively tested scientific knowledge? 100 years? 200? 500? Why?
Mocking people does nothing to change their opinion. I'm trying to change your opinion with this post. Would I be more sucessful if I called you names?
I totally sympathise - I hate the fact that so many people believe absolute nonsense. But then I know plenty of atheists who also believe absolute nonsense.
Whether the Pope chooses to capitulate or not does not matter. The massive enterprise known as the Vatican only serves to promote a set of superstitions and delusions that have infected human brains for centuries. That place needs to be shut down. They need to return all the money they've stolen from the poor and the place needs to be turned into a museum of primitive thinking.
With regards to ridiculing them. Tolerance is a delicate thing.
What if you had a million people still believing and promoting the "fact" that blood-letting and human sacrifice were necessary in order to cure disease and promote good crops? And what if they pointed to a set of words chiseled out on some stones as being the command from their god to engage in human sacrifice? And they demanded legal protection from our government? And, of course, tax exemption? And, of course, to be able to teach this to your kids and my kids in school? And every politician had to swear that they believed in this horse-shit because they need those million votes?
What do you do then? Do you embrace and tolerate them? Or to you fight them at every corner, even ridicule them, in order to eradicate their influence form society?
Should a politician who says her or she believes in this shit be allowed to hold office? Should a President swear on the chiseled tablets as a sign of entering into a covenant with the people? Should a whole nation proclaim to be under the protection of these gods who want human sacrifice?
No, of course not. And if you tolerate them. If we accept them. If we allow them to even for a microsecond sit at the same table with scientists we fail to evolve as humans.
You have to laugh at them in order to shift them into an uncomfortable position where they'll have to really question what they are saying. Why don't we, as adults, say we believe in the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus? Nobody has proven they don't exist? In fact, you can't prove they don't exist. Yet anyone would be laughed out of a room if they proclaimed these kinds of beliefs. And that would be the right reaction.
No, this is nonsense. It isn't the 1,500's any more. A creationist and their horse-shit have no place anywhere near scientific facts, schools and certainly nowhere related to an online search of the Theory of Evolution. To allow such a thing is a disservice to humanity.
This needs to stop. Let's stop pretending it is OK to believe in flying horsemen, talking snakes, singing bushes, parting seas, getting help from a god on a test while on the other side of town a little kid is dead from cancer, etc., etc., etc.
I am not a militant atheist but I am really getting tired of the bullshit. The constant barrage of nonsense being placed on a level plane with science isn't sitting well with me. None of this nonsense deserves any respect at all. None of it. They get rich of the poor and our governments give them special standing. That's irrational. Absolutely irrational.
Nearly everyone on this planet today owes their lives to science. Yet we don't ridicule morons in funny hats who believe in singing bushes and supernatural beings.
Here's the problem: Politicians like to talk about economic disparity. They do not talk about the real long term problem of intellectual disparity. Fast forward to 100 years from now. If things don't change we will have a situation where there will be a huge gap between those educated in the sciences and those left in the dark through supernatural beliefs and the lack of education.
I know ignorant religious people who home-school their kids and teach them such nonsense as the earth being 5,000 years old. They are so far behind already that they might as well be cave men with iPhones. It's sad, really. They live their lives justifying everything that happens through divine intervention and intent. They are absolutely and totally ignorant in the context of modern scientific knowledge and completely closed to learning or considering anything new. For all they know the earth might as well be flat. I can see a future where it won't be rich vs. poor but ignorant religious vs. scientifically literate. This disparity will cause cataclysmic clashes. I mean, just take a look at some of these tribes in the middle east. They ARE cave-men with iPhones.
No, you have to laugh and ridicule them. In 2015 these ideologies do not deserve any respect whatsoever. None.
Harsh? Probably.
I have done this to people BTW. In some cases they've cussed me out and in a some they have engaged me in conversation. No, I am not an ass about it. I simply smile and politely ask something like "You don't really believe that stuff, do you?". Have I convinced anyone? Don't know, but I did make them think. One of my favorite questions is: "Do you really believe in a singing bush?" and it goes from there.
I am perfectly comfortable being a cunt with people who refuse to use reason and choose to be so ignorant OVER TWO THOUSAND YEARS after some of this ignorant nonsense started.
It's like telling someone they are being a fucking cunt for ridiculing and rejecting someone who believes in human sacrifice to Aztec gods. It IS fucking primitive nonsense and it should no longer be tolerated in any form.
And, no, it isn't emotional, it's rational. There's nothing emotional about taking the position that people who believe such incredibly ridiculous nonsense are absolutely delusional. They are and that's absolutley objective with no emotion attached whatsoever.
Sorry, you are wrong.
Would you accept medieval beliefs being imposed by leaders in your town? Of course not. And you would be doing so objectively and not based on emotion.
Religoius superstition needs to be ridiculed and relegated to the history books. It needs to be no different than when we study primitive civilizations, their beliefs and customs. This should be taught and studied but nobody in a million years would propose it should be tolerated or respected in any way.
And then proceeded to piss all over it. Please spare me the lame attempts to elevate utterly delusional belief systems that only serve to retard humanity.
NB: I'm religious, and in my opinion therefore biased.
I would counter that we need something to "retard" (your word) us as a species from acting on pure intellect and reason.
For example - the purely rational and logical conclusion based on genetics, biology and economic theory would be that we cull the unfit, lame, and stupid for the betterment of the species.
That we emotionally rebel against such an intelectual conclusion indicates that there are higher values that we humans possess in varying degrees that are not based on pure reason.
From what I've seen historically, those arguments and suppositions that back us away from pure rationality tended to have been espoused by the religious or at least spiritual.
I would say that we could debate the merits of such a religious viewpoint - but the very existence of human culture up until now has certainly been influenced and shaped by such a viewpoint and would need consideration by all but the most strident of logical thinkers.
> the purely rational and logical conclusion based on genetics, biology and economic theory would be that we cull the unfit, lame, and stupid for the betterment of the species.
See that's the problem. Where did that come from? Why is that the logical conclusion? Where is the data that says this is good for anyone. This is utter nonsense. I don't known of anyone in science who would even remotely think this way. And yet what happens is that religious people will repeat this kind of nonsense, attribute it to scientists and have the less-informed jump on the bandwagon.
Do you really believe in singing bushes?
Or talking snakes?
Or parting seas?
Or virgin pregnancy?
Or a god that is OK with millions of people being killed in genocides while at the same time he/she/it helps someone score at a soccer match?
Or a god that was able to show himself to a few people two fucking thousand years ago when there were no reliable methods of communication yet cannot make an appearance in front of a camera TODAY to set us straight?
Do you really believe in a god that ordered a believer to take his son to the top of a mountain and nearly murder him as a test of devotion? Do you, really?
Do you really believe someone walked on water?
Do you really believe
Do you really believe that a time will come when millions of people will be magically taken away from earth by god while everyone else stays behind and dies a horrible death?
Do you really believe that homosexuals are deviants?
Do you really believe that everything in your life is preordained?
Do you really believe that praying in a building with a guy in a funny hat is rational?
Do you believe that decency cannot be had without the belief and fear of a supernatural being?
You don't really believe the bible is the word of a god, right?
I could go on. But, please, do answer these. Do you really, truly believe this shit? Are you truly a modern intellectually-balanced person who, despite the advances in culture, knowledge, technology and science during the last, say, 500 years can't stop to consider it might be time to get out of the caves and see these delusions for what they are?
Religion and belief are, of course, part and parcel of human history. And --this may surprise you coming from an atheist-- they should be taught in school as part of human history. It is no different from teaching any other aspect of human history. People need to know where we came from. That said, the minute these primitive beliefs are placed on an even plane with science we've crossed from the reasonable study of human history into a delusional attempt to use the supernatural to distort realty for usually twisted control purposes. That a priest isn't thrown in prison forever for molesting a kid in this day and age is beyond my comprehension.
The view that morality is somehow tied to religion is laughable. I won't go farther than that. I know just about as many religious as non-religious people and I can tell you from my admittedly minuscule data sample that there are assholes on both sides of the fence. Except that religious assholes seem to have the ability to do wrong and then feel OK because they confessed inside a building to a guy in a funny hat and robe.
An to address your NB. That's exactly the problem. You are biased and, if a true believer, intransigent. That's is the HUGE difference between a scientific approach to reality and one founded in superstition. Reproducible and verifiable proof is all that is needed to shift masses of people from an old understanding to a new discovery. This can happen virtually overnight. There's almost nothing I can say to make you consider that the guys in the funny hats telling you that a snake spoke and bush sang are floating you a pile of shit that you are, for some reason, swallowing whole despite reality.
What would make me accept creationism? Proof. Proof that is supported through masses of evidence and cross-checked across a range of disciplines. Proof that survives challenge and testing. Proof that can be reproduced by anyone on this planet. Proof that shows how the existing mountains of evidence to the contrary might be wrong. Do that and I'll be the most ardent supporter of creationism.
A thousand years from now people are going to look at this time just exactly the same way we look at the ancients who believed in Thor, Zeus and a myriad of other gods. They believed in human and animal sacrifice. They believed in a million things that today are taught as history yet not for one second raised to the level of being reasonable belief systems. Anyone walking into Congress declaring belief and trust on Thor or Zeus would be a laughed out of office. In a thousand years all of this. What you believe today. Will be just as nonsensical as what they believed a thousand years ago.
Whether you care to admit or accept it or not, you believe what you believe due to indoctrination.
>> Do you really, truly believe this shit? Are you truly a modern intellectually-balanced person who, despite the advances in culture, knowledge, technology and science during the last, say, 500 years can't stop to consider it might be time to get out of the caves and see these delusions for what they are?
I'm Christian - and indeed I do not logically believe this weird little tale about some random Jew that claimed to be god and yet couldn't even save his own life.
I have an entirely irrational faith from a logical standpoint, and I'll cling to this as the alternative is that this life is a meaningless flop in a dying universe.
My irrational faith that Christ died on the cross to destroy death and to save us from our own sin.
Indeed my faith recognizes this and says "we're fools for Christ" 1 Corinthians 4:10
>>Whether you care to admit or accept it or not, you believe what you believe due to indoctrination.
To answer your second question - I was raised an atheist. I came to faith through a combination of logic and a realization that I can't save myself from death. Either my own death or the heat-death (or crunch) of the universe.
I'd really rather prefer there was some online repository of facts, constantly updated via Machine Learning over publicly available information, which might give up to the second responses of the kind 'Our current understanding is ...'
Is there one already? Wolfram Alpha is close, I guess. Wikipedia is not quite what I'm thinking of. Google is working on something, not sure if it's public though. Their search engine.. also not quite what I'm thinking of.
This is an example of precisely the kind of false-positive that you would expect to have emerge when you leave it up to machine learning over publicly available information to try to figure out the answer to a question.
I kind of agree TBH, although I would say their search engine (as it is today) and a 'fact-repo' are quite different things. I'd expect a higher level of rigour in the fact-repo ML checking processes.
I remember Freebase, I even recall fact-checking on it a while ago.. I'd be interested to see how their current efforts are shaping up - if it's all ML or requires human assistance.
They use WikiData now to fulfil the same basic function as Freebase, so it does seem that they require some human assistance. Don't know if they've ported everything over from Freebase yet, will have to check up on that.
There's a very interesting and subtle shift of the perception of what truth and facts are in the last ten-fifteen years. A friend once said to me, years ago, "Google is my memory".
I'm not even remotely qualified to untangle the issues, but fundamentally it seems the problem is that truth is being mediated by the electronic systems "I feel lucky" rather than critically analyzed. It's similar to the old newspaper mediation of truth, but far more widespread.
Real time updates now make Google bombs even easier to accomplish. The result described in the article is #2 on the page, after a one day old article describing the problem. This article is in the "In The News" section.
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&e...
> "Is abortion okay", returns an excerpt from a strongly pro-life viewpoint
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&e...
> "Does God exist", returns an atheist's viewpoint
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&e...
> "Is God real", returns a strongly theistic viewpoint
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&e...
I feel like Google isn't doing a good service by providing quick and very biased answers to very big questions.