Is religion merely failed science?

VillageIdiot71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118165487#Comment_118165487

Indeed, I'm sure there's complexity that needs to be understood. And I haven't read Kuhn's book (although I've just ordered it through the library, on foot of this thread, so we'll see where that goes!), but (just going on the inevitable Google) some of his point seems to be that progress actually comes from innovation outside science.

I just have a feeling that there could be a kind of fake conflict in the question posed in the OP (still a good question - I'm not knocking the topic). An alternative question might be "are all orthodoxies ultimately found to be false", which if we're not careful I suspect might take us to the point of wondering if all Cretans are liars.

I suppose, something like peer review offers a degree of comfort in respect of quality. And - acknowledging you likely know far more than I about research integrity - I would even regard the fact that dodgy research can still be published doesn't specially undermines that. All quality systems have their failures.

If there was something I think might need saying, its that some folk say "peer reviewed" almost as if that means something must be true. As I understand it, peer review just means that some people with relevant expertise confirm that a particular method has been correctly applied to a problem. Peer review absolutely doesn't confirm the outcome of a particular piece of research - which is how two peer reviewed studies could have conflicting findings.

Whats that to say? I think I'm wondering if folk need to be careful about seeing science as something that it isn't.

Black Swan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118165675#Comment_118165675

Major problems associated with science and the scientific method today are its rapid growth and complexity. Too few scientists are able to keep up with the advancements and discoveries within their own domain. Much less so between different domains where there may be substantial conceptual differences and definitions. Plus the rapidly increasing volume of research results takes too much time to read outside your domain.

Anecdotally, I am half time research and half time teaching. Where is the time to read outside your domain? Plus, “get a life” outside work might apply to me. Postings on Boards while with friends in a java house (now) has been a tiny outlet. Certainly beats watching nonsense on the Telly.

Passing Cert, even with a scientific emphasis, does not prepare anyone to read and understand scientific research and scholarly journals of all domains. And breaking news media reports have been too superficial, and sometimes misleading or spurious, especially when politically weaponized. Attempts to mitigate this loss of communication between the sciences and the tax paying public have been included in some research grant RFPs, where researchers are required to write not only a scholarly article, but also a report for citizens without scientific knowledge and understanding. Good luck trying to write something that has sense to a general audience.

Given a multiplicity of limitations, just a few mentioned here in this thread, it would be comparatively easier to write a very general book on the failures of science and the scientific method. Cherry picking selected examples to support my points, while ignoring those that do not. While at the same time concluding with the popular criticism of the sciences that they are human just like religion, and subject to the errors of belief systems (please forgive errors in logic). It has been very popular with some large audiences to be anti-scientific and may result in book sales to those believers in need of confirmation bias.

Cheers. Swann takes another sip of too much coffee.

Black Swan

Marsh comments on theories, scientific discoveries, and innovations. In an ideal world, scientific discovery as guided by theories would facilitate innovation. Rather, in many cases, but not all, educated guesses, methods, and new applications can emerge a bit messy. While scientists, whom get their hands often dirty in this real world of research will suggest caution (eg, see sections called Limitations or Recommendations for Future Research in scholarly journals, PhD dissertations, etc).

Those often critical of science in general will seize upon this messiness as a disqualification of credibility. And those favoring a religious perspective may point to this messy scientific approach as a serious weakness in contrast to the absolute truths of the religion they believe in.

Another source of messiness comes from what scientists call trial and error research. What some business folks call “Do it. Fix it. Try it.” Essentially you have a problem to solve and you play with potential solutions. If you find something new as a result, you may call it innovation. The ISO 9000 international quality assurance standards are one approach (of many practical applications) to continuous improvement, as is the Japanese Kaizen philosophy.

Wallace’s Wheel of Science suggests a mitigation of this messiness observation, and attempts to show how the advancement of theories (or their revision or falsification) may occur. Wallace suggests that it is an interactive and continuous process whereby the interaction of theories and newly discovered empirical generalizations that have been preceded (or current or future) by inductive and deductive analysis of empirical data results in new outcomes, and sometimes innovative applications.

Added to this messiness are the occasion of serendipitous discoveries that have occurred when scientists explored in one direction and something unexpected pops up. Sometimes this surprise, if exploited per Marsh, results in useful new innovations. But if you already have all the absolute religious truths to inform your world, to what extent may you miss a serendipitous discovery that scientists may have unintentionally stumbled upon? Especially if that discovery flies in the face of religious truths?

nozzferrahhtoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118081836#Comment_118081836

I think you might be misunderstanding what science is and means here :) "Science" is a process of asking "how". If science had all the answers it would stop being science :) By its very nature it only exists because there are questions still unanswered. "Science" is what happens when we literally don't know. "Religion" is what happens when we fill in the blanks with narrative.

You are entirely right that science has thus far not given us any answers as to how we all came to be here in this universe. But that is the whole point of science.... to find out that answer.

And what that answer is.... be it a god or a matrix simulation or a fluke of nature or something else..... is the realm of hypothesis. And hypothesis is great!

But as lost as we are..... the unfortunate fact remains for theists..... that the idea our existence here is due to the machinations of an intelligent intentional non human agent........... is currently not supported by any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning.

That does not mean there is NOT a "god" of course. It just means we currently have no reason to think there is.

So is religion a "failed" science? Yes and no. Religion is in the same business as science is..... which is answering questions as yet unanswered.

Are religion and science in conflict? Again yes and no. They are in constant struggle over the real estate of human ignorance. So of course conflict will happen. But that conflict has so far only gone in one direction.

Ask yourself: Is there any question where ONCE we had a religious answer which was LATER usurped by an answer from science? (I submit for consideration the germ theory of disease).

In contrast I would ask: Is there any question which ONCE had a scientific answer which was LATER usurped by a religious one? I am still waiting to find one.

nozzferrahhtoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118097724#Comment_118097724

As what other people call an "atheist" (I dont use this word to describe myself, but other people do) I would absolutely believe this sentence is true.

The problem is that as an atheist I do not at all believe this has anything to do with religion or the idea that a "god" actually exists.

I think all too often that anti depressants are a substitute for things humans actually need.

That is not to say there are humans who genuinely need anti depressants.

But a lot of depression can certainly be alleviated by human contact and being social, or having a peer group or a support group. And people who regularly attend mass are going to end up part of a social circle.... and I GENUINELY believe that is going to be both healthier and more effective than a pill.

The problem with a lot of "studies" showing the benefits of religion is they do not very often attempt to normalize for the social effect. They just kinda assume it must be something to do with church or religion.

So while I might doubt some of the interpretations people might have of your sentence above..... I absolutely agree with your sentence.

SouthWesterly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118195041#Comment_118195041

As a"theist" as you call us. I prefer to be called a follower of Jesus Christ. I'm not interested in religion which experience proved didn't work. But as a follower I've over 3 decades of evidence of His existence and power to change a life and to make Himself known to His creation.

That might not be your experience but your experience isn't the sum of all things, neither is it that of those who don't know God.

To reverse your final paragraph. Yes. That God created and maintains all we see. Being replaced by the pseudo science of evolution which removes the need of a creator which has just provided theories and not much else. But if we believe we just happened by chance, then we're not special and of no value. Look how that's played out in the world. To believe we're no better than the ant we step on instead of understanding that mankind is the pinnacle of creation in rebellion against its creator.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ah "personal" evidence.... or in the common vernacular.... anecdote.... is seriously powerful. I have seen "god" at work myself if you wanna go down that route :) Many many times. Look up my user name and search the "keys" story if you want one of the good ones :)

There was a wonderful movie staring.... I think.... Jim Carey.... which was about something similar..... where they had the feeling the number "23" was controlling their lives. There was no real evidence the number 23 was controlling their lives of course..... but that did not stop them finding that number everywhere they looked! As the old christian adage goes "If you seek you shall find" :) It's basically doctrine endorsing confirmation bias :)

"As an atheist as you people call us" I have to say that the most wonderful and beautiful Christian I ever met in my life was a true follower of Jesus Christ. When I met her she was 16 and a child of really in your face evangelical Christians. And she decided that the most important sentence in her bible (which incidentally she read and her parents didn't) was "by your fruits you will know them". Which meant she never even told anyone she was Christian or Theist.... unless she was directly asked. I quit my job as a moderator of a website called "isgodimaginary" just because of her. I do not know what a "true" Christian means but my heart tells me she was it and to this day she remains one of the most wonderful and beautiful people I ever met.

To engage with your last paragraph though.... Evolution is not a "pseudo" science. It's the result of ACTUAL science. You do not get to pick and choose which science you like and don't like. You either engage with the methodology of science or you don't. If you don't.... then I respect that. I really do! But if you DO then I hate to break it to you but Evolution ticks all the boxes that the methodology of science demands. And if you do not believe ME on that (which you shouldn't because I am a semi intellectual moron) then you should ask people like the catholic theist Kenneth Miller for example :) Actual scientists of evolutionary biology. But.... as a MORON of science..... I can engage with you on some of the tenets of evolutionary biology if you want. Try me. Not throwaway derision I mean.... but actual engagement on the science. I know some of it.... and I know people better than me who know more too.

Evolutionary biology works very very well under the rubric of the methodologies of science. You might not like that of course.... and I can understand why...... but if you want to fault it you need to go back to the basics of science.... not the basics of evolution.... to take up that gripe.

vriesmays

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118164405#Comment_118164405

Why don't you rant about our former asylums and mental hospitals. People pumped full of drugs and given electric shock therapy for made up illnesses. Is is because the Catholic Church wasn't involved or are you waiting for the movie to come out.

Since religion has existed in every single human society it clearly has some kind of evolutionary benefit. It probably strengthens group bonds, gells society, explains the history and specialness of the group.

For instance without the Jewish religion the Jewish people could not exist.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118195259#Comment_118195259

What religion are you? I’ve just googled the attitude of most religions and most major religions are not hostile to evolution.

SouthWesterly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118196202#Comment_118196202

I'm Christian. I'm not hostile to evolution. It's just a theory dreamt up by a man and believed by a society that wants to write God out as being the Creator. All in the vain hope that having written Him out that they won't have to give an account for their lives and how they lived them to the One who created them.

I don't have much time for religion either. It's just a formula which seeks to make God in the image of men. It just doesn't work nor change the lives of those who practice it or the society in which it operates

TaurenDruid

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118196069#Comment_118196069

They were, in fact, almost entirely run by religious orders, so yes, by all means, include them.

I notice you entirely failed to engage with the actual content of my post, but hey, fair enough, it's hard to defend the indefensible, and far easier to just attack. Although there's something in your holy book about that...

TaurenDruid

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118196547#Comment_118196547

"it's just a theory..."

Jebus, our education system has a lot to answer for.

vriesmays

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118200484#Comment_118200484

Why won't you criticise the Protestant churches, they had these homes in Ireland too.

nozzferrahhtoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118196109#Comment_118196109

The common cold exists everywhere too. That does not mean it has an evolutionary benefit. Evolution does not work that way. Just because something exists does not mean automatically it has an evolutionary benefit. Things can be selection neutral for example in that evolution is not selecting for OR against it. There are also some things which are evolutionary byproducts too. In that they exist not because evolution finds a benefit to them.... but because they are a by product of something else evolution did select for.

All that said though..... it should also be pointed out that even if religion was being selected for as evolutionary beneficial.... that would not for one moment be evidence that any given religion is actually true. Useful nonsense is nonsense none the less.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118196547#Comment_118196547

Ah yes that old move :) When you have no evidence whatsoever that a god exists.... pretend instead that people not believing that this god exists is because of some agenda of bias on their part :) It's not that you have not got a shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning which suggests any god actually exists..... its actually because atheists dont want to believe :)

Yeah, pull the other one.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118201351#Comment_118201351

Well the common cold has an evolutionary benefit to the virus, clearly not to animals. It evolves separately or co-evolves with the carriers

By and large if a cultural trait is universal across human societies it makes sense to believe that it has some cultural advantages, or at least it did so historically.

nozzferrahhtoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118201415#Comment_118201415

Exactly. So perhaps religion is of evolutionary benefit to itself too in just the same way. Just because it exists and continues to exist.... does not mean it confers any evolutionary benefit to the host. That doesn't mean it DOESNT do so either of course! But its not automatically true in any way.

But the common cold has evolved to take advantage of things that evolution has selected for in humans. We evolved other things which the common cold is able to hijack and use for it's own ends. It is quite possible that religion is similar in this regard. A memetic virus that hijacks elements and attributes of the human.

So no I do not by the idea that it's merely existing means it must have brought some kind of advantages. Maybe it did. Maybe it did not. But we can not declare it by fiat either way.

SouthWesterly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118201351#Comment_118201351

I've 40 years of personal experience that God is real.

Just because you don't have that experience doesn't negate my experience.

nozzferrahhtoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118202523#Comment_118202523

Sure but other people have experience that they were abducted by aliens. It does not mean they were abducted by aliens. Maybe they were but their claimed experience is not evidence. Human experience is flawed which is why we have things like science to test it and validate it. You can have all the subjective belief in the world that something is true.... but that does not change the fact you are not substantiating the claim if and when asked to do so.

So it is not about negating your experience so much as pointing out your experience is irrelevant to anyone but yourself. The idea there actually is a god entity remains unsubstantiated regardless.

SouthWesterly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118202635#Comment_118202635

If a man were to rise from the dead you still wouldn't believe it.

TaurenDruid

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118200727#Comment_118200727

Tell you what - I'll do that right after you respond to the criticism of the Roman Catholic church. Or will you just deflect, yet again?

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118200727#Comment_118200727

In what way can the misdeeds of the P church excuse the misdeeds of the C church, or vice versa?

Two cheeks of the same arse as far as I'm concerned and a pox on both their houses.

Watching the recent religious celebration of 100 years of partition was sickening. Church leaders getting together to stroke their already massive egos and pretend they're all really important guys whose organisations are still as relevant as ever to society. Oh and they're just the lads to fix all of the problems their churches caused... as if.

nozzferrahhtoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118203259#Comment_118203259

So because I do not believe something for which you have provided absolutely NO evidence.... you think you can extrapolate from that what I would believe in a hypothetical situation where there might be evidence?

This is basically an ad hominem move. Making it about me personally (by making up things about me, a person you do not know at all) rather than simply acknowledge that while you might PERSONALLY believe in a god.... there is no argument, evidence, data or reasoning forthcoming substantiating such a believe.

I have seen these moves from theists so many times over so many years. That move you made before of pretending the reason we do not believe there is a god is because we do not want to be held accountable to our creator..... has been tried many times. You are attempting to replace evidence with ad hominem motivations and narratives.

I do not believe there is a god at this time, because I have never been shown even one single reason to think there is a god at this time. Any other motivations, narratives, or pretty little fairy tales you want to tell yourself about me and why I do not believe the claim.... is just your imagination at work.

Hoop66

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118082025#Comment_118082025

Human radio waves have not travelled "over 100 million light years", they have travelled approx. 116 light years - they have been travelling out into space for 116 years at the speed of light. This is a tiny, tiny fraction of the size of our own galaxy - roughly 100,000 light years, never mind the rest of the universe - 45-50 billion light years.

The "where is everybody" theory fails to understand the distances involved, and how vanishingly unlikely it is that one intelligent life should happen to come across another.

partyguinness

"Is religion merely failed science?"

Curious wording. It almost gives the impression (wrongly) that science has provided all the answers. It may very well provde all the answers in time but that is for future generations to reep.

Religion is complimentary or supplementary even because ultimately while science may provide all the answers there is always the question as to what made it all happen or provded the questions. Religion is an attempt to provide an explanation.

py2006

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118202523#Comment_118202523

With respect, no you don't.

At the start of your life you had about 10 years "experience" of Santa, the tooth fairy and may be the easter bunny.

And again, with respect, no you didn't.

SouthWesterly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118205429#Comment_118205429

You don't know what you're talking about. Even a fool is considered wise when he says nothing.

techman1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118205301#Comment_118205301

Yes you are correct, that was just a typo 100 light years, rather than 100 million light years, I actually do know what a light year is, still 100 light years is a vast difference many of the stars we see in the night sky are much closer than this.

In every other area though science is evidence based , yet in this one area regarding the possibility of intelligent life in the universe it does the opposite, it presumes their must be life out there just that the distances are too great. Surely for consistency science should take the position as it does in every other area that because we have zero evidence of life and have never encountered life throughput the entirety of human history that there is nothing out there and we are unique. That is the position that Fermi took, "Where is everybody"

py2006

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118205572#Comment_118205572

Charming and oh the irony

vriesmays

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118205177#Comment_118205177

Why would they want to join us when we'll have ½ million muslims in a few decades and all the idiots will still be criticising the Catholic church.

Graces7

Reply to your initial question

NO

Graces7

dublin49

religion is merely a failure of logic ,a soother for adults .

Potential-Monke

In every other area though science is evidence based , yet in this one area regarding the possibility of intelligent life in the universe it does the opposite, it presumes their must be life out there just that the distances are too great. Surely for consistency science should take the position as it does in every other area that because we have zero evidence of life and have never encountered life throughput the entirety of human history that there is nothing out there and we are unique. That is the position that Fermi took, "Where is everybody"

The difference being that science is using the vastness of space and what we currently know about how life is formed, and making the logical statement that we can't be the only planet in the entire UNIVERSE that can support life (right down to the level of tardigrade is usually enough, as if they are there, then life can probably exist and, as a result, intelligent life). So it's fair to assume there is alien life out there, even intelligent life. And that's because we can't see all of space, it's literally impossible, and we're seeing less and less every second as the universe expands.

Religion however, has nothing to go on. Just belief. No facts to base anything else on, just random books written by people from a time when science was still in its infancy. There's no physical proof of god. There's no trail of evidence for him, just beliefs that the unknown was done by him. And that God mainly also depends on which part of the globe you were born in. When science says no, it's because there's literally no evidence. Life in space, 100% possible so that's why they say it (unless you really do think that the Earth is the only planet that can support life in an universe of approximately:

400 billion planets in the Milky Way. 21.6 trillion planets in the Local Group. 2 quadrillion planets in the Virgo Supercluster. 21.6 sextillion (21,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) planets in the observable universe. We don't even know what % of space that is. And people think Earth is the only one to support life. And God made it... Right yeah!

patnor1011

Life can be beautiful. Pretty much everyone experienced that at some stage for some time in their life. Generally and naturally the less beauty/happy you get, the more you pin your hope on to find somewhere some time in the future. Religion is easy answer promising reward usually after lifetime of hard work.

Most of religions were seized or outright invented by powers that be as a perfect tool of oppression. Precise sets of rules and orders to follow with vague reward offer after you die.

dublin49

Faith,the trump card to beat all trump cards,what a magnificient construct,untouchable by logic,imperious to common sense,requiring no knowledge and instantly attainable once you decide its in your best interest to follow the herd or you accept what your parents decide you should believe .

Manach

Relgion has its core aim as a set of morals and beliefs that see to understand the moral world as oppose to that of the physical. That sums up the core message of scientists such as the late Stephen J. Gould. Where there was a gap in the infrastructure of underdering, such as the Medieval times, the Church did create schools and universitys that had a side-benefit of creating knowledge to lay the foundation of the scientific world. To imagine though there is a kind of morally to be had be clinging onto the coat-tails of science, that betokens a simple-minded way of thinking that many modern seculists are prey to.

Black Swan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118195259#Comment_118195259

Evolution is not pseudo science, rather it is an educated guess that has been supported by the analysis of objective, empirical inductive and deductive data over time. So long as the preponderance of data suggests merit in the scientific theory of evolution, it may serve, and has served scientific research and discovery in the examination and explanation of phenomena.

To claim that it is pseudo without empirical evidence to support its falsification (see Karl Popper, et al) appears to be merely an anecdotal opinion of yours, not based on the application of the scientific method. Rather, your claim seems to be one based on faith not science.

Furthermore, repetitious affirmations of your faith does not provide a convincing argument, nor your lack of objective empirical data to falsify evolution theory, or science in general, no matter how often you repeat yourself in this thread.

Pussyhands

Religion is brainwashing, pure and simple.

Children believe what you tell them. You tell them a guy living in the North Pole makes toys, comes into every house in the world to give kids toys one night a year and they believe it.

The only difference is there's no proof God doesn't exist, but there's none he does either.

The afterlife is a coping mechanism for people who are afraid of the dark.

SouthWesterly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118247131#Comment_118247131

So to take your first sentence. It's all guesswork. Dress it up how you like in pseudo science speak its a guess and no more.

Evolution hasn't explained to me the order and complexity of the created universe, nor can it. It can only make a guess and deny Creator.

I suggest you read John C Lennox, an Irish writer who is both a scientist and a believer in a Creator.

Science simply isn’t a belief system or a dogma. It’s just a method of inquiry and a way of seeing past various common biases to get to raw facts.

Religion is a belief system that relies on faith and dogma.

They're neither comparable nor interchangeable, except that some people get very annoyed when scientific facts challenge a dogmatic belief.

You might as well be saying a Santa Claus and his reindeer are in direct competition with or comparable to an Airbus A320. One of them is a lovely story. The other will get you from Ireland to a Spain.

Black Swan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118247604#Comment_118247604

What is your unscientific faith based explanation for Neanderthals that existed 35,000 to 120,000 years ago?

SouthWesterly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118247708#Comment_118247708

You wouldn't believe me even if I told you. A pointless discussion.

Potential-Monke

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118248100#Comment_118248100

So, in other words, your doctrine doesn't explain it? You also say Creator, which one would that be? What name do they go by?

TaurenDruid

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118247604#Comment_118247604

It is not "all guesswork." Poster was presumably using simple language as if they've read this thread they'll have seen how uninformed you are about the basics of science. When they talk about an "educated guess", they mean that you can draw inferences from the available, observable evidence. One can then develop hypotheses. And test them, refining where necessary. This article explains it quite well.

If, as you say, you have failed to understand evolution, I suggest reading River Out of Eden or The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins.

SouthWesterly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118248471#Comment_118248471

I've not failed to understand science at all. I just refuse to equate religion (I don't believe in religion.. It doesn't work) with science.

Faith and science operate on a totally different basis.just because I operate in the area of faith doesn't mean I don't understand science.

It's arrogance on your part to think I don't understand science.

Black Swan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118248100#Comment_118248100

Why do I find it ironic that you claim I “wouldn’t believe” you? Emphasis upon the word “believe.” Whereupon science only suggests. This difference exhibiting the essence of the OP.

TaurenDruid

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118248499#Comment_118248499

It's arrogance on your part to think I don't understand science.

Nope. It's your statements in this thread that demonstrate you don't understand science. Statements like:

the pseudo science of evolution which removes the need of a creator which has just provided theories and not much else

I'm not hostile to evolution. It's just a theory

Evolution by its very nature is said to occur over long periods of time. No one has lived long enough to observe it. So it's not observed fact.

There we go again. Theory 🤣

Mutation within a species is not evolution.

I can have a theory that [it must be rabbits!] JFK was caught in a crossfire, or that there's a conspiracy to stop anyone winning the lotto. That's "theory" in the common or lay sense. Theory in the scientific sense means something else entirely, and you don't appear to understand that.

Here's a pretty good explanation, written for the layman (no pun intended). Tl;dr version: A "theory", as used in science, has a far higher bar than a "theory" in non-scientific common use.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118206099#Comment_118206099

radio waves may have reached 116 light years by now but if anyone receiving those waves was to respond or travel here then we are talking about a lot smaller distance. 58 light years to be exact assuming they responded immediately.

As for your question on the probability of intelligent life elsewhere it is evidence based. there is no evidence that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118247604#Comment_118247604

are you a young earth or an old earth creationist?