Picard's atheism?

[Marie1]

We're talking about the overall life expectancy in that place and time due to what is now viewed as a sort of moral rebellion. People lost their compassion along with a lot of their religiousness in the light of social Darwinism's survival of the fittest.

What a load of nonsense. 'social darwinism' emerging from lack of theism was never commonplace enough in Britain to cause massive rises in mortality - if you have proof otherwise I'd love to see it.
The life expectancy is that low because of infant mortality, btw. They're not independent statistics. What, you think there weren't 30, 40, 50 year olds in Victorian times? There was just a massive skew on the life expectancy from nearly half of children not making it past their first year.

The life expectancy in London for a time was indeed 14/15 and part of that was because of the child abandonment which yes played a lot in it.
We're talking about an average, so yes there were older people, otherwise who was having the children? Things settled, the average life span went up to 40 later.

And it wasn't just the children, as you see from the stats the numbers are shocking but not the whole story. If people had had the compassion to help the poor, (as per the Bible) or do what it took to prevent that circumstance in the first place and prostitution (never a low risk occupation at any time... except maybe for the Orions?) hadn't been so rampant, then the problem wouldn't have been so astronomical. But it was.

Which has nothing at all to do with the presence or absence of religion, and everything to do with its practitioners actually practising what they preach. Just as in any time, with any religion. In fact, philanthropy and charity in the modern sense emerged during the Victorian era, leading, among other things, to the establishment of public schools.

At the time it did- do to a radical shift in people's attitudes.

But in principal "everything to do with its practitioners actually practicing what they preach" is what I to believe in what is necessary.

I'm just trying to say that the world isn't going to turn into a utopia if religion just vanishes.

 

[iguana_tonante]

We're talking about the overall life expectancy in that place and time due to what is now viewed as a sort of moral rebellion. People lost their compassion along with a lot of their religiousness in the light of social Darwinism's survival of the fittest.

In the light of your other posts in this thread, I'm sure you are doing it with the best intentions, but this is nonsense. Social Darwinism had nothing to do with low life expectancy in industrial revolution's London.

If people had had the compassion to help the poor, (as per the Bible) or do what it took to prevent that circumstance in the first place

Helping the poor is not in the Bible. If there were be as such, why so many fundamentalists would be opposed to helping the poor?

 

[trevanian]

GodBen
Commander


Re: Picard's atheism?
Well according to Ron Moore, one of Gene's rules was that there was no religion in the 24th century. That isn't canon since it was never stated in the show, but that is the way that the writers were forced to write the characters.


EDIT
This is one of the few things I agreed with GR about. He put forth in the p2 or TMP notes that with a crew of 400+, you'd need something like 200 pastors to handle the various religious issues. (either that or you do it like Diane Duane in WOUNDED SKY, where you have a generic pastor to serve all belief systems.)

 

[Marie1]

We're talking about the overall life expectancy in that place and time due to what is now viewed as a sort of moral rebellion. People lost their compassion along with a lot of their religiousness in the light of social Darwinism's survival of the fittest.

In the light of your other posts in this thread, I'm sure you are doing it with the best intentions, but this is nonsense. Social Darwinism had nothing to do with low life expectancy in industrial revolution's London.

If that is your conclusion from a study of the period, then I respect it. My through study has indicated otherwise, but thats going even further off topic, so I'll let it rest.

If people had had the compassion to help the poor, (as per the Bible) or do what it took to prevent that circumstance in the first place

Helping the poor is not in the Bible. If there were be as such, why so many fundamentalists would be opposed to helping the poor?

Why they are is beyond me, as the Bible is clear that the poor should be given aid in many passages. I've read it. But again its off topic.

Or is that what was up with the ?

Anyway, I'll let this go back on course.

 

[TheGodBen]

I'm just trying to say that the world isn't going to turn into a utopia if religion just vanishes.

I completely agree with this. I know there are a lot of atheists who claim that religion is pure evil and has led to wars and genocide, and I just don't buy into that way of thinking. If religion wasn't around then humans would be killing one another for different reasons. Humans would always have found a way to be bigoted, small minded and evil, religion was just a front people used to mask their cruel desires.

But I still think it would be nice. I come across quite a few people on the internet who attack me just because I don't believe the same things they believe. I'm tired of people attacking science just because it doesn't follow what is said in an old book. Humans would still kill one another and we would have many more challenges to overcome, but it would be one less monkey on my back.

 

[Marie1]

I'm just trying to say that the world isn't going to turn into a utopia if religion just vanishes.

I completely agree with this. I know there are a lot of atheists who claim that religion is pure evil and has led to wars and genocide, and I just don't buy into that way of thinking. If religion wasn't around then humans would be killing one another for different reasons. Humans would always have found a way to be bigoted, small minded and evil, religion was just a front people used to mask their cruel desires.

But I still think it would be nice. I come across quite a few people on the internet who attack me just because I don't believe the same things they believe. I'm tired of people attacking science just because it doesn't follow what is said in an old book. Humans would still kill one another and we would have many more challenges to overcome, but it would be one less monkey on my back.

Exactly, people want an excuse to fight, they'll find one. Really in some cases, religion is an easy thing to use and abuse for that end, like any another division to exploit for conflict, the same as caste systems, poverty, colour. *sigh* people...

But I think I like you anyway.

 

[Lord Garth]

Never let it be said that opinions on this board cannot be changed. The only human main character I definitely know to be religious then is Chakotay.

I thought that was more Southern than Christian.

+

I'm an atheist and I use those expressions and similar all the time , because I just happen to speak idiomatic English.

So either: it's more of a Southern thing, I've been hanging out with the wrong people, or both. Probably both.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

I'm just trying to say that the world isn't going to turn into a utopia if religion just vanishes.

I completely agree with this. I know there are a lot of atheists who claim that religion is pure evil and has led to wars and genocide, and I just don't buy into that way of thinking. If religion wasn't around then humans would be killing one another for different reasons. Humans would always have found a way to be bigoted, small minded and evil, religion was just a front people used to mask their cruel desires.

Exactly! The problem is human nature, and I think the fact that we've seen behavior just as bad in avowedly atheistic (or at least secular) regimes points up that fact. People will find an excuse; they'll find something upon which to hang that zeal.

But I still think it would be nice. I come across quite a few people on the internet who attack me just because I don't believe the same things they believe. I'm tired of people attacking science just because it doesn't follow what is said in an old book. Humans would still kill one another and we would have many more challenges to overcome, but it would be one less monkey on my back.

I'm not sure it's a view you've heard very much about, but science and religion don't have to be incompatible. I look to the Bible to see the purpose and meaning of Creation--to science to see the nitty-gritty on when and how. I see no incompatibilities whatsoever, myself, and I am tired of people on both sides perpetuating a conflict where there should be none.

 

[TheGodBen]

I'm not sure it's a view you've heard very much about, but science and religion don't have to be incompatible. I look to the Bible to see the purpose and meaning of Creation--to science to see the nitty-gritty on when and how. I see no incompatibilities whatsoever, myself, and I am tired of people on both sides perpetuating a conflict where there should be none.

I know that science and religion are compatible, but many people don't think so. I come from a Catholic country, and Catholicism, for all its faults, accepts the scientific viewpoint of the universe. But according to surveys, 40% of Americans consider themselves young-Earth creationists, and they believe that the universe is 6,000 years old and that the first humans were Adam and Eve. They are not a majority even in America, but they are a sizable minority, and I have come across far too many in my time on the internet.

I'm not saying all Christians are like that, but it is one part of religion that I find to be dangerous. Some people believe the in the Bible so much that even when you show them evidence that the Bible is wrong about an issue, they will continue to deny the evidence right in front of their eyes. That ability to ignore facts because they don't want to believe them is something which I think humanity could very well do without. Removing religion wont get rid of the problem, but 120m Americans would be less prone to deny logic, as would hundreds of millions of Muslim creationists.

 

[dreadpiraterose]

Considering Gene Roddenberry's secular humanist beliefs, I think you can derive from some of Picard's statements that he's at least a humanist. As for whether that's secular humanism (atheism), that's debatable. He did have the Nexus Christmas experience, but that could be a tradition thing and not a religious thing, as it already is for people now.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

I'm not sure it's a view you've heard very much about, but science and religion don't have to be incompatible. I look to the Bible to see the purpose and meaning of Creation--to science to see the nitty-gritty on when and how. I see no incompatibilities whatsoever, myself, and I am tired of people on both sides perpetuating a conflict where there should be none.

I know that science and religion are compatible, but many people don't think so. I come from a Catholic country, and Catholicism, for all its faults, accepts the scientific viewpoint of the universe. But according to surveys, 40% of Americans consider themselves young-Earth creationists, and they believe that the universe is 6,000 years old and that the first humans were Adam and Eve. They are not a majority even in America, but they are a sizable minority, and I have come across far too many in my time on the internet.

While I find it frustrating as well (having nearly been put off of my faith by mistreatment from young-earthers), I am more concerned about the attitudes and behaviors that we Christians sometimes exhibit. It's the underlying anger and defensiveness that I'm worried about--the tendency to bash others with whom we have a disagreement. That's the bigger problem by far in my book.

I'm not saying all Christians are like that, but it is one part of religion that I find to be dangerous. Some people believe the in the Bible so much that even when you show them evidence that the Bible is wrong about an issue, they will continue to deny the evidence right in front of their eyes. That ability to ignore facts because they don't want to believe them is something which I think humanity could very well do without. Removing religion wont get rid of the problem, but 120m Americans would be less prone to deny logic, as would hundreds of millions of Muslim creationists.

To me it's not an issue of ignoring facts. It's my personal belief (though I certainly cannot prove it) that what you encounter in the Bible's description of the Creation is a highly poetic version of events, one written to illustrate meaning rather than serve as a scientific treatise or necessarily even have everything in chronological order.

(That said, I do think it's pretty staggering that we have ANY kind of description of the Big Bang in the Bible considering its age...and yet, "let there be light"--and BANG, there it is! And then what happened? It cooled and separated light from dark... )

I do not have any problem with believing in miracles, though--even what we see in quantum physics means that very improbable things can occur...even once-in-a-universe events.

But to me the problem is not believing in the Bible "too much." It's simply a problem at times of believing it too literally, of focusing on tiny details over the main meaning. Conversely, I do not see myself as "ignoring facts" because of my belief. I simply make a distinction as to what KIND of fact I'm looking at: is it a fact of nature, or a fact of meaning? In the end, I am more like the pre-Enlightenment scientists than a modern-era scientist in my approach: I see the search for knowledge as a single discipline that has multiple branches...and to me, the one reinforces the other and vice versa. I understand why Johannes Kepler felt so moved by the majesty of the stars that he would wear his finest clothing to the observatory to honor God's creation--and this as he discovered things that certainly were not in line with literal Biblical descriptions. I look at genetics and evolutionary biology and I feel that same awe..and I find it very difficult and sad to see that some experience such fear and anger from something in which I see great beauty and the work of God's hand.

 

[Marie1]

The trick (yes, I'm jumping back in ) is to question. And not just religion/Bible/Holy Texts/whatever, but science too- because it has been wrong many times, and there is a ton of theory taught as fact. But if history has taught us anything, its that we need to calmly, peacefully think things through before believing and going to war over things.

But people have the choice not to question too, I suppose. But Picard's passion was archeology- so digging up the past isn't something I can see him just shrugging off.

Part of the reason is humanity's polar reaction to... everything. By the 24th C, hopefully people will get over that. Picard has the benefits of tons of science-y stuff and scanners. Fossils can be more easily found, our genetic codes can be examined better ( I cannot remember where but I read an analysis that said it is within our DNA for humans living today to be the offspring of two people).

A day in the Bible isn't a 24 hour day necessarily. Like now, it can be a period of time. And the 7th day hasn't ended yet. So if we take the time covered in the Bible, and the foretold Millennial reign, say 7000 years total. 7000 X 7 creative days = 49 000 years. More realistic. Just to say, as someone who has studied both science and religion for years, there are other possibilities.

The perspective of the creation account to me is when it was prepared for human habitation. So could it have been around doing whatever for billions of years? Absolutely. According to Genesis, there was a lot of water in the air/atmosphere (sometimes the atmosphere is called "Heaven" in the Bible), which may explain why the star light couldn't be seen.

This has the potential to be fun, exciting, fascinating! But only if people do it respectfully and peacefully, as people in ST should do. (I'm looking forward to the scanners, and their ability to reconstruct 3d models!!) Who will build a time machine with me so we can go... borrow... one???

 

[TheGodBen]

The trick (yes, I'm jumping back in ) is to question. And not just religion/Bible/Holy Texts/whatever, but science too- because it has been wrong many times, and there is a ton of theory taught as fact. But if history has taught us anything, its that we need to calmly, peacefully think things through before believing and going to war over things.

I do question science, the very basis of science is that it is constantly under scrutiny. For example, the way I have had dark matter explained to me isn't satisfactory for me to believe in it. I am open to being convinced, so if anybody would wish to explain why they think dark matter is real then I would welcome that, but for now I just do not think it is real.

I was raised in a family which is very sceptical of science, so I was thought to be sceptical of it too. But then I read about the scientific method, and I realised that this method will get us as close to certainty as we can get. You don't just accept a new idea, you actively try to disprove it. That is the reason why I trust science for the most part, because it never claims to be absolutely correct and it is open to change if evidence starts to lean another way. It isn't perfect, but it is the best that us imperfect beings are capable of.

I cannot remember where but I read an analysis that said it is within our DNA for humans living today to be the offspring of two people.

I'm not sure if this is the paper you are thinking of, but a genealogist once claimed that DNA evidence shows humans are descended from one man and one woman, the problem is that they were separated by around 10,000 years. Ultimately the paper did not pass peer review because it was quickly noticed that the research did not take promiscuity into account. It worked on the assumption that people would only mate with one person for their entire lives, but it is well known that people were constantly going at it with one another's spouses all throughout history.

However, then the media picked up on the story. It didn't matter that it was completely without scientific merit because it was interesting, so the story got far more attention than it should have. This is one of many reasons why I dislike the media.

 

[iguana_tonante]

The trick (yes, I'm jumping back in ) is to question. And not just religion/Bible/Holy Texts/whatever, but science too- because it has been wrong many times, and there is a ton of theory taught as fact.

As GodBen said, difference is (and i think it's big fat difference), science holds as its highest tenet that it should be always questioned and kept under scrutiny.
Science has been wrong many times, yes, but it has been corrected by science itself. Religions usually don't do this, and questioning can lead to very unpleasant happenings.

A day in the Bible isn't a 24 hour day necessarily. Like now, it can be a period of time. And the 7th day hasn't ended yet. So if we take the time covered in the Bible, and the foretold Millennial reign, say 7000 years total. 7000 X 7 creative days = 49 000 years. More realistic. Just to say, as someone who has studied both science and religion for years, there are other possibilities.

Well, 49.000 years are still quite different from 13.6 billion years, the latest estimated age of the universe.

The perspective of the creation account to me is when it was prepared for human habitation. So could it have been around doing whatever for billions of years? Absolutely. According to Genesis, there was a lot of water in the air/atmosphere (sometimes the atmosphere is called "Heaven" in the Bible), which may explain why the star light couldn't be seen.

I have to ask a question: why try and stick biblical anecdotes in the scientific explanations? why can't we just say that it was all allegorical and be done with the discrepancies? (like the Catholic church do)

 

[Marie1]

The trick (yes, I'm jumping back in ) is to question. And not just religion/Bible/Holy Texts/whatever, but science too- because it has been wrong many times, and there is a ton of theory taught as fact. But if history has taught us anything, its that we need to calmly, peacefully think things through before believing and going to war over things.

I do question science, the very basis of science is that it is constantly under scrutiny. For example, the way I have had dark matter explained to me isn't satisfactory for me to believe in it. I am open to being convinced, so if anybody would wish to explain why they think dark matter is real then I would welcome that, but for now I just do not think it is real.

I was raised in a family which is very sceptical of science, so I was thought to be sceptical of it too. But then I read about the scientific method, and I realised that this method will get us as close to certainty as we can get. You don't just accept a new idea, you actively try to disprove it. That is the reason why I trust science for the most part, because it never claims to be absolutely correct and it is open to change if evidence starts to lean another way. It isn't perfect, but it is the best that us imperfect beings are capable of.

I cannot remember where but I read an analysis that said it is within our DNA for humans living today to be the offspring of two people.

I'm not sure if this is the paper you are thinking of, but a genealogist once claimed that DNA evidence shows humans are descended from one man and one woman, the problem is that they were separated by around 10,000 years. Ultimately the paper did not pass peer review because it was quickly noticed that the research did not take promiscuity into account. It worked on the assumption that people would only mate with one person for their entire lives, but it is well known that people were constantly going at it with one another's spouses all throughout history.

However, then the media picked up on the story. It didn't matter that it was completely without scientific merit because it was interesting, so the story got far more attention than it should have. This is one of many reasons why I dislike the media.

Now dark matter is something that fascinates me, can you recommend some good and as-far-as-we-know accurate information on it?

Why on earth wouldn't the article you read have considered promiscuity- especially given what we know about it- prostitution alone is thousands of years old. Weird!

The trick (yes, I'm jumping back in ) is to question. And not just religion/Bible/Holy Texts/whatever, but science too- because it has been wrong many times, and there is a ton of theory taught as fact.

As GodBen said, difference is (and i think it's big fat difference), science holds as its highest tenet that it should be always questioned and kept under scrutiny.
Science has been wrong many times, yes, but it has been corrected by science itself. Religions usually don't do this, and questioning can lead to very unpleasant happenings.

A day in the Bible isn't a 24 hour day necessarily. Like now, it can be a period of time. And the 7th day hasn't ended yet. So if we take the time covered in the Bible, and the foretold Millennial reign, say 7000 years total. 7000 X 7 creative days = 49 000 years. More realistic. Just to say, as someone who has studied both science and religion for years, there are other possibilities.

Well, 49.000 years are still quite different from 13.6 billion years, the latest estimated age of the universe.

The perspective of the creation account to me is when it was prepared for human habitation. So could it have been around doing whatever for billions of years? Absolutely. According to Genesis, there was a lot of water in the air/atmosphere (sometimes the atmosphere is called "Heaven" in the Bible), which may explain why the star light couldn't be seen.

I have to ask a question: why try and stick biblical anecdotes in the scientific explanations? why can't we just say that it was all allegorical and be done with the discrepancies? (like the Catholic church do)

But as I said, my calculation has nothing to do whatsoever with the age of the earth, let alone the age of the universe. It only has to do with the changes of the earth necessary for the development of a place suitable for human habitation. I see no reason why earth and the universe can't be billions of years old.

I don't consider personally what the Bible says to be allegory. The Bible isn't a science text, but when it does talk about science, so far its been proven to be not only accurate but ahead of its time. The OT said the earth was a sphere, and that the universe was expanding long before humans knew it. And I'm not Catholic, and a lot of my beliefs are at odds, so I'm not going to follow that lead. It boils down to faith, and just like the over time things that historians have countered in the Bible have been proven historically accurate, I personally am not going to discount what it says about science either. And if the Bible touches on something, like the expanding of the universe before it occurs to us, maybe we can look into things we never would have thought of otherwise even now.

As the Bible directs attention to the stars, and Job or Psalms talks about constellations, maybe those accounts drew people's eyes to the stars and they thought about life from the perspectives of those stars... and thought what if we were there?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

In "Chain of Command", for instance, he admires the Cardassian's "spiritual life," and echoes similar sentiments on other occasions.

Why do you think atheists don't have "spiritual lives?" Among other things, many strains of buddhism are silent on the question of God.

 

[iguana_tonante]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Now dark matter is something that fascinates me, can you recommend some good and as-far-as-we-know accurate information on it?

Wiki is always useful for layman's explanations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

If you want something more specific, let me know.

I don't consider personally what the Bible says to be allegory. The Bible isn't a science text, but when it does talk about science, so far its been proven to be not only accurate but ahead of its time. The OT said the earth was a sphere, and that the universe was expanding long before humans knew it.

I don't want to be too much OT, but people knew that the Earth was round since ancient times (the fact that in antiquity people believed that the Earth was flat is itself a modern construct). The bit about expansion of the universe bit is new to me, do you have a reference handy? I wouldn't be surprised if it's a cryptic passage that now is conveniently interpreted ex post facto.

It boils down to faith, and just like the over time things that historians have countered in the Bible have been proven historically accurate, I personally am not going to discount what it says about science either. And if the Bible touches on something, like the expanding of the universe before it occurs to us, maybe we can look into things we never would have thought of otherwise even now.

Well, also Tacitus's Annals are as historically accurate as the Bible, but it doesn't mean that the Roman gods are true, or that Aristotle's four elements are a valid scientific theory.

 

[Marie1]

Now dark matter is something that fascinates me, can you recommend some good and as-far-as-we-know accurate information on it?

Wiki is always useful for layman's explanations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

If you want something more specific, let me know.

I don't consider personally what the Bible says to be allegory. The Bible isn't a science text, but when it does talk about science, so far its been proven to be not only accurate but ahead of its time. The OT said the earth was a sphere, and that the universe was expanding long before humans knew it.

I don't want to be too much OT, but people knew that the Earth was round since ancient times (the fact that in antiquity people believed that the Earth was flat is itself a modern construct). The bit about expansion of the universe bit is new to me, do you have a reference handy? I wouldn't be surprised if it's a cryptic passage that now is conveniently interpreted ex post facto.

It boils down to faith, and just like the over time things that historians have countered in the Bible have been proven historically accurate, I personally am not going to discount what it says about science either. And if the Bible touches on something, like the expanding of the universe before it occurs to us, maybe we can look into things we never would have thought of otherwise even now.

Well, also Tacitus's Annals are as historically accurate as the Bible, but it doesn't mean that the Roman gods are true, or that Aristotle's four elements are a valid scientific theory.

Wiki should be a good start. I'm always leery of looking around there myself.

Job chap. 38 is good from some of the earlier stuff we were talking about, Gen. wise, but I was off by a book or two, I was thinking of Isaiah 40:22 (tho there may also be another one), talking about God stretching out the heavens, which would be the literal universe since he's talking about what the earth is hanging in... or talking from a perspective outside earth...

Once the people who believed that the earth was flat were told it was a sphere, didn't a bunch of them freak out and cry 'heresy?' Or am I misremembering?

Aristotle amuses me- why did he think women had fewer teeth? Why didn't he just look into some woman's mouth? I guess its a little late to ask...
I remember being most fascinated with Nebuchadnezzar's insanity had how he absence was discovered. But I'm glad we still don't have to write things on rocks. Can you imagine????

 

[TheGodBen]

Now dark matter is something that fascinates me, can you recommend some good and as-far-as-we-know accurate information on it?

Wiki is always useful for layman's explanations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

If you want something more specific, let me know.

This quote from that article sums up my problem with dark matter:

According to present observations of structures larger than galaxies, as well as Big Bang cosmology, dark matter and dark energy account for the vast majority of the mass in the observable universe.

As I understand it, dark matter came about like this: when humans started to observe the cosmos, they realised that the models we had for gravitation didn't work. Rather than the models being incorrect, they postulated that there must be more matter or mass than they could detect. Eventually they realised that the majority of the universe must be comprised of matter and energy which is impossible for us to detect by normal means. So now people are going to great lengths to try and collect these particles as they pass through the Earth.

So rather than accept that their formulas are based on flawed science, they decided that the majority of the universe is different that what we can see. When explained in layman's terms, dark matter sounds like as if some scientists are so beholden to their theories that they cannot accept it when they are wrong so they go to incredulous lengths defend them.

It sounds like religion to me.

I am a sceptic and I cannot follow this form of logic. When they manage to collect some dark matter and test it, then please tell me so that I can accept it. If they already have managed this then that would be swell.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Job chap. 38 is good from some of the earlier stuff we were talking about, Gen. wise, but I was off by a book or two, I was thinking of Isaiah 40:22 (tho there may also be another one), talking about God stretching out the heavens, which would be the literal universe since he's talking about what the earth is hanging in... or talking from a perspective outside earth...

Well, a verse taken out of context is not amounting to much. Besides, talking about God stretching the heavens like a tent over the earth (an image quite usual for desert dwelling people) is quite different from the expansion of the space itself like it's observed in the known universe. If the Bible could include some mathematical calculations, I would be much more impressed.

Once the people who believed that the earth was flat were told it was a sphere, didn't a bunch of them freak out and cry 'heresy?' Or am I misremembering?

I think you are mixing actual history with some anecdotes you were told. Ancient civilizations knew that the Earth was round: you just need to see a ship sailing down the horizon to understand that, or to see the shadow of the Earth on the moon. Even its dimensions were know with good approximation since Eratosthenes's time. Probably lots of people did not know about that, or more probably did not cared.

Aristotle amuses me- why did he think women had fewer teeth? Why didn't he just look into some woman's mouth? I guess its a little late to ask...

Because looking would be the experimental method... and they did not believe in that yet!

I remember being most fascinated with Nebuchadnezzar's insanity had how he absence was discovered. But I'm glad we still don't have to write things on rocks. Can you imagine????

Excuse me? What was that?

This quote from that article sums up my problem with dark matter:

According to present observations of structures larger than galaxies, as well as Big Bang cosmology, dark matter and dark energy account for the vast majority of the mass in the observable universe.

As I understand it, dark matter came about like this: when humans started to observe the cosmos, they realised that the models we had for gravitation didn't work. Rather than the models being incorrect, they postulated that there must be more matter or mass than they could detect. Eventually they realised that the majority of the universe must be comprised of matter and energy which is impossible for us to detect by normal means. So now people are going to great lengths to try and collect these particles as they pass through the Earth.

So rather than accept that their formulas are based on flawed science, they decided that the majority of the universe is different that what we can see. When explained in layman's terms, dark matter sounds like as if some scientists are so beholden to their theories that they cannot accept it when they are wrong so they go to incredulous lengths defend them.

It sounds like religion to me.

I am a sceptic and I cannot follow this form of logic. When they manage to collect some dark matter and test it, then please tell me so that I can accept it. If they already have managed this then that would be swell.

Well, I can understand your reasoning very well, and I have the same problems with dark matter (and dark energy) that you have, even if I'm actually working on them. They may definitely be wrong, and actually I would be relived if they were, because they pose serious questions about the elegance of the cosmological models.

There are many people right now working on alternative gravitational theories, exactly for these reasons. But the trick is that, as for now, we don't have an alternative theory of gravitation that works well with observational data. Dark energy/matter, on the other hand, for all its formal "contriveness", agrees quite well with observations. So, as long as the situation doesn't change, dark matter is the best explanation. The "race" is quite active and competitive, I can tell you!

However, just a point: it's incorrect to say that we can't see dark matter: sure, it doesn't emit on the electromagnetic spectrum, but we can see its effects on other masses, and even on light rays (see Weak Lensing). It's not the universe's fault that we have eyes to see light but not sensory organs to detect gravity, so to speak.