You wonder the difference between religion and science? You say they’re both based on “belief”? That may be true - but there is one monumental difference: a scientific theory collapses under disproof (evolution would fail if rabbits were found in the precambrian) - religion never collapses because it can change at any moment. That is, of course, because it isn’t true. Science collapses under disproof because reality itself must be true… stories have no such constraints.
In our case, as the distinguished astronomer and former president of the Royal Society Martin Rees has conjectured, extinction is likely to be self-inflicted. Destructive technology becomes more powerful by the decade, and there is an ever-increasing danger that it will fall into the hands of some holy fool (Ian McEwan’s memorable phrase) whose ‘tradition’ glorifies death and longs for the hereafter: a ‘tradition’ which, not content with forecasting the end of the world, actively seeks to bring it about.
However it happens, the end of the world will be a parochial little affair, unnoticed in the universe at large. The end of the universe itself is a matter of current debate among physicists, a debate that I recommend as providing a salutary, long-term, humbling perspective on human preoccupations and follies.
According to this news story, a New York man has spent all $140,000 of his life savings to put up signs spreading the message that Judgment Day will be May 21st.
This is why the whole doomsday business is downright disgusting — people who fall for it are liable to throw their lives away. And Harold Camping, the man responsible for the latest prediction, has apparently forecast an exact date for the end of the world three times previously, so I think there’s a good chance that he knows full well what he’s doing. Rather than ridicule, this man deserves contempt and condemnation.
Apparently they’ve set a date. Live it up while you still can, folks.
(via)
