

Discovery of a microscopic world shook the foundations of theology - 3327
http://www.aeonmagazine.com/nature-and-cosmos/philip-ball-microscopic-world/

======
aristus
If you'll forgive the self-quote:

"If I had to pick a major disagreement between the present world and the past,
it would be the importance of invisible amounts of mass and energy, be they
trace chemicals or transistors. Moreover we tend to care about emergent
information content, the patterns in the material, rather than the actual
material.

To a typical Victorian that wouldn't be heresy so much as fantastic nonsense.
Your great-grandparents' world was populated by people, animals, and human-
scale artifacts. Man was more literally the measure of all things. Important
things were assumed to be big and obvious, or at least visible to the senses."

<http://carlos.bueno.org/2010/10/predicting-the-future.html>

------
alexqgb
Really glad to see Aeon gaining traction. Their editorial voice runs counter
to the dominant academic convention that separates liberal arts and humanities
from the hard sciences and mathematics.

It's not about putting them together, so much as recognizing how artificial
the distinction is in the first place. Both branches are fundamentally
imaginative. To use a rough analogy, they're like the left and right sides of
a single brain - neither of which is sufficient by itself.

If they've got one writer who stands out, it's Ross Anderson. Two of the best
pieces they published were done by him. If you're familiar with the Clock of
the Long Now and the larger effort to cultivate a sense of deep time, these
are exceptionally worthwhile. Can't recommend them highly enough.

<http://www.aeonmagazine.com/author/ross-andersen/>

------
geuis
Edit "mimicroscopic" to microscopic

------
WayneDB
Am I the only person who doesn't think that science and religion are really at
odds, except for in the minds of fools and the mouths of manipulators? Every
major religion has the idea of "oneness" wherein the God/Godhead is portrayed
as the ultimate underlying energy (or doer) within every existing thing. Where
is the conflict?

Atheists like to say "Why invent this idea of God without evidence?", but they
can't name who "invented" religion or prove that it was even invented. We were
told about it. Also, every existing thing clearly does exist. So there's your
evidence. How helpful is that?

Here are some more scientists, talking about the unknown:

You Have No Idea How Wrong You Are -
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8V8rtdXnLA>

What We Still Don't Know: "Are We Real?" -
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyH2D4-tzfM>

~~~
Shorel
> Atheists like to say "Why invent this idea of God without evidence?", but
> they can't name who "invented" religion or prove that it was even invented.

Religious people are sadly known for destroying and burning any book and
evidence that shows any history before or in disagreement to their main faith.

We can't, because you don't let us, and are willing to risk your lives in
doing so.

I will mourn all my life about the knowledge lost in the Great Library of
Alexandria.

~~~
gruseom
The library at Alexandria wasn't burned for religious reasons. It's not clear
that it burned at all, or whether this is legendary. The earliest story is
that Julius Caesar set fire to some ships and the fire accidentally spread.
Stories of the library being burned by religious zealots are much later and
likely fabrications: <http://bede.org.uk/library.htm>.

