Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
My Opinion
Science doesn't seek to discredit or disprove religion, it is not the goal of science.
Nor is the goal of science to become the dominant means of expanding human knowledge.
However, the success of science in providing understanding that allows us to predict the action of a physical system, and/or the occurrence of natural phenomena on the basis of empirically verified theories constructed with mathematical rigor has replaced, by and large, a human "witness" affirmed by oaths to a higher power.
It is not a philosophical impetus which has driven this change but the fact that human witness is known to be flawed when compared to scientific methods of obtaining accurate, precise records of an event.
Further, the information gained using scientific methods leads to extending our scientific knowledge.
This will naturally bring science into conflict with the ideas which seek to interpret phenomena with extra-natural explanations. A scientist's view is that anything that is measurable in the physical domain is the subject of a physical description.
There are many responses to the success of science among other, competing interpretations of phenomena. One way is to point out the physical boundaries and limits that confront the sciences. This position has to contend with the fact that science tends to push these boundaries further and further as more knowledge is added in the pursuit of scientific understanding. "What came before the Big Bang?" is a natural question, scientists are interested in the answer, and will explore the scientific aspects of the question, because they are interested in the science that comes out of such questions.
Another response is to look at human consciousness and point out that we do not have a scientific theory of consciousness that describes its details and is predictive. It is human consciousness that provides the element which currently defines what it is to be "human" and the mystery of consciousness that opens up speculation of some "ineffable" quality that can be introduced by some super-natural agent to give humans humanness.
Because consciousness manifests itself as a physical phenomena, it is susceptible to scientific study. And it is the subject of scientific investigation. I do not know what the outcome of this study will be, but it will no doubt be highly controversial. Any scientific theory that addresses the human condition is controversial, evolution, which is the OP subject of this thread explains humans as an evolutionary outcome of life on the planet Earth. This evolutionary process which provides a scientific explanation of biology is rejected by a great many humans who cannot accept the scientific fact that humans are a part of life on the planet and the result of evolutionary processes.
A scientific understanding of consciousness will be even more controversial.
But in all these investigations, some religious people will object to the idea that the super-natural force is pushed farther and farther away as an agent in our universe. While this is not the aim of science, it is the consequence of expanding our scientific understanding.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Tall Silos of Iowa
|
|
You know it's helpful sometimes to distinguish between (a) basic science (aka discovery science) and (b) prescriptive science (or sciences) like medicine, engineering. Prescriptive sciences, by definition, are goal-based. Having this understanding greatly diminishes needless argument. Sometimes. Over what "science" is and what it isn't. Just sayin.
Nice write-up. Check. Check. Check. Check. Etc. You qualified one sentence re: consciousess with "that describes its details." Granted, it will be a long time before the sciences have the details in all. But right now, the consensus is that human consciousness is (a) a product of the brain (b) mechanistic. -Which, specifically, is my interest. References: Crick. Dennett. Watson. Newsome. Baylor. Etc. I'm squarely in this camp. Soon there will be a belief discipline practice --focused on life guidance-- that we can trust (in other words have faith in) -- that bases itself on this understanding, that doesn't retreat from it, that is adapted to it, and I hope it comes in my life time. I think it will.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
104:
You are a theorist at heart. That actually has been the principal motivation of some leading practitioners. They find themselves attracted to an idea for its symmetry, simplicity, or "beauty." But that is when the WORK begins.
First comes the task of working through the math for an idea that predicts the consequences that could be observed if the beautiful idea were true.
String theory has been in this stage for maybe forty years, Bohm's hidden variable theory has been in it for maybe sixty years. Only time and effort will tell the tale.
This is the supreme barrier every theory must surmount. You have to be able to show the theory has a consequence in the real world that can be measured. Not only have western "religions" failed to sumount this barrier, they have frantically run away from this test at every juncture.
I think they do this because they know, some even consciously, their idea is entirely imaginary. They know there is no snake.
If the idea succeeds in getting someone's attention then begins the effort to make measurements to show those consequences are/are not present. We have been actively looking for gravity waves since 1950 at least. Really fascinating theories cause people to start looking before the technology to permit a search has even been invented. Sixty years into it Einstein's 1905 prediction is beginning to look as though we may finally have the tools. The computer, the laser, and infrared detectors have begun to put the effort within reach. The discussion on the sun's apparent neutrino deficit is an excellent example of the lengths to which we must go to make a theory into a working model. Ultimately they all are hypotheses, of course, because the efforts to find improvements, and further tests of a theory begin before the ink is even dry.
I think, if you are not afraid of work, if you are not afraid of being shown to be wrong, study of the natural world, our cathedral, our house, has no equal.
If Jesus had had the telescopes, he would have been studying the sky. If we could resurrect Jesus and Galileo together we would have an incredible discussion.
And I have no doubt whatsoever Galileo's house arrest would at last - be ended.
Every one of us is piteously shamed for so long as Galileo remains a prisoner.
After reading Ed's truly excellent piece a question about how to define what a human is, what consciousness is, poses itself.
When we want to define a piece of metal we first get a pair of micrometer calipers, and we jot down measuements of its size.
Now nearly 6000 posts into this thread we should have no trouble joting down one defining characteristic of "a human."
A human wants to learn, wants to grow, and wants to "know." This is a hallmark of consciousness.
This desire, this characteristic, has caused the creation of "religion." This same characteristic has caused creation of the scientific method.
Fraternal twins now locked in mortal combat.
Edit: I wrote the above simply because Base104 is clearly into the core of what happens when knowledge is expanded.
I have always been entirely happy to let those following a religion BE as long as they let me BE. Increasingly we ourselves are not being allowed to BE. So it is I have come to feel that where there is a conflict, we need to let that problem be visible.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Tall Silos of Iowa
|
|
"Mechanistic, yes. Predictable, no."
Agreed.
What used to "irk" me-
When I worked in neuroscience, every once in awhile a memo would come out saying we should cover up any posters, pictures, etc in our labs that were in any way pro-evolutionary or pro-Darwinian-- because a potential benefactor would be on tour who was Oldbook Christian.
It's an art-- balancing ideology, politics and hypocrisy. Isn't it?
P.S. I thank the Gods everyday American culture doesn't have as many oldbook devotees as the Muslim world. I really don't know how it's going to change in any "managed transition" style. I think it really is fated to the Hurt Locker for decades to come.
|
|
Homer
Mountain climber
Santa Cruz, CA
|
|
I like the way the thread's going - the idea that violent communication ("just stupid", "retard", "total tool idiot") is not going to help us make progress.
We all have different information, both internal (our natures) and external (our experiences). The idea that we all should come to the same conclusion using different information - to believe in god, to not believe in god, to be bitter, to not be bitter - might not be reasonable, but that doesn't stop us from believing that we - I mean others - should.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
Philosophy is written in this very great book
which always lies open before our eyes (I mean the universe),
but one cannot understand it unless one first learns to understand
the language and recognize the characters in which it is written.
It is written in mathematical language and
the characters are triangles, circles, and other geometrical figures;
without these means it is humanly impossible to understand a word of it;
without these there is only clueless scrabbling around in a dark labyrinth.
--Galileo
I bet the Church was pleased to hear that!
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
We sometimes hear that 'the only constant is change.'
Change is surely seen high and low, over short and long spans, here, there, and everywhere.
So why is it seemingly so hard to change the mind of a Creationist?
from Einstein:
"Something general will have to be said . . . about the points of view from which physical theories may be analyzed critically . . . The first point of view is obvious: the theory must not contradict empirical facts . . . The second point of view..."
Let's stop there for the moment. Perhaps it simply is not possible for a Creationist to change their mind about a piece of religious dogma. We need to add a 0th point of view, which would grant enough mental flexibility to rethink an idea when evidence flatly contradicted it.
Changes in DNA are what allows for biological evolution to occur. DNA is a form of information and it replicates itself, though not always perfectly. Fallibility is necessary for ultimately useful adaptation. It just takes time.
Whether we as a civilization or as a species survive any longer than we have, it is marvelous that a molecule has managed to produce a system clever enough to determine the base-pair sequence of that molecule.
Take a bow, DNA.
Now if only the human mind could do something similar for itself.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
It is the role of miracle to show that the impossible was made possible by divine intervention, thus demonstrating the existence of an agent that could cause the impossible to occur.
The witness to miracle demonstrates by their purity and adherence to faith an acceptance of a phenomena which cannot be explained by any means other than the super-natural intervention.
The existence of empirical facts is thus necessary to prove that things occur that lay beyond the facts.
The creationist, in the end, abandons all rational explanation of their belief and states that the way of the world is the work of an ultimately incomprehensible god.
How can you argue with that?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 3, 2010 - 10:58pm PT
|
Always worth a second post for a good laugh!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I like being described as a conservative....
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
The creationist appears to abandon reason, but they may still have questions, and wonder.
"There exists a passion for comprehension, just as there exists a passion for music. That passion is rather common in children, but gets lost in most people later on. Without this passion there would be neither mathematics nor natural science. Time and again the passion for understanding has led to the illusion that man is able to comprehend the objective world rationally, by pure thought, withouth any empirical foundations - in short, by metaphysics. I believe that every true theorist is a kind of tamed metaphysicist, no matter how pure a 'positivist' he may fancy himself. The metaphysicist believes that the logically simple is also the real. The tamed metaphysicist believes that not all that is logically simple is embodied in experienced reality, but that the totality of all sensory experience can be 'comprehended' on the basis of a conceptual system built on premises of great simplicity. The skeptic will say that this is a 'miracle creed.' Admittedly so, but it is a miracle creed which has been borne out to an amazing extent by the development of science."
 Einstein in "On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation," 1950
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
Say, Norton, congratulations on the previous thread on salamanders. Maybe you should have stuck with them. According to one of the pages on Amphibiaweb they make excellent subjects for questions about natural selection. Maybe the creationists would be more accepting of evolution in salamanders. Start small and work up.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 3, 2010 - 11:17pm PT
|
yes, and from what I have read, Fruit Flies are fantastic to study
because of the speed of their generational reproduction and genetic altering
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Dr. F:
Somewhere I posted exactly what Ed said. Science is concerned only with the material world. The existence of god is irrelevant to science. Science is neither for nor against god.
In the case where god does not exist and has therefore had no impact upon the material world, this statement is trivially true. Now were we to find some evidence that a god has had some effect science will still be neither for nor against god. But let me assure you, god will immediately suffer a lot of prodding and poking as we try to figure god out.
So what is this thread about?
If we are to say the material world is affected by something we assume to exist without any data or obvious reason for so believing
we must surrender ourselves to irrationality.
Look at life in those countries where the majority of persons have surrendered their rationality.
Then ask why it is you are living here and not there.
Really.
Be honest.
Separation of church and state is the firewall our founders gave us.
It must be defended.
Believers need that firewall just as much as do the non-believers.
Do you want a change in government potentially to mean you must pray to a different god?
Christ himself gave us that advice.
The situation is so clear the mere existence of this discussion shows us that irrationality has overtaken us.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
Separation of church and state is the firewall our founders gave us.
It must be defended.
Yes, and let us not forget that science can be misused by political true believers for their own ends as well. Hitler's racist theories which killed over six million people, were grounded in supposed science.
That science was itself biased by the European racial and religious prejudice of the day which misunderstood evolution applied to human beings and then labeled it Social Darwinism.
And the religious people for the most part said nothing either to the false science nor to the politicians who sold it, even though if they had truly followed the teaching of Jesus they would have stood against it.
I say beware of all true believers whether atheists or religionists. True science and true spirituality are both always humble in the face of the unknown - as Ed, jstan, and Base 104 have so well illustrated in their recent science postings and as some have also, in the spiritual posts as well.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Tall Silos of Iowa
|
|
Which God?!
Break the habit-- the social habit, the cultural habit, the thought habit-- of letting the Jewish and Christian religionists get away with calling their God Jehovah God. Require them-- in their conversations with you-- to be specific.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
Science and religion as fraternal twins locked in mortal combat? Oh, for the good old days.
"It's time to look at Leibniz's Discourse on Metaphysics. Modern science was just beginning back then. And the question that Leibniz raises is, how can we tell the difference between a world governed by law - one in which science can apply - and a lawless world?
[discussion of simplicity]
The way that Leibniz summarizes his view of what precisely it is that makes scientific enterprise possible is this: 'God has chosen that which is the most perfect, that is to say, in which at the same time the hypotheses are as simple as possible and the phenomena as rich as possible.'"
from Gregory Chaitin Metamath: the Search for Omega p 63
Although evolution appears to create diversity as great as the number of niches available to it, it seems to me that the nervous system, while perhaps increasing in complexity, is nevertheless on a path towards finding patterns, or simplicity, in the natural world, which can improve that organism's chances for survival. When I was doing neurophysiology on pigeons I was struck by how beautifully ordered the neurons are when you look at histological slides of brain nuclei. At the time it seemed to suggest that birds, with their great need to reduce weight, had stripped their central nervous system to the chassis. The ordered arrays seen in the brains of all creatures could be a reflection of order in the world they live in.
Chaitin says, "Perhaps our emphasis on simplicity says more about us than it says about the universe!" And perhaps there is a connection.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Not knowing the real science of life, a foolish person engages in the temporary activities of this life and thus becomes further entangled in the cycle of birth and death.
We are becomimg prisoners of the fragmentary authority of materialistic science for knowing things.
Material advancement of civilization means advancement of the reactions of the threefold miseries due to celestial influence, earthly reactions and bodily or mental pains.
By the celestial influence of the stars there are many calamities like excessive heat, cold, rains or no rains, and the aftereffects are famine, disease and epidemic. The aggregate result is agony of the body and the mind.
Man-made material science cannot do anything to counteract these threefold miseries.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Tall Silos of Iowa
|
|
I promise you guys, and Jan!, there would be a lot less potential for miscommunication (if in fact that's the goal) if we'd all make a point to specify which God. Which God? God Zeus. God Jehovah. God Quezalcoatl. Etc.
Break the ingrained habit-- the social habit, the cultural habit, the thought habit-- of letting the Jewish and Christian religionists get away with calling their God Jehovah God. Require them-- in their conversations with you-- to be specific.
When we were students in school, we were required to (a) not dangle participles (dangling participles) in English class, (b) not forget to include "units" in math and science classes. Inches or millimeters? BTUs or kilojoules? Why? Because it leads to trouble. In communications. In understanding.
So, we can at least try on this thread, as an experiment, to stop dangling deities. Can't we? It would greatly improve the communications and I for one would be a lot more interested in the discourse.
Just sayin.
Here's an example: As far as I'm concerned, my science and engineering background speaks loudly to the truth-claim that God Aphrodite (of ancient Egypt) emerged into being from sea foam. Take into account the human factor (e.g., that humans are storytellers, storycrafters, exaggerators, over-inflators, etc.) and this makes it all the more compelling that She did not). Similarly my science and engineering background along with the human factor just cited convinced me long ago that God Jehovah (of the three Abrahamic religions) did not appear as fire or cloud to guide the ancient Hebrews or impregnate Mary with a God Jesus.
re: Aphrodite emerged from sea foam. In the context of story, narrative, yes. But in the context of (a) how the world truly works and (b) how life truly works, no. So even here, too, it's important to be clear on context. No context-dangling either.
Just try it. By the way, the name amongst my circle of friends for Einstein's God (the Einsteinian God) is Diacrates. (dii ak' ruh tees). Try it. It works! Then you can readily distinguish between God Jehovah (the ancient Mesopotamian one of the ancient Hebrews) and God Diacrates (the personification of the higher powers of fate). Not only in dialog with others but in your own mind in your own thinking.
Or just carry on bantering back n forth in a crazyquilt of undefined babble. In a signal-to-noise ratio approaching zero.
For what it's worth, I'm "open" to a God Diacrates. And "settled" in regard to all ancient Mesopotamian Gods, including God Jehovah / God Jesus. The latter for the same reason I'm "settled" as far as decision-making goes in regard to Aphrodite and Amon-Re and Marduk.
If you're interested: the etymology for Diacrates: [< Gr dia-, through (high force or power) + kratein, to rule] (Yes, it is a modern neologism inspired by a modern understanding of theologies.)
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!