Current Poll (Religion)

[Gubbins]

Bit of a slow news day on this front. Everyone else seems to have buggered off too, though. Novium - hurry up and finish your dissertation!

Quoting Haunted from 19:33, 21st Aug 2007
Proof that god did not create man is surely a difficult pill to swallow for a religion that claims he did.

All it proves is that God didn't create man in the way that the Bible/Torah/Koran says he did. So they got the details wrong, big deal. We all do that some time. Of course, it destroys Biblical infallibility, but the broad concept hasn't been destroyed.

Here we have a perfectly natural system that explains the ascent of man and it works perfectly fine without any supernatural interference. Why didn't god just snap his fingers and do it? Or is it all another test?

Perhaps he did. If you want to take a good photo, you don't stick your thumb on the lens to show it was you that did it, you present it as people would see it. If such a deity exists, they must surely possess such intellect that we can't begin to assume their motives.

EDIT: It's analogous to me dropping an apple and saying "god made that apple fall". Or shooting someone and saying "god killed that man".

Or is it? Taking the scientific route, one would say that "a bullet killed that man" without referring to the person that fired the gun the bullet came from.

[hr]

...then again, that is only my opinion.

[Haunted]

Quoting Gubbins from 17:49, 22nd Aug 2007
All it proves is that God didn't create man in the way that the Bible/Torah/Koran says he did. So they got the details wrong, big deal. We all do that some time. Of course, it destroys Biblical infallibility, but the broad concept hasn't been destroyed.

The definition of the word 'create' is being stretched a bit here. You could argue god created the conditions in which life could arise (providing of course he created the universe, back to this point again).

Perhaps he did. If you want to take a good photo, you don't stick your thumb on the lens to show it was you that did it, you present it as people would see it.

A photograph is undoubtably a creation, bad analogy. If I created a very natural looking landscape, I might want to sign it to prove to everyone that I really did build it. Of course I can hardly be credited with creating the landscape if I didn't actually do anything and just watched it form naturally.

If such a deity exists, they must surely possess such intellect that we can't begin to assume their motives.

Yes this is another form of the "ooh mysterious man from outside space and time" line of reasoning.

EDIT: It's analogous to me dropping an apple and saying "god made that apple fall". Or shooting someone and saying "god killed that man".

Or is it? Taking the scientific route, one would say that "a bullet killed that man" without referring to the person that fired the gun the bullet came from.

Sorry should've made it clearer. Remove the intent from the analogy and just have an apple falling. A theistic evolutionist is effectively saying god made that apple fall, whereas anyone else would say, the apple fell due to gravity. The apple falls without god, man ascended without god.

[hr]

...then again, that is only my opinion.[/quote]

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Gubbins]

Quoting Haunted from 18:01, 22nd Aug 2007
The definition of the word 'create' is being stretched a bit here. You could argue god created the conditions in which life could arise (providing of course he created the universe, back to this point again).

Let's assume for a moment that the Universe was created by a being that exists outside the temporal constraints of our Universe. In this case, it would not be in which life could arise, but would arise, as the outcome would be known, thus the creator would have de facto created life.

A photograph is undoubtably a creation, bad analogy. If I created a very natural looking landscape, I might want to sign it to prove to everyone that I really did build it. Of course I can hardly be credited with creating the landscape if I didn't actually do anything and just watched it form naturally.[/i]

I was using it as a possible explanation for the lack of evidence, not as a direct analogy.

If such a deity exists, they must surely possess such intellect that we can't begin to assume their motives.

Yes this is another form of the "ooh mysterious man from outside space and time" line of reasoning.

And what is the matter with both of these factors? Modern science (assuming it's not all another test) and existing doctrine has constrained God to be atemporal, omnipotent and existing in a broader reality than that of our Universe (at least in the major religions). Merely because it's difficult for us to argue against a god if (s)he/it is existing under these constraints is not a good reason in itself to poo-pooh them.

A theistic evolutionist is effectively saying god made that apple fall, whereas anyone else would say, the apple fell due to gravity. The apple falls without god, man ascended without god.

But again, what instigated gravity? It's all very well saying it came from a single unified force a few Planck times after the Big Bang, but until there's an acceptable model of why the Universe exists with the parameters it does today, we can't say with certainty that it wasn't chosen for us.

Senethro: yes, there are non-random selections due to the surrounding environment, and similarly we find that animals with eyes lose them when they live underground, water-bourne creatures develop/retain fins for propulsion, etc. However, these changes arose in the last few hundred million years, compared to the start of life around 2Gyr(?) ago. At this point we cannot be certain we'd even see the differentiation between plants and animals.

(Edited for crap tags)

[Haunted]

Quoting Gubbins from 20:56, 22nd Aug 2007
In this case, it would not be in which life could arise, but would arise, as the outcome would be known, thus the creator would have de facto created life.

Well currently quantum mechanics tell us that such knowledge is impossible to know. All our electron double slit experiments wouldn't be worth anything if something knew the trajectory of each electron.

The rest of your points all come back to the same things about proving negatives and so god could be outside of spacetime.
It is still preposturous to assume that because we find no evidence of any god that such a god is obviously outside our realm of existence. The analogy is of course people claiming to see the clothes on the emporer (they must be there!).
Why don't we entertain the possiblity of Santa Claus being real? He must exist outside of spacetime if he can visit everyone in a single night. You can't disprove him.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Gubbins]

Quoting Haunted from 10:36, 23rd Aug 2007

Quoting Gubbins from 20:56, 22nd Aug 2007
In this case, it would not be in which life could arise, but would arise, as the outcome would be known, thus the creator would have de facto created life.

Well currently quantum mechanics tell us that such knowledge is impossible to know. All our electron double slit experiments wouldn't be worth anything if something knew the trajectory of each electron.

A problem arises here: the creator would have also created QM. They would either have created it as a truly random process, or would have created it such that it appears random, but that they have control over some or all of the outcomes. Assuming the creator has omniscience, this forces the latter situation. An observation by a non-temporal entity does not invalidate the double-slit experiment, given the observation can also be made 'after' the experiment.

The rest of your points all come back to the same things about proving negatives and so god could be outside of spacetime.
It is still preposturous to assume that because we find no evidence of any god that such a god is obviously outside our realm of existence. The analogy is of course people claiming to see the clothes on the emporer (they must be there!).

The inherent problem with analogies is that they are only ever good to some extent. Again by analogy, our level of understanding of the Universe can be likened to the clarity of our vision of the Emperor. Were we to have the understanding equivalent of cataracts, we would be unable to tell if he was really naked, or whether he we wearing flesh-coloured clothes.

Merely because we have forced a theological being into a tight logical corner, doesn't mean we can then dismiss the possibility. It merely places the burden of proof on the theologens.

Why don't we entertain the possiblity of Santa Claus being real? He must exist outside of spacetime if he can visit everyone in a single night. You can't disprove him.

Yes, I thought we'd covered this. The fundamental difference here is that essentially all the visible evidence is against the existence of Santa Claus, whereas only most of the visible evidence is against the existence of a God.

The Santa Claus myth is told in the knowledge that it is a lie, and its origins can be traced directly to Saint Nicholas. There is no theological equivalent and it is conveyed under the belief that it is truth. Obviously, the remote possibility exists at some level that Santa Claus exists, but it is at a level many orders of magnitude below that of the existence of a God. Remember, however, that an exact value of either possibility cannot be calculated, because that data does not lend itself to this kind of statistical inspection and the weighting of data is heavily subject to personal biases.

[hr]

...then again, that is only my opinion.

[Haunted]

Quoting Gubbins from 18:43, 23rd Aug 2007
Yes, I thought we'd covered this. The fundamental difference here is that essentially all the visible evidence is against the existence of Santa Claus, whereas only most of the visible evidence is against the existence of a God.

I think we've covered this as well. All the evidence is indeed against a god.
I'll define evidence as being only repeatable, observational and experimental (i.e. physical).
We cannot count anecdotal evidence without inviting all host of ridiculous ideas (Alien abductions, crystal healing etc).

The Santa Claus myth is told in the knowledge that it is a lie, and its origins can be traced directly to Saint Nicholas. There is no theological equivalent and it is conveyed under the belief that it is truth. Obviously, the remote possibility exists at some level that Santa Claus exists, but it is at a level many orders of magnitude below that of the existence of a God.

And this is the crux of my arguement. Whilst the statistical weight of santa is magnitudes below god, so is god's weight magnitudes below reasonability.

All the 'evidence' for a god is either a lack of a satisfactory explanation for the big bang (god of the gaps), anecdotal 'feelings of god' or cheap philosophical loopholes. Identical to Santa apart from big bang (who knows, maybe santa was/is god incarnate and thus responsible for big bang?)

Circles.
How about this: If there truly is a god, which god is it and why?


[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Haunted]

Brilliant piece of neurology
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6960612.stm

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Frank]

It's an extremely wishy-washy idea, but one that has 'initial' merit, if not lenghty stuff. Obviously, it lacks a certain understanding. But take it as somewhat more thought out than it is and see what you'd make of it when 'taking it further' philosophically and physically (physicsally)

That is:

What if God is the observer (in the QM sense as was discussed above)?

I can think of a few answers that'd shoot it out of the water myself, but I'd be very keen to here other's opinions on the subject to ensure I'm covering all (alot of) the bases.



[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."

[Gubbins]

I did find that piece about out-of-body experiences interesting, since this is one of the main arguments used in the defence of a human 'soul'.

Quoting Haunted from 20:21, 23rd Aug 2007
All the evidence is indeed against a god.
I'll define evidence as being only repeatable, observational and experimental (i.e. physical).
We cannot count anecdotal evidence without inviting all host of ridiculous ideas (Alien abductions, crystal healing etc).

All the evidence is not against a god. None of it actively precludes a god's existence. We merely use the starting principle that there is no god because one has not been found to be necessary. What we have done is to narrow the criteria in which a god can reasonably exist, discounting the unlikely possibility a fully-fledged Universe popped into place as-is (although there is no real reason to, it makes life easier if we assume it didn't).

Neither have we excluded a god's influence in the Universe since its beginning. We have merely come up with theories which fit the observations with varying degrees of success and can always use the 'cheap scientific loophole' of "well we don't really know enough about it yet" when we can't get things to fit. Now I am neither saying that their is a god, nor am I saying that there is anything that cannot be explained without one, but should we discount the possibility out of hand?

Also, you seem to be concentrating only on evidence from natural sciences: if we want to, say, date an event 2000 years ago, we do not immediately reach for the mass spectrograph, but use (corroborated) historical accounts. The Bible and similar works form part of this and should not be completely discounted completely. For one thing, they make good historical accounts. They may also have that little grain of truth in other matters (which you will find corroborated throughout the world), though what that truth might be is anyone's guess.

And this is the crux of my arguement. Whilst the statistical weight of santa is magnitudes below god, so is god's weight magnitudes below reasonability.

But this statistical weight and the term 'reasonability' mean different things to different people. You can't conclusively claim that the existence of a god is ruled out to a 39-sigma level, for instance.

First and foremost, you apply your own, non-standard weighting to the data, which is coloured by your interpretations and exposure to varying arguments. Secondly, some people will be prepared to rule out an argument at a different level of 'reasonability' to others. And finally, we all suffer from the delusion of wanting to believe what we think is right.

All the 'evidence' for a god is either a lack of a satisfactory explanation for the big bang (god of the gaps), anecdotal 'feelings of god' or cheap philosophical loopholes. Identical to Santa apart from big bang (who knows, maybe santa was/is god incarnate and thus responsible for big bang?)

God of the gaps arguments: arguing against this is all very well when it comes to Young Earth Creationists, as here the evidence is directly against their purported "truth". In a less rigorous religious interpretation, the idea of a "ooh mysterious man from outside space and time" is precisely where you would have to place place an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent being. It's just unfortunate that we don't currently have the understanding to prove or disprove this to a suitable degree, and must either conclude that this is the hiding place for god, or that god never existed in the first place, or take the middle ground.

Anecdotal feelings of god: I have to say I don't give these much credence myself. I'm sure we've all trusted our gut feelings at one time or another and come out wrong as many times as we have right.

Cheap philosophical loopholes: dismiss them if you will, but it seems a little hypocritical when you so frequently use what someone from the other side of the fence would undoubtedly claim were cheap scientific loopholes.

How about this: If there truly is a god, which god is it and why?

Now this is something I'd like to see explored with a reasoned debate, although most people who I've asked about this haven't been able to give a good reason, other than it's "what's around" in their social circles.

[hr]

...then again, that is only my opinion.

[Haunted]

Quoting Gubbins from 00:39, 24th Aug 2007
All the evidence is not against a god. None of it actively precludes a god's existence.

By 'against', read: does not support (proving negatives, again).

Scientific loopholes:
Lack of knowledge is not a loophole. We can learn and discover and close the knowledge gap.

The Bible and similar works form part of this and should not be completely discounted completely. For one thing, they make good historical accounts.

I will protest this. Whilst they may get some details right (e.g. some names and places) they are errant in so many ways. For one, it is not documentary evidence, it was penned by those who applied their own interpretations (and what of the gospels that never made the final cut?).

But this statistical weight and the term 'reasonability' mean different things to different people. You can't conclusively claim that the existence of a god is ruled out to a 39-sigma level, for instance.

Yes this has to be open to a certain level of subjectivity. I'll define unreasonable as something that is not supported by the data. And something is very unreasonable if it goes against previous data and understanding. You may wish to leap in here with a right hook called quantum theory, but I will point out that quantum theory does not go against previous data, it is simply a little bit counter intuitive.

God of the gaps arguments: arguing against this is all very well when it comes to Young Earth Creationists, as here the evidence is directly against their purported "truth". In a less rigorous religious interpretation, the idea of a "ooh mysterious man from outside space and time" is precisely where you would have to place place an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent being.

The word omnipotent should not go without a challenge. I'll throw in the old chestnut about god making a burrito so hot that he himself cannot eat it. Or can he?

It's just unfortunate that we don't currently have the understanding to prove or disprove this to a suitable degree

We don't have the understanding to disprove Santa. This 'suitable degree' you speak of, what would that be for you? Is 'no evidence' not enough? Surely you can only believe in something that has been proven to exist?

Now this is something I'd like to see explored with a reasoned debate, although most people who I've asked about this haven't been able to give a good reason, other than it's "what's around" in their social circles.

Lets go one further. Which is more likely to exist: A personal god who answers your prayers and lifts you to the glorious afterlife when you die. Or the philosophical 'first cause' of the universe?

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[MaverickMenzies]

Quoting Frank from 00:10, 24th Aug 2007

What if God is the observer (in the QM sense as was discussed above)?

[/i]

It is important to note the difference between interpretations of quantum mechanics and the quantum mechanical formalism itself. In the latter, there is no axiom defining what actually constitutes an "observer". Indeed, there are many interpretations (and even re-formulations) that strip measurements of their fundamental position. For example, see the consistent histories formulation of quantum mechanics. Such approaches to quantum mechanics were developed to deal with the problems of defining measurements when the whole universe is treated quantum mechanically and assigned its own wave-function. Another interpretation of QM along these lines is provided by the many-worlds interpretation - here there is no collapse of the wave-function and every possible measurement occupy is realized as a separate reality.

From a more fundamental point of view one can object to the introduction of God as the ultimate observer in QM as a "God-of-the-gaps" concept.

[LonelyPilgrim]

Quoting Haunted from 19:33, 21st Aug 2007

Quoting Gubbins from 19:13, 21st Aug 2007
Evolution, to the best of my knowledge, isn't at odds with anything else in Christianity.

Proof that god did not create man is surely a difficult pill to swallow for a religion that claims he did.

Why is it that the opponents of religion, specifically Christianity, always (regardless of their level of sophistication) seem to assume that all Christians are Evangelical Fundamentalists?

Most, if not all, of the Mainline Protestant denominations (Anglican, Presbyterian, Reformed, Episcopalian, Methodist, Weslyan, etc etc ) have implicitly or explicitly rejected Creationism in the light of scientific discovery. In some cases they did so decades ago. While individual people and in some traditions individual congregations (such as in Presbyterianism) have the right to disagree in belief with the governing bodies of the denominations, the official position of the denominations is usually quite clear.

I, for one, while being Christian, am not a Fundamentalist, nor do I have any problem rejecting parts of Genesis that do not stand up to the archaeological or biological evidence. Therefore, I am sick to death of being lumped together with people whom I consider to be a bunch of knuckleheads when people try to use "Christian" as a one-size-fits-all label.

Of course, the rise in number and power of Evangelical Christianity is no surprise to me. Whenever any group of people are confronted with strident opposition (and militant atheism, while demographically small, is certainly very strident, particularly in the US courts) it will tend to radicalise. The real losers are the moderates, such as myself, who try to stand in the middle and prompt a reasonable discussion.

I have no great distrust of science. Although I do have a distrust of people who view science as infallible and who forget that 'science' is a process and that scientific 'knowledge' is almost always a result of deduction and/or induction rather than direct observation (particularly in fields like evolutionary biology, physics, quantum mechanics and any field of inquiry that has advanced beyond the 18th or 19th century) and is ALWAYS subject to review and revision. Any time people start trumpeting the 'truth' of some scientific theory, I start getting worried. Sixty years ago it was a scientific 'truth' that some races were inferior to blond-haired blue-eyed Aryans, after all.

My point is that science (or rather scientists) makes mistakes just as religion does. I have never seen any inherent conflict between the two systems of belief. They naturally operate in two different spheres of human life and they only come into confrontation when someone - whether scientist or clergyman (or their respective followers) - decides to overstep his bounds and make claims about things outside of his purview. Science is about discovering how the universe works, religion is about why it works. Those are two very seperate questions and we'd all be better off if everyone, on both 'sides', remembered that they are so seperable.



[hr]

Arma virumque cano...

[Haunted]

Quoting LonelyPilgrim from 16:57, 24th Aug 2007

Quoting Haunted from 19:33, 21st Aug 2007

Quoting Gubbins from 19:13, 21st Aug 2007
Evolution, to the best of my knowledge, isn't at odds with anything else in Christianity.

Proof that god did not create man is surely a difficult pill to swallow for a religion that claims he did.

Why is it that the opponents of religion, specifically Christianity, always (regardless of their level of sophistication) seem to assume that all Christians are Evangelical Fundamentalists

Is it only fundamnetalists that believe god created man?

is almost always a result of deduction and/or induction rather than direct observation (particularly in fields like evolutionary biology, physics, quantum mechanics and any field of inquiry that has advanced beyond the 18th or 19th century) and is ALWAYS subject to review and revision.

I disagree. Particularly with your idea of QM. QM was discovered through observation. This was then formulated into theories that made predictions. Predictions were then verified through observation (to an astonishing degree). It is continuing process of observation=>theory=>prediction=>observation and so on.

I have never seen any inherent conflict between the two systems of belief.

Science is not a system of belief. Church says Earth is flat, Galileo says it is not => conflict.

EDIT: Religions like to make claims about the natural world, and since they aren't based on reason they will almost all be proven wrong. I can't think of an example of the opposite of this, where science has made a claim that upset religion (legitimately upset them of course).

They naturally operate in two different spheres of human life and they only come into confrontation when someone - whether scientist or clergyman (or their respective followers) - decides to overstep his bounds and make claims about things outside of his purview. Science is about discovering how the universe works, religion is about why it works.

No, philosophy is about the 'why'. Religion is a way to ascribe meaning to natural events and attributing the illusion of intent in the world to a supernatual intelligence and then worship that invisible presence and beg it for forgiveness etc. Religion is a relic from the past, when we couldn't explain our world and desparately wanted to. Gods were invented to explain the world, we don't need them anymore.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[LonelyPilgrim]

Quoting Haunted from 17:14, 24th Aug 2007

Is it only fundamnetalists that believe god created man?

Fundamentalists have refused to reconsider the Bible's claims in the face of scientific evidence. The Fundamentalist movement began as a reaction to mainline Protestantism abandoning beliefs that could not be justified in the face of science way back in the early 20th century.

Fundamentalism was originally a minority movement in Protestant Christianity. That it is now a majority movement (here in the US, anyway) has a lot to do with sociological causes. Economic hardship and uncertainty in the face of a changing world and declining national power tends to radicalise people in their beliefs whether those are religious or ideological. What scares me is how Fundamentalist Christianity here in the US is becoming both a religious and an ideologically-driven political movement, but that is an entirely different discussion.

I disagree. Particularly with your idea of QM. QM was discovered through observation. This was then formulated into theories that made predictions. Predictions were then verified through observation (to an astonishing degree). It is continuing process of observation=>theory=>prediction=>observation and so on.

Really? So you have seen(or felt, tasted, heard, or smelled) photons changing their spin upon observation? Get some perspective. The observation and prediction has been of macro-phenomena, which have then been used to deduce the behaviour of particules and waves too small, or too invisible, to really observe.

Granted, we can 'see' atoms with electron microscopes now, but smaller particles... the photons, quarks, electrons, etc. are still only theoretical constructs. There is a lot of evidence for them and for how we think they operate but we have not really observed them. Same thing with gravity, or waves of any kind, or radiation... we can see the effects but not the phenomena themselves, so their existence is inferred, rather than observed.

So, it is all theoretical. That does not mean it is not true, and believe me, I have no reason to doubt the truth of the contemporary theory of the structure of the atom or anything else that advanced science claims. The fact remains that we are far past the point where human senses are observing the subjects of experimentation in many sciences. Our theories and 'truths' are a result of many levels of inferrence; each level introduces a new point at which doubt and mistakes can enter the equation. Scientific certainty has always been a lie, but it is particularly more deceptive the further away from the observation of our own senses our inquires take us.

Science is not a system of belief. Church says Earth is flat, Galileo says it is not => conflict.

Of course it is, unless you are saying you don't believe the results of scientific inquiry? You would be a very odd scientist if you inherently denied the outcomes of your own experimentation and did not believe their in their truth.

Besides, your example of Galileo vs. Church is flawed in two ways:

1. First you have your historical facts wrong: to the best of my knowledge the Church has never said the Earth was flat. Learned men have known the Earth was round since long before the Church existed. What the Church and Galileo argued over was whether or not the Earth moves around the sun, which would imply that the Earth is not the center of the Universe.

The Bible does not say anything about the position of the Earth in the Cosmos. In fact, the Church was defending a previous 'scientific' theory: Aristotelian motion, if memory serves. In short, the Church/Galileo conflict was really a conflict between Galileo and Aristotle (via the Church). Since the Church, at that time, was the principle holder and preserver of knowledge and learning (most of the leading astronomers were themselves Jesuit priests, for example) it is really quite easy to see the conflict as being one with only a veneer of religion and rather being a contest between defenders of the old paradigm vs. the upstart Galileo, entirely within the scientific community.

The fact that the Church kept insisting the Earth was the center of the Universe long after that point in time, rather than coming around like the rest of the learned community, had much more to do with politics than theology.

2. The second point in which your example is incorrect actually supports my point. I said there is no inherent conflict between religion and science, and I went on to elaborate that this was true so long as each side concerned itself with its own business. Galileo was notorious for making religious pronouncements and dabbling in church affairs, and the Church at the time was up to its neck in science, politics, war, and every other aspect of life. Conflict was inevitable because both sides were acting outside of their purview.

If clergymen stuck to religion and scientists to science there would be a lot less acrimony on the airwaves and in print.

No, philosophy is about the 'why'.

Yes and no. Philosophy is the rational inquiry into 'why'. It is the cousin of science. There is a reason why 'science' used to be called 'natural philosophy', after all.

Religion, on the other hand, is the non-rational inquiry into 'why'. It depends on personal experience, authority, tradition, and faith. I do not deny its non-rational basis.

What I want to know is why you can not be content to believe, or not believe, what you want and go your own way in life? After all, for as smart as your arguments are (and they are very intelligent and impressive in their reasoning, kudos), they are not scientific. They are, rather rhetorical. You are making good use of scientific principles and theories, but science is a positive discipline, by its own logic it can only make claims about what it can prove and can not, fundamentally, make claims about what it can not prove. So it does not matter that there is not any scientific proof of God - science can not take that lack of proof and make a scientific claim that He does not exist. You, as an individual, are quite free to interpret the lack of data that way, I have no problem with that, but it is a personal choice and no matter how good your justification for that choice, it remains, by definition, unscientific.

At the end of the day we all want people to agree with our worldview, validation is nice after all. But I ca not validate you, and you can not validate me, because we believe two different things. I know you do not see it this way, but there truly is no more evidence for your worldview than there is for mine. That is not to say you lack reasons, and powerful ones at that, to think the way you do, but lack of evidence is not evidence no matter which way you turn it.


[hr]

Arma virumque cano...

[LonelyPilgrim]

Quoting Haunted from 17:14, 24th Aug 2007
EDIT: Religions like to make claims about the natural world, and since they aren't based on reason they will almost all be proven wrong. I can't think of an example of the opposite of this, where science has made a claim that upset religion (legitimately upset them of course).

Right... so Richard Dawkins claiming that God doesn't exist and that people who believe in Him are morons isn't legitimately upsetting?

Look, religious people make a lot of unsubstantiated claims. So do scientists: scientists are constantly making claims and statements about non-scientific issues like the war in Iraq, religion, human rights, etc etc.

But as for what the institution of religion claims... remember I think fundamentalists are knuckleheads. I can't think of a single religious belief that I hold that somehow denies scientific findings.

[hr]

Arma virumque cano...

[Haunted]

Quoting LonelyPilgrim from 18:00, 24th Aug 2007

Quoting Haunted from 17:14, 24th Aug 2007

Is it only fundamnetalists that believe god created man?

Fundamentalists have refused to reconsider the Bible's claims in the face of scientific evidence. The Fundamentalist movement began as a reaction to mainline Protestantism abandoning beliefs that could not be justified in the face of science way back in the early 20th century.

Fundamentalism was originally a minority movement in Protestant Christianity. That it is now a majority movement (here in the US, anyway) has a lot to do with sociological causes. Economic hardship and uncertainty in the face of a changing world and declining national power tends to radicalise people in their beliefs whether those are religious or ideological. What scares me is how Fundamentalist Christianity here in the US is becoming both a religious and an ideologically-driven political movement, but that is an entirely different discussion.

You managed to avoid answering my question somehow.

Really? So you have seen(or felt, tasted, heard, or smelled) photons changing their spin upon observation? Get some perspective. The observation and prediction has been of macro-phenomena, which have then been used to deduce the behaviour of particules and waves too small, or too invisible, to really observe.

Ridiculous. Your own eye is capable of detecting a single photon. We are incapable of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting (whatever other sense you wish to add) neutrinos, gluons, whatever. Are you trying to imply that if we rely on instruments to detect them, that they are somehow less valid than things which can be detected by our own sense?

Granted, we can 'see' atoms with electron microscopes now, but smaller particles... the photons, quarks, electrons, etc. are still only theoretical constructs. There is a lot of evidence for them and for how we think they operate but we have not really observed them. Same thing with gravity, or waves of any kind, or radiation... we can see the effects but not the phenomena themselves, so their existence is inferred, rather than observed.

Electrons can be isolated into beams and detected singly, they can be seen. Actually, think a bit more about what you are saying, how do we see anything? We observe photons that are scattered off the object, does that count as 'seeing' the object? So where is the difference between bouncing photons off a large object and bouncing them off a small object, a single electron say?
You only ever see the effect an object has on radiation. In this way, all observational apparatus is identical to your eyes.
Do we infer the existance of other people because the scattered radiation seems to suggest that person shaped things exist?

So, it is all theoretical.

And that somehow implies they don't exist?
Are you trying to imply that science is just a theory? And will you therefore try to suggest that it's just as worthy as some pseudo philosophy about worshipping the invisible?
There are 'theories' (you may not realise just how big a word this is in the science world. A theory is not an educated guess) that describe the behaviour of subatomic particles. Particles are then observed, particles are then said to exist. Theory predicts existence of other particles, other particles are then observed and said to exist. Theory makes prediction about a particle that is not observed, theory needs revising. I suppose it is all theorectical in a sense, but only in the scientific definition of theory.

That does not mean it is not true, and believe me, I have no reason to doubt the truth of the contemporary theory of the structure of the atom or anything else that advanced science claims.

Why the softly touchy tone? It should've gone without saying that you have no reason to doubt any theories (unless you have evidence against them in which case you have my utmost appreciation, my warmest thanks and my recommendation that you consider a career in theorectical physics).

The fact remains that we are far past the point where human senses are observing the subjects of experimentation in many sciences.

As above. Are you honestly trying to imply that this somehow invalidates observations of these 'theorectical' particles? Where do we draw the line then? Is a microscope too far detached from your eye to be reliable? How about an electron microscope?

Our theories and 'truths' are a result of many levels of inferrence; each level introduces a new point at which doubt and mistakes can enter the equation.

Philosophy student? Theres that wierd 'truth' word again. Are you going to tell me that all science is just inferred as thus just as valid as any idea?

Scientific certainty has always been a lie, but it is particularly more deceptive the further away from the observation of our own senses our inquires take us.

Nothing is certain. Everything has an attached error and things can only be measured to certain degrees. There's an attached error on quantum mechanics as well, Feynmann put it best: The error in quantum mechanics is equivalent to measuring the distance from New York to San Fransisco to within the thickness of a human hair.

Of course it is, unless you are saying you don't believe the results of scientific inquiry? You would be a very odd scientist if you inherently denied the outcomes of your own experimentation and did not believe their in their truth.

What?

Besides, your example of Galileo vs. Church is flawed in two ways:

1. First you have your historical facts wrong: to the best of my knowledge the Church has never said the Earth was flat. Learned men have known the Earth was round since long before the Church existed. What the Church and Galileo argued over was whether or not the Earth moves around the sun, which would imply that the Earth is not the center of the Universe.

An honest mistake, your absolutely right. It was heliocentric versus geocentric.

The Bible does not say anything about the position of the Earth in the Cosmos.

Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Chronicles 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved."
In the same tradition, Psalm 104:5 says, "[the LORD] set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."
Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."

Or is that all just metaphorical?

In fact, the Church was defending a previous 'scientific' theory: Aristotelian motion, if memory serves. In short, the Church/Galileo conflict was really a conflict between Galileo and Aristotle (via the Church). Since the Church, at that time, was the principle holder and preserver of knowledge and learning (most of the leading astronomers were themselves Jesuit priests, for example) it is really quite easy to see the conflict as being one with only a veneer of religion and rather being a contest between defenders of the old paradigm vs. the upstart Galileo, entirely within the scientific community.

If it were just a case of aristotle versus galileo then why was he tried for heresy? He was tried because he went against the church (and, presumably, against god as well) and it's sacred doctrine.

The fact that the Church kept insisting the Earth was the center of the Universe long after that point in time, rather than coming around like the rest of the learned community, had much more to do with politics than theology.

So does that mean they secretly accepted it as truth and just denied it for the sake political gain?

2. The second point in which your example is incorrect actually supports my point. I said there is no inherent conflict between religion and science, and I went on to elaborate that this was true so long as each side concerned itself with its own business. Galileo was notorious for making religious pronouncements and dabbling in church affairs, and the Church at the time was up to its neck in science, politics, war, and every other aspect of life. Conflict was inevitable because both sides were acting outside of their purview.

Oh please, the issue couldn't be more black and white. Galileo challanged religious doctrine with credible scientific evidence and was thus deemed a heretic.

What I want to know is why you can not be content to believe, or not believe, what you want and go your own way in life?

Do you believe we all have the right to believe whatever we want?
What about if I believed that all africans are subhuman and should exterminated? Do I have the right to believe that? Do I have the right to believe that children can exercise sexual consent?
Maybe it's ok as long I don't practice those beliefs?
[Just to be extra careful here
DISCLAIMER: I, of course, do not hold such beliefs]

If religion consisted of harmless old english village vicars who often come round for tea and a few drams, then no problem. Sure I may consider them irrational, but they keep it to themselves. In reality, we have planes crashing into towers, abortion doctors getting shot, people getting death threats for drawing cartoons etc etc etc.

but science is a positive discipline, by its own logic it can only make claims about what it can prove and can not, fundamentally, make claims about what it can not prove. So it does not matter that there is not any scientific proof of God - science can not take that lack of proof and make a scientific claim that He does not exist. You, as an individual, are quite free to interpret the lack of data that way, I have no problem with that, but it is a personal choice and no matter how good your justification for that choice, it remains, by definition, unscientific.

Remove the word god and insert *anything* supernatural in the above passage.
Is it also unscientific to make the claim that the FSM doesn't exist?
How does this speil about being a 'positive discipline' somehow subvert or discredit it's ability to make the legitmate claim that there is nothing supernatural because there is no evidence whatsoever of anything supernatural ever, and all times that supernatural things were thought to be acting turned out to be regular natural phenomena. Yes, you can never prove something 100% ever. I can't prove my hair isn't ginger, but I save time by not including that (technically correct) sentence when filling out application forms.

but there truly is no more evidence for your worldview than there is for mine. That is not to say you lack reasons, and powerful ones at that, to think the way you do, but lack of evidence is not evidence no matter which way you turn it.

I have evidence of the existance of the physical universe. Do you claim to have evidence of something outside the physical universe? Evidence that you have an immortal soul that will survive your death? Is you soul sacred and untouchable by man?

What do you make the question a few pages back about brain manipulation? Your personality can be radically (sometimes permanently) changed by physical changes in your brain. Is that tampering with your soul? Which one survives death, the old one or the new one?

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Haunted]

Quoting LonelyPilgrim from 18:24, 24th Aug 2007
Right... so Richard Dawkins claiming that God doesn't exist and that people who believe in Him are morons isn't legitimately upsetting?

Ah brilliant example. Technically though, what he does is say is anything supernatural is so ridiculously unlikely (the 100% certainty issue again) that there is no point believing it. He himself clearly says he cannot 'know' that there is no god. I don't believed he used the term 'moron' though. Just that they are deluding themselves (with legitimate reasons: tradition, family, social, fear of death etc)

Look, religious people make a lot of unsubstantiated claims. So do scientists: scientists are constantly making claims and statements about non-scientific issues like the war in Iraq, religion, human rights, etc etc.

But never in the name of science. This is the key. I can make all sorts of radical claims, but no one will give a damn unless I make such claims in the name of science (or god I suppose).

But as for what the institution of religion claims... remember I think fundamentalists are knuckleheads. I can't think of a single religious belief that I hold that somehow denies scientific findings.

Resurrection? Surviving death? Prayers power? That a text that has been translated and copied over and over again for centuries is still the infallible word of god?

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[diamond_dan]

haha man with the amount of shit you guys have written, ya could probably get a dissertation outta all this

[LonelyPilgrim]

Quoting Haunted from 15:45, 25th Aug 2007

You managed to avoid answering my question somehow.

Forgive me, I thought my point was obvious. I'll make it clearer: What makes Fundamentalists Fundamentalists and sets them apart from other Protestant Christian groups is their rejection of science and their belief that the Bible is the Inspired Word of God.

Mainline Christian groups do not, by definition, believe the same. Now, I can't say it is "'only' the Fundamentalists" because there are some really really wacky fringe groups that even the Fundamentalists don't claim, but yeah, that is basically the point.

Ridiculous. Your own eye is capable of detecting a single photon. We are incapable of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting (whatever other sense you wish to add) neutrinos, gluons, whatever. Are you trying to imply that if we rely on instruments to detect them, that they are somehow less valid than things which can be detected by our own sense?

Duh. Of course the human eye can 'see' photons. I'm not an uneducated philistine. But then, that's not what I said, was it? I asked if you have ever seen a photon change it's spin upon observation? Of course you have not, because the human eye can not see, with the relevant level of detail, a single photon.

And frankly, yes, I am saying that if you have to rely on instruments to detect or measure something you have to overcome a higher level of uncertainty in the results. If you think about it for a moment you'd realise the truth of that. To believe the results of an instrument you have to believe a) that the instrument is functioning correctly and b) that the scientific principles behind the functioning of the instrument are true. And of course, you have to believe those things are the case because you have absolutely no way of knowing if they are for sure, at least not point b.

Electrons can be isolated into beams and detected singly, they can be seen. Actually, think a bit more about what you are saying, how do we see anything? We observe photons that are scattered off the object, does that count as 'seeing' the object? So where is the difference between bouncing photons off a large object and bouncing them off a small object, a single electron say?
You only ever see the effect an object has on radiation. In this way, all observational apparatus is identical to your eyes.

Correct, but every step you introduce into the procedure increases the uncertainty.

Do we infer the existance of other people because the scattered radiation seems to suggest that person shaped things exist?

Well, yes, actually. Cogito Ergo Sum after all.

So, it is all theoretical.

And that somehow implies they don't exist?

Not at all. It implies that we can not be certain. It doesn't say anything about the truth of the matter.

Are you trying to imply that science is just a theory?

All human 'knowledge' is just a theory. Again, this does not mean that it is wrong just that we can not really know.

And will you therefore try to suggest that it's just as worthy as some pseudo philosophy about worshipping the invisible?
There are 'theories' (you may not realise just how big a word this is in the science world. A theory is not an educated guess) that describe the behaviour of subatomic particles. Particles are then observed, particles are then said to exist. Theory predicts existence of other particles, other particles are then observed and said to exist. Theory makes prediction about a particle that is not observed, theory needs revising. I suppose it is all theorectical in a sense, but only in the scientific definition of theory.

Of course a theory isn't an educated guess. That would be a hypothesis. As you say, theories are both explanatory and predictive. But you have also made my point when you state they are are revisable. Theories are not immutable, they are always simply the best explanation of the data that our understanding allows at the current time. They are aids to understanding and tools of prediction but they should never be conflated with The Truth, because even if they are true, there is simply no way to know if they are or not.

As for whether science is more worthy than religion - that's far too encompassing a statement to support or deny. Besides, 'worth' is always a highly subjective standard.

Why the softly touchy tone? It should've gone without saying that you have no reason to doubt any theories (unless you have evidence against them in which case you have my utmost appreciation, my warmest thanks and my recommendation that you consider a career in theorectical physics).

I was just reiterating that I'm not a Fundamentalist, who would have 'cause' to doubt modern science since science doesn't agree with the Bible on all counts. And I don't have the patience, or skill with maths, to be a physicist. I'll stick with history, IR, and philosophy, thanks.

Philosophy student? Theres that wierd 'truth' word again. Are you going to tell me that all science is just inferred as thus just as valid as any idea?

Well, yes and no. Science is just inferred, but that doesn't mean it isn't more valid than other ideas. Look, science owes its life to the Enlightenment, one of the key points of which was the belief that mankind could come to understand the natural world around him. That is an assumption - one I happen to believe in as well, hence I also believe in science - and as an assumption can be intellectually rejected. If I'm currently choosing to emphasise the miniscule amount of doubt which does exist, it's to prove a point: Science requires a personal committment to believe in the outcomes of the process because not even science can claim to have an infallible monopoly on the truth.

Nothing is certain. Everything has an attached error and things can only be measured to certain degrees. There's an attached error on quantum mechanics as well, Feynmann put it best: The error in quantum mechanics is equivalent to measuring the distance from New York to San Fransisco to within the thickness of a human hair.

Yes, my point exactly. I've never said that the 'error' was so large that we should reject science, far from it.

The Bible does not say anything about the position of the Earth in the Cosmos.

Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Chronicles 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved."
In the same tradition, Psalm 104:5 says, "[the LORD] set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."
Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."

Or is that all just metaphorical?

Erm... I clearly need to brush up on my Bible study. I ought to have said, "In so far as I can recall, the Bible doesn't say... ". Still, Psalms being written by David, and Ecclesiastes also being written by men, they are limited by the understanding of their authors. Nowhere does God or Jesus say 'The Earth is the physical center of the Universe'.

Now, if I were a Fundamentalist and believed that the entire Bible was the Inspired Word of God, I'd take those passages to mean the Earth doesn't move, but since I'm not a knucklehead...

If it were just a case of aristotle versus galileo then why was he tried for heresy? He was tried because he went against the church (and, presumably, against god as well) and it's sacred doctrine.

Because they wanted to get rid of him? Galileo was left alone for some time, but kept insisting on stirring up trouble, particularly by associating himself with the Republic of Venice, the clergy in which were in defiance of Rome on a number of issues. The decision to try Galileo - and to reject heliocentrism - was neither immediate, nor theological in origin, though it was theological in form.

So does that mean they secretly accepted it as truth and just denied it for the sake political gain?

No, the Church's official position wasn't 'secretly' changed, but there is no telling what individual leaders in the Church felt. What is known is that the Church entered a period where it was felt that backtracking on anything or admitting of any mistakes at all would bring about the ruin of the Church at the hands of Protestants. That attitude, which was political (and far more complicated than I want to go into, but I could always suggest a book or two) really only began to change in the later 20th century.

Essentially, the Church came to reject science because it saw science and Protestantism as being linked movements, which they effectively were until Darwin's findings came along and splintered Protestantism into Mainline and Fundamentalist movements and forever put a growing wedge between faith and science.

Oh please, the issue couldn't be more black and white. Galileo challanged religious doctrine with credible scientific evidence and was thus deemed a heretic.

Not exactly. There really wasn't any doctrine in place when Galileo announced his discoveries. The Church hadn't considered it before in any real detail. So, he wasn't really 'challenging' anything. What happened that really got him charged as a heretic was his insistance that Science could independently proclaim truth without the oversight of the Church, in short usurping the Church's monopoly on the Truth.

The specific theory was irrelevant, he could have just as easily have been talking about the mating habits of earthworms. But what do you expect me to say? So far as I'm concerned the Church was wrong, but it was acting to safeguard its political position by safeguarding its status as Final Arbiter of all questions - political, scientific, philosophical, moral. Galileo threatened to undermine the Church's ability to dominate every aspect of life, and for that he was deemed heretical.

Do you believe we all have the right to believe whatever we want?
What about if I believed that all africans are subhuman and should exterminated? Do I have the right to believe that? Do I have the right to believe that children can exercise sexual consent?
Maybe it's ok as long I don't practice those beliefs?
[Just to be extra careful here
DISCLAIMER: I, of course, do not hold such beliefs]

Well, yes. You have the right to believe whatever you want. Certainly there isn't much I can or should do about it if you do hold those beliefs. Now, if you act upon them... that's a different story.

If religion consisted of harmless old english village vicars who often come round for tea and a few drams, then no problem. Sure I may consider them irrational, but they keep it to themselves. In reality, we have planes crashing into towers, abortion doctors getting shot, people getting death threats for drawing cartoons etc etc etc.

And science gives up ballistics so we can make better guns, and it gives us atom bombs, and pesticides ruining our water supply. You don't see me saying 'science = bad' in response, do you? Actions are carried out by people, and those people are ultimately responsible. Again, we all have the right to believe what we want.

I have evidence of the existance of the physical universe. Do you claim to have evidence of something outside the physical universe? Evidence that you have an immortal soul that will survive your death? Is you soul sacred and untouchable by man?

No, I don't make that claim. Never have claimed to have evidence. Nor do I deny the existance of the physical universe. I believe in science, and I believe in God, and I've never even gotten a headache from both beliefs.

I'm getting tired, and I'm very hungry, and I sense that I'm being rather punchy. The whole reason I jumped into this debate was essentially to say, "Don't assume that all Christians are anti-science-every-word-of-the-Bible-is-true-blow-up-abortionists wackos". Just because that bunch makes the most noise does not make them some sort of official voice of Christianity. But then, of course, I let myself get drawn into the argument deeper than I intended. Go me.

What do you make the question a few pages back about brain manipulation? Your personality can be radically (sometimes permanently) changed by physical changes in your brain. Is that tampering with your soul? Which one survives death, the old one or the new one?

How should I know? I read last night about the experiments recently carried out on out-of-body experiences. I found it quite interesting that when the researchers made as if to hit the false 'body' with a hammer, it caused a fear response in test subjects. Beyond that, I haven't given it much thought. Other than this discussion, most of my spare brain power at the moment is being taken up with trying to identify a small thowing axe for work, and trying to figure out to stop a fuel leak in my car.

[hr]

Arma virumque cano...

[Queeg]

Before we go around in yet another loop here, I was wondering if I could make a slight change in tack here? I think the problem many scientists have with the concept of religion is that it's difficult to see a justifiable reason for believing. Do any of our resident theists want to share their reasons? The obvious ones (to me) are religious experiences, social pressures, sense of belonging to something, promise of an afterlife and knowing there is a truth. I understand if you don't want to share personal details like this, but I think it might help convince the science side of the debate that you don't just have blind faith.

[hr]

Mea navicula pendens anguillarum plena est.