Current Poll (Religion)

[Haunted]

Quoting LonelyPilgrim from 01:24, 26th Aug 2007
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.

I understand the whole fundamentalist thing. My question is a simple yes or no.
Is it only fundamnetalists that believe god created man?

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.

The spin of a photon is analogous to it's polarization. Believe it or not, the human eye is capable of detecting polarization. But you question is different, your asking whether it's possible to observe the change. Well, nothing can observe the actual change, you can only observe the state the photon is in when it interacts with your detector.

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.

Well this is rather odd. Of course every instrument has an associated reading error (as do you eyes). These errors are always known and are almost always vanishingly small. Everything has an error, nothing is abolute, I've never said different. Like I said, your eyes just detect photons that are scattered off objects in exactly the same way that an electron microscope detects scattered electrons.

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

The uncertainty is known. CCD's can be more sensitive and less erroneous than your own eye, which would you consider better for observation? To consider that such precise intruments are somehow less reliable than your own far-from-perfect eye just seems like ignorance.

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.
[/quote]

Good. Just as we infer from our own sense, so we infer from observational instruments.

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

Nothing can ever be certain. But what science does is reduce uncertainty to the point where it is appropriate to state, for example, that that stars' peak emission is 550nm with associated error of 0.001%, rather than we can't be 100% certain about the emission so we'll just not bother. Emission wavelength is an invented quantity, that star will still emit as it does whether you are there to observe it or not. We just describe the emission in quantities that are useful to us.

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

Again, nothing is certain.

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

The capital T again. I am agreement with all the above, it is one of sciences greatest hallmarks that it can be revised when new data comes along. We do not have all the answers (and the ones we do have all have associated errors) but it is still the best mechanism that has ever existed to describe the natural world and how it works. Some theories are so good that they have never been falsified (QM, Evolution, relativity etc).

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.

Theres no need to keep going back to fundamentalism. I'm not attacking them (they're too easy). The point I was making above when you entered into this was that "acceptance that man evolved from lesser species should rule out christianity because they believe god created man". Man was not created. You can argue that the universe but only because we currently lack a satisfacotry explanation of it's beginning (god of the gaps).

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.

You can reject to trust your own senses if you want, but the universe will just keep on behaving and evolving without you.

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 has such a monopoly. If you want to understand the world you reside in then science is the best, and arguably only mechanism to do so. You might say that some other things like philosophies can tell you about the universe, but what do they say about the fusion reactors at the hearts' of the stars or the millions of neutrinos that fly through you every second?

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

Then we are in agreement. Science is the best mechanism to understand and describe the physical universe.

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'.

The whole bible was written by men though. The whole thing is "limited by the understanding of [its] authors". Jesus never says anything it in, his sayings are just described from memory by those four guys (allegedly) who naturally apply their own take/interpretation on events.

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...

Ah, so which verses do you believe are literal truth? And why? If you were born a thousand years ago you would've been mad not to accept the whole thing as literal.

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.

I can agree with this. The world would be a better place if religion was something praticed in privacy and by consenting adults.

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.

I get the point. But the difference is that the evil men are using religion to justify their actions. The same cannot be said of science. Except, you might say, for that tragic example of perversion that was the eugenics movement. Such people simply hijacked the science to further their own already evil intentions, it was not the science that made them do it. Whereas it is the religion that makes someone blow themselves up in order to reach paradise

I believe in science, and I believe in God, and I've never even gotten a headache from both beliefs.

Science exists wether you choose to believe in it or not, it is simply a powerful mechanism for understanding the universe. god is different, it exists as an idea and thats all you can ever prove.

"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.

I never implied as such.

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.

Well if you do get the time I'm sure it's worht pondering.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Squishy]

Quoting Queeg from 09:57, 26th Aug 2007
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.

From the point of view of a hypothetically perfect scientist there is no solid proof of the existence of a god and therefore from said scientists point of view there is no valid reason to accept god as real or waste time with religion. However people are not robots and so religion offers a lot: it offers a group of like minded people to belong to; it offers people to talk to and discuss things with; answers for the unknown; something to believe in (belief being distinctly different from knowledge); it offers promises of an afterlife; a (usually) fairly clear set of moral rules to follow and it offers someone/ something to pray to, to ask for help or guidance or just to comfort oneself (it can be quite theraputic at times). And so for someone purely in pursuit of knowlege and understanding religion offers nothing but most people need a bit more than that and religion can offer that "bit more".


Just as a side note: The mind is a powerful thing and so despite there being no hard evidence for God if only one person believes in him then to that person he exists.

The above is just my take on the debate - hope it's helpful

[hr]

Talk to the elbow, 'cause you ain't worth the extension.

[mhuzzell]

Quoting Haunted from 12:20, 15th Aug 2007

Quoting mhuzzell from 23:07, 14th Aug 2007
Stop attacking straw men!

Instead of FSM I could have used Odin or whatever. Don't avoid my point.

Don't avoid my point! You could not have used FSM in place of Odin because FSM was invented a few years ago as a counter-argument to the religious crazies trying to get Creationism taught alongside evolution in US schools. Odin was a major Scandinavian god, with many actual worshippers.

Quoting Haunted from 12:20, 15th Aug 2007

Gubbins' point was that there is hard evidence (albeit literary, though you seem to want to discount that) that the Easter Bunny, FSM, Santa Claus, etc, do not exist, because we have records of their creation.

Indeed there is. But you cannot prove a negative. FSM could've just placed all that evidence there to test us. Sound familiar?
Prove me wrong.

Yes, it is possible that FSM placed all that evidence there to test us, just like it is possible that God did so with the fossils, or that we are all living in the Matrix, or that the stratosphere is populated with tiny invisible flying pink badgers. But I generally discount these possibilities. Occam's Razor and all that.

Quoting Haunted from 12:20, 15th Aug 2007

You assume that the only reason one might hold on to a belief in God is as a sort of 'safety measure' for those pearly gates like in so many bad jokes. This reveals a very narrow idea of what a belief in God might entail, which I suppose explains a lot of your very strident battles with these religious straw men.

Why don't religions without rosey afterlives ever get picked up?

Plenty of ancient religions did not have rosy afterlives, or only had them for certain people (for instance, you only get to join the gods in Valhalla if you die a glorious death in battle. Everyone else goes to an icy underworld). But people still believed in them.

Quoting Haunted from 12:20, 15th Aug 2007
It was not attack, it was a question. One you didn't answer, why diesm?

The point, my dear, is simply that I believe in a God (yes, 'a' God, or multiple gods, I'm not really sure--I did say I was agnostic). I certainly don't believe in an old white-bearded man sitting on a cloud surrounded by angels with harps. That, to me, is just silly.

So you believe in something, which you doubt exists? Then, as I said, is that not just wishful thinking as opposed to belief?

FAITH is belief without rational proof. It is unreasoned; it is emotional. It is not just 'wishful thinking', because it is not 'thinking' as such. I have faith in God. I do not have very strong faith anymore, coloured as it is by a rational agnostic doubt, but I still have faith.

As for 'why deism?', well, why Christianity, or Islam, Judaism, Zoroastriansim, or any other belief system? You don't get to choose what makes emotional, intuitive, religious sense to you. Otherwise everyone might choose to believe in some religion that says the way to get to an eternal afterlife bliss is to sit around and eat bon-bons. No. I think you're making a bit mistake here in trying to apply logic to faith. It just doesn't work.

Incidentally, I think 19 pages of argument, mostly between yourself (Atheist), and (mostly) various Agnostics, justifies my original quibble: that Atheism and Agnosticism are significantly different theological positions.

[hr]

I FOUND JESUS... he was behind the couch the whole time!

[Haunted]

Quoting mhuzzell from 23:39, 26th Aug 2007
Don't avoid my point! You could not have used FSM in place of Odin because FSM was invented a few years ago as a counter-argument to the religious crazies trying to get Creationism taught alongside evolution in US schools. Odin was a major Scandinavian god, with many actual worshippers.

You have failed utterly to grasp my point. I'll try again.

"If I had written that the FSM had appeared to me in vision and told me how the universe was created, would you consider that as equally valid evidence?"

Replace that word FSM with Odin (or whatever you want, get it yet?) and the point remains. Answer.

Yes, it is possible that FSM placed all that evidence there to test us, just like it is possible that God did so with the fossils, or that we are all living in the Matrix, or that the stratosphere is populated with tiny invisible flying pink badgers. But I generally discount these possibilities. Occam's Razor and all that.

If you wish to apply occams razor then you must also cut down the ridiculous idea of an infinitely complex supernatural supreme intelligence that created everything and may still influence our lives.

Quoting Haunted from 12:20, 15th Aug 2007
Plenty of ancient religions did not have rosy afterlives, or only had them for certain people (for instance, you only get to join the gods in Valhalla if you die a glorious death in battle. Everyone else goes to an icy underworld). But people still believed in them.

A nice incentive to go war for your country then.

FAITH is belief without rational proof. It is unreasoned; it is emotional. It is not just 'wishful thinking', because it is not 'thinking' as such. I have faith in God. I do not have very strong faith anymore, coloured as it is by a rational agnostic doubt, but I still have faith.

Well my problem appears to be with your definitions. Agnostic = cannot know (technically correct), atheist = is ridiculously unlikely that it is not worth anything, believer = god exists. I don't think you can believe in god and still doubt his existence.

As for 'why deism?', well, why Christianity, or Islam, Judaism, Zoroastriansim, or any other belief system? You don't get to choose what makes emotional, intuitive, religious sense to you. Otherwise everyone might choose to believe in some religion that says the way to get to an eternal afterlife bliss is to sit around and eat bon-bons. No. I think you're making a bit mistake here in trying to apply logic to faith. It just doesn't work.

No one really ever has a good reason to "why" they chose (if indeed they ever did choose) their faith. Then again, due to the nature of faith it is hard to argue against someone if they say "it's right for me" etc. Fair enough then. Not worried about an afterlife?

Incidentally, I think 19 pages of argument, mostly between yourself (Atheist), and (mostly) various Agnostics, justifies my original quibble: that Atheism and Agnosticism are significantly different theological positions.

No it's the theists I'm argueing against, the agnostics and I are just debating some finer points (or so it appears).

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[LonelyPilgrim]

Quoting Haunted from 17:31, 26th Aug 2007
I understand the whole fundamentalist thing. My question is a simple yes or no.
Is it only fundamnetalists that believe god created man?

Depends on what you mean by 'create'? If you mean: "Did God take a bit of clay form it into His own image and breath life into it, thereby making Adam, then took Adam's rib to make him a helper named Eve?" I'd be inclined to say that, yes, only a Fundamentalist of some stripe or other would believe that.

If you mean "Did God play some part in the evolutionary process, ie. Intelligent Design?" then that would bring in some of the more conservative mainline groups.

If you mean "Did God cause the creation of the universe, including the conditions under which man could (or, since He set all the starting conditions, would) evolve in good time?" you'll be including more moderate and liberal groups.

That still leaves quite a few Christians, such as myself, who take the more reasonable stance of "How the bloody hell should we know? We weren't there..."

It really comes down to whether one believes that the entire Bible is the unerring truth, inspired by the Holy Spirit in the writing, or whether one acknowledges that parts of the Bible, particularly the bits that existed for centuries as oral tradition before being written down, might be less than accurate. The latter position, that there could be errors, particularly in Genesis, is what seperates mainline from fundamentalist. Most mainline churches, furthermore, have little or no official position of the controversies that arise from Genesis - Creationism, the Flood, etc. - beyond the statement that God is somehow responsible for the creation of the universe, and consequently Earth and man.

I hope that finally answers your question.

The capital T again. I am agreement with all the above, it is one of sciences greatest hallmarks that it can be revised when new data comes along. We do not have all the answers (and the ones we do have all have associated errors) but it is still the best mechanism that has ever existed to describe the natural world and how it works. Some theories are so good that they have never been falsified (QM, Evolution, relativity etc).

Just because a theory hasn't be falsified yet, doesn't mean it won't be. But we've covered that. I do find it odd that you include evolution in your list - I know it hasn't been disproven, but has it truly been proven yet? I've been under the impression (and not being a biologist, I could be mistaken) that while evolution within a given genus has been observed we have only circumstantial evidence for evolution from one species to another new species.

Now I'm not trying to say "Aha! Evolution is a lie!" like some knuckleheads, since I realise that evolution makes sense and that macro-evolution would be difficult (and time consuming) to observe. However, until it is observed, whether naturally or in the labratory (somehow), doesn't evolution remain a bit of a question mark?

Theres no need to keep going back to fundamentalism. I'm not attacking them (they're too easy). The point I was making above when you entered into this was that "acceptance that man evolved from lesser species should rule out christianity because they believe god created man". Man was not created. You can argue that the universe but only because we currently lack a satisfacotry explanation of it's beginning (god of the gaps).

Again this depends on how strictly one defines 'create' and on how much faith one is willing to put into the pre-Christian (for that pre-Judaic) oral traditions that got recorded in Genesis. That often depends on whether one views the Bible as a work of man or a work of God.

Here is a quote from Wikipedia's entry on Mainline Protestantism which perhaps explains better than I can:

"Many believe that the Bible is God's Word, while remaining open to new understanding of it. Few would suggest that the Bible was verbally and plenarily inspired as some biblical inerrantists maintain. That view holds that the Bible as we have it is the result of God's Holy Spirit directly revealing His words to its authors. There is a general consensus that scripture must be interpreted both through the lens of the culture in which it was originally written, and examined using God-given reason. Neither of these methods is believed to diminish the importance of scripture or is an indication that scripture is not the revelation of God's Word."(italics are mine)

Nothing has such a monopoly. If you want to understand the world you reside in then science is the best, and arguably only mechanism to do so. You might say that some other things like philosophies can tell you about the universe, but what do they say about the fusion reactors at the hearts' of the stars or the millions of neutrinos that fly through you every second?

Fair enough, but then I don't particularly care about the fusion reactions at the heart's of the stars or neutrinos. To be fair, that knowledge is neat, and someday may even be useful, but I personally do not need to know it in order to have a fulfilling existence.

Then we are in agreement. Science is the best mechanism to understand and describe the physical universe.

I do not disagree. Still, it is worth noting that there are plenty of people who reject scientific inquiry, indeed any type of Positivism, without being religious. Despite that, we don't have a science vs. Post-modernism debate on here ever.

I can agree with this. The world would be a better place if religion was something praticed in privacy and by consenting adults.

The would would be a better place if human beings weren't so naturally sinful and wicked. REPENT! Sorry, could't help myself, I was channeling pure Mrs. Ross there. Is she still handing out fliers?

I get the point. But the difference is that the evil men are using religion to justify their actions. The same cannot be said of science. Except, you might say, for that tragic example of perversion that was the eugenics movement. Such people simply hijacked the science to further their own already evil intentions, it was not the science that made them do it. Whereas it is the religion that makes someone blow themselves up in order to reach paradise

I have to disagree with you here. In most such cases I think it is fair to say that religion also gets hijacked by evil men. I don't know how many suicide bombers in Israel or Iraq say "I'm Muslim, therefore I have to go blow myself up and take the Infidel with me". I rather suspect that most suicide bombers start out angry about fairly secular things - family was collateral damage, poverty, even nationalism - then they get recruited by Hamas, or Al Qaeda, or Hezbollah, or Islamic Jihad or whatever, indoctrinated by men who manipulate the religious faith of the bomber and who will never themselves strap on several kilos of Semtex, and then, after being told that if he doesn't do his duty his whole family will be killed but that if he does it they will be taken care of, the bomber is sent out to do his dark deed.

The faith in this case is a tool in the hands of evil men, used to manipulate and reassure the poor helpless sod who doesn't know any better.

Well if you do get the time I'm sure it's worht pondering.

Well, I don't see how that experiment applies to our discussion. What they've proven is that they can simulate an out-of-body experience. They haven't proven that real out-of-body experiences aren't real (though perhaps they will be able to in the future, after further experimentation), they haven't proven the non-existence of the soul (even if they end up disproving out-of-body experiences they'll only show that such experiences are not proof of the soul), and they haven't yet come up with any practical use for this ability.

What they essentially have, at this time, is a really really neat party trick. I bet that in a year or two you'll see these rigs set up at fairs and things where you can 'Experience the Flight of the SOUL!' or some-such for a small fee.

Other than that, I was trying to remember, how often have you and I gone around and around about religion, Haunted? Half a dozen times? More? Less? Remember when Paul was here? He was a real knucklehead.

[hr]

Arma virumque cano...

[rob 'f*ck off' wine boy]

WHAT WHAT

[LonelyPilgrim]

Quoting rob 'f*ck off' wine boy from 22:13, 27th Aug 2007
WHAT WHAT

What's the matter Rob, have I once again stunned you with my erudition, rhetorical skills, and unimpeachable analysis?

[hr]

Arma virumque cano...

[Senethro]

I'm not sure what it is, I'm worried it'll become a new fad.

[Gubbins]

Tip-toe through the... last two pages of stuff I've missed....

"God of the Gaps": Recent advances in science have put fundamentalist religion of the defensive, and with it more mainstream religion. The existence (or actions) of God has been increasingly reduced to areas that science has thus far been unable to probe. By happy coincidence, one could argue that these remaining places for the existence of a God are pretty good ones. One should allow the theory of religions to evolve as more scientific knowledge becomes available. Consider the example of dark matter / MOND: we can find no evidence of it within the solar system, yet we see things that can't be explained on larger scales, and thus invented dark matter (and latterly MOND) to describe it - this truly is "science of the gaps", so one should perhaps let the theists away with a little more slack.

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?).

It contains as much personal interpretation as other texts of the time, thus it is documentary evidence. Scientifically, one can still view it as an historical text. One must also then view the 'rejected' gospels in the same light.

The concept of no evidence to prove God's existence: consider the Weak Anthropic Principle - this can be used to either support or refute the concept of a God. I'm sure there are others, but I'm not particularly adept at coming up with examples.

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?

This is a matter for personal interpretation. It is clear that a great many things have been fabricated, lost, distorted or altered - either in the name of the great "Truth" or by personal error. It is up to the individual to come to their own reasoned decision on what one accepts.

There is at least reasonably good scientific evidence that prayer can help. What is unknown (yet naturally speculated upon) is why it helps - whether it is indeed divine intervention, or a more positive attitude in the mind of the theist. Again, I have to say that all the scientific evidence is not against a God, merely that science is lacking a reason for one to exist.

LonelyPilgrim: I've tried here to debate in a more general sense than Fundamentalist vs. Science. I have to say that it's a bit of a novel experience playing Devil's Advocate for religion for once (or more literally, Angel's Advocate).

A point that could be used in this context is that, once biblical literalism is 'proved' incorrect, what basis does the rest of religious doctrine have to be correct? Many in science would see this disproof as an opportunity to discard the Judeo-Christan religons as valid theories.

I do, however, take your point about scientific error, and direct this now back at Haunted. The point is that the quoted experimental error belies the fact that there are a lot of assumptions behind that. One can quite happily measure the mass of dark matter orbiting a galaxy, but if the theory of dark matter ends up being incorrect, it doesn't matter how small an error you can attribute to the value.

The point is that not only is the data that we have incomplete, and that the theories we have are based on that incomplete data, but that scientists themselves cannot be considered to be perfect bodies (which could explain the lack of women in science...). We all make mistakes. Data gets misreported. Things get lost in translation. Others will misinterpret your results. You will undoubtedly misinterpret your own data and results at some point. Even if the concept of science is infallible, scientists and their instrumentation aren't. Who knows what untruths we're standing on?

Observation => theory => prediction: Referring to my first point, you seem to be unwilling to accept that religion can do this. It is merely that they do not have much to predict (until the Pope announces the second coming, or something).

Galileo: it is commonly established that his imprisonment had as much, if not more, to do with politics are religion. The Church had implied their interpretation to a version of the Ptolemeic system based on their interpretation of the Bible, and it was Galileo's attack on this - the teachings of the Church - rather than his belief in the Copernican system, which brought him into disrepute. Couple this with his reknowned fiery nature and other disputes with the Jesuit astronomers (e.g. over the discovery of sunspots) and you have the real reasons behind the conflict: politics, not religion. It was his conflict with the power wielded by the Church, not his conflict with doctrine per se which allowed him to be tried. I believe Galileo was officially pardoned in 1990.

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.

And the average effect of relativity on a lorry driver will be to extend his lifetime by 2.5 microseconds. But we still find the Universe makes a lot more sense with relativity in it.

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

If you mean tarot tents in village fairs, or New Age hippies claiming healing from crystals, or money-grabbing companies selling water sprays for £40 a go, no, there isn't any evidence. If you go for something a bit bigger, like the existence of a god, that's a little different. There is evidence (see above for just one example), but it is commonly interpreted differently.

But never in the name of science.

Eugenics was carried out in the name of science as much as suicide bombing is in the name of religion. Both are being manipulated by people to suit their own ends.

But the difference is that the evil men are using religion to justify their actions. The same cannot be said of science.

Eugenics aside, think of how often scientific statistics are quoted, or mis-quoted for the furtherment of politics. How is this so different from religion. Both are perverting their beliefs/results in order to further one's own end.

Lonely Pilgrim: Theories are not immutable, they are always simply the best explanation of the data that our understanding allows at the current time.

Pedant alert - actually, they're only an explanation, which is important if you want to consider scientific proof (or otherwise) of God and also when you consider that the theory-makers are fallible.

Haunted:The spin of a photon is analogous to it's polarization. Believe it or not, the human eye is capable of detecting polarization. But you question is different, your asking whether it's possible to observe the change. Well, nothing can observe the actual change, you can only observe the state the photon is in when it interacts with your detector.

Typically, the change is observed when a hydrogen atom relaxes from opposite spins to parallel spins, and in doing so emits a photon at a (radio) wavelength of 21cm.

Incidentally: how is the eye capable of seeing polarisation? I haven't heard of this before.

The uncertainty is known. CCD's can be more sensitive and less erroneous than your own eye, which would you consider better for observation? To consider that such precise intruments are somehow less reliable than your own far-from-perfect eye just seems like ignorance.

A subject close to my heart. Consider this: you are observing the spectrum of a galaxy to find a redshift. You measure its recession velocity. In doing you (if its done properly), you make assumptions about the temperature, gravity, composition, distance, luminosity and structure of the stars in that galaxy. You also make assumptions on the uniformity of rotation and gravitational dynamics of the galaxy. You make assumptions about the intervening intergalactic, interstellar and zodiacal medium. You make the assumption that your stellar and chemical models are correct; that you can smooth out intervention by cosmic rays and that your spectra are well-calibrated by the software. Each of these assumptions adds an error, which is often not sensibly quantifiable, estimated or discounted as 'negligible' (rightly or wrongly). Each time, you are not only adding the statistical error onto your calculations, you are also making the assumption that no-one's work that you are basing your results on (including yourself) has made a significant error. All to do something as simple as measure one velocity. What happens when you have something a lot more complex?

Some theories are so good that they have never been falsified (QM, Evolution, relativity etc).

They have all been around for ~100 years. Religion has been around for millenia, yet we're still having this discussion. Even given our vast increase of knowledge over the last century, disproof on that timescale means little.

[Regarding philosophies] but what do they say about the fusion reactors at the hearts' of the stars or the millions of neutrinos that fly through you every second?

Nothing. Nor do they proport to.

Squishy: I think here we see the problem that atheists have with religion. It can offer a lot, but from the outside view it appears to be comfort in one's own delusions, regardless of reality: that people choose their truth (or "Truth"), rather than what is really happening.

(Haunted: regarding "Truth", for the purposes of this argument, we can consider it to be the actual physical state of the Universe, which may be different from or additional to established scientific 'fact', given the incomplete and fallible nature of the scientific investigation.)

If you wish to apply occams razor then you must also cut down the ridiculous idea of an infinitely complex supernatural supreme intelligence that created everything and may still influence our lives.

Again, as I have already pointed out, this is only ridiculous given the preconceptions with which you arrived at your position. To others, it is a perfectly logical explanation.

...Mrs. Ross there. Is she still handing out fliers?

No, she's either in Greece or Spain (depending on who you believe) for the betterment of her health.

Other than that, I was trying to remember, how often have you and I gone around and around about religion, Haunted? Half a dozen times? More? Less? Remember when Paul was here? He was a real knucklehead.

Paul was fun. I enjoyed the debate I had with him. Shame about the server crash. Besides, it does good to stretch the old grey matter around these things once in a while - it promotes a better understanding, if nothing else.

[hr]

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

[LonelyPilgrim]

Quoting Gubbins from 00:59, 28th Aug 2007
Tip-toe through the... last two pages of stuff I've missed....

"God of the Gaps": Recent advances in science have put fundamentalist religion of the defensive, and with it more mainstream religion. The existence (or actions) of God has been increasingly reduced to areas that science has thus far been unable to probe. By happy coincidence, one could argue that these remaining places for the existence of a God are pretty good ones. One should allow the theory of religions to evolve as more scientific knowledge becomes available.

The "God of the Gaps" argument has always bothered me quite a bit, to tell the truth. It seems to assume that God is contained within the universe rather than being truly transcendental. I remember a famous old Irish philosopher/theologian who's name escapes me at the moment (too long since leaving uni, I guess) who argued that God is responsible for sustaining the universe from moment to moment; it is God's will that makes the scientific laws work, that cause an orderly universe rather than chaos. If that were the case, then there is absolutely no conflict between science and God since it is God who makes not only the universe possible, but also the order within it that permit science, not to mention life.

Of course, that's a bit too heady for your average bible-thumper to contemplate (not to mention totally impossible to prove/disprove). I don't have a particular position on this myself, if for no other reason that believing one way or the other would have absolutely no impact on how I live my life. I believe God exists, how He exists doesn't really matter though it is occassional fun to speculate about.

It contains as much personal interpretation as other texts of the time, thus it is documentary evidence. Scientifically, one can still view it as an historical text. One must also then view the 'rejected' gospels in the same light.

...

This is a matter for personal interpretation. It is clear that a great many things have been fabricated, lost, distorted or altered - either in the name of the great "Truth" or by personal error. It is up to the individual to come to their own reasoned decision on what one accepts.

It's always worth remembering, as well, that the entire Bible wasn't written down at the same time. Even ignoring the problem of translations, the Bible still had many many authors, and each section needs to be judged on its own merits for its dependability if you are taking that approach. Anti-Christians who say "The Earth is cleary older than 5,000-whatever years, therefore the whole Bible is rubbish" are missing the point as much as the Fundies.

LonelyPilgrim: I've tried here to debate in a more general sense than Fundamentalist vs. Science. I have to say that it's a bit of a novel experience playing Devil's Advocate for religion for once (or more literally, Angel's Advocate).

Of course. The main point I set out to make in the beginning was simply to state my frustration with non-Christians wanting to associate Evangelical Fundamentalism with the whole of Christianity. Quite aside from Mainline Protestant views that I've been 'defending' there are also Catholic, Orthodox, and thousands of non-denominational viewpoints all of which differ to greater and lesser extents from the stereotypical Fundie boogeyman.

A point that could be used in this context is that, once biblical literalism is 'proved' incorrect, what basis does the rest of religious doctrine have to be correct? Many in science would see this disproof as an opportunity to discard the Judeo-Christan religons as valid theories.

The obvious answer would be textual criticism. Certain elements within the Christian community have been willing to subject the Bible to serious scholarly study, not to mention other religious documents and claims. Was it not Erasmus who exposed the fraud of Constantine's Donation?

Bible scholars have been using scientific methods of textual analysis on the Bible since the Reformation. The science of textual analysis was born through efforts to research the Bible in those golden years between Luther's break with the Church and the outbreak of the 30 Year's War.

I do, however, take your point about scientific error, and direct this now back at Haunted. The point is that the quoted experimental error belies the fact that there are a lot of assumptions behind that.

...

Even if the concept of science is infallible, scientists and their instrumentation aren't. Who knows what untruths we're standing on?

My point exactly, though you put it better than I did. The further along our research goes, the more the uncertainty compounds. After all, imagine for a moment how much 'knowledge' we would lose in an instant if someone came along and said, "Hey, guys, it seems that Newtonian gravity here on Earth doesn't really work like we thought... we were close but... " It's not likely, but it could happen, and everything every calculated from that would have to be scrapped.

If you mean tarot tents in village fairs, or New Age hippies claiming healing from crystals, or money-grabbing companies selling water sprays for £40 a go, no, there isn't any evidence. If you go for something a bit bigger, like the existence of a god, that's a little different. There is evidence (see above for just one example), but it is commonly interpreted differently.

What constitutes evidence poses an almost insumountable challenge, as well. May persons of faith believe as the result a personal religous experience... something highly subjective, difficult to explain, and impossible to reproduce.

No, she's either in Greece or Spain (depending on who you believe) for the betterment of her health.

You mean to tell me that traveling long distances isn't a sin in her worldview? And for her health? Surely the Lord would sustain her if she were in His good graces, no matter where she were... Forgive me, two years gone from St Andrews and I'm still finder her fliers in random coat pockets.

Paul was fun. I enjoyed the debate I had with him. Shame about the server crash. Besides, it does good to stretch the old grey matter around these things once in a while - it promotes a better understanding, if nothing else.

I rather find it to promote ulcers and headaches. And yet... I keep finding myself getting drawn into every discussion of religion on The Sinner, more fool I.

[hr]

Arma virumque cano...

[Haunted]

Quoting LonelyPilgrim from 21:52, 27th Aug 2007
Depends on what you mean by 'create'?

"to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes."

Of course you can quite easily take this back a bit and argue for the creation of the universe. Man, however did naturally evolve.

I do find it odd that you include evolution in your list - I know it hasn't been disproven, but has it truly been proven yet? I've been under the impression (and not being a biologist, I could be mistaken) that while evolution within a given genus has been observed we have only circumstantial evidence for evolution from one species to another new species.

Bear in mind that 'species' is a very subjective term. Everything that is alive today is a transition species, you are the transition from your parents to your children. Everything is changing all the time. Designating everything just helps us to map out the tree of life.

Incidentally, there is no direct observation of black holes yet, just their effects. Then again there is no such thing as direct observation, we only detect their effect on scattered/emitted radiation.

This is interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase

Again this depends on how strictly one defines 'create' and on how much faith one is willing to put into the pre-Christian (for that pre-Judaic) oral traditions that got recorded in Genesis. That often depends on whether one views the Bible as a work of man or a work of God.

Here is a quote from Wikipedia's entry on Mainline Protestantism which perhaps explains better than I can:

So the bible is metaphorical in some sense and literal in others? The criteria for which depend on your cultural lens (which would evolve over time surely)?.

Fair enough, but then I don't particularly care about the fusion reactions at the heart's of the stars or neutrinos. To be fair, that knowledge is neat, and someday may even be useful, but I personally do not need to know it in order to have a fulfilling existence.

Well it helps explain where you came from (the fusion furnace of a great star that exploded a few billion years ago). Though whether thats interesting or not is entirely subjective.

I have to disagree with you here. In most such cases I think it is fair to say that religion also gets hijacked by evil men.

Absolutely. Seems to happen all the time really. I'd argue that it is entirely because of the sheep/shepherd relationship that most religion (does this happen to buddhists?) instills in people that is responsible. In science, there is no single leader. You are tought to think for yourself and carry out repeat experiments to prove to yourself what someone is saying. This is why science isn't hijacked like religion.

Well if you do get the time I'm sure it's worht pondering.

Well, I don't see how that experiment applies to our discussion. What they've proven is that they can simulate an out-of-body experience. They haven't proven that real out-of-body experiences aren't real (though perhaps they will be able to in the future, after further experimentation), they haven't proven the non-existence of the soul (even if they end up disproving out-of-body experiences they'll only show that such experiences are not proof of the soul), and they haven't yet come up with any practical use for this ability.

What they essentially have, at this time, is a really really neat party trick. I bet that in a year or two you'll see these rigs set up at fairs and things where you can 'Experience the Flight of the SOUL!' or some-such for a small fee.
[/quote]

You missed what I asked. My point was not about the out-of-body article (that was only posted for interest).

My questions were about the brain/soul relationship. If I selectively cut/stimulate different parts of your neo-cortex then I can drastically change your personality permanently. How is this viewed in a religious context? Have I just altered your soul? Which one gets to survive your death, the first or the new one?

Other than that, I was trying to remember, how often have you and I gone around and around about religion, Haunted? Half a dozen times? More? Less? Remember when Paul was here? He was a real knucklehead.

We all miss paul

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Haunted]

Quoting Gubbins from 00:59, 28th Aug 2007
"God of the Gaps":
...One should allow the theory of religions to evolve as more scientific knowledge becomes available. Consider the example of dark matter / MOND: we can find no evidence of it within the solar system, yet we see things that can't be explained on larger scales, and thus invented dark matter (and latterly MOND) to describe it - this truly is "science of the gaps", so one should perhaps let the theists away with a little more slack.

I disagree. God of the gaps is "we don;t understand how/what/why that thing works/is/whatever, therefore god did it, end of". What you are trying to imply is that a scientific theory is somehow analogous to this. No, theories and models are put forward to try to explain what is happening, these are then scrutinised and tested until they are falsified or have their predictions verified. Science is changing but surely a god is either responsible for something or it isn't? You are either convinced he did it or not. And so when it turns out he did not surely you must see the power of your god diminish.

The concept of no evidence to prove God's existence: consider the Weak Anthropic Principle - this can be used to either support or refute the concept of a God. I'm sure there are others, but I'm not particularly adept at coming up with examples.

"We are here discussing this because god made us here to discuss this"
I would not define such a thing as evidence.

There is at least reasonably good scientific evidence that prayer can help.

Where? And why haven't they been given a nobel prize for discovering a new force in physics? If your trying to imply that there may be a placebo effect then stop, of course there will be. If YOU are convinced something will help you then you will feel better. Praying to god will have the same affect as eating a tigers penis on two people depending on what those two people believe.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/internat ... 41,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01695.html

The point is that the quoted experimental error belies the fact that there are a lot of assumptions behind that. One can quite happily measure the mass of dark matter orbiting a galaxy, but if the theory of dark matter ends up being incorrect, it doesn't matter how small an error you can attribute to the value.

Dark Matter exists, the masses observed are too great to be attributed to stars alone using relativity. The question remaining is what form that dark matter is. Either WIMPS, MACHOS or even MOND. So when you measure the dark matter of that galaxy and then the mystery of dark matter is solved, you will still have measured something important.

The point is that not only is the data that we have incomplete, and that the theories we have are based on that incomplete data,

If you are defining 'complete data' as every bit of data ever, then yes. This is completely back to nothing is certain and absolute knowlegde, again.

Data gets misreported. Things get lost in translation. Others will misinterpret your results. You will undoubtedly misinterpret your own data and results at some point. Even if the concept of science is infallible, scientists and their instrumentation aren't. Who knows what untruths we're standing on?

No one said it was a smooth ride. Mistakes will be made of course, but due to the nature of science to rethink and retest itself over and over again, all mistakes will be discovered.

Observation => theory => prediction: Referring to my first point, you seem to be unwilling to accept that religion can do this. It is merely that they do not have much to predict (until the Pope announces the second coming, or something).

Reminded me of this brilliant image:
http://photos-d.ak.facebook.com/photos- ... 3_9270.jpg

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.

And the average effect of relativity on a lorry driver will be to extend his lifetime by 2.5 microseconds. But we still find the Universe makes a lot more sense with relativity in it.
[/quote]

What are you getting at here? You are agreeing with me yes?

If you mean tarot tents in village fairs, or New Age hippies claiming healing from crystals, or money-grabbing companies selling water sprays for £40 a go, no, there isn't any evidence. If you go for something a bit bigger, like the existence of a god, that's a little different. There is evidence (see above for just one example), but it is commonly interpreted differently.

I must have missed your example above, what was it?

But never in the name of science.

Eugenics was carried out in the name of science as much as suicide bombing is in the name of religion. Both are being manipulated by people to suit their own ends.

I covered this. You can use religion to make good people do bad things, I do not think you can say the same of science.

think of how often scientific statistics are quoted, or mis-quoted for the furtherment of politics

That would be politicians doing that?

Typically, the change is observed when a hydrogen atom relaxes from opposite spins to parallel spins, and in doing so emits a photon at a (radio) wavelength of 21cm.

Incidentally: how is the eye capable of seeing polarisation? I haven't heard of this before.

Along the lines I was getting at. You only observe the result of a change.

Try this out for fun
http://www.polarization.com/haidinger/haidinger.html

A subject close to my heart. Consider this: you are observing the spectrum of a galaxy to find a redshift. You measure its recession velocity. In doing you (if its done properly), you make assumptions about the temperature, gravity, composition, distance, luminosity and structure of the stars in that galaxy. You also make assumptions on the uniformity of rotation and gravitational dynamics of the galaxy. You make assumptions about the intervening intergalactic, interstellar and zodiacal medium. You make the assumption that your stellar and chemical models are correct; that you can smooth out intervention by cosmic rays and that your spectra are well-calibrated by the software. Each of these assumptions adds an error, which is often not sensibly quantifiable, estimated or discounted as 'negligible' (rightly or wrongly). Each time, you are not only adding the statistical error onto your calculations, you are also making the assumption that no-one's work that you are basing your results on (including yourself) has made a significant error. All to do something as simple as measure one velocity. What happens when you have something a lot more complex?

Well, thats astronomy for you. One of the reasons I jumped off that ship was because of the ridiculous assumptions and errors they kept making. The trouble with astronomy though is that everything is just so darn far away. Naturally you can still infer some things with good reason. Dark Matter for example. When the rotational masses of galaxies were measured they were found to be ten times higher than they could possibily be with all errors considered.

They have all been around for ~100 years. Religion has been around for millenia, yet we're still having this discussion. Even given our vast increase of knowledge over the last century, disproof on that timescale means little.

Once again, you can't prove a negative. God as an idea will always exist. Anyway you can't just lump all religion together and say it hasn't been falsified just as can't lump all of science together. No one believes in Zeus anymore (not strictly true it turns out) because we don't need a god of thunder anymore.

If you wish to apply occams razor then you must also cut down the ridiculous idea of an infinitely complex supernatural supreme intelligence that created everything and may still influence our lives.

Again, as I have already pointed out, this is only ridiculous given the preconceptions with which you arrived at your position. To others, it is a perfectly logical explanation.

No, occams razor is about what is unlikely. Which is more unlikely: The universe evolved natural from entirely natural and understandable consequences. Or a supernatural supreme intelligence which we call God created it all from nothing, and he himself needs no origin.

A god is infinitely more complex than no god and is thus far more unlikely.

Other than that, I was trying to remember, how often have you and I gone around and around about religion, Haunted? Half a dozen times? More? Less? Remember when Paul was here? He was a real knucklehead.

Paul was fun. I enjoyed the debate I had with him. Shame about the server crash. Besides, it does good to stretch the old grey matter around these things once in a while - it promotes a better understanding, if nothing else.
[/quote]

Yes I find them most enjoyable. And they always make a good fundamentalist witch hunt (you know who you are).

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[novium]

theologians argue that god is not complex, but the most fundamental, and therefore simple thing.

[hr]

Neither the storms of crisis, nor the breezes of ambition could ever divert him, either by hope or by fear, from the course that he had chosen

[Haunted]

Quoting LonelyPilgrim from 05:15, 28th Aug 2007
The "God of the Gaps" argument has always bothered me quite a bit, to tell the truth. It seems to assume that God is contained within the universe rather than being truly transcendental. I remember a famous old Irish philosopher/theologian...
Of course, that's a bit too heady for your average bible-thumper to contemplate (not to mention totally impossible to prove/disprove).

And this is where the idea becomes meaningless. If you hide god outside of the universe then you also castrate his ability to interact with it. Anything that interferes with the physical universe must itself be part of that universe.

Of course. The main point I set out to make in the beginning was simply to state my frustration with non-Christians wanting to associate Evangelical Fundamentalism with the whole of Christianity. Quite aside from Mainline Protestant views that I've been 'defending' there are also Catholic, Orthodox, and thousands of non-denominational viewpoints all of which differ to greater and lesser extents from the stereotypical Fundie boogeyman.

I've not yet differentiated as such (I think it was you who first did). I can understand you may wish to distance yourself from such sheep but why not cut the cord altogether? Surely you don't need a god to have a good life? Or are you mindful of 'the next life'?

My point exactly, though you put it better than I did. The further along our research goes, the more the uncertainty compounds.

Nonsense! The more we research the more the uncertainties are reduced and the more we understand increases!

After all, imagine for a moment how much 'knowledge' we would lose in an instant if someone came along and said, "Hey, guys, it seems that Newtonian gravity here on Earth doesn't really work like we thought... we were close but... " It's not likely, but it could happen, and everything every calculated from that would have to be scrapped.

Your right, what a disaster. Hold on, didn't that happen in 1905?

2005 was the World Year of Physics for good reason.

What constitutes evidence poses an almost insumountable challenge, as well. May persons of faith believe as the result a personal religous experience... something highly subjective, difficult to explain, and impossible to reproduce.

And thus not scientific, completely irrational and devoid of the faculty of reason. Which I think we agreed on.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Haunted]

Quoting novium from 10:33, 28th Aug 2007
theologians argue that god is not complex, but the most fundamental, and therefore simple thing.

Welcome back. Theologians say alot of things, they of course being experts in that which is not there.
Something that creates the universe in such a way as too foster life (and thus us) cannot be without intelligence. Intelligence = complexity. And if god is to be omniscient then he is surely the infinitely complex

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Gubbins]

Quoting Haunted from 10:25, 28th Aug 2007

Quoting Gubbins from 00:59, 28th Aug 2007
"God of the Gaps":
...One should allow the theory of religions to evolve as more scientific knowledge becomes available. Consider the example of dark matter / MOND: we can find no evidence of it within the solar system, yet we see things that can't be explained on larger scales, and thus invented dark matter (and latterly MOND) to describe it - this truly is "science of the gaps", so one should perhaps let the theists away with a little more slack.

I disagree. God of the gaps is "we don;t understand how/what/why that thing works/is/whatever, therefore god did it, end of". What you are trying to imply is that a scientific theory is somehow analogous to this.

In a way. Galaxy rotation was observed to be faster than predicted by Newtonian/Einsteinian gravity. Thus the concept of "dark matter" was invented to explain it. As a theory, it came essentially from thin air, i.e.: we don't understand how it works, therefore it must be due to some invisible kind of matter.

Science is changing but surely a god is either responsible for something or it isn't? You are either convinced he did it or not. And so when it turns out he did not surely you must see the power of your god diminish.

One does not have to be convinced either way. New science shakes up old theories (both theological and scientific), therefore they adapt to fit the new data. With reference to the image you linked to, the religious are asking the question "Can the theory be modified to explain the new evidence?". They say "yes" and improve their theories. If this reduces a god to exist only under certain conditions, then it is doing nothing other than refining the theory to be more precise.

...consider the Weak Anthropic Principle...

"We are here discussing this because god made us here to discuss this"
I would not define such a thing as evidence.

Nor would I class the fact that the Universe can be explained without invoking a god to be evidence - it is merely an observation.

The reputed power of prayer, supposed miracles and predictions are all evidence in favour of a god's existence and influence in the world. They can also be explained as natural phenomena, statistical flukes and people believing what they want to.

Conversely, the Universe can be explained without a god. But it can also be explained with one.

We can apply Occam's razor to these arguments, but firstly it only yields what is probable, and secondly the complexity of each stance is entirely subjective.

There is at least reasonably good scientific evidence that prayer can help.

Where? And why haven't they been given a nobel prize for discovering a new force in physics? If your trying to imply that there may be a placebo effect then stop, of course there will be.

I'm implying that the evidence exists that prayer can help. I'm also pointing out that an interpretation of this is that it is a placebo effect. Another interpretation is that there really is divine intervention going on. The non-religious are more inclined to choose one interpretation; the religious the other. It all depends on the preconceptions you start with.

Dark Matter exists, the masses observed are too great to be attributed to stars alone using relativity. The question remaining is what form that dark matter is. Either WIMPS, MACHOS or even MOND.

You've not quite got this right: MOND is not dark matter, it is a modification of the ability of gravitons to be exchanged by particles over large distances. Thus, by measuring a "mass" of dark matter, if MOND turns out to be the correct solution, then the "mass" (and its associated error) is meaningless.

Data gets misreported. Things get lost in translation. Others will misinterpret your results. You will undoubtedly misinterpret your own data and results at some point. Even if the concept of science is infallible, scientists and their instrumentation aren't. Who knows what untruths we're standing on?

No one said it was a smooth ride. Mistakes will be made of course, but due to the nature of science to rethink and retest itself over and over again, all mistakes will be discovered.

Possibly, but the point is that at the present time they haven't yet been discovered, and that every error you see in a measurement fails to take this into account.

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.

And the average effect of relativity on a lorry driver will be to extend his lifetime by 2.5 microseconds. But we still find the Universe makes a lot more sense with relativity in it.

What are you getting at here? You are agreeing with me yes?[/quote]
I'm agreeing that the observed error in QM appears to be small, assuming we have all our facts right. I'm also saying that an error this small can still belie an awful lot of physics that we don't understand and which is ultimately very important.

There is evidence (see above for just one example), but it is commonly interpreted differently.

I must have missed your example above, what was it?

I can't remember - probably the reported power of prayer.

You can use religion to make good people do bad things, I do not think you can say the same of science.

think of how often scientific statistics are quoted, or mis-quoted for the furtherment of politics

That would be politicians doing that?

You can use science to make good people do bad things, if you can convince them they are actually good things. Eugenics was an example of this. "Good people" also designed the atomic bomb, as it was seen as a "good thing" at the time (and arguably was then). More generally speaking, give a person enough leverage and they can use science as well as any other tool to force their opinion on the populus.

A subject close to my heart. Consider this: you are observing the spectrum of a galaxy to find a redshift. ... What happens when you have something a lot more complex?

Well, thats astronomy for you. One of the reasons I jumped off that ship was because of the ridiculous assumptions and errors they kept making. [/quote]
Yet these assumptions underlie our understanding of the Universe, its creation, and a lot of the physics we take for granted on Earth.

Naturally you can still infer some things with good reason. Dark Matter for example. When the rotational masses of galaxies were measured they were found to be ten times higher than they could possibily be with all errors considered.

Yes, this is an observation. However, an acceptable theory will still lacking until measurements of MOND or detections of dark matter particles can be made (or someone comes up with a different explanation).

They have all been around for ~100 years. Religion has been around for millenia, yet we're still having this discussion. Even given our vast increase of knowledge over the last century, disproof on that timescale means little.

Anyway you can't just lump all religion together and say it hasn't been falsified just as can't lump all of science together. No one believes in Zeus anymore (not strictly true it turns out) because we don't need a god of thunder anymore.[/quote]

Why not? The change from god to god is just an adaption of the theory of a universal creator to fit the latest evidence. People will disagree on the details just as they disagree on which dark matter candidate they prefer.

No, occams razor is about what is unlikely. Which is more unlikely: The universe evolved natural from entirely natural and understandable consequences. Or a supernatural supreme intelligence which we call God created it all from nothing, and he himself needs no origin.

Which is more unlikely depends on your stance. Which is more unlikely: a universe that appears not to have a cause, or that it was created by a being that requires no origin? It depends on your stance, your preconceptions and your reasoning.

[hr]

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

[Gubbins]

More...

Quoting Haunted from 10:41, 28th Aug 2007
If you hide god outside of the universe then you also castrate his ability to interact with it. Anything that interferes with the physical universe must itself be part of that universe.

Not so. You don't need to be inside a box to shake it.

Nonsense! The more we research the more the uncertainties are reduced and the more we understand increases!

Yet the more we subject ourselves to possible sources of error. Sure enough, mistakes are eventually found, but of the ones that haven't...? Remember that errors can only ever be additional to each other.


[hr]

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

[Haunted]

Quoting Gubbins from 16:50, 28th Aug 2007
In a way. Galaxy rotation was observed to be faster than predicted by Newtonian/Einsteinian gravity. Thus the concept of "dark matter" was invented to explain it. As a theory, it came essentially from thin air, i.e.: we don't understand how it works, therefore it must be due to some invisible kind of matter.

It's a reasonable idea. Just we can't see the matter (stars) doesn't mean it's not there. A number of ideas came up to explain it the most interesting ones being against general relativity.

One does not have to be convinced either way. New science shakes up old theories (both theological and scientific), therefore they adapt to fit the new data. With reference to the image you linked to, the religious are asking the question "Can the theory be modified to explain the new evidence?". They say "yes" and improve their theories. If this reduces a god to exist only under certain conditions, then it is doing nothing other than refining the theory to be more precise.

So far it has reduced god to an idea hiding at the beginning of the universe, hardly the all-mighty we hear about.

Nor would I class the fact that the Universe can be explained without invoking a god to be evidence - it is merely an observation.

Yes. The gods we all hear about love nothing more than to interfere in our affairs, where are they? Yu can argue for god as an idea, but as a reality it is lacking.

The reputed power of prayer, supposed miracles and predictions are all evidence in favour of a god's existence and influence in the world. They can also be explained as natural phenomena, statistical flukes and people believing what they want to.

Anecdotal, worthless.

Conversely, the Universe can be explained without a god. But it can also be explained with one.

I can explain that god created the internet, he just made his human puppets do all the hard work. Just like he guides the hands of highly qualified surgeons ALL THE TIME.

There is at least reasonably good scientific evidence that prayer can help.

I'm implying that the evidence exists that prayer can help. I'm also pointing out that an interpretation of this is that it is a placebo effect. Another interpretation is that there really is divine intervention going on. The non-religious are more inclined to choose one interpretation; the religious the other. It all depends on the preconceptions you start with.

Bullshit. With this line of reasoning I can argue that all kinds of rubbish *actually* work. Crystal healing, sugar pills, a flashing red light, ANYTHING. Did you read the links I posted?

You've not quite got this right: MOND is not dark matter, it is a modification of the ability of gravitons to be exchanged by particles over large distances. Thus, by measuring a "mass" of dark matter, if MOND turns out to be the correct solution, then the "mass" (and its associated error) is meaningless.

I understand it just fine. MOND will account for the missing matter will it not? And if MOND comes through as correct then what is your measurement of the dark matter content of that galaxy?
Thats right, it's actual mass. Hardly meaningless.

Possibly, but the point is that at the present time they haven't yet been discovered, and that every error you see in a measurement fails to take this into account.

Yes our current understanding isn't perfect which is why we have such engaging scientific mysteries.

You can use science to make good people do bad things, if you can convince them they are actually good things. Eugenics was an example of this.

Eugenics was more of a philosophy than a science (it had been known for centuries that some traits are hereditary). This was then used to add fuel to already fierce racial fires by deeming some hereditary traits as inferior, there was nothing scientific about that. Tell me why suicide bombers don't go to paradise?

"Good people" also designed the atomic bomb, as it was seen as a "good thing" at the time (and arguably was then).

Inanimate objects are incapable of evil

Yet these assumptions underlie our understanding of the Universe, its creation, and a lot of the physics we take for granted on Earth.

Which Earthly physics are you referring to? The most important observation from astronomy ever was the CMB which no ridiculous astronomical error attached; it is much smaller. Astronomy can still make good observations and they are honest in their errors, but they can get ahead of themselves sometimes.

Why not? The change from god to god is just an adaption of the theory of a universal creator to fit the latest evidence.

Tell that to the missionaries. "Oh your wacky polytheistic voodoo religion is inferior to our monotheistic philosophical first cause, it's evolution of theology!". Why not evolve one further and just dump the idea altogether?

People will disagree on the details just as they disagree on which dark matter candidate they prefer.

The difference being the dark matter mystery will be solved eventually.

Which is more unlikely depends on your stance.

I fundamentally disagree with this. Complexity and probability are not subjective.

Which is more unlikely: a universe that appears not to have a cause, or that it was created by a being that requires no origin? It depends on your stance, your preconceptions and your reasoning.

Not at all. And no one said it appeared not to have a cause. Simply that it started and we should not invoke god just because we don't know how it begun exactly. And "requires no origin"? Why because you decree he does not? An intelligent being capable of operating outside of phyics and spacetime is far more grand and ridiculous compared to any natural explanation that may arise.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Haunted]

Quoting Gubbins from 16:53, 28th Aug 2007
Not so. You don't need to be inside a box to shake it.

At first this looked pretty good. But you and the box must be inside the same universe with the same physical laws. If there were people in the box they could poke holes in it and wave to you. A nice analogy but flawed in this instance.

Yet the more we subject ourselves to possible sources of error. Sure enough, mistakes are eventually found, but of the ones that haven't...? Remember that errors can only ever be additional to each other.

Of course, but it's not like we do every experiment only once is it? Why do you think more data points = good?

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Gubbins]

Quoting Haunted from 17:24, 28th Aug 2007

Quoting Gubbins from 16:50, 28th Aug 2007
As a theory, [dark matter] came essentially from thin air.

It's a reasonable idea. Just we can't see the matter (stars) doesn't mean it's not there. A number of ideas came up to explain it the most interesting ones being against general relativity.

Likewise, just because we can't see a god doesn't mean one does exist either.

So far it has reduced god to an idea hiding at the beginning of the universe, hardly the all-mighty we hear about.

And hardly hiding. Not necessarily the beginning of the Universe, but outside the Universe. Thus, this hypothetical deity could still retain control over the Universe at whatever level it chooses to (or perhaps is capable of).

Yes. The gods we all hear about love nothing more than to interfere in our affairs, where are they? Yu can argue for god as an idea, but as a reality it is lacking.

Again, evolution of religious theory - any messing that might happen need not appear obvious.

The reputed power of prayer, supposed miracles and predictions are all evidence in favour of a god's existence and influence in the world. They can also be explained as natural phenomena, statistical flukes and people believing what they want to.

Anecdotal, worthless.[/quote]

In what way is it anecdotal? You apply your interpretation to events, which is based on your understanding of the world about you. It does not make you right, and thus to claim it as worthless is a personal interpretation. Your understanding differs from the understanding of others.

Conversely, the Universe can be explained without a god. But it can also be explained with one.

I can explain that god created the internet, he just made his human puppets do all the hard work. Just like he guides the hands of highly qualified surgeons ALL THE TIME.

Well perhaps that's true, but this comes back down to a question of free will, which is a whole other can of worms.

I'm implying that the evidence exists that prayer can help. I'm also pointing out that an interpretation of this is that it is a placebo effect. Another interpretation is that there really is divine intervention going on. The non-religious are more inclined to choose one interpretation; the religious the other. It all depends on the preconceptions you start with.

Bullshit. With this line of reasoning I can argue that all kinds of rubbish *actually* work. Crystal healing, sugar pills, a flashing red light, ANYTHING. Did you read the links I posted?

I had heard these cases already, so I'll admit I didn't read the articles in full.

One could say the same thing about anything else, but I was giving additional weight to more scientific evidence. This isn't the link I was looking for, but it's similar: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/485268.stm

I understand it just fine. MOND will account for the missing matter will it not? And if MOND comes through as correct then what is your measurement of the dark matter content of that galaxy?
Thats right, it's actual mass. Hardly meaningless.

But MOND doesn't involve anything other than the mass of the visible part of the galaxy. It's merely an introduction of a 1/r term (or similar) into F = GMm/r^2. There is no "dark matter mass" involved! Therefore a calculation of a mass is meaningless.

"Good people" also designed the atomic bomb, as it was seen as a "good thing" at the time (and arguably was then).

Inanimate objects are incapable of evil [/quote]
As are concepts (like religion), but they can be used for such purposes. (Besides, I'd hardly call an exploding atomic bomb inanimate!)

Yet these assumptions underlie our understanding of the Universe, its creation, and a lot of the physics we take for granted on Earth.

Which Earthly physics are you referring to? The most important observation from astronomy ever was the CMB which no ridiculous astronomical error attached; it is much smaller. Astronomy can still make good observations and they are honest in their errors, but they can get ahead of themselves sometimes.

How about the conditions surrounding nuclear fusion? Testing GR? Understanding the formation, geological and paleontological history of the Earth through solar output, asteroid and comet bombardment, stellar encounters, local supernovae and mass loss from giant stars?

Why not? The change from god to god is just an adaption of the theory of a universal creator to fit the latest evidence.

Tell that to the missionaries. "Oh your wacky polytheistic voodoo religion is inferior to our monotheistic philosophical first cause, it's evolution of theology!". Why not evolve one further and just dump the idea altogether?

Eventually that may be the outcome, but as a society (and one may argue scientifically) we are not yet ready to finalise ourselves to that conclusion.

People will disagree on the details just as they disagree on which dark matter candidate they prefer.

The difference being the dark matter mystery will be solved eventually.

That is irrelevant in the context of that point. Besides, the theological debate may also eventually be "solved".

Which is more unlikely depends on your stance.

I fundamentally disagree with this. Complexity and probability are not subjective.

No, but neither do we know the complexity, nor the probability. However, we do make subjective decisions and assumptions in an attempt to derive them. I may agree that the concept of religion is outmoded and irrational, but that I am aware that that is a subjective decision, and I must therefore question whether that decision is correct.

Which is more unlikely: a universe that appears not to have a cause, or that it was created by a being that requires no origin? It depends on your stance, your preconceptions and your reasoning.

Not at all. And no one said it appeared not to have a cause. Simply that it started and we should not invoke god just because we don't know how it begun exactly.[/quote]
We cannot (presently) determine the cause of the Universe. You can hardly blame people for taking on a well-established theory that gives an explanation, regardless of whether or not they believe absolutely (or have even questioned) whether that is the truth of the matter.

And "requires no origin"? Why because you decree he does not?

An object or being existing outside the confines of our Universe is not subject to the temporal relations of it. Thus, the object has neither a beginning, nor an end, and therefore does not require an origin. The same can be argued for any other mechanism which may bring the Universe into being.

An intelligent being capable of operating outside of phyics and spacetime is far more grand and ridiculous compared to any natural explanation that may arise.

Why? Because you decree it is? It's a theory, like any other. If we neglect to invoke a god, we must come up with a natural explanation and none has yet been forthcoming. Something must have been operating outside the confines of conventional physics and spacetime to have created the Universe. We just don't know what it is. Some chose to call it a god. Many go further and assign various hypothetical properties to this god. In time, some or all of them may be proved wrong, in which case the individuals supporting those theories must either revise or change their theories on the Universe.

Not so. You don't need to be inside a box to shake it.

At first this looked pretty good. But you and the box must be inside the same universe with the same physical laws. If there were people in the box they could poke holes in it and wave to you. A nice analogy but flawed in this instance.

Let's modify the analogy then. Consider the box to be made of foot-thick lead with a stationary person inside. The lead cavity is insulating, therefore magnetic fields (c.f. physical laws) can be different and not interconnected on both the inside and outside of the box. A person cannot poke holes in the box without specialist equipment, nor have any appreciable effect on the outside world; yet someone outside the box with access to, say, a sufficiently long/strong lever or a gamma-ray source, etc., can modify the contents of the box.

Of course, but it's not like we do every experiment only once is it? Why do you think more data points = good?

Naturally, but we are considering systematic errors here, so more data points = not a damned bit of difference.

[hr]

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