Evolution, science, faith- lightening rod - II

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Monday, July 30, 2007 18:50
VIEWED: 15836
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:03 AM

Quote:
you know what probably upsets me most about this subject? most proponents of(strictly) evolution approach this subject with their own bigotry and bias, because theyve been taught that christianity has always been a scam, that ID is baseless, and that to say otherwise is factually and scientifically 'ignorant'.

You keep using the word "science", but do you know what the word means? Scientific method is ... based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence ... and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Specifically, science confines itself to what can be seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted, or to extensions thereof. This isn't some kind of scientific snootiness. It is based on the principle that two different people can examine a third thing, unlike subjective phenomena - such as faith and belief- which are internal and which therefore cannot be shared with or verified by another person. To propose something as "science" that cannot be observed and tested betrays a breathtaking ingorance of the word.

Quote:
thats a dangerous precedent, because once science feels it has disproved God(or the neccessity for a Creator),

Science can neither prove nor disprove god. What science does, which may seem worse, is ignore god.

Quote:
maybe science will(and has) began tell everybody what is ... 'real' and 'factual'

What is "real"? That's the nub. There are several assumptions underlying science about "reality". The first is that there is world that exists outside of ourselves, the second is that we are part of it, and the third is that our senses tell us something meaningful about that world. Which one of those assumptions do you care to dispute?

Quote:
saying 'God did it' doesnt undermine legitimate discovery.

But saying "god done it" is also incredibly unproductive and uninsightful to legitimate discovery. It doesn't differentiate and it's not testable. As a hypothesis, it sucks.

Quote:
it is irrelevant to know who the actual designer was of a watch or television, but what we ought to recognize is the many elements and parts, had to align perfectly, in all their complexity and design, to fullfill the devices purpose.

You claim to know the purpose of the universe? Besides, who says everything works harmoninously?

Quote:
the complexity of an invention indicates intelligence* so why not the entire universe, in its incredible equilibrium and synchronicities? we believe 'God did it', because we believe order precedes design.

I think you're mis-stating yourself, I think you mean "design precedes order".

Quote:
what you are saying instead is that it all 'just happened', as a product of time, and purely random mathmatical chance.

I really wish Haken had a

emoticon but since he doesn't I'll have to be satisfied with a

. What makes you think the universe is random? I recognize that there is order in the universe. I recognize that it is complex. I also recognize that the past few centuries have led to profound discoveries about the principles such as gravity that underly this order and complexity, and I expect that more discoveries will be made in the future. I don't have to propose an untestable deity to account for order. All I propose to do is to study it.

Quote:
{Do} you believe in an 'atheist' view of a 'universe of harmony'?

I don't accept a deity as a "scientific" explanation for observeable phenomena.

Quote:
i dont believe in chaos guiding evolution

Neither do I.

Quote:
i believe in order through design. i acknowledge that evolutionary changes occur, i do not accept that these processes manifested themselves, beginning with spontaneous generation, to eventually account for the genesis of all life on earth. some people maintain that DNA, and the basic building blocks of life essentially write and guide themselves to create the visible 'or

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

LEADB

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:31 AM

Thanks Sig; the old thread was getting pretty slow to load.

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

RUE

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:32 AM

What I don't get is this - why is it that people who can't grasp the idea of the universe coming from nothing have no problem with (a) god(s) coming from nothing ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

LEADB

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 12:21 PM

Perhaps they can grasp it; they just happen to have a preference for it?

RUE

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:06 PM

"Perhaps they can grasp it; they just happen to have a preference for it?"

Then why claim it as an eternal truth? If it defies simple logic and you know it's just your preference, why not just say you chose to believe it b/c you like it, and let it go at that?

"If god created the universe, who created god?" BTW there 's similar conundrum in Hinduism, and according to Wikipedia a joke about it. It goes: what does the earth rest on ? An elephant. So what does the elephant rest on ? A tortoise. And what does the tortoise rest on? Isn't it time to change the subject ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FREDGIBLET

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 5:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fredgiblet:EDIT: Non sequiturs, arguments from ignorance and incredulity, ignoring known evidence...pass.

Wow Fred you're a quick reader! I'm impressed! It took me 3 weeks to read it. Oh!!!! wait!!!!!....you little scamp....nobody reads that fast. Let me guess...you ran out to the web....google'd the book...ran back with the first bad review you found.....am I right?

I read several reviews, none of them convinced me that it would be worth my time to read it and several showed the flaws in logic that I pointed out. I don't know how much free time you have but I don't have enough time to read the books/watch the shows/play the games that I already have, much less read everything that's thrown out in arguments here.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 6:46 PM

Quote:
Perhaps they can grasp it; they just happen to have a preference for it?"

Then why claim it as an eternal truth? If it defies simple logic and you know it's just your preference, why not just say you chose to believe it b/c you like it, and let it go at that=Rue

Well said. I'm jealous. Here I've been huffing and puffing and circling around and around this point. But this would be my answer to FINN in the other thread on religion.

But wow, this has been a long discussion. So have fun, keep kicking the ball around.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

MALBADINLATIN

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 10:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
I read several reviews, none of them convinced me that it would be worth my time to read it and several showed the flaws in logic that I pointed out. I don't know how much free time you have but I don't have enough time to read the books/watch the shows/play the games that I already have, much less read everything that's thrown out in arguments here.

That's true, we're all busy. I have the same backlog of books, shows, games, and relatives in varying stages of helplessness. We're just different in that I don't make judgements about anything based on what a critic says. Especially if I have a bias that will likely cause me to gravitate to opinions that validate my own. There are positive reviews out there you know...but I imagine you have neither the time time, nor the inclination to read them. Geezer tried to start a book club once with Ann Coulter's Book, I wanted to read it but couldn't bring myself to do it, not even to argue against it, So I think I understand your point

If you're not on Malbadinlatin's side, you're with the terrorists.

LEADB

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 11:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Perhaps they can grasp it; they just happen to have a preference for it?"

Then why claim it as an eternal truth? If it defies simple logic and you know it's just your preference, why not just say you chose to believe it b/c you like it, and let it go at that?

"If god created the universe, who created god?" BTW there 's similar conundrum in Hinduism, and according to Wikipedia a joke about it. It goes: what does the earth rest on ? An elephant. So what does the elephant rest on ? A tortoise. And what does the tortoise rest on? Isn't it time to change the subject ?

Well, most strong theists have a strong emotional investment in God being eternal. So, even if they grasp that the concept that an eternal God is as problematic as an eternal (if you go with the big crunch/big bang/big crunch/big bang, etc theory) universe, it's very easy to get into denial when someone challenges it. And of course, the ones who don't grasp it... well, they are hard to 'work with'.

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 6:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
There are positive reviews out there you know...but I imagine you have neither the time time, nor the inclination to read them.

My selection process for which reviews I read consisted of putting the name of the book into Google and reading the reviews that came up. This resulted in about 6 independent sites plus around 8 or 9 Amazon reviews, many of them were positive overall but many quite clearly state that his arguments for scientific evidence for god fall flat.

Quote:
If you're not on Malbadinlatin's side, you're with the terrorists.

Indeed, I'm part of the Atheist Al Qaeda, DEATH TO ALL WHO RESIST THE PROPHET DAWKINS!!!!!!!!

FLETCH2

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 7:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Perhaps they can grasp it; they just happen to have a preference for it?"

Then why claim it as an eternal truth? If it defies simple logic and you know it's just your preference, why not just say you chose to believe it b/c you like it, and let it go at that?

Because they want to save you. Because if you don't believe then you are damned and they can't in good conscience sit back and just let that happen. If you don't see the "truth" in what they tell you they just have to try harder to clear the devils that have clouded your vision.

As for evolution, science etc. That's a simple bid for primacy. It's hard to preach "do as we say because the bible says so" if the bible can be shown to be inaccurate. If the reason to obey it (or more specifically the fundementalist interpretation of it) is that it is the literal, infallable word of God, then it has to be taken literally and you have to defend that infallability.

There you go, the complete scope of this argument in 2 paragraphs.

My work here is done.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 9:04 PM

Do you suppose science will ever completely replace religion and/or philosophy?

The reason why I'm wondering is that in the past religion was a bid for control over the uncontrollable- rain, game, sickness, birth and death. As population became more dense and life became more settled the questions tended to revolve around justice, goodness, punishment. It seems that science is slowly taking over these areas. Where do you suppose it will end?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

MALBADINLATIN

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 11:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Indeed, I'm part of the Atheist Al Qaeda, DEATH TO ALL WHO RESIST THE PROPHET DAWKINS!!!!!!!!

I hope you don't crash any jumbo jets into my house...but if you need to you can crash a car into my garage door. I can use insurance to get a new one the one I have don't work so good. And your movement will get publicity! I can act terrorized and declare marshal law in my backyard! You can even spray paint DAWKINS LIVES!!! on whats left of the garage door for effect

If you're not on Malbadinlatin's side, you're with the terrorists.

FLETCH2

Thursday, June 28, 2007 5:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Do you suppose science will ever completely replace religion and/or philosophy?

The reason why I'm wondering is that in the past religion was a bid for control over the uncontrollable- rain, game, sickness, birth and death. As population became more dense and life became more settled the questions tended to revolve around justice, goodness, punishment. It seems that science is slowly taking over these areas. Where do you suppose it will end?

No, not for real people anyway. Science talks about the how of things and religion deals with the why. I don't know that any species with a collective ego as big as ours will ever be happy with a "why" that is essentially dumb luck.

Besides part of Rue's famous "hard wiring" of humans is a tendency for religious belief.

FLETCH2

Thursday, June 28, 2007 5:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Do you suppose science will ever completely replace religion and/or philosophy?

The reason why I'm wondering is that in the past religion was a bid for control over the uncontrollable- rain, game, sickness, birth and death. As population became more dense and life became more settled the questions tended to revolve around justice, goodness, punishment. It seems that science is slowly taking over these areas. Where do you suppose it will end?

No, not for real people anyway. Science talks about the how of things and religion deals with the why. I don't know that any species with a collective ego as big as ours will ever be happy with a "why" that is essentially dumb luck.

Besides part of Rue's famous "hard wiring" of humans is a tendency for religious belief.

BROWNCOATSANDINISTA

Saturday, July 14, 2007 12:02 AM

Science can't replace Religion in my view, because of the fundamental differences in what they are. People can get similar dietary benefits from eating an apple as they can get from eating an orange, but both are different enough to justify their continued existense. I think Religion and Science are that way too. So in comparing them, one finds that fundamentally she/he is comparing apples to oranges.

Philosophy, in continuing my above metaphor, would have to be the potato. It focuses upon how we live, and how to live well, without focusing on the why of it all, and the where it all ends. It gives us similar benefits to the apple that is Religion and to the orange that is Science, but it does so in a fundamentally different way.

What I don't understand are people who demand literal interpretation of their religion. When certain "facts" of their religion fly in the face of the evidence of their senses and they choose the "facts", they seem to be willfuly choosing ignorance. As I said above, I don't understand it.

"I'm not going to say Serenity is the greatest SciFi movie ever; oh wait yes I am." - Orson Scott Card

CITIZEN

Saturday, July 14, 2007 12:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Do you suppose science will ever completely replace religion and/or philosophy?

The reason why I'm wondering is that in the past religion was a bid for control over the uncontrollable- rain, game, sickness, birth and death. As population became more dense and life became more settled the questions tended to revolve around justice, goodness, punishment. It seems that science is slowly taking over these areas. Where do you suppose it will end?

No. Religion is about the supernatural, Science is about the natural. Just because some of the Supernatural (like where rain comes from) has been moved to the realm of the natural doesn't mean that everything in the realm of the supernatural will be.

The problem with too many religious zealots is that they want all or nothing, and thus assume everyone wants all or nothing just the same. So any small move of domain from religion to science, is a massive attack that must be countered with an attempt to send us back to before the renaissance.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Do you suppose science will ever completely replace religion and/or philosophy?

I think religion will change to incorporate the knowledge gained from science. I've yet to hear a solid reason why religion should only ever be about the supernatural.

The thing that science is discovering is that, even if a reductive view of truth is 'real', it doesn't take into account the infinitely complex ways that the those reductive elements can manifest. Materialism doesn't deny the existence of beauty, love, spirit, etc... But it's not the way to understand those kinds of things. That's where religion will continue to be valuable.

I do think that'll we'll move beyond the mysticism and fantasy that's at the core of today's religions, but I think we'll always ways to deal with the high-level concepts of experience.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:18 AM

Newly discovered hominid fossils include jaws, partial skeleton

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia (Reuters) -- Ethiopian scientists said on Tuesday they have discovered hominid fossil fragments dating from between 3.5 million and 3.8 million years ago in what could fill a crucial gap in the understanding of human evolution.

Ethiopian archaeologist Yohannes Haile Selassie said the find included several complete jaws and one partial skeleton and were unearthed in the Afar desert at Woranso-Mille, near where the famous fossil skeleton known as Lucy was found in 1974.

"This is a major finding that could fill a gap in human evolution," he told a news conference in Addis Ababa. "The fossil hominids from the Woranso-Mille area sample a time period that is poorly known in human evolutionary study."

Researchers say the area, about 140 miles northeast of Addis, boasts the most continuous record of human evolution. Last year, an international team of scientists unveiled the discovery of 4.1 million-year-old fossils in the region. Lucy, the most famous find, lived between 3.3 million and 3.6 million years ago. But Yohannes said Afar had yielded early hominid fossil remains spanning the last 6 million years.

www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/07/11/ethiopia.fossil.reut/index.html

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CITIZEN

Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I think religion will change to incorporate the knowledge gained from science. I've yet to hear a solid reason why religion should only ever be about the supernatural.

I haven't heard a convincing reason why it shouldn't, we already have Science, why do we need Pseudo-Science+God? Why not keep both to the eminant domains they are best at expressing?

Quote:
The thing that science is discovering is that, even if a reductive view of truth is 'real', it doesn't take into account the infinitely complex ways that the those reductive elements can manifest. Reductive materialism doesn't deny the existence of beauty, love, spirit, etc... But it's not the way to understand those kinds of things. That's where religion will continue to be valuable.

The Reductionists in science get the most media time because of the successes of Quantum Mechanics, which is itself a reductionist philosphy, but at least half of science is Holistic in it's approach.

CITIZEN

Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia (Reuters) -- Ethiopian scientists said on Tuesday they have discovered hominid fossil fragments dating from between 3.5 million and 3.8 million years ago in what could fill a crucial gap in the understanding of human evolution.

Yeah, but, erm, what about the gap between them and the next step, huh, see, evolution comes crashing down...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FREDGIBLET

Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia (Reuters) -- Ethiopian scientists said on Tuesday they have discovered hominid fossil fragments dating from between 3.5 million and 3.8 million years ago in what could fill a crucial gap in the understanding of human evolution.

Of course you know what the creationist response is right? "well now you've got two gaps to account for"

SERGEANTX

Saturday, July 14, 2007 2:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I think religion will change to incorporate the knowledge gained from science. I've yet to hear a solid reason why religion should only ever be about the supernatural.
I haven't heard a convincing reason why it shouldn't, we already have Science, why do we need Pseudo-Science+God? Why not keep both to the eminant domains they are best at expressing?

I'm not sure what you mean by "Pseudo-Science-God", but I do think there's room for, in fact a great need for, a materialist religion. The micro/reductive world of science and the macro/high-concept world of religion are intimately connected - they're the same thing, the same reality. Failing to recognize that cause us lots of trouble and misses so many opportunities for clarity and understanding. Both perspectives have profound impact on the same world, often in contradictory ways. That contradiction causes confusion and sets up artificial conflict between the two perspectives. I think we'd be better off integrating them, each leveraging the other's strengths, rather than continue with each working at cross purposes.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, July 14, 2007 3:25 PM

I kind of think that this is a motivation for the emergence of some modern neo-pagan and spiritualistic beliefs. I’m not very familiar with a lot of them, but those that I have been introduced to, like Wicca for instance, seem to a mixture of a perception of European superstition or folklore and modern sociopolitics.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CITIZEN

Saturday, July 14, 2007 3:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I'm not sure what you mean by "Pseudo-Science-God", but I do think there's room for, in fact a great need for, a materialist religion. The micro/reductive world of science and the macro/high-concept world of religion are intimately connected - they're the same thing, the same reality. Failing to recognize that cause us lots of trouble and misses so many opportunities for clarity and understanding.

But there is already holistic and reductionist methodology within Science, it doesn't need to be introduced from outside. Reductionism has hit the media more often because of the successes of Quantum Mechanics, but Relativity itself is a holistic approach.

Science and Religion are too very different things, Science is a tool for understanding natural phenomena, Religion a belief system for explaining and/or answer questions that Science simply can't. They're on the same bookshelf, but they're two very different books, and ultimately are better at explaining two very different subjects, subjects which don't overlap.

I see no basis to assert that Religion and Science are 'the same thing', they have different goals, questions, and ways of answering them, while also operating in significantly different domains. To try and combine them wouldn't give something stronger, but something that fulfils the goals of neither. It would be like trying to hammer a square and a round peg in to an oblong hole at once.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, July 14, 2007 3:58 PM

Quote:
you know what probably upsets me most about this subject? most proponents of(strictly) evolution approach this subject with their own bigotry and bias, because theyve been taught that christianity has always been a scam, that ID is baseless, and that to say otherwise is factually and scientifically 'ignorant'.

I don't even know whose quote this belongs to, but I find it a commonly held view on those who question evolution, or science. First of all , I'd like to state that the quote has a major flaw in it, almost immediatly from the start. My views on evolution come NOT from thinking Christianity ( or any religious viwe point ) are scams, but from the evidence its self. I find paleontology to be fascinating. More specific, the study of dinosuars. It's from the sheer interest in such topics and those related that I view evolution. It STARTS with an interest and desire to learn, and does NOT demand the facts fall into a preconcieved paradigm of religous teaching. I freely admit that I know nothing about an issue , but only what the facts can reveal. If my course of learning takes me to a point where I can concluded that a certain fable or story has no merrit at all with what it is I'm studying, THERE is where I determine it. Not before.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SERGEANTX

Saturday, July 14, 2007 4:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
But there is already holistic and reductionist methodology within Science, it doesn't need to be introduced from outside.

I agree, it has been moving in that direction. What I'm talking about is sort of an extension of that. But the focus is still different. Science looks for explanations of how things work. Religion tries to understand what they mean.

Quote:
I see no basis to assert that Religion and Science are 'the same thing'

Ahh... but I didn't say that. Or I didn't mean to. What I meant was that each tries to understand the world in different ways, but it's the same world.

Quote:
To try and combine them wouldn't give something stronger, but something that fulfils the goals of neither. It would be like trying to hammer a square and a round peg in to an oblong hole at once.

Yeah, I'm not really talking about combining them - certainly not in some kind of Frankenstein monster that takes the mysticism and fantasy of current religion and tacks it onto science. What I'm saying is that the two different approaches to understanding our world don't need to be in conflict. Accepting a materialistic understanding of the universe shouldn't preclude someone from enjoying the spiritual guidance that religion provides.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FREDGIBLET

Saturday, July 14, 2007 4:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Yeah, I'm not really talking about combining them - certainly not in some kind of Frankenstein monster that takes the mysticism and fantasy of current religion and tacks it onto science.

*cough*Scientology*cough*

SERGEANTX

Saturday, July 14, 2007 5:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
*cough*Scientology*cough*

Hehe.... I was actually somewhat attracted to the idea of Scientology on first glance. But then I read "Dianetics". Batshit insane, no way around it. I don't really think that disqualifies the concept in general however.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FREDGIBLET

Saturday, July 14, 2007 5:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
you know what probably upsets me most about this subject? most proponents of(strictly) evolution approach this subject with their own bigotry and bias, because theyve been taught that christianity has always been a scam, that ID is baseless, and that to say otherwise is factually and scientifically 'ignorant'.

I don't even know whose quote this belongs to

That would be antimason I think.

Quote:
but I find it a commonly held view on those who question evolution, or science. First of all , I'd like to state that the quote has a major flaw in it, almost immediatly from the start.

Only one?

Quote:
My views on evolution come NOT from thinking Christianity ( or any religious viwe point ) are scams, but from the evidence its self.

Which is something that is incomprehensible to some people it seems. The simple fact is that ID lacks a basis, there is no scientific need for it or evidence for it. I don't accept it as relevant because it isn't, yet people like anti insist that my lack of acceptance must be because of dogmatic belief in evolution. If there was evidence given for ID or even a demonstration of a need for it then I'd be fine with accepting it but in the meantime it's irrelevant, unscientific and lacking in evidence.

Quote:
It STARTS with an interest and desire to learn, and does NOT demand the facts fall into a preconcieved paradigm of religous teaching. I freely admit that I know nothing about an issue , but only what the facts can reveal. If my course of learning takes me to a point where I can concluded that a certain fable or story has no merrit at all with what it is I'm studying, THERE is where I determine it. Not before.

Which is, I think, the major split. anti sees everything in light of the Bible (to be fair he admits it readily) so anything that disagrees with his view of the Bible must be wrong and anything that agrees with his view of the Bible must be right. To a scientist the evidence is the ultimate arbiter, whatever the evidence says is true. To the religiously minded person the evidence is the ultimate arbiter until the evidence disagrees with the preconceived notion of the way the world works at which point the evidence must be wrong.

FREDGIBLET

Saturday, July 14, 2007 5:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Hehe.... I was actually somewhat attracted to the idea of Scientology on first glance. But then I read "Dianetics". Batshit insane, no way around it. I don't really think that disqualifies the concept in general however

Muh? Isn't Scientology utterly intertwined with Dianetics?

SERGEANTX

Saturday, July 14, 2007 5:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Muh? Isn't Scientology utterly intertwined with Dianetics?

Yup, same thing. Dianetics was the book where he laid out the 'science' (*cough*) behind Scientology.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FREDGIBLET

Saturday, July 14, 2007 5:44 PM

Oh oh, when you were saying the concept in general you were saying the idea of fusing science and religion. I thought you were saying that it didn't disqualify the concept of Scientology. My bad.

LEADB

Saturday, July 14, 2007 10:07 PM

Just to provide the source for this quote, and where and when it came from...

Quote:
Originally posted in: Evolution, Science, Faith - Lightning rod date: Monday, June 25, 2007 - 18:28 by: ANTIMASON
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Science looks for consistent, repeatable phenomena. When an underlying principle is found and characterized, it is given a name like "gravity" to distinguish it from other phenomena like "atoms". That doesn't mean that we know what gravity "is" in some ultimate sense, but we do know how it causes matter to behave. Explaining the falling apple and beauty of snowflakes or the marvel of the cosmos with "god done it" doesn't further our understanding one whit.

you know what probably upsets me most about this subject? most proponents of(strictly) evolution approach this subject with their own bigotry and bias, because theyve been taught that christianity has always been a scam, that ID is baseless, and that to say otherwise is factually and scientifically 'ignorant'. thats a dangerous precedent, because once science feels it has disproved God(or the neccessity for a Creator), maybe science will(and has) began tell everybody what is OK to believe and whats not, based on what is percieved to be 'real' and 'factual'.

DEL

Saturday, July 14, 2007 10:32 PM

I know it's rude but didn't get through the whole thread. I'll put my 2 penneth's worth in anyway if I may.

A wise man (OK a good looking physics teacher) once said to me, the beginning of the universe if science up to the Big Bang, before that, ie. how the matter that exploded got there is the contentious issue. Some say God happened. He said, and I believe this, in infinite time and space there is a finite chance that matter will pop into existence out of nothing.

ANTIMASON

Saturday, July 14, 2007 11:19 PM

Quote:
Fredgiblet
Which is something that is incomprehensible to some people it seems. The simple fact is that ID lacks a basis, there is no scientific need for it or evidence for it. I don't accept it as relevant because it isn't, yet people like anti insist that my lack of acceptance must be because of dogmatic belief in evolution. If there was evidence given for ID or even a demonstration of a need for it then I'd be fine with accepting it but in the meantime it's irrelevant, unscientific and lacking in evidence.

friend, your opinion is just as biased as mine.. why cant you see that? you talk about 'evidence'.. when i look around, all i see is evidence of order, and intelligence and intricacy and design; but more importantly, i see purpose. you have the right to believe its by chance, mathematical, but meaningless- thats the natural view. if not, lets concede that a higher brain or intelligence of some degree had to give birth to all this. you can be condescending towards me all you want, but you dont know how or where the universe began

Quote:
Which is, I think, the major split. anti sees everything in light of the Bible (to be fair he admits it readily) so anything that disagrees with his view of the Bible must be wrong and anything that agrees with his view of the Bible must be right. To a scientist the evidence is the ultimate arbiter, whatever the evidence says is true. To the religiously minded person the evidence is the ultimate arbiter until the evidence disagrees with the preconceived notion of the way the world works at which point the evidence must be wrong.

this may suprise you, but i was agnostic, maybe borderline athiest, before i became a 'christian'. when i look back, i should have been christian because my parents were, but i realize now that i was taught otherwise in school. now, i am skeptical of evolution because it doesnt explain nearly what many claim it does(sort of like global warming), even to much more scientifically inclined people than myself. just look back through our 6-10 thousand years of recorded history, just think of the depth and genesis of human culture, and past beliefs.. and consider other possibilities. if there is any truth to the 'myths' of antiquity, it should make all of us think twice about this lack of 'evidence' for intelligent order and design, which seems more like an opinion (as far as im concerned)

LEADB

Sunday, July 15, 2007 3:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Del:
I know it's rude but didn't get through the whole thread. I'll put my 2 penneth's worth in anyway if I may.

A wise man (OK a good looking physics teacher) once said to me, the beginning of the universe if science up to the Big Bang, before that, ie. how the matter that exploded got there is the contentious issue. Some say God happened. He said, and I believe this, in infinite time and space there is a finite chance that matter will pop into existence out of nothing.

Actually, no. We have some significant disagreement amongst our posters regarding certain issues; for instance, we have one fellow who contends all the species on earth were placed here at one point in time; that species did not evolve, one from another; lower to more complex.
For the adherents of the 'big bang' here, there's been pretty universal agreement it is not possible to conclusively state the nature of the 'initiation' of the events leading up to the big bang. I'm not clear if everyone here concurs that the big bang took place, though... interesting question... anyone care to advocate a position that does not include a 'big bang'? (Me, I'm a big bang-ian ;=) )

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

FREDGIBLET

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 9:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
Fredgiblet
Which is something that is incomprehensible to some people it seems. The simple fact is that ID lacks a basis, there is no scientific need for it or evidence for it. I don't accept it as relevant because it isn't, yet people like anti insist that my lack of acceptance must be because of dogmatic belief in evolution. If there was evidence given for ID or even a demonstration of a need for it then I'd be fine with accepting it but in the meantime it's irrelevant, unscientific and lacking in evidence.

friend, your opinion is just as biased as mine.. why cant you see that?

Sure, but you've got the seqence of events wrong, if I was biased against ID and thus decided that it was baseless, unscientific, useless and disingenuous and that it was trumpeted by liars and frauds with an agenda then my bias would weaken if not discredit my opinion. Instead I investigated ID with little bias (show me a grown person with no bias whatsoever and I'll show you an amnesiac), I found ID to be baseless, unscientific, useless and disingenuous and that it was trumpeted by liars and frauds with an agenda and then acquired a substantial bias.

While I was considering exactly how to respond to your accusation I realized that that my opinion and the genesis of my opinion regarding ID has strong simliarities to another group which I realized that ID has some strong similarities to, Scientology.

In both instances I began my investigations with almost no knowledge, regarding Scientology I knew that Tom Cruise was a Scientologist and that there was some claims of science and religion being mixed or something, regarding evolution and ID I had vague notions of monkeys and something about Kansas schools. Both Scientology and ID claim to have a scientific basis but neither can actually back it up, Scientologies basis Dianetics is riddled with errors, unproven assertions and a complete lack of evidence resulting in it's being ignored by people who actually investigate it's legitimacy, ID's scientific backings (Irreducible Copmmlexity and Specified Complexity) have similarly been dismantled completely by experts in the field due to the absurdly poor scholarship, frequent logical fallacies and lack of evidence to back up the claims made (Specified Complexity was actually dismantled by experts in many fields as it included appeals to many diverse subjects). Both Scientology and ID are unable to produce evidence of their validity yet insist that they are equally as valid as the prevailing science in their fields. Both were created by people with agendas not to expand the body of human knowledge but instead for the sole purpose of advancing said agenda, Hubbard created Scientology to give him money and power and sate his megalomania, the creators of ID invented it to advance an agenda of religious indoctrination in schools and to convince people that the issue of evolution is one of atheism vs. theism and not one of science vs. pseudo-science. Both ID and Scientology use tactics that are disingenuous at best, Scientology ropes people in by giving them a "personality test" where no matter what answers are given the result is always that the person needs to be audited, ID has the "Teach the Controversy" campaign where they pretend that there is controversy among scientists about evolution and claim that evolution is a "theory in crisis" when in reality there is no controversy among biologists about evolution and it is one of the most solid well supported theories in science. All of these things I learned about ID before I was biased, in light of these things a bias formed. So yes, I'm biased against ID, but that bias is the same as my bias against Scientology or Lamarckism or the Planet X theory, namely a bias born of knowledge where I investigated with no real bias and found said ideas to be significantly or even absurdly flawed and thus formed a bias against them.

Quote:
you talk about 'evidence'.. when i look around, all i see is evidence of order, and

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

RUE

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:09 PM

"Religion a belief system for explaining and/or answer questions that Science simply can't."

In another thread SignyM came up with several uses for religion. The three I remember are: 1) 'explaining' the unexplainable 2) 'controlling' the uncontrollable 3) enforcing social hierarchy. Under 1 you can find anything from 'how does an eclipse happen ?' to 'why are we here ?' and under 2 'praying for rain' to 'holy smoke'.

Science has severely diminished the role of religion in both 1 and 2, pushing religious explanations and interventions out of the natural realm. To that extent the religious people have reason to be afraid science will replace religion. For example, I just read an article about the necessary conditions for abiogenesis of life. Now, if it can be reasonably shown that life came from non-life, and since it has been shown that life evolves according to the whims of time and circumstance, the religious (specifically biblical) arguments for how things are fall flat. It's not that humans are god's 'special' creation given dominion, or that humans and god have a special historical relationship, or that humans have a 'god given' purpose. Humans are just another animal formed by the same kind of chance that formed everything else.

I actually like that idea. But it seems to frighten many people who are looking for I don't know what ( - perhaps an inflated sense of importance ?)

Once there in our thinking, it will be up to people to decide - Why am I here ? Why are we here ? How do we want to live with each other ? How shall we treat our planet ? God drops out of the picture.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

LEADB

Wednesday, July 18, 2007 12:25 AM

Gonna have to book mark that one, Fred.

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:43 AM

I assume that means you found it amusing and\or informative in which thank you.

ANTIMASON

Thursday, July 19, 2007 5:25 PM

Quote:
Fredgiblet- If you would like to show me objective evidence for design then I'm listening.

sure... take your pick of any organism or ecosystem, and observe its purpose and complexity. either things happened by accident, or they were designed that way. you can explain to me in detail how the systems work.. but you then claim it occurred that way itself, by chance(and a little bit of willpower). i disagree, i believe these interdependent systems and patterns were 'designed' that way

RUE

Thursday, July 19, 2007 6:26 PM

AntiM

That's no explanation. To explain it, YOU have pick the system, organism etc and tell US how it never had an evolutionary history, how it never entered or left an ecological system changing the web of relationships, how nothing ever went extinct b/c it was so perfect in its original creation ...

BTW willpower has nothing to do with it. Since you put that word in where it has no place at all, I suspect your understanding of the science is fatally deficient.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, July 19, 2007 6:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
Fredgiblet- If you would like to show me objective evidence for design then I'm listening.

sure... take your pick of any organism or ecosystem, and observe its purpose and complexity. either things happened by accident, or they were designed that way. you can explain to me in detail how the systems work.. but you then claim it occurred that way itself, by chance(and a little bit of willpower). i disagree, i believe these interdependent systems and patterns were 'designed' that way

I'm looking for objective not subjective. Saying "I think it's designed" is 100% subjective.

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 19, 2007 7:08 PM

Skulls confirm we're all out of Africa

LONDON (Reuters) - An analysis of thousands of skulls shows modern humans originated from a single point in Africa and finally lays to rest the idea of multiple origins, British scientists said on Wednesday. ... The genetic evidence has always strongly supported the single origin theory, and now results from a study of more than 6,000 skulls held around the world in academic collections supports this case.
www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL1885586220070719

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CAUSAL

Thursday, July 19, 2007 7:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What I don't get is this - why is it that people who can't grasp the idea of the universe coming from nothing have no problem with (a) god(s) coming from nothing ?

This is a category mistake. The key element in here is the idea of "coming" which seems to mean "beginning to exist." I'll grant you that nothing can begin to exist from nothing. But that argument won't work if there is some thing that had no beginning to its existence. And given that the typical theist view of deity is that deity has no beginning to its existence, it's not legitimate to extend the line of reasoning from the universe not coming from nothing to God not coming from nothing. The typical theist view is that deity didn't have a beginning to its existence. Therefore asking the question "where did he come from" amounts to a question that seems to have content, but really doesn't.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CAUSAL

Thursday, July 19, 2007 7:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"If god created the universe, who created god?"

Same deal here as above. The typical theist view is that God is uncreated. Theists want to argue that God is self-existent. So if that's the case (if, note) then "who created God" is a meaningless question. It's a category mistake ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_error).

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CAUSAL

Thursday, July 19, 2007 7:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
No. Religion is about the supernatural, Science is about the natural. Just because some of the Supernatural (like where rain comes from) has been moved to the realm of the natural doesn't mean that everything in the realm of the supernatural will be.

I wish there was a jaw-drop emoticon, Citizen. I think this about the most fair assessment I've ever heard. Absolutely: science deals with the natural, religion with the supernatural. Some things have been moved from the realm of the supernatural into the realm of the natural (e.g. where rain comes from, as you note). But I think you're absolutely right in saying that everything in the realm of the supernatural will be ultimately explained in naturalistic terms. I have only one addendum: the mere fact that so much of the world can be explained in naturalistic terms doesn't mean that there is no supernatural at all (and although I don't see you arguing that way, others do).

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

RUE

Thursday, July 19, 2007 7:37 PM

"if there is some thing that had no beginning to its existence" etc

Well, then I can posit that the universe had no beginning and was never created - it always was. And voila ! The need for god to explain anything goes away. Does that help?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CAUSAL

Thursday, July 19, 2007 7:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I see no basis to assert that Religion and Science are 'the same thing', they have different goals, questions, and ways of answering them, while also operating in significantly different domains. To try and combine them wouldn't give something stronger, but something that fulfils the goals of neither. It would be like trying to hammer a square and a round peg in to an oblong hole at once.

Again, where's that darn jaw-drop emoticon when you need it?

I would say that the trouble is that the more zealous members of each camp want to insist that theirs is the only way of understanding life. You'll have extreme members of both camps who want to do away entirely with the other so that theirs can be dominant. But why should that be? As Galileo said, "The bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." I think his point is that the two treat on entirely different subjects. Science seems to treat on the "how" of things, and religion the "why" of things. Or put another way, science describes the way things are and the way they work, and religion tries to answer the question of what their purposes are and what they mean. I don't see any natural opposition there, unless zealotry takes over (as it often has in the religious camp, and seems to be starting to do in the scientific campt). Of course, such a move amounts to nothing more than philosophical imperialism.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

RUE

Thursday, July 19, 2007 7:42 PM

"Just because some of the Supernatural (like where rain comes from) has been moved to the realm of the natural doesn't mean that everything in the realm of the supernatural will be."

Well, when you eliminate everything material as being the provence of science, you are left with that which can't be see, heard, felt, tasted smelled, measured - in other words, with something that has no material existance at all. In which case you are talking about the completely imaginary. Just like my big white furry friend here, Harvery.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, July 19, 2007 7:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Skulls confirm we're all out of Africa

LONDON (Reuters) - An analysis of thousands of skulls shows modern humans originated from a single point in Africa and finally lays to rest the idea of multiple origins, British scientists said on Wednesday. ... The genetic evidence has always strongly supported the single origin theory, and now results from a study of more than 6,000 skulls held around the world in academic collections supports this case.
www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL1885586220070719

Bah! The Designer made it to appear that way, can't you tell?

CAUSAL

Thursday, July 19, 2007 7:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"if there is some thing that had no beginning to its existence" etc

Well, then I can posit that the universe had no beginning and was never created - it always was. And voila ! The need for god to explain anything goes away. Does that help?

You know, I can never tell if you're being snarky or not. But I'll just assume that you're not, for the sake of pleasant conversation.

If it is the case that the universe had no beginning to its existence (note the "if"), then asking who created would be a category mistake, every bit as much as asking who created God. So, yes, I suppose that if one wanted to, they could propose a beginningless universe. On the other hand, it does seem to be the case that the universe began to exist--14.5 billion years ago in the Big Bang, in which not just matter, but space and time itself had a beginning. If that's the case, then "how did it get there" remains a legitimate question.

And to the better-educated in the room, I would like to know the following. I took a basic astronomy class a few semesters ago in which the professor said that the Big Bang/Big Crunch theory has been pretty well abandoned by most astronomers. He said the continual expansion of the universe is the dominant theory now. Can anybody speak to that?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

FLETCH2

Thursday, July 19, 2007 7:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:

Bah! The Designer made it to appear that way, can't you tell?

Limited beta release of the new model followed by different colours for different markets. Of course we all have a problem when the new model year comes around.....

RUE

Thursday, July 19, 2007 7:50 PM

Not being snarky.

"On the other hand, it does seem to be the case that the universe began to exist--14.5 billion years ago in the Big Bang."

Personally I'm not convinced of the "big bang" because it has too many internal contradictions.

But let's say it's true. How do you know that going from a timeless core to an expanding universe to a timeless core again isn't a cycle ? In which case, you can still hold there was no beginning or end.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CAUSAL

Thursday, July 19, 2007 7:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Well, when you eliminate everything material as being the provence of science, you are left with that which can't be see, heard, felt, tasted smelled, measured - in other words, with something that has no material existance at all. In which case you are talking about the completely imaginary. Just like my big white furry friend here, Harvery.

You seem to be assuming that anything without material existence does not existence. That would be (I assume) an extension of a commitment on your part to material reductionism--that is, the view that only physical things exist. But the material reductionist view can't be finally and conclusively proven, especially not via a "scientific" epistemology that by definition only deals with the materially observable. If it's the case that it can't be finally and conclusively proven that only material things exist, you can't claim to know it beyond the shadow of a doubt; you can only claim to believe that it's the case. If you claim to believe that something is that case, even though it can't be finally and conclusively proven, then you are believing something for which there is not conclusive evidence. At which point I must ask, how can you claim that your belief, which cannot be finally and conclusively proven by your own epistemology, is more rational than the theist's, which is also not finally and conclusively proven?

And further: are numbers real?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

RUE

Thursday, July 19, 2007 7:52 PM

"He said the continual expansion of the universe is the dominant theory now. Can anybody speak to that?"

It's b/c they've posited many theories that prop each other up in a nest of supposition.

Starting with 'the expanding universe' explanation for the red shift. Adding, among others, the 'faster than light' expansion of the early universe, and continuing with 'dark matter'. That's the only way they can make it all work out.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 19, 2007 7:53 PM

I keep asking questions until I can't answer them anymore, so forgive me if I flog my question about science replacing religion.

It seems to me that science has religion pretty much beat when it comes to explaining previously unknowable questions and controlling previously uncontrollable forces, and the one area we have yet to understand is ourselves: How do we recognize and control our societies and memes? Where does our drive for "justice" come from? Where is religious inspiration centred? (The temporal lobe)

It seems to me that insightful scientists will one day be able to explain what religion "does" for us, and be able to create a similarly-functioning system with no reference whatsoever to supernatural beings* (*IMHO is just anthropomorphization -The attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to nonhuman organisms or inanimate objects.) of "the Unknown")

Until then, we're just amateurs who occassionally find the levers of human behavior- fear, greed, awe, cooperation - and accidentally create religions and politics and economies and technologies that answer the questions of the day, whether it is about game, rain, disease, or justice.

But when we discover why people behave the way they do- individually and socially- we will TRULY have the ability to direct our ethics, memes, economies, technologies and societies towards whatever we want. Scary thought, isn't it? To control our collective destiny, and not be able to blame gods or devils or fate or nature for our f*ckups?

One more concept. Rue had said at one point that we are self-domesticated. If we are able to create a society where people's needs and wants are TRULY met- not just our need for food but also for meaning, justice, beauty, adventure, and sacrifice... what will the product of that self-dometication look like?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CAUSAL

Thursday, July 19, 2007 7:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Personally I'm not convinced of the "big bang" because it has too many internal contradictions.

Replace "big bang" with "evolution" and you are saying almost exactly the same sort of thing that the creationists are saying. How are you being more rational in denying the scientific concensus than they are?

Quote:
But let's say it's true. How do you know that going from a timeless core to an expanding universe to a timeless core again isn't a cycle ? In which case, you can still hold there was no beginning or end.

I don't know that it's not a cycle. But from what I remember from my astronomy course, that isn't the prevailing view (though I am, of course, ready to be further informed on the subject). If there were such a cycle, then asking about the beginning of it would be a category mistake, just like asking about God's beginning.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CAUSAL

Thursday, July 19, 2007 7:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I keep asking questions until I can't answer them anymore, so forgive me if I flog my question about science replacing religion.

It seems to me that science has religion pretty much beat when it comes to explaining previously unknowable questions and controlling previously uncontrollable forces, and the one area we have yet to understand is ourselves: How do we recognize and control our societies and memes? Where does our drive for "justice" come from? Where is religious inspiration centred? (The temporal lobe)

It seems to me that insightful scientists will one day be able to explain what religion "does" for us, and be able to create a similarly-functioning system with no reference whatsoever to supernatural beings* (*IMHO is just anthropomorphization -The attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to nonhuman organisms or inanimate objects.) of "the Unknown")

Until then, we're just amateurs who occassionally find the levers of human behavior- fear, greed, awe, cooperation - and accidentally create religions and politics and economies and technologies that answer the questions of the day, whether it is about game, rain, disease, or justice.

But when we discover why people behave the way they do- individually and socially- we will TRULY have the ability to direct our ethics, memes, economies, technologies and societies towards whatever we want. Scary thought, isn't it? To control our collective destiny, and not be able to blame gods or devils or fate or nature for our f*ckups?

One more concept. Rue had said at one point that we are self-domesticated. If we are able to create a society where people's needs and wants are TRULY met- not just our need for food but also for meaning, justice, beauty, adventure, and sacrifice... what will the product of that self-dometication look like?

Just one question: is it within the realm of possibility that there is some thing that science will never have an answer for?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

RUE

Thursday, July 19, 2007 8:01 PM

Causal

"Replace "big bang" with "evolution" and you are saying almost exactly the same sort of thing that the creationists are saying. How are you being more rational in denying the scientific concensus than they are?"

YOU are seriously mistating the science of evolution. I honestly don't know where to begin. There are MANY observable facts that support the theory of evolution - DNA homologies, isotope dating, geology (uplift, deposition, fossil formation), biochemistry, embryology (the most recent being the SINGLE genetic change that stops the 'limb' gene from activating in whales), etc.

There is, as yet, no directly observable suport for many theories supporting the big bang. And each new theory seems to need another new theory to support it.

Now either you are being snarky, deliberately obtuse, or seriously ignorant.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CAUSAL

Thursday, July 19, 2007 8:13 PM

With all due respect, that's just not so. I'm not astronomer, but consider something as simple as this: red-shifted galaxies means that the universe is in the process of expansion. That alone argues against a static view of the universe. And the inference, of course is that if the universe is expanding through time, then moving backward through time would mean a process of contraction. Obviously, the universe can't contract infinitely, which is what has led cosmologists to posit a beginning for the universe at the "big bang."

Check out UCLA's astronomy department site for tons of information on the Big Bang:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

Quote:
Causal

YOU are seriously mistating the science of evolution. I honestly don't know where to begin. There are MANY observable facts that support the theory of evolution - DNA homologies, isotope dating, geology (uplift, deposition, fossil formation), biochemistry (the most recent bing the SINGLE genetic change that stops the 'limb' gene from activating in whales), etc.

There is, as yet, no directly observable suport for many theories supporting the big bang.

Now either you are being snarky, deliberately obtsue, or seriously ignorant.

I must be in trouble! Rue used my screenname!

Actually, I wasn't making any comments of any kind about evolution. I'm not personally calling the theory into question. I openly acknowledge the increasing diversity and complexity observable in the biological record, and I don't dispute the evidence supporting the gradual change of species over time. So please, if we're going to start with the snark, don't accuse me of doing things I'm not doing!

The question I put to you was this. Many religious believers (though I am not one of them), deny the scientific validity of evolution, thus defying the majority of scientific thinkers. You deride those people as utterly ignorant of all scientific knowledge. Yet you yourself deny the scientific validity of Big Bang cosmology, thus defying the majority of scientific thinkers. How can you deride the one as ignorant an unsicentific (as it clearly seems to be) and defend your own position on cosmology as rational? Red shifted galaxies are just one piece of observable evidence supporting the Big Bang cosmology. So how are you not yourself open to the sorts of charges you level at disbelievers in evolution?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 19, 2007 8:19 PM

Quote:
Just one question: is it within the realm of possibility that there is some thing that science will never have an answer for?

There are MANY things that science will never be able to answer. Not because they're out of the realm of science but because our minds are finite and our comprehension is limited.

But there is one question that is very much out of the realm of science: "What do we want to do"?.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Thursday, July 19, 2007 8:20 PM

"red-shifted galaxies means that the universe is in the process of expansion"

Not true. You got it bass ackwards. The red shift is the observable phenomenon. The expansion is the theory. I can think of other reasons for a red shift that have nothing to do with expansion.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CAUSAL

Thursday, July 19, 2007 8:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Just one question: is it within the realm of possibility that there is some thing that science will never have an answer for?
There are MANY things that science will never be able to answer. Not because they're out of the realm of science but because our minds are finite and our comprehension is limited.

Yes, but my question wasn't about humans. My question was this: is it possible that there is some question that, no matter the skill of the scientist, cannot be answered "scientifically"?

For instance, I think that science cannot possibly answer the question, "Is there a God?" The reason I think that that is so is because God is by definition immaterial, and the sciences by definition deal only with the materially observable. It is, then, impossible for science to make claims about the question of God's existence. In short, I believe that science is a limited epistemology. What are your views on that?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, July 19, 2007 8:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
And to the better-educated in the room, I would like to know the following. I took a basic astronomy class a few semesters ago in which the professor said that the Big Bang/Big Crunch theory has been pretty well abandoned by most astronomers. He said the continual expansion of the universe is the dominant theory now. Can anybody speak to that?

He is mistaken, the Big Bang theory is following the same path as Evolution in that there were serious problems that have been fixed by new information or modifications to the theory and there are still a few concerns that need to be ironed out but the core of the theory is solid and pretty broadly accepted.

Try this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
Or for more info this:
http://www.google.com/custom?q=big+bang&sa=Search&sitesearch=www.talko
rigins.org

CAUSAL

Thursday, July 19, 2007 8:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"red-shifted galaxies means that the universe is in the process of expansion"

Not true. You got it bass ackwards. The red shift is the observable phenomenon. The expansion is the theory. I can think of other reasons for a red shift that have nothing to do with expansion.

Being that you seem vastly more interested in beating me than in actually discussing this, you can have your ball.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CAUSAL

Thursday, July 19, 2007 8:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
He is mistaken, the Big Bang theory is following the same path as Evolution in that there were serious problems that have been fixed by new information or modifications to the theory and there are still a few concerns that need to be ironed out but the core of the theory is solid and pretty broadly accepted.

No, no--I think I may have miscommunicated. He wasn't disputing the Big Bang. We were presented with a number of theories: Big Bang followed by expansion, then contraction, then another Big Bang (the so-called Big Bang/Big Crunch theory); also, the idea that the expansion of the universe will level out and the universe will ultimately cease to expand ("Equilibrium"), the theory that the universe will continue to expand at a linear rate ("Constant Expansion"), and the idea that the universe's expansion will continue and accelerated ("Exponential Expansion"). The professor didn't argue against the event of the Big Bang itself--that he accepts (and I with him). But with respect to what will happen in the universe's future, he rejected the idea that it will stop expanding, contract and Bang again--he even went so far as to say that most astronomers reject that model (and as I recall, our textbook agreed with him). He said that of the remaining theories, the Exponential Expansion (I think) was the prevailing theory of the universe's future.

So what I was trying to find out was, what are astronomer's thinking about the univers's future? Was he correct that the Big Crunch theory has been rejected?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

RUE

Thursday, July 19, 2007 8:32 PM

"Many religious believers deny the scientific validity of evolution. You deride those people as utterly ignorant of all scientific knowledge. Yet you yourself deny the scientific validity of Big Bang cosmology, thus defying the majority of scientific thinkers. How can you deride the one as ignorant an unsicentific (as it clearly seems to be) and defend your own position on cosmology as rational?"

Because I don't believe a make-believe book in place of facts. I dispute the big bang on factual grounds and I put them up to test. Now either I'm ignorant of the facts in which case education with the facts will fix me up or I'm more right than the astronomers, in which case time will tell. Either way, there's an evolution (ahem - that word again) of thought and a change of ideas which you don't find in religious belief.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

MAL4PREZ

Thursday, July 19, 2007 8:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I took a basic astronomy class a few semesters ago in which the professor said that the Big Bang/Big Crunch theory has been pretty well abandoned by most astronomers. He said the continual expansion of the universe is the dominant theory now. Can anybody speak to that?

Great thread, all. Fun reading. But I must step out of lurking to give my .02 on this... I was an astrophysics major for a short time, changed to physics. So I know something, though it's a bit out of date.

In A Brief History of Time, Hawking says that a simple Big Bang cannot account for a few things. Like the large scale uniformity and smaller scale heterogeneity in the universe. He posits an "inflationary" period in the middle of the Bang and bizarre things like that. And, I believe, since he wrote that book he's stepped back further from the Big Bang.

String theory, which I wish I knew more about, seems to offer another option. It's come out of particle physics, and explains a whole lot of things the Big Bang can't. But, of course, it doesn't fit some other details...

So, no, I don't think the Big Bang is completely rubber-stamped. Certainly, there's strong evidence for it, and it's the popular thing. But, just as certainly, it's not a complete theory.

But here's a point I really want to make: science *can't* explain everything, and no theory is ever 100% settled on, because our discovery of the universe is an ongoing process. The whole spiel can be changed by a new obversation, or by new insight into what we already see.

Example: a cornerstone of the Big Bang theory is the red shift. You all probably know, but... light from further away galaxies is more red-shifted, which is taken to be the Doppler effect. So everything in the universe is moving away from everything else. Hence, expansion. Hence, it was all together in a single point once. Hence, big bang.

But maybe that's the wrong interpretation. Maybe there's some inherent quality to space that makes light red-shift. Like... dark matter. If someone came up with a satisfying proof of that, then the whole game could change. This may sound way out there, but I have read papers suggesting things like this - that perhaps expansion is wrong.

Anyway, my point is, scientists make the best theory they can to explain observations. Any theory can get thrown out the window when something better comes along. That's the process. And that's the beauty of the process.

So, auraptor, you argue against evolution because it doesn't explain everything. Duh! Of course it doesn't! But it fits better than anything else we've come up with and it's based on several independent lines of inquiry. The observations and experiments that back it up can be repeated by anyone, including you. Whether you believe it or not.

The theory of evolution certainly isn't perfect, but it will get better and better as long as we keep making observations, keep asking ourselves why?, and keep our minds open as to the answer.

This is the danger of fake science - ID, scientology, or anything that gives the answer "because God did it." It's a dead end in the asking process. That's just no good to anyone, not in the long run.

OK, done now. Back to lurking. Pray continue the talk.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

RUE

Thursday, July 19, 2007 8:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal
"red-shifted galaxies means that the universe is in the process of expansion"

Originally posted by rue:
Not true. You got it bass ackwards. The red shift is the observable phenomenon. The expansion is the theory. I can think of other reasons for a red shift that have nothing to do with expansion.

Originally posted by Causal:
Being that you seem vastly more interested in beating me than in actually discussing this, you can have your ball.

HUNNHH?

You did have an error in your thinking. You think that an expanding universe was proposed and the red shift was cited (with caveats) as a supporting observation. In fact, it is the other way around. The red shift was the original observation. The expanding universe was proposed as the explanation. And then the big bang was proposed as the cause of that.

But, as I alluded to and as Mal4Prez specifically stated, there are other potential mechanisms for a red shift that have nothing to do with expansion. It may be that the universe isn't expanding at all ! That basic idea has yet to be addressed.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

MAL4PREZ

Thursday, July 19, 2007 8:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
So what I was trying to find out was, what are astronomer's thinking about the univers's future? Was he correct that the Big Crunch theory has been rejected?

Dang this thread moves fast! Can't lurk... quite yet... must post...

So, there are scientists (I really should look up sources, sorry, no time now) who have noted how, on a really, really, big scale, matter (superclusters of galaxies) seems to lie in groupings around huge empty bubbles. Think of it like pasta goop clustered in the spaces between bubbles rising in boiling water... The universe could be like that, instead of one big expanding balloon. Really, it could. (Cool, huh?)

Thing is, the universe is too big and our vantage point too limited for us to be making any solid, sure conclusions. I stress - we're doing the best we can, but cosmology is a subject that's been changing fast since we got space based observatories. I'm sure it'll continue to change fast in the future. Goodness knows what we'll believe in 100 years!

IMHO, anyone trying to make God arguments out of our understanding of the origin and fate of the universe might get a workout from all the hand-waving, but that's about it.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
So what I was trying to find out was, what are astronomer's thinking about the univers's future? Was he correct that the Big Crunch theory has been rejected?

Ah, well to that all I can say is that I've only heard passing mention of Big Crunch theory so AFAIK it is not in contention for the lead.

CAUSAL

Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
IMHO, anyone trying to make God arguments out of our understanding of the origin and fate of the universe might get a workout from all the hand-waving, but that's about it.

Interestingly, I think this works in both directions. If one takes current scientific data and tries to make an argument for God, they accomplish little. But by the same token, if one takes current scientific data and tries to fashion an argument against God (existentially, at the very least), they accomplish little. I think that this goes back to the idea discussed above regarding the quite different spheres of applicability of theology and science. They're just not asking the same questions, so trying to force them into competition is a losing strategy, at best.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
The question I put to you was this. Many religious believers (though I am not one of them), deny the scientific validity of evolution, thus defying the majority of scientific thinkers. You deride those people as utterly ignorant of all scientific knowledge. Yet you yourself deny the scientific validity of Big Bang cosmology, thus defying the majority of scientific thinkers. How can you deride the one as ignorant an unsicentific (as it clearly seems to be) and defend your own position on cosmology as rational? Red shifted galaxies are just one piece of observable evidence supporting the Big Bang cosmology. So how are you not yourself open to the sorts of charges you level at disbelievers in evolution?

Without dissenting voices science would not progress, I don't know what Rue's issues with the BBT are but I suspect she has honest factual complaints. The ID crowd has ideological complaints, subjective complaints and non-factual (often blatantly so) complaints. In the few places where their complaints are valid they are acknowledged, though the flaws are usually far too minor to warrant a replacement "theory".

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
They're just not asking the same questions, so trying to force them into competition is a losing strategy, at best.

Which is why I sorta wish Dawkins would get back to science and leave theology alone.

CITIZEN

Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I wish there was a jaw-drop emoticon, Citizen.

Thank you, I do try, in fact some find me very trying.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Well, when you eliminate everything material as being the provence of science, you are left with that which can't be see, heard, felt, tasted smelled, measured - in other words, with something that has no material existance at all. In which case you are talking about the completely imaginary. Just like my big white furry friend here, Harvery.

Higher spatial dimensions cannot be measured, but they simplify the natural forces, and are the basis for scientific theories such as superstring.

The possibility of something being beyond the scientific domain is one that can not be discounted neither logically nor scientifically.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:03 PM

"The possibility of something being beyond the scientific domain is one that can not be discounted neither logically nor scientifically."

My thoughts are these:

Science deals with the physical. Further, I would say everything physical is beyond the definitive grasp of science. That's b/c science is a collection of models made by the human mind relating one physical thing to another, which are at best poor approximations of the real thing. So I'm not saying that science encompasses the physical. But it does address it.

That which doesn't address the physical by default addresses the imaginary.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:35 PM

Quote:
For instance, I think that science cannot possibly answer the question, "Is there a God?" The reason I think that that is so is because God is by definition immaterial, and the sciences by definition deal only with the materially observable. It is, then, impossible for science to make claims about the question of God's existence. In short, I believe that science is a limited . What are your views on that?

"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" "What color are dragons?" Just because I can ask a question doesn't mean it needs to be part of an espitemology. If you were to ask "What roles does the concept of 'god' play in society?" then we could talk.

Even the question "What is our purpose"? might be ammenable to scientific enquiry once we figure out what triggers our sense of "purpose" and when we feel we "need" it.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" "What color are dragons?" Just because I can ask a question doesn't mean it needs to be part of an espitemology. If you were to ask "What roles does the concept of 'god' play in society?" then we could talk.

Even the question "What is our purpose"? might be ammenable to scientific enquiry once we figure out what triggers our sense of "purpose" and when we feel we "need" it.

I'm not sure God is a good subject for sociology either, but at least it's not a science.

CITIZEN

Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
That which doesn't address the physical by default addresses the imaginary.

~I think that's rather a false dichotomy.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:51 PM

How so?

If it's not physical, then what is it ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CAUSAL

Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Science deals with the physical. Further, I would say everything physical is beyond the definitive grasp of science. That's b/c science is a collection of models made by the human mind, which are at best poor approximations of the real thing. So I'm not saying that science encompasses the physical. But it does address it.

That which doesn't address the physical by default addresses the imaginary.

In order to establish the premise that "that which doesn't address the physical by default addresses the imaginary" you will have to presuppose material reductionism (i.e. the view that only physical things exist). Based on the comments you make, this clearly seems to be the case. The trouble with material reductionism is two-fold.

In the first place, there quite clearly seem to be things that are real, yet not physical. Most philosophers of mathematics (yes, there are such things) think that numbers are real--but abstract things. After all, "one" is not a physical thing. If I try to show you "one," what I'll really be showing you is a single quarter, or a single apple, or a single rock. And every attempt to point to "oneness" will fail because "oneness" isn't a physical property that can be shown the way mass or heat or dimensions can be shown. How could I go about just examining the number 1? Can't be done. But curiously, I can ask, "How many quarters am I holding?" and expect a consistent reply. So it seems to be the case that three quarters remain three quarters irrespective of who I ask or in what culture. And furthermore, it seems to be the case that even if I and every other human were to die tonight, it would remain the case that my car has four tires on it, even if there's no one around to count them. Consider such notions as "love," "justice," "humor," or "right." These seem to be real things that are, nonetheless, not physical things.

The second trouble with material reductionism is that it cannot be proven. An interesting feature of material reductionism is a concommitant reliance upon scientific inquiry to provide the final answer to any and all questions. But one question that science cannot answer is whether or not there exist things with no material existence. The scientific epistemology is by its very nature confined in its scope to that which is materially observable. So what if there really were some immaterial thing that existed? There would be no way for science to be able to detect such a thing, because science can only work with that which is materially observable (by some technique or other). So even if there were immaterial things that existed, there would be no possible way for science to either prove or disprove their existence.

A further complication is this: philosophically speaking, it is impossible to disprove the existence of some thing, so long as that thing is a logically possible thing (that is, as long as the thing isn't self-contradictory, like a square circle). Statements of non-existence have the following logical form: "given any x, that x is not a ________." So, for instance, a statement about God's non-existence would have the following logical form: "given any x, that x is not God." In plainer language, we might express it this way: no matter what thing you pick, that thing won't be God. In other words, you could keeping picking things until you ran out of things, but would never find one that was God. The trouble with this is that in order to finally and conclusively prove such a statement, you would have to find and examine every x in the universe, to include all x's that ever have existed, all x's that now exist, and all x's that ever will exist. And of course, that simply cannot be done (for any number of reasons). So in the final analysis, there is no way to prove a statement of non-existence (so long as the object is a logically possible thing).

The upshot of all this is that while you may firmly believe that there are no non-physical thi

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:53 PM

Quote:
Higher spatial dimensions cannot be measured, but they simplify the natural forces, and are the basis for scientific theories such as superstring.

Higher spatial dimensions help unify our understanding and predictions of observeable phenomena. But their success or failure as a concept- like "electrons" - rests on their ability to match up with the observeable world. Unlike "God".

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CAUSAL

Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:58 PM

False Dilemma fallacy (aka False Dichotomy, et al): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma and http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html

You present two options as though those are the only two options and demand that a choice be made between the two, when in fact there may be other choices.

You say, in essence, that given and particular thing X, that thing X is either physical or imaginary. But those might not be the only options. There may be some other sort of thing that your X could be. Which is, of course, my point: your X might be neither physical nor imaginary--it might have some other sort of existence which, while very much real (and thus not imaginary) is not physical.

You can't merely assume that those are the only two choices. You must convincingly argue that they are.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CAUSAL

Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" "What color are dragons?" Just because I can ask a question doesn't mean it needs to be part of an espitemology. If you were to ask "What roles does the concept of 'god' play in society?" then we could talk.

Even the question "What is our purpose"? might be ammenable to scientific enquiry once we figure out what triggers our sense of "purpose" and when we feel we "need" it.

So am I to understand that you think that science is not limited in any way in its scope of inquiry? That science just is the universal epistemological method? That either a question can be answered by science or that it is no question at all?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CITIZEN

Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
How so?

If it's not physical, then what is it ?

I do not know, but I don't believe that physicality is necessarily all there is. There is the possibility that there is something beyond the reach of our senses or instruments, which is nonetheless, not merely in the imagination.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:09 PM

"One" is a model - a human idea made to characterize a quality (singleness). (BTW even chimps and monkeys appear to be able to model quantities in the abstract.)

"one question that science cannot answer is whether or not there exist things with no material existence" That begs the question of the meaning "exists". (Kinda reminds of a philosophical debate that ended when one person earnestly asked another "what is the meaning of meaning?")

The problem is definitional, not logical. "The trouble with this is that in order to finally and conclusively prove such a statement, you would have to find and examine every x in the universe." If we DEFINE god as being non-material (which is how the definition is trending over the long course of human history) then, by definition, everything which materially exists (the only kind of existence for which we will ever have evidence) is not god.

"while you may firmly believe that there are no non-physical things, there's no way to prove it finally and conclusively" And that again gets us back to the definitional question of "exists".

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CITIZEN

Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Higher spatial dimensions cannot be measured, but they simplify the natural forces, and are the basis for scientific theories such as superstring.
Higher spatial dimensions help unify our understanding and predictions of observeable phenomena. But their success or failure as a concept- like "electrons" - rests on their ability to match up with the observeable world. Unlike "God".

Indeed, but they are still 'outside' our natural four dimensional world. We can't percieve the other 6 dimensions, and we may never be able to directly observe them.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:24 PM

Citizen- the fact that we cannot perceive them doesn't make them "outside" of our physical universe, just "outside" of our ability to naturally model them in our brain.

Rue- yes, what is the meaning of "is"?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:27 PM

Further, what we can determine is limited by the tools we have. You can't see in the UV, you would have no way of knowing that there was anything in the UV if we didn't have the tools to "see" in it. The UV spectrum wasn't "unreal" back in the 1700's just because we didn't have the tools to observe it, we just didnt have a way to know it was there.

CITIZEN

Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Citizen- the fact that we cannot perceive them doesn't make them "outside" of our physical universe, just "outside" of our ability to naturally model them in our brain.

Physical universe is, by definition, what we can physically percieve. Nevertheless, I actually said "outside our four dimensional natural world". We percieve the world in four dimensions, so other dimensions are, therefore, outside our four dimensional existance.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

ANTIMASON

Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:35 PM

Quote:
"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" "What color are dragons?" Just because I can ask a question doesn't mean it needs to be part of an espitemology. If you were to ask "What roles does the concept of 'god' play in society?" then we could talk.

we should discuss what role 'God' plays in society, like how such a concept originated to begin with. some of you, like Rue, seem to think that the concept was invented out of thin air, simultaneously by every culture in the world, coincidentally from the dawn of recorded history.

Quote:
Even the question "What is our purpose"? might be ammenable to scientific enquiry once we figure out what triggers our sense of "purpose" and when we feel we "need" it

so is their such a thing as moral absolutes? for example, the '7 deadly sins', such as greed, lust, envy... are you saying they're in actuality just arbitrary, relative emotions? Rue likes to tout material science as the final arbiter of truth.. i wonder where that leaves established moral and ethical standards, since science has no bearing on the matter. then again, its probably all irrelevant anyways....

FLETCH2

Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Citizen- the fact that we cannot perceive them doesn't make them "outside" of our physical universe, just "outside" of our ability to naturally model them in our brain.

But.... if the test for "reality" is that it's physical and measurable then the extra dimensions don't actually exist. They are mathematical abstracts you can't see or actively measure, they exist because they need to exist to explain other observed phenomena, just as the Big Bang is infered from the interstellar background and the redshift.

ANTIMASON

Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Now, if it can be reasonably shown that life came from non-life, and since it has been shown that life evolves according to the whims of time and circumstance, the religious (specifically biblical) arguments for how things are fall flat. It's not that humans are god's 'special' creation given dominion, or that humans and god have a special historical relationship, or that humans have a 'god given' purpose. Humans are just another animal formed by the same kind of chance that formed everything else.

im glad you admitted this openly.. it makes my job easier. if humans are just 'another animal' formed by chance, explain why we should be treated differently then?

RUE

Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:52 PM

Citizen,

"I do not know, but I don't believe that physicality is necessarily all there is. There is the possibility that there is something beyond the reach of our senses or instruments, which is nonetheless, not merely in the imagination."

I think everything is ultimately beyond the complete reach of our senses and instruments. Our few senses are themselves limited resonators with the universe. And our brains are geared to organizing our senses in ways addressing survival. And our brains make the models upon which are instruments are built. So to say that something physical is beyond the reach of our senses or instruments is, I feel, an acknowledgement of our own miniscule physicality/ mentality.

But I see that as being distinctly different from saying that it exists outside of the physical universe.

So I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.

To put my ideas this way - if something is outside of our physical universe, then by definition it doesn't interact with it in any way. And the existence or non-existence of such a thing is immaterial (pun intended) because by its nature it will not impact the physical universe, or us, in any way. So while it would be impossible to prove or disprove such a thing, it would also be completely meaningless. That is what I think of as the realm of god.

OTOH there do exist things in our physical universe which we can't sense or measure directly which DO directly or indirectly affect the physical things we can sense/ measure. We intuit they must be there, but have no direct proof either way. That I think of as the realm of the mysterious.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
some of you, like Rue, seem to think that the concept was invented out of thin air, simultaneously by every culture in the world, coincidentally from the dawn of recorded history.

Simultaneously? No, different groups probably came up with their gods at different times though it's possible that the concept of god was created before humans started splitting up and migrating but it's too far in the past to know for sure. There are some that we can be pretty sure of, Islam for instance was created (more or less) by Muhammad in the 7th century for instance but the original concept of god probably sprouted in several different groups.

As for religion existing since the dawn of recorded history, so what? Humans were intelligent long before writing developed so it's no surprise that someone asked some unanswerable questions that ended up being attributed to supernatural causes before history was recorded. The desire to keep track of things that happened for the sake of keeping track is a relatively recent thing.

CAUSAL

Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"One" is a model - a human idea made to characterize a quality (singleness). (BTW even chimps and monkeys appear to be able to model quantities in the abstract.)

Is "singleness" imaginary? Or is it real? You use "singleness" as the quality that defines "one." So is "singleness" also a human model? Or is it real? If it's real, maybe you're onto something, but then if it's real you've got yourself a real thing that isn't physical (you can't go get a pound of singleness at the supermarket). But if singleness isn't real, if it's just imaginary (as you seem to take "one" to be), then what defines it? It seems like you're either going to have to contradict yourself or engage in an infinite regress of imaginary properties.

Quote:
That begs the question of the meaning "exists". The problem is definitional, not logical.

I will resist my every urge to tell you how little you know about philosophy if you think that logic doesn't invade every single thing we thinking.

One simply cannot think accurately if one isn't thinking logically. Logical think just is accurate thinking.

Besides which, you seem to have no trouble with defintions when what we're talking about is physical things--you only seem to want to get into semantics when we're talking about non-physical things. So either you yourself don't know what you're talking about when you say that physical things exist, or you're making a special pleading ( http://www.fallacyfiles.org/specplea.html) for your case. When I talk about the existence of non-physical things, you argue that it's just really hard to talk about what exists. But when you talk about physical things, you don't seem to have any problem with it. To be logically consistent, you're going to either have to firmly come down on the side of difficult definition and argue how we can know that anything--including physical things--exist, or you're going to have to stipulate the fact that the vernacular use of "existence" is sufficient for the case at hand. And since I don't take you to be a skeptic, I can't imagine that you would deny that we can know that physical things exist. And that leads me to the conclusion that you yourself are using the term "existence" in such a way as to include the physicality in what it means to exist. To which I must call foul, because you don't seem to deny that "models" and ideas can exist, despite the fact that they're not physical.

Philosophically speaking, existence is a matter of the instantiation of properties. So say that the properties of Santa are: 1) wears a red suit, 2) rides in a sleigh, and 3) lives at the north pole. The reason we can be justified in saying, "There is no Santa" is because there is no thing that instantiates properties 1-3. No matter how many things you pick to look at, you'll never find one that instantiates the properties of Santa.

It's easy to find things that instantiate the properties of being an apple. So we can definitely say that apples exist. But it sounds like what you want to do is to deny that anything with the property of non-physicality can exist. For which I must once again call for an argument, and not a mere presumption.

Quote:
If we DEFINE god as being non-material (which is how the definition is trending over the long course of human history) then, by definition, everything which materially exists (the only kind of existence for which we will ever have evidence) is not god.

Well, again, you're making sweeping assumptions. You say that we can only have evidence for materially existing things, and never ever for immaterially existing things. To which I ask: how can you prove that? You seem to take if for granted that the only way to truly know anything is via scientific inquiry. Tell me: how would you use scientific inquiry to prove that we can only know things scientifically? Your position is closely akin to that of Logical Positivism, a failed philosophical movement which collapsed under its o

SIGNYM

Friday, July 20, 2007 12:06 AM

We cannot "perceive" electrons directly, but we can perceive their effects on magnets, wires, droplets of oil, presumed "photons" and other secondary observations. Many scientitifc concepts do not make much inutitive sense. What is a "negative" charge, other than being opposite of a "positive" charge? what is "spin"? What is "strangeness"? Is a fifth, sixth and seventh dimension any weirder than that?

AFA the BBT- There seems to be a leap pf faith that the red shift is due to the doppler effect. There have anomalies in observed redshifts that indicate that perhaps it's not a simple case of velocity.

Observed by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California
www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060703explosion.htm

Observed by Burbidge
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050111115201.htm

Summarized here:

Quote:
Abstract The Tully–Fisher Relationship (TFR) is utilized to identify anomalous redshifts in normal spiral galaxies. Three redshift anomalies are identified in this analysis: (1) several clusters of galaxies are examined, in which late type spirals have significant excess redshifts relative to early-type spirals in the same clusters; (2) galaxies of morphology similar to ScI galaxies are found to have a systematic excess redshift relative to the redshifts expected if the Hubble Constant is 72 km s−1 Mpc−1; (3) individual galaxies, pairs, and groups are identified which strongly deviate from the predictions of a smooth Hubble flow. These redshift deviations are significantly larger than can be explained by peculiar motions and TFR errors. It is concluded that the redshift anomalies identified in this analysis are consistent with previous claims for large non-cosmological (intrinsic) redshifts.

www.springerlink.com/content/u52qh80262484j07//

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Friday, July 20, 2007 12:13 AM

Quote:
im glad you admitted this openly.. it makes my job easier. if humans are just 'another animal' formed by chance, explain why we should be treated differently then?

Why indeed?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE