Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: miko2d on January 23, 2002, 12:39:55 PM
-
Richard Dawkings:
The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.
With so many mindbytes to be downloaded, so many mental codons to be replicated, it is no wonder that child brains are gullible, open to almost any suggestion, vulnerable to subversion...
Justifying space exploration because we get non-stick frying pans is like justifying music because it is good exercise for the violinists right arm.
We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.
The last one is a bit too general. In fact the smartest religious people - the top-level scientists, admittedly a tiny minority among religious (or any) people - believe that trying to discover the workings of the universe is the most fitting way to admire the work of the Creator and the most proper use of the mind we posess.
miko
-
[q]"In fact the smartest religious people - the top-level scientists, admittedly a tiny minority among religious (or any) people - believe that trying to discover the workings of the universe is the most fitting way to admire the work of the Creator and the most proper use of the mind we posess."[/q]
That is exactly what I believe - and nothing comforts me and inspires me more than hearing about the simple faith in God that is sometimes the product of scientific minds.
-
I don't buy it.
I'm not particularly religious, but in my experience the "small minority", today and a thousand years ago, is those who use their faith as an excuse not to explore themselves and the universe.
The positivist, progressivist fantasy is dead folks. We ain't never gonna understand the universe. Worse, science, like religion, requires that you accept its most basic principles on faith .
Putting commonplaces in compu-speak doesn't make 'em any deeper. And if you believe empirical science, the human brain does not function like a computer.
Faith and reason are polyvalent terms; their exclusivity and the degree of their exclusivity has been a matter of debate for millennia.
-
Originally posted by Dinger
I don't buy it.
I'm not particularly religious, but in my experience the "small minority", today and a thousand years ago, is those who use their faith as an excuse not to explore themselves and the universe.
While I am not a religious person at all, in this particular thread I referred as "small minority" not to "those who use their faith as an excuse not to explore themselves and the universe" but to the top-level scientists (Nobel laureats, etc) who are in the forefront of humanity in exploring the Universe.
Many notable phyisicists, mathematicians and biologists - (including darwinists) are religious people. Darwin himself was a religious person.
To me that proves that Science and Religion do not intesect. The only people who try to mix them together are those literally interpreting the book (whichever one) and staking correctness of theiir religion on whether it explains the workings of the world.
Surely humans would not need such a powerfull brain some of us are equipped with (courtesy of Creator?) if the only goal was just to memorize the Book? In fact, I would expect better memory instead - at least as powerfull as the one the squirrels have.
Also, that is the first I've heard about science requiring to "accept its most basic principles on faith". Any scientific theory may be build on certain assumptions but those assumptions are always questioned and their causes are investigated in turn.
The purpose of a String Theory is (among other things) to explain the weights of the partilces that we so far "took for granted" (just measured them). Never ment that we just believed in those weights but treated them like any other fact to be looked into later.
miko
-
The positivist, progressivist fantasy is dead folks. We ain't never gonna understand the universe. Worse, science, like religion, requires that you accept its most basic principles on faith .
LOL, I musta missed the funeral.
Please enlighten us as to when exactly we "hit the wall" as far as "understanding the universe" goes Dinger. Then I want to hear about faith and science. Waiting eagerly for your reply.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Richard Dawkings:
Justifying space exploration because we get non-stick frying pans is like justifying music because it is good exercise for the violinists right arm.
miko
If you think about it, a lot of technology in the last 50 years has resulted from our attempts at space exploration. The other big contributor has been war and the things that go along with it, such as figuring out more efficient and better ways to kill each other.
Personally, I'd prefer we stick with space exploration.
-
Me: Where did mankind come from?
Scientist: Evolution
Me: What causes evolution?
Scientist: Laws of physics that cause systems to self-organize.
Me: Where did the laws of physics come from?
Scientist: The laws of physics are part of our Universe.
Me: Where did the Universe come from?
Scientist: The Big Bang.
Me: Where did the Big Bang come from?
Scientist: Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh DOH!
-
funny funked, but WRONG!
I mean what the heck is your point? Assuming we don't have any possible answers to "where did the big bang come from" (see expanding and collapsing universe) do you suggest we just stop looking? sheeeesh!
-
My point is similar to Dinger's. Science can only explain things so far. If you trace the chain of logic in every scientific explanation you invariably end up with a starting assumption that must be accepted without proof. Which is an act of faith.
I think it's great for scientists to seek an answer to the "Whys" of the universe. Even if there is never a final answer there will likely be many discoveries which have material usefulness. But it's possible that they will never find a final explanation, or that the explanation will not be comprehensible to human minds. In that case the scientists will ask us to accept that which we can not understand. Sort of like a priest might ask me to accept "Divine Mystery".
-
Aristotle, who gave us the notion of epistemology. No science can prove the validity of its own principles.
A classic metaphysical case is the principle of non-contradiction, which Aristotle holds necessary for all human science. The same statement cannot be both true and false in the same way at the same time. So:
"socrates is sitting" and "socrates is not sitting" cannot both have the same truth value in the same way at the same time.
You can't logically prove that; you can only show that without it all human discourse is meaningless.
It's sort of what funkedup illustrates. For science to work, we have to assume that the universe works in certain ways.
As for understanding the universe, how do you think anyone can figure out the workings of the universe if nobody seems able to comprehend the opposite sex?
Anyway, it runs deeper than that, so fire away Midnight Target.
Anyway, I'm with you that using religious dogma as scientific proof is dangerous, and those who stake their faith on its validity have serious problems. But the implication of Dawkings' (except the teflon comment, which is spot on) lines is that science renders religion useless.
-
I'm reminded of this Survey in The Economist. (http://www.economist.com/surveys/showsurvey.cfm?issue=20020105)
-
Epistemology is the study of knowledge and how manifests in its many forms. Many advancements were made since Aristotle (although slowed by religion :) ) Empiricism and rationalism both can be used in the example you mention.
No time now though....see ya tomorrow.
-
"Science can only explain things so far. "
And everytime science go one step further, religion has to withdraw and come up with arguments like "Well..it's a metaphor!", when it comes to the particular religions description of the universe, life and everything was created.
(Or do we still believe the world was created in 7 days?).
Daff
-
It was created in seven really really reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eally long days, yep. :)
-
Uhhh... let's see.
Empiricism requires us to rely on experience. Have there ever been times when a statement was both true and not true at the same time?
Such a statement requires us to assume that experience is a reliable indicator of reality. Why do we assume that? Because it seems to have been the case so far. That's a case of petitio principii.
Sorry, you can't prove empiricism.
Rationalism? So, what's the point? What kind of reason can we apply that does not assume the principle of non-contradiction?
And yeah, Daff, that's been the standard approach. The Bible should not be interpreted metaphorically unless there is overwhelming evidence to do so. Scientific reality ain't exactly essential to most religious messages. If it presents a more plausible story for the creation of the world, great! It's not like the creation myth is an article of faith in any religion worth the name. After all, if you believe the Bible, the world is flat, and for the last 2500 years, only a couple of crackpots have maintained that idiocy.
-
The main thing about science is that it cannot explain an origin. Big Bang, sure, great, but how did that little ball of heavy matter come about in the first place? If there's one, couldn't there be more? Maybe...
But the basic principles of science are not simple articles of faith. Take the basic premises of physics. Things accelerate, fall down, push, pull, fly, get thrown, go up and come down in neat little parabolic arcs, and so on and so forth. Other precepts of other sciences are simple, easily observed basics. Most mistakes in science come from levels above the fundamental level. If something suddenly changes on the basic observable level, it could mean that we are in Big Trouble.
Take, for example, the stars. They are clearly there, whether ephemeral or material, optical illusion or actual. Understanding what they are, however, had us stymied for centuries. Understanding the truth about stars and planets paved the way toward debunking the old terracentric solar system model for a heliocentric one, and then towards debunking a heliocentric universe for.... a non-heliocentric universe. And so on, and so forth.
-
Disagree ispar, but you're probably on the right track.
Geocentric, Heliocentric, or relative universee, the underlying metaphysical principles are ones that are useful to us in this life. The same goes for ethics.
But can science tell us there's no afterlife? or no salvation? Hell no!
Again, I don't particularly believe anything, but I think it pretty arrogant to pretend that science extends beyond the realm of faith, or that its extension includes things usch as the existence of God.
-
The earth is not flat, huh? Have you ever been to Kansas.
-
Please enlighten us as to when exactly we "hit the wall" as far as "understanding the universe" goes Dinger. Then I want to hear about faith and science. Waiting eagerly for your reply.
A big problem with both science and religion: neither one can say anything definite about the true nature of reality - both mindsets can only offer models of reality.
Ouch seems like a pretty big wall to understanding the universe to me! ;)
Anyone think they know "what's really out there"?
Think about how the human eye works - We only see a tiny fraction of the electomagnetic energy in the universe (visible light). So straight off the bat, we have a cut down, 99% missing reality. The eye gets this picture of "reality" upside down & back to front & really really small. It gets changed that way by a lens, which bends and distorts the electromagnetic radiation, so that it hits a small patch of receptors. These receptors react to only certain types of light, and produce electricity. Our brain then receives this electricity and uses it as "information" which it inteprets to a picture "inside your head" that seems the right way up & the right size - so the brain has further altered the limited amount of "reality" that the eyes gave to it. Add to that the confusions caused by language & cultural limits, and we have a totally distorted "reality" - or a model of reality.
[An interesting problem in its own right: where do you "see" the world or rather "where is the world that you see" - in your eyes? Is it right way up, and stable? If so it's not in your eyes. In your brain? It seems to be "out there" - but you can't see reality directly, you can only see your brain's version of it. Anything you see is therefore VR, I guess. And so the world you see is inside your head, which is inside the world, which is inside your head... etc etc]
Looks like we're not in Kansas anymore, easymo ;)
Pretty dodgy - add to that the possibility (according to some physicists) that the very act of observing the universe changes the universe, and the whole "It's real because I saw it with my own eyes" seems like a big patch of intellectual quicksand.
So much for the observable universe. So if you you don't know what's "really" there, you are extremely unlikely to understand it. This is a fairly scientific view (indeed science has been used long enough that scientists can now say "we know enough to know we know nothing". A damn sight more honest than western religion, which on the whole deletes the "we don't know" science proffers and inserts "God did it" in its stead. I am warey of anyone who says they know what's really going on - after a brief foray into thinking about reality, they all seem like charlatans and liars to me.
And as for the origin of the universe- Big Bang Vs. God thing: no contest - neither one answers the question.
If God created the universe as the Xians say - who or what created God? If God just happened, he sounds suspiciously like the big bang, that funkedup laughed about.
God creating the universe is just as unsatifactory an answer as the Big Bang - either one begs the question "so where did that come from"? to inifinite regress - another unanswerable question.
Let's end with another wise man's quote:
"Nothing is true. Everything is permitted."
PS. If anyone still thinks they know "what's really out there"
Do, please, let me know -
But don't forget - you can't impose any cultural maps or models on "reality" as this would be a limited description of it, and if it is limited, it is by definition, not reality: so please, no drawings, maps, use of language, symbols, sounds, smells, sensations or tastes.
-
Preaching monotheism or atheism is a sure way to get to Hel after you die. Everyone knows that the Universe was created by Odin, Vili and Ve, who slew Ymir and made all that we can percieve from his body. Monotheists tell that the Universe was created from nothing. Don't believe them, you can't just have something pop up from nothing. Atheists are even worse.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
It was created in seven really really reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eally long days, yep. :)
First he created Light, so he started working at night.
-
"Everyone knows that the Universe was created by Odin, Vili and Ve"
Ah, but they died in Ragnarok and, viola!..Christianity appeared.
Daff
-
Originally posted by Daff
"Everyone knows that the Universe was created by Odin, Vili and Ve"
Ah, but they died in Ragnarok and, viola!..Christianity appeared.
Daff
No, it's not possible. Do have any proof that Ragnarök already happened? Thought so.
-
First, science may not have explained Big Bang yet because it just discovered that there was one - by tracing backwards the ongoing space expansion.
Nobody postulated the Big Bang and asked us to trust in it. It looks like it was there according to the data and still the fact is constantly questioned. There is a singularity(infinity) involved in the Big Bang and many scientists suspect that infinity is a nature's way of telling us our math is not advanced enough to describe certain things.
We may never be able to actually explain some things because of the technical difficulties.
We know now (or strongly suspect) that at certain energy, the three forces of universe become one force.
There are indications that at certain higher energies all four known forces become one - like it could have been just after the Big Bang.
We even have specks for the accelerator to prove our suppositions. The first one would be slightly bigger then the solar system, the second one will be the size of a galaxy.
We may come up with the shortcuts or we may not.
Second, some questions only make sence because they use our human concepts of time and space which have only slight resemblance to what really hapens in nature.
At higher speeds then we accustomed to time and distance and mass concepts that we use are not applicable.
They are much less applicable under the conditions around the Big Bang or on microscopic scale.
Time is a property of the universe, distance is a way to preceive it's other properties.
Concept of beginning and end for the time most likely have no more meaning then beginning or end for the sphere.
There are several logical theories according to which a universe could have existed that do not involve beginning or end or starting singularity.
If God is involved, it would be a logical place for him to be outside that Univese not living in our concept of time.
miko
-
I was just gonna say that ;)
-
Wow, I really appreciate this forum! You guys represent a huge pile of collective knowledge that has been very enlightening to me. Thank you. .
On the other hand what exactly is the point?
Given the position that reality is not knowable, we must define our reality to resolve any issue or question.
A defined reality then becomes no less and no more real than any other reality.
BUT! A reality defined for "science" can and should be questioned and refined. A reality defined by religion cannot be questioned and that is the crux of the issue. Sure you can argue that we will always hit a wall, or that we already have. The big difference between religion and science is that one wants to look over the wall, the other is content not to.
IIRC miko, the Big Bang was first recognized empirically back when some engineers from Bell Telephone couldn't explain the background noise that pervaded the universe at a certain frequency. This was determined to be the remnant echo of the Big Bang. (sorry short on details)
-
Lessee -- Miko: for many Christians, God exists outside of time. The exact logical relationship between a Christian God and temporal existence is a fascinating 2000-year-old discussion in its own right.
Yeah, dead, that's part of what I was getting at. But I think the religious avoid the infinite regress by positing God as the uncreated Creator. In other words, one "proof" of God's existence that's been a favorite is:
assume: no causal chain is infinite. In other words, you declare the infinite regress impossible as well as unsatisfactory.
also assume:
every effect has a cause.
From this, you get:
There must therefore be some cause that is itself uncaused.
sure, it's a bit of a petitio principii, and it's an old argument (I think it's the old "unmoved mover" chestnut of Physics Theta and Metaphysics Lambda), but it gets you to God as creator of time, the universe and everything. If you have to have an origin for things, it's God. And in yer scientific inquiry, God is always just over the horizon.
In other words, while the "religion" you might find in yer local church may seem simple and ignorant to you, remember that the "science" you find on television is too. They have to be -- the message is made palatable to the masses. How can you talk about time as a dimensional extension to someone who thinks that means that what he's eating tomorrow is already decided? How can you talk about God's foreknowledge, predestination and free will to someone who really needs to hear what he needs to do tomorrow afternoon?
Both science and religion, however, on serious inquiry, can be found to espouse sophisticated worldviews that ultimately rely on taking a few principles on faith.
(and I guess that means I don't believe those who think the KJV is "the literal word of God" have a very sophisticated or even internally coherent notion of religion.)
-
Originally posted by miko2d
If God is involved, it would be a logical place for him to be outside that Univese not living in our concept of time.
Shouldn't that be "convinient" instead of "logical".
I see nothing logical about making an exception for something we can't explain, just to satisy those not willing to reason.
Funky baby: Who created god ?
DUH !!! :D
Cuts both ways, doesn't it ?
I fully agree with statements that Miko initially posted.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.
-
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.
Well Bartek it's likely our species doesn't have the capacity to fully understand "the world" meaning the Universe and how it came to be. And it's even more likely that scientists won't be able to answer that question in our lifetimes. So I think being satisfied with not completely understanding the world is a pragmatic and wise choice. A better choice than spending one's entire life in a state of dissatisfaction.
Of course I think trying to answer those questions scientifically is a noble and cool thing. And like I said before it will almost certainly have materially useful side effects. So I'm all for it. I'm just not basing my satisfaction on it.
-
Fd said:
Funky baby: Who created god ?
Nobody. He was always there, always will be. I can't prove it but I can choose to accept it and be satisfied with it.
And it's pretty similar to what science might be saying eventually:
per Miko:
There are several logical theories according to which a universe could have existed that do not involve beginning or end or starting singularity.
:)
-
Originally posted by funkedup
So I think being satisfied with not completely understanding the world is a pragmatic and wise choice. A better choice than spending one's entire life in a state of dissatisfaction.
I agree. But why drag an "invisible man" into it ?
Nobody. He was always there, always will be. I can't prove it but I can choose to accept it and be satisfied with it.
Well, nobody created a Big Bang. It just was there. I can't prove it but I can choose to accept it and be satisfied with it.
There are several logical theories according to which a universe could have existed that do not involve beginning or end or starting singularity.
But wouldn't that negate any notion of "god" ?
-
I agree. But why drag an "invisible man" into it ?
I didn't. No invisible man or God needs to be assumed for the statements I made in that post.
Well, nobody created a Big Bang. It just was there. I can't prove it but I can choose to accept it and be satisfied with it.
Not very scientific of you. And you have contradicted your agreement with: "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." In any case you have a Constitutional right to believe whichever creation myth you wish.
There are several logical theories according to which a universe could have existed that do not involve beginning or end or starting singularity.
But wouldn't that negate any notion of "god" ?
No. I just intended you to see the similarity between those theories and my statement about God. Me saying the Creator of the Universe "was always there and will be there" is not inconsistent with a scientist saying the Universe "could exist without a beginning or an end".
-
The mistake you're making here is that you confuse intellect with faith. Even the top scientists may be religious simply because religion is a matter of psychology. Rationality plays no role in one's beliefs even if he is a nobel price winner.
We have to remember that there are also scientists who spend a 24/7 vacation in state asylum at the moment. Their wits didn't stop them from flipping out. Actually it's quite the opposite. It's been said that geniosity is half madness.
So it's quite possible that a rocket scientist may be strongly religious while he is trying to solve the big bang at the same time.
That, however, doesn't mean it would be any proof for the creationist people. It's just the faith of the certain scientist - and a proper loophole for him to explain the things he couldn't understand with his current knowledge of physics.
Afterall, we're all just human.
-
So I think being satisfied with not completely understanding the world is a pragmatic and wise choice. A better choice than spending one's entire life in a state of dissatisfaction.
I couldn't disagree more. This gives the impression of being smugly satisfied with your degree of knowledge.
Or maybe you just know there is a limit and you won't feel the need to move past it.
400 Years ago you could have made a strong case for never knowing the speed of light, or the nature of the stars. 100 years ago gravity was all wrapped up by Newton.......woops! The knowledge base of our species has continued to grow precisely because people have been dissatisfied. Dissatisfaction has been the blessing placed on all great contributors to science.
-
that's amphibology in the notion of satisfaction.
Being satisfied with not being able to understand fully the universe doesn't mean being content not to investigate one's beliefs about the God and the universe.
Indeed, I'd say the first step towards a healthy critical attitude is to recognize one's fundamental incapacity to know it all.
"smug satisfaction" comes about when someone is under the illusion of being able to know everything.
-
Actually they stated some time in the 19th century that 'everything imaginable has now been invented' and scientists shouldn't waste their resources trying to invent anything new because it's simply not possible..
That was said officially by some administrative power, can't remember in which country and who it was.
LOL.
-
It was President McKinley's director of the Patent Office I believe.
-
Originally posted by Dinger
that's amphibology in the notion of satisfaction.
Being satisfied with not being able to understand fully the universe doesn't mean being content not to investigate one's beliefs about the God and the universe.
Indeed, I'd say the first step towards a healthy critical attitude is to recognize one's fundamental incapacity to know it all.
"smug satisfaction" comes about when someone is under the illusion of being able to know everything.
Hmmmmm Amphibology? like:
"That was an example to us all!"
"You never cease to amaze us!!"
Amphibology is a "back handed compliment"
I think smug satisfaction is bad....agreed? What you have defined seems more like incredible conceit. I think smugness is based on thinking you already know, or that the rest is not worhy of your time.
Never be satisfied. I want with all my heart to fully understand the universe. I have a healthy understanding that this is likely impossible, however I will continue to learn. And I hope others will continue to be dissatisfied also and learn.
The envelope must always be pushed and philosophising about the unknowable is only good for exercising the brain muscle to learn more.
-
Tah I don't see how you could read this:
Of course I think trying to answer those questions scientifically is a noble and cool thing. And like I said before it will almost certainly have materially useful side effects. So I'm all for it. I'm just not basing my satisfaction on it.
And reply to me like you did.
There is a big difference between realizing I can't know all the answers and not wanting to find those answers which can be known.
From your answers you must either be a scientist or a hypocrite. :)
-
Amphibology is a fallacy of equivocation, when a statement is made to mean two things. So yeah, a "back-handed compliment" is an amphibology: it means both a compliment and an insult. But all amphibologies are not back-handed compliments. In this case "satisfaction" is taken to mean in one sense "incredible conceit in one's knowledge" (which I fail to see how it differs from what you claim smug satisfaction is) and in another "acknowledgment of one's ultimate incapacity to know everything."
The two senses are not identical, and recognition of this incapacity does not imply resignation.
Heck, the desire to know is so strong (Go ahead, pick up -- or download --a copy of Harry's Metaphysics. The first line is one of the best in human literature) many Christian theologians (and it's the "party line" of the Catholic Church) posit the end of human existence -- what some call heaven -- to be the union of the human intellect with the divine essence, and the concomitant plenitude of knowledge. That's right: Heaven ain't about strumming the harp and endless church potlucks; it's attaining the fullest knowledge possible to a human being. Far from condemning human inquiry into the world, religion is often its strongest supporter.
Not what you were led to believe, is it?
Dinger
(neither catholic nor a huge fan of dominican theology)