| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/31/2008 03:53:22 AM · #1451 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The point...is that since there IS no scientific basis for religion.... |
I'm not sure this statement is accurate. There are a lot of scientists that are looking at a lot of science and coming up with reasons to suggest that there is a scientific basis for religion. I'm not prepared to list them all, but I assume you are familiar with arguments dealing with such things as intelligent design, including the notion that tolerances in much of physics are so precise to permit life to exist as we know it that the sheer probability of all of the markers lining up points to a number so staggering as to suggest that design is at work. Other examples exist as well.
When it comes to the notion of a "singularity" some scientists view it as the "beginning" of the time/space mechanism, leaving open the notion that a pre-existing cause (perhaps God) is at work. Einstein was concerned with this possibility. But this view is not above challenge, and some would make the next step of asking, "what or who created God"? When the answer comes back, that God is infinite, some scientists (but by no reason all of them) assert that the "universe" might have been infinite. (I guess this is where you come in, Scalvert...and I must agree that it is one of the possibilities). In rechecking some of my books on the subject (since my last post) there are theories which suggest, for example, that the nature of the singularity might be so mathematically constructed that there is no "beginning", but rather a series of positions on a curved "boundary". As I recall, Hawkings takes this view. I think string theory and the notion of an endless "loop" takes its point of departure from this idea as well. But even given those hypotheses, one might still ask why that boundary or loop? Or what is outside the boundary or loop? Is there an outside?
The point of this, I suppose, is that science neither proves nor disproves the existence of God. To say there is no scientific basis for religion, however, seems to miss the point. There are plenty of scientists debating these issues on many fronts (perhaps more so in mathematics, astrophysics, quantum mechanics, and molecular biology than, say, in botany, oceanography or medicine-though even here there are doctors who are willing to attribute some healings to "miracles") with a variety of hypotheses coming out of all the investigations and theorizing. When one reads books on the scientific and mathematical principles involved it can quickly become quite mind-bending. I think we sometimes attribute too much to science as a monolithic point of view. It really isn't very united in many ways, especially on the frontiers of scientific thinking. Moreover, the more esoteric the constructs of boundaries and loops become, the more esoteric the questions and puzzles are that result from them. Ultimately, at some place in all this theorizing the subject begins to look a bit metaphysical and, dare I suggest it...religious. O.K., maybe not religious. But the boundaries can get pretty close...which may account for why so many contemporary scientists are willing to keep an open mind to the place of religion in all of this, and why other contemporary scientists are becoming downright evangelical (if I may borrow that term) about what science may have to say in all of this.
Then there is the absolutely staggering notion that we are at root nothing but stardust and debris ourselves. Yet that dust and debris is configured in such a way that it gives rise, in Homo sapiens, in the capacity to think, reason, and even glimpse the rules of the very universe from which we are derived. The notion that we have the capacity of "mind" and "self-awareness" and, perhaps, even "soul" calls into question the notion of a cosmic accident or chance happening.
I'm not ready to equate or, except in the most esoteric ways, even link religion and science yet. But I am prepared to give each their due and to seek value in both places. This takes me back to the place I began. Often science and religion are speaking in different languages with different premises that inhibit agreement or even understanding. I should add, though, that the boundaries between them may be closer than at any time since science diverged from religion a few hundred years ago (in Western experience at least). I am also unwilling to limit my thinking to only one of those traditions.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2008 06:55:03 AM · #1452 |
I saw this incredibly sad story, and thought it said a lot about the religious mindset:
Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 11:32:46 AM · #1453 |
Originally posted by chalice:
I entered this discussion simply to point out that people of both sides of the aisle are talking a different language ... The range of ideas is broad enough and the questions are extensive enough to give both sides of the aisle a fair hearing. |
Hi chalice - nice to have another voice in the fray.
I would challenge the concept that religion and science deserve an equal audience on many subjects. To take an extreme example, a widespread belief in guardian angels should not weigh in equally with the scientific theory of gravity (incidentally itself only a theory - one that has never been observed to be false in many important respects, but still one that remains to be explained and proven) when deciding whether or not to build a safety barrier next to a high drop.
I take the same view on whether or not to, say, socially exclude and repress homosexual people because it is written in one or other holy text, when scientific studies point to a biological cause and natural nature.
I would argue that the argument "religion deserves an equal voice" is an argument for religion at the expense of rationalism and science.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2008 11:39:39 AM · #1454 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As an example, I would consider Gould to be more balanced. He obviously falls onto the side of science (as he should), but is willing to leave religion its realm. Dawkins wants to invade that realm and destroy it until no vestige is left. To him, leaving such a place can only do harm. |
Gould was balanced, in the non-overlapping magisteria sense of balanced. That'd be fine if for example creationists didn't think their religious beliefs should be taught as a scientific theory. I suspect most of that is what evokes Dawkins ire, given his position as a leading evolutionary biologist and Chair for the public understanding of science. It's his job to push back against people who'd prefer we all accept on unprovable and contradictory faith things that are well within the magisteria of science.
In that respect I think Gould was as balanced as anyone who sticks their fingers in their ears and covers their eyes. His argument was that science and faith have nothing to do with each other, so there could be no argument or discussion on the topic. Religion is religion and nothing to do with the natural world in his view. Doesn't explain anything, provides no useful theories about existence or life.
Message edited by author 2008-03-31 11:41:47. |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 12:50:39 PM · #1455 |
Originally posted by chalice:
I'm not sure this statement is accurate. There are a lot of scientists that are looking at a lot of science and coming up with reasons to suggest that there is a scientific basis for religion. I'm not prepared to list them all, but I assume you are familiar with arguments dealing with such things as intelligent design... |
Intelligent design is not science. It has been discredited not just in this informal discussion time and again, but by the scientific community at large.
There is no scientific basis for religion. The fact that some or other scientist may suggest that, critically in his view, there is room to account for a god as an ultimate explanation for the unknown, is not science.
Originally posted by chalice:
To say there is no scientific basis for religion, however, seems to miss the point. There are plenty of scientists debating these issues on many fronts... |
You'll need to provide evidence of this. Which scientists are using scientific theory to debate the issue of religion, or the beliefs that religion are concerned with, having a scientific basis?
Originally posted by chalice:
The notion that we have the capacity of "mind" and "self-awareness" and, perhaps, even "soul" calls into question the notion of a cosmic accident or chance happening. |
Why? |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 01:43:46 PM · #1456 |
Originally posted by chalice:
There are a lot of scientists that are looking at a lot of science and coming up with reasons to suggest that there is a scientific basis for religion. I'm not prepared to list them all, but I assume you are familiar with arguments dealing with such things as intelligent design, including the notion that tolerances in much of physics are so precise to permit life to exist as we know it that the sheer probability of all of the markers lining up points to a number so staggering as to suggest that design is at work. |
I am aware of scientists looking for evidence of, or trying to ascribe findings to God, just as scientists have at times searched for evidence of astrology, alchemy, bigfoot or psychic abilities, but that doesn't necessarily lend any credence to those positions. Intelligent design is nothing more than an attempt to give religion a scientific wrapper but, as you have already pointed out, religion does not lend itself to scientific investigation. Deities are conveniently defined as unknowable and cannot be subject to scientific method.
I don't know who came up with the probabilities you refer to, but I'm pretty sure that 100% of the planets we've explored within a star system's habitable "Goldilocks" zone support a wide variety of life. I would certainly expect the end result of multi-billion year processes that lead to increased variation and complexity to be pretty darn unlikely. Maybe the tolerances of physics are so tight that only one planet in a trillion could have evolved intelligent life and we just happen to be on it, or maybe physics is a lot more open to life than we think. Imagine a lottery drawing with a million numbers picked between 1 and 10,000... no matter how staggering the odds, whatever numbers come up needn't be the result of intentional choice. You might think a squid's tentacle is too complex to be the result of simple, natural processes over a very long period of time, but surely an entity with the knowledge to build such a thing would be even more complex and people sure seem to believe THAT can just naturally exist! |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 02:01:02 PM · #1457 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by chalice:
The notion that we have the capacity of "mind" and "self-awareness" and, perhaps, even "soul" calls into question the notion of a cosmic accident or chance happening. |
Why? |
I would add that the big bang and evolutionary theory provide an explanation that is the very opposite of "chance happening" or "cosmic accident".
Evolution is the only theory that relies upon a step by step sequence of probabilities, happily visible in the fossil record and extensively, repeatedly, and reliably underpinning the science of genetics and modern medicine.
The "god" theory relies upon the most unbelievably enormous cosmic accident and chance - which is not only almost infinitely improbable, but also completely without evidence.
Message edited by author 2008-03-31 14:01:45.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2008 02:30:14 PM · #1458 |
Originally posted by chalice:
Now there are many people who have an ability to embrace both points of view ... |
1. I was really surprised to not see my name alongside those who see things in a "balanced" way. Sheesh - Louis, Scalvert, Matthew, by ommission are you trying to tell me something?
2. Chalice - in case you haven't noticed, there are very few here who actually consider anything "religious" as worthy of consideration. Most keep pummeling it, pointing out every inconsistency, while parading science as the infalible answer to all of man's questions and mysteries.
3. More evidence from science explaining yet another of the Bible's stories |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 03:09:39 PM · #1459 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Flash:
Regardless, my point was that this is another example of scientists changing their conclusion on yet more recent evidence. Conclusions that were once held as fact, are now different based upon new facts. Facts gleened from a small fragment of the total, which may in themselves prove (in the future) to be false, based upon newer evidence. |
Flash, I saw this and thought of you... |
As you rightly should have.
My take on the science proponents is that they are very willing to accept that science can be wrong at any given point, as long as it corrects itself when presented with newer more conclusive evidence. Yet, religion can never be correct, merely because it was once wrong, therefore it is always wrong - even in the face of ever evolving discoveries that explain more and more of history. That is my problem. 2 different standards. If science can redefine what truth is - based on new discoveries, then why can't religious understanding?
Message edited by author 2008-03-31 15:11:17. |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 03:12:01 PM · #1460 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by chalice:
Now there are many people who have an ability to embrace both points of view ... |
1. I was really surprised to not see my name alongside those who see things in a "balanced" way. Sheesh - Louis, Scalvert, Matthew, by ommission are you trying to tell me something? |
The operative word here is "Balanced"... and from this man's perspective you sadly fail to meet that criteria.
Originally posted by Flash:
2. Chalice - in case you haven't noticed, there are very few here who actually consider anything "religious" as worthy of
consideration. Most keep pummeling it, pointing out every inconsistency, while parading science as the infalible answer to all of man's questions and mysteries. |
One could counter that the failings in this regard rest with your inability to counter the arguments proferred by those in the "Scientific" camp, opting instead to base your arguments on anectodal evidence that fails to witstand close scrutiny.
Ray
|
|
|
|
03/31/2008 04:45:48 PM · #1461 |
Originally posted by Flash:
My take on the science proponents is that they are very willing to accept that science can be wrong at any given point, as long as it corrects itself when presented with newer more conclusive evidence. Yet, religion can never be correct, merely because it was once wrong, therefore it is always wrong - even in the face of ever evolving discoveries that explain more and more of history. That is my problem. 2 different standards. If science can redefine what truth is - based on new discoveries, then why can't religious understanding? |
In a funny way, I agree with you: why can't religious understanding redefine itself in the same way that science does? Instead, we have preached at us increasingly irrelevant and out of date morality based on an ancient code while great discoveries such as evolution and the history of the universe (observable by anyone who cares to look) are ignored!
Perhaps you could set up some kind of new religion, where only demonstrable evidence is relied upon in order to divine the truth, but in an environment where new discoveries are used to refine and redefine our understanding of the truth. You could call it "ecneics".
|
|
|
|
03/31/2008 05:50:36 PM · #1462 |
Alternatively if you read this report on the same story, on your reasoning it would be proof for the existence of aliens.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2008 07:31:20 PM · #1463 |
...but I thought you believed in aliens?
|
|
|
|
03/31/2008 09:31:11 PM · #1464 |
Man Chalice, where were you 58 pages ago? It's nice to have some oomph come to the table and I see the "fierce four" are at you like jackels to an antelope. I just got back from camping and am trying to catch up.
Louis, it only take about three minutes of Googling quotes to find something that presents Dawkins contempt for religion: "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." That pretty well sums it up. It's easy to come up with more:
"To describe religions as mind viruses is sometimes interpreted as contemptuous or even hostile. It is both. I am often asked why I am so hostile to organized religion."
"Our leaders have described the recent atrocity with the customary cliche: mindless cowardice. "Mindless" may be a suitable word for the vandalising of a telephone box. It is not helpful for understanding what hit New York on September 11. Those people were not mindless and they were certainly not cowards. On the contrary, they had sufficiently effective minds braced with an insane courage, and it would pay us mightily to understand where that courage came from.
It came from religion...."
Instead of quoting more and more I'll just say I will totally and utterly concede the point to you if you can provide a single Dawkins quote where he espouses a bona fide virtue of religion (no tongue in cheek action). Case closed.
My experience with Dawkins comes from The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion. I have read neither cover to cover, but perused them enough to be familiar with them. I also watched that 50 minute Q&A session posted by somebody a lot way back. I also know Dawkins from the description of others.
Ok, now to catch back up on the rest of everything... |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 10:03:49 PM · #1465 |
Your quotes don't prove any of your points; rather they prove mine, that Dawkins counter-balances the, to put it ridiculously mildly, unscientific outlook of the dangerous religious factions at work in our world. If you hold up these quotes as evidence that Dawkins seeks to destroy religion out-of-hand out of some kind sheer fanaticism, you are for some reason trading the place of the actual fanatics with him. Those quotes are perfectly rational. There is nothing fanatical about them. I submit that you are still blind to anything Dawkins says because you have a personal dislike for the man, possibly because he represents the ultimate threat to your beliefs.
The latter being, of course, unfounded conjecture on my part.
PS: I'm sorry that you compare informal verbal parrying with wild animals ripping prey apart. Really, why would anyone bother if that's what's going on here? Seems a bit melodramatic. It's all in good fun. And although chalice is eloquent, the arguments are the same, and whither disappointingly in light of the inclusion of "intelligent design" in his arsenal. I'm waiting on the "oomf".
PPS: This thread needs to be started anew, as it's getting slow to load. :-P
Message edited by author 2008-03-31 22:16:35. |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 10:47:25 PM · #1466 |
OK, see my post above. If you mean that Dawkins counter-balances dogmatic religious arguers, I fully agree and we have nothing to discuss. Still, I think I am totally reasonable in my thinking that if Dawkins had a magic wand he could use to remove religion from the world, he'd do it in a femtosecond. If you want to teach me, you'll have to tell me what place your Dawkins has for religion in the world. I am honestly (not sarcastically) puzzled here. I honestly believe that Dawkins rationally believes that religion provides no good in the world or at the least that it provides far more risk than benefit.
Don't sweat the "jackals to an antelope"...that's just a phrase I use in real life all the time. It's actually meant to provide some levity. |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 11:33:43 PM · #1467 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by chalice:
The notion that we have the capacity of "mind" and "self-awareness" and, perhaps, even "soul" calls into question the notion of a cosmic accident or chance happening. |
Why? |
Your only response is "Why?" With due apologies, that is rather like a young child's response. Take a dictionary definition of the the words.
"Mind" includes "...the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons...."
"Self-awareness" includes "having or showing realization, perception, or knowledge of one's own personality or individuality"
"Soul" includes "1 the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life
2 the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe
...
5 the moral and emotional nature of human beings"
(All definitions come from Webster's online dictionary)
All three of these notions go beyond the physics and chemistry of the organism. It is common to speak of homo sapiens as having one or more of these qualities and these qualities are more than the common workings of proteins or the ordinary chemical happenings of synapses. Concepts like feelings, perceptions, thinking, willing, reasoning, knowledge of personality or individuality, spirituality, morality, and emotion are concepts that at least admit to the "possibility" (although not necessarily proof) of something more than a cosmic accident or a chance happening. That is not to say that we are not physical beings with chemical, biological, and similar processes (don't leave your response to the obvious) but that the set of all possible answers to cosmic questions includes a subset of intelligent or intentional or directed happenings.
Tell me, if we were in the same room together rather than on the internet and I brought out a musical instrument and played it merrily for you, would you dance? Or if we attended a funeral together and someone sang a dirge, would you cry?
edited to attribute definitions to Webster
Message edited by author 2008-03-31 23:35:04. |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 11:52:54 PM · #1468 |
Originally posted by chalice:
All three of these notions go beyond the physics and chemistry of the organism. |
Again, "Why?" You make the assertion that these things go beyond physics and chemistry, but there's no real reason that they must. In fact, their very dependence upon the physical brain should make it fairly obvious that these ARE within the realms of physics and chemistry. Complexity is not impossibility, and several other animal species share these attributes (including dance).
Message edited by author 2008-03-31 23:54:16. |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 11:53:45 PM · #1469 |
| "Magic" is defined in the dictionary too -- does that make it a real thing? |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 12:07:28 AM · #1470 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by chalice:
All three of these notions go beyond the physics and chemistry of the organism. |
Again, "Why?" You make the assertion that these things go beyond physics and chemistry, but there's no real reason that they must. In fact, their very dependence upon the physical brain should make it fairly obvious that these ARE within the realms of physics and chemistry. Complexity is not impossibility, and several other animal species share these attributes (including dance). |
I think of Chalice's list, Free Will is the toughest nut to crack. If we have the Free Will to choose different actions given the same set of inputs then our brains are not materialistic. One could argue then that we only have the illusion of Free Will, but that leads to its own problem. We all believe we have Free Will. In fact, it's one of the few things we feel with almost certainty and fully act out each day like it is true. If we are incorrect on this basic assumptions about our own being, how can we ever trust our senses and the information they give us about other beings? In other words, if we are fooled about ourselves, how can we hope to know others? |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 12:11:13 AM · #1471 |
| One could argue that any animal capable of making a decision has free will. Even a squirrel can decide whether or not to cross a street... often many times within the same attempt. ;-) |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 12:13:11 AM · #1472 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by chalice:
All three of these notions go beyond the physics and chemistry of the organism. |
Again, "Why?" You make the assertion that these things go beyond physics and chemistry, but there's no real reason that they must. In fact, their very dependence upon the physical brain should make it fairly obvious that these ARE within the realms of physics and chemistry. Complexity is not impossibility, and several other animal species share these attributes (including dance). |
Again, the response is evasion. What is there about this question that is so difficult? What is so troubling for those with a scientific stake in the ground to admit that "mind" "self-awareness" or "soul" admit to the mere possibility that the set of all possible answers to cosmic questions includes a subset of intelligent or intentional or directed happenings. Where is the spirit of scientific inquiry, where is the openness to the next theory (even one that may eventually fail upon further study) when proponents of science are not even open to the "possibility" (not probability, not proof) of admitting that intelligence or intention or directed happenings are a subset of all the possible outcomes to the cosmic questions.
Again, I ask: if we were in the same room together rather than on the internet and I brought out a musical instrument and played it merrily for you, would you dance? Or if we attended a funeral together and someone sang a dirge, would you cry? |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 12:21:07 AM · #1473 |
Originally posted by chalice:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by chalice:
The notion that we have the capacity of "mind" and "self-awareness" and, perhaps, even "soul" calls into question the notion of a cosmic accident or chance happening. |
Why? |
Your only response is "Why?" With due apologies, that is rather like a young child's response. |
The simplicity of my question should have illustrated how easily your lack of critical thinking is exposed. That was its point. Your logic is consistently flawed. As Shannon points out, there is simply no reason to believe that those characteristics that seem unique to humankind "go beyond" physical explanation -- the phrase itself is inherently meaningless. Likewise, there is no reason to believe that evolution is anything but an accident. I understand that many people have a romantic compulsion to believe it simply should be so, but there is no line of reasoning, no scientific analysis if you will, and no logical path that suggests it must be so.
Incidentally, I've asked you twice now for references to support certain assertions you've made. You'll find I tire quickly when people quote facts in a vaccuum. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 12:25:29 AM · #1474 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
One could argue that any animal capable of making a decision has free will. Even a squirrel can decide whether or not to cross a street... often many times within the same attempt. ;-) |
So you are either admitting a squirrel is also not materialistic or it doesn't have free will. To make sure we are clear, I'm talking about the ability to choose different courses of actions with the exact same input. To cross the street or not to cross the street. Such a thing would be beyond a computer of maximal materialistic complexity. In other words, if you were intelligent enough to know each and every atom in a computer, you could predict with certainty what the outcome would be. (and before you go invoking quantum randomness (which I am ignoring), you would only wind up with the problem that our computer (ie. our brain) is ultimately based on random events).
Message edited by author 2008-04-01 00:27:42. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 12:27:30 AM · #1475 |
Originally posted by chalice:
Where is the spirit of scientific inquiry...? |
OK, whack someone's brain in the right spot and you lose the sense of self awareness. Knock it somewhere else and morality goes away. There... it's physics and chemistry. The only mystery lies in the complexity of neurons and brain architecture. No magic necessary. |
|
