Sciences vs. Religion

[YesNo]

What you describe, MorpheusSandman, is classical determinism where chance is based on ignorance of the deterministic forces. However, that determinism has been falsified through standard quantum mechanics. It has been replaced by uncertainty, not chance. I know you don't accept that it has been falsified, but I do and I have made my case in other posts.

I look at many worlds the way some might look on those who believe the earth is flat, or that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. These theories are interesting because they offer one a challenge to show why these views are wrong clarifying one's understanding of science. Other than that they have no value.

Let me suggest that you try to find a way to maintain an atheistic metaphysics in a consistent histories interpretation. At least then you won't be starting off opposed to modern science which can be used against your overall position.

[MorpheusSandman]

However, that determinism has been falsified through standard quantum mechanics.

And this is a flat-out, false lie; one of the many that you insist on repeating ad nauseam. It's a false lie that no theoretical physicist would ever make, even those that believe in Copenhagen. Go ahead, I dare you to find one.

I know you don't accept that it has been falsified, but I do and I have made my case in other posts.

You've made it badly, all based on a perpetual, willful misunderstanding of QM and MW that's been pointed out by four different posters.

I look at many worlds the way some might look on those who believe the earth is flat...

No scientists believe the earth is flat; the majority of theoretical physicists (more probably if you just polled the leading th. phs.) believe in MW. You might try explaining why that is.

[Melanie]

The title of this thread is flawed…Sciences vs Religion. It takes two extraneous subjects and attempts to relate them. Through observation and experiment, "Science" studies and defines what's already been created in the physical and natural world. But science hasn't got all the answers as to "why" these things have a certain structure or behave in a certain way. For instance, they know that Quantum Magnetics underlies our universe. But they don't know why particles are charged. They don't know why objects with mass & energy attract each other gravitationally. Religion acknowledges the creator of Quantum Magnetics, and that the creator holds the answers to "Why". Religion is based sometimes on faith and sometimes on the obvious. Science is based on the obvious only, and with many unanswered "whys". Therefore, there's really no battle between science and religion. When Science defines what's been created, religions agree and also give credit to the creator.

[Skrat99]

Rather than cut and paste here, I'll suggest a visit to a website that may be able to help you out--check out theentrant.tateauthor.com in the "About the Author" section, sub-section, "The 'Science Good, Religion Bad' Misnomer." In essence, your perspective is just as religious and belief-based as any robes and candles cult. For example, your whole story begins with a form of cosmic evolution, akin to Tryon's dogma: "The universe began from a quantum fluctuation of a preexisting vacuum or state of nothingness." Is that science?

[Melanie]

…"may be able to help me out"?…my perspective is like "any robes and candles cult"?…my "whole story"?…"akin to Tryon's dogma?" I suggest, if you want to perpetuate good discussion, that you muster up some self-control and refrain from your emotionally charged, condescending stockpile of insults. Whatever else you had to say in your post got lost in the insults. Aretha has a message for you in a word: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FOUqQt3Kg0

[MorpheusSandman]

The title of this thread is flawed…Sciences vs Religion. It takes two extraneous subjects and attempts to relate them.

Most all religions comment on the natural world, and most all religions comment on it with remarkable ignorance and idiocy, which should be enough for any honest person to doubt the rest of what the religion claims. The Bible even depicts scientific experiments to prove its truthfulness. See here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/i8/

But science hasn't got all the answers as to "why" these things have a certain structure or behave in a certain way.

Erroneously assumes there IS a "why". Just because we can ask a question doesn't mean the question has an answer.

Religion acknowledges the creator of Quantum Magnetics, and that the creator holds the answers to "Why".

Religion proposes a creator of QM without a stitch of evidence or valid reason for doing so. Try again.

[Melanie]

"...most all religions comment on it with remarkable ignorance and idiocy…

You must be related to Scrat99. Sorry, but I don't discuss anything with those who have a stockpile of condescending insults peppering their post.

[melanie] erroneously assumes there IS a "why". Just because we can ask a question doesn't mean the question has an answer.

You erroneously assume; not all questions have an answer. Just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean the question has no answer. God tells us He knows all of the answers to all of our questions and that someday when we are face to face with Him we will also know all the answers..."For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood." 1Corinthians 12:13

Religion proposes a creator of QM without a stitch of evidence or valid reason for doing so. Try again.

I see you still haven't read Josh McDowell's "Evidence Demands a Verdict". It doesn't matter how often a believer "tries again". If you're spiritually deaf then you won't hear anything. Here's what god says about that: http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topic...itual-Deafness

[YesNo]

I see this thread is active again.

Just to summarize my view on the OP, science is at odds with only one "religion" and that would atheism. The other religions have more substance and have better things to do.

This thread had led me onto other topics and so I'm grateful to all those who participated.

I'm currently reading D. Bohm and B. J. Hiley's The Undivided Unviverse which presents Bohm's interpretation of QM. Chapter 13 is a critique of many worlds. I also looked at Michael Redheads' From Physics to Metaphysics which introduced me to the idea of relational ontology.

[MorpheusSandman]

I don't discuss anything with those who have a stockpile of condescending insults peppering their post.

Some insults are true. The people that wrote most holy texts were demonstrably ignorant about how the physical universe functioned, so they made stuff up, and sometimes the stuff they made up was idiotic, like the Biblical cure for leprosy.

Just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean the question has no answer.

I didn't say the question didn't have an answer, but you asked the question seemingly assuming that it did. I was merely asserting that it may not. What's more, answering "God" doesn't really prevent us from asking how/why God exists (assuming s/he/it does). It's what you call an infinite regress (asking why to the why to the why to the why ad infinitum), and in such situations it seems "God" is nothing but a semantic stop-sign.

I see you still haven't read Josh McDowell's "Evidence Demands a Verdict". It doesn't matter how often a believer "tries again". If you're spiritually deaf then you won't hear anything.

I see you haven't read Yudkowsky on understanding just what is evidence The phrase "evidence demands a verdict" is nonsensical when we're talking about reality being the "evidence" itself, because then the question is "evidence for what?" Which is where hypothesis and theory comes in, as well as our means for testing what evidence supports which hypotheses and theories. As for being "spiritually deaf," if that means not assuming there's supernatural agency behind the currently unexplained, then I'm happy to be deaf, since being otherwise would ignore hundreds of years of scientific progress to the contrary (ie, supernatural answers behind natural phenomena turning out to be wrong).

[MorpheusSandman]

Just to summarize my view on the OP, science is at odds with only one "religion" and that would atheism.

Speaking of ignorance and idiocy, here's another steaming pile from our resident savant.

[Melanie]

To correct my typo…..Josh McDowell's "Evidence THAT Demands A Verdict" is the correct title.

[Calidore]

Historically, a god or gods have always been used as answers when we didn't have the real ones yet, but eventually we have. We know what the sun, stars, moon, lightning, wind, etc. are now. We know how the Earth was created. Not having an answer now doesn't mean there isn't one or that we won't have it eventually.

[MorpheusSandman]

To correct my typo…..Josh McDowell's "Evidence THAT Demands A Verdict" is the correct title.

You've read the Christian apologist, now read the atheist response: http://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/

[Melanie]

Why? I've already got a well-rounded view, know the viewpoints of unbelievers, and don't need to be "enlightened" by an atheist. I've made my educated choice and couldn't be more sure of my decision based on years and years of study.

[MorpheusSandman]

Sure you have. I'd be willing to be my life savings that you, like all theists I encounter, went into your "study" already knowing the answer and proceeded to be victims of confirmation bias. Even based on a brief reading of your own reference book (McDowell's), it seems to be the exact same thing. Filled to the brim with anything that could possibly support what a believer wants to believe, and giving it utmost credence while ignoring (or glossing over) any and all disconfirming evidence.