Sciences vs. Religion

[MorpheusSandman]

More the condescending tone of your remarks than anything actually said. You seem to equate belief in God with stupidity.

I just carefully reread my last reply to you and I can't, for the life of me, understand what you're hearing as a "condescending tone." You said that the things science say must be accepted "without proof positive," and I responded by saying that science doesn't really seek proofs, and then explained why I was more willing to believe what scientists said. Then, to your point about religion being personal, I laid out my problems with religion when it doesn't stay personal, which, surely, you must agree happens.

I don't equate belief in God with "stupidity," but I do equate it with irrationality; that said, I think ALL people are irrational because irrationality is hard-wired into our brains. I tend to find that non-believers tend to only be slightly less irrational about that one subject, but not less irrational about anything else. I also think religious believers tend to be more ignorant (and ignorance isn't stupidity since everyone is ignorant about something; I know practically nothing about, say, medicine or law or politics or history) about science and, specifically, where science conflicts with their beliefs.

[Vota]

That was a good post Morpheus. I personally don't believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, nor that everything the bible says should be taken literally, but I'm open to listening to people, in this case Nye vs. Hamm.

I do feel that Hamm trying to discredit the reliability and accuracy of carbon dating, or snow layers was abit much. I understand the concept of half-lives and it doesn't take faith to accept dating methods of various sorts.

At this point I'm pretty much just keeping open as best as I can and holding off on coming to definite conclusions unless I am REALLY certain.

Whether God exists and created this universe may never be answered or refuted in my lifetime so I may have to hang in limbo there.

[Frostball]

"Keep an open mind - but not so open your brain falls out" --quote attributed to various people, including Richard Feynman and Bertrand Russell.

[Pendragon]

I also think religious believers tend to be more ignorant (and ignorance isn't stupidity since everyone is ignorant about something; I know practically nothing about, say, medicine or law or politics or history) about science and, specifically, where science conflicts with their beliefs.

Ignorance isn't stupidity? Huh. Since ignorance means "lack of knowledge: it sounds like stupidity to me, which no one likes to be called. Perhaps "uneducated about certain things" might be a better way to say it, because it leaves room for people to educate themselves if they chose. For me "ignorance" indicates a total lack of willingness to change belief. That isn't me.

For my part, I tend to find people for whom science is a religion arrogant, and rabidly arrogant at that.

A middle of the road is best, but neither will bend as a general thing.

Some religious people deny science, which is not what I have presented, because it is foolish to deny what you can observe and science explains. The earth goes around the sun. The earth is NOT flat. Animals and humans evolve.

Science lovers put their trust in chance for the creation of the universe. That is irrational due to the multiplicity of coincidences that must come up positive to make complex organisms from chance alone.

Let us agree to disagree. I still bear you no ill will. I would not that we part as enemies.

God bless

Pen

[Frostball]

Ignorance is "lack of knowledge or information" which is entirely different from stupid. It means exactly what you said you would prefer, "uneducated about certain things." That really is exactly what ignorance means. Everybody is ignorant about some things, and there is nothing necessarily wrong with that, in fact it's unavoidable. I think once again this is because in colloquial usage people just say "That person is ignorant" to mean the person is an all around stupid person. They are using the word wrong if that's what they are trying to say.

[The Atheist]

Science lovers put their trust in chance for the creation of the universe. That is irrational due to the multiplicity of coincidences that must come up positive to make complex organisms from chance alone.

You're making several errors here.

First off, scientists are not putting any trust in chance for creation of the universe. They don't put any trust in anything, in fact.

We know the universe exists, what it looks like, most of its physical characteristics, and its current behaviour. From those, scientists paint a picture of what is likely to have happened. Experiments at CERN and other places are helping us learn about the creation of the universe, but we are still ignorant about it to a large degree.

Given that it was >13 billion years ago, I don't think anyone has a problem with that ignorance. We may never know exactly how it happened, but suggesting anyone is putting trust in one specific formation theory is incorrect. Sure, there was a Big Bang, but why is the question that matters.

The other error is that evolution & abiogenesis couldn't have happened due to the almost infinite mathematical odds against it.

Again, we know that life did aruse because we are here, so the only question is actually abiogenesis. Mathematical models are available showing that the amount of time available was sufficient to bring about evolution as we see it every day. The christian argument against the time is constantly hampered by conveniently ignoring data. Viruses, for instance, can create amazing mutational shifts in extremely short periods of time, of which some may become successful and permanent.

In the case of the start of living organisms, no, we cannot say with any degree of certainty how it came about, so there is room in there for a creator.

If a creator's only action was to spark life then sit back and watch it evolve for 3 or 4 billion years, it wouldn't be much of a creator, in my opinion, but I agree the option is open for it to be there.

Scientifically, that's the only gap you have left.

[MorpheusSandman]

Pen, I think both Frost and The Atheist thoroughly addressed all your points. I DID mean "ignorance" as Frost defined it; in fact, the reason for my parenthetical definition is so you wouldn't think I was using it insultingly. If I say I'm ignorant about politics, and I am, then all that means is that I haven't studied that subject. Stupidity suggests both a lack of knowledge and a lack of an ability to learn; often these are related, but not always. Ignorance is just an inevitable result of living finite lives where nobody can devote the necessary time to every subject under the sun. Also, I don't know why you would bear me any ill will, or think that I bore you ill will, just because we disagree; as I said in my last post, I think you're reading hostility in my posts where none is or was intended. I'm just arguing points, not people.

Science lovers put their trust in chance for the creation of the universe. That is irrational due to the multiplicity of coincidences that must come up positive to make complex organisms from chance alone.

There was a previous thread where YesNo and I debated this point quite thoroughly; if you care I could hunt for it, as I'd hate to try and repeat all the points I made. Perhaps the most salient one most simply stated is this: once an event is happened, the probability of it happening is 100%. Looking back retrospectively and calculating the odds against it doesn't really give us any relevant information. Consider if you were watching cars go by on a high way and started writing down license plates; do this for 100 cars, calculate the total number of possible combinations, and then figure out how likely it is you saw the EXACT combination you saw. OF COURSE the probability would be miniscule, but what does this tell us about what you saw? Absolutely nothing. Similarly, even though the probability of complex organisms arising "from chance alone" is incredibly small, that likewise doesn't tell us anything since we already know life is here.

That said, there are certain things that make such an event more likely than you might imagine. EG, when most look back and calculate the probability against it happening, they often forget to take into account how many trial runs such an event had. Given early earth conditions and how many biochemical interactions were happening, there were likely countless possibilities for such a thing to happen. I mean, the odds of rolling 20 dice simultaneously and them all landing on 6 is small; but if you have enough trials, it will happen eventually. What's more, modern interpretations of quantum mechanics, like MW, make such things not only possible, but inevitable, since every possible outcome happens in some world; we would just happen to find ourselves in the world(s) where life (and us) happened.

[YesNo]

The other error is that evolution & abiogenesis couldn't have happened due to the almost infinite mathematical odds against it.

Again, we know that life did aruse because we are here, so the only question is actually abiogenesis. Mathematical models are available showing that the amount of time available was sufficient to bring about evolution as we see it every day.

Do you have a link to support that there was sufficient time for this to occur by chance alone so that no agent of any sort was involved?

If a creator's only action was to spark life then sit back and watch it evolve for 3 or 4 billion years, it wouldn't be much of a creator, in my opinion, but I agree the option is open for it to be there.

Scientifically, that's the only gap you have left.

The only challenge worth presenting to a religious person is whether they can actually establish a relationship between themselves and some consciousness that they refer to as God.

[YesNo]

Ignorance is "lack of knowledge or information" which is entirely different from stupid.

There is no need to become defensive. If someone objects to the use of a word because they sense a personal attack is involved, stop using it in an argument. Think of another way to make the point.

[YesNo]

There was a previous thread where YesNo and I debated this point quite thoroughly; if you care I could hunt for it, as I'd hate to try and repeat all the points I made. Perhaps the most salient one most simply stated is this: once an event is happened, the probability of it happening is 100%. Looking back retrospectively and calculating the odds against it doesn't really give us any relevant information. Consider if you were watching cars go by on a high way and started writing down license plates; do this for 100 cars, calculate the total number of possible combinations, and then figure out how likely it is you saw the EXACT combination you saw. OF COURSE the probability would be miniscule, but what does this tell us about what you saw? Absolutely nothing. Similarly, even though the probability of complex organisms arising "from chance alone" is incredibly small, that likewise doesn't tell us anything since we already know life is here.

That said, there are certain things that make such an event more likely than you might imagine. EG, when most look back and calculate the probability against it happening, they often forget to take into account how many trial runs such an event had. Given early earth conditions and how many biochemical interactions were happening, there were likely countless possibilities for such a thing to happen. I mean, the odds of rolling 20 dice simultaneously and them all landing on 6 is small; but if you have enough trials, it will happen eventually. What's more, modern interpretations of quantum mechanics, like MW, make such things not only possible, but inevitable, since every possible outcome happens in some world; we would just happen to find ourselves in the world(s) where life (and us) happened.

Just for the record, we have never discussed anything in any thread "thoroughly".

Although the probability of an event happening is 100% after it has happened, the question is: how did that event happen? Specifically, in this case, were there agents involved who could make choices or not. When I refer to agents, I don't just mean deities, but any agents of whatever sort from slime molds (who apparently can make decisions) to humans to agents we are unaware of. So go back to this event and ask the question: could it have occurred without the involvement of any agents? If no agents were involved, it happened entirely by chance. If one finds that very unlikely then one has an argument for some sort of agency involved that made choices.

More reasonable and scientific interpretations of quantum mechanics would disagree with the pseudo-science of many worlds. If you are relying on many worlds then the grounds for your position is no stronger than that of someone promoting young earth creationism. Many worlds makes atheism look bad in the same way that young earth creationism makes Christianity look bad.

[Pendragon]

You're making several errors here.

So you keep telling me. The feeling is mutual, as I think you are making errors as well.

The other error is that evolution & a bio-genesis couldn't have happened due to the almost infinite mathematical odds against it.

And yet God alone knows how many times I have heard this type of argument "the chance is so miniscule" to protest against the existence of God. We had a thread here once on evolution versus creation that went on forever, and this was the general tone for the disapproval of belief in God. You seem more likely to stick to your belief without destroying mine. I agree with that. Others on here could tell you I have reproved Christians, Islams, or what ever if their way of debate is to call names and bad mouth. I am sorry for the misunderstanding, here in Southwest VA "ignorance" does indeed mean "stupid". I do apologize.

In the case of the start of living organisms, no, we cannot say with any degree of certainty how it came about, so there is room in there for a creator.

And you proved me right. If I don't agree with on everything, I do think this: Chance is a pretty much infinite rage of possibilities. So that the earth came about by some not as yet understood phenomena and that it was created by God are both in there.

God Bless

Pen

[The Atheist]

So you keep telling me. The feeling is mutual, as I think you are making errors as well.

Well, I've pointed out what yours are, so you could certainly help me by telling what errors you think I'm making.

And yet God alone knows how many times I have heard this type of argument "the chance is so miniscule" to protest against the existence of God.

There's a big difference. I've seen people displaying algorithms to show that the time, sporadic mutations becoming successful, and all the other factors of evolution actually work on a mathematical model.

That's real, concrete mathematics. I'm not saying the maths make evolution true, but it shows that it is a possible outcome.

I don't know how one would ascribe a mathematical value to the existence of god/s, so I wouldn't try that approach. I just ask for one piece of reliable evidence. Just one.

You seem more likely to stick to your belief without destroying mine.

What beliefs do you think I have?

I try very hard not to have any at all, beyond "reality actually exists" or cogito ergo sum. Everything else is subject to testing and replication.

You may think I "believe" in science, but that would be incorrect. I believe things that have been subjected to that testing and replication. Cogito ergo sum.

And you proved me right. If I don't agree with on everything, I do think this: Chance is a pretty much infinite rage of possibilities. So that the earth came about by some not as yet understood phenomena and that it was created by God are both in there.

Sure they are - that point is fine, but as I already said, if the god's action is limited to tinkering with the spark of life and/or the universe, then you're not far from Spinoza's god.

God Bless

Pen

As always, a pleasure!

You think we'd both be old enough not to write this stuff any more, wouldn't you?

Something about old dogs & new tricks, I suspect.

[MorpheusSandman]

So go back to this event and ask the question: could it have occurred without the involvement of any agents? ...If one finds that very unlikely then one has an argument for some sort of agency involved that made choices.

You still don't understand that retrospectively calculating the odds against an event happening is in no way evidence for any agents being involved. This is the point I thoroughly explained that you never addressed. Take my license plate example: 100 observed license plates for which there are 6^100 possible combinations, yet you saw one of them. So the odds are one in 6^100 you saw what you did. Does the astronomical odds against seeing that combination even suggest that some agent was behind producing the exact combination you saw? Of course not! All that's necessary is for something to be possible, and you and every theist has utterly failed at arguing how it's impossible that we got here via the random events of the universe eventually leading to life, to evolution, to us.

More reasonable and scientific interpretations of quantum mechanics would disagree with the pseudo-science of many worlds.

It's not pseudoscience, you annoying twit. You can't produce a single authority that says it is. You've repeatedly demonstrated you don't even understand what it is. You couldn't even paraphrase the criticisms Bohm had against it. What's more, anyone that promotes "remote viewing" (something which the scientific community HAS definitively labeled as "pseudoscience" after several multi-million dollar studies and not a single positive result that found its way to peer-review) and Deepok Chopra is in no position to claim anything as psuedoscience. You're just talking out your ***, like usual.

If it weren't for your insistence on repeating lies like this, I wouldn't even respond to you anymore. But someone has to take the time to make sure others less knowledgeable don't fall for your crap; the same way so many scientists now have to spend their time fighting off nonsense like YEC.

[Pendragon]

You're just talking out your ***, like usual.

And demeaning comments like this have no place in our discussions on this thread. If you disagree with some one or think their statements have no merit, say so. No need to resort to this type of inflammatory statement.

Well, I've pointed out what yours are, so you could certainly help me by telling what errors you think I'm making.

Respectfully, you have pointed out where YOU consider me in error.


Allow me to do the same. You discount God and think He has no place in the Universe. It is a mistake to discount what you do not understand and do not believe. There is always room to wiggle, and you could be wrong. I believe in God but do not discount science's explanations for many things. If I cannot see how something is probable simply because it is possible, I try to do research.

God bless

Pen

PS Yeah, we are getting too old for this, mon ami!

[Ecurb]

What beliefs do you think I have?

I try very hard not to have any at all, beyond "reality actually exists" or cogito ergo sum. Everything else is subject to testing and replication.

You may think I "believe" in science, but that would be incorrect. I believe things that have been subjected to that testing and replication. Cogito ergo sum.



.

Since you ask, it appears that you believe in replicants, the super-human cyborgs from “Blade Runner”. At least, you believe in “replication”, possibly performed by the Tyrell Corporation in the production of replicants.

I suppose it is possible, instead, that you believe in Calvin’s “replicator” (from “Calvin and Hobbes”). Most of us remember how Calvin made replicas of himself who could attend school in his stead. Unfortunately, Calvin’s plan backfired, because his replicas were as bratty as he is.

It is vaguely possible that you mean you believe in testing that can be duplicated or reproduced to give credence to the first results. However, to say that you don’t believe in science, but believe in experimental tests that can be duplicated is equivalent to saying, “I don’t believe in science, I believe in science (or “the scientific method”).”

There are two problems with this approach. First, nothing can be “replicated”. All events are unique (I’m leaving “many worlds” out of the equation here –this refers only to our universe). Experiments can approximate one another, but cannot duplicate one another. It is true, of course, that approximately repeatable experiments can falsify our ideas about how nature works (can falsify the “laws of nature” which we have invented to describe and predict events). However, the “laws”, which are human inventions, do not take precedence over the events they describe or predict, and the events themselves cannot be repeated.

Second, how would your belief system allow anyone to operate in the world? Would we believe that John Kennedy has been assassinated only if he could be brought back to life and killed again? Would we have to divorce our wives and remarry before honoring our vows? Everything that happens is unique. We limit our knowledge of the world if we refuse to believe history. Even science involves not only repeatable experiments, but observation of non-repeatable events. The eruption of Mt. St. Helens happened whether we can repeat it or not. If Caesar said, “Et tu, Brute,” he said it only once. No “testing and replication” can either confirm or refute this historical anecdote. If (as is not the case) my wife gave me a kiss this morning, she gave me a kiss -- however unlikely that event is to be "replicated".