Sciences vs. Religion

[The Atheist]

....irrelevant material excised....

A very quick point:

I did not mention anything about having any kind of belief in testing & replication.

If you actually read a post for a change, instead of assuming you know what it says, you will see I said that things are subject to testing & replication, not I believe in. Subtle difference, but I'm sure with the help of dictionary.com or some other resource, you'll catch up.

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.

I think you're still getting my stance wrong.

For instance, I could see where a god could fit quite nicely into the universe. I just see nothing to support the idea.

As to discounting things I don't understand, that's also incorrect.

Like you, if I don't understand something, I will try to learn about it and find explanations. So far, there are actually quite a few things that come into that category. Things like:

Gravity
Black holes
Dark matter/energy

and most of quantum physics, which is often counter-intuitive.

In the meantime, I accept that they occur/exist, but can't see where they fit any god hypothesis, so I wait for science to explain them.

[YesNo]

You still don't understand that retrospectively calculating the odds against an event happening is in no way evidence for any agents being involved.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding what I am looking for. We know we are here. We know about how long the earth has been around (say 5 billion years). There are two competing claims: (1) it is likely that these events occurred by chance, vs (2) it is unlikely that chance could have done this. Based on what I have read from both sides on the internet, it seems to me highly unlikely these events occurred by chance.

This doesn't prove that agents were involved, but it undermines the metaphysics that no agents whatsoever exist. The agents I am referring to need not be Gods, but slime molds (recently found to be rather intelligent even though they don't have any brain to speak of), microorganisms who I suspect make a choice every time they "replicate", as well as humans and anything else in the environment that ultimately "selects" them by its own existence and choices.

What I am looking for is a non-deterministic biological approach, with all the expected evolutionary processes, rather a deterministic chemical-physical approach to explaining the universe we are part of. The deterministic approach has failed to deliver its promise anyway.

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.

Bohm and Hiley's view of many worlds was quite negative. True, they didn't use "pseudo-science". If you agree to read this text, I don't mind discussing it with you in a separate thread.

I'm using term pseudo-science to characterize theories that claim to have the authority of science, and yet present views that undermine the data collected by science. I think cognitive dissonance underlies why this occurs. I apply the term to young earth creationism because it does not accept the data about the age of the earth. I apply the term to many worlds because it does not accept the data supporting Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

I don't know much about remote viewing. I am aware that people call these sorts of ideas "pseudo-science", but I don't know what scientific facts they are setting up a theory to counter. Mostly these groups just report events that they have observed and then the "scientists" freak out and say they could not have occurred, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Personally, I have more admiration for someone who reports an event than for someone who has to dismiss it because of the dissonance the data causes to their belief systems.

[Ecurb]

I did not mention anything about having any kind of belief in testing & replication.

If you actually read a post for a change, instead of assuming you know what it says, you will see I said that things are subject to testing & replication, not I believe in. Subtle difference, but I'm sure with the help of dictionary.com or some other resource, you'll catch up.

As you kindly point out in your latest post, you made two mistakes. First, you said, "Everything else (other than "reality exists") is subject to testing and replication." Since neither the assassination of Kennedy nor whether I smooched my (or anyone else's) wife this morning is subject to "testing and replication", this is clearly either incorrect or extremely limiting.

You then say, "I believe things that have been subjected to testing and replication." I'll grant that you didn't say, "I believe ONLY THOSE things....." So you have some wiggle room about whether you can believe any of those inumerable thngs that are not subject to "replication", which include everything that happens in this universe, including the results of scientific experiments, which are all unique. As mal4mac pointed out earlier in this thread, observations are the basis of (he said, "science", but I would say, "knowledge"). Observations of unique events (i.e. all events) are not "replicatable". What is replicatable is a failure to falsify a scientific theory through observing similar events (experiments) that have the potential to falsify the theory.

Scientific theories are not facts. They are explanations of facts, or predictions about facts, or ways of organizing and thinking about facts. The facts (i.e. what actually happens) are not subject to testing and replication, because they are unique, happen in time and space, and have already happened.

[Pendragon]

Take Lewis Carroll

"I can't believe that!" said Alice.

"Can't you?" the queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again, draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."

Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said. "One can't believe impossible things."

"I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

[The Atheist]

The facts (i.e. what actually happens) are not subject to testing and replication, because they are unique, happen in time and space, and have already happened.

Had you ever considered not being deliberately obtuse?

No? I'm not surprised - I guess it becomes a habit after a while and saves on reading contextually.

Take Lewis Carroll

I would, except he used to carry around a lot of pictures of little naked girls, so I'm not sure I could take him many places.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

[Ecurb]

Had you ever considered not being deliberately obtuse?

.

Have you ever considered not being undeliberately obtuse? I suppose not.

[MorpheusSandman]

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.

Listen, I've been over this with YesNo ad nauseam across countless threads. He's had no less than 4 different posters tell him he has no clue what he's talking about when it comes to quantum physics, yet he insists on making insulting claims like "Many Worlds is pseudoscience" without even understanding what MW is or being able to cite any authorities that support him. It's flat-out exhausting to argue with him because about 95% of the time he completely ignores what you say and responds with non-sequitors in between stating lies and falsities that he's been informed are lies and falsities. He'll endlessly repeat points he's made even after you've responded to them thoroughly. His "probability" argument in this thread is one which I've already responded to in another that, like usual, he completely ignored and has continued to make the same "point" as if I never said anything. His style was so frustrating that one actual physics student gave up addressing him (Cioran). After a while, one suspects that he's just a dishonest troll trying to convince naive minds that don't know any better, because his points may sound "reasonable" to anyone that knows little about these subjects.

So please don't think that what I'm saying about YesNo is extended to you or anyone else in this thread, and also don't think that it comes out-of-the-blue for no reason. I can link you to at least 4 other threads where we've been over this, and I can show you points I've made that he's ignored while continuing to repeat his same arguments over and over. Whatever his beliefs, it's the exact same tactics I see Creationists using; even after a point of theirs has been thoroughly refuted, they'll continue to make the point in hopes of convincing people that don't know any better.

[MorpheusSandman]

There are two competing claims: (1) it is likely that these events occurred by chance, vs (2) it is unlikely that chance could have done this. Based on what I have read from both sides on the internet, it seems to me highly unlikely these events occurred by chance.

Again, we've been over this. You say "happen by chance," but I don't think you know what that really means. You agreed in a previous thread (probably before you knew what you were talking about) that the null hypothesis is the default position, and the null hypothesis is "chance." To move away from the null hypothesis requires more than just calculating the odds against something happening, yet this is all you're describing. There's no way to calculate the probability that something happened "by chance," there is only the probability of it happening for whatever reason. The probability against seeing those 100 license plates "by chance" is 6^100, which means it's astronomically unlikely. This in no way suggests it DIDN'T happen by chance, and to even begin arguing that requires more than just the probability of happening at all. So no matter how unlikely it is that life and us got here by the "chance" processes of evolution and natural selection, that's in no way evidence for or against agents being involved. Until you get this fundamental point I don't see any reason to continue.

Bohm and Hiley's view of many worlds was quite negative. True, they didn't use "pseudo-science".

Not a single theoretical physicist would describe MW as "pseudoscience." Only someone like yourself that has no clue what it is would say that. What's more, only someone with no clue about the subject, in general, would be incapable of paraphrasing an argument against it that you read.

I'm using term pseudo-science to characterize theories that claim to have the authority of science, and yet present views that undermine the data collected by science.

That's pretty close to the actual definition, and under that definition falls something like remote viewing.

I apply the term to many worlds because it does not accept the data supporting Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

Yes it does! MW explains what is happening to cause Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle! In fact, the only real difference between CHI and MW is that the former says that a "collapse" is causing HUP while the latter says that decoherence is causing HUP. The former has no foundation either in the math or observations and conflicts with everything else we know about physics; the latter is actually taking the math as real, fits the observations, and doesn't conflict with everything else we know about physics.

I have more admiration for someone who reports an event than for someone who has to dismiss it because of the dissonance the data causes to their belief systems.

Dude, there have been multiple multi-million dollar government funded studies done on remote viewing, and all of them were shut down due to a lack of results, after which the scientific community labeled it as "pseudoscience." I'm not dismissing it "because it causes dissonance with my belief system," there's already pretty definitive scientific data out there!

[Pendragon]

I'm not sure I could take him many places.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Just humor, mon ami. Running low on points as it matters little, we are at an impasse, because I'm not going to change and neither are you, which is as it should be. One should stand on their own principals, or one has no principals.

And Morpheus: I understand the frustration of dealing with someone who depends on the same old unsubstantiated points. I still say your comment was uncalled for.

I try to let people know I believe God created the world, but certain scientific facts do not change. Evolution is a fact, not just a belief. Laws of physics do not change. But as the Bible says "With MEN these things are impossible. But with God all things are possible." Humanity is required to follow only what can be done within the boundaries of science and physics. God by definition is not subject to these, but goes beyond them.

So I cannot defy gravity, go faster than the speed of light, produce more energy than I expend, be unaffected by inertia and friction, etc. But God as all powerful can.

I know this probably doesn't fit into your world view. That's fine. No fuss from me. I just believe what I believe, as do you.

God bless both of you

Pen

Oh, and Lewis Carrol posed his "naked little girls" with wings and gauze, showing no indecency and with parental permission. To him they were fairies and other fantasy beings. Yeah, perhaps he was weird, you never know. But he was pretty careful about the pictures.

[YesNo]

As mal4mac pointed out earlier in this thread, observations are the basis of (he said, "science", but I would say, "knowledge"). Observations of unique events (i.e. all events) are not "replicatable". What is replicatable is a failure to falsify a scientific theory through observing similar events (experiments) that have the potential to falsify the theory.

Scientific theories are not facts. They are explanations of facts, or predictions about facts, or ways of organizing and thinking about facts. The facts (i.e. what actually happens) are not subject to testing and replication, because they are unique, happen in time and space, and have already happened.

I woke up this morning realizing that I think I understand this and agree with you. Facts are unique. They can't be replicated. One can, however, replicate the failure to falsify a theory by doing an experiment again. I suspect one could also replicate falsifying a theory.

Correct me if I got this wrong.

[YesNo]

Dude, there have been multiple multi-million dollar government funded studies done on remote viewing, and all of them were shut down due to a lack of results, after which the scientific community labeled it as "pseudoscience." I'm not dismissing it "because it causes dissonance with my belief system," there's already pretty definitive scientific data out there!

If you look at the bottom of the Wikipedia article you originally cited there is a reference to Michael Persinger's work that "suggests positive results": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_...ecent_research

I wonder if the term "pseudo-science" could be extended to the dismissal of data as well as the construction of theories specifically designed to counter established data.

All I need is one example of a psychic exhibiting remote viewing for my argument about consciousness not being totally generated by the individual brain to make sense. If consciousness were totally generated by an individual brain, such events should not occur at all.

[MorpheusSandman]

If you look at the bottom of the Wikipedia article you originally cited there is a reference to Michael Persinger's work that "suggests positive results":

Yes, one guy with "research" that "suggests positive results" obviously outweighs multi-million dollar studies done by multiple governments and shut down due to lack of results. You, of course, are not in any way a victim of confirmation bias, though.

All I need is one example of a psychic exhibiting remote viewing for my argument about consciousness not being totally generated by the individual brain to make sense.

Yep, that's all you need. Good luck finding what governments with millions of dollars in research couldn't.

[The Atheist]

Just humor, mon ami. Running low on points as it matters little, we are at an impasse, because I'm not going to change and neither are you, which is as it should be. One should stand on their own principals, or one has no principals.

Other than your spelling (is that American?) I agree. I always get deeply concerned when a principal contacts me - it means one of the kids is in it again!

What a lot of people don't understand - and Richard Dawkins is among them - is that there is nothing wrong at all with religion until it head-butts with science. This is something the Catholic Church realised a long time ago. It is the people within religion who try to use it as a battering ram to force their beliefs onto others that are the problem.

I know you're not one of them.

Oh, and Lewis Carrol posed his "naked little girls" with wings and gauze, showing no indecency and with parental permission. To him they were fairies and other fantasy beings. Yeah, perhaps he was weird, you never know. But he was pretty careful about the pictures.

He may well have been just on a different plane of existence to the rest of us. Had he not been attracted to fairies, we might not have had Alice. I don't believe there are any accusations of abuse around him anyway.

[Pendragon]

TheAtheist, Hello, mon ami!

Yes I am American, but that was more depending on auto-correct than spelling goof~! The Principal always made me nervous as well. I stand on my principles,

[Vota]

Question for you Pendragon. How can you believe God created the world, but then state evolution is a fact? This would imply that you believe man is a product of evolution and not a direct creation of God's. The Holy Bible makes it very explicit that God created Adam, and then Eve from one of his ribs.

I'm just curious how you differentiate between the creation of the world and the appearance of man, and how you accept God creating the earth, but accept science's theory of evolution? The juxtaposition between the two is pretty big from my point of view.

I want you to know that I am just curious how you reconcile your beliefs with science here and your reasoning for these statements you have made.