Recap from "jesus Freaks" hijacked thread

Thought it'd be helpful to repost my last message from there, and take things from there:


"Richard, thanks for the reply. Also, FFS, we've effectively hijacked your thread. If you'd like us to take this elsewhere, just say so and we can create a new one"

Yes, I was wondering if there's maybe a more appropriate group - something for discussing science, philosophy etc.?


"I think an incorrect assumption is being made here, though. In my experience, no one is asking you to take anything on faith; if you're genuinely curious, try it out for youself. Now, as I said earlier, without years of study and possibly access to labs or equipment, this effectively means most people will never have the opportunity. And this is okay, because you don't need to understand or accept everything from thermodynamics to string theory to properly appreciate the problems with religous faith."

My point was merely that some scientists do believe in certain things that have not a scrap of supporting evidence and, as far as we know, may never have (e.g. parallel universes). They may have perfectly good reasons for believing that such things do exist, but it still seems to be a matter of faith. Personally, I don't see any difference between supporting the existence of parallel universes and supporting the existence of God (some physicists even manage both).

As for religious faith: I tend to view it as more of a moral framework than anything else. So long as it isn't used to further selfish agendas, or to hurt others (which, sadly, it often has - and is), I don't see it as having any problems. I would agree, however, that science has been far more successful in describing the nature of the universe than has religion. But, there again, the two aren't necessarily incompatible - a physicist can, for example, accept evolution, but still believe that God created the universe. I do believe that science isn't as comprehensive as many people seem to think it is, though, and that, like most earthly myths, many religious ones could also have a grain of truth in them. I certainly find Eastern philosophies about the nature of the universe more insightful than commonly-held Western ones.


"I'd have to ask for examples of this. Anyone who ignores what they can't explain doesn't sound like a scientist to me. Curiousity about the unexplained is the primary motivation for most good scientists."

The most obvious example, though not necessarily the best for our purposes, would be ghosts, and other paranormal phenomena. Now, before I go on, I'll state that I don't doubt for a second that most "ghostly" activity has a more earthly explanation - whether it be panicky misinterpretation of perfectly normal phenomena, or whatever. But, there *is* a body evidence substantial enough to warrant serious consideration - even if 1% of documented ghost sightings are genuinely supernatural, that's a pretty hefty number. I think the problem is, most scientists can't begin to think how to accomodate such things as ghosts into their worldview, and so, rather than stopping to think whether that worldview is actually complete, or needs stretching in certain directions, they dismiss the notion. Whereas I think there's plenty of space to accomodate such things if we're not too rigid in our thinking about the nature of reality, and consciousness. As far as I'm concerned, any "supernatural" occurances genuinely unresolvable within our current understanding of the universe are indicative of a need for us to expand our thinking. Maybe there are no "genuine" ghosts after all, and we're pretty much spot on with our understanding of the universe. But, if we dismiss ideas and notions *just because they at first seem to be irreconciliable with current understanding*, we're holding ourselves back.


"Like what? Every student on the planet who could reasonably be called a physicist performed similar experiments to learn the basic forces that govern our existance. The beauty of science is that ideas that are widely accepted are verifiable; that is, if you don't believe it, test it for yourself. The "science fairs" that schools have every year are the most basic examples of this."

The assumptions I was thinking of are of a more fundamental level than the derivative macroscopic theories we can demonstrate at science fairs etc. Examples: the idea that all phenomena can be reduced to fundamental particles, and that human knowledge is most fundamentally concerned with mathetical prediction of statistical aggregates of particles; that the Cartesian co-ordinate system is the deepest conception of underlying order as a basis for analysis and description of the universe; that there's a distinction between thought and reality; that a given analysis or description of reality can be unlimited in its field of relevance... and so on... These, and other things, are some very basic assumptions, around which modern physics is hinged. All of them have been challenged (David Bohm challenged them quite persuasively with his "implicate order" theory, for example), but they're rather blindly taken for granted by many. For example: what reason do we have to believe that there actually *is* a distinction between thought and reality, other than the way we *perceive* both?


"Well, who says you have to believe it? If it doesn't make sense to you, I would say that it's only reasonable for you not to believe it (or at least withhold judgement until you have more or better information). And yeah, there are some pretty weird ideas floating around the upper echelons of the physics world. Most of them are in the category commonly referred to as Theoretical Physics, supported only by mathematical or empirical abstractions."

I wasn't commenting on my own views about such things, but, as I've just said above, simply saying that some physicists *do* accept the existence of things they have no evidence for. They may have perfectly good reasons - just as a Christian, say, may make a persuasive argument for the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent God. But both, without supporting evidence, is a matter of faith. What's the difference between a scientist's faith and a religious person's faith, if neither of their claims can be falsified?

Whether *I* believe in any of the things theoretical physics has to offer is beside the point. Sure, I'm not compelled to accept any of them (though some of them I do anyway), just as I'm not forced to believe in God, or any other deity.


"So yeah, if people who do this stuff for a living argue about it, then I don't think anyone expects the average person to intelligently differentiate between current theories. Again, I don't see how this affects the science/religion debate, either"

Hopefully, you do now? I would also say that the basic concepts and reasoning behind even the most revolutionary ideas can be - and are - accessible to anyone of reasonable intelligence. Which is why there's a market for popular science books, like Hyperspace, Parallel Worlds, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, The Universe Next Door... etc. (if you've not read any of them, check them on my books list, and track any of them down, if you're interested).


"I have to say that this is categorically false. A "fact", such as they exist in the world of science, must be a testable and verifiable result of a test or experiment. SJ Gould put much more eloquently that I ever could:" {Quote snipped}

I've already answered this above, with the "basic assumptions" :-)


"Hopefully I haven't come across as combative, as it is certainly not my intention. Also, I hope I haven't scattered my thoughts to the point that none of this makes sense. Anyway, thanks again for the reply and hopefully we can have a focused discussion."

Combative? Nah, not at all, squire :-) And you've probably made more sense, and been more focussed than I have!


[To "Jesus Freaks" members - like jclements said; sorry to have "hijacked" your thread. Hopefully, you might find it of some interest. It'd certainly be interesting to hear the thoughts on any of this, from some people who *are* religious]

[I haven't had an opportunity to review or edit for clarity so I apologize in advance for mistakes. As for right now, I'm going home :)]

"Personally, I don't see any difference between supporting the existence of parallel universes and supporting the existence of God..."

Well, I guess it depends on how reliable you consider the scientific community. Looking around, I found this:
www.wintersteel.com/files/ShanaArticles/multiverse.pdf

that is a supposedly well-respected paper in support of the parallel universe theory. I won't claim to understand any more than a small fraction of that but knowing that the author is held in high esteem by the scientific community and the fact that he works for one of the most highly regarded technical schools in the world leads me to believe that he's got some pretty good reasons for believing in that paper, even if I don't really understand any of it.

Personally, I trust the scientific community enough to give them the benefit of the doubt on things widely accepted. Sure, some (most?) things will be modified or disproved eventually, but it's really all we've got.

"As for religious faith: I tend to view it as more of a moral framework than anything else."

Which is fine, as long as you understand that faith is completely unnecessary for a moral society to exist. I think *you* understand this but I wouldn't be quite so sure about any given person walking around.

"So long as it isn't used to further selfish agendas, or to hurt others (which, sadly, it often has - and is)"

This is exactly what Dawkins was talking about in that interview; the idea that our society is taught to respect faith enables harmful behavior when it is claimed to be motivated by faith.

"a physicist can, for example, accept evolution, but still believe that God created the universe."

Well, sure, as long as he recognizes that these beliefs are radically different in purpose and rationality.

"...that, like most earthly myths, many religious ones could also have a grain of truth in them."

I agree - I don't see any reason why any of the past or present religions couldn't be in some ways true. Though, at least with ideas like parallel universes, we can point a telescope at the sky and see if there is any evidence to be found for it.

Regarding the paranormal stuff: I would love nothing more than for any of this stuff (ghosts, alien visits, etc.)to be true. My interest in reading was sparked by von Daniken's book Chariots of the Gods. My young naivete was crushed a little more each time I found out something else from that book was exaggerated or outright fabricated. I still catch myself thinking, "but wouldn't it be cool if it really was true?" from time to time. But, as Mr. Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and that just doesn't seem to exist.

"But, if we dismiss ideas and notions *just because they at first seem to be irreconciliable with current understanding*, we're holding ourselves back."

I wholeheartedly agree.

"What's the difference between a scientist's faith and a religious person's faith, if neither of their claims can be falsified?"

I don't think it's entirely accurate to call a scientist's belief in a theory faith. Faith is belief in that which has no evidence - a theory in physics will have at least some evidence, even if it's specious. Whether or not that should effect your own opinion is something each person would have to decide. Personally, I always give more credit to a scientific theory because, even if it's wrong, it's still an *attempt* to discover the truth.

"Hopefully, you do now?"

I think so. It seems like you mean something like, "Since even the basic laws of science can be disproved at any time, why bother?"

If this is true then you will be the first solipsist I've met. :)

"Well, I guess it depends on how reliable you consider the scientific community. Looking around, I found this:
www.wintersteel.com/files/ShanaArticles/multiverse.pdf

that is a supposedly well-respected paper in support of the parallel universe theory. I won't claim to understand any more than a small fraction of that but knowing that the author is held in high esteem by the scientific community and the fact that he works for one of the most highly regarded technical schools in the world leads me to believe that he's got some pretty good reasons for believing in that paper, even if I don't really understand any of it."

Yes, that's a very well-known paper. I've read it before - in, I think, Scientific American. And yes, the reasons he gives are pretty good ones, though some are more persuasive than others. For the record, I too believe, for a number of reasons, that parallel universes are in fact a reality. But, so far, we only have theoretical reasons for believing this to be the case (this paper's claims of falsifiability only deal with particular facets of the "many worlds" theory). As convincing as some of these arguments are, they're ultimately no more substantial than a good philosophical argument supporting the existence of God.

Remember, however, that this paper doesn't speak for THE scientific community, but a section of it. In fact, it's pretty divided over the issue. So this isn't a question of how "reliable" I think the general scientific community is, but how persuasive I find the arguments on either side. And, believe me, there are equally well-qualified, esteemed physicists who argue quite convincingly against the many worlds theory.


"Personally, I trust the scientific community enough to give them the benefit of the doubt on things widely accepted. Sure, some (most?) things will be modified or disproved eventually, but it's really all we've got."

No, it isn't - we have our own judgement, too. One of the important points about science is that it shouldn't be elitist; scientific work is open to scrutiny from anyone who wishes to make it the object of their critical eye, and no-one's viewpoint is more privelaged than another's - whether he be a Nobel Prize winner or a self-educated man-in-the-street. Widely accepted or not, any belief or theory is open to challenge from any quarter, and the arguments will either stand or fall on their own merit. I see no reason to simply "trust" the scientific communtiy *just because* they may be unanimous about something. Remember that, in times past, illiterate peasants blindly accepted the clergy's teachings of the Bible, simply because the clergy were the only ones who *could* read Latin, and so they "knew better". Their word was taken on trust, on a false assumption of superior knowledge, simply because they were better educated: essentially the same as the situation you say you're happy to indulge with the scientific community. The Bible was, however, translated into local dialects, enabling the peasants to read the Bible, making their own minds up about the clergy's interpreatition. Science thrives on being such an open system, and if everyone simply took the scientific community on trust, science would be rather more backward today.


"Which is fine, as long as you understand that faith is completely unnecessary for a moral society to exist. I think *you* understand this but I wouldn't be quite so sure about any given person walking around."

Of course it isn't *necessary*. But, if religion gives a person a clear, codified moral frameowrk s/he lives by, what does it matter if s/he could have the same *without* religion? You don't need religion to have a moral society, but a moral society needs to accept and accomodate religious faith.


"This is exactly what Dawkins was talking about in that interview; the idea that our society is taught to respect faith enables harmful behavior when it is claimed to be motivated by faith."

That's the price of accepting and tolerating *anything* (even though I don't like the word "tolerate", as it kind of seems to be saying "I don't necessarily like you, but I have to begrdgingly leave you be"). Some people will abuse "religion" to commit terrible acts (terrorism, for example). Equally, some people will abuse "scientific advancement" to justify working without ethics or scruples. In either case, such abuses are inevitable - but not in the majority. It's the way in which we deal with such instances that's really the issue.


"Well, sure, as long as he recognizes that these beliefs are radically different in purpose and rationality."

Not necessarily; if evolution is a fact, but it is also true that God created the universe, a physicist could argue that, assuming there really is a "theory of everything" (a single equation to describe the universe): God created the universe, and made all of it's physical laws. The world we live in, and all it's natural diversity, is only able to exists because God engineered the universe the way He did. Though He let evolution take its course, and thus didn't create us directly, we neverthless owe our own existence to the laws God has imposed upon the universe. In this case, the physicist's rationailty may be different to that of "pure" religion's, but he's been working with the same purpose, i.e. the Bible is essentially correct in spirit, if wildly incorrect in some of the details.


"I agree - I don't see any reason why any of the past or present religions couldn't be in some ways true. Though, at least with ideas like parallel universes, we can point a telescope at the sky and see if there is any evidence to be found for it."

No, we can't - that was my point about them :-)


"Regarding the paranormal stuff: I would love nothing more than for any of this stuff (ghosts, alien visits, etc.)to be true. My interest in reading was sparked by von Daniken's book Chariots of the Gods. My young naivete was crushed a little more each time I found out something else from that book was exaggerated or outright fabricated. I still catch myself thinking, "but wouldn't it be cool if it really was true?" from time to time. But, as Mr. Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and that just doesn't seem to exist."

I don't think that, given the huge number of people who have claimed to have seen a ghost, that it is such an extraordinary one to make. Also, I don't think it's the existence of ghosts that should be disputed, but the nature and explanation behind them that's the important thing. We basically need more scientists to take their hands away from their ears and to give the matter more serious consideration.


"I don't think it's entirely accurate to call a scientist's belief in a theory faith. Faith is belief in that which has no evidence - a theory in physics will have at least some evidence, even if it's specious. Whether or not that should effect your own opinion is something each person would have to decide. Personally, I always give more credit to a scientific theory because, even if it's wrong, it's still an *attempt* to discover the truth."

A testable, falsifiable theory is either derivaed from, or produces experimental evidence. But theoretical advances at the top-end of physics has far outstripped our ability to experimentally test or falsify. And so acceptance of them is no more or less an act of faith than believing in certain religious principles. And yes, they may well be "attempts" at finding some sort of truth, but their arguments are usually abstractly mathematical and philosophical. Religion is also based in philosophy, so religion too "attempts" to find truth. It generally falls down only in its methods (i.e. it is *purely* philosophical - a bit like high-concept theoretical physics, then, eh?).


"I think so. It seems like you mean something like, "Since even the basic laws of science can be disproved at any time, why bother?"

If this is true then you will be the first solipsist I've met. :)"

Um... Sorry to disappoint(?) :-) I guess my point is this: science isn't the be all and end all of things. I think that its incomplete, too blinkered in much of its thinking, and, in some instances, probably utterly wrong. I also see no reason why there has to be a science-religion debate, since both probably provide equally useful insights into various issues, and that a comprehensive view of reality will probably come from a combined effort, rather than from one or the other.

Sorry for the delay. I'm back so let's have a go, shall we?

I think our conversation is fragmenting a bit so I'm going to try to redirect it (I think I'd enjoy discussing any of the previously mentioned stuff I don't address, I would just like to narrow the focus of this discussion).

This all started as the old God/Science debate and a question of the rationality behind believing in either one (or neither, I suppose). We've discussed some of the strengths and faults of the science world - which is always good conversation - but what I still don't understand is the credibility given to religious faith.

As far as I can tell, every argument comes down to, "That sure looks complicated, must have been God."

At the end of your last reply, you said that "...both probably provide equally useful insights into various issues...".

As opposed to science which is cumulative and self-correcting, how does religion provide anything other than "We don't know how to answer that, so we'll attribute it to the divine"?

Sorry, haven't been able to pay much attention to this for a while, as I've been busy writing an assignment for my university course, in between looking for a job. I'll write an answer to your last post as soon as I can.

Sorry, haven't been able to pay much attention to this for a while, as I've been busy writing an assignment for my university course, in between looking for a job. I'll write an answer to your last post as soon as I can.

No worries, take your time.

"As opposed to science which is cumulative and self-correcting, how does religion provide anything other than "We don't know how to answer that, so we'll attribute it to the divine"?"

How do you know that that is the case with *everything" postulated by various religions, though?

It was long known, before science told us why, that willow bark could, if prepared correctly, soothe headaches. Prior to a scientific explanation (salicylic acid), all sorts of explanations were thought up as to why this may be the case. The point is, although people didn't understand, and couldn't explain why, willow bark helped with headaches, it did. So, it's possible to have knowledge in which only the important general thrust of it is known, even if the language and explanations to describe *why* may be faulty. I propose that this is possibly the case with some of various religions' postulates, proposed and held to be true, pre-science. In short, I think at least *some* of religion actually has basis in scientific fact (even if it may mean expanding our understanding of science, rather than trying to shoehorn things in, or else ignore them completely), if only it wouldn't take such a snobbish attitude towards religion, just because...

Any other thoughts, from anyone else? Sorry to revive an old thread, but thought that some of you exasperated by the streams of gibberish on the threads recently might appreciate something more intellectually engaging (he says modestly).

I'll take that as a 'no', then - can't say I didn't try!

I'm always happy to read threads like this but unforutantely I can't always contribute. Brains just don't work that well.

Don't worry, neither does mine, half the time :-)