How can a scientist believe in God?

Help me understand a couple of things before I get to engaed in the coming conversation, and dig a deep hole for myself.

How do, for this conversation, define 'scientist'? It seems to be used and even abuse in many Gather coversations.

Is science about the understanding of natyre and the means/mehtods it operates? Once having understood the laws of nature is then about using those laws to creating or change what happens?

This maybe redundant to the laws question, is science about learning the why and how of natures laws or is it about creating new or changing existing laws of nature?

For the purposes of this post, I define scientist as someone who makes their living (a professional) doing scientific research and or teaching. Usually that person will have studied seriously and have an advanced degree, as well as other credentials such as published papers. This is only for the purposes of this post, in other contexts, scientist could be defined differently.

Duane, yes, science is bout understanding the laws of nature, but no, it is not about changing them. I dont know of any laws of nature that have been, or could be changed.

Simon,

Then the scientsts roles starts with understanding nature and then extends to an interest in what or why the laws of nature were created/established?

As an example have scieintist determine how/why gravity works, not just the laws of gravity that predict what will happen when it is applied?
Have scientist established how/what established gravity?

I ask these questions as Stephen Hawkins said that gravity created the 'big bang' so there was no need for God to create the universe. He is one of the most renown of our time and he only says we don't need God and yet I am not aware of how he describes the creation of gravity or what the actual mechanism of how it works.

Have I overlook something, is there something out there that I should be reading about gravity that would address those questions?

Simon,

TO the second point of changing the laws of nature; if science and scietist in all their wisdom have not changes a law of nature would that suggest that man can only play by the rules that were established for him, the laws that established the universe as we know it?

"I dont know of any laws of nature that have been, or could be changed."

In the early 20th century a midwestern state, Indiana I think, tried to pass a law making pi equal to three. Then there's the verse from the blues song "Lawyer Clark" that begins "Mr. Clark's a good lawyer, bout the best I ever seen. He's the very first one to prove that water runs upstream." That may be anecdotal evidence. :)

Duane

You are right again. Hawking or anybody else has even attempted to explain the origin of gravity.

Nippy, I am sure that Lawyer Clark was able to prove that, but as we know, lawyers have their own definition of "proof".

Nippy,

Is Pi a law of nature or simply a convenience (fudge factor) that scientists use to make their equaitons work? If it is the fudge factor than it can be change though the eqautions wouldn't work.

With regard to the lawyers, as best I can tell they are taugh that reality isn't the truth only what the court of law allows is the truth. So lawyers would in their contrived world to protect themselves from the reality of life.

Simon,

If such renown scientists as Hawkins have prove the origin of gravity then they haven't exclude God as the source. If scieintists truly subscribe to the scieintific method then they haven't proven that God does not exist. If they have proven God doesn't exist then wouldn't that allow for the possibility that God does exist? If a person denys God existance or at least the posssibly are they truly a scientist, for would a true scientist deny the scieintific method?

I have to add he, I do not believe that God wants to be proven by science for it would overturn the purpose of free will.

"Is Pi a law of nature or simply a convenience (fudge factor) that scientists use to make their equaitons work?"

It's an interesting question. A lot of mathematicians believe that mathematical relationships are discovered, not created. If you take math beyond high school algebra you'll find that pi crops up in the most amazing places. There's the marvelous, aesthetically speaking, relationship e^(i*pi) = -1 that kids generally learn to prove in whatever they're calling third year algebra these days. There are all sorts of infinite series relationships where pi crops up. Is pi a fudge factor? Depends on what you call a fudge factor. If you look at pi as the ratio of the circumference of a circle to it's diameter, it's something that can be verified to any degree of precision you want. There are any number of infinite series that can be used to compute pi. The interesting thing about them is that pi only appears on the left side of the equals sign.

Nippy,

No question that Pi works ann is integral to the eqautions. The question becomes how does it work, is it a part of the logic or is it simply a number that fits across different equations. You mention in with regard to a circle, is it a speific measurement such as the radius or is simply a number that works? If it is simply a number that through trial and error that works it is a fudge factor, if is is specific element in developing the equation that it is part of the law.

Pi, can why it works be explained or is for no other reasoin than it works so we use it? If it is the latter then I would say it is a fudge factor the gives an answer that works, the same as if a few hundred years ago some one pulled it out of the air or some oriffice and got a reproduceable answer.

Another way to look at is is the equation for the area of a trianclke, 1/2 L H. The 1/2 is ther because it is just that have the area of a square. Pi is there becuase it works.

Without going into the purported, yet dubious metaphysical distinctions between whether pi is something "logical" or something that "just works," I'll make two comments. First, to take this to a computational level below even trig, the value of pi can be calculated to any desired level of precision by adding together the value of two infinite series:

16/5 - 16/3*5^3 + 16/5*5^5 - 16/7*5^7 + 16/9*5^9...

plus

4/239 - 4/3*239^3 + 16/5*239^5 - 16/7*239^7 + 16/9*239^9...

There are other methods.

Secondly, if you're striping a free throw line on a basketball court and it takes one can of paint to draw the line itself, it is going to take pi cans of paint to draw the circle around the line (assuming it is solid and not a dotted line). Not a fudge factor; not something that "just works," but a deeply fundamental reality of life on a basketball court.

Dave,

I apprecaite the level of accuracy Pi lends t an equation.

A fudge factor is there for no rhyme or reason aside from the fact that it works. The test is how it was identified to be included in the equation. If it were part of the equation based on the same reasoning the other elements were include then it would be part of the scientific principle. However, if it were there simply because someone found it by trial and error to make the equation work then it would be a fudge factor. The reality is that fudge factors aren't uncommon, they make the scieintific equations int practical tools, but if they can be explained how can we be so sure there aren't other such factors that will work.

Best guess it works but no clue why, fudge factor. Reality is that science doesn't know everythign and not even sure about what we think we know.

As for the painting and Pi, are we measuring the line for shooting (diameter of the circle) and the circle inside which to shoot from? PiD = 2Pir = circumference
Why does it work? What was the reasoning for choosing Pi?

Duane, I would argue that the conceptual relationship between the base and height of the triangle and its area is the same as that between the radius of a circle and its area. In both cases, we have measurements, and something needs to be done to those measurements to get the area. The difference is that in the case of the triangle, you can "see" - grok, if you like that invention of Heinlein's - how the halving works, while in the case of the circle, you can't intuitively see what's happening. But is this something inherent to the area of a circle, or a limitation of human minds? The answer is not obvious.

You think of the halving of the product of the triangle's base and height as "natural", but tell a group of third graders that's the rule, and see "damn, another arbitrary thing we'll have to remember for the test" written all over their faces. Fudge factor? Then demonstrate the trick with cutting up a second copy of a triangle and adding the pieces to the first one to make a rectangle, and see "cool - I get this" light up on (some of) their faces. No longer fudge factor? Law of nature now?

Adults differ in their ability to see mathematical concepts intuitively, too. That's probably obvious, but here's an example: I remember a problem involving combinations that had me reduced to applying the formula given in the book, and confused about why it worked that way (fudge factor?), while someone else (who might recognize himself here) was able to visualize the sets and solve the problem that way (law of nature?).

As Nippy says, there are various philosophical takes on the sense in which mathematical objects exist, and I think each of us just has to pick one we like and smile benevolently when confronted with another's incomprehensibly crazy view. Realism works for me. I think pi is something real, like really out there. It feels like that to me. Go ahead, now - smile.

Aniko,

With the triangle, you show how there is a time when our understand sees the reasoning to the 1/2 of the area. That would suggest there is a time when we understand Pi and it relationship. When?

Do you think finding Pi was intuitive, logially identified, or could it have been simply trial ann error (the logic was there but the number didn't work exactly)?

I agree with Anikó that seeing pi as "fundamental" may be a question of one's comfort level as much as a meaningful distinction between a "rational" value and a fudge factor. The underlying phenomena and their mathematical representations are there whether or not we get comfortable with them. 

The story of Newton's blunder about the calculation of the kinetic energy of objects has been told. Newton had it as proportional to an object's mass x velocity (later recognized as the momentum of the object). It wasn't until Voltaire's friend Émilie du Châtelet ran some experiments involving dropping balls into soft clay from various heights that the truth came out. She measured the displacement of the clay and discovered, for example, that the balls moving twice as fast displaced four times as much clay. Their kinetic energy, she found, was proportional to the square of the object's velocity times its mass. (Newton eventually got comfortable with that idea.)

There are indeed constants in scientific equations that are artifacts of the measurement system chosen, of which my favorite, in terms of being a "fudge factor" and not something meaningful about nature, is the permeability of free space, µ(0). It's a value that has to be introduced in certain equations about magnetism only because of the choice of a value for the ampere. It's a true fudge factor and not a property of free space.

Here's a historical overview of pi.

Central to the "proper" understanding here of "numbers" ... is that they are a manmade "construct" ... something "originally" but an "arbitrary" agreement considered by those "believing so" to be the "facts" under consideration.

Thus they are based upon logic and rationality, in short, "objectivity".

Pi is considered to be (among others) a "transcendental" number ... (beyond objective understanding ?)

Logic in numbers is based upon "geometry", beginning with "Plane Geometry" and then advancing to "Euclidean Geometry" etc. "Rational Numbers" and "Irrational Numbers", Platonic Solids etc ... things involving "Straight Lines", something that is "UN-natural" because in Real Nature straight lines do NOT exist.

Central again to the "needed" understanding ... is that The Greatest Number is really simply ONE (1) ... That of GOD's (not God nor gods) UNIverse (the OMNIverse for some) ... that which is the greatest (largest) as well as the least (smallest) (Macro and Micro) ... the INfinite Sphere and the INfinite "dot" or "period" ... (+) AND (-) !

The latter, (+) AND (-), being (of course) the BET (+=-) and of course being a PARADOX (defying reason, IE rationality) ... mankind cannot seem to allow paradox in his logical and rational life.

Thus we have (for the relative few) the TRANSCENDENTAL ALLOWANCES which do NOT require the mentioned FUDGE FACTORS ... which are that which is required to "stomach" the mentioned "Rationality" that most think is reality.

Thus the INFINITELY GREATEST AND THE INFINITELY LEAST are ALL withIN the ONE of GOD's UNIverse ... making anything AND everything withIN that TOTAL WHOLE LESS THAN ONE ... a FRACTION AS A PART OF THE WHOLE and simply a RELATIVE NUMBER rather than an ABSOLUTE. All things UNder GOD ARE RELATIVE to each other ... and INfinite ... as is Pi.

IMnsHO

Dave,

I apreciated the article about Pi. It seemed to focus on how it was found and that it worked. For me, my limits, it didn't describe why it work. Can you help by giving me a simplified explanation of why Pi works?

Jerry,

You had me going with the flow from one ot the extremes in wither direction.

"Thus we have (for the relative few) the TRANSCENDENTAL ALLOWANCES which do NOT require the mentioned FUDGE FACTORS" I am not sure how the reference to the 'fudge factor' fits in the flow of your comments.

I would say that the 'fudge factor' is applied when the individual/group understanding of the eqaution, practices, events are preditable only when the limits of our understanding have been reached and we find that a simple 'number', without explanation or understanding, is applied and produces a reliable and predicatable result.

The 'fudge factor' is what makes it work and we don;t knwo why.

Duane, to calculate the circumference of a circle requires some trigonometry and calculus. If you read the historical methods of approximating the circumference by adding up a number of straight line segments, the method is conceptually similar. Conceptually, taking an integral breaks the circle down into segments of infinitesimal lengths and summing over them. If you want to take a peek, look here.

Duane, my point was that basing the distinction between what is a "fudge factor" and what is a "law of nature" on whether the logic can be intuitively "seen" seems unjustified to me. Dave's example of how the correct way to calculate kinetic energy was eventually found is very much to the point here. Newton (a pretty smart guy - not like the above-mentioned third graders or yours truly scratching her head over her kid's algebra 2 book) tried to "logic" it out, and he got it wrong. It took empirical observation to find that the velocity had to be squared. Does that make it a "fudge factor"? To me, the answer is obviously not. The measurements showed that the energy was proportional to the square of the velocity, because that is how it is in the actual world. It is a law of nature.

In other words, I think your "either intuitive and logically identified or simply trial and error" formulation is missing something, especially if you think of the former as indicating a "law of nature" and the latter as a "fudge factor" that's not a real property of nature. Discovering something by scientific experiment is very much about the properties of nature, and not the same as throwing in a fudge factor of the µ(0) kind.

(The Bodanis book Dave links is really good, BTW.)

Simon, Nippy, Aniko, Dave, Jerry,

First let me thank all of you for taking the time to describe how you and others have come to find how specific values are found and used in the development of the equations that describe how laws of nature work.

For this is specifically why I am on Gather; to as my questions, be given answers that cause me to think, to learn, to grown my knowledge and my mind. Thank you all.

I approach things from two prespectives; trying to understand what works (the invesitgation of the why, the how, the can we predict), and the application (making what we want to do, to achieve, to happen).

With that approach and being somewhere in between (but closer to) the 'thrid grader' and the very knowledgeable and very brilliant I ask questions in my way so I can learn and think.

You have each given me things to learn and made me think.

I am surprised 'fudge factor' has stirred so much. I learned the 'concept' of the 'fudge factor' in school and had it affirmed in an early job. It was the link that made theory work. I have been away from the application of those formulas and specific application for too many years to recall all of the equations/formulas that had a specific numbers (fudge factors) that noone could explain but were critical to linking the theories to the practical application. In that puriy of my youth that lack of knowing created frustration in me and even more in others, until an instructor gave me/us the 'concept', we do not know the why of everything but we can find what makes what we do know work for us today. He further describe in a more graffic (by reaching down giving a jesture of pulling it out of the 'air') and explaining if it works use and don;t spend too much effort trying to understand it for it maybe beyond out capabilities and the law of diminishing returns applies.

I raised the point because people seem to expect science to be able to expain everything and yet just as in the use of the 'fudge factor' we may not be able to understand it so we need to accept our limitations and not prevent ourselves from be able to use and build on what works. There is nothing wrong with periodically questioning the 'fudge factor' for it can help us learn. However, if you become preoccupied with forcing people to accept we know why it works so we must know why everything works we risk missing out on what reality is and what is working.

I want to apologize for the frustration I have cause with my raising and holding on to the 'fudge factor', but I won't because I learned and you all caused me to think and articulate.

Thank you again for you prove the value of Gather.

Aniko,

Thank you, until you mentioned the square of the velocity I had narrow my focus to arbitreray numbers and you have shown it can be more. I can understand how/why the velocity and the mass create the energy, but why is it the square of the velocity. I can almost see that it is how much more influencial is the velocity to the point that it is so great that it is the square of the velocity, a weighting factor). I don't understand why that specific weighting, but it works.

You have opened up what maybe considered a 'fugde factor'; it we don't why and element of a formula works but it is critical to the application then we may want to include it as a 'fudge factor'. I apologize, this is just how my mind works.

No need for an apology, Duane. You triggered an interesting discussion thread, and that's what we're here for.

Duane, you ask; " ... I am not sure how the reference to the 'fudge factor' fits in the flow of your comments."

I answer; When the Basic Equation of Truth (BET) as (+=-) is understood, the questions (all of them) are "answered", in that with the INclusion of (=) (the Connective Spirit~Force~UNIversal INtelligence) IN BEtween and throughOUT, of All that is is taken INto consideration, then we know that for every known (+) there will exist it's opposite (-) an UNknown.

Mankind, at least individually, cannot ever know more than 1/2 of the potentials of know-ability ... that because of two primary reasons, that all is change (to one degree or other) and because each thing thought know-able has it's "natural" counterpart, the "equal but opposite" (the very closest to an "exact copy" that we can get to anything)(and of course, we cannot get there, short of becoming GOD), the UNknowable.

"Normal" human thought, that of an "UNspiritual" ego, is "disconnected" to every "other", even to GOD (which is the Totality of ALL, even of opposite INfinites, (+) AND (-) ... in that man cannot ever know the fullness of GOD, by the same token, man cannot know the fullness of the UNIverse because the ONLY NATURAL LAW, (+=-), dictates so.

WithOUT that BET (+=-)(transcendent Trinity concept) one is left with duality (+/-) where the Gap and Void (/) between Potentials (+) OR (-) EXcludes the "connective truth" (=) which is INclusive and thus allowing the use of Trinity transcendent to Duality.

The "Fudge Factors" that represent the awareness of UNknowns that actually connect differences, and needed to the degree that we can "accept" unknowns in considering the factors that we "can see" as " to make up and allow for, our objective reality".

I said "objective" reality because most normal people only allow, at least "primarily", their 5 common physical (objective) senses to contribute to what they will allow as reality (especially most "scientists"). Objective people cannot "abide" paradox.

Which brings me to the "subject" of "normality" considering only "objectivity" as "allowable", while those more "religious", and especially those generically "spiritual", apply "more" validity to "subjectivity" (coming from the INtuition) ...

Which brings me to another thought: ... most "normal" people, in thinking as mentioned above, not only consider objectivity primary, they also, without giving it proper thought, place their intuition as just another objective normality ... that being why they say that some things are "Counter-intuitive" as they "dis-allow" that intuitions are actually "The Subjective INtuition", that which connects us to the Mind of GOD (as well as to God(s), gods, and all other "sentient type" thinkers, incarnated and spirits (Jung's Mass Mind).


The major "point" being here ... that "we" who have "met" GOD to the degree that value the Perennial Philosophy (Wisdom), relate now "primarily" to "Spiritual Truths" (subjective that they may be) over and above those "considered" facts and truths by "normal" (objective) society ... we can still accept "normal society" for what it is, both, to others, as well as what it has become for ourselves where we have now a "priority" around the concept of GOD's relationship IN it all.

All being relative, all is related, yet some many do not look at it that way ... some will reject certain things and thoughts while others will at least allow it all.

IMnsHO and E.

PS ... in the sense that normal man thinks, what is considered to him as "natural law" is that which is logically rational to him ... when it comes to the "mathematical ( theories, algorithms, etc.) laws", he considers what society has accepted as truths (although they are really but arbitrary "constructs" seen from their very beginnings), that trait being in effect the same as I just mentioned above where "priorities" are "reversed" in use between objective and subjective prioritized people. IN GOD's "realm" (from GOD's supposed perspective) there are no laws, just as their are no real absolute distinctions between anything ... only those that "we" "create for ourselves" by socially accepted agreement concerning what we are "willing to" consider our reality (relative as it really is).

IMnsHO

Dave,

Thanks, this has been a good conversation from my viewpoint.

Jerry,

I can only speak to what is what is relative to my senses and rationale.

I feel you are 'conservative' or 'generous' in what man can know. I like the analogy of a light in a moonless night out of doors. The brighter the light (our kowledge becomes) gets the ring of darkness we can see simply grows as it relates to Pi in calcualting the circumference of our circle of knowledge. Until we know all we will not know how much we don;t know, our experience is that what we don;t know seems to grow geometrically as our knowledge grows.

As for the 'laws of nature', for me they are simply a way for us to learn how to practicaly apply what nature offers.

As for God, my best guess is that he create 'laws of nature' so we would have a place to exercise 'free will'.

I am one of those that is bound by their senses and takes those and what I learn from others to live in this world, my reality. I readily admit there are many things/events that coincidence of natural events that gives me pause that the 'laws of nature' can be managed.

Duane

I havent contributed much to this thread, so your thanks is premature. But I also appreciate your comments (as usual) because they do tend to open good discussions.

In physics we have equations that relate some some property of reality to other properties. One equation from chemistry is the gas law which states that the pressure, temperature, volume and number of molecules of a gas are all related to each other. One way to write this relationship is in the equation

PV = nRT.

P is the pressure, V is the volume, n is the number of molecules and T is the temperature. But we also need another number, a constant, in this case called R, the gas constant. IF we take any gas, and multiply it pressure times its volume, then divide that value by the number of molecules multiplied by its temperature, we always get the same number - 8.314, which is the value of R.

Why is R always that particular number, why not 20 or 300 or 2?
Nobody knows. There is no way to figure out what R (or any of the other constants in nature) should be. They must be measured.
Planck's constant, (h), avogadro's number, the constants that determine the speed of light, the strength of gravity and so many more, could be called fudge factors, because they have no rationale or meaning.

But here is the really interesting part. If almost any of these physical constants had a different value, our universe would be a very different place. And we wouldnt be here. Think about that. Whatever or Whoever, or However the values of those constants were intially determined, we are very lucky they came out the way they did.

Simon,

I was not premature, for the posting began the conversation and the willingness to let it meander facilitated it.

"appreciate your comments (as usual) because they do tend to open good discussions." You are very generous, for if that is what I do then I like to feel that is what we are here for.

"any of these physical constants had a different value, our universe would be a very different place." I agree. The 'fudge factor' is a practical place holder until we do understand why/how they occur. It is the reminder that we don't know and don't have to know the why/how to make science benefial. And to bring it back keep it in the 'ball park' of your post, it is simply a data point that does not preclude God or how we came to this place and time, for if science can work without the total understanding then science can work with God being present.

I'd love to hear about the pointers to a majestic creative God. Now featured at Examining Our Religion.

Polkinghorne talks about the fine tuning of physical constants as pointers to God, in the link, and in other presentations. In the link he talks about carbon. You might also remember I once posted an artcle on LYR about the weak force, and its constant.

Thanks, Sy.

"Knowledge about the universe is a God given gift, and science is the tool that man uses to understand the truth of the creation. Even Adam, the first true man, gave names to things..."

Isn't it circular reasoning to use your faith-based beliefs to argue about "truth?"
Nonscientists are not "ignorant fools," if they use and benefit from the knowledge gained by scientists. The ignorant fools are the ones who deny scientific knowledge and substitute their own superstitious beliefs.
Appreciation of art is subjective. Many people love country music. I hate it, but I enjoy classical music...which I suspect many country music lovers hate. So what comes from Miles Davis' horn (and I do like it) is not truth in any objective sense.
Yes, there are scientists who are also devout believers, and I admit I find it puzzling. I would venture that the percentage of scientsts who are believers is much lower than the general public, though. I know that is true for the Academy of Science, where I believe I read that the percentage is around 5%.
But I think a scientist who knows about archaeology and paleoanthropology and who believes the earth was created five or six thousand years ago with all living things exactly as we see them today is doing some severe mental calisthenics to compartmentalize these conflicting thoughts in his brain. Cognitive dissonance, indeed!
Of course, I realize that most scientists are probably a little more rational than the "New Earthers." But that just lessens the compartmentalization. It does not eliminate it.

Those of us who believe in creation come in many "flavors" Bert :-D

That's certainly true, Dennis. I tried to say that in the last two sentences.

I dont know of any scientist, including evangelical Christians who believes in young Earth Creationism. So that is a straw man. I havent actually made any arguments about truth here. I am only speaking about tools to arrive at truth. Scientific work being one of them.

See this article by Clarke M. It scares me.

Maybe I do not understand the word "evangelical," Sy.
I thought it meant, among other things, belief in the literal truth of the Bible.
How do scientists who are evangelical Christians reconcile Genesis with evolution and the geological and fossil record? Isn't Genesis a "young earth" account of creation?

What scares you about Clarke's article, Ann? That so many people are "Young Earthers?"
Read my comment over there. I don't think the Gallup polling method is correct for this kind of question. I certainly hope not! It's a depressing thought that almost half of Americans can deny scientific FACTS.

Re "Young Earther" scientists.
You may not know any, Sy, but there are quite a few.
Hardly a strawman...

I agree that the polling method is probably biased in some way. But even if the figure is high by, say, 10 points, it's still a frightening statistic.

Bert,

Do you need science to prove or disprove God to make it a fact that God does or doesn;t exist?

I agree, Ann, it is frightening...and saddening to me. I wrote an article about this a year ago. It's called "Religion, Science and Climate Change Denial."

I do not NEED science to prove anything, Duane.
It is virtually impossible to disprove the existence of a supernatural entity. As I have said elsewhere (tongue-in-cheek) it would require the design and manufacture of a God Detector which would then have to be used to examine every infinitesimal space in the Universe.
But I remain a skeptic based on the lack of any evidence of its existence.

What is frightening is this brand of scientist (so called) who are completely disjointed from sociological history. With a straight face they can see the "God awareness/consciousness" evident in all history (including the "Trinity") and dismiss it like an extra appendage only on the human body that means absolutely nothing. As if such an all-compassing God-consciousness just hatched out of nowhere and hung on for all these years without being discarded. AND! God consciousness was not just this abstraction, it actually motored civilizations with THE prime control of the minds/bodys/societies of humanity. NO true scientist can explain "God consciousness" away and still be credible. Frauds is what we have parading as scientists. Set in their ways. Unable to even objectively examine rocks without an atheistic textbook in their hands.

Thankfully there are a few scienists willing to reach a bit beyond that science proffessor with the hammer/ciccleee tatooed on his rear. But precious few. Sheep! What we need is another Tesla to arrive! To dazzle this bunch of feces collectors! Someone for the scientific community to hang on their cross.

Bert

I hope that link was also tongue in cheek. See my definition of scientist above in answer to Duane. I know that there are few folks with Ph.Ds who are members of the creation Institute and other YECs, but I dispute that they are serious scientists. Certainly the ones in your link are not.

Evangelical, does not mean literalist. Evangelical means a Christian devoted to spreading and teaching the words and message of Christ as savior and redeemer. I consider myself to be an evangelical, and so is Dave, and neither of us are literalists.

As for the survey in Clarke's article, I dont thing the result is depressing at all for reasons given in a comment of mine there.

Ann,

"It scares me."

Why? What difference does it make whether one imagines people wandering around hunting and gathering for millions of years or thousands? Why would more people having the thought of millions protect you from anything? Is thinking ten million, more protection than five?

From the Wiki;

"The earliest signs of a process leading to sedentary culture can be seen in the Levant to as early as 12,000 BC, when the Natufian culture became sedentary; it evolved into an agricultural society by 10,000 BC."

That's it really, the whole of human history is only a few thousand years old . .

"Historic times are marked apart from prehistoric times when "records of the past begin to be kept for the benefit of future generations";[9] that is, with the development of writing. If the rise of civilization is taken to coincide with the development of writing out of proto-writing, the Near Eastern Chalcolithic, the transitional period between the Neolithic and the Bronze Age during the 4th millennium BC, and the development of proto-writing in Harappa in the Indus Valley of South Asia around 3300 BCE . . "

How long humans existed before that doesn't really mean much, in terms of anything but imagination, basically.

Well said, John. I didn't think of that.

The problem I have with that interpretation is that it's humanocentic, something we can no longer afford to be, given the state of our planet. (Humanocentism was, of course an adaptive feature at the time The Bible was written).

Bert,

Being a skeptic is a healthy way to look at this or life in general for it makes the mind work more and it reduces the acceptance of frivilous or criminal activities.

What I am wonder is whether scientific prove would move you in either direction? Would science matter on whether God exists or not? Or do you have some self develop threshold/deccription of what you would need to move either way on this? If you do I would surley be interested, for I am of the mind that we have free will to believe or not believe and if science were to prove God existed we would no longer have free will for their would be no purpose for it.

Ann

What does humanocentric mean? And if it means what I think it does, what's wrong with it? The planet is in great shape, and if there are any problems at all, its only from a humanocentric point of view. For example if should raise the temperature by 10 degrees (the extreme end of the possible degree of global warming) and go back to high levels of pollution, and cause widespread starvation from over population, and lets see what else, and wipe out 50% of current species, then the planet will be great for a whole number of other species, as it always has been after a mass extinction. From a non humanocentric viewpoint, nothing could be better. Human beings might have a hard time, but who cares, if we are not being humanocentric?

I am not trying to be nasty or sarcastic. I really have never understood this point. We could, theoretically destroy ourselves. We cannot destroy the planet or all of life on it. Even if we really wanted to. It is the equating of our own interests to that of the planet is the real humanocentric bias.

Ann,

"The problem I have with that interpretation is that it's humanocentic, something we can no longer afford to be . . "

" . . something we can no longer afford to be" ?? Sounds downright "humanocentric" to me. Why would it even matter what "we" can afford to be, if "we" are not anything special? This is one of those snake eating it's own tail kinda logics to me . .

Look, as I read the Book, all His Creations are "good" in His eyes. There's no logical reason to think people who believe that are going to be more callous about the environment He Created than some folks who think we are just a happenstance occurrence, which will fade away one day anyway, and be replaced by some other happenstancial winners in a meaningless "survival of the fittest" lottery sorta deal . . that I can think anyway.

In fact, it seems to me that the opposite would be true; Those who see us as just something temporary that the "law of the jungle" produced, would be more inclined to start playing God so as to ensure their survival in an otherwise hostile universe of ruthless competitors . . Why not? And, haven't you noticed which general group is doing the "genetic engineering", and is keen on doing environmental engineering? To preserve what? . . or should I say whom?

Ann,

"You know how much DNA and how many evolutionary ties we share with other species. We are relatives, in a true genetic sense."

If He made everything, He made all the critters, and that genetic coding means "ties to Him" we are seeing in that coding. Assuming there is no God "behind" that coding (which we have no idea how could get started in the first place, so as to be able to evolve) is just a shell game to my mind. I mean, according to your understanding, doesn't the existence of critters with "nervous systems like ours" depend on an underlying ecosystem that is chock full of less complex critters?

It really wouldn't have been too clever to plop down something like primates first . . they would die out, pronto, right? Must have that vast ecological "web of life" for us, or critters anything like us, to even survive . . One cannot logically eliminate the possibility that a super-intelligent Being laid that necessary groundwork, so to speak, first. It's just a rational order to proceed in, it seems to me.

Consider, please; (from Genisis 2)

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew . . .

Before it was in the earth? Before it grew? Now how could that be . . unless it means He wrote the code beforehand. As in, He knew what He was doing, and "evolution" is really just the appearance of things at the proper time here, in the living/physical sense. It looks to "Evolutionists" like a sort of random process perhaps (as everything looks like a nail to man with a hammer ; ) but that don't mean it was . . or that our arrival on the scene, so to speak, is happenstance at all. This Guy deals in vast spans of time, I tell you, and is in no hurry whatsoever . .

Sy...evangelist vs. evangelical.
Google it.

The two words have the same root (??????????, "good news"), so they're bound to have things in common. (In a number of languages, the books you call "gospels" in English (g?d-spell "good news") continue to be referred to with words borrowed from Greek "euangelion".)

"Evangelical" in its original sense means exactly what Sy said: it is about taking Jesus's message seriously, making it the center of one's life, and passing it on. (And if you google it, Bert, you will find that meaning.) Reading the Bible "literally" in any other sense is not required. (Whatever that means--you can't derive 10,000 years or 6,000 years as the age of the earth from an actual literal reading of Genesis, can you?) It is the modern politicized (and yes, again) Amerian confusion of the word with right-wing Christian fundamentalism that is the distortion. (As one obvious example, Jim Wallis calls himself an evangelical.)

Ann

I actually like animals. And other living stuff. I think they are quite tasty.

OK, sorry, I couldnt resist. I agree with everything you wrote except one.

Biodiversity has its own intrinsic value, above and beyond what humans may or may not assign to it.

I find that statement very problematic. The concept of value is a purely human one. There were times on Earth when biodiversity was nill. After the Permian extinction for example. Who cared? What value was lost. Biodiversity is of no value to other creatures, unless they can find anything to eat, and they go extinct also. So what? Where is the value of any species?
The answer is WE give values to everything, including our pets, wildlife, swift horses, cute kittens, and noble lions. The actual horses, cats and lions dont give a damn. Without humans there are no values. Without humans nothing matters. Was it a tragedy that the KT asteroid wiped out hundreds of species and millions of animals? A tragedy for them, but not for us mammals. It wasnt even a tragedy for them, because they didnt care. Animals dont want to die, but they dont brood about it, think about it, worry about it. They dont value life, they just live it.

And as you know, the fact that we share so much DNA with mice and frogs, means very little, as you know. And our nervous systems are based on the same priniciples as other mammals, but nothing else alive has a brain remotely close to ours. Its like comparing a rock to Notre Dame. Same stuff, but the complexity is a bit different.

No, if there were other sentient beings, either here or elsewhere, than it is very likely that they would values, just as we do. I do not claim that Homo Sapiens are a priori the most superior beings in the universe, because I am humanocentric. It may be that we are the only sentient, intelligent, most conscious beings, so in that case we are very important. But it might turn out that dolphins and elephants are much more sentient that I think they are. If other animals on this planet have values, than I stand corrected, and they can join us in working toward preserving things in line with their values.

This argument is not a religious one, in my mind it is a logical one. I am not saying that animals do not have intrinsic value. According to the Bible, they do, and humans were tasked by God to be stewards over the Earth and all its creatures. And I know a couple of dogs and one cat who I believe have intrinsic value, and Im sure there are others. That means they are valuable to me. But do they hold values in their mind. Do they have a value system? Can they determine values? I doubt it very strongly.

BTW, despite all of this, I am aware that we could actually be equivalent to the intelligent and conscious level of a worm, in comparison to some other hypothetical entity. Perhaps there are alien races that make us look like bacteria in comparison.
Or perhaps there is a God, whose understanding and knowledge and power is so far beyond ours, or that of any hypothetical alien superbeings, that we could no more grasp the extent of His majesty, than the ant crawling on my screen could understand the meaning of these letters as they appear, and debate with me about them (If he could, he would probably take your side).

Actually, you are wrong Ann. When I was an atheist, I had no positive feelings about animals at all. Christianity has taught me that God's creatures have an innate value, something I did not at all believe before. So I am actually "better" in this regard than I was before.

(That stupid joke about animals tasting good came from the old days. I also once went over to a table of PETA supporters in Grand Central Station, and turned it over. Yeah, I was a militant and violent atheistic hater of militant animal rights groups. I wouldnt do that now. Also, Im older and just a tad more mature. )

I don't see the logic in identifying the Bible as a source of "humanocentricity" (your made-up lexicon, but oh well) that is somehow inherently at odds with the observable fact that humans certainly do in fact have dominion over the other animals of the earth, or at odds with your imperative that humans (uniquely among the beasts) "do much good" for them.

First, as JK says, God sees the beasts of His creation as inherently good. "And God said, 'Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.' So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, 'Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth. ... And God said, 'Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.' And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:20-22,24-25 NIV)

When God moves to the creation of humans, male and female, He does so curiously "in His image"—which can't logically be at odds with His bottom-line love for all the animals of creation. "...in the image of God he created them;
 male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.'" (Genesis 1:27b-28 NIV) He has created stewards whose first priority beyond procreation is the care of animals.

Kristin M. Swenson, writing in the Huffington Post, says "human superiority brings not self-serving privilege but grave responsibility. That 'dominion' phrase appears in an intriguing description of the creation of human beings in which God makes human beings, simultaneously male and female, 'in the image of God.' Part of the story of God's creating the universe in seven days, the image of God is represented by God's power and authority in creating and organizing a cosmos that God made to be good. Human beings have the unique responsibility, then, to work creatively at maintaining an order that allows each thing to be and do all of what it is and does."

Ann

For my answer, see Dave's comment above this. I could not come close to saying it as well.

I've recommended "human-centric" before; or, for those who like the -o- compounds, "anthropocentric".

(The following I wrote days ago, but held off on posting.)

Echoing some of the things Sy said, my question remains (because I've asked this before, too) what it would mean to not "place humans in one category and the rest of creation in another". I see nothing proposed here - not even a defense of the idea that we shouldn't eat other animals, or at least some animals with nervous systems like ours (note the criterion - what "centric" is it?), even though I think we all agree that we should not eat other humans. How we would move any further is even hazier. Let's say we've agreed not to kill mammals - we put them in the same category as ourselves. But if a herd of deer has too many offspring for the amount of food available, the "correct" response, I believe, is to let natural selection take its course and restore balance. What do we call suggestions that we treat populations of humans the same way? Fascism and psychopathy come to mind.

I see no way to avoid the two separate categories, and no value in evading the complexity, ambiguity, and paradox by projecting the negativity onto some category of others.

You didn't answer Anikó's question, Ann.

You are damning Sy with faint praise, and ducking accountability to answer the issues raised. What is it in scripture that prompts you to cast disdain on people of faith? I've showed that it isn't logical (as have others). Sy has offered personal revelation on his changing views on animals, despite your inability to acknowledge it.

What is really left is not for others to account to you for their views, but for you to answer to the community for your own ethics. You think that maybe animals feel pain. How does that sense of yours set you up as judge, jury, and executioner of billions of others the contribution to animal welfare of whom you have no clue?

Yes, I said that, and I'm still saying that. ("Continuum" tends to be my word in our conversations.) I also said that defining different points on that continuum (such as "nervous systems like ours") is itself necessarily anthropocentric.

I don't need reasons not to be speciesists - I have them. I agree with those reasons. I'm asking how we go about treating animals the way we treat ourselves, and pointing out the walls I'm crashing against. How do I reconcile my desire to not be speciesist with the reality of the questions I'm asking? I can't. That's why I speak of complexity, ambiguity, and paradox. That's where I am, and I prefer to admit that.

I am just listening to this, because like Ann, I am not much of a philosopher.
I would just add a sort-of unrelated comment:
Why is it that cockfights and dogfights are illegal, but prizefights aren't?
It's okay if humans attack each other in this stylized battle that results in brain injuries and other damage to participants.
But we don't allow animals to do it because it is cruel.
Well, football is the same sort of thing. How many kids are injured and killed playing football, and yet it's a national obsession in the fall.
And...I must add...I played football in high school and enjoyed it!

Three questions unanswered (two of mine and one of Anikó's) and only innuendo from you? You dropped your load (disdain for people of faith) and now it's just attack mode from here out from you, Ann?

Answer the questions.

Bert,

HA! I've often felt the same thing! Hope you didn't have any head collisions in High School.

I'm very relieved to see the NFA is finally addressing the question of head injuries in football. I don't suppose the boxing communities will be doing that anytime soon because (you guys correct me if I'm wrong) head injury seems to be one of the goals of boxing.

No, I survived HS football without even a knee injury, which many of my classmates suffered.

I spoke about killing and eating animals for the same reason I spoke about natural selection. Because we all believe that we shouldn't eat and kill humans, and most of us also believe that social Darwinism is terribly wrong. So we do not see humans and animals in the same category.

What comes after "and I prefer to admit that" is that I wish you did, too, instead of claiming a higher position and projecting "the shadow" onto religious people.

Dammit, yes, one would wish for some precise and non-accusatory language on these matters!

Sorry Ann, but whether it's the truth or one's person at gunpoint who is hijacked, the best advice is never to allow oneself to be taken to the secondary location. But consider this, Ann. Buddhism is a huge force in the world. Buddhists could do so much good if they would speak out against the pain and suffering of other sentient beings. But I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.

You weren't insulting me. I do feel that you are explaining away the disagreement with various labels instead of working through the details, but I don't think that qualifies as an insult. Anyway, I am not talking about religion here. I am talking about defining our own positions on animal rights with honesty and precision, admitting the limiting realities and the paradoxes, and not projecting the deficiency onto a group of "others".

(While this is irrelevant to the discussion here, I'm no longer an atheist.)

"Religion" didn't come between any of us, Ann. An ignorant broadside against people of faith (all Christians, including Anikó and others here) divided you and the possibility of reasoned discussion. Your behavior is repetitive and pathological. You land a broadside without support against people of faith, and when there is a response you ignore it or accuse others of bullying. And then before sneaking off you lay one final turd on the discussion by claiming that "religion" got in the way. You've done this time and time again. Check your premises indeed. 

Ann Marcaida Jun 12, 2012, 1:21pm EDT
…
Christianity is a huge force in the world.... Christians could do so much good if they would speak out against the pain and suffering of other sentient beings. But I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.

"Open minded people are open minded about reason and faith, and close minded people are dogmatic about science and faith."

I keep getting into trouble by indicating that very same thing. Also, although they refuse to acknowledge and/or recognize it, even atheism requires one to exercise faith.

Did not know of John Polkinghorne. Thanks for the link.

Although you assert that science cannot be used to prove the existence of God, I have found it interesting that there are former atheistic scientists who have become theists because of their own scientific discoveries or by the discoveries of other scientists. One line of reasoning they use very often is that there is insufficient time on this earth for accident, natural selection or spontaneous development to be reasonable explanations of the degree of complexity, precision and order we see around us.

Some physicists have even surprised me by asserting that 14 billion years is insufficient time for it to be reasonable to insist that all the order seen in the universe today came about without the deliberate action of an intelligent entity.

There is certainly much we do not understand...especially about nature and its workings. That causes some people to conclude that God did it.

God of the gaps is not really a useful way to think about what we dont know. Dawkins invented the term and then accused theists of following it. But, again this is a straw man. I dont think most theistic scientists (or other theists) say "hmmm, we dont understand how this happened, so it must be that God did it." I, as an example of a theist, believe that God did everything, and the only question is how He did it. So there really are no gaps at all, except in the minds of atheists.

Well put, Sy. The god of the gaps straw man argument relies on a fallacy, namely that once a phenomenon is understood to some arbitrary level of knowledge it is removed from the "God column" and moved into the "science column." But if God is the giver of natural law, of its things, and of all things His is the only column. Many atheists are too dogmatic and rigid in their thinking to understand that.

My comment got eaten, but Sy made part of it for me.

They are not guilty of using argument of ignorance Bert, they used a very simple principle; make a prediction based on the hypothesis. If the prediction matches the observation, then the hypothesis is supported, if not, then it is not supported.

A physicist surprised me by stating that according to the laws of physics, it is unreasonable to conclude that the universe is less than 18 billion years old because there is way too much order in it, yet an age of about 13.5 billion has been confirmed. It is now known that before the universe was half a billion years old there were already hundreds of billions of galaxies. Since the timelines clearly do not fit any reasonable prediction, the hypothesis of spontaneous development is unsupported.

In the case of Prof František Vyskočil of Charles University, Prague, his observation was, ‘How, could synapses and the genetic programs underlying them be products of mere blind chance?’. That did not convince him, because it was "argument of ignorance" but it did create much doubt. What settled the matter was a statement by another professor, “Simple bacteria can divide about every 20 minutes and have many hundreds of different proteins, each containing 20 types of amino acids arranged in chains that might be several hundred long. For bacteria to evolve by beneficial mutations one at a time would take much, much longer than three or four billion years, the time that many scientists believe life has existed on earth.” The prediction did not fit the hypothesis, so he rejected the hypothesis.

There is much we do not uncerstand, Dennis.
That does NOT mean that God did it.
Be patient.
We are learning every day.
Do not jump to conclusions.
Why are religions so anxious to credit God with all that we see?
What's the hurry?
Let us be patient and continue with the science.
What agenda is forcing us to hurry this?

You keep treating it as if it is argument of ignorance Bert. Those scientists are simply going according to what the evidence currently indicates.

There is no hurry. If we go according to what the scientists say they do that is; go according to what the current evidence says and then adjust afterward as new evidence comes to light, we must conclude, until further evidence contradicts it, that it did not happen spontaneously.

As you already know I believe that evolution does occur, but that it is not the explanation for all the varieties of life forms. In fact, I once stated that if a population gets separated into two or more groups that no longer have any contact with each other, then over time, evolution might result in each group becoming a new species within the same genus. However new evidence has been discovered that contradicts that. Studies of the Mexican Blind cave fish have shown that the original population got split into several groups when small groups were encased in caves. There are several caves containing populations that do not come into contact with other cave populations nor with the original population, yet 1 million years of evolution has not resulted in any of these cave groups becoming a different species. The genetic diversity of each cave group is less than that of the original population, so 1 million years of evolution has resulted in such a tiny total of mutations that the genetic diversity has remained low and no new species being produced.

I therefore now doubt my previous belief.

Your last line is the key right there. :-)

Yaaa. I'm finally in a group with you Tracy Fabre :)

I'm not sure exactly what it proves, but our very basic science teaches that nothing cannot create something. But it should at least be in bright lights. And there is a LOT of something in our own Universe.
Even if matter comes from energy that isn't one step closer to an answer. If it came through a singularity, that doesn't help. How did it originate? I know there is no scientist that can tell us proven laws alone. But they've certainly told us millions of exciting facts. Praise God for Scientist!! :)

FAITHFUL SEEKERS
Thank you for your submission to:

"FAITHFUL SEEKERS"#> Your submission is FEATURED!

Thanks Rose

I enjoyed this Sy, as most everything you write. You continue to amaze me how you are truly awake to an unlimited God. That does not mean there is more than one truth, only different understandings.

Thank you Char. The admiration is mutual.

I was surprised to read this info. It is such a great article. I had no idea you had education along this line. That will be beneficial to all of us. Thanks Simon.

Hi Char.

Beautifully said, Sy. This time I really can't find anything to disagree with. :) What you're saying about the natural/supernatural distinction is something I've brought up several times (the first time, curiously (for myself, at least), in my convinced atheist days), but with less clarity and determination you do here, so I especially thank you for that.

Your welcome, and thank you.

(This thread has been very polite so far, I'm getting nervous).

I can't see any reason a scientist can't believe in God. Science and religion answer different questions and don't have to overlap.

There is no reason a scientist cannot believe in God, but the scientist should always keep the two separate. The Bible may say that Joshua told the sun to stand still in the sky, but we know that the sunrise is an illusion. It is the earth which would have had to stand still.

In religion, it is easy do answer a scientific question by saying "Godidit." That does not work in science. Fred Hoyle was a brilliant scientist, but in developing his "Steady State" theory of the Universe, he became religious, resorted to "Godidit," and destroyed his credibility. Hoyle's theory failed the test of history, giving way to the Big Bang theory. Ironically, Hoyle was the one who coined the term "Big Bang".

Keep the two separate.

Richard

I dont agree that Hoyle's credibility as a scientist was ever destroyed. Neither was Newton's or Faraday's or Boyle's or all the other scientists of faith over the centuries.

Scientists of faith believe that the work they do uncovers the laws of God. This has no bearing on the way they do their work. The very scientific method came from people who were committed believers. Galileo was a committed Christian, even after his altercation with the Church.

I think you should check out Hoyle's history a bit more.

As I mentioned above, we dont answer questions by saying God did it. We assume that God did everything. I dont know why we all find this such a tough subject to communicate.

Richard, Hoyle rejected (and ridiculed) the Big Bang exactly because he thought the idea that the universe had a beginning sounded like the old argument for a creator, and therefore was irrational and not scientific.

Hoyle conceived of a Steady State universe which was expanding. In order for the expansion to continue without beginning or end, he actually stated that God was continuously creating new matter between the galaxies, thus confounding his scientific ideas with his religious beliefs.

Hoyle let his religious beliefs interfere in other areas as well. Hoyle remained popular with the public with his many books on science and science fiction,

No, Richard. I suspect you're projecting things Hoyle said later about abiogenesis back into the Big Bang debate, because you have the parts assigned the wrong way around here. Back in the 1940s-50s, Hoyle was a committed atheist, and he objected to the Big Bang for supporting creationism (as well as because he thought it conflicted with his theory of stellar nucleosynthesis - Gamow was proposing that nucleosynthesis was associated with the Big Bang, and it wasn't until later that the details were worked out as we understand them today). The connection between the Big Bang and religion wasn't just Hoyle's idea - Pope Pius XII, for example, issued a statement saying that Big Bang cosmology confirmed Genesis. The steady-state theory, which required no beginning, was preferred by atheists at the time. The "continuous creation" part involved a "C-field" in which the creation of new matter created negative energy that fueled the expansion of the universe. It was a mathematical model, not a religious argument, but it was preferred exactly because it required no "irrational" "special event" that was beyond the reach of our physics and mathematics, with laws of its own.

You are probably right in regards to Hoyle. Around 1965 or 66 I saw a book by Fred Hoyle in the college bookstore. I knew nothing about Hoyle at the time, but I soon came across a review of Hoyle's book and the reviewer actually describes Hoyle as saying that God continuously created material between the stars, thus permitting a steady state universe.

At the time, I had read several books by George Gamow and was not willing to read a book which disagreed with Gamow.

I disagree with your statement that the steady state theory was preferred by atheists. Isaac Newton himself preferred a steady state universe, and he was religious. It goes along with the idea that God created the universe as is.

On the other hand, the Big Bang suggests an evolving universe which is difficult to fit into the Genesis account.

It was preferred by atheists at the time, Richard. (Those were my exact words, if you look again.) I was referring to the situation at the middle of the 20th century - the period we were talking about. (It would seem that Newton's steady state started at creation - creation is not part of his laws, but it's the origin of the universe he's describing. Hoyle's steady state had no beginning, and that was its very point.)

I don't know that the "evolving" nature of the universe doesn't fit into the Genesis account - I think there's quite a bit of "evolution" in the description of creation there. Matching details might be more challenging, but of course few people believe Genesis should be read as a science textbook

Simon... Just wanted you to know I stopped by. I won't join you in this one. I'll discuss (and debate and usually lose) any scientific topic with you that you want to... but as soon as someone says, "I believe..." the discussion/debate/argument is over so far as I'm concerned.

OK.

Yup, what Chuck says is true. There is no use debating those who say "I believe..."
Those of us who disagree are wasting our breath...or fingertips.

So, you guys don't "believe" in what the scientific method reveals? Just kinda going along for the heck of it?

That would explain a lot, I think.

John.
The scientific method encourages questions and scepticism. That is how it progresses.

But what's the point of science? Progress toward what end? Didn't we survive perfectly well without science for most of our existence as a species? We obviously don't need science.

(Umm, no, of course I don't actually believe that. But can you argue against it without any reference to things you believe?)

Josef Mengele was perfectly contented to pursue his science without anyone interjecting their beliefs or values. 

At the height of the Enlightenment there was a popular daydream that foresaw the tools of science applied to unlocking not only a mechanistic description of nature (which is all that it has ever achieved, and, I think, all it will ever accomplish), but also the answer to every moral or ethical question. Not at all. In fact, the lack of adequate ethical oversight of scientific research is easily its most pressing problem. To pretend that science succeeds in a vacuum free of a values framework built upon moral beliefs and understandings is profoundly ignorant.

I don't see any necessary contradiction between science and religion. Science, indeed, opens even more specific reasons for "wonder" and "awe" - at least imo - than dogmatic religion. Science has affirmed the positive effects of faith on the human experience, and even some rudimentary lines of research have also affirmed non-local consciousness, or consciousness surviving death. So I see great potential in a scientific understanding of spiritual experience - maybe even within psychological research.

Faith and reason? Reason or face?

The scientist should not mix them. After all, the very last question, the question we didn't solved "yet", remains a question. As Gallilei stated it is the "How come" and not the "why" which is important and brings in science.

This why I often state that each new discovery drives out God.

...each new discovery drives out God.

More correctly, new discoveries may counter particular aspects of religious creeds, orthodoxies and theologies - perhaps, even anthropomorphic ideas of "god" - but I also think that other discoveries open new windows onto what other (what do you even call it?) possibilities might "exist". There is solid evidence, for example, of non-local consciousness. It opens a whole new framework for scientific research, which is not reductionistic or materialistic.

Gilbert

And yet Galileo was a believer in God, as was Newton and many more scientists. They did not feel at all that their discoveries drove out God, just the contrary, they believed, (as do I) that their discoveries illuminated the work of God

May I disagree, Simon and Ricochet? IMO, both of you are ending in a contradiction, if I may say so: "... they believed, (as do I) that their discoveries illuminated the work of God."

Discovering what's "new" (for us) illuminates the work of God means that our own discoveries are "changing" the "information" provided to us by the work of God. But then the "light" is ours not of God.

To spouse your statement, I would then say that the light by God provided give light to His own job. And this can be translated as, being simultaneously object and subject of our "own" History, we keep projecting ourselves in an entropic way.

On the other hand, the object of our discoveries cannot be as inert as a ... sculpture around which we project lights as we do know that the object of our observations keep changing constantly together with our own observation means.

Gilbert. No contradiction in people reporting what they experience when they are flatlined. No contradiction in people reporting experiencing contact with "people", who are deceased. Thousands of stories. Many of them independently corroborated. Consciousness is not limited to anatomy. I'm not claiming that, in some way, proves "God," but many people report experiencing something they call "God".

It seems to me this is a very appropriate arena for research, especially psychological research. Actually, such research has taken place. Such experiences dramatically affect and change people, who have them, in specific and demonstrable ways.

Let's try to posit this, for the sake of the argument, as a "what if" exercise: something exists that is the source of everything in the universe. Everything. There is nothing that exists that doesn't flow from this source. Whatever is discovered then "illuminates the work" of the source. Not only is there no contradiction, this is a tautology. You cannot discover something without it being "the work" of the source.

On the other hand, if there is no such source, then the terms referring to it are empty spaces and the statement is meaningless. There is still no contradiction that I can see.

Ricochet: far from me the idea our even the feelings reported. They are true, existing, and still the "brain contact" is still acknowledged ... but if commonly the human being uses up to about 6% of his total brains in some cases, Einstein, it was estimated 10%.

This is far from denying any God: it is just a way to ask what is going to be with people using the remaining part of the brains ... or, maybe, just a part we, can't figure out.

The brains we have are still developing but the evolutions quite slow, as any evolution, maybe even to be conservative means, in some way, the refusal of such evolution.

All the facts you mention and many other remains non-explained for our brains and such lack of ability to explain something, some fact, calls for God and this has always been so in any civilization, despite the fact that the next discovery will bring us into a more complex system of which we would like to find the "Unicity".

This is the unicity we need to comfort our philosophies and such unicity is called God but is still a human's building.

Aniko: I still see a contradiction in this: "They did not feel at all that their discoveries drove out God, just the contrary, they believed, (as do I) that their discoveries illuminated the work of God"

How come? Because the light which illuminated the work of God is another God's creation and therefore the discoveries are themselves the light provided by God. Without such "light" the discoveries could not be achieved so God is SIMULTANEOUSLY object and subject of the discovery.

IMO, this is a way to deny the projection of our own contradiction as we are in fact object and subject of our own History.

In our present discussion our projection is very similar, IMO, to the gift of the father to the son : the son likes to play with it but, at some point, wants to know what inside the toy. The given toy awakes curiosity while the gift became, for a moment, a vehicle for expressing love both ways.

Is the awaken curiosity the expression of the father's love or the expression of the son's love?

IMO, The father's teaches the son how to love but the son's love is expressed by the curiosity of knowing what's make the toy, what make the father to love him.
Such destructive curiosity (no way to know what inside the toy without destroying it) is in full contradiction with the toy conservative idea.

Oh, you mean a paradox, not a contradiction. We always end up with those if we think too far - the fringes of all our philosophies are fuzzy that way. What you're pointing out is a classic self-referential set-that-contains-itself paradox, and as your own example of humans being objects and subjects of their own history shows, it is unavoidable. It has nothing to do with having or not having God in the picture.

I like your analogy with the father, the son, the gift, and curiosity as love. I don't see the paradox there--it's of course both, and I think you yourself say that much. I think the analogy fails at the point where the gift has to be broken to learn what is inside... The universe (whether it's God's gift or just "the stuff that is") isn't broken when we learn something new about it. It is "conserved" (even when interfered with by the observer) and illuminated at the same time. It's a sturdier kind of gift. :)

You are right, Aniko, it is a paradox as we are simultaneously object and subject.

I often use the example of the watch even in this case: the Universe is being analyzed as we can analyze all the watch parts and pieces.

The watch can still work IF someone takes each part and assemble them in the RIGHT way and only in such way.

It is really difficult for anyone to figure out how come the watch (Universe) have been "assembled" without the Watchmaker.

Will the Watchmaker punish us for being curious?

Though I am "not allowed" to comment here, I feel I must because this subthread hits too close to "home" ...

Because I am not very "educated" in the "versions" of "what could be called" paradox or :

A formula is satisfiable if it is true under at least one interpretation, and thus a tautology is a formula whose negation is unsatisfiable. Unsatisfiable statements, both through negation and affirmation, are known formally as contradictions. A formula that is neither a tautology nor a contradiction is said to be logically contingent. Such a formula can be made either true or false based on the values assigned to its propositional variables. The double turnstile notation is used to indicate that S is a tautology. Tautology is sometimes symbolized by "Vpq", and contradiction by "Opq". The tee symbol is sometimes used to denote an arbitrary tautology, with the dual symbol (falsum) representing an arbitrary contradiction.

Tautologies are a key concept in propositional logic, where a tautology is defined as a propositional formula that is true under any possible Boolean valuation of its propositional variables. A key property of tautologies in propositional logic is that an effective method exists for testing whether a given formula is always satisfied (or, equivalently, whether its negation is unsatisfiable).

But whatever it may be called, (I simply have called it a paradox) one, more, or all of them, the BET (+=-) satisfies my own view of the discussion going on here ... if it were allowed to be introduced into "evidence" I have no doubt whatsoever that it would "satisfy" every view offered here so far.

Gilbert: no, I see no reason why he would. Again, I think the watch, like the toy, is an unhelpful analogy for this purpose. We aren't taking apart or breaking the universe by studying it. Why wouldn't he want us to learn more about his creation?

To this point we agree, when there is no capital letters: "Why wouldn't he want us to learn more about his creation?"

I just tried to show that such entropism is nothing else than anthropomorphism: we are just projecting on gods our own ways.

You introduced the anthropomorphic analogies, Gilbert, and claimed "contradictions" based on them. They were part of your premises, so they can't be your conclusion. (I don't know what you mean by entropism.)

Entropism is when considering the evolution as a cone, considering the Human Being as the apex of the evolution and therefore believing that evolution ends there. In other words the evolution is "designed" to meet such apex.

In fact the basis of the cone is rather large and human beings (HB) are still links within the evolution. Applied entropism is the Ptolemy's world opposed to the Copernicus's one.

Oh, I see. Again, you introduced that idea, too, as far as I can see. (I certainly don't believe that about humans and evolution.)

I did notice, right at the beginning of this conversation, that your "contradiction" seems to involve a particular idea of God taken as a snapshot of the concept in particular human minds, perhaps around the Middle Ages - limited by the particularity, covered in a devilry of details those people believed about the world, and unchanging as such snapshots must be by definition. Science and discovery, on the other hand, are shown as dynamic processes in your picture, so course you think they "drive out God" - your assumptions defined God that way. If you defined science as, say, the emission theory, then science (particular snapshot) would be driven out by science (process). How's that for a (fake) paradox?

(originally posted Jun 15, 2012, 7:30pm EDT, edited to remove typo)

Aniko: Frankly I don't understand your questions.

What is what you don't believe about evolution and human beings?

Do you believe that we are at the end of such evolution? I can't believe this from you.

Nowadays we come up against the wall of Planck. Should we despair crossing it? Maybe yes for some generations but the LHC is already finding what could make us believe that this could be showing us the way to achieve this.

I don't understand what you don't understand, Gilbert. I didn't really ask any questions, except a rhetorical one. I pointed out that if one entity is defined as a static and unchanging picture in a human mind at a certain point in history, while the other as a dynamic process over time, then of course the latter will "drive out" the former. It will do so whatever the entities are.

(I said I don't believe in what you defined as "entropism".)

" ... is defined as a static and unchanging picture in a human mind at a certain point in history"

This is a photography.

You may oppose it to a film but you can't decide that the photography is the film.

As far as entropism is concerned, I can understand you: it is somehow painful having to figure out that the present human beings are just a link to something we can't be aware.

Gilbert - nobody said the photo is the film... on the contrary. I'm pointing out that your two sides are defined in completely different and incompatible ways. Let's change the analogy. You have a single painting done by one particular artist on one side, and the entire history of art on the other. Or a single sentence on one side, and all the sentences that could ever be said on the other. And then you state that one "drives out" the other.

(I find nothing painful about that thought concerning ourselves, but there is no way to make that assertion, either. Humans could die out and not be a "link" to anything. And what do you mean by "just"? If there's no goal to evolution - no pinnacle, right? - then those other beings that might evolve will not be "special", either. All parts of the chain (net) "just" are. Same level (<--recurrent issue, it seems).)

Unfortunately my English is not sharp enough for some people. And your example pertains to the same problem as seen by and designed to be seen by the ape of the actual pyramid, cone or what you want to call it.

Let me try to explain once more: the basis of the pyramid is made by a lot of tests, some of them are known by the observer who is located on the ape of it, many more are ignored but all of them ending into being the Observer. From the Observer point of view he is the fruit of a defined line of successful tests.

From the base of the pyramid the observer is just (nothing else but) that an "exceptional" event, an exceptional "link" to something else; even if such a link seems to us the achievement of a predesigned line.

When considering the Universe, we may consider that it is finished with us (HB) and that "God" did it so. Full stop. Or we can consider its reality, its expansion and therefore, if someone created it, then this someone is drives out:

The Earth is flat, Earth is round, Earth is not any more the center of the Universe, the Milky Way is part of our galaxy, there are eco planets (in regard to our Galaxy), etc. etc. if a God created us (entropy) then each discovery drives Him out (from us).

Please take into account that I used the example of the pyramid, cone to make it easier to understand.

But Gilbert, this is exactly what I'm telling you: you are tying the concept of God to the pyramid view, and to various previous scientific theories that have been superseded. The idea that God created the universe doesn't in any way require that "it is finished with us". It doesn't put a "full stop" on anything. (These people here say "period", by the way.) The pyramid view is simply a way people are naturally inclined to view their own place in the universe: an observer necessarily sees himself as being in the center of a round universe, and events in the past as leading up the his own present. This is a basic cognitive bias that has nothing to do with belief or non-belief in God. Sure, some theists identify their unexamined pyramid-view with God's plan, but I've seen plenty of pyramid-talk and assumptions of evolution progressing toward some desirable goal on atheist forums.

Further up, I asked you to posit (not believe, but entertain the concept of) an entity that is the source of all that is. One from which the universe as it is flows. There can be no contradiction between that concept and any scientific discovery that's "correct". You haven't posited that entity, Gilbert. You're not talking about God. You are talking about some ideas about the world that people had in the past (or still have) that we now know to be inaccurate.

(Ya sabes que puedes escribir en español si quieres, y te puedo responder en español. A estas alturas no creo que haya mucha gente siguiendo nuestra conversación.)

(Well, Im following it, but go ahead, use Spanish or French, I can still get an idea. Just not Hungarian, please.)

Because man is simultaneously object and subject of its own history, he sees the evolution de "his" universe as the result of divine will. Man's Universe should have been designed to end into the actual Homo Sapiens Sapiens. HB is at the ape of a pyramid designed to end in HB itself.

However this may be quite wrong, we may just be a link of a bonobo type, of thinking, egocentric fu...ing apes which will destroy its environment and disappear with it.

If one believes we are the last and achieved element, then God created us as its ultimate design (entropy) - the whole universe ends in a HB per design

If one believe that we are just a "link" or an "accident" is negentropy.

Any new discovery enhances our knowledge of the Universe and with each new discoveries the possibilities are growing in an exponential way, adding to our awareness but decreasing our relative knowledge.

We may be so knowledgeable that we shall end destroying ourselves allowing a new type of apes to appear.

In speaking of "entropy" and "negative-entropy" ... I am reminded that in "metaphysics" (non-divine spirit-uality) there is often the mention of "forces", centrifugal and centripetal ... centrifugal being related to "creative expansion" from the micro realm of Spirit (subjectivity) OUTward INto the macro realm of physicality, objectivity ... where it ends no one knows, but for some it is GOD related, even yet.

On the "other hand", centripetal force, is in effect "the opposite" of the other, in that it's "directionality" is the opposite as related to the source or center of reference.

One can say that "objective man" is "still" inclined to see himself as potentially "expanding" OUT INto Creation, the "after-effect" of "Alpha Point" (beginning of Creation) ... while the Spiritually Awakened person sees himself more related in the "other" direction, possibly still expanding physically into an ever "growing" creation, while (most importantly) on "The Path" to "returning spiritually" to the source, the eventual full return being the "Omega Point" ...

IMnsHO

PS ... what I have just mentioned is closer to a "conical" perception while what Gilbert was referencing was more "angular" ... :-)

Maybe, Jerry, I didn't understand what you tried to explain us, as the universe keep expanding at the light speed.

"Entropism" is, considering the evolution, that it ends necessarily in and with Human Being. Therefore all the previous tests Nature went on, were done with such a goal (HB).

While "negentropism" is to believe that HB is just (nothing else) than another link among the many Nature goes on and that the Homo Sapiens Sapiens we are will once disappear to give light to some other specie.

I believe that, within some million years from now, we shall appear as a "temporary" link unless we completely disappear as an unsuccessful specie.

Gilbert

As Aniko has tried to explain a few times, I dont think anybody here disagrees with your. I certainly dont. There may be some Christians and other believers who think that evolution stops with HB. I dont.

Actually we already know this is true. HB are constantly evolving, but in new ways. Our biological evolution is very slow compared to our cultural evolution. But the latter is just as real, isnt it? Unlike any previous species, we have the power to evolve by will. And we are doing so, as this very message from me to you and many other conscious beings demonstrates.

Indeed, Simon. What I ignore is what you mean by "evolving by will". Culturally I understand what you mean.

However, I believe this is due to our double isolation: the car and the headers, I feel that people are losing "contact" with the environment. People are like in bubbles and therefore they are losing the consequences of their acts and decisions.
At the end of the day this is self-destructing and could imply the need of "God" as the only way to feel secure.

I don't believe that the scientist "needs" to be a believer but could "accept" to be one without any interference in his research.

From some of the comments by my atheist friends here, I am starting to think I might understand something about current atheist orthodoxy that I never grasped before, even when I was an atheist myself. I think that is because it is a fairly recent concept, following from the new atheism and its strange set of dogmatic axioms.

The first erroneous axiom of atheism is 1. All natural phenomena are either the work of God, or are independent of God's existence. This is an either or statement, both are not permitted. From this follows the idea that if any phenomenon is found to have a "natural," non God oriented cause, then it is proven that God is not involved in that phenomenon.
The next erroneous axiom is 2. If no natural phenomema are found that can be proven to be acts of God, then the existence of God is neither necessary nor probable.

These axioms are false. If God created the universe and the laws of physics (helpfully making things work out so that life and we could exist) than findings of perfectly "natural" explanations mean nothing related to God. The atheists are not entirely to blame for these distorted views. Some zealous religious folk have proposed that many parts of existence would not be possible without the existence of God. They are right of course, but the problem is that they cant prove it, and when they try, they get into trouble, and the atheists come back and say "Aha, we can prove that irreducible complexity is a myth, so there is no God". And they are right with respect to their ability to prove stuff, but the conclusion is wrong. Irreducible complexity might be a myth, but complexity isnt. The fact that complexity can be "explained" by rational, reasonable, naturalistic causes, does nothing to strike down the almight creative power of the Lord who infused our world with reason, and natural law. Yes, we can explain stuff using reason, logic, science, and our own brains. Thank you Lord for that miraculous gift.

What I am trying to say, is that the premise of my title is backwards. It should be "How can a scientist NOT believe in God".

I think what I am suggesting is that spirituality is a legitimate arena for scientific research. William James certainly thought so. More recently, Melvin Morse, Raymond Moody, etc.

In my opinion, you can call whatever THAT is, "God" - but you don't have to. Either way, it is what it is, and for my money, more people have direct experience of it one way or another at sometime in their lives. Religion - or rather institutional religion - discounts that nearly as much as atheists. But I think it's a very fertile anena for research, at least for scientists, who are willing to not also discount it as hallucinations or chemical reactions of dying brains, etc.

I completely agree ricochet.

So do I.

"In my opinion, you can call whatever THAT is, "God" - but you don't have to. Either way, it is what it is,..."

That quote above makes me feel I am not alone in the world. Thank you, ricochet.

Thank you, Dorothy.

Coming late to this conversation, I've spent awhile absorbing the comments here. But it seems to me that there is a thread of assumption that overrides many of the comments (and maybe even the question).

First, "science" doesn't either include or preclude the existence of "God." Science is merely an approach to gathering information to determine apparently consistent patterns in the way things work within the universe. From those patterns, assumptions are made regarding the validity of their extrapolations to the larger space and time.

Scientific conclusions might project doubt on claims to physically inconsistent events within the universe ("miracles," a 5,000 year-old Earth, flying to Heaven on a winged horse...). But science doesn't have anything to say about things it cannot "see," or that which cannot be extrapolated from quantifiable evidence.

Second, there seems to be an acceptance by some that "personal revelation" should somehow trump even the limitations of science, and even in the eyes of those who do not bear witness. But if "revelation" is a personal experience of something beyond "this," then how can it be compared to science as an approach to objectively measurable information about the universe in which we exist?

We couldn't exist as we are without the consistency provided by the universe (what science sees), but the universe is also limited by its own consistency (capital psi). As manifestations of this universe, we thus live like Plato's shadows, never actually able to see ourselves as we really ARE. Consequently, we can really only get a very limited perspective of REALITY.

Muddling through Jerry's writings (no offense Jerry), I think he's actually hit upon a deeper truth about spirituality in this regard. We invent explanations for the unexplainable parts ourselves that fit the patterns of those shadows on the cave wall -- God, Allah, Buddha, Jesus... But these are inherently limited explanations. The bigger truth might be unknowable in the limited state in which we exist, or it might be as close as our own consciousness looking in on creation.

So to answer your question, a scientist can believe anything she wishes. She just can't claim to have measured that belief with anything that exists within the universe.

Thanks Ruta, for yet another brilliant comment. I think your last sentence holds a huge philosophical treasure. The "measurement of belief" may turn out to be the key phrase in this entire discussion of science and faith.

What I have been trying to say, (and I think your phrase has illuminated my thoughts very nicely) is that 1. There is such a thing as measurement of belief, and 2. We dont know how to do it (using anything that exists in the unverse that we are so far aware of).

As you say, or at least imply, we also know that measurement of other stuff, (the stuff of science) works pretty well, and therefore it appears far superior to measurement of belief from some angles. If I asked you "how long is that stick?" and gave you a ruler, the result is likely to much more satisfying than if I asked you "How big is your love?" and gave you no tools at all.

And yet, things are not quite that simple and clear cut. Suppose for example I asked "How long is that coastline?" and gave you a ruler, the results wouldnt be very good. In other words, sometimes we find that the methods of science are not as good as we thought they were, even for ordinary stuff.

And, sometimes we feel we really do have the tools to answer the other kind of questions. I was once asked the question "How much do you love me?" I thought about it. My answer was, "If x equals any value of love that cannot be exceeded without violating all the laws of nature, then my love for you is X+ 1"

Simon, Thanks for the thoughtful response. I've had to ponder it for awhile...

I'm actually not sure whether or not I agree with your statement about the measurement of faith, but it's caused some deep thoughts.

"Objective" measurement, the kind scientists do with calipers and scales and such, certainly doesn't apply to faith -- or love or hate or even to the sensation of "red." These are experiences, or the manifestation of qualia. Can qualia be measured?

I know that I "enjoy" chocolate more than rutabagas, and that blood is more "red" than cool-aid. I also know that a completely reductionist view would say that it's all the result of chemical reactions or physical properties. However, that still doesn't explain the experience of "measurement," or the qualia of "more." So what does the measuring, and where does it take place?

As you already know, the easy out is that it's all an illusion caused by some misinterpretation made by the brain regarding its own functioning. We can demonstrate that qualia can be experienced as a consequence of manipulating the brain. In effect, we're zombie-automatons miscalculating a solution of consciousness or will (or x+1) -- or not.

A connection between cause and effect doesn't preclude the independent existence of the effect outside of the domain of the experiment (the universe). Logically, qualia could have an independent reality.

So assuming qualia do have a meta-physical existence, then by what scale are they measured? It would have to be a meta-physical scale. So there could be a measurement for faith (or other personal experiences), but the scale doesn't exist in this reality.

There are many things we "know," but that can't be proven. This seems to be a consistent theme in the functioning of the universe, even appearing in mathematics as propositions such as Gödel's "incompleteness theorem," or in physics as "quantum indeterminacy." Certain aspects of the workings of reality are suspiciously hidden from view, so there is always some degree of trust in the accuracy of any interpretations.

But the difference between science and faith is the degree of trust we have to place in those hidden workings. Science only requires the belief that our observations of things within the universe are reasonably consistent phenomena. Faith requires a great deal more trust in one's own personal ability to measure a subjective experience.

I don't assert that one is more valid than the other, within its own domain. I believe that the expansion ratio of liquid-hydrogen to a gas at 1bar is 1:848. But I won't try to confirm this with a feeling. I believe in love and fear and the experience of redness. But I won't try to weigh them.

So assuming qualia do have a meta-physical existence, then by what scale are they measured? It would have to be a meta-physical scale. So there could be a measurement for faith (or other personal experiences), but the scale doesn't exist in this reality.

If qualia have a metaphysical reality (and I would submit that they do, even if neurological correlates and "explanations" are found for all of them) , then I agree that the would need to be measured by a metaphysical scale. But I dont agree that such a scale does not exist in this reality.

Do you know the children's book "Harold and the magic crayon"? Harold made reality with his purple crayon. We make reality all the time, with our fiction, our books, our films, our conversations, scirntific models and equations and our art. Yes these things are much more subjective than our scientific measurement. But they do have a great deal of onjectivity as well. People often agree about what is beautiful in a work of fiction a painting a piece of music. When Susan Boyle sang, most people wept (not everyone its true). We do seem to have a way to measure genius, though not as reliably as we measure expansion ratios. So this implies that we can make a measuring tool for faith as well. I made one, and it works great for me. It measures my faith.

What I am saying, and I think you might agree, is that when we compare the percent accuracy of science measurement to faith measurement, it isn’t 100 to 0. Its more like 90 to 30. Or whatever. And since science is less than 100, and faith is more than 0, than there is hope for the future, in that progress perhaps can be made on fashioning even better tools.

"And since science is less than 100, and faith is more than 0, than there is hope for the future..."
I was with you completely until this, Sy.
You are basically trying to undermine science, and promote faith.
I guess my philosophical background is too much engineering, and not enough touchy-feely. I think you are dead wrong in trying to demean science.
It is the ONLY tool we have to try to understand this great enigma.
Please...please! Let it work.

Bert - I don't understand why you would say that. If you were with Sy "completely" until that point (I wish I could manage that one day!), then you agree that science is an amazing toolkit for gaining knowledge about the universe, but not an Absolute Knowledge Machine. It gives us data and lets us build models that work, but it cannot give us 100% certainty or an ultimate understanding of how things are; and, as Ruta and Sy illustrated, there are aspects of our experienced reality it simply cannot reach - its tools don't fit. It's not all-purpose magic, in other words, and that is why it's "less than 100".

At the same time, things outside the boundary of science do matter, and we do have knowledge about them. Not only do I love my children and know this, when I say this virtually all other humans understand what I mean. (And this experience, as Ruta and Sy eloquently discussed above, does not simply equal whatever biochemistry might be found mediating it.) Our knowledge about this non-science realm is not 0. Doesn't this make sense?

Simon (and Bert), All I know for certain is that I put in a rather optimistic 45-hour commitment for another patent-troll workaround this weekend. And since I'm pretty sure I've already exhausted the faith portion of producing a prototype component by next Friday morning, I'm going to have to trade in my philosopher hat and magic wand for a propeller-beanie and slide-rule for a few days.

And aniko (cross-post), I think we're on the same channel here. I have a profound commitment to the idea of this universe as a functionally knowable domain. But I also have no desire to trash the importance of life's wonderful mysteries. What is important, I believe, is not to get the two things confused.

Bert

I cant add much to Aniko's answer, which was perfect, except to say that I am not demeaning science, and would never do so. That would be against my self interest, and being a product of natural selection, I could not do such a thing.
What you have fundamentally wrong is an equation in your mind (I will put it in engineering terms) FxS = C, or that faith times science equals a constant, so that if F increase, S decreases, and vice versa. This is not true. Faith and science are not mutually opposed to each other, that is your basic fundamental error.

A better equation is FS = K, where K stands for knowledge, and is not a constant, and has no upper limit. Notice that in this equation, if either faith or science is missing (=0), there is no knowledge at all.

Ruta

What's a slide rule? (Im joking, I actually still have one, but I thought you were much too young to have even heard of such a thing).

I once could get 4 significant digits out of my slide rule, but only at one end! (The other end was beyond the veil for all but 3 places.)

Anikó and I had a good deal of conversation several years ago about my somewhat preposterous conjecture that while God is here and everywhere, there was a "further reality" not directly visible by human senses or scientific instrumentation, the rationale being, as Ruta implies here, that physics, science, and measurement are of this expansion (universe) and inexorably tied to and limited by its peculiar character. There being no imposed limit on a further reality, its existence is not only a priori possible, but probable, using scientific logic (nature abhors a vacuum, for example).

Thus one might envision a semipermeable membrane between these realms not limiting the entrance of "otherworldly" phenomena but forever barring our direct entrance to that reality with our "measurement tools."

One is then left with the question of evidence (accretion evidence, if you will) within the realm we do inhabit and "see." We are told that humankind is made in the image of God. This is but one example that suggests that an imprint of sorts has been made upon our limited frame by the greater reality. Inductive thinking caps required.

The concept of direct revelation seems to be the point where the preceding commenters have thrown up their hands and retreated to measurement issues. But it's clear for all the reasons discussed that a "measurement model" cannot be the pathway to this kind of knowledge. What, then, is the accretion evidence of God's entry into history? What marks are left behind? It can indeed be sensed in one's own experience of spiritual development. On an objective basis it might be thought of as sort of a longitudinal study of the functional meaning of the miracle of creation as well as the movement of God's people. And yes, it's a lot to sort out.

Simon (and Dave), I actually do own a slide rule -- as the consequence of a somewhat sadistic high-school math teacher. Mercifully, it's covered in dust.

Scientists actually do appeal to a "further reality" whenever they refer to the transference of energy. There is a physical reality of "matter," located in the place and time framework of the universe. And then there is the energy vector (the wavy line in a Feynman diagram), perhaps a photon. But the photon is really nothing more than a mathematical representation of something that conserves a quantum of energy in the system when moving that energy from one bit of matter to another.

If you think about it, photons don't actually exist in this universe. They are information conserved in some other domain extraneous to the universe itself. They pop into existence at some point in the universe, experience no time or distance (remember what happens when you travel "the speed of light"), and then pop out of existence at some other point. So wherever photons do “exist,” it ain't here.

Actually, I think you're all still stuck in the literal interpretations of “existence.” We tend to define existence as something that has a place and time because that's how we are manifest in this universe. You're going to need to look a little more objectively, however, if you want to understand what I'm talking about. A good starting point might be to imagine that you, and everything around you is software...

"the photon is really nothing more than a mathematical representation..." No. Even many non-physicists can tolerate the ambiguity of wave-particle duality, and I assure you that photons are both real and all around you, crashing into your body and imparting quanta of energy all the time. You get whacked with them in improper time, at a velocity of 300,000 km/sec and not "infinitely fast."

Nope, not going for the bloatware pseudo-reality "engineering definition" of the universe, which is a conceptual framework that, well, engineers most often get stuck in. The universe is not a wireframe, not a mathematical representation of vectors swirling about like yesterday's weathermap, not a model, not an abstraction, not something that is gone too quickly to capture.

I'll accept that we experience a particular transformation of sensation; "experience" that we peg as "reality." That reality is literal in the most literal meaning of the term "literal." We can create literature in the mind, and in a form transferable to others. We experience a narrative.

Scientists don't experience the further reality as I discussed it; they can't; you can't, by definition. You're going to need to look a little more inductively, however, if you want to understand what I'm talking about.

Dave,
Respectfully, I still think you're stuck in a literal interpretation of "existence." (And ironically, it's usually engineers that get stuck there.) I also think you're improperly applying some concepts. And my suggested thought exercise is merely a philosophical starting point, not an answer to anything in itself.

However, in a perhaps pointless attempt to inject some objectivity here, the wave characteristic of things in the universe isn't a "thing," like a wave of water or a vibrating object. Rather, it's simply a quantum-statistical calculation that fits a later event dependent upon how and when the event itself is measured within the universe. The "deBroglie Wavelength" describes the smeared-out interaction of a quanta's mathematical potential to interact with its surrounding environment -- a vacuum, two slits, a diffractive medium, an atomic nucleus, even itself... But it doesn't become a "thing" in this universe until it's "measured."

You don't have to argue with me; there's a group in the MIT Mechanical Engineering Department headed by Seth Lloyd entirely dedicated to Quantum-Mechanical Computing. There's also a decent article at The Notebook of Philosophy and Physics that you can read -- if you want. 8-)

A waveform is not "a calculation." I understand that ephemera can be modeled and may seem more real than reality to a theorist with a bee in his or her bonnet. I'm sure many readers will appreciate the physics lesson.

However, you're off on a tangent relative to what I said. As fascinating as are the "this expansion" phenomena, they are its manifestations. You know, even waveform collapse, least action, entanglement, uncertainty, etc. Thanks for your input. (I'm not an engineer.)

Ruta

Thanks for that link. Some time ago, I posted an article called The Observer Effect. It had a very interesting reponse. One of two commenters who fancied themselved physicsts tried to tell us that the observer effect was caused by instrument interference, and Dave was vital in correcting that.

The point of that post, a point I was not very eloquent at presenting, was that the really interesting thing about the Observer Effect is not the physics of it, (which is really the mathematics) but the biology of it. As your linked article asks, why should being conscious of something affect that thing? And then what is reality in the absense of consciouness? And who is conscious? And so on. Does the observer effect signify that conscious beings had to evolve in the universe? Does it mean that there is in fact a purpose, totally deterministic and unrelated to anything supernatural, to human existence, namely to observe and be conscious of all the collapsing wave functions that make up physical reality?

Of perhaps there is a trivial explanation, but I doubt it, since almost a century has passed with no indication that quantum mechanics is anything but real.

As for what I think, it is that yes, there is an explanation for all of this. But it requires thinking so far out of the box, that most scientists and engineers would not consider it to be scientific thinking. Because it isnt. Things popping in and out of existence for example, treating everything as software, or your example of energy, which is in fact dead on.

Everybody talks about energy, but no one has seen it. I think if it as molecules moving fast and bumping into each other making heat (I was originally a chemist), but what is that? It can be measured, it can be collected and stored, but it is still a concept, not a thing.

So, I think I do understand your point, and I think that you are more or less agreeing with me. Or vice versa.

(BTW, if you are late with your prototype component, I would be happy to accept all the blame. just sayin).

You're lucky, Sy, because obviously you've never been burned.

No, Dave. Im lucky because I have been burned enough not to care. Now I just enjoy the heat, and feel no pain. Its all good.

Ah, Simon... I'm deeply impressed! I think you're seeing exactly the point in all of this.

I've tried very hard not to reveal what I believe in this forum, because that's not what I'm interested in hearing from others. And I've arrived where I am mostly because, as Sherlock said, "Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth." That's the skeptical rationalist's approach, but it results in a scratching away of reality that leaves one staring at...well, I think you already know!

I too think there is an explanation for this, and I also think it's much closer than most of us realize (it's simply what we're left staring at when all of the illusions have been removed). But we still have to be willing to give up on projecting explanations confined to this reality in order to see what it all means.

I've also read a couple of perspectives from scientists who have come to an identical (or nearly so) conclusion, so it's apparently not an original thought. And I think I will leave things there...

I've become singularly-unfocused today (although I'm pretty much done here). So I'm going for a good, long run to get the dust cleared out of my head before I finish up. I'll also be in a separate facility tomorrow, so I'll be "off-line."

“Consciousness, unprovable by scientific standards, is forever, then, the impossible phantom in the predictable biologic machine, and your every thought a genuine supernatural event. Your every thought is a ghost, dancing.” ― Alan Moore

My uncle was Cecil Chilton of the Chilton/Perry Chemical Engineer's Handbook. He was often asked to speak about how one could be a scientist or engineer and a Christian. I wish I had copies of his responses. They were beautiful.

What fascinates me is the number of early scientists who were also clergy or who had studied theology in addition to mathematics or science. I had someone tell me that they didn't count because early scientists didn't have the knowledge and technology that we have today. But think about Charles Townes: In 1964 he won the Nobel Prize in Physics and in 1966 he wrote The Convergence of Science and Religion. Or think about Ghillean Prance, noted botanist involved in the Eden Project, and current President of Christians in Science. (Info from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science)



How about Albert Enstein? Atheists claim he was one of them.


Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
From: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

Thanks Marlyn. I wasnt aware of some of these people. I cant believe anyone would say that Isaac Newton didnt count!! In fact what Newton believed is exactly what modern Christian scientists believe - that what science does is allow us to discover the true wonder and majesty of God's creation.

Marilyn: If any atheist claimed that Einstein was an atheist it would be a lie and mainly a nonsense.

I wonder where did you picked such info.

Right here on Gather folks have made the claim before, Gilbert. They've also claimed that "most" scientists are not Christians.

Here are two Einstein quotes that I have always liked:
"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism." (Albert Einstein)

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954) From Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press