Evolution and creation both right, says pope

ConversazioniLet's Talk Religion

Iscriviti a LibraryThing per pubblicare un messaggio.

Evolution and creation both right, says pope

Questa conversazione è attualmente segnalata come "addormentata"—l'ultimo messaggio è più vecchio di 90 giorni. Puoi rianimarla postando una risposta.

1John5918
Ott 29, 2014, 12:47 am

Not wishing to start another pointless debate on this topic, but the views of the head of the world's largest Christian denomination might be worth noting.

Evolution and creation both right, says pope (Guardian)

Although Francis was packaging the ideas with his trademark eye for a soundbite, the content of what he was saying does not mark a break with Catholic teaching... Popes before him have also said that– with certain provisos – there is no incompatibility between evolution and God as divine creator.

Francis in the Pontifical Academy of Sciences emphasises the responsibility of humanity in creation (Vatican Information Service)

2timspalding
Modificato: Ott 29, 2014, 12:53 am

The US media coverage was unbelievable—all kinds of secular outfits seemed to believe that this was some sort of special Pope Francis advance, as if Francis was taking on Catholicism by denying creationism, etc.

Ross Douthat had the best response today:
"Grateful to the terrible media coverage of Pontifex on evolution for supplying a sorely needed occasion of Catholic unity today."
https://twitter.com/DouthatNYT/status/527195632189321216
No, I take that back. The best reply was from the Fake-News site "Eye of the Tiber"

Pope Francis Says Forces Of Gravity And Electromagnetism Are Real
http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2014/10/28/pope-francis-says-forces-of-gravity-and-...

3John5918
Ott 29, 2014, 1:26 am

>2 timspalding: Pope Francis Says Forces Of Gravity And Electromagnetism Are Real

That's a relief. I was afraid I was going to float away and my computer stop working...

4LolaWalser
Ott 29, 2014, 11:14 am

“But it is not so. He created beings and let them develop according to internal laws which He gave every one, so they would develop, so they would reach maturity.”

Anyone want to believe "the creator" banged the big bang? If it floats their boats. It's pure faith and completely anti-scientific, but if that's as far as one goes... falsifying it is a non-starter.

But, to pretend next that god has ALSO planned and orchestrated everything downstream of that event: sorry, no.

As for reaching "maturity", whatever that means, yeah, another glaring failure to understand evolution right there.

5southernbooklady
Ott 29, 2014, 12:13 pm

>1 John5918: I think the dilemma faced by faith vis a vis evolution is not what's in Genesis, but in the notion that evolution is progressive, that we evolve from good to better to best-- that there is a goal, a plan, an end game, if you will. And that mankind is somehow "special" in its relationship to the rest of creation--that it enjoys different rules, or a different fate, from all else that is.

“With regard to man, instead, there is a change and something new. When, on the sixth day of the account in Genesis, man is created, God gives the human being another autonomy, an autonomy that is different to that of nature, which is freedom. And he tells man to name everything and to go ahead through history. This makes him responsible for creation, so that he might dominate it in order to develop it until the end of time. Therefore the scientist, and above all the Christian scientist, must adopt the approach of posing questions regarding the future of humanity and of the earth, and, of being free and responsible, helping to prepare it and preserve it, to eliminate risks to the environment of both a natural and human nature. But, at the same time, the scientist must be motivated by the confidence that nature hides, in her evolutionary mechanisms, potentialities for intelligence and freedom to discover and realise, to achieve the development that is in the plan of the Creator.


Human beings are not "responsible" for creation. We are only responsible for ourselves. But there is nothing except our own fears or hopes to suggest that the universe is anything but indifferent to our existence.

6weener
Ott 29, 2014, 1:20 pm

Well, the pope is halfway right. He's getting there.

7rrp
Ott 29, 2014, 4:03 pm

>2 timspalding:

Pope Francis Says Forces Of Gravity And Electromagnetism Are Real

And we thought the science wars were over. Many scientists, you know, don't believe gravity and electromagnetism are real. See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism or http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/scientific-realism/.

8rrp
Ott 29, 2014, 4:06 pm

>5 southernbooklady:

Human beings are not "responsible" for creation. We are only responsible for ourselves. But there is nothing except our own fears or hopes to suggest that the universe is anything but indifferent to our existence.

This maybe a component of your worldview, but it isn't a scientifically based worldview. There are many observations which fit with theories that human beings are necessary for the universe to exist.

9jburlinson
Ott 29, 2014, 6:25 pm

>8 rrp: There are many observations which fit with theories that human beings are necessary for the universe to exist.

This sounds a tad tautological doesn't it?

10jburlinson
Ott 29, 2014, 6:38 pm

>1 John5918: Evolution and creation both right, says pope

I wish he had said that both were wrong, which is probably closer to reality. Both are ideas of humans, who, if we did not create the universe, experience (remake?) a universe in a way that only we can, and then come up with explanations that may or may not satisfy us as to what's going on.

Not wishing to start another pointless debate on this topic

Sometimes you get what you don't wish for. :)

11Jesse_wiedinmyer
Modificato: Ott 29, 2014, 7:41 pm

There are many observations which fit with theories that human beings are necessary for the universe to exist.

This sounds a tad tautological doesn't it?


It's actually more tautological than rrp presents it, because it has nothing to do with "humans" and everything to do with "an observer." But given rrp's penchant for Intelligent Design, it behooves him to misrepresent the argument to reinsert humanity to the center of the discussion.

12LolaWalser
Ott 29, 2014, 7:58 pm

War is peace and hate is love and vanilla and chocolate are both good choices... no, no they aren't. It was going well but then I really fucked up.

As for the universe, it is all about the ducks. We're here for the ducks. I challenge ANYONE and EVERYONE to prove my ducktheology is wrong.

13jburlinson
Ott 29, 2014, 8:57 pm

> it is all about the ducks. We're here for the ducks.

Speaking of ducks -- interesting item on Edge.org


Duck Sex, Aesthetic Evolution, and the Origin of Beauty: A Conversation with Richard Prum


As for duck theology, makes sense to me. Marvelous creatures, ducks, as the item in Edge details.

14jburlinson
Ott 29, 2014, 9:10 pm

>5 southernbooklady: mankind is somehow "special" in its relationship to the rest of creation--that it enjoys different rules, or a different fate, from all else that is.

It is special -- not because of its different rules or different fate, but because of its difference. In that, it is no different from all else that is -- special.

15rrp
Ott 30, 2014, 12:49 pm

>9 jburlinson: Why tautological?

16southernbooklady
Ott 30, 2014, 12:57 pm

>14 jburlinson: In that, it is no different from all else that is -- special.

We're all special to ourselves, I suppose. But Christian doctrine does tend to view human beings as the pinnacle of creation. We are made in God's image, after all. Given dominion over the earth, etc, etc.

17timspalding
Ott 30, 2014, 1:08 pm

And that mankind is somehow "special" in its relationship to the rest of creation--that it enjoys different rules, or a different fate, from all else that is.

Well, okay, but there's no assertion that humans enjoy a different physical fate. We have immortal souls. Animals may or may not. Our bodies decompose in the same way.

18LolaWalser
Ott 30, 2014, 1:24 pm

We don't know that we have "souls", "immortal" or any other kind. You believe so, that is all.

19timspalding
Ott 30, 2014, 1:28 pm

Very true—although off-topic. We're not debating the truth of theism, or, here, non-materialism, we're discussing whether such a belief is in conflict with evolution and the Big Bang.

20jburlinson
Ott 30, 2014, 1:37 pm

>15 rrp: Why tautological?

For one thing, "theories that human beings are necessary for the universe to exist" are made, exclusively, I would assume, by humans, as are the observations that fit with those theories. For another, the universe, as we know it, includes us; it wouldn't be the universe without humans.

>5 southernbooklady: There is nothing except our own fears or hopes to suggest that the universe is anything but indifferent to our existence.

I don't see how that can be, considering that we are part of the universe and our existence has at least passing interest to us. You could say, I suppose, that we're an insignificant part of the universe, but what system of measures would we use to determine significance on the universal level?

21jburlinson
Ott 30, 2014, 1:39 pm

>19 timspalding: we're discussing whether such a belief is in conflict with evolution and the Big Bang

Do you think the soul is evolved? If so, in what way would we say that it is immortal?

22jburlinson
Ott 30, 2014, 1:49 pm

>16 southernbooklady: Christian doctrine does tend to view human beings as the pinnacle of creation. We are made in God's image, after all. Given dominion over the earth, etc, etc.

I don't know about Christian doctrine (about much of which I remain dubious, as far as my personal beliefs are concerned), but a case could be made that the Christ did not emphasize humans as pinnacles of anything: "there is none good but one, that is, God."

23southernbooklady
Ott 30, 2014, 2:13 pm

>17 timspalding: We have immortal souls. Animals may or may not. Our bodies decompose in the same way.

And our bodies evolve the same way. No, we don't enjoy a "different physical fate." And the basis on which we (possibly) enjoy a different spiritual fate -- that humans have immortal souls but other living things might not -- is wholly a matter of faith. Which implies that religion has nothing to say to science or the scientific exploration of the material universe. But that's not what Pope Francis seems to be saying:

Therefore the scientist, and above all the Christian scientist, must adopt the approach of posing questions regarding the future of humanity and of the earth, and, of being free and responsible, helping to prepare it and preserve it, to eliminate risks to the environment of both a natural and human nature. But, at the same time, the scientist must be motivated by the confidence that nature hides, in her evolutionary mechanisms, potentialities for intelligence and freedom to discover and realise, to achieve the development that is in the plan of the Creator.


He seems to be saying that creation is itself evidence of God. Again, a matter of faith. But it isn't science. Nor is it a useful approach for doing science, since faith is not a hypothesis to be tested, but a proposition to be embraced. That's what I mean about the dilemma between religious belief and science. It's not so much that there are young earth creationists out there-- all sorts of people tend to believe all sorts of things and it isn't just the religious that have a monopoly on it. You should here some of my neighbors on Obama conspiracy theories!

It's more that religious belief starts with an answer, and science starts with a question. Two completely different approaches to understanding existence. But the acknowledgement that you could be wrong is vital to good science. Not so much to good religious doctrine. And religious doctrines that place mankind at the top of the pyramid of creation -- in charge, so to speak, of all the plants and animals of the earth -- automatically skews our understanding of how we fit and the role we play in any ecological system. We tend to think of every ecological system in terms of what it does for us, instead of what we do for it.

24LolaWalser
Ott 30, 2014, 2:29 pm

I'm not aware of any model that fits a belief in souls with evolution. I think it's frequently overlooked that evolution encompasses all scientific facts about the natural world. It's not a theoretical principle, it's a process working on living organisms with all their physiology, biochemistry, genetics etc. Living matter evolves. Immortal souls have no place in this process.

25southernbooklady
Ott 30, 2014, 2:34 pm

Immortality would imply no evolution at all, wouldn't it? Evolution is about changes from generation to generation. An immortal soul would be an evolutionary dead end.

26LolaWalser
Ott 30, 2014, 2:35 pm

I think the first stumble occurs much before: just what is this soul and how do we prove its existence? Way before wondering how it might "evolve".

27jburlinson
Ott 30, 2014, 2:41 pm

>24 LolaWalser: Living matter evolves. Immortal souls have no place in this process.

Presumably, someone who thinks there is a soul and that the soul has evolved might consider that this soul is, or can be a manifestation of, living matter. I would think that the "immortal" part would have to require stepping outside time, which would seem to be consistent with how some people conceive of their idea of god. The trick is trying to reconcile a historical process like evolution with timelessness. I, personally, think it can be done.

Easy to get muddled by this, though. Anyone who tries to defend the potential integration of science with religious belief has to work hard to overcome the possibly confused, even if well-intentioned, conjectures of people like me.

28jburlinson
Ott 30, 2014, 2:45 pm

>26 LolaWalser: just what is this soul and how do we prove its existence

I think you once commented on something you called an "essential self". Couldn't this be considered something related to a soul? You might have already addressed this question -- if so, I apologize for forgetting.

29John5918
Ott 30, 2014, 3:00 pm

>23 southernbooklady: It's more that religious belief starts with an answer, and science starts with a question

I would say that religious belief also starts with questions. Who are we? Where do we come from? Where are we going? What is the purpose of our life? How do we interpret reality? We try to answer those questions based on our experience of life, the universe and everything. Faith communities over the millennia have come up with partial answers which we build on.

30southernbooklady
Ott 30, 2014, 3:36 pm

>29 John5918: Is God good? Is Jesus the son of God? Is there "Original Sin" and did Jesus redeem us from it when he died on the cross?

Religion is an answer to questions. Science is the posing of questions.

31timspalding
Ott 30, 2014, 3:40 pm

I think it's frequently overlooked that evolution encompasses all scientific facts about the natural world.

Volcanos are a product of evolution? Exploding nebulae? The big bang is a product of evolution?

We are perhaps getting definitional. The Pope didn't mean what you mean by evolution. He meant something like what dictionaries and encyclopedias mean—e.g., "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." Now, you're free to use words however you like. But it's no great discovery to redefine evolution to mean "all scientific facts about the natural world" and proceed to explain that all scientific facts about the natural world encompass all scientific facts about the natural world.

32LolaWalser
Ott 30, 2014, 3:41 pm

>28 jburlinson:

No, by "essential self" I was referring to some minimum of identity one would recognize as one's self under any circumstances. Nothing immortal independent of the existence of the body.

33LolaWalser
Ott 30, 2014, 3:47 pm

>31 timspalding:

Do you seriously not understand that there is no separation of biology and physics in the natural world?

Volcanoes are part of nature same as biological organisms, physically made of the same elementary particles and (number of) chemicals. What is true about the atoms of lava is true about the atoms of bees.

34southernbooklady
Ott 30, 2014, 3:50 pm

>31 timspalding: He meant something like what dictionaries and encyclopedias mean—e.g., "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."

But religion tends to regard human beings as a kind of fixed point -- the most important fixed point, you might say.

35timspalding
Modificato: Ott 30, 2014, 3:53 pm

>33 LolaWalser:

Yes, of course there's a separate. Evolution is a critical explanatory framework for biological life. It is the cornerstone of life sciences, the best tool for explaining so much that is interesting and significant. But it does not encompass all facts about biological life by any means. Nor does does it have anything whatsoever to say about the changes that volcanos undergo, or whatever else is included in "all scientific facts about the natural world." Presumably, since you are a materialist "all scientific facts about the natural world" is absolutely equivalent to "all facts about reality."

I'm sorry, but evolution does not explain all reality.

36timspalding
Ott 30, 2014, 3:51 pm

But religion tends to regard human beings as a kind of fixed point -- the most important fixed point, you might say.

No, it doesn't. Perhaps some American fundies "tend" to see things this way. But the Catholic church—which is the topic of this thread—certainly does not.

37southernbooklady
Ott 30, 2014, 4:02 pm

>36 timspalding: We have immortal souls. Animals may or may not.

38LolaWalser
Ott 30, 2014, 4:02 pm

>35 timspalding:

Biology and physics aren't separate in the natural world. It's our analytical apparatuses, from instruments to questions, that divide these aspects because that's how we best tackle them practically.

But every rabbit, organ, cell population and cell I look at, every organelle and molecule, at the same time as I'm looking at them ecologically, organismically, individually, anatomically, functionally, any-way-biologically, exists as a physical object. That we can't (currently), or don't need to (most of the time) to look at a rabbit as a conglomeration of elementary particles doesn't make it any less so, nor does it somehow obviate the laws of the quantum universe.

39timspalding
Modificato: Ott 30, 2014, 4:11 pm

>38 LolaWalser:

Fair enough. But "evolution" is not the name for "all physical processes" any more than plate tectonics is. The underlying particles, laws and randomnesses exists, and can explain everything in some sense, but scientific principles on higher levels of abstraction, be it evolution, or oceanography or whatever have far greater explanatory power on their level, at least given limits on evidence-gathering and intelligence.

Further, these higher-level sciences seem to run on "rules" that work outside of their specific situation in physical reality. That is, evolution is not merely a subset of carbon-based biology, because the same principles can be usefully applied to, say, algorithms in a computer system.

40LolaWalser
Ott 30, 2014, 4:41 pm

>39 timspalding:

But "evolution" is not the name for "all physical processes"

And I never said that. But all physical processes happening in the evolving world are obviously part of the evolutionary picture. Biology subsumes physics and chemistry; evolution is happening in the natural world with the same rules of physics applying to objects animate and inanimate. There's a reason why we studied fluid mechanics, optics etc. before studying physiology.

That is, evolution is not merely a subset of carbon-based biology, because the same principles can be usefully applied to, say, algorithms in a computer system.

Well, again, this is insisting on talking about it as a theoretical principle, whereas I'm pointing to its physical reality. Just noting.

Either way, whither soul?

41timspalding
Ott 30, 2014, 5:51 pm

I think by "evolution" you mean something else. Perhaps it's a language issue.

42AsYouKnow_Bob
Modificato: Ott 30, 2014, 7:31 pm

OK, then, here's my objection:

"He created beings and let them develop according to internal laws which He gave every one, so they would develop, so they would reach maturity.

He's missing the point on evolution if he's trying to piggyback his teleology onto it. Species don't in fact reach "maturity" - they survive.

No direction, no purpose, no design, no designer.

43hf22
Modificato: Ott 30, 2014, 7:57 pm

>42 AsYouKnow_Bob:

The idea, from a Catholic perspective, is that there is extra evidence not recognised by others (i.e. God's revelation).

Accordingly, the teleology found in revelation does not have to be required or suggested by the scientific evidence, it just can not inconsistent with it.

For if it were inconsistent, the Catholic position would not be "reasonable" (i.e. taking possible rather than probable as the standard of reasonableness here - No Catholic thinks their views are strictly required by the evidence without revelation)#.

However if there is no inconsistency, there is from a Catholic perspective no conflict between faith and science, and it can be confirmed the science and the faith are correct without any cognitive dissonance.

# That is, "No direction, no purpose, no design, no designer" are conclusions from the scientific evidence sans revelation, not the scientific evidence itself.

44rrp
Ott 30, 2014, 9:04 pm

>40 LolaWalser: "Biology subsumes physics and chemistry"

That's a good one. Can you hear all those physicists mathematicians laughing?



45rrp
Ott 30, 2014, 9:07 pm

>20 jburlinson: it wouldn't be the universe without humans

Quite right, but still not a tautology. The universe is, in total, the observations of humans. What we cannot sense, does not exist, at least, that's what we are often told.

46paradoxosalpha
Ott 31, 2014, 8:35 am

>45 rrp:

Species-level solipsism?

47rrp
Ott 31, 2014, 9:21 am

>46 paradoxosalpha:

It is a logical deduction from the premis that only things we have evidence for - can observe - exist.

We have no evidence that the universe exists when we are not observing it. Applying Occam's razor, we have no need to assume the existence of an unobservable entity.

48paradoxosalpha
Ott 31, 2014, 9:56 am

>47 rrp:

You're just words on a screen to me, man.

49LolaWalser
Ott 31, 2014, 10:13 am

>41 timspalding:

I think by "evolution" you mean something else. Perhaps it's a language issue.

Yeah, I speak science.

50southernbooklady
Ott 31, 2014, 10:42 am

>43 hf22: "No direction, no purpose, no design, no designer" are conclusions from the scientific evidence sans revelation, not the scientific evidence itself.

Which sort of encapsulates the whole problem. A scientist cannot treat "revelation" as evidence--or rather, if they do, then revelation will not meet the criteria for validity. So there's no place for revelation in science.

Perhaps in the microcosm it doesn't matter so much. A person can still splice a gene whether or not they think a gene an artifact of random chance on biological processes or a sign of "god's design." But the idea that there is a goal, a purpose, a meaning to such processes--that's something imposed on scientific observation by the belief in revelation. There's no empirical evidence for it. And it blinkers scientific pursuits by assuming that we know, to some extent, what the goal is: That God loves us, for example. That our immortal souls yearn to be reconnected to God. Or whatever.

That kind of thinking would tend to exclude, as an example, a hypothesis that religiousity is an evolutionary trait, one among many, that may or may not be of use in perpetuating the species to the next generation (which is the only "goal" that evolution really has).

51hf22
Modificato: Ott 31, 2014, 11:12 am

>50 southernbooklady:

Which sort of encapsulates the whole problem.

If one accepts that it is a problem.

A scientist cannot treat "revelation" as evidence--or rather, if they do, then revelation will not meet the criteria for validity. So there's no place for revelation in science.

Sure.

But the idea that there is a goal, a purpose, a meaning to such processes--that's something imposed on scientific observation by the belief in revelation. There's no empirical evidence for it.

No one is claiming there is scientific evidence for it. I mean there IS evidence one can reasonably accept (for example of a historical nature), but it is not scientific evidence.

And it blinkers scientific pursuits by assuming that we know, to some extent, what the goal is: That God loves us, for example. That our immortal souls yearn to be reconnected to God. Or whatever.

That kind of thinking would tend to exclude, as an example, a hypothesis that religiousity is an evolutionary trait, one among many, that may or may not be of use in perpetuating the species to the next generation (which is the only "goal" that evolution really has).


No - That does not follow. If we impute a God driven teleology to evolution, arguably precisely what we would expect it to do is encourage religiousity.

But ultimately as I have said, the interpretation of meaning is a step above the scientific evidence. One does not need to accept what might otherwise be, solely on the scientific evidence, the most probable meaning, in order to accept the scientific evidence itself.

For the Catholic faith to be reasonable (as I defined above), it need only be possible based on the scientific evidence, not probable or required.

52jburlinson
Ott 31, 2014, 11:12 am

>47 rrp: we have no need to assume the existence of an unobservable entity

I'm not sure it's a question of existence as much as it's a question of meaningfulness. If you're playing a game of chess, you're aware that turnips exist, it's just that they don't matter anything to you, at least for the time being. David Hume, the quintessential sceptic, acknowledged that, in everyday life, a person just doesn't need to worry about the limits of reasoning or science: a person "must assent to the principle concerning the existence of body, tho' he cannot pretend by any arguments of philosophy to maintain its veracity. Nature has not left this to his choice ... We may well ask, What causes induce us to believe in the existence of body? but 'tis in vain to ask, Whether there be body or not? That is a point, which we must take for granted in all our reasonings." -- Treatise on Human Nature

Science is able to do an adequate, or so it seems to us, job in explaining things to us and it even gives us the sense that, since we understand things so well, we're in a position to do something about changing things with the confidence that we're on top of the outcomes. Of course, the evidence is mixed as to whether or not we really are in charge. Yes, our cell phones are amazing and we can get an android to vacuum the carpet, but the freaking planet is falling apart.

Some critics of judeo-christianity like to criticize the notion that "man is given dominion" over the earth, but the scientific program is, itself, the ultimate demonstration of any human chauvinism that is implicit in the bible. At least the biblical passage was an attempt to convey the message that humanity had a responsibility to manage things for the good of all. Science holds no such brief, although certain scientists, to their credit, cling to some sense of accountability -- a sense of accountability, though, that probably is just a remnant of an outmoded morality.

53jburlinson
Ott 31, 2014, 11:35 am

>50 southernbooklady: There's no empirical evidence for it.

People experienced ice-cream headaches or brain freeze for a long time. There was lots of evidence for it -- since almost everyone experienced it. But it wouldn't have been considered empirical until science came along and called it sphenopalatine ganglioneuralgia, while describing the experience in terms of activity of trigeminal nerves. Science seems to have this habit of saying that subjective experience isn't evidence unless we can come up with an explanatory structure that accords with a prescribed process. It's catch-22.

perpetuating the species to the next generation (which is the only "goal" that evolution really has).

How can that be considered a goal? A goal is something that is conceived of in advance and which provides a direction for purposeful activity. There is no goal discernable to us in evolution, and there is no goal discernable to us in god; the two are the same. The search for goals is, IMO, a pastime for humans, who are constantly trying to figure out how to exploit our environment for some purpose or other.

54southernbooklady
Ott 31, 2014, 11:39 am

>53 jburlinson: How can that be considered a goal?

Exactly. That's why the word was in quotes.

>51 hf22: For the Catholic faith to be reasonable (as I defined above), it need only be possible based on the scientific evidence, not probable or required.

And for science to be reasonable, it has to leave faith at the door. Which is what I was trying to get at.

55jburlinson
Ott 31, 2014, 11:44 am

>51 hf22: For the Catholic faith to be reasonable (as I defined above), it need only be possible based on the scientific evidence, not probable or required.

Worrying about the reasonability of the Catholic faith is part of the problem with Catholicism, and, to be fair, many other religions. We, humans, don't understand God, we can't. We don't understand the natural world -- only the aspects of it that are accessible to our limited biological apparatus (aided by technology that extends our sense equipment). Pretending that we can or do understand is our big problem -- the root of all our discontent. It's the old story of the myth of the apple in the garden.

56southernbooklady
Ott 31, 2014, 11:44 am

>53 jburlinson: Science seems to have this habit of saying that subjective experience isn't evidence unless we can come up with an explanatory structure that accords with a prescribed process.

Pain is evidence, just not easily quantified evidence. "A brain freeze" is evidence, just not evidence that one's brain has been frozen. Likewise visions of a white light at the end of a tunnel in near-death experiences are evidence, just not quantifiable evidence, and not necessarily evidence of the existence of a white light at the end of a tunnel somewhere. Ultimately, visions are mostly likely to be ascribed to something that causes hallucinations. But that's all science can say about them.

57LolaWalser
Ott 31, 2014, 11:49 am

There are tenets of Catholic faith that are in direct conflict with science, as seen in the thread about Jesus' genes. No doubt, with sufficient ideological (theological) hand-waving and pretzeling, the conflict may be made to disappear (or appear to disappear), but that is not yet the case.

58jburlinson
Ott 31, 2014, 11:55 am

>54 southernbooklady: That's why the word was in quotes.

But with or without quotes, there's the implication that evolution has a direction. This is where the Pope goes a little off the rails by talking about "maturity" -- but he's not alone. Lots of scientists, and virtually all science journalists, talk about "winners and losers" in the game of evolution; sometimes they put quotes around the words, but the takeaway is nearly always the same -- there's a purpose, even though we might have a glimmering that there is none.

My only point is that it's the same with God -- people demand a purpose, a purpose that they can (1) understand and (2) agree with. We're very uncomfortable with not understanding -- personally, I don't think we can stand it.

But, ultimately, we can't understand and we won't understand -- and then we're gone, at least in the temporal order, which, again, is just one of our categories for trying to understand.

At least, that's how I see it.

59jburlinson
Ott 31, 2014, 12:04 pm

>56 southernbooklady: But that's all science can say about them.

And the implication here is that, since that's all that science can say, then that's all that anyone can, or should, say. Again, switching from a demand for "evidence" to a demand for "quantifiable evidence" raises the bar arbitrarily to accord with the system that one is trying to promulgate. Personally, it's OK with me to do so. We seek meaning -- we gotta have it. Even saying that there is no meaning, like I tend to do, is meaningful in a perverse kind of way.

60LolaWalser
Ott 31, 2014, 12:07 pm

>58 jburlinson:

Who cares about the language of science journalists and popularisers? Talk about silly irrelevancies.

61jburlinson
Ott 31, 2014, 12:09 pm

>57 LolaWalser: There are tenets of Catholic faith that are in direct conflict with science

Catholic faith is a somewhat easy target, since, for some reason, the Catholic Church has made a point of trying to seem reasonable. But not all religions are like that -- being reasonable isn't such a big deal for many of them. Even the early Christians weren't so hung up on it.

62LolaWalser
Ott 31, 2014, 12:13 pm

>61 jburlinson:

Embracing unreason is certainly one way to go. Considering how science has diminished religion, it might well be the only reasonable thing to do.

63jburlinson
Ott 31, 2014, 12:18 pm

>60 LolaWalser: Who cares about the language of science journalists and popularisers? Talk about silly irrelevancies.

Well, the average Jane or Joe gets most of what they know about science from such people -- who include many high school biology teachers who consider themselves fully orthodox in their science. How can something that is so pervasive be irrelevant? It certainly wasn't irrelevant when industrialists latched onto social darwinism in order to justify exploitation of the environment and labor.

The alternative is to posit three categories of people: (1) the real scientists, who isn't distracted or confused by irrelevancies; (2) the "educated" public who only understands the popularized version, which is filled with silly irrelevancies, and, then, worst of all, (3) the benighted fools who can't see their hands in front of their faces.

64jburlinson
Ott 31, 2014, 12:22 pm

>62 LolaWalser: Considering how science has diminished religion

Science has not diminished religion. If anything, it's diminished the attempts of some religions to explain the natural world -- which is one of the best accomplishments of science, IMO. Religion shouldn't be wasting it's time trying to explain the natural world -- it has much more important things to do.

65prosfilaes
Ott 31, 2014, 2:12 pm

>17 timspalding: We have immortal souls. Animals may or may not.

This is one of those questions where I stop and stare at the speaker, because isn't it rather important that you find out? Doesn't it change the meaning of a soul? Doesn't it affect whether or not we should raise them to kill and eat? How can you approach something like that and not question, not research?

66timspalding
Modificato: Ott 31, 2014, 2:33 pm

There are tenets of Catholic faith that are in direct conflict with science

I'm not seeing this. There are tenets that imagine something happened which is not currently explainable—that a person rose from the dead, for example. Unexplained things do not conflict with science.

One can perhaps reduce this to position that Catholicism requires "miracles"—things which are not fully explained by scientific laws. If you define science as the sum total of all that is and is possible, then you have excluded religion. But you've merely defined something so as to exclude something else. You haven't done anything intellectually interesting.

67paradoxosalpha
Ott 31, 2014, 3:41 pm

I think making unobserved and unfalsifiable axioms like the existence of an "immortal soul" central to a system of ideas is "in direct conflict with science." But I'm not a scientist, just a priest who doesn't believe in immortal souls.

68jburlinson
Ott 31, 2014, 4:30 pm

>67 paradoxosalpha: I think making unobserved and unfalsifiable axioms like the existence of an "immortal soul" central to a system of ideas is "in direct conflict with science."

I don't see how -- it's just making a statement that isn't applicable in a scientific context. It's not applicable to auto mechanics either, but that doesn't make the two "in conflict": unless one is trying to say that "if you're not for me, you're against me". If one's point of view is that science is everything, then I suppose that something that doesn't obviously comport with science could be considered "in conflict", but why take such a stark stance?

69rrp
Ott 31, 2014, 5:39 pm

>67 paradoxosalpha:

I think making unobserved and unfalsifiable axioms like the existence of a "universe that exist when we are not observing it" central to a system of ideas is "in direct conflict with science." Well, is in direct conflict to a particular version of science that thinks the existence of an "immortal soul" is in conflict with that particular version of science.

70rrp
Ott 31, 2014, 5:41 pm

>49 LolaWalser:

No, you speak scientism.

71rrp
Ott 31, 2014, 5:47 pm

>54 southernbooklady:

For science to be reasonable, it has to embrace faith. You cannot do science without taking some things on faith.

72LolaWalser
Ott 31, 2014, 6:00 pm

>70 rrp:

Don't use words you don't understand, rrp. In fact--just don't use words. It's embarrassing.

>66 timspalding:

You think you're doing something "intellectually interesting" when you steamroll over science and decide to believe that 2000 years ago a dead person started living again, or that a virgin who's never had sex gave birth to a deity?

We'll have to disagree on that question, I suppose.

73jburlinson
Ott 31, 2014, 6:22 pm

>72 LolaWalser: a dead person started living again, or that a virgin who's never had sex gave birth to a deity?

Why is it necessary to take these things literally? If it isn't coherent when a fundamentalist christian starts doing it, why should you want to?

74jburlinson
Ott 31, 2014, 6:25 pm

>1 John5918: Not wishing to start another pointless debate on this topic...

74 posts on and counting. There's life in this old horse after all. :)

75rrp
Modificato: Ott 31, 2014, 6:38 pm

>72 LolaWalser:

Your use of words demonstrates that what you mean by them is what you want them to mean, irrespective of what others mean by them. Which demonstrates that you are the one who is using words you don't understand. I suggest you stop using words -- it's embarrassing.

76rrp
Nov 1, 2014, 1:37 am

>52 jburlinson: . If you're playing a game of chess, you're aware that turnips exist

If I am playing chess I rarely am aware of turnips. In fact, I am only aware of turnips when directly observing them. At other times, I have faith that they exist.

That is a point, which we must take for granted in all our reasonings

The point is we all have to take some things for granted, take them on faith. The real question is which are warranted and which are not. Opinions vary.

77Jesse_wiedinmyer
Nov 1, 2014, 2:16 am

>1 John5918: Not wishing to start another pointless debate on this topic,

Bwahahahahahhahaha.

78hf22
Nov 1, 2014, 7:28 am

>54 southernbooklady:

And for science to be reasonable, it has to leave faith at the door. Which is what I was trying to get at.

No. Faith just has to respect that science legitimately has its own proper sphere, with its own valid principles and methods.

>55 jburlinson:

Worrying about the reasonability of the Catholic faith is part of the problem with Catholicism

If it is all the same with you I will stick with only believing in things which can, at least, be shown to be reasonable. Because if it is not reasonable, it is garbage, and should end up in the trash.

>57 LolaWalser:

There are tenets of Catholic faith that are in direct conflict with science, as seen in the thread about Jesus' genes.

Assertions are nether facts nor arguments. I am not aware of any “tenets” of the Catholic faith which have anything to do with the genes of Jesus.

Have you any actual examples we can test?

79John5918
Nov 1, 2014, 12:42 pm

80southernbooklady
Nov 1, 2014, 1:50 pm

>78 hf22: No. Faith just has to respect that science legitimately has its own proper sphere

Religion seems destined to be always accommodating itself to the discoveries of science. Science, on the other hand, is not required to accommodate religious belief. In fact, if it does...if it looks for scientific evidence that Jesus rose on the third day, for example, it is no longer "doing science."

>79 John5918:

While they may come together over opposition to abortion or same-sex marriage, these Catholics may find themselves joining other "conservative" causes, such as opposing immigration, programs for the poor and, yes, evolution in textbooks--all things Catholic teaching currently support.

Really? There's an anti-evolution trend among conservative Catholics in America? This is the first I've heard of it.

81John5918
Modificato: Nov 1, 2014, 2:57 pm

>80 southernbooklady: Really? There's an anti-evolution trend among conservative Catholics in America? This is the first I've heard of it.

Can't say I'd ever heard of it either, but then I'm no expert on things American, nor for that matter on conservative Catholics.

I like the bits where it says:

"Pope says evolution, Big Bang are real" could have been written in 1950...

the first person to propose what would become the "Big Bang Theory" was a Catholic priest, Msgr. Georges Lemaître, a Belgian astronomer and professor of physics, who was never persecuted by the church for his ideas.

82hf22
Nov 1, 2014, 8:50 pm

>80 southernbooklady:

Religion seems destined to be always accommodating itself to the discoveries of science. Science, on the other hand, is not required to accommodate religious belief.

Religion, if true, must be consistent with the facts. This is a feature, not a bug.

In fact, if it does...if it looks for scientific evidence that Jesus rose on the third day, for example, it is no longer "doing science."

Well no, it would be doing history. Which also legitimately has its own proper sphere, with its own valid principles and methods.

83jburlinson
Nov 2, 2014, 1:34 am

>80 southernbooklady: Religion seems destined to be always accommodating itself to the discoveries of science.

Some religions, perhaps. Others, not so much. Hinduism, for example, or Jainism -- both much older than Christendom. Baha'i, also -- much younger than Christendom. Apparently, Sikhs don't seem to find science all that problematic, either.

84southernbooklady
Nov 2, 2014, 8:37 am

>83 jburlinson: Well we are discussing Christianity--actually, Catholicism--here. But it's not a question of Catholicism finding science "problematic," is it? It's clear that Catholicism accepts science without too much difficulty. As the cited article says, they learned their lesson with Galileo.

These days, where's there's conflict it seems to me that the Church diverts the issue into questions of morality, not natural law. So homosexuality, as the most topical example, is understood to naturally exist, but homosexual behavior is simply rejected on moral grounds.

Science, on the other hand, does not have to worry about the religious justifications or answering religious questions in its pursuits. The laws of physics are independent of the scientist's personal faith. And the scientific method is self-sufficient.

85rrp
Nov 2, 2014, 9:33 am

>84 southernbooklady:

It's clear that Catholicism accepts science without too much difficulty.

This has always been true.

it's not a question of Catholicism finding science "problematic"

This is also true, if by science you mean human understanding about the material world. The Church does have a problem with individuals who follow the different faith of scientism, or who deny creationism.

they learned their lesson with Galileo. This is a myth. It would be truer to say Galileo learned his lesson from the Church, as the Church was right in his case.

Science, on the other hand, does not have to worry

Science isn't a body or institution, unlike the Church. There is no Science which has to worry.

The laws of physics are independent of the scientist's personal faith.

No. A scientist needs personal faith to believe that there are laws of physics.

And the scientific method is self-sufficient.

The biggest myth of them all -- there is no such thing as the scientific method.

86jburlinson
Nov 2, 2014, 11:55 am

>84 southernbooklady: Well we are discussing Christianity--actually, Catholicism--here

Yet the forum is "let's talk religion" and there's a separate forum for Christianity. I hear what you're saying, it's hard to talk "religion" in a largely anglo-north american context and not really be talking about christianity. And yet we know there are billions who are religious and not christian. The implication that christians, and particularly fundamentalist evangelical christians or ultra-traditional Catholics, represent the religious POV is a little limiting. It certainly makes it way too easy to score points by pounding away at patent absurdities in literalistic interpretations of scripture or tradition. Not that you do that. Many have remarked before about your staunch, reasonable and articulate defense of your anti-religious viewpoint, while still remaining respectful of others. It's a talent and a skill.

What is particularly interesting to me, though, is the study of other religions and the attempt to try to come up with a synthesis that accommodates my own, somewhat quirky, commitment to Christianity. Having been immersed (literally and figuratively) in a very extreme form of Christianity (Mormonism) for my first 15-17 years, science suggests to me that certain neural pathways have been established that will be nigh onto impossible to eradicate short of a mind swipe by the Men in Black. So I find it reassuring to consider Christianity in the context of other faith or philosophical traditions and am pleased when I come up with what seem to me to be commonalities, or at least affinities. Similarly, I enjoy considering Judeo-Christianity in the light of contemporary historical and scientific understanding (at least what little of it I'm able to keep up with), and I bridle a bit when told that it's illegitimate to try to do so.

Science, on the other hand, does not have to worry about the religious justifications or answering religious questions in its pursuits. The laws of physics are independent of the scientist's personal faith. And the scientific method is self-sufficient.

But science, or the scientific method, is not all-sufficient, or at least not yet. And if science has no interest in solving religious questions, does that mean that such questions are unsolvable or pointless? Personally, I'm not sure science cannot provide some very interesting answers to religious questions, but, for that to happen, science has to take these questions seriously and apply the most rigorous methodology to their scrutiny. Simply saying that religion (or the religious impulse, or spirituality) is bunk or delusion/wish fulfillment is not particularly scientific.

87southernbooklady
Nov 2, 2014, 1:35 pm

>86 jburlinson: Yet the forum is "let's talk religion" and there's a separate forum for Christianity. I hear what you're saying, it's hard to talk "religion" in a largely anglo-north american context and not really be talking about christianity

Especially when we are asked to comment on something the Pope says. :-)

science suggests to me that certain neural pathways have been established that will be nigh onto impossible to eradicate short of a mind swipe by the Men in Black.

I agree that it behooves us to remember that no matter what our beliefs or lack thereof, people's sense of what it is to be "good" is largely informed by and influenced by the cultural conditions they grew up in, and prevailing religious presence would be a big, big part of that.

But science, or the scientific method, is not all-sufficient, or at least not yet.

I think that's the question under debate over in the thread discussing The God Delusion.

It's not that religious questions are not worth asking, or are pointless. It's not even that science couldn't offer some useful perspective to religious belief -- either on the narrow scale, like the speculation that went on in another thread on the genetic make up of Jesus, or on the wider scale, like the evolutionary advantages of religiosity. But ultimately, if belief comes from revelation---as the Catholic sees it, then that's really an end-run around a scientific approach to understanding the universe, isn't it?

88timspalding
Modificato: Nov 2, 2014, 2:05 pm

Religion seems destined to be always accommodating itself to the discoveries of science

I guess I see a split. Elements of religion are not susceptible to examination—or accommodation. When religion asserts facts about immaterial reality, it speaks to something that science has nothing to say about. It may be that there is nothing but material reality, but in any case science is the study of material reality, so it can scarcely pass on things outside of it's focus and methods.

Other elements are. While Biblical literalism as a central assertion of faith is new, Jews and Christians long believed that the world was reasonably recent. This was hardly a core belief, but it was a commonplace, common-sense one. Science has clearly shown this to be false.

So far so good. But isn't that basic to all human knowledge? History has had to "accommodate" itself to the discoveries about the age of the world too. Does this make history bogus? Ditto psychology, psychiatry, medicine, engineering, economics, and just about everything else—even literature and art. These fields continue to exist, and to employ methods and formulate rules and even laws that are not "scientific."

So?

89LolaWalser
Nov 2, 2014, 2:24 pm

>78 hf22:

Assertions are nether facts nor arguments. I am not aware of any “tenets” of the Catholic faith which have anything to do with the genes of Jesus.

Aren't you, how astonishing. Jesus--where did his chromosomes come from?

Have you any actual examples we can test?

Hey, it's your religion; to me it's just balderdash. So, have YOU got any examples we can test? For example, the assertion without fact that god exists? To begin with.

90LolaWalser
Nov 2, 2014, 2:26 pm

Old thread on Jesus' genes:

https://www.librarything.com/topic/163371

91timspalding
Modificato: Nov 2, 2014, 2:30 pm

Jesus--where did his chromosomes come from?

Catholic teaching really doesn't have anything to say about it. You just want it to. Perhaps if you pray to God, he'll turn your wishes into reality.

>90 LolaWalser:

Right. See #3. We don't know.

92LolaWalser
Nov 2, 2014, 2:36 pm

>91 timspalding:

Catholic teaching tells me a baby boy was born to a virgin; I have some questions about that, as does anyone with any clue or respect for science.

You don't know? Why do you believe then that this happened? Why do you believe that this child was "son of god"?

Short message: believe whatever the hell you please--but don't ever try to tell me you care about science.

93timspalding
Modificato: Nov 2, 2014, 3:07 pm

There is a logical distinction between "science as we understand it cannot explain X" and "X is in conflict with science."

Now, first, a caveat. The perpetual virginity of Mary is tricky insofar as Christians may not be obligated to believe what you want them to believe about it. See that thread.

That aside, and stipulating that Christians must believe what you want them to, it's clear that science as we understand it cannot explain that. It is another thing to asset that science could not explain it. And it even another thing to assert that science is a complete description of everything known, knowable and possible, so if science cannot explain it, it is impossible and does not exist. There is, in other words, nothing supernatural.

The latter is a fine view. Many smart people have believed it—including many, but by no means all scientists! (I'd like to think that all the non-materialist scientists who have lived or live "care" about science.) But anyway eliminative materialism is a philosophical position, not something that science can "prove."

94LolaWalser
Nov 2, 2014, 3:16 pm

>93 timspalding:

stipulating that Christians must believe what you want them to

Let's clear this up once for all: I'm not stipulating anything, I'm repeating what I've been hearing all my life, what is enshrined not just in articles of faith for the believers but in uncountable instances in art, literature and cultural history for anyone marginally aware of the Western culture.

That Mary is a virgin, a woman who was and remained a virgin through conception and after birth of a human male child who is ALSO god, are not some bizarre pieces of obscure propaganda I've concocted on my lonesome to make Catholics (or any other Christians) look bad.

It may embarrass you personally (although I don't know why, when you aren't embarrassed by indoctrinating children with stuff you don't know is true), but many--probably most--Catholics REALLY believe this.

But monistic materialism is a philosophical position, not something that science can "prove."

What's that got to do with asking whose genes where in Jesus' cells? Or how he was conceived?

Or how he can be a human being and a god at the same time? Or how is he expected to "come back? Or how anyone is going to "meet his maker"?

95jburlinson
Nov 2, 2014, 3:18 pm

>87 southernbooklady: if belief comes from revelation---as the Catholic sees it, then that's really an end-run around a scientific approach to understanding the universe, isn't it?

Not if one is willing to take a scientific approach to understanding revelation. What is revelation, scientifically speaking? If, as science suggests, such things as revelation are material processes, what precisely is going on? More specifically, revelation seems to be accompanied by a sense of conviction -- what is that sense, empirically speaking? And if we were able to nail down (no pun intended) the neurotheology involved, would we have exhausted the question?

96LolaWalser
Nov 2, 2014, 3:22 pm

>95 jburlinson:

what precisely is going on?

An epileptic fit or schizophrenic episode.

97jburlinson
Nov 2, 2014, 3:43 pm

>94 LolaWalser: What's that got to do with asking whose genes where in Jesus' cells? Or how he was conceived? Or how he can be a human being and a god at the same time? Or how is he expected to "come back? Or how anyone is going to "meet his maker"?

I tend to view these things, along with many others, as Christian koans, acting to arouse the so-called "Great Doubt", which lose value when analyzed literally.

98timspalding
Modificato: Nov 2, 2014, 3:51 pm

What's that got to do with asking whose genes where in Jesus' cells? Or how he was conceived?

Thank you for asking. Sometimes it's hard to know whether you're not following an argument, or disagreeing with it.

It relates as follows. It appears that Christian beliefs require something supernatural. Right? Fair enough? Virgin birth, probably. Resurrection, definitively. Free will? Souls? Objective morality? Consciousness? Definitely. Whatever.

Now, you seem to deny supernatural things. You believe that science is a complete description of reality—that everything that exists, happened or will happen can is entirely explained by science. Right? Stop me when you disagree or have stopped following me.

Well, okay, my contention is that naturalism (materialism, etc.) is a philosophical position. Science cannot prove that it is a complete, eliminative description of reality. It may be so, but it cannot be proven. I'm sorry to say, but I don't think you'll find any philosopher who thinks it can. You will find some who think that it's the most convincing philosophical framework for understanding reality. Okay. I disagree, but okay.

Not if one is willing to take a scientific approach to understanding revelation. What is revelation, scientifically speaking?

Revelation means various things. To a Christian, Jesus Christ himself is revelation—anyway, the culmination of it. Scientifically speaking, Jesus Christ was a first-century Jew. Christians think he was that, and also more.

Or how he can be a human being and a god at the same time?

I find this an odd question. Forgive me for saying, but you don't have a problem with someone being God and man at the same time. You have a problem with God. You'd need to believe in the possibility of God—indeed, the possibility of the supernatural itself—before the delicate Christological issue became important to you.

99jburlinson
Nov 2, 2014, 3:52 pm

>96 LolaWalser: An epileptic fit or schizophrenic episode.

Why do I have the feeling this is intended pejoratively?

But, even if what you say is the case, have we exhausted the issue satisfactorily from a scientific point of view by making such a declaration? Do we understand epilepsy and schizophrenia adequately enough to lay the issue to rest, or is there more to be learned? Can we load someone up with trifluoperazine and put an end to revelation?

100jburlinson
Nov 2, 2014, 4:00 pm

>98 timspalding: Scientifically speaking, Jesus Christ was a first-century Jew.

I'd say that was less scientifically speaking and more historically speaking. Scientifically speaking, Jesus Christ is a electrochemical process that has a greater or lesser degree of replicability in the nervous systems of given human specimens.

101LolaWalser
Nov 2, 2014, 4:20 pm

>98 timspalding:

You believe that science is a complete description of reality—that everything that exists, happened or will happen can is entirely explained by science. Right? Stop me when you disagree or have stopped following me.

Well, okay, my contention is that naturalism (materialism, etc.) is a philosophical position. Science cannot prove that it is a complete, eliminative description of reality. It may be so, but it cannot be proven. I'm sorry to say, but I don't think you'll find any philosopher who thinks it can. You will find some who think that it's the most convincing philosophical framework for understanding reality. Okay. I disagree, but okay.


First, I couldn't care less what any philosopher thinks about science.

Next, I wouldn't say "science is complete". Scientific knowledge is incomplete, but we can say with reason that we know more today about genetics, say, than we did 200 or 2000 years ago.

So, I'm simply saying "science know this much" and "this much is in conflict with religious belief X". So, how does one reconcile the belief in X with scientific conviction, or, why would human genetics be valid for all instances except that of Virgin (or should that be "Virgin") Mary?

The other quotes are jburlinson's, not mine. But as they seem to be addressed to me--jburlinson is a self-declared Christian and I think he believes in god, although admittedly I couldn't begin to describe his beliefs--to this:

You'd need to believe in the possibility of God—indeed, the possibility of the supernatural itself—before the delicate Christological issue became important to you.

Basically, I'd believe if I believed. I'd see if I saw.

So we're back to "can't prove it happened", "can't prove it didn't happen".

What bothers me isn't that someone believes X, it's when they claim X positively isn't in conflict in science because, hey, who knows what science might discover some day: ghosts, gods, the afterlife... That's not knowledge. That's just another instance of blind faith.

102southernbooklady
Nov 2, 2014, 4:43 pm

>88 timspalding: So far so good. But isn't that basic to all human knowledge? History has had to "accommodate" itself to the discoveries about the age of the world too. Does this make history bogus?

Ah, well now we are back to how the different disciplines handle the possibility of error. History can be revised when new evidence comes to light. Scientific theories can be revised or even disproved when evidence and observation show unexpected and unpredicted results. Error--being wrong--is useful. It's still a net gain in understanding.

Faith is not like this. Or at least, from what I understand, it is not like this. A person may doubt their ability to interpret or understand God's will or purpose. He or she may strive to refine their understanding, be a better example of "what God wants" -- to best understand in their limited way what it means to "live in the imitation of Christ" or simply to be a good person. But if faith comes from revelation, then somewhere in there is a core of certainly. A thing which can not be wrong. It may vary from religion to religion and indeed even from person to person, but whatever is at the heart of a believer's faith, it is surely a fixed point...a thing that in unequivocally true.

This is why a person's faith is considered an inalienable right and not to be interfered with, regardless of whether you agree with it or not, whereas a scientist's hypothesis is subject to extensive peer review before it is acknowledged to be a valid approach.

103timspalding
Modificato: Nov 2, 2014, 4:51 pm

Next, I wouldn't say "science is complete".

FWIW, that's not point. The point isn't that our knowledge about science is complete, but that we do not know is science itself coextensive with reality. Put another way, is physical reality all there is, or not? If it is, then science is a complete description and explanation of everything. That's called materialism or naturalism, and cannot be proved by science. That's my point.

Once that's understood, there's no way that the supernatural can "conflict" with science. The supernatural is expressly non-natural. Conflict is almost definitionally impossible.

Now, I will certainly admit that I think science is usually the best way to understand reality. If you were to tell me that you saw a ghost today, I would doubt it very strongly. And if you claimed that you had given birth without having sex, I would doubt it even more—that African stabbing victim notwithstanding. If Christianity were nothing but that claim, it would start out very dubious in my book.

That said, I do not absolutely rule things out on that basis alone. My world view allows the possibility of supernatural phenomena. It does so in part because certain realities I perceive or intuit to be true—including consciousness, free will and moral realism (1)—strike me as impossible to explain or impossible to exist within a purely naturalistic framework. The rejection of naturalism is, of course, a very far distance from the truths of Christianity, of course. But it is a necessary precursor.


1. Lest someone misunderstand, this is the belief that morality is real, not something about being realistic when applying morality.

104jburlinson
Nov 2, 2014, 5:08 pm

>103 timspalding: is physical reality all there is, or not? If it is, then science is a complete description and explanation of everything

It's a complete description and explanation only to us -- but we are fallible and limited organisms, and we understand our limitations and our fallibility. This is the astonishing thing -- even though we know what our limits are, we still have the confidence to make statements like the one you just made. Any living organism on this planet would make the same statement, if it could, and then it would be astonished to learn that there's another organism in the neighborhood who could describe and explain things differently and, possibly, more completely.

science is usually the best way to understand reality

Only because it's our way to understand reality. It's what we've got, maybe it's all we've got, but it ain't enough. To say that it is enough is hubris.

105hf22
Nov 2, 2014, 5:53 pm

>89 LolaWalser:

Tim has pretty much answered for me.

But the key thing I would like to highlight in your response here is that you posit a conflict between the scientific evidence and the Catholic faith (i.e. that would logically require one or the other to be wrong), and then admit you have no evidence of such a conflict.

On the question you bring up, god's existence, even the most convinced atheists acknowledge the Catholic position is not logically impossible. They just consider it improbable. That is, they acknowledge it passes the test of "reasonableness" I set above, that it is possible solely on the scientific evidence (if not probable).

And for someone who professes to rely upon science, I would have thought maintaining a position for which you acknowledge you have no evidence, would be a good reason to reassess what you are arguing for.

106LolaWalser
Nov 2, 2014, 8:06 pm

>105 hf22:

then admit you have no evidence of such a conflict.

Er, what?

1. a virgin conceiving and giving birth, and remaining virgin--CONFLICT WITH SCIENCE

2. human child is also god--CONFLICT WITH SCIENCE

3. dead person came to life--CONFLICT WITH SCIENCE

4. afterlife--CONFLICT WITH SCIENCE

5. existence of souls--CONFLICT WITH SCIENCE

Then there's of course the anti-scientific aprioristic belief in god's existence without any proof or evidence that god exists.

On the question you bring up, god's existence, even the most convinced atheists acknowledge the Catholic position is not logically impossible. They just consider it improbable. That is, they acknowledge it passes the test of "reasonableness" I set above, that it is possible solely on the scientific evidence (if not probable).

No. To a scientist, not every instance of low probability event is equally reasonable, and I have certainly never heard any "convinced atheist" declare that the existence of god is "reasonable". It is quite true, in scientific parlance we don't even (well, those of us with a fondness for statistics) express the likelihood of death as 1. It looks like terminal pedantry to laymen, but even death only occurs with an extremely high probability. (It's more complicated than that, but frankly I'm in a hurry to go discuss Doctor Who). BUT, we don't just look at numbers, our knowledge about the probability of dying is derived first of all from experience. And experientially, we know that every living organism dies. Expressing scientifically the notion that death happens only "with some probability" does not deny or change the fact that everybody dies.

And yes, in scientific parlance, there is some probability it is going to rain goats and anvils tomorrow. Beginning with what we know about meteorology, precipitation, goats and anvils, we'd probably assign a very low probability to such an event. And yet, yes--that "pedantry" again--we don't just go "no way, Jose", we express it as a probability. Does this mean some part of us is expecting to see goats and anvils shower from the sky? Not at all.

Now, assigning probability to god's existence in the first place is plenty ridiculous (Which god? Whose god? Why that and not the other? Why this value and not another?), but less ridiculous than actually believing this has REAL bearing on actual existence of god. How on earth can one call faith built on such grounds as "reasonable"?

I'm aware of speculative pieces on this question by Richard Gott (and Dawkins, IIRC), btw. (You may want to look up those papers--I think Gott's archive is online.) Like most experimental scientists, I may find such games more or less entertaining, but we don't put a great stock in them, and they certainly haven't made any of us feel the existence of god is more (or less, for that matter, for those who believe already) "reasonable".

Missed your test of "reasonableness", care to link?

What I'm getting from you and Tim is that you're hanging your hopes on "what science doesn't know yet" or "what science can never know".

I suppose ultimately we'll just have to agree to disagree about the worth of such hope, but really, the only thing I care about is not see people with beliefs like these pretend they respect science, or that the pope's utterances on science have any value whatsoever. You don't and they don't. You use science at best like you use the Bible, highly selectively and self-servingly.

It would be better to dismiss it altogether openly.

107timspalding
Nov 2, 2014, 8:29 pm

Can you define "conflict with science"?

108hf22
Modificato: Nov 2, 2014, 9:29 pm

>106 LolaWalser:

then admit you have no evidence of such a conflict.

Er, what?

1. a virgin conceiving and giving birth, and remaining virgin--CONFLICT WITH SCIENCE

2. human child is also god--CONFLICT WITH SCIENCE

3. dead person came to life--CONFLICT WITH SCIENCE

4. afterlife--CONFLICT WITH SCIENCE

5. existence of souls--CONFLICT WITH SCIENCE


Except none of those DOES conflict with science. What scientific evidence makes them logically impossible? Improbable perhaps, but not impossible.

Then there's of course the anti-scientific aprioristic belief in god's existence without any proof or evidence that god exists.

It is not “anti-scientific”, it is just non- scientific. Because there IS evidence of various types (such as historical evidence), just not scientifically valid evidence.

Missed your test of "reasonableness", care to link?

Refer >43 hf22:. I am defining “reasonable”, not in its ordinary meaning, but as something which is possible (compared to something which is logically impossible, and therefore unreasonable). I am not saying belief in God is probable from a solely scientific perspective.

What I'm getting from you and Tim is that you're hanging your hopes on "what science doesn't know yet" or "what science can never know".

I suppose ultimately we'll just have to agree to disagree about the worth of such hope, but really, the only thing I care about is not see people with beliefs like these pretend they respect science, or that the pope's utterances on science have any value whatsoever. You don't and they don't. You use science at best like you use the Bible, highly selectively and self-servingly.

It would be better to dismiss it altogether openly.


No, I am saying our beliefs cannot contradict the scientific evidence, because that would falsify them. And to the extent our beliefs do not so contradict, they are “reasonable” as defined (i.e. possible).

I am not trying to take the argument the next step, and show why one might decide to believe in such merely possible propositions. Just that they remain possible.

109LolaWalser
Nov 3, 2014, 6:25 pm

>108 hf22:

Except none of those DOES conflict with science. What scientific evidence makes them logically impossible? Improbable perhaps, but not impossible.

Who says I said "impossible"? I never said "impossible", I said there is conflict. The onus is on YOU to prove your myths are actually, realistically possible. So, the proper question is, what scientific evidence makes them logically possible? For example, do you have positive evidence--to pick the simplest point, as I see it--that a human child can be conceived without sexual intercourse, or in absence of artificial insemination?

It is not “anti-scientific”, it is just non- scientific. Because there IS evidence of various types (such as historical evidence), just not scientifically valid evidence.

No. It is in fact ANTI-scientific, because it goes directly against the first step in establishment of scientific knowledge: do not assume unprovisionally, do not posit absolutes.

Evidence that isn't scientifically valid is useless for establishing scientific knowledge. Reminds me of a cartoon: two boffins in front of a blackboard filled with equations and diagrams, ending in a big "then a miracle happens". Good for a laugh, useless for claiming positive knowledge. And you claim positive knowledge.

I am defining “reasonable”, not in its ordinary meaning, but as something which is possible (compared to something which is logically impossible, and therefore unreasonable). I am not saying belief in God is probable from a solely scientific perspective.

I think you had a slip of the tongue, belief in God is highly probable--pretty near 1, scientifically speaking. Meaning--it's a thing, people (frequently!) believe in god.

The event of uncertain, unassignable (imo) probability is the existence of god.

From a scientific perspective, D'Alembert summed it up: we do not need that (god) hypothesis. He didn't need it in the 18th century; science progressed through 19th, 20th and entered 21st century still not needing it.

We have not hit upon a "then a miracle happens" step.

No, I am saying our beliefs cannot contradict the scientific evidence, because that would falsify them.

Back to square one.

Same thing I asked before: do you believe Mary was a virgin at, during and after the conception, pregnancy and birth of Jesus? Do you believe Jesus was a human being without a human father? Do you believe Lazarus died and started living again? Or that Jesus "ascended" to "heaven"? Or that he, dead 2000 years or so, will "come back"?

they remain possible.

In myth, which is all religion's just-so stories reduce to.

110hf22
Modificato: Nov 3, 2014, 6:46 pm

>109 LolaWalser:

Who says I said "impossible"? I never said "impossible", I said there is conflict.

If it remains possible, there is no conflict.

The onus is on YOU to prove your myths are actually, realistically possible. So, the proper question is, what scientific evidence makes them logically possible?

You are confusing tests here. All I want to you to accept that it is possible. Not actually, realistically possible - Which would be better termed plausible or probable.

For example, do you have positive evidence--to pick the simplest point, as I see it--that a human child can be conceived without sexual intercourse, or in absence of artificial insemination?

This is beyond what I am trying to establish here. All I want to show is that it remains possible. A low bar, sure. But the first bar which needs to be jumped, and a bar which many beliefs and ideas do not pass.

As to what evidence I have of the virgin birth, there is evidence of a historical nature, at the very least. Putting aside for present purposes how much weight you can give to that evidence, and noting it is not scientific evidence, it is evidence of a kind.

No. It is in fact ANTI-scientific, because it goes directly against the first step in establishment of scientific knowledge: do not assume unprovisionally, do not posit absolutes.

Yeah, non-scientific. Like, is not doing science, but something else. Which still allows for science to be done on its own terms without let or hindrance.

I think you had a slip of the tongue, belief in God is highly probable--pretty near 1, scientifically speaking. Meaning--it's a thing, people (frequently!) believe in god.

The event of uncertain, unassignable (imo) probability is the existence of god.


Sure. I misspoke.

From a scientific perspective, D'Alembert summed it up: we do not need that (god) hypothesis. He didn't need it in the 18th century; science progressed through 19th, 20th and entered 21st century still not needing it.

But my question here is not need, but compatibility.

Same thing I asked before: do you believe Mary was a virgin at, during and after the conception, pregnancy and birth of Jesus? Do you believe Jesus was a human being without a human father? Do you believe Lazarus died and started living again? Or that Jesus "ascended" to "heaven"? Or that he, dead 2000 years or so, will "come back"?

Yes, but that is not what I am asking you to accept here.

In myth, which is all religion's just-so stories reduce to.

And in reality.

111LolaWalser
Modificato: Nov 3, 2014, 7:05 pm

>110 hf22:

If it remains possible, there is no conflict.

What exactly "remains possible"?

You are confusing tests here. All I want to you to accept that it is possible. Not actually, realistically possible - Which would be better termed plausible or probable.

Well, you lost me. If something is not "actually, realistically possible" then I conclude it is impossible.

This is beyond what I am trying to establish here. All I want to show is that it remains possible. A low bar, sure. But the first bar which needs to be jumped, and a bar which many believes do not pass.

So go ahead, show it is possible that, as I wrote, "a human child can be conceived without sexual intercourse, or in absence of artificial insemination".

As to what evidence I have of the virgin birth, there is evidence of a historical nature, at the very least. Putting aside for present purposes how much weight you can give to that evidence, and noting it is not scientific evidence, it is evidence of a kind.

Must disagree. If that is evidence, then there is evidence for the entire pantheon of pagan gods, to say nothing of witches, fairies etc.

Yeah, non-scientific. Like, is not doing science, but something else.

No, ANTI-scientific, like, in doing something that breaks the first rule of establishing scientific knowledge.

But my question here is not need, but compatibility.

There is no compatibility between the knowledge of how babies come in the world and the story of how Jesus came into the world, between what happens to dead bodies and what some religions tell us will happen to them etc.

LW: Same thing I asked before: do you believe Mary was a virgin at, during and after the conception, pregnancy and birth of Jesus? Do you believe Jesus was a human being without a human father? Do you believe Lazarus died and started living again? Or that Jesus "ascended" to "heaven"? Or that he, dead 2000 years or so, will "come back"?


Yes, but that is not what I am asking you to accept here.

"Yes", you believe everything I enumerated? Not sure what I'm supposed to accept, beyond your mere repeated assertions that the above is, contrary to "ordinary" definitions of "reasonable", contrary to science, contrary even to what is "actually and realistically" possible--still, somehow, "possible".

LW: In myth, which is all religion's just-so stories reduce to.


And in reality.

So you believe.

And only believe. You don't KNOW.

112hf22
Modificato: Nov 3, 2014, 8:06 pm

>111 LolaWalser:

What exactly "remains possible"?

The claims made by the Catholic faith.

Well, you lost me. If something is not "actually, realistically possible" then I conclude it is impossible.

Lets use some examples. If one claimed, as some do, that the Earth is only 6,000 years old you would be able to say that is impossible. Because it directly contradicts the evidence we have available, which conclusively demonstrates that the Earth is much older.

However if someone were to claim there had been at one point in history there was a single 1,000 kg hail stone on Earth, you could not. We have no evidence of any 1,000 kg hail stones, nor would it fit with the mechanisms we expect to create hail stones#. But it is not impossible – It could be created by some unknown mechanism.

So go ahead, show it is possible that, as I wrote, "a human child can be conceived without sexual intercourse, or in absence of artificial insemination".

Who says it was not a form of artificial insemination? Jesus is considered to be “fully human”, and God generally works through nature. I see no reason why “conceived by the Holy Spirit” could not include using the chromosomes of Joseph, just implanted by God.

Must disagree. If that is evidence, then there is evidence for the entire pantheon of pagan gods, to say nothing of witches, fairies etc.

Well, yes, precisely so. It is a kind of evidence for those things as well.

No, ANTI-scientific, like, in doing something that breaks the first rule of establishing scientific knowledge.

But it is not, and does not pretend to be, scientific knowledge. It is something else. How hard is that to understand – Non-scientific, not anti-scientific.

There is no compatibility between the knowledge of how babies come in the world and the story of how Jesus came into the world, between what happens to dead bodies and what some religions tell us will happen to them etc.

How babies normally come into the world does not logically cover the field. It indicates what normally happens, not what must invariably happen. It does not preclude exceptions.

"Yes", you believe everything I enumerated?

Yes.

Not sure what I'm supposed to accept, beyond your mere repeated assertions that the above is, contrary to "ordinary" definitions of "reasonable", contrary to science, contrary even to what is "actually and realistically" possible--still, somehow, "possible".

That things you have not falsified are possible. Could happen.

So you believe. And only believe. You don't KNOW.

Quite so – I never claimed otherwise. It does not self-describe as a faith for nothing.

# Increase the weight if such things do actually exist.

113southernbooklady
Nov 3, 2014, 8:26 pm

>112 hf22: If one claimed, as some do, that the Earth is only 6,000 years old you would be able to say that is impossible. Because it directly contradicts the evidence we have available, which conclusively demonstrates that the Earth is much older.

However if someone were to claim there had been at one point in history there was a single 1,000 kg hail stone on Earth, you could not. We have no evidence of any 1,000 kg hail stones, nor would it fit with the mechanisms we expect to create hail stones#. But it is not impossible – It could be created by some unknown mechanism.


I don't think this example illustrates the point you're trying to make. Those are just differences of degree, not kind.

114jburlinson
Nov 3, 2014, 8:39 pm

>109 LolaWalser: The event of uncertain, unassignable (imo) probability is the existence of god.

If one considers "God" the Brahman as given in Advaita Vedanta, could the probability be raised closer to 1?

115rrp
Modificato: Nov 3, 2014, 8:48 pm

>109 LolaWalser:

D'Alembert summed it up: we do not need that (god) hypothesis.
Don't know much about history
Don't know much philosophy
Don't know much about a science book
Don't know much about the French I took

That Frenchman would be Laplace.

do not assume unprovisionally, do not posit absolutes.

and that would be your philosophy -- materialism.

"The eliminative materialist is a bit like a man who blows his brains out to be rid of a headache. No head, no headache, no problem!"

116hf22
Nov 3, 2014, 9:43 pm

>113 southernbooklady:

Yeah, you are right. I need to think of a better example.

117jburlinson
Nov 4, 2014, 12:25 pm

>116 hf22: I need to think of a better example.

How about this? We have evidence that things exist. We also have evidence that all things in the universe are bound together by a system of forces, of which we have identified four. Doesn't it seem reasonable to assign a name to the inclusive conglomerate of things and forces? If it does, what's wrong with using a word that has been used for that purpose by many for millennia?

118southernbooklady
Nov 4, 2014, 12:38 pm

>117 jburlinson: If it does, what's wrong with using a word that has been used for that purpose by many for millennia?

Because that word has been used differently by different cultures and at different times. It's not a neutral term.

119paradoxosalpha
Nov 4, 2014, 12:40 pm

>117 jburlinson: what's wrong with using a word that has been used for that purpose by many for millennia

If that's all the word "God" had been used for, I can't imagine anyone would object. But it has also, and more commonly, been used to attribute a personality to the putative creative and governing force(s) of the universe.

Or did you mean some other word?

120prosfilaes
Nov 4, 2014, 3:06 pm

>117 jburlinson: If it does, what's wrong with using a word that has been used for that purpose by many for millennia?

Because for millennia, people have been playing bait-and-switch with the word, starting with using "God" in that sense and then ending up, somehow, with "God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Ghost". (Or, I assume, "Allah and Mohammed is his prophet".) It's not only been confusing, it's been actually used to deceive.

121hf22
Nov 4, 2014, 5:03 pm

>117 jburlinson:

Is this your pantheism thing again? We don't call the universe God because we call it the universe. Even in your conception, calling it God does not seem to add anything to the meaning.

And, generally, when we speak of God (both currently and historically) we are not talking about the universe.

122jburlinson
Nov 4, 2014, 5:14 pm

>118 southernbooklady: >119 paradoxosalpha: >120 prosfilaes:

Those all strike me as excellent reasons to use the word -- since they all imply that the word is out of our control, while at the same time giving us a feeling of it being a very familiar word. Considering what the word is defined as meaning (i.e. the totality, of which we are a part), it shouldn't be a neutral term. A term from which we feel distanced, would not have the same power. It seems to me to be more appropriate to hate the word, and what it means, than to feel neutral. If it has been used to attribute a personality, well and good, because it has also been used to deny a personality. If it's confusing, again well and good, it should confuse us, because we're not in a position to understand it and, properly speaking, it might behoove us to remind ourselves of that fact. It's like the slave that rode in the chariot beside the roman conqueror whispering the phrase, "remember, thou art mortal". The dissonant valence of this word is nigh onto unique -- which makes it nigh onto perfect for what it represents. It's a wonderful word, in that every time it's used, it challenges the user to consider that what it signifies might be the opposite of what the user imagines, at any given moment.

123jburlinson
Modificato: Nov 4, 2014, 5:41 pm

>121 hf22: Is this your pantheism thing again?

Maybe, but I don't think so. Possibly it's my panentheism.

We don't call the universe God because we call it the universe.

I'm not calling God the universe either. Merriam-Webster's primary definition of universe is: "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated". God is more than that.

Even in your conception, calling it God does not seem to add anything to the meaning.

In my conception, "God" adds a lot more -- so much more that I don't have any idea as to how much more.

when we speak of God (both currently and historically) we are not talking about the universe.

Speak for yourself. :) If I understand you, you're talking about the creator of the universe, something that stands outside the universe in some way -- is that right? But doesn't it seem fair to say that if we are talking about something less than the universe, or even something "other" than the universe, there's a good chance we're missing the mark?

I side with Spinoza, the "atheist", when he says: "Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived." and "Individual things are nothing but modifications of the attributes of God, or modes by which the attributes of God are expressed in a fixed and definite manner." -- Ethics

ETA: a couple of quotes from Spinoza, in order to make it seem like I'm not just talking through my hat

124hf22
Nov 4, 2014, 5:58 pm

>123 jburlinson:

Maybe, but I don't think so. Possibly it's my panentheism.

Ah, my bad. That would eliminate my we call the universe the universe thing, as panentheism does not really fall into that.

If I understand you, you're talking about the creator of the universe, something that stands outside the universe in some way -- is that right?

Yep.

But doesn't it seem fair to say that if we are talking about something less than the universe, or even something "other" than the universe, there's a good chance we're missing the mark?

Nup. I see no logically or theological requirement why God must be everything, and several why he should not be. St. Augustine has a good discussion of this in one of his major works, as it was one possibility he seriously considered.

I side with Spinoza, the "atheist", when he says: "Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived." and "Individual things are nothing but modifications of the attributes of God, or modes by which the attributes of God are expressed in a fixed and definite manner." -- Ethics

Yeah, I know the position exists, and it is not just you.

125jburlinson
Nov 4, 2014, 6:09 pm

>124 hf22: I see no logically or theological requirement why God must be everything, and several why he should not be.

What reasons, either logical or theological, would indicate this should not be?

126prosfilaes
Nov 4, 2014, 6:16 pm

>122 jburlinson: So it's a good word because it stands against communication?

127hf22
Nov 4, 2014, 6:28 pm

>125 jburlinson:

My criticisms of panentheism are likely long enough for a seperate thread, and would take a little time to marshal. Perhaps another time?

128jburlinson
Nov 4, 2014, 6:33 pm

>126 prosfilaes: It's a good word because it communicates, at least in part, that we don't understand what we're trying to communicate about. In that, the word parallels its referent. There's an ancient prohibition on uttering the name of god. Fortunately for us, we can't anyway, because we don't know what it is.

129jburlinson
Nov 4, 2014, 6:36 pm

>127 hf22: Perhaps another time?

Sure Anyway, I'm fully prepared to be convinced of the inadequacy of panentheism, so don't worry about it unnecessarily.

130hf22
Nov 4, 2014, 6:41 pm

>129 jburlinson:

I will not worry :)

I just mean to say panentheism has been held by some reasonably impressive people over the ages, and while I don't agree with it, it can not merely be summarily dismissed.

131southernbooklady
Nov 4, 2014, 9:31 pm

>122 jburlinson: If it's confusing, again well and good, it should confuse us, because we're not in a position to understand it and, properly speaking, it might behoove us to remind ourselves of that fact.

Most people are willing to acknowledge that they cannot completely understand what God is. That has not, however, noticeably deterred them from strong opinions of what God is not. So no, I don't think the word's potential for unifying us is outweighed by its potential to be divisive. Far better to stick to terms without all the religious baggage.

132jburlinson
Modificato: Nov 4, 2014, 10:07 pm

>131 southernbooklady: So no, I don't think the word's potential for unifying us is outweighed by its potential to be divisive.

To me, its ability to do both is part of what gives it its power.

Far better to stick to terms without all the religious baggage.

This is where we seem to see things differently, because, for me, a word like this is better with lots of baggage. It's like the scene in the Marx Brothers' A Night at the Opera, where a tiny stateroom the size of a broom closet is stuffed with so many people, luggage, and other paraphernalia that it finally bursts open and spills its contents all over the place.

A word without baggage gives us the sense that we can manage it with suitable precision and efficiency. Sadly, we already have too much of that kind of sense, and I don't know how healthy that is for us.

133Jesse_wiedinmyer
Nov 5, 2014, 2:13 am

Wouldn't life be much easier if you just said "I'm clueless and don't know what I'm talking about" and left it at that?

134southernbooklady
Nov 5, 2014, 8:27 am

>132 jburlinson: To me, its ability to do both is part of what gives it its power.

Most people don't think of God as a literary device.

135Jesse_wiedinmyer
Nov 5, 2014, 10:33 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina

It's just considered a shitty one.

136jburlinson
Nov 5, 2014, 11:54 am

>133 Jesse_wiedinmyer: Wouldn't life be much easier if you just said "I'm clueless and don't know what I'm talking about" and left it at that?

You want easy? That would be nice, wouldn't it? Or would it? Wanting easy can lead to disappointment, if not outright despair.

And here we go again with your telling me to shut up. Just because someone is clueless, doesn't mean they should "leave it at that", does it? How would humanity have achieved our lofty place in our own minds if everyone took that advice?

And, BTW, what clues do you have that you've got it all figured out? How does it feel to be right on top of things? Easy?

>134 southernbooklady: Most people don't think of God as a literary device.

It might be better if they did. Trying to make sense of God in any other way might (will?) lead nowhere. At least thinking of God as a literary device reminds us that we're thinking in a dimension of our own making, not pretending that we understand "reality" well enough to make pronouncements about God's existence or non-.

137paradoxosalpha
Nov 5, 2014, 11:57 am

>132 jburlinson: jburlinson: To me, its ability to do both is part of what gives it its power.

>134 southernbooklady: Most people don't think of God as a literary device.

If they did, then jburlinson's claim about the inherent ineffability of the divine might hold some water. But really, most people who "believe in" God have a distinct notion about what it is that they "believe in," and it's not a sum of impersonal forces.

138southernbooklady
Nov 5, 2014, 12:00 pm

>136 jburlinson: It might be better if they did. Trying to make sense of God in any other way might (will?) lead nowhere

Hey, no arguments from the atheist. But frankly I think this sort of attitude is pointless. It does nothing to reach any kind of common ground with--as an example--my very devout Italian grandmother, who prayed deeply and sincerely to the Virgin Mary to watch over her grandchildren. And there is no question that she was praying not to a concept, but to a person, whose divinity she believed in.

139jburlinson
Nov 5, 2014, 12:01 pm

>135 Jesse_wiedinmyer: It's just considered a shitty one.

Wrong literary device. Synecdoche is closer, or maybe zeugma.

140jburlinson
Nov 5, 2014, 12:06 pm

>137 paradoxosalpha: most people who "believe in" God have a distinct notion about what it is that they "believe in," and it's not a sum of impersonal forces.

That's the problem of "most people" and it's one that has been addressed in scripture for millennia. Not just judeo-christian scripture, which repeatedly warns people about the folly of "understanding" God. This is a theme of the great eastern religions as well. What I don't understand is why religious people seem to pay no attention to their own texts.

As a priest, would you say that your "distinct notion" is definitive -- or is it closer to a literary device?

141jburlinson
Nov 5, 2014, 12:18 pm

>138 southernbooklady: she was praying not to a concept, but to a person, whose divinity she believed in.

And who's to say she was wrong? Certainly not me. She was on the right track, at least, in believing there was something greater than herself. And she would have been right in thinking that God was not not a person. Not knowing your Grandmother, my guess is that even if something untoward happened to one of her grandchildren, she would have bowed her head in acknowledgement of her failure to understand, but her willingness to accept. You are definitely in a position to set me straight on that, though.

It does nothing to reach any kind of common ground

The common ground is that we don't understand.

142jburlinson
Nov 5, 2014, 12:26 pm

>137 paradoxosalpha: it's not a sum of impersonal forces.

Who said anything about impersonal? The personal is very much a condition of the totality. A simple "sum of forces" might be closer to what I'm thinking of, but not really, because it implies that there's an additive process going on -- God is this + this + that + the other thing +++, with all of those things being something separate and independent of each other. That's not what I mean at all. To me, God is more like an event, or, more precisely, the event.

143southernbooklady
Nov 5, 2014, 5:54 pm

>141 jburlinson: And who's to say she was wrong? Certainly not me.

She would agree that you have no business saying that her faith is wrong. The reverse, however, is not true, because my Grandmother believed she followed the one true faith.

And she would have been right in thinking that God was not not a person.

Sorry, but Grandma was never impressed by semantics.

The common ground is that we don't understand.

You didn't finish the sentence: "The common ground is that we don't understand each other."

...which is inevitable if we persist in using words to mean one thing when we know full well the people we are talking to think they mean something else entirely.

144Jesse_wiedinmyer
Nov 5, 2014, 7:17 pm

You want easy? That would be nice, wouldn't it? Or would it? Wanting easy can lead to disappointment, if not outright despair.

And here we go again with your telling me to shut up. Just because someone is clueless, doesn't mean they should "leave it at that", does it? How would humanity have achieved our lofty place in our own minds if everyone took that advice?


And here you we go again, with you putting words in my mouth. As I've noted on multiple occasions, I'd never tell you to shut up. Aside from being a violatation of the TOS, you're much to impressed with the sound of your own voice to make that a worthwhile use of typing.

145jburlinson
Nov 5, 2014, 8:03 pm

>143 southernbooklady: which is inevitable if we persist in using words to mean one thing when we know full well the people we are talking to think they mean something else entirely.

Which is why I've tried to take pains to explain what I mean by the word "god", at the risk of getting myself into hot water with >144 Jesse_wiedinmyer: for having fallen in love with the sound of my own voice. Maybe I need to take up ventriloquism.

Come to think of it, why should one accede to someone else's definition of a word when one doesn't agree with it?

146rrp
Nov 5, 2014, 11:31 pm

Come to think of it, why should one accede to someone else's definition of a word when one doesn't agree with it?

You shouldn't. You should try to make us understand what you mean. But I fear that what you don't understand is not the same thing that others don't understand. It's like trying to explain music to someone who is tone deaf. Our brains are all built slightly differently, and don't share all the same features. We all don't understand different sets of things.

147paradoxosalpha
Nov 6, 2014, 10:59 am

>140 jburlinson: As a priest, would you say that your "distinct notion" is definitive -- or is it closer to a literary device?

I find the word useful only as a rhetorical and liturgical instrument. The sincere affirmation of belief in a supreme being is of no particular value in my religion, where our Prophet instructs:
The God-idea must go with other relics of the Fear born of Ignorance into the limbo of savagery. (The Law Is for All, p. 112)
Mine is an atypical vocation in an outlier church institution, however. I don't for a minute imagine that the vulgar use of religious language involves reflections on rhetorical capacity or literary devices. Nor am I sanguine about the likelihood of inspiring such reflection.

I am a sometime adherent of the apophatic traditions and their associated techniques, and I will frankly agree with the value of using religious language to cultivate the mystical experience of ignorance. But that requires a contemplative approach not on offer among the bulk of God-partisans.

Reproving a student for a most ordinary sort of reference to "God," our Prophet admonished:
I know you thought you knew more or less what you meant when you wrote it; but surely that was a mere slip. An instant’s thought would have warned you that the word wouldn't stand even the most superficial analysis. You meant “Something which seems to me the most perfect symbol of all that I love, worship, admire”—all that class of verb.

...What's worse, whatever you may mean by “God” conveys no idea to me: I can only guess by the light of my exceedingly small knowledge of you and your general habits of thought and action. Then what sense was there in chucking it at my head? Half a brick would have served you better.

… “But you use the word all the time.” Yes, I do, and rely on the context to crystallize this most fluid—or gaseous—of expressions. (Magick Without Tears, p. 206)

148jburlinson
Nov 6, 2014, 1:57 pm

>147 paradoxosalpha: whatever you may mean by “God” conveys no idea to me

This would be the ideal use of the word. Any idea conveyed would be inadequate to the referent.

I can only guess by the light of my exceedingly small knowledge of you and your general habits of thought and action.

This might be a spur to enlarging the fund of knowledge that one might have of another person, which would only be a good thing, I would think, especially if one is willing to value the idiosyncrasies of the other person.

149jburlinson
Nov 6, 2014, 2:13 pm

>146 rrp: You should try to make us understand what you mean.

It's a difficult assignment to try to make someone else understand what I believe cannot be understood. The need to understand is so important to so many people, myself included, that it's a constant struggle to attempt to switch it off.

I fear that what you don't understand is not the same thing that others don't understand.

If you mean that I don't understand many things that other people do understand, I will readily agree with you. The aesthetic appeal of hip hop, for example. But there are many things that we all don't understand, because all members of our species share certain limitations that preclude "understanding" in ways incompatible with our organic constitution. What are these things? I don't know, as I've just explained.

150paradoxosalpha
Nov 6, 2014, 3:30 pm

>148 jburlinson:

To communicate a failure of comprehension is not the same as a failure to communicate a (presumed) comprehension. Not at all.

151JaeKamel
Modificato: Nov 11, 2014, 12:38 am

John, this writer agrees, historically they have said that, but the current Pope went too far. The "sciences" he said were "real", are real, but as images and fantasies, not as science or fact.

Furthermore I disagree with his other remark, and feel that The Divine may be a better Magician than he (the Pope) realizes.

152JaeKamel
Modificato: Nov 6, 2014, 3:35 pm

@148 jburlinson, -that is correct.

153JaeKamel
Nov 6, 2014, 3:37 pm

146 rrp, I would say also, ways which are incompatible with our imaginal construction, which is, of course, more important than our organic construction, for understanding.

154southernbooklady
Nov 6, 2014, 4:52 pm

>149 jburlinson: But there are many things that we all don't understand, because all members of our species share certain limitations that preclude "understanding" in ways incompatible with our organic constitution.

That's an assumption, to which might be added the phrase, "so far" or "as of yet."

But in any case, your adamant position that God cannot be understood does not absolve you of trying to understand what another person means when they say they believe in God. At least, if you want to actually talk to them, rather than at them.

155rrp
Modificato: Nov 6, 2014, 6:54 pm

>149 jburlinson:

It's a difficult assignment to try to make someone else understand what I believe cannot be understood.

You assignment is then to make them understand that it is indeed something that cannot be understood. I am persuaded, by the way.

But there are many things that we all don't understand, because all members of our species share certain limitations that preclude "understanding" in ways incompatible with our organic constitution.

My point was that each of our organic constitutions is different and we have different limitations in our abilities of understanding, in what we can and cannot understand. You may not understand the aesthetic appeal of hip hop, but is that an in-built capability that your mind can never possess or is it a capability you have yet to learn? I believe that there are some mental capabilities that others do posses that some of us can never possess. (Tone deafness is an example.) Perhaps one of those is the capability of understanding God talk. In this, I disagree with >154 southernbooklady:. Adding "as of yet" would be inappropriate.


156LolaWalser
Nov 6, 2014, 11:22 pm

>114 jburlinson:

If one considers "God" the Brahman as given in Advaita Vedanta, could the probability be raised closer to 1?

No, that's just word games, no different than defining everything that is as "pineapple" and then concluding that the probability that "everything that is is pineapple" is 1.

>112 hf22:

That things you have not falsified are possible. Could happen.

If anyone needed more proof of the total incomprehension of science, and what I mean by direct antagonism of science and religion, here it is.

No. Pigs aren't flying, people aren't being resurrected, babies aren't conceived without sexual intercourse or at least some definite physical manipulation of parental germ cells: there are uncountable examples of scientific observations we don't falsify. Falsification is nothing more than one proposed criterion for the gathering of knowledge, with limited application in science even theoretically, let alone practically.

To sum up, because I'm well sick of all the repetitions: religion posits absolute unassailable unchangeable articles of faith; this in itself is in conflict with science. Your religious attitudes, not just asserting that scientifically impossible things happened once upon a time but also allowing for "miracles" such as transubstantiation and assorted "feats" by saints (even in this age) are inadmissible in a lab. It is not a question of being neutral, of "not applying". There is a direct clash, complete antagonism between faith and science, such as does not allow any religious person who is doing science to take in account such religious beliefs as I have enumerated.

Your belief that a virginal Mary conceived through the intervention of god or that a dead person can resurrect, would be a disastrous liability if applied in research. And your notion that whatever hasn't been falsified is therefore possible and "could happen" would dignify an infinite number of preposterous assertions.

LW: So you believe. And only believe. You don't KNOW.


Quite so – I never claimed otherwise. It does not self-describe as a faith for nothing.

Right: and that's why I see faith as so incredibly arrogant. You (general you) know you have no positive knowledge, you know it's uncertain, unproven and probably unprovable: and yet you insist on legislating on that basis, judging people, indoctrinating children. You may "just" believe, but you behave as if you knew.

I always laugh when I hear about how "arrogant" atheists are supposed to be. From where I'm standing, arrogance is all on the other side.

157hf22
Modificato: Nov 6, 2014, 11:39 pm

>156 LolaWalser:

And your notion that whatever hasn't been falsified is therefore possible and "could happen" would dignify an infinite number of preposterous assertions.

So you do concede the point, you just don't like doing so. Look, being possible is a low bar, it DOES allow a large number of massively unlikely assertions.

Being merely possible is not a basis for belief, it is just the first (very low) bar it needs to jump.

158LolaWalser
Nov 6, 2014, 11:39 pm

>157 hf22:

So you do concede the point, you just don't like doing so. Look, being possible is a low bar, it DOES allow a large number of massively unlikely assertions.

No, I don't concede the point, I'm massively OUTRAGED by it.

159LolaWalser
Nov 6, 2014, 11:41 pm

Intellectually speaking. :)

160hf22
Modificato: Nov 6, 2014, 11:53 pm

>158 LolaWalser:

I'm massively OUTRAGED by it.

Which is odd. I mean, from your perspective, surely nothing much turns on it? As you say, being possible and "could happen" covers an infinite number of preposterous assertions.

Surely you could just say it is possible, but so what?

Granting this first, very preliminary step, does not mean you grant the many other assertions needed to accept a faith. I can't skip from this to therefore saying it means anything practically.

>159 LolaWalser:

Intellectually speaking. :)

Understood. This is all just time wasting good fun, after all.

161LolaWalser
Nov 7, 2014, 12:10 am

>160 hf22:

I mean, from your perspective, surely nothing much turns on it? As you say, being possible and "could happen" covers an infinite number of preposterous assertions.

No, I did NOT say that. Your notion that whatever isn't falsified is therefore "possible" is ridiculous.

As to what "turns on this", well, there are different ways of looking at it. On the one hand, science heartily ignores religious beliefs; on the other, as members of society we're all exposed to various influences. In my everyday life I ignore religion; when confronted with it, I react.

Surely you could just say it is possible, but so what?

What is possible? That pigs fly? That dead come to life? That a child is conceived through supernatural intervention?

None of this is possible. It's not how reality works and yes, that's what science tells us.

162hf22
Nov 7, 2014, 12:19 am

>161 LolaWalser:

None of this is possible. It's not how reality works and yes, that's what science tells us.

It is not how reality normally works, which is all science can tell us on these points. It does not tell us it never works like this.

You are well ahead of your evidence on this question.

163LolaWalser
Nov 7, 2014, 12:37 am

>162 hf22:

It does not tell us it never works like this.

You are well ahead of your evidence on this question.


Ha. Look who's speaking of evidence! But I'll get to that later... although I already told you...

Anyway: NO. Again, you don't understand the first thing about science. And yet, it's really not that difficult. What we have is positive knowledge--nothing more. No leaps of faith, no absolutes. Pigs may fly? Fine--based on what we know of pigs and flying, we assign it a very low probability, so low it does not register as a positive. In practice, this extremely low probability translates into "no". Pigs don't fly. The dead don't rise. Babies are not conceived supernaturally.

Should we some day observe scientifically a pig flying or a dead person coming back to life, adjustments will be made.

Now, about "never working like this" (and again, this is precisely what is so outrageous about faith, and again, why oh why am I forced to repeat myself for the fourth time?!)--that's right--NEVER--science can NEVER admit that a miracle may happen! Or it is not science.

Do you get that?

If you ever run into a religious scientist, ask them whether they take in account that a miracle could hit their retorts, incubators, PCR machines, at any moment (hey, if it can happen at all, it can happen ANY TIME!). And when they say no, ask them why not.

Back to evidence. I told you immediately up there: it is up to you to provide evidence for your assertions. You are the one making extraordinary claims. You are the one overreaching.

164hf22
Nov 7, 2014, 12:44 am

>163 LolaWalser:

Back to evidence. I told you immediately up there: it is up to you to provide evidence for your assertions. You are the one making extraordinary claims. You are the one overreaching.

I am not making any extraordinary claims here. I don't ask you here to acknowledge the virgin birth.

Pigs may fly? Fine--based on what we know of pigs and flying, we assign it a very low probability

So again, you concede the point, you just don't like doing so. Because this is my point in this discussion, nothing more.

Now, about "never working like this" (and again, this is precisely what is so outrageous about faith, and again, why oh why am I forced to repeat myself for the fourth time?!)--that's right--NEVER--science can NEVER admit that a miracle may happen! Or it is not science.

So much for following the evidence.

165Jesse_wiedinmyer
Nov 7, 2014, 1:30 am

merely possible

May be the grossest overstatement I've come across in months.

166southernbooklady
Nov 7, 2014, 9:07 am

Holding to the idea that nothing disproved is therefore possible seems like the most fragile of threads on which to hang a moral world view, not to mention a faith. It's basically a god of the gaps approach to faith--doomed to forever be conceding ground to every new scientific advance.

Tim suggested consciousness and free will as two things that cannot be explained by empirical methods. What will he do when someone discovers the scientific explanation for consciousness? What will people do when someone discovers how to zap things into life? The truth is, there is just no need for God in science. Just the opposite--as Lola says, dragging divine forces into it is actually anti-scientific.

>164 hf22: So much for following the evidence

Of miracles, no evidence exists.

167paradoxosalpha
Nov 7, 2014, 10:13 am

>166 southernbooklady: Tim suggested consciousness and free will as two things that cannot be explained by empirical methods. What will he do when someone discovers the scientific explanation for consciousness?

I'm with Tim on these, actually, relative to "scientific explanation" in the mechanistic sense. I don't think the natural sciences have an epistemology that will allow them to address these issues, even though many materialists assume that the work is as good as done.

On the other hand, theism is not needed in order to get a purchase on consciousness or free will. I recently read Henri Bergson's Matter and Memory, which, while dense and dry, was nevertheless a real success (I thought) in proposing an alternative to the rigid Cartesian separation of consciousness and material phenomena, and one that was not reductive in favor of either mind or matter. Although the book was placed on the Catholic Index Librorum Prohibitorum for Bergson's alleged pantheism, I personally can't find an iota of theological opinion in the book. (I figure it must simply have been lumped in with other work of the author.)

168jburlinson
Modificato: Nov 7, 2014, 1:55 pm

>156 LolaWalser: religion posits absolute unassailable unchangeable articles of faith

This is simply not the case. Some (OK many) religious people posit such things -- certainly not all. There is a long, long history of doubt, scepticism and acknowledged incomprehension on the part of many (OK some) religious people, inside and outside the judeo-christian tradition. Within that tradition, writers like Dionysius the Areopagite, among many others, have given expression to this view.

169jburlinson
Nov 7, 2014, 1:01 pm

>156 LolaWalser: that's just word games, no different than defining everything that is as "pineapple" and then concluding that the probability that "everything that is is pineapple" is 1.

It's quite different. There is a general working consensus as to the meaning of the word "pineapple" and its reference to something in the world that can be apprehended by the senses. There is not such a consensus about the word "god". You, and others, seem to be saying that there is such a consensus: that all right-thinking persons agree that "god" refers to an external entity that has created the world, that guides the world's destiny, and that sits in judgment over all creatures who transgress its edicts. On top of that, there seems to be the suggestion that everyone should agree that even the most idiosyncratic doctrines regarding god of every mainstream or fringe brand of christianity (like god conceived himself in the womb of a virgin, or god was once a human being on another planet, or god throws lightening bolts from the clouds) are all legitimate constituent components of the meaning of the word "god" that every believer needs to accept and be compelled to justify.

If you want to define the word "god" to mean "something absurd and unreal", then I'm not the only one playing word games.

170jburlinson
Nov 7, 2014, 1:28 pm

>154 southernbooklady: That's an assumption, to which might be added the phrase, "so far" or "as of yet."

If by "as of yet" you mean that humans might evolve sense modalities that provide access to aspects of the universe currently shut off to us, then I could agree with you, up to a point. If that's what you mean, though, I would still say that even with a few, or many, extra senses, we still could not be sure that our descendents will be in a position to apprehend all of everything there is.

But if you mean that human beings, as more or less presently constituted, will someday figure it all out and be in a position to count ourselves absolutely confident in our omniscience, then you might be operating from a faith position that lacks anything that comes close to necessary or sufficient evidence.

your adamant position that God cannot be understood does not absolve you of trying to understand what another person means when they say they believe in God.

Nor do I demand any such absolution. I'm more than ready to try to understand what other people mean by "god", whether they believe in what they mean or not. What I resist is someone saying "here's what I mean by god, and it's what most other people mean by god, so therefore you also must accept my definition." I'm not asking anyone to believe what I believe or accept my notion of god. I'm simply trying to tell you what my notion is. What I hear you saying is, "well, that's not mainstream thinking, so fuggedaboutit".

At least, if you want to actually talk to them, rather than at them.

This kind of advice works in both directions. The gist of the general conversation so far could be summed up as:
Person A -- God is x. I don't believe in x. Therefore, I don't believe in God.
Person B -- God is x. I do believe in x. Therefore, I do believe in God.
Person C -- God is not x. I don't believe in x. Therefore, I don't believe in that God. However, God is y. I do believe in y. Therefore, I do believe in God.
Persons A & B to person C-- God is x, not y. Therefore, whatever you believe is irrelevant so please stop talking.

171jburlinson
Nov 7, 2014, 1:34 pm

>165 Jesse_wiedinmyer: Zinger! Sound of rimshot.

172jburlinson
Nov 7, 2014, 1:53 pm

>166 southernbooklady: Tim suggested consciousness and free will as two things that cannot be explained by empirical methods. What will he do when someone discovers the scientific explanation for consciousness?

I don't know what Tim will do, but I will say, "good show, well done". We're getting closer and closer all the time.

Scientists create 'GHOSTS' in the lab - so does it prove it is all in the mind?

The truth is, there is just no need for God in science. Just the opposite--as Lola says, dragging divine forces into it is actually anti-scientific.

I can't speak for others, but I have no interest into dragging god into science. But is science everything? This is a question of faith, which I, for one, lack.

173jburlinson
Nov 7, 2014, 2:05 pm

>167 paradoxosalpha: I don't think the natural sciences have an epistemology that will allow them to address these issues, even though many materialists assume that the work is as good as done.

Good way of putting it.

174southernbooklady
Nov 7, 2014, 3:45 pm

>167 paradoxosalpha: I don't think the natural sciences have an epistemology that will allow them to address these issues, even though many materialists assume that the work is as good as done.

If they are truly scientists, then they know the work is never "done." All truth is provisional, all knowledge subject to revision pending new evidence.

>170 jburlinson: If that's what you mean, though, I would still say that even with a few, or many, extra senses, we still could not be sure that our descendants will be in a position to apprehend all of everything there is.

It's not that we are ever in a position to "apprehend all there is" but that we are never in a position to say that "this cannot be apprehended." To declare something unknowable surely demonstrates the same hubris as to declare something completely known.

The point, however, is to keep looking, to keep asking, and to keep attempting to find out. If consciousness is a divinely-gifted mystery then even asking how it works, what it is made of, is pointless at best, an intrusion on God at worst.

(a propos, I've been reading a Amir Alexander's new book Infinitesimal -- in which the theory of calculus, among other things, becomes interpreted as a rejection of divine order and therefore banned from official teaching in Jesuit-run educational institutions in Italy. It's a bit of a reach, but the author credits the imposition of order, of conformity (especially religious) with the stifling of the creativity that flourished in Italy during the Renaissance.)

What I hear you saying is, "well, that's not mainstream thinking, so fuggedaboutit".

What you hear me saying is within the context of the conversation which began with the Pope's views on science and belief. Your own views are idiosyncratic, perhaps even pantheistic, but while you may be talking to me, I am not talking only to you.

175LolaWalser
Nov 7, 2014, 5:26 pm

>174 southernbooklady:

All truth is provisional, all knowledge subject to revision pending new evidence.

I'd like to use SBL's words as a coda to what I was saying in this thread about the fundamentally antagonistic attitudes of science and religion (Catholicism anyway, which is what the OP directly talks about). Co-existence does not imply complementarity or even neutrality.

>167 paradoxosalpha:

I don't think the natural sciences have an epistemology that will allow them to address these issues, even though many materialists assume that the work is as good as done.

As far as I know, neuroscience and cognitive science in general are already addressing consciousness. Do you mean that you don't believe a "complete" answer will be possible in scientific terms?

It ain't over till the fat lady sings, I suppose.

176jburlinson
Nov 7, 2014, 5:33 pm

>174 southernbooklady: we are never in a position to say that "this cannot be apprehended." To declare something unknowable surely demonstrates the same hubris as to declare something completely known.

I'm not so sure about that. I think it's not too much of a stretch to say that a bacterium cannot apprehend Republican electoral strategy. Actually, bad example. How about -- an earthworm cannot apprehend linear algebra. Nothing against earthworms, it's just something that it cannot do. Similarly with humans. We can do a lot, that's for sure. We're pretty wonderful, as are earthworms. But neither of us can do what we cannot do. That doesn't leave us without options, though. We can say, with minimal hubris, IMO, that something is just flat unknowable -- by us, at least. Or, we can say that if we cannot know it, then it isn't worth knowing -- which sounds a little more hubristic, again IMO. Or we can say, "no, there's nothing we cannot know, given enough time and financial support from the NSF". On the scale of hubris, that one seems to take the cake.

The point, however, is to keep looking, to keep asking, and to keep attempting to find out.

Which is great. I'm not saying we should stop. Far from it. All I'm saying is that there are limits. In saying that, I think I have the evidence on my side.

If consciousness is a divinely-gifted mystery then even asking how it works, what it is made of, is pointless at best, an intrusion on God at worst.

Only if one must insist that God is some entity outside consciousness who nonetheless created, directs and judges consciousness. But if God is not outside this or any other process, then any progress made by any entity to gain clarity could be considered a glorification of God -- especially if the clarity might be interpreted as a denial of an pernicious understanding of God.

while you may be talking to me, I am not talking only to you.

Sorry I was eavesdropping -- but at least I was talking to you and not at you. :)

177jburlinson
Nov 7, 2014, 5:49 pm

>175 LolaWalser: All truth is provisional, all knowledge subject to revision pending new evidence. -- I'd like to use SBL's words as a coda to what I was saying in this thread about the fundamentally antagonistic attitudes of science and religion (Catholicism anyway,...

OK, yes, the OP was situated in a Catholic context. Excuse me for trying to broaden the scope of the discussion, but the poster is very familiar with the various LT forums and he chose to locate this conversation on the general board for religion, not the more specific ones for Christianity or Catholicism -- so I don't think it's completely off-base to open things up a little. And as far as "religion" goes, the precept that "All truth is provisional, all knowledge subject to revision pending new evidence" is not objectionable. Within even a Christian context, process theology opens some doors.

It ain't over till the fat lady sings, I suppose.

Twilight of the Gods. Very appropriate. :)

178southernbooklady
Nov 7, 2014, 5:50 pm

>176 jburlinson: But neither of us can do what we cannot do.

We don't know what we cannot do.

179jburlinson
Nov 7, 2014, 5:53 pm

>178 southernbooklady: We don't know what we cannot do.

That's all I'm saying.

180hf22
Nov 7, 2014, 6:59 pm

>166 southernbooklady:

Holding to the idea that nothing disproved is therefore possible seems like the most fragile of threads on which to hang a moral world view, not to mention a faith.

It is not a thread on which it hangs. Just a first step it needs to jump. There are other steps.

Of miracles, no evidence exists.

The point was the a priori statement – That they can be none regardless of evidence. Because, presumably, of the materialist assumptions which require one to posit that there is a natural reason for any event, even if we can not (or never) locate it.

181jburlinson
Nov 7, 2014, 8:40 pm

>180 hf22: the materialist assumptions which require one to posit that there is a natural reason for any event

There appears to me to be a gap between the "natural reason", no matter how thoroughly that reason may be articulated, and the event itself. I wonder if perhaps this is partly because the event always manifests to us as a subjective experience and the "natural reasons" are typically inductions of our own that explain causal relationships between the things we sense to be in external reality.

182nathanielcampbell
Modificato: Nov 7, 2014, 9:25 pm

>109 LolaWalser: "No. It is in fact ANTI-scientific, because it goes directly against the first step in establishment of scientific knowledge: do not assume unprovisionally, do not posit absolutes."

So science does not assume unprovisionally, nor does it posit absolutes, except in defining its first step unprovisionally and absolutely, that it does not posit unprovisionally or absolutely. Right.

(See, this is why science needs philosophy, and especially epistemology, despite your utter disdain for them; for without them, you cast yourself into a logically incoherent loop.)

You don't have to believe in God to understand that scientific knowledge is not the sum total of all knowledge. You seem to want to force anything that isn't science to be ANTI-science, when, as it has been kindly pointed out multiple times, things that aren't science simply aren't science.

I've said time and again, and so I will repeat myself: in forcing the unnecessary conflict between science and faith, you are only doing science a disservice by forcing people to make the unnecessary choice between the two. The problem for you is that most people, if forced to choose between their God and science, will choose their God. So long as you force them to see science as their enemy, people of faith will want to do battle against you. If, however, you lay down your arms against faith and allow for detente, you'll find that most people of faith will be quite happy to welcome science in, so long as they don't have to repudiate faith in order to do so. But if you hard-headedly insist that that the conflict must be, then you abdicate the right to complain when people choose God instead of science, because you made them choose.

The Pope has once again offered an olive branch, to bring the unnecessary, exhausting, and divisive "war" between science and religion to an end. It is your refusal to accept that peace that keeps the conflict raging.

(Here endeth my sole contribution, as I really need to get back to grading. LT, it turns out, is a great tool of procrastination.)

ETA: My students today wrote essays comparing and contrasting the deaths of Antigone and Socrates, in a bid to examine what happens (and should happen) when the individual conscience comes into conflict with the needs and duties of the state. I believe Antigone's second chorus speaks in a way to this situation:
              Numberless wonders
terrible wonders walk the world but none the match for man--
that great wonder crossing the heaving gray sea,
          driven on by the blasts of winter
on through breakers crashing left and right,
     holds his steady course
and the oldest of the gods he wears away--
the Earth, the immortal, the inexhaustible--
as his plows go back and forth, year in, year out
     with the breed of stallions turning up the furrows.

And the blithe, lightheaded race of birds he snares,
the tribes of savage beasts, the life that swarms the depths--
          with one fling of his nets
woven and coiled tight, he takes them all
     man the skilled, the brilliant!
He conquers all, taming with his techniques
the prey that roams the cliffs and wild lairs,
training the stallion, clamping the yoke acorss
     his shaggy neck, and the tireless mountain bull.

And speech and thought, quick as the wind
and the mood and mind for law that rules the city--
     all these he has taught himself
and shelter from the arrows of the frost
when there's rough lodging under the cold clear sky
and the shafts of lashing rain--
          ready, resourceful man!
               Never without resources
never an impasse as he marches on the future--
only Death, from Death alone he will find no rescue
but from desperate plagues he has plotted his escapes.

Man the master, ingenious past all measure
past all dreams, the skills within his grasp--
     he forges on, now to destruction
now again to greatness. When he weaves in
the laws of the land, and the justice of the gods
that binds his oaths together
          he and his city rise high--
               but the city casts out
that man who weds himself to inhumanity
thanks to reckless daring. Never share my hearth
never think my thoughts, whoever does such things.

183jburlinson
Nov 7, 2014, 9:33 pm

that man who weds himself to inhumanity

Is that like when Pee-Wee Herman married a fruit salad?

184southernbooklady
Nov 7, 2014, 9:49 pm

>182 nathanielcampbell: So science does not assume unprovisionally, nor does it posit absolutes, except in defining its first step unprovisionally and absolutely, that it does not posit unprovisionally or absolutely. Right

Right!

See, this is why science needs philosophy, and especially epistemology, despite your utter disdain for them; for without them, you cast yourself into a logically incoherent loop

The logic of science is to follow the evidence. If you impose a philosophical construct on scientific theory or inquiry then you end up insisting to Galileo that the sun must revolve around the earth. Science proceeds not just by logic, but by accident, mistakes, errors, unexpected results.

Curiously, those errors send us in new directions, cause us to ask new questions, and in learning the answers to those questions, we realize that those unexpected results are in fact, logical. Although a better word might be "reasonable."

The problem for you is that most people, if forced to choose between their God and science, will choose their God. So long as you force them to see science as their enemy, people of faith will want to do battle against you.

Don't you think that if people are "rejecting science" in favor of faith, that's actually a problem for religion? The world is what it is. You can't insist it is something it is not on the grounds that it would be against your religion. (Well, you can, but we call such an attitude "fanaticism.")

185rrp
Nov 7, 2014, 10:35 pm

The logic of science is to follow the evidence.

This is a philosophical construct you are imposing on science. Are you about to insist the Sun moves around the Earth?

186rrp
Modificato: Nov 7, 2014, 10:40 pm

And you are right, it was the lack of evidence for Galileo's theories which caused his downfall. His model didn't fit the observations as well as the alternatives.

187nathanielcampbell
Nov 8, 2014, 10:22 am

On Galileo, it's worth actually understanding the issues that were involved: http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-misunderstood-historical-event?share=1

188LolaWalser
Modificato: Nov 8, 2014, 11:22 am

>182 nathanielcampbell:

So science does not assume unprovisionally, nor does it posit absolutes, except in defining its first step unprovisionally and absolutely, that it does not posit unprovisionally or absolutely. Right.

As SBL already said: Right! Science does not posit absolutes nor does it assume unprovisionally. As I said, let us observe a flying pig or a dead person coming to life and adjustments will be made.

(See, this is why science needs philosophy, and especially epistemology, despite your utter disdain for them; for without them, you cast yourself into a logically incoherent loop.)

Oh, learn to quote properly. I said I couldn't care less about what philosophers thought about science. I adore philosophy; in fact, what I DO is practical philosophy.

You don't have to believe in God to understand that scientific knowledge is not the sum total of all knowledge. You seem to want to force anything that isn't science to be ANTI-science,

I never said scientific knowledge is the sum total of all knowledge. This is you doing what you always do, inventing strawmen to argue with.

No, I am not forcing anything, I am pointing out, as I will continue to point out as long as these "evolution and creation are both right" bollocks keep coming up, that absolute faith is completely and irrevocably at odds with the scientific attitude. Which is why even scientists who profess a religious faith do not use articles of faith such as immaculate conception, resurrection of the dead, and assorted miracles of every type, in doing their work.

I've said time and again, and so I will repeat myself: in forcing the unnecessary conflict between science and faith, you are only doing science a disservice by forcing people to make the unnecessary choice between the two.

Thinking like a politician, that's nice.

No, the only disservice is lying to people about just how science and religion can "get along". As I already said only about a hundred times, the mere fact of co-existence implies nothing at all about theoretical and practical compatibility. The existence of scientists who are religious is proof enough that doing science and being a devout person need not make one's head explode. Ironically, it is also proof that the "logic of faith" and articles of faith impinging on physical reality are utter garbage, as none are admitted in actual scientific work.

189jburlinson
Nov 8, 2014, 1:42 pm

>188 LolaWalser: Science does not posit absolutes nor does it assume unprovisionally.

Here's where >182 nathanielcampbell: may be having a little trouble, as I'm sure you've recognized. Perhaps it's "just words", but "Science does not posit absolutes" is an absolute statement, so when you make this statement, you're not speaking science.

absolute faith is completely and irrevocably at odds with the scientific attitude

Again, this is an absolute statement, is it not? How could it get more absolute than "completely and irrevocably"? Is it not, therefore, at odds with the scientific attitude?

the only disservice is lying to people about just how science and religion can "get along"

And then you go on to talk about religious scientists whose heads don't explode -- which is at least a minimal way of getting along, I would think. Why is it a "disservice" or a lie to tell that to people, and, if it is, didn't you just do so with your unexploding scientist's head? I assume that what you're saying is that the scientists whose heads don't explode are temporarily abdicating their righteous duty to think and speak science at all times and are just intellectually napping when they start doing religion.

proof that the "logic of faith" and articles of faith impinging on physical reality are utter garbage, as none are admitted in actual scientific work.

Simply speaking, if something is not "actual scientific work" it is utter garbage. I don't see how there's any other way of understanding your point of view.

190southernbooklady
Nov 8, 2014, 3:03 pm

>187 nathanielcampbell: On Galileo, it's worth actually understanding the issues that were involved

On Galileo, the controversy was really more philosophical and methodological. Does one proceed from from the abstract to the material, or does one use the material to extrapolate the abstract? The Church authorities (most notably, the Jesuits) were defenders of the former, the school of thinkers, astronomers, etc associated with Galileo argued for the latter.

191rrp
Nov 8, 2014, 3:05 pm

>187 nathanielcampbell:

Thank you, that's a reasonable summary. It does miss a few important details.

The first person we know of to propose a heliocentric model was not Copernicus but Aristarchus in about 300 BC.

Galileo supported his theory by the "evidence" that there was one tide per day.

Galileo was given many chances to publish his work with the support of the Church, provided he presented it as a useful model, not reality (a approach by the way that fits better with the modern scientific view) yet went out of his way to antagonize his patrons.

Galileo was both wrong and deserve d his fate.

192rrp
Modificato: Nov 8, 2014, 3:12 pm

>190 southernbooklady:

Almost completely the wrong way around. In his defense of circular orbits for the plants Galileo was favoring the abstract over the material by deliberately ignoring the work of Keppler and Brahe which was material evidence for elliptical orbits. Galileo's sensibilities favored the circle as a more perfect abstract shape.

193southernbooklady
Nov 8, 2014, 3:18 pm

I think Kepler was offered a position at the University of Padua based on Galileo's recommendation, despite the fact he was a Protestant. He did, however, have a series of run-ins with Lutheran and Catholic Church authorities.

194prosfilaes
Nov 8, 2014, 3:33 pm

>187 nathanielcampbell: It was set against the backdrop of the aftermath of the Reformation and the Catholic Church's aggressive attempts to shore up and reassert its authority.

That seems to go to the core here. Is the Church dominant, or does it have to accept the authority of other organizations?

195nathanielcampbell
Nov 8, 2014, 9:32 pm

>188 LolaWalser: "Which is why even scientists who profess a religious faith do not use articles of faith such as immaculate conception, resurrection of the dead, and assorted miracles of every type, in doing their work."

And no one here is suggesting that a scientist, qua scientist, should invoke such doctrines in their scientific work. So who's drawing straw men now?

The worst part of all this is the arrogance with which you subtly declare that any scientist who is also a religious believer is unworthy of the title "scientist," because in having faith, they are ANTI-science. Or have I misunderstood you? If so, I stand under correction, provided you explain that a scientist can also be a religious believer without being ANTI-science.

196southernbooklady
Nov 9, 2014, 9:11 am

195 because in having faith, they are ANTI-science. Or have I misunderstood you?

I think you have, a bit. I know it feels like arrogance to dismiss faith in the lab but it is really a question of parameters. It's clear that people of faith think that an empirical approach to life is not invalid, but also is not enough. Empiricism is, shall we say, a subset of their world view -- only good as far as it goes, which isn't as far as they want it to or think it should.

But this does not change the criteria under which science is done. And any person of faith accepts, at some level, that anything they believe outside those criteria are "not scientific." Indeed, to bring them into the sphere of scientific inquiry is anti-scientific, because it destroys the parameters by which empirical evidence is evaluated.

Most sensible religious people are perfectly aware that they have to leave their faith at the door of the lab. If they weren't, we would be awash in attempts to find scientific evidence for things that are important to people of faith. Consider what a powerful thing it would be, for example, to find not proof, but just some positive scientific evidence for the existence of a soul in an embryo. The abortion debate would be ended overnight. But no one is looking for evidence of souls in fetuses--at least, no one who accepts the credibility of the scientific method. Because they accept such an inquiry would be "anti-scientific."

I imagine that mostly this is not a huge problem for the faithful--even the faithful in the sciences. It sounds a bit like compartmental-ism to me, but I can see how people can practice science without it impinging on the things their faith tells them are true. They can, as Lola put it, "practice science without having their heads explode."

But there will no doubt be a problem when they run up against someone like me, who does think an empirical approach to existence is enough. Who does not see a valid reason or any evidence for assuming something beyond the natural world we find ourselves in--from the small stuff, like miracles, to the larger stuff, like the existence of an objective "good." Because I end up rejecting everything the faithful believe as "invalid" they are stuck trying to make their case empirically, which they already know is not going to work. It's not how faith works for them.

So perhaps I am arrogant to disregard faith in the way I comprehend the world. But it is not like I have a choice--I can't believe in something I don't believe in. It is what it is. In fact, from where I am standing, the arrogance is on the other side--when the faithful demand special privileges in my empirical world. Science does not need to make accommodations for theology, but theology does need to bend to science when it wants to operate in the daily life of society, or it risks demanding that the faithful believe things shown to be empirically not true.

It's not an abstract argument to me. It's what's behind the push by ultra-conservative Christians in America to put "alternatives" to evolutionary theory in school text books. And while it may be easy to scoff at that example as misguided, it is also what is behind laws that criminalize women who are perceived as endangering their unborn children:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/opinion/pregnant-and-no-civil-rights.html?_r=0

http://abcnews.go.com/US/woman-charged-controversial-law-criminalizes-drug-pregn...

Which, believe me, is not easy to scoff at, not at all.

197Jesse_wiedinmyer
Nov 9, 2014, 10:43 am

And any person of faith accepts, at some level, that anything they believe outside those criteria are "not scientific." Indeed, to bring them into the sphere of scientific inquiry is anti-scientific, because it destroys the parameters by which empirical evidence is evaluated.

Not true... Doing away with this distinction is at the heart of the ID movement.

198LolaWalser
Nov 9, 2014, 10:49 am

>195 nathanielcampbell:

The worst part of all this is the arrogance with which you subtly declare that any scientist who is also a religious believer is unworthy of the title "scientist," because in having faith, they are ANTI-science. Or have I misunderstood you? If so, I stand under correction, provided you explain that a scientist can also be a religious believer without being ANTI-science.

You certainly write as if you had misunderstood me. Time and time again you twist my arguments into attacks on people. Again, very politician-like of you--as if drumming up sentiment through these base tactics really affects the argument.

Whereas I am consistently talking about attitudes and approach, theoretical and practical, and pointing out that what you accept as true in religion cannot be accepted as true in science. Not as a fact, and not as a method of discovery.

And I shall point out again, I hope for the last time in this thread at least, that scientists who are religious prove this much themselves every day in their work.

And, yes. A person who believes Mary was and remained a virgin through conception, labour and birth, or that a dead person came to life, yet would dismiss the possibility of such events in their work, manages to entertain scientific principles and religious anti-scientific attitudes in the same one head.

>196 southernbooklady:

It sounds a bit like compartmental-ism to me

Exactly. Compartmentalization's the way.

199rrp
Nov 9, 2014, 4:27 pm

>188 LolaWalser:

I said I couldn't care less about what philosophers thought about science. I adore philosophy; in fact, what I DO is practical philosophy.

A person who does philosophy, practical or otherwise, is a philosopher. So we have to assume this means that you couldn't care less about what you think about science. Interesting.

200rrp
Modificato: Nov 9, 2014, 4:36 pm

>196 southernbooklady:

But this does not change the criteria under which science is done. And any person of faith accepts, at some level, that anything they believe outside those criteria are "not scientific." Indeed, to bring them into the sphere of scientific inquiry is anti-scientific, because it destroys the parameters by which empirical evidence is evaluated.

Science is done under many criteria. It involves more than pure empiricism. All scientists have individual worldviews which are non-scientific, those to do with what they value in life. What they value directly affects what science they do and how they evaluate it. A person of faith who is a scientists also brings to science a worldview which informs what they value in life. It doesn't "destroy the parameters by which empirical evidence is evalue-ated". The values are what enable science to be evaluated.

Morality and value cannot be determined by science, but it does inform science and it is in no way anti-scientific.

201jburlinson
Nov 9, 2014, 5:17 pm

>196 southernbooklady: who does think an empirical approach to existence is enough. Who does not see a valid reason or any evidence for assuming something beyond the natural world we find ourselves in--from the small stuff, like miracles, to the larger stuff, like the existence of an objective "good."

The natural world we find ourselves in is just that -- something in which we find ourselves. We're the ones doing the finding and we're what we find.
The miracle is not what happens in the external world, it's what happens within ourselves. The external world miracle can be anything -- from something fanciful that didn't happen at all historically to something that did happen but that struck people at a given moment of time as being astonishing. Regardless, the miracle is the interpretation we put on the event. As such, the miracle exists as a part of the natural world, if we consider the neurophysiological processes that constitute thought as part of the natural world. A scientific approach to miracles would focus on such processes. The same with the concept of objective "good".

Alexander Pope once said, "the proper study of mankind is man". That's what science is -- the study of an organism experiencing "the natural world" -- not necessarily studying the natural world itself. No empirical study can ignore what is doing the empiricising.

202southernbooklady
Modificato: Nov 9, 2014, 6:25 pm

>201 jburlinson: Regardless, the miracle is the interpretation we put on the event. As such, the miracle exists as a part of the natural world, if we consider the neurophysiological processes that constitute thought as part of the natural world.

Hey, if we want to conclude that a miracle is an hallucinogenic effect of brain chemistry gone ga-ga, no argument from me. Just show me the evidence.

Or perhaps, instead of regarding miraculous events as mythologized history, we should be regarding them as historicized mythology.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/did-jesus-exist-growing-number-of-scholars-do...

203nathanielcampbell
Modificato: Nov 9, 2014, 6:41 pm

Questo messaggio è stato cancellato dall'autore.

204jburlinson
Nov 9, 2014, 9:03 pm

>202 southernbooklady: a miracle is an hallucinogenic effect of brain chemistry gone ga-ga,

That's not what I said at all. Let's take an example -- Jesus walking on the water. The historical event may or may not have happened, no one knows. You and I may have opinions of the probability of such a thing actually taking place, but, to a certain extent, that's bye the bye.

I might speculate, however, that this miracle today, in the here and now, is actually a visualization event that occurs in the brain when a person hears or remembers the story of this incident. (I guess you could call this event a hallucination, but that word implies a sensory disorder, whereas "visualization" seems to me to be a much more common part of everyday life for many people -- as long as we don't mistake our visualizations for "reality".) Of course, the specifics of this visualization will likely be quite idiosyncratic across different subjects, even if the broad outline of the story is shared in common. We don't know all that much about visualizations, but there is evidence that suggests that the same brain regions become active when we visualize an action and when we actually perform that same action. It's unlikely that most subjects have walked on water, but many have walked in water, so it could be that a kinesthetic memory of walking in very shallow water might be incorporated into the visualization event as it's experienced by any given subject -- or not. I dare say we don't know precisely at this point. Nonetheless, my hypothesis is that some sort of visualization occurs to most people when they hear the story.

But the visualization itself is not enough to constitute a miracle. For that to happen, something else must occur in the brain. My guess is that some sort of emotional processing starts taking place in conjunction with the visualization that endows the visualization with a aspect of mystery, awe, inexplicability or something similar, along with brain action that might be associated with a relatively high level of certainty or conviction. The neurology of all this is far beyond me, but I don't see why the process couldn't be envisioned in some such way.

The point is that what I'm talking about has nothing to do with anything that might or might not have happened 2,000 years ago and everything to do with what happens in a brain right here and now.

205JaeKamel
Modificato: Nov 11, 2014, 12:45 am

@ 3 John the Fireman : The Pope is at least well-informed. Some Popes would have said only "Gravity" and left out the far more important force (electromagnetism).

206JaeKamel
Modificato: Feb 14, 2015, 12:05 am

@ 7 rrp : Funny. Do they "beleive" that, say, Library Thing is "real"? or that Stanford is "real"?

207southernbooklady
Nov 11, 2014, 8:23 am

>204 jburlinson: The point is that what I'm talking about has nothing to do with anything that might or might not have happened 2,000 years ago and everything to do with what happens in a brain right here and now.

Maybe so, but this does not change the fact that people believe miracles actually happen. I'm willing to bet many believers wouldn't thank you for your assessment of the nature of their belief that Jesus rose from the dead on the third day.

208jburlinson
Modificato: Nov 11, 2014, 12:20 pm

>207 southernbooklady: this does not change the fact that people believe miracles actually happen

I couldn't agree more, but it's not the miraculous event that deserves scientific study, it's the belief itself. The putative real-world miraculous event can generally be explained (or explained away) easily enough; but that is not, at least to my mind, the pertinent question. What's harder, for the scientifically minded, is to come to grips with the belief itself. What is it? Not the manifest content of the belief, but the neurochemical processes that constitute the belief. The study of this is, IMO, the real scientific work that needs to be done, because it gets to the very root of "reality" as experienced by the human subject. There's work along these lines taking place in cognitive science labs around the world, and, to my mind, at least, it's all tending toward confirming an intuition that reality is constructed in the brain, or, perhaps better, the nervous system generally.

I'm willing to bet many believers wouldn't thank you for your assessment of the nature of their belief that Jesus rose from the dead on the third day.

No thanks expected. But I would like to hope that they might acknowledge that a fellow believer takes their beliefs seriously. My beliefs are no different than theirs -- nobody's are. The content of the belief as interpreted by us might be different, very different. The beliefs themselves, though, are made of the same stuff across the species.

209JGL53
Nov 11, 2014, 7:21 pm

All religious traditions espouse some god-of-the-gap theory, including even the most primitive animists.

The pope was just making the point that the gaps in catholic christianity are teeny tiny and god hasn't needed to step in since jesus's incarnation/resurrection back about 2 thousand years ago, and nothing much to do before that back to the Big Bang (assuming the OT stories are all metaphorical).

To even have a religion I believe that one or two miracles will be required - i.e., reject all miracles and you magically become a scientific naturalist/materialist. That is to say, an atheist. And no one "religious" wants that - because Pac Man is eaten at that point and Game Over.

210paradoxosalpha
Nov 12, 2014, 6:33 am

>209 JGL53:

It's a matter of defining "religion." I for one reject the equation religious=supernaturalist. It seems more useful to define religion in terms of social behavior and cultural configurations.

211JGL53
Modificato: Nov 12, 2014, 11:29 am

> 210

Well, certainly nominal religion is religion too. We must keep in mind that the definition of religion can be restricted or broadened endlessly, as one wishes. There are no rules here. Words don't come with absolute definitions. Words are abstractions that humans made up.

In highly abstract discussion we should always stop and define terms, if we think any confusion is present. No one really wishes to "talk past" the other person.

Defining religion as "one's personally assumed ontology" then all persons with the capacity to think above the level of an imbecile or moron have a religion.

Most people do still assume the necessity of belief in some sort of "supernatural" teleology or ultimate ontological dualism in order to "be religious". Well, yes, if one defines religion as such.

I've noticed that nowadays people in general seem more prone to use the word "god" in what we would identify as "non-traditional" ways. Some equate god to the universe or to "all that is" or to some unknown and unknowable source of all that may be thought teleological by some and not so much by others.

It's all good. We generally have time to define terms so that the idea that we are all in a land of confusion, or must be in one, regarding religion and god and stuff - I really don't think so.

Even the words atheism and atheist - most people may still equate such as being something really bad and wrong - but most self-identified atheists seem willing to address the majority's concerns - so, hopefully, one bright and shining day, it will all come out in the wash. Or something.

212jburlinson
Nov 12, 2014, 12:22 pm

>211 JGL53: persons with the capacity to think above the level of an imbecile or moron have a religion.

I decided to unblock you in the hope that you might have something to contribute without resorting to your ingrained habit of slurring people with mental disabilities. Silly me.

This is a flat out violation of the TOS, no two ways about it.

Where's my block -- I seem to have mislaid it? Oh, here it is.

213paradoxosalpha
Nov 12, 2014, 1:03 pm

>212 jburlinson: "imbecile or moron" ... people with mental disabilities

I wasn't aware that these were nosological terms in the 21st century.

214southernbooklady
Nov 12, 2014, 1:17 pm

>208 jburlinson: But I would like to hope that they might acknowledge that a fellow believer takes their beliefs seriously.

The work being done in the cognitive sciences is fascinating, and there is something to be said for the constant reminder that "reality" is only ever experienced through the interpretative organ of the brain. Just as it is always to be remembered that what we see is not all there is to be seen.

That said, I'm not sure your average faithful and devout Catholic or Muslim would call your reduction of their belief to a series of neurochemical processes as "taking their belief seriously."

215JGL53
Modificato: Nov 12, 2014, 2:23 pm

> 213

Yes, well, I was using the words "moron" and "imbecile" to indicate a state wherein a person technically has an I.Q. too low to cogitate on a level wherein a personal religion could be engendered, i.e., have an ontological theory of reality that could be proffered for public discussion.

I was merely qualifying my statement upfront about ALL persons having a religion in anticipation of someone objecting that some people are unable to cogitate on a level recognizable as "having a religion".

I was not stating any dislike for people who are morons or imbeciles. I don't even pity them for the lack of having a "religion". Perhaps they are better off then we.

BTW, jburlinson has now perfected the technique of misunderstanding and misstating my words to the degree that I'm beginning to suspect he is actually natcampbell and natcampbell is jburlinson. Rather than a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde sort of situation it is more like a Mr. Hyde/Mr. Hyde one. lol.

I WISH these two individuals would actually block me instead of saying that they do all the time. I would prefer that to the irritation. I come to this forum to have discussions with intelligent people of good faith on the weighty issues of the day. Ergo,.....

216jburlinson
Nov 12, 2014, 2:51 pm

>213 paradoxosalpha: I wasn't aware that these were nosological terms in the 21st century.

They're about as nosological as the n-word or the k-word are ethnological, or the f-word is useful in gender studies. Try using any of these in an LT forum and time how long it takes for the red flags to start flying.

217jburlinson
Nov 12, 2014, 3:08 pm

>214 southernbooklady: I'm not sure your average faithful and devout Catholic or Muslim would call your reduction of their belief to a series of neurochemical processes as "taking their belief seriously."

Perhaps not at first, but if they would consider that such a reduction firmly situates belief in the realm of reality, they might change their opinion. At least I would hope that they might appreciate someone not telling them that what they believe is erroneous or worse.

218JGL53
Modificato: Nov 12, 2014, 3:33 pm

> 213

Also, I've no doubt you know this but for the sake of others who may be too young to be familiar:

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/03/the-words-moron-imbecile-and-idi...

The words indicating these three different levels of sub-average I.Q. are out of style now in psychology, analogous to the case of the word "neurosis", so we can amend it them to "mild to severe mental retardation."

Except that "retardation" is now non-PC. So, then, is it mentally handicapped? Mentally disabled? Mentally disadvantaged? Mentally challenged? Or is it "special"? Or "differently gifted"?

It is hard to keep up. I let my subscription to Psychology Today expire decades ago.

219southernbooklady
Nov 13, 2014, 10:06 pm

>217 jburlinson: if they would consider that such a reduction firmly situates belief in the realm of reality, they might change their opinion.

Mapping reality

220jburlinson
Nov 14, 2014, 11:24 am

>219 southernbooklady: Very interesting article, thanks for the link.

I noticed that several times the author referred to "normal" brain activity and concluded with the hope that" the new study offers possibilities for retraining the brain to map the world correctly, for instance after stroke." (emphasis added). The implication is that the external world operates in a certain way and that most individuals have a properly calibrated nervous system that accurately maps the true reality of that external world. What I tend to believe, however, is more that the great majority of human subjects have an organism that processes information in a certain fashion, resulting in subjective experience that is interpreted in a recognizable way these subjects, whereas some subjects do not process information in that way, leading to variations from the subjective norm in terms of perception.

I suspect that this has little to do with how things are in the external world, and everything to do with norms relating to neural processing. Neither the "normal" way nor the "incorrect" way has a more accurate purchase on the external world, the "reality" of which remains a mystery to a human subject of either type. To me, all this is a question of faith -- faith in the adequacy of the human being's nervous system. If a person has faith that the "normal" human organism is an accurate instrument of measurement, then it's easy to dismiss the subjective experience of someone who sees things differently (in a very literal way) as out of touch with reality. But I have my doubts about that.

221southernbooklady
Nov 14, 2014, 11:41 am

>220 jburlinson: What I tend to believe, however, is more that the great majority of human subjects have an organism that processes information in a certain fashion, resulting in subjective experience that is interpreted in a recognizable way these subjects, whereas some subjects do not process information in that way, leading to variations from the subjective norm in terms of perception.

I'm not sure what you mean by having "an organism that processes information" (did you mean "an organ"?) but "normalcy" in the article struck me as a statistical artifact.

222jburlinson
Nov 14, 2014, 1:40 pm

>221 southernbooklady: Sorry, I was unclear. What I meant was human subjects "are" organisms that process information. Much of this takes place in the nervous system, but naturally there are contributions by other bodily systems as well.

"normalcy" in the article struck me as a statistical artifact

If that's what it is, then well and good. I had the sense, though, that "normalcy" implied that the typical or majority mode of processing was more "correct", by more accurately representing external reality. The concept of correctness was explicit in the statement: "the new study offers possibilities for retraining the brain to map the world correctly, for instance after stroke." It's clear enough that a stroke will result in a certain level of impairment in the processing ability of the brain; but the use of the word "correctly" strongly implies that the pre-stroke brain was likely to be accurate in its perception and assessment of the external world. This, to me, is somewhat fallacious. The pre-stroke brain might be more efficient in processing information, as far as brains go, but that doesn't mean that the brain is an inherently trustworthy instrument in the first place.

223southernbooklady
Nov 14, 2014, 1:48 pm

>222 jburlinson: The pre-stroke brain might be more efficient in processing information, as far as brains go, but that doesn't mean that the brain is an inherently trustworthy instrument in the first place.

Doesn't this reduce down to the "we could all be brains in vats" argument? Is that really feasible?

224jburlinson
Nov 14, 2014, 2:04 pm

>223 southernbooklady: Doesn't this reduce down to the "we could all be brains in vats" argument? Is that really feasible?

I don't know about that reduction -- perhaps if one considered the human body to be the "vat", it would be appropriate. As to its feasibility, I'm not sure I can see a scientifically valid way of looking at it otherwise. Our experience of reality is our subjective manifestation of an active, ongoing relationship between an observer and something being observed. The situation becomes more complicated when one considers that the observer is also a part of what's being observed. To a certain extent, it appears that this takes the experience outside of the scientific paradigm, since the scientist normally goes to great lengths to eliminate or at least reduce observer bias. So, even when we try our best to be scientific, we''re only able to achieve this at a certain level of practicality. We appear to be getting better and better at it, since we keep coming up with interventions that result in what we believe to be desirable outcomes, like cell phones and androids on a comet. So our organism gives us some level of assurance as to its adequacy for certain types of things. But to take the leap of faith that would be necessary in order for us to say that, with more time, effort and refinement, we will be able to discover all of reality and concoct a theory of everything, just doesn't seem justifiable to me.

225southernbooklady
Nov 14, 2014, 2:14 pm

>224 jburlinson: But to take the leap of faith that would be necessary in order for us to say that, with more time, effort and refinement, we will be able to discover all of reality and concoct a theory of everything, just doesn't seem justifiable to me.

I suppose that's where you lose me. Because I'm brought back again to the idea that scientific endeavor doesn't really work like that. It doesn't say "all of reality is knowable," it asks "is this particular thing knowable?" -- and to date, anyway, seems to think that is a reasonable question to ask.

There is work being done on the so-called "theory of everything," I know-- the theory that will unify relativity and quantum mechanics-- but even here the question, and the process, is basically the same. And there doesn't seem to be a good reason to forever consign any given observation to a state of unknowability.

226jburlinson
Nov 14, 2014, 2:55 pm

>225 southernbooklady: It doesn't say "all of reality is knowable," it asks "is this particular thing knowable?" -- and to date, anyway, seems to think that is a reasonable question to ask.

For practical purposes it's not unreasonable. In order to build a better mousetrap, it's our best way forward. But there are pitfalls, and not only for the mouse! :)

However, to ask "is this particular thing knowable?" is tantamount to asking, "considering thatthis particular thing is part of an unknowable reality, am I justified in believing that I can know even this particular thing authoritatively?" Once again, for practical purposes, possibly so. The problem with that is, are we willing to be content that "for practical purposes" is good enough, or do we seek for more? Another problem is whether or not we're sufficiently on top of the "practical purposes" to be confident that unintended consequences won't pull the rug out from under us.

Religion, in the broad sense, is an attempt to seek for more. I'll grant that it may not be a fruitful attempt for many people. The fact that for so long it has been confused with the practical purposes of science is really regrettable. Nonetheless, it seems to me that there's a place for both in the search for wisdom. What's interesting to me is the attempt to understand religion (or faith, or belief, or spirituality, or whatever word works best) in the light of science, which really is a pretty good light, for practical purposes.

227southernbooklady
Nov 14, 2014, 3:23 pm

>226 jburlinson: am I justified in believing that I can know even this particular thing authoritatively?

What does "authoritatively" mean? In science all knowledge is provisional. Religion is not prone to that sort of caveat.

228jburlinson
Nov 14, 2014, 4:41 pm

>227 southernbooklady: What does "authoritatively" mean? In science all knowledge is provisional. Religion is not prone to that sort of caveat.

That's an excellent point. In a sense, both science and religion are provisional, since both are products of a specific species operating on this planet. I guess that both bear within them the temptation to view their findings with a greater sense of conviction than is justifiable. Perhaps religion is more susceptible to that potential error, in that a number of religions find little place for doubt and many are based explicitly on "authority", whether textual, traditional or revelational. Science, on the other hand, has doubt built into it, with the principle of falsifiability; but, for some people at least, one gets the impression that the findings of scientific enquiry are considered definitive and, yes, authoritative. It's a potential tendency of both scientists and religionists.

As systems of doubt, they are brothers or sisters under the skin. It makes it all the more understandable how a scientist with religious faith keeps her head from exploding.

229LolaWalser
Nov 14, 2014, 7:14 pm

Ugh, forget it.

In other news, I have finally procured a clean copy of Devil Dick's impious tome and have every intention of dispatching it this weekend, of which more in the other thread, or new thread (don't want to open it now because I'm many posts behind).

230jburlinson
Nov 14, 2014, 8:13 pm

>229 LolaWalser: Ugh, forget it.

What is "it" that needs forgetting? At any rate, consider it forgotten, whatever it was.

231nathanielcampbell
Modificato: Nov 14, 2014, 8:20 pm

Vatican Astronomer Wins Top Science Prize, Sagan Medal (Here and Now / WBUR / NPR):
On Thursday, Michigan-raised Jesuit Brother Guy Consolmagno will become the first clergyman awarded the prestigious Carl Sagan Medal “for outstanding communication by an active planetary scientist to the general public.”

Consolmagno co-authored the new book Would You Baptize an Extraterrestrial?, which came out last month. His short answer to his book’s title question is, “if she asked.”
(...)
“I find today that most scientists understand that the church supports them and indeed when I became a Jesuit, I sort of ‘came out of the closet’ as a churchgoer, I discovered so many of my friends and fellow scientists were also churchgoers. To me, the big mission we have is to convince the people in the pews that science is good. If I’m a missionary of anything I’m a missionary of science to the religious.”
Additional stories:
Michigan-bred Vatican astronomer wins Carl Sagan Medal (Detroit Free Press)
Guy Consolmagno, Jesuit Brother, Wins Carl Sagan Medal For Achievements In Astronomy (Huffington Post)

Information on the Sagan Medal, awarded annually by the Division for Planetary Sciences (DPS) of the American Astronomical Society: http://dps.aas.org/prizes/sagan

232LolaWalser
Nov 14, 2014, 8:42 pm

>231 nathanielcampbell:

Your point? Surely not trite shit like "look, a religious person with a degree in science!", not after who's-counting-anymore-how-many threads in which I REPEATEDLY bring up the fact that some religious people, indeed, get degrees in science.

>230 jburlinson:

I was just about to tangle with your zany misrepresentations of science and religion--again-- when I remembered I'd rather spend the night calling up spirits and floating tables. :)

233Jesse_wiedinmyer
Nov 14, 2014, 8:51 pm

I noticed that several times the author referred to "normal" brain activity and concluded with the hope that" the new study offers possibilities for retraining the brain to map the world correctly, for instance after stroke."

Oddly enough, this idea is no less present in your own arguments.

234jburlinson
Nov 15, 2014, 12:30 pm

>233 Jesse_wiedinmyer: Oddly enough, this idea is no less present in your own arguments.

Hey, I'm a human, so I do human-type things, which includes perceiving things in a human-type way with all the biases and blinkerings that come with it. If I did otherwise, I'd be an antidote to my own POV.

But, just for clarification purposes, where have I given the impression that I consider that the human organism is ever capable of giving a thorough, objective and accurate representation of external reality, whatever that is?

235Jesse_wiedinmyer
Nov 15, 2014, 5:43 pm

With every single post of your own that purports to "correct" the narrative that other people hold or espouse...

236Jesse_wiedinmyer
Modificato: Nov 15, 2014, 5:49 pm

where have I given the impression that I consider that the human organism is ever capable of giving a thorough, objective and accurate representation of external reality, whatever that is?

The statement that "human organisms are not capable of giving a thorough, objective and accurate representation of external reality, whatever that is" is, in and of itself, an attempt to give a representation of an external reality. Your argument, much like rrp's ostensible trivialism, falls down precisely because you fail to apply it to your own actions.

237jburlinson
Modificato: Nov 15, 2014, 6:40 pm

>235 Jesse_wiedinmyer: With every single post of your own that purports to "correct" the narrative that other people hold or espouse...

Maybe I haven't made myself clear, but that's no surprise. I've tried to interlard my posts with phrases like IMO, and "to my way of thinking" or "it seems to me" or some such language. If I've ever given the impression that what I think is anything but just that, what I think, then I apologize. I'm not trying to "correct" anyone (well, maybe jgl53, but, then again, who dares to profess to be perfectly consistent?). As a consequence, I seem to come across as idiosyncratic, or quirky or zany or whatever. That's OK by me. Even now, I'm not trying to correct your narrative, whatever it might be. I have a hard enough time trying to construct my own narrative by saying what I happen to be thinking at this moment. For some reason, I thought that was how discussion groups were supposed to work -- but that part of my narrative may need correction. It would certainly seem to me to be odd, quirky and zany to write something I'm not thinking at the moment in order to demonstrate that I'm not trying to correct someone else's narrative, but I guess I should try to stay in character as much as possible.

>236 Jesse_wiedinmyer: The statement that "human organisms are not capable of giving a thorough, objective and accurate representation of external reality, whatever that is" is, in and of itself, an attempt to give a representation of an external reality.

Of course that's what it is. I've never pretended that it was anything else. In fact, that's what I've been saying all this time. I don't exempt myself from the the general kerfuffle. But I'd like to know, what other representation of external reality do you think I can make, if that statement is more or less what I believe? It's my narrative -- why am I not welcome to it?

I await correction, though.

edited to correct myself

238Jesse_wiedinmyer
Modificato: Nov 15, 2014, 8:17 pm

But I'd like to know, what other representation of external reality do you think I can make, if that statement is more or less what I believe? It's my narrative -- why am I not welcome to it?

Well, precisely.

And yet you have no qualms about not believing the same about anyone else's claims about reality. You seem quite enamored of your own solipsism and believe you are well-entitled to it. Not so much anyone else's.

Which gets sort of, ummm, boring after a while.

239jburlinson
Nov 15, 2014, 8:42 pm

>238 Jesse_wiedinmyer: yet you have no qualms about not believing the same about anyone else's claims about reality

When did I ever say anyone else couldn't believe whatever it is that they believe? If anyone else believes something about reality, bully. Their beliefs might very well be better than mine -- it's certainly likely that their beliefs are better for them, and they may even be better for me, too, if only I knew what they were.

When you say "anyone else's claims about reality", what, or whom, are you talking about? Yours? Forgive me, but I have no idea what your beliefs about reality are. If you've told me, it went right over my head.

Which gets sort of, ummm, boring after a while.

This is regrettable, I must admit. But life is a funny thing, after all. Some people, for example, really enjoy knitting. Fortunately, there is a cure for boredom -- at least as regards internet postings. And I used to have a professor who enjoyed reading the text on cereal boxes as if it were dramatic verse.

240jburlinson
Modificato: Nov 15, 2014, 9:00 pm

>240 jburlinson: You seem quite enamored of your own solipsism and believe you are well-entitled to it.

Whatever I've got is not solipsism. As to how enamored I am of it, I think you might be surprised. Well-entitled? Yes, I do think that, why shouldn't I? I'm a Texan for God's sake.

Not so much anyone else's.

If you mean I'm not entitled to anyone else's solipsism, I can't help but agree with you. Their solipsism, or whatever it is that they have, is theirs and chances are I don't even know what it is, so I'm not in a position to say whether or not I'm enamored of it, let alone entitled to it. I'd be a very odd duck if I believed I was entitled to and enamored of someone else's solipsism. But, I'm zany, so maybe you have every right to think I do have such feelings.

241rrp
Nov 28, 2014, 3:37 pm

>240 jburlinson:

I didn't have much to add but to say I enjoyed your arguments (not boring at all). It's a shame this conversation died.

I find this "you are solipsist" a feeble and naive attempt to avoid facing the very real issues raised by the arguments made by some of the atheists here. It's a case of -- I can't answer the questions you raise because I don't understand them and so I am going to dismiss them, put my fingers in my ears and call you names, i.e. a solipsist.

242jburlinson
Nov 29, 2014, 11:43 am

>241 rrp: Thanks for your comment, and thank you for rescuing this conversation from oblivion.

I can't help but agree with you about solipsism -- which means the belief that only one's own mind exists, denying the existence of other minds or even an external world. I think you are regularly tarred with that brush, although I can't say I've ever seen any evidence of your having expressed this view.

Apparently, anyone who expresses doubt about the capacity of the human subject to know everything is condemned to wear the scarlet letter "S" on their chest. This is ironic, since such a person is, in some ways, the very opposite of a solipsist.

243rrp
Nov 29, 2014, 1:25 pm

>242 jburlinson:

I agree with you about the limitations of the human mind to know; and I believe that we have been aware of these limitations for millennia. Recent experiments in psychology have only emphasized and clarified where the mind has limitations.

I believe this awareness is deeply unsettling to those whose worldview is exclusively founded on empiricism and naturalism. Science demonstrates that we cannot be certain of what we know. We all have to take a leap of faith and accept certain foundational beliefs as true without evidence, without proof. It's the reliance on that nasty word faith that causes the angst. Angst leads to denial. Denial leads to dismissal of truth and those who state the truth as "solipsists", which, as you say is ironic.

244JaeKamel
Feb 14, 2015, 12:10 am

Unexplained phenomena of all kinds could be miracles. That is, it is a fact that unexplained phenomena "actually happen" ; no one can dispute that. So the question would be, which of those are miracles?
This asks, what is your definition of a miracle? Does it have to seem supernatural? Does it have to seem religious? Does it have to seem magical or like a fantasy, like a flight of the imagination?

Without a definition, you can't say that miracles don't "actually happen"; without one, that opinion of yours is just a belief.

245JaeKamel
Feb 14, 2015, 12:13 am

How do "neurochemical processes that constitute the belief"? How does that take place?

If you can't answer that question, then you can't make that assertion. One the other hand, experts in Cognitive Science are quite sure that we don't know how "neurochemical processes" produce or constitute *any* of the contents of consciousness, to use Searle's term.

246jburlinson
Feb 15, 2015, 4:30 pm

>245 JaeKamel: How do "neurochemical processes that constitute the belief"? How does that take place? If you can't answer that question, then you can't make that assertion.

If you toss a lit match into a pool of gasoline, fire takes place. You don't have to be able to explain exactly how that happens to make that assertion. In the history of the "contents of consciousness", I'm not aware of any that didn't involve neurochemical processes; are you?

experts in Cognitive Science are quite sure that we don't know how "neurochemical processes" produce or constitute *any* of the contents of consciousness, to use Searle's term.

I'm not so sure about that. A fair amount is known, for example, about the effects of alcohol on the brain -- how it alters neuronal membranes as well as their ion channels, enzymes, and receptors, and how it binds directly to the receptors for acetylcholine, serotonin, GABA, and the NMDA receptors for glutamate. How all these process changes manifest subjectively as the "contents of consciousness" is somewhat idiosyncratic, although most of us have some experiential data regarding the general features.

247rrp
Feb 15, 2015, 9:56 pm

>246 jburlinson:

A fair amount is known, for example, about the effects of alcohol on the brain

Sure. A fair amount is known about the effects of lots of things on the brain that also affect consciousness (reading posts in a forum like this for example has been know to effect the mental states of the reader in a few cases.) What JaeKamel said was correct; no one knows how neurochemical processes produce consciousness or how those physical things -- "altering neuronal membranes as well as their ion channels, enzymes, and receptors, and how it binds directly to the receptors for acetylcholine, serotonin, GABA, and the NMDA receptors for glutamate" changes those mental things we know as consciousness. We know those physical things can affect mental states, sure. How the physical world causes changes in the mental world, not so much.

248jburlinson
Feb 16, 2015, 12:26 pm

>257 How the physical world causes changes in the mental world, not so much.

If I hear you correctly, you acknowledge that there's not much question that the physical world affects the mental world but exactly how it does so. So far, science has a fairly good track record on how-type questions, so I have a fair amount of faith that, over time, we'll get closer and closer to getting a sense of the specific mechanisms. Call it faith, based on general experience.

The alternative is to believe that there is an unbridgeable gap between the physical and the mental, that somehow the mental exists in a different dimension than the physical. Is that your position?

249southernbooklady
Feb 16, 2015, 12:33 pm

>248 jburlinson: The alternative is to believe that there is an unbridgeable gap between the physical and the mental

I've been reading about Spinoza lately. From what I understand he posits that thought is a material thing...or rather that "thought" and "extension" (that-which is in and acts in the universe) are both of the same "substance," which some call "God" and some call "Nature." The idea reminded me of you.

250mikevail
Feb 16, 2015, 1:30 pm

>248 jburlinson: The alternative is to believe that there is an unbridgeable gap between the physical and the mental, that somehow the mental exists in a different dimension than the physical

Many of rrp's posts have led me to suspect that there are mental states that do exist independently of a human brain.

251jburlinson
Feb 17, 2015, 1:03 pm

>249 southernbooklady: The idea reminded me of you.

That's a nice thing to say. Thank you. It's flattering to be considered in the same mindspace as Spinoza, even if it's to my own disadvantage. That the mindspace in question is yours is even better.

253southernbooklady
Mar 20, 2015, 11:38 am

>252 John5918: "Today, many cosmologists are finding that some questions go beyond science - for example, where does the sense of awe in the universe come from?"

Not necessarily a question that "goes beyond science."

I think where the "hatchet" needs to be buried is not in the question of theoretical first principles (ei, is our sense of awe evidence of the divine?) but in the ethical and moral assumptions that are challenged as our scientific understanding of the universe evolves.

254rrp
Mar 20, 2015, 1:15 pm

>252 John5918:

Well the BBC might first get it's history of science right. "The idea of a battle between the two dates back to the medieval Church's condemnation of Galileo for his discovery that the Earth moves around the Sun rather than vice versa." -- is tosh. The idea of a "battle" is a modern invention. Galileo didn't "discover" that the Earth moves around the Sun (because it wasn't him and because it's not true.)

>253 southernbooklady:

the ethical and moral assumptions that are challenged as our scientific understanding of the universe evolves

I think that "assumptions are challenged" is a peculiarity of a particular worldview. You may think they are, others see it differently; for example the scientists interviewed in the article.

255jburlinson
Mar 20, 2015, 4:22 pm

>252 John5918: It sometimes seems to me that the two camps are not between religion and science per se, but between people who believe that human beings are capable of achieving or understanding "truth" and that either, (a) science is the only valid method for achieving truth, or (b) religion has a role to play as well as science. I think hardly anyone thinks science is totally worthless. If they do, they certainly couldn't tweet about it, so who would know, or care?

People in both camps are taking a human-centric view of things. Both religion and science are human enterprises, after all. The only question between the camps is -- is science alone enough?

256rrp
Mar 20, 2015, 11:31 pm

>255 jburlinson:

I agree, hardly anyone thinks science is totally worthless, but then again hardly anyone knows what science is. Also, hardly anyone with any sense would think "science is the only valid method for achieving truth" apart from those who define science as "the method for achieving truth", which is banal.

No, the real issue is political -- in a pluralistic society, how do we arrange affairs of common interest such as what we teach our children in government run schools and what acts we allow our government to treat as criminal.