Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
38 online now:
Aussie, DrJones*, jar, JonF, PaulK, RAZD, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (7 members, 31 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Happy Birthday: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,443 Year: 18,479/19,786 Month: 899/1,705 Week: 151/518 Day: 25/52 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mlodinow & Hawking on Model-Dependent Realism
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2919
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 61 of 72 (591099)
11-11-2010 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Stephen Push
11-11-2010 4:28 PM


Re: Straggler can not be silent on matters concerning frogs
But there no scientific fields of study that deal with faith in god. Why is that?
Im beginning to regret typing that....

I realize that there are scientific studies that can show how, when and why faith and religion has come to be a part of human behavior.

What I am interested in is how a model such as science that is based on falsifiable evidence can have anything to do with something as unfalsifiable as faith based assertions such as the existance of a god.

Science can show evidence of the big bang by mapping CBR but that does not disprove someone having faith that a god created the big bang. Science does not care what someone believes. It only cares that it is accurate and verifable and sound in its reproducible results and conclusions. Or not I dont know now.

Edited by 1.61803, : redundant


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Stephen Push, posted 11-11-2010 4:28 PM Stephen Push has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Stephen Push, posted 11-11-2010 6:30 PM 1.61803 has not yet responded
 Message 64 by Straggler, posted 11-12-2010 1:38 PM 1.61803 has not yet responded

  
Stephen Push
Member (Idle past 3143 days)
Posts: 140
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 10-08-2010


(1)
Message 62 of 72 (591119)
11-11-2010 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by 1.61803
11-11-2010 4:49 PM


Re: Straggler can not be silent on matters concerning frogs
1.61803 writes:

What I am interested in is how a model such as science that is based on falsifiable evidence can have anything to do with something as unfalsifiable as faith based assertions such as the existance of a god.

Science cannot make a categorical statement that God does not exist. If someone wants to believe in a supernatural being that does not intervene in any natural processes, I doubt that many scientists would object. Science and religion come into conflict when religions make assertions about how the world works. That’s why your frog god was a bad example: the frog-god worshippers were using their god to explain a natural phenomenon. Beliefs about the natural world are not privileged because they are based on blind faith. And just because some believers won’t accept well-confirmed scientific theories about certain natural phenomena, that doesn’t mean science has nothing to say about those phenomena or about the phenomenon of irrational belief.

Fortunately, many major religions have figured this out. They accept science’s explanations of the material world and focus their attention on their flocks’ immaterial souls.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by 1.61803, posted 11-11-2010 4:49 PM 1.61803 has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 63 of 72 (591219)
11-12-2010 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by 1.61803
11-11-2010 3:06 PM


Re: Faith
If your sole and single point is to say that science cannot disprove the existence of gods then why don’t you just say that and be done?

Numbers writes:

Can you show me some reliable scientific evidence that people who believe in a god, or gods are wrong for doing so?

There is plenty of scientific evidence on which to conclude that belief based on no evidence will be pointlessly unreliable and almost certainly wrong. There is a great deal of scientific evidence upon which to conclude that gods are human inventions.

Do you dispute this?

Numbers on "Science should stay silent on matters of faith" writes:

Another poster asked me about the same statement and I in one post told him that of course Science can dispute and refute religious beliefs.

And yet when asked specifically what "matters of faith" it is that science must be silent upon you suddenly forget the statement you made above and start demanding outright falsification.

Numbers writes:

That their conclusions based on nothing more than faith are scientifically disproved?

Can you scientifically disprove the existence of a big blonde ethereal viking called Thor who causes thunder by bashing his godly hammer around? Has the notion that Thor causes lightening and thunder been refuted to all practical intents and purposes?

Why do you think disproving things has any bearing on what science can or cannot commnent upon?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by 1.61803, posted 11-11-2010 3:06 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by 1.61803, posted 11-12-2010 2:55 PM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 64 of 72 (591223)
11-12-2010 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by 1.61803
11-11-2010 4:49 PM


The Unfalsifiability Wagon
Numbers writes:

What I am interested in is how a model such as science that is based on falsifiable evidence can have anything to do with something as unfalsifiable as faith based assertions such as the existance of a god.

1) You have now changed your argument from "matters of faith" which can be literally anything regardless of falsifiability to "something as unfalsifiable as god" which is slightly different.

You have, as expected, jumped onto the unfalsifiability wagon.

2) We don't need to falsify things to come to mutually exclusive conclusions. Do I need to prove that pissing angels are not the cause of raindrops in order to conclude that all raindrops come from clouds? Do I need to falsify the existence of gods to conclude that all gods are human inventions?

Can you falsify omphalism? How old is the Earth?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by 1.61803, posted 11-11-2010 4:49 PM 1.61803 has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2919
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 65 of 72 (591237)
11-12-2010 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by bluegenes
11-11-2010 4:33 PM


Re: No "proofs" please!
I certainly appreciate you thoughtful response.
bluegenes writes:

Religion is a real phenomenon, and there is nothing real that science won't or can't study.


This is something that has indeed gave me pause for thought.
Proof is a function of math and evidence is a function of science.
I believe it was Stephan Gould who was of the opinion that science "cannot yield values and religion doesnt yield emprical truths". I am reexamining my views concerning this.
Best regards

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by bluegenes, posted 11-11-2010 4:33 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Straggler, posted 11-13-2010 11:26 AM 1.61803 has responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2919
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 66 of 72 (591238)
11-12-2010 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Straggler
11-12-2010 1:30 PM


Re: Faith
Wah, what a cry baby. I reach for falsification and you throw a temper tantrum. You know I only did it to piss you off.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Straggler, posted 11-12-2010 1:30 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Straggler, posted 11-13-2010 11:16 AM 1.61803 has acknowledged this reply

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1235 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 67 of 72 (591241)
11-12-2010 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by 1.61803
11-11-2010 3:06 PM


Head trauma does not equal "faith"
Can you show me some reliable scientific evidence that people who believe in a god, or gods are wrong for doing so? That their conclusions based on nothing more than faith are scientifically disproved?

There is scientific evidence that shows how brain trauma such as seizures has brought about beliefs in god/s.

Source: The Temporal Lobes and God

I wouldn't say it is wrong, per se, but it does prove that their belief is not based on faith, but on head trauma.

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by 1.61803, posted 11-11-2010 3:06 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by 1.61803, posted 11-14-2010 9:37 AM onifre has not yet responded

    
Trae
Member (Idle past 2590 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 68 of 72 (591323)
11-13-2010 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by 1.61803
11-11-2010 12:34 PM


Faith is usually only part of the claim.
I think you’re attempting to take a specific aspect of religion (faith) and inflating it to give religion in general some magical armor against rationality.

Rarely are matters of faith exclusively delegated to some spiritual realm. Once faith intrudes impinges on reality then it opens itself up to scrutiny. No one has to buy into, “Every time I pray it rains gold coins at my feet and you shouldn’t use science to check out this claim since it is based on faith.”


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by 1.61803, posted 11-11-2010 12:34 PM 1.61803 has acknowledged this reply

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 69 of 72 (591350)
11-13-2010 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by 1.61803
11-12-2010 2:55 PM


Re: Faith
Numbers writes:

I reach for falsification and you throw a temper tantrum. You know I only did it to piss you off.

I am not "pissed off".

I am just dismayed by the inadequacy of your ever changing arguments.

So is it now "matters of faith" or is it "something as unfalsifiable as god" on which you are asserting that science must stay silent?

Or are you conflating the two on the erroneous assumption that all "matters of faith" pertain to unfalsifiable things?

Whichever of the above I will be delighted to explain to you why you are wrong.

Numbers writes:

Wah, what a cry baby.

(**Straggler pops a pacifier into 1.61803's open mouth**)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by 1.61803, posted 11-12-2010 2:55 PM 1.61803 has acknowledged this reply

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 70 of 72 (591356)
11-13-2010 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by 1.61803
11-12-2010 2:50 PM


Gould and NOMA
Numbers writes:

I believe it was Stephan Gould who was of the opinion that science "cannot yield values and religion doesnt yield emprical truths".

I wondered when we would get to Gould and his "Non Overlapping Magisteria".

Science cannot yield values but nor are values unique to faith or religion. So if you want to say "science is silent upon moral values" you might have a point. But that is not the same as "science is silent on matters of faith" at all. Unless you think all moral values are derived from faith rather than reason?

Even having said that science can certainly tell us what our natural proclivites are and how difficult or easy it is likely to be to implement certain moral values. It just cannot tell us what these moral values should be.

Numbers writes:

I am reexamining my views concerning this.

A good idea. Because thus far they have been very confused indeed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by 1.61803, posted 11-12-2010 2:50 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by 1.61803, posted 11-14-2010 10:01 AM Straggler has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2919
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 71 of 72 (591463)
11-14-2010 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by onifre
11-12-2010 4:21 PM


Re: Head trauma does not equal "faith"
Interesting article. The PET scan maps the brian, the physiology of the human body operates in accordance to the laws of nature. Yes I get that.

Faith and religion are real. And Science will research anything that is real. Bluegenes statement was spot on.

I am now in a better understanding of what all of you have been saying. Which is one reason I like this board.

Edited by 1.61803, : word article added.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by onifre, posted 11-12-2010 4:21 PM onifre has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2919
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 72 of 72 (591467)
11-14-2010 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Straggler
11-13-2010 11:26 AM


Re: Gould and NOMA
Straggler writes:

I wondered when we would get to Gould...

I was reading it on the interwebz. I kept finding apologist though.
So if you want to say "science is silent upon moral values" you might have a point.
agreed.

A good idea. Because thus far they have been very confused indeed.

Thats for sure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Straggler, posted 11-13-2010 11:26 AM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019