Why isn't ISS exclusively atheistic in outlook?

robindch

> science also contains beliefs about the reality of things
> in the universe.

Science, or rather, 'knowledge', does not contain 'beliefs' in the religious sense of the word and you're mixing up two meanings in this sentence. Science/knowledge assumes that evidence exists for some proposition, and that interested parties agree, for the time being, that the evidence is good, allowing one to generate a conclusion about the state of the world that one can then 'believe' (scientific-sense) in, knowing that there's some supporting evidence. OTOH, when used with god/religion/theism etc, the word 'believe' implies a conclusion about the state of the world without any supporting evidence (and adherents think this is a good thing; see, for example, Hebrews 11:1, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.").

> People happen to believe that there is more to humanity
> than can be explained away by random genetic shuffles
> and mathematics.

Quite right. And the reason, imho, that they believe this is because they seem mostly unable to face the possibility that they might indeed be the result (crudely put) of genetic shuffling, or (more politely put), the result of millions of years of the nature, and the natural laws, which they casually apply to everything except themselves. Hence, creationism, btw

Tracking back to 'morality' briefly -- any chance of a tentative definition?

Yossie

ISAW wrote:

It would seem that you also are influenced by religion. apparently you believe in ressurection of the dead!

Perhaps :cool:

I think you're a little like a "dogma in a manger" though

Obni

1. Thiest - Has a worldview which includes a supernatural creator/ruler
2. Athiest - Has a worldview which doesn't include a supernatural creator/ruler

OR

1. Thiest - Knows there is a God
2. Athiest - Knows that there is no God

Revised version of ISAW's dialogues:
You: Science is a method and a body of knowledge which does not presuppose god.
Me: Religion uses the same logic but has beliefs in god just as science believes in things.
Other: But if you replace 'pre-suppose' and 'has beliefs in' with 'require' and 'requires' you get a truer picture. Your use of belief here (as RobinDCH highlighted) is questionable. Science tries to construct a working model of this universe. A model that at present requires the acceptance some unproven, perhaps ultimately unprovable, principles; principles that must be cast aside or refined if proven false in their present form. A religion is a sham if the existence of the God, as declared by that religion, is proven false.

You: No science does not believe in anything it can disprove.
Me: Neither does religion.
Other: Yet science at least accepts evidence that disproves its accepted principles, and at least part of the scientific community actively seeks to disprove the claims of other members. Other than as an intellectual exercise in seminaries and schools of philosophy, do members of religions pursue lines of inquiry to disprove elements of their faith?

You:But the process used does not pre suppose God.
Me: and the process theology used doesnt either.
Other: Again swap 'pre-suppose' for 'require'.
In my poor understanding of such matters I have always thought of theology as the study of the nature of God and of religion. There are anthropological and social elements to this subject, that do not require that God exists, however, the bulk of theology is simply pointless unless God exists.

You: But religious people believe in god.
Me: So do scientists and non religious scientists believe in things other than god.
Other: (1) There are people that believe in God and some of them are scientists. (2) There are people that do not believe in God and some of them are scientists. (3) Therefore .... what exactly???
It is possible to work in science and have a deep and committed belief in God? Of course it is. I'm not suggesting our brains contain a hole marked 'worldview' into which only the peg marked God or the peg marked science can fit. In my opinion the peg marked science can fill the hole completely, without the need to fashion a God-shim to plug any gaps.

ISAW wrote:

People happen to believe that there is more to humanity than can be explained away by random genetic shuffles and mathematics. people believe there is a spiritual aspect to us and a mental one which is not explained by cognitive science.

Some people... not me.
To refer to your argument about the taste of a good wine: science can tell you the chemical components of the wine, biochemistry can show the sense organs in your nose and on your tongue that react to those components, <insert gap here> , and science can show your nervous system reacting to the pleasure you gain from the exercise.
Why the gap?
Well for another person those same flavours trigger revulsion, for some as the result of a basic dislike for fermented grape juice, for others for the pungent odour, others for the mere sensation of strong alchohol, others may have a physical allergic reaction to the components, and yet again others for whom the consumption of alchohol is a sin that flies in the face of God.
For all of them science can produce the same objective results up to the taste/smell of the wine, then the subjective reactions diverge. In the gap lies the source of our subjective reactions.
I hope we can agree on events to date in the glass of wine, my reading of your posts leads me to hope I'm not too far outside of common ground.
Is the mystery of the gap, the cause of your saying that science can't explain your enjoyment of a good glass of wine?

For me, a glass of red wine (a taste I abhorred until my early twenties) creates a sense of comfort and luxury, the imagery of a 'beaker full of the warm south' , 'beaded bubbles winking at the brim and purple-stained mouth'. Memory, psychology, metabolism, and the lack of physical or religious trauma, all contribute to my enjoyment. Where in this process, (unique in each person, if rather similar in most) do I need to look outside of science to find an explanation?

In the same way my reaction to any number of things; my children, my wife's smile, Keats, Handel, a birdie on the index 1 in Druid's Glen, dawn at the side of Muckross lake in late spring, my reaction to these phenomona cannot be simply and succinctly described by a man in a white coat clutching a test-tube, but with a little analysis each can be explained by branches of science.

ISAW

Obni wrote:

Science tries to construct a working model of this universe. A model that at present requires the acceptance some unproven, perhaps ultimately unprovable, principles; principles that must be cast aside or refined if proven false in their present form.

But whether God exists or not is not within the realm of science (well those who adhere to the falisfyability definition) since it can not disprove God's existance.

A religion is a sham if the existence of the God, as declared by that religion, is proven false.

But not a sham if a natural assumption from that is anthrocentrism and therefore geocentric cosmology is arrived at and later disproven.

You: No science does not believe in anything it can disprove.
Me: Neither does religion.
Other: Yet science at least accepts evidence that disproves its accepted principles, and at least part of the scientific community actively seeks to disprove the claims of other members.

This has also happened throughout the history of the Church. Abelard, Roger Bacon, Erasmus, Galileo, Luther. I accept some of them were treated badly but the Church eventually accepted the evidence that disproved it's accepted theory. Furthermore sometimes the problem was not with the church but with the scientists of the day. In Galileos case for example. The problems originally arose not because he challenged the Church. Indeed the Pope admired him. Galileo challenged the whole established Aristotlean school of academics. Thats who he fell out with! and they resisted what he taught not because of the Bible but because of experiments which they referred to.

Other than as an intellectual exercise in seminaries and schools of philosophy, do members of religions pursue lines of inquiry to disprove elements of their faith?

actually sometimes yes they do. Ever heard of the Reformation or counter reformation.
One can argue that without the possibility of doubt there is not real faith. Furthermore, other than thought experiments in their research groups or pet projects in their particle accelerators do particle physicists and mathematical cosmologists pursue lines of enquiry to disprove their belief in Quarks or General Relativity? Very rarely does this happen. Mostly they confirm theory. I mean takle the eclipse that "confirmed" relitivity. Eddington was it? the results were not a confirmation but the theory looked so good they said it was! there are other examples. mendel's pea expirements (and he was a monk!) He doctored the results. Now people have argued here that science is what scientists do. so dont say eddington and Mendel were humans and were not following the "true" method of science or you are off into a "one true scotsman" .
How is Idealising something which people don't do because they are imperfect a superior belief to an ideal being?

In my poor understanding of such matters I have always thought of theology as the study of the nature of God and of religion. There are anthropological and social elements to this subject, that do not require that God exists, however, the bulk of theology is simply pointless unless God exists.

To a believer yes. If God made the laws of the universe then she would be importand wouldnt she? But lets say there were always atheists. Let us say all modern science was developed by believers (and most of it has been to now). Is any atheist going to say the science developed by believers was pointless?

Also, one can argue if there is no God and the idea of the universe being a random series of events leading to the human race. then some can argue ther is no point to life and no reason for it. they can reject any moral behaviour. Now I accept atheistic ethical systems can be built but isnt that just the same as religion without God? some theologian would hold it is just the same as some churches

In the same way my reaction to any number of things; my children, my wife's smile, Keats, Handel, a birdie on the index 1 in Druid's Glen, dawn at the side of Muckross lake in late spring, my reaction to these phenomona cannot be simply and succinctly described by a man in a white coat clutching a test-tube, but with a little analysis each can be explained by branches of science.

Some don't believe the value of them can. If so, then one can argue that you talking to me is just a series of vibrations which ultimately have no meaning. It is just like a nice looking fractal pattern. where does the "niceness" come from?

ISAW

Obni wrote:

For me, a glass of red wine (a taste I abhorred until my early twenties) creates a sense of comfort and luxury, the imagery of a 'beaker full of the warm south' , 'beaded bubbles winking at the brim and purple-stained mouth'. Memory, psychology, metabolism, and the lack of physical or religious trauma, all contribute to my enjoyment. Where in this process, (unique in each person, if rather similar in most) do I need to look outside of science to find an explanation?

In the same way my reaction to any number of things; my children, my wife's smile, Keats, Handel, a birdie on the index 1 in Druid's Glen, dawn at the side of Muckross lake in late spring, my reaction to these phenomona cannot be simply and succinctly described by a man in a white coat clutching a test-tube, but with a little analysis each can be explained by branches of science.

Can you derive for me if the US should invade Syria?
How about the invasion of Iraq? what is the scientific determiner there?
What about cloning people? How does science prove it is right or wrong?
Nursing homes- what is the correct scientific amount to give them?
the death penalty. Is it scientifically acceptable or not?
The budget for CERN, NASA, ESA, WHO, should scientists determine these?
The budget for the military, third world aid, should that be lift to science also?
I think you might want to live in Plato's Republic ruled by scientist kings. I prefer the modern definition of the term.

and having stated all that I still believe science is the greatest achievement mankind has ever had.

robindch

> I accept some of them were treated badly but the Church
> eventually accepted the evidence that disproved it's accepted
> theory. [...] In Galileos case [...] the Pope admired him.
> they resisted what he taught not because of the Bible but
> because of experiments which they referred to.

I think this is painting an excessively sympathetic view of the church's position. In the case of Galileo, the church finally admitted that he was right thirteen years ago -- yes, thirteen years ago! -- in 1992, three hundred and fifty-nine years after he was arrested and confined to his house for life. I'm not sure if JPII instructed his cardinals to issue an apology along with the admission, but I doubt it (anyone know for sure?)

While I'm sure that the Jesuits liked neither the Copernican system nor Galileo's observations, the church's condemnation of Galileo was nonetheless firmed couched in the cold terms of the inerrancy of the church's interpretation of various selected biblical texts. See the formal sentencing document which states this explicitly.

> then some can argue ther is no point to life and no reason
> for it. they can reject any moral behaviour.

You've missed the points of my postings above. One's belief in god has precisely *nothing* to do with one's behaviour, except for the trivial case of the small proportion of the population whose actions are self-regulated by the expectation of an eternity in 'heaven', or the fear of an eternity in 'hell'.

People who reject 'any moral behaviour' (and I don't know of any; an example, please, or a definition of 'moral' ?), are simply conjured up to form a credible threat by religious people to their own peculiar views, when in fact, the threat to society which arises from such rejectionists, like much else in the religious world, is illusory and exists simply to provide self-justification.

robindch

> In the same way my reaction to any number of things [...]
> dawn at the side of Muckross lake in late spring,

<sigh> I know it well, having grown up a few miles away While on the topic of wine + disputation, a slice of Omar Khayyam's Rubaiyat seems in order:

Why, all the Saints and Sages who discuss'd
Of the Two Worlds so learnedly, are thrust
Like foolish Prophets forth; their Words to Scorn
Are scatter'd, and their Mouths are stopt with Dust.

Into this Universe, and why not knowing,
Nor whence, like Water willy-nilly flowing:
And out of it, as Wind along the Waste,
I know not whither, willy-nilly blowing.

Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same Door as in I went.

But leave the Wise to wrangle, and with me
The Quarrel of the Universe let be:
And, in some corner of the Hubbub coucht,
Make Game of that which makes as much of Thee.

Here with a Loaf of Bread beneath the Bough,
A Flask of Wine, a Book of Verse--and Thou
Beside me singing in the Wilderness--
And Wilderness is Paradise enow.

The full text of Fitzgerald's four editions is here -- enjoy.

Obni

ISAW wrote:

But whether God exists or not is not within the realm of science (well those who adhere to the falisfyability definition) since it can not disprove God's existance.

True. An age-old issue, and one not to be resolved in these pages. One cannot use a set of rules to disprove something that must exist outside the boundary within which those rules have effect.

ISAW wrote:

But not a sham if a natural assumption from that is anthrocentrism and therefore geocentric cosmology is arrived at and later disproven.

Not sure if I follow that.
Are you pointing out that elements of the belief in God helped form some of the earliest models of how we view our universe, and so even if they were false beliefs they served a useful purpose?

ISAW wrote:

Ever heard of the Reformation or counter reformation.

Disputes over variations in the form of dogma, the application of dogma, the working practices of those dispensing dogma, or attempts to bring religion into line with what was as much an intellectual, a political and a social upheaval in Europe, is not the same as challenging the real basis of faith. Is there a God, and if so, is that God the God we believe in?

ISAW wrote:

How is Idealising something which people don't do because they are imperfect a superior belief to an ideal being?

I don't idealise science and certainly not scientists. I would argue that an explanation of our this crazy mixed-up universe that doesn't include God is superior to one without God because it is more accurate.

ISAW wrote:

Is any atheist going to say the science developed by believers was pointless?

If my house was on fire and my neighbours formed a chain to deliver bucket after bucket of water (assuming I lived in the old west as depicted in a corny black and white Hollywood western), then the useful work carried out by believers and non-believers would be of equal worth. Ditto science.

ISAW wrote:

Also, one can argue if there is no God and the idea of the universe being a random series of events leading to the human race. then some can argue ther is no point to life and no reason for it.

There is no point to life or any reason for it.

ISAW wrote:

they can reject any moral behaviour.

They can reject moral absolutes, and can accept that morality is a useful tool developed by humans from instinctive protective behaviours into a complex system of social guidelines to best serve the majority in any society that adopts those morals. (cf. Natural Law)

ISAW wrote:

Now I accept atheistic ethical systems can be built but isnt that just the same as religion without God?

No, more like religion without the useless bits.

ISAW wrote:

If so, then one can argue that you talking to me is just a series of vibrations which ultimately have no meaning.

Just when I talk, or when anyone talks?

ISAW wrote:

It is just like a nice looking fractal pattern. where does the "niceness" come from?

The niceness is simply the magnificent human brain being engaged without stress in the contemplation of colour and form while searching for meaningful patterns within a meaningless form.

ISAW

Obni wrote:

True. An age-old issue, and one not to be resolved in these pages. One cannot use a set of rules to disprove something that must exist outside the boundary within which those rules have effect.

You just reminded me of Godel's incompleteness theorem:

http://home.ddc.net/ygg/etext/godel/godel3.htm
Now that is just his introduction and comes to 25 pages in the journal.

Rucker, Infinity and the Mind:
The proof of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is so simple, and so sneaky, that it is almost embarassing to relate. His basic procedure is as follows:

Someone introduces Gödel to a UTM, a machine that is supposed to be a Universal Truth Machine, capable of correctly answering any question at all.
Gödel asks for the program and the circuit design of the UTM. The program may be complicated, but it can only be finitely long. Call the program P(UTM) for Program of the Universal Truth Machine.
Smiling a little, Gödel writes out the following sentence: "The machine constructed on the basis of the program P(UTM) will never say that this sentence is true." Call this sentence G for Gödel. Note that G is equivalent to: "UTM will never say G is true."
Now Gödel laughs his high laugh and asks UTM whether G is true or not.
If UTM says G is true, then "UTM will never say G is true" is false. If "UTM will never say G is true" is false, then G is false (since G = "UTM will never say G is true"). So if UTM says G is true, then G is in fact false, and UTM has made a false statement. So UTM will never say that G is true, since UTM makes only true statements.
We have established that UTM will never say G is true. So "UTM will never say G is true" is in fact a true statement. So G is true (since G = "UTM will never say G is true").
"I know a truth that UTM can never utter," Gödel says. "I know that G is true. UTM is not truly universal."
Think about it - it grows on you ...

With his great mathematical and logical genius, Gödel was able to find a way (for any given P(UTM)) actually to write down a complicated polynomial equation that has a solution if and only if G is true. So G is not at all some vague or non-mathematical sentence. G is a specific mathematical problem that we know the answer to, even though UTM does not! So UTM does not, and cannot, embody a best and final theory of mathematics ...

Although this theorem can be stated and proved in a rigorously mathematical way, what it seems to say is that rational thought can never penetrate to the final ultimate truth ... But, paradoxically, to understand Gödel's proof is to find a sort of liberation. For many logic students, the final breakthrough to full understanding of the Incompleteness Theorem is practically a conversion experience. This is partly a by-product of the potent mystique Gödel's name carries. But, more profoundly, to understand the essentially labyrinthine nature of the castle is, somehow, to be free of it.

Which is shorter?

Not sure if I follow that.
Are you pointing out that elements of the belief in God helped form some of the earliest models of how we view our universe, and so even if they were false beliefs they served a useful purpose?

That and the fact that "dogma" can be changed! It also happens in science.

Yossie

ISAW wrote:

You just reminded me of Godel's incompleteness theorem:

Although this theorem can be stated and proved in a rigorously mathematical way, what it seems to say is that rational thought can never penetrate to the final ultimate truth ...

On Gödel and his “incompleteness” theorem:

Roger Penrose - “The Road to Reality”
"Gödel’s theorem comes out of an attempt by logisticians to develop a mathematical ‘formal system’, according to which there was to be laid down a collection of absolute clear-cut mathematical rules as to what line of reasoning are to count as mathematical proof. What Gödel showed was that this programme would not work.

There is the common misconception that Gödel’s theorem tells us there are ‘unproveable mathematical propositions’, and that this implies there are regions of the ‘Platonic world’ of mathematical truths that are in principle inaccessible to us. This is very far from the conclusion we should be drawing from Gödel’s theorem. What Gödel actually tells us is that whatever rules of proof we have laid down beforehand, if we already accepted those rules are trustworthy, then we are provided with a new means of access to certain mathematical truths that those particular rules are not powerful enough to derive."

The book that is suggested by many as an excellent intro to Gödel’s theorem (although I haven’t read it myself) is Nagel & Newman (1958) – “Gödel’s Proof”.

After Kuhn’s Paradigm Shift (which ISAW has already used in this thread) the next most highly quoted theory by social constructivists to show that science itself suggests it is just like any other representation of “truth” with no special claim on it, is Gödel’s incompleteness theory. So why is so much made of Gödel’s theorem, when he himself was a fervent believer in absolutes and was referred to as an “unadulterated Platonist”?

Gödel’s theorem does not shed any light on any question in religion or sociology or on the ‘access-all-area’ness of science or GUT for that matter and applies only narrowly to an area of formal mathematics and is a mute point here. Its use by post-modernists etc belongs in the same bracket as those who claim “quantum theory” and the “Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle” revel some mystic element to the workings of the universe. I think a large amount of this is due to the sexing-up of such theories in pop-science, and/or where the commentators have only a very superficial knowledge of the subject in question and what the answers may imply.

Also there is a small part due to the unfortunate choice of names like “uncertainty principle”, “incompleteness theory”, “imaginary/real numbers”, “infinity” etc that lend themselves to naïve and wrong interpretations of these theories by the non-expert.

It all leads to the conclusion that no amount of critical thinking, deconstruction, literary critical analysis etc of scientific theories can provide any insight into or explain the often very complex realities that lie at the heart of scientific investigations. It is perhaps why there should be a greater emphasis on learning and applying more science and scientific thought than on “critical thinking” in isolation.

ISAW wrote:

That and the fact that "dogma" can be changed! It also happens in science.

I’m not getting back into the “science has dogma too” debate, since last time I checked you were still quoting the 2nd law of thermo, and other such theories as evidence of dogma in science.