The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

santing wrote: »

I think this is where you go wrong. The reality is more than can be observed or measured. How do you measure love or pain?

By looking at the chemical reactions taking place in the brain



This is a CAT scan of a person experiencing the emotion of attachment to other person

santing wrote: »

Science doesn't say anything about your lifespan, but has lots to say about the average lifespan and life expectancie.

Nonsense, your "lifespan" isn't a thing. Science can tell you everything about your life span after you have died by studying you in the state of being dead. The reason it doesn't say anything about your lifespan at the moment is because it is in the future and you dead is a state that is currently unobservable. It has nothing to do with you being an individual, and everything to do with you not being dead yet (I assume you aren't dead).

santing wrote: »

Science is about knowledge. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom

Why be afraid of something we have no knowledge of? That sounds like the exact opposite of wisdom to me. You might as well be afraid of the "monsters" under your bed.

robindch

santing wrote: »

Science doesn't say anything about your lifespan, but has lots to say about the average lifespan and life expectancie.

Medical science has massive amounts to say about my lifespan, as does evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology, physics, chemistry, as, no doubt, do hundreds of other disciplines.

santing wrote: »

Science looks at collection of data, and looses therefore the individual.

Knowledge, aka science, does not lose the individual, since science is nothing without the individual to know it.

santing wrote: »

The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom

No. The fear of god, is well, fear, I'm afraid.

MatthewVII

santing wrote: »

I think this is where you go wrong. The reality is more than can be observed or measured. How do you measure love or pain?

Science excludes in its focus many other things. Unique events and unique "objects" such as you and me, the individual. Science doesn't say anything about your lifespan, but has lots to say about the average lifespan and life expectancie. Science looks at collection of data, and looses therefore the individual.
Now God is an individual, and therefore lost to science.
Science is about knowledge. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom

Medicine has the ability to predict your average lifespan and life expectancy from a baseline, then refine your statistics based on risk factors (smoking, obesity, NIDDM etc). These projections are completely accurate when applied to a population, but cannot take chance events occurring at complete random in a minority of the group.

E.g. you are a 71 year old male with large amounts of atherosclerotic deposits in your carotid arteries, a history of diabetes and have been a smoker for 40 years. Medical science can predict that you will probably die of vascular disease within the next 10 years. It cannot predict that after leaving the clinic you get hit by a car, or random variations in your bloodflow through your carotids will cause a massive stroke and kill you.

The point is, science works on global probability. Individual data is impossible to compile because the very nature of the individual means that chance effects have a much bigger impact. These chance effects are completely inapplicable to society at large and so is ultimately valueless.

When we focus on the individual, we lose the bigger picture and learn nothing of value, e.g. if another 71 year old man with a similar story presents to me, I can't say with confidence that he'll get knocked down by a car after leaving.

Science challenges us to broaden our perspectives. Religion demands we narrow it. Science looks at the big picture, religion attempts to glean wisdom from the random. If a god existed, I'd imagine he'd want us to pursue science to help improve our lives and the lives of everyone on the planet instead of spending our lives on reflection leading ultimately to nothing

santing

Wicknight wrote: »

By looking at the chemical reactions taking place in the brain



This is a CAT scan of a person experiencing the emotion of attachment to other person

Great, so the experience of the emotion of attachment to another person is completely summed up in the CAT scan?

Wicknight wrote: »

Nonsense, your "lifespan" isn't a thing. Science can tell you everything about your life span after you have died by studying you in the state of being dead. The reason it doesn't say anything about your lifespan at the moment is because it is in the future and you dead is a state that is currently unobservable. It has nothing to do with you being an individual, and everything to do with you not being dead yet (I assume you aren't dead).

? You mean that science only applies after you are death? We don't know the average life expectancance of living people in Ireland, only of the death ones?

Wicknight wrote: »

Why be afraid of something we have no knowledge of? That sounds like the exact opposite of wisdom to me. You might as well be afraid of the "monsters" under your bed.

Sorry Wicknight, "Fear of the Lord" is a regular English expression (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_of_the_Lord) meaning "wonder or awe," not being afraid.

AtomicHorror

santing wrote: »

I think this is where you go wrong. The reality is more than can be observed or measured. How do you measure love or pain?

We feel them and thus they are observable. We can ask other people to rate their extent. This is a common means by which doctors assess pain during clinical trials. Emotions are subjective and so personal ratings of them are quite appropriate. We can also, as others have shown, measure them by more direct means.

And "reality is more than can be observed or measured"? Seriously? How can you know there's something other than what you can observe? If there is no direct or indirect evidence of a thing, if you cannot observe it (see, smell, feel, taste, hear or otherwise sense) then how can you possibly know it exists? How can you possibly verify it?

santing wrote: »

Science excludes in its focus many other things. Unique events and unique "objects" such as you and me, the individual. Science doesn't say anything about your lifespan, but has lots to say about the average lifespan and life expectancie. Science looks at collection of data, and looses therefore the individual.

That's not really true, the predictive power of science can take data specific to me into account. Models are not specific, but their output can be if the input is. We can't be 100% accurate on all such things but let's face it, if we could predict nothing at all about the individual, what use would medical science be at all? That we have predictive limitations is not a failing of science itself but of the extent of our understanding at this time. This is why we refine models, this is why science isn't finished yet.

santing wrote: »

Now God is an individual, and therefore lost to science.

How can you make such an assertion? You're just ascribing a trait to a thing that you cannot observe and claiming that it is the reason that science cannot account for it. The reason science does not consider God is simply because we cannot observe the thing that you are calling God. Until we can, or can see any need for such a thing, this will continue. Just as we will continue to ignore the infinite number of other "possible things" that we cannot observe.

santing wrote: »

Science is about knowledge. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom

What does that even mean?

santing

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We feel them I]love and pain[/I and thus they are observable. We can ask other people to rate their extent.

I don't think that rating love or pain comes close to a definition of these. Neither does a CAT scan, it merely descibes an expression of love or pain. What is the root cause of love or pain? Is it merely a biochemical reaction? I choose to say no here, and that the primary description of love and pain are not avaialable to a naturalistic science.

There are other "common" experiences that are outside science, such as beauty.

Interestingly, there are also various phenomena in science that are unobservable, such as "0" (or even any number!), "nothing," "vacuum," or even "pure water."

Science is very useful (and I do have a M.Sc. in Molecular Sciences) if we know its limitations.

The Mad Hatter

You've never touched or tasted pure water?

santing

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

You've never touched or tasted pure water?

Nope - as soon as you touch it, it isn't pure anymore.

Pure water (100% H2O) is a concept - it doesn't exist. Water wants to be mixed.

Flamed Diving

santing wrote: »

I choose to say no here, and that the primary description of love and pain are not avaialable to a naturalistic science.

Are these feelings exclusive to humans?

MatthewVII

santing wrote: »

Science is very useful (and I do have a M.Sc. in Molecular Sciences) if we know its limitations.

Surely the whole point of science is to not accept limitations? To constantly seek answers? If people had decided that science couldn't explain anything like the sunrise and rain 5000 years ago then we'd never learn anything about anything, and life as we know it would be squalid and stagnant.

We cannot know the limitations of science, if it has any. The moment we presume that it has limitations it ceases to become science and starts to become religion.

AtomicHorror

santing wrote: »

I don't think that rating love or pain comes close to a definition of these. Neither does a CAT scan, it merely descibes an expression of love or pain.

Again, the limitations in our ability to measure and explain a thing are not a fault of science itself, but reflect how much more we need to learn. The point we are making in terms of ratings, descriptions and CAT scans is that things like love and pain are not beyond our observation or explanation.

santing wrote: »

What is the root cause of love or pain? Is it merely a biochemical reaction? I choose to say no here, and that the primary description of love and pain are not avaialable to a naturalistic science.

But why not? We can observe these things. That they defy detailed explanation does not mean that they are unexplainable. I think you would simply prefer that these things be beyond our capacity to dismantle.

santing wrote: »

There are other "common" experiences that are outside science, such as beauty.

Why is beauty beyond explanation of science? Many of the roots of the human aesthetic sense are already well understood. I think perhaps you are mistaking the dispassionate nature of the practice of science itself for an inability to account for abstract or emotional concepts. But scientists are people with the same empathy and sympathy as everyone else, these concepts are not alien to them.

santing wrote: »

Interestingly, there are also various phenomena in science that are unobservable, such as "0" (or even any number!), "nothing," "vacuum," or even "pure water."

How are any of these things unobservable? I can measure vacuum. I can measure the purity of water. As for numbers, they are an abstraction. We can observe their concrete applications. I cannot observe the concept of justice but I can observe its application. And of course, we can examine the roots of the human concept of abstraction itself.

santing wrote: »

Science is very useful (and I do have a M.Sc. in Molecular Sciences) if we know its limitations.

I would say that science is far more useful if we disregard the notion that it has limitations. We must always be cautious of over extrapolation from theories, but we must never assume that we cannot build a new theory to model a thing.

And you have not answered my question. Do you think that it is reasonable to point to a phenomenon with an unknown cause and suggest that the most likely explanation is not something that we can observe but is instead a specific, defined thing that we cannot observe? Is that not merely the same as wild speculation? If we do not have specific evidence, could we not be equally justified in claiming any one of an infinite number of random but specified things fits into the gap in our understanding?

AtomicHorror

santing wrote: »

Nope - as soon as you touch it, it isn't pure anymore.

Pure water (100% H2O) is a concept - it doesn't exist. Water wants to be mixed.

Any device that can measure a single H20 molecule can measure "pure water", since a single molecule of a substance cannot be contaminated. Even if there were practical limitations in our ability to create or measure pure water that would not be the same thing as it being categorically unobservable.

Morbert

santing, I don't have a problem with the idea that science has limitiations. But I do have a problem with the idea that religion, or any appeal to supernatural forces, can overcome those limitations of science to inform us about the world.

JoBlog

The thread has 'Prophecy' in the title. The first post said '... also to tease out what prophecy has to offer in where we came from and where we are going.'

I'm fairly new here, has the prophecy part ever been discussed?

robindch

JoBlog wrote: »

has the prophecy part ever been discussed?

Since creationists have got the start so badly wrong, it's unlikely that they'll be any more accurate about the future.

Still, I'd like to hear a solid, concrete prediction from a creationist.

Zombrex

santing wrote: »

Great, so the experience of the emotion of attachment to another person is completely summed up in the CAT scan?

Not sure what you mean by "summed up". It is measured by a CAT scan, something you appear to have suggested is beyond the reach of science.

Perhaps you think a Shakespearian love sonnet would be more appropriate method of measurement

santing wrote: »

You mean that science only applies after you are death?

No I mean your life span can only be measured after you have died.

santing wrote: »

We don't know the average life expectancance of living people in Ireland, only of the death ones?

The average life expectancy is the average take from everyone who has already died. You can use that to make predictions about how long you may live, but that is not the same as measuring your life span. You are confusing two rather separate areas of science, observation and prediction.

santing wrote: »

Sorry Wicknight, "Fear of the Lord" is a regular English expression (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_of_the_Lord) meaning "wonder or awe," not being afraid.

Fair enough. My point stands though, why be in awe of something we have no knowledge of? It would be like admiring the Grand Canon from the boot of your car with your eyes closed.

Zombrex

santing wrote: »

I don't think that rating love or pain comes close to a definition of these. Neither does a CAT scan, it merely descibes an expression of love or pain. What is the root cause of love or pain? Is it merely a biochemical reaction? I choose to say no here, and that the primary description of love and pain are not avaialable to a naturalistic science.

There is not a whole lot of point in criticizing science for being limited while at the same time making completely unjustifiable and flighty claims about stuff.

You choose to believe that bio-chemistry is not responsible for human emotions? Why exactly?

Isn't that like choosing to believe that the electro-weak force is not responsible for electricity?

santing wrote: »

There are other "common" experiences that are outside science, such as beauty.

Beauty is not outside science, in fact science can and has explained to quite an impressive degree why humans find certain things beautiful and other things distasteful or disgusting.

santing wrote: »

Interestingly, there are also various phenomena in science that are unobservable, such as "0" (or even any number!), "nothing," "vacuum," or even "pure water."

There are things that are unobservable in science due to things like quantum uncertainty, but those things listed above are not them.

santing wrote: »

Science is very useful (and I do have a M.Sc. in Molecular Sciences) if we know its limitations.

The limitations of current understanding is not an excuse to just start making crap up because we feel like it or because somethings aren't pleasing to us.

Statements like you choose to believe "love" is more than biochemistry are just silly, particularly when discussing the limitations of various methods of learning, such as science.

If science is limited what do you think you assuming stuff is?

The Mad Hatter

JoBlog wrote: »

The thread has 'Prophecy' in the title. The first post said '... also to tease out what prophecy has to offer in where we came from and where we are going.'

I'm fairly new here, has the prophecy part ever been discussed?

Every thirty-or-so pages, J C claims victory in the face of a mountain of evidence and tries to segue on to prophecy. Actually, that's due any day now.

AtomicHorror

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Every thirty-or-so pages, J C claims victory in the face of a mountain of evidence and tries to segue on to prophecy. Actually, that's due any day now.

More recently he tends to simply claim that he's heard it all before (when in fact we're covering new ground), says "whatever" with a load of emotes like some stroppy teenager and then promptly begins to spam the thread with illuminating quotes by other people on the vague topic of evolution. It's as close to a victory for our side as I reckon we can ever expect.

AtomicHorror

We were discussing abiogenesis a few pages ago and I suggested that a viable first "replicator" would be self-replicating RNA molecules. For the first time, a lab in California are about to publish the synthesis of just such a molecule. Self-replicating and also evolving by natural selection according to one of the two basic selective pressures I also mentioned: replication rate. The molecules compete for nucleotides in their growth environment and the molecules which replicate fastest due to induced mutations prevail over the others.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab.html

I've yet to read the primary paper which will be appearing in Science, but this is an historic finding. It does not prove that RNA life was the means by which abiogenesis occurred of course, and nor does it really simulate the process as it would have occurred (the strands are synthesised by people and mutations were induced- albeit randomly- by people). But it is a beautiful proof of concept. Simple self-replicating molecule can exist, and their frequencies change in response to natural selection. The complex cellular machinery associated with higher life is not needed at "step 1".

The next step is obvious: do a Lenski-style multi decade growth experiment.

Flamed Diving

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We were discussing abiogenesis a few pages ago and I suggested that a viable first "replicator" would be self-replicating RNA molecules. For the first time, a lab in California are about to publish the synthesis of just such a molecule. Self-replicating and also evolving by natural selection according to one of the two basic selective pressures I also mentioned: replication rate. The molecules compete for nucleotides in their growth environment and the molecules which replicate fastest due to induced mutations prevail over the others.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab.html

I've yet to read the primary paper which will be appearing in Science, but this is an historic finding. It does not prove that RNA life was the means by which abiogenesis occurred of course, and nor does it really simulate the process as it would have occurred (the strands are synthesised by people and mutations were induced- albeit randomly- by people). But it is a beautiful proof of concept. Simple self-replicating molecule can exist, and their frequencies change in response to natural selection. The complex cellular machinery associated with higher life is not needed at "step 1".

The next step is obvious: do a Lenski-style multi decade growth experiment.

Bu... but... God directed the molecule to behave this way in the lab. Tis a trick of Satan!!! :eek::eek::eek:

AtomicHorror

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Bu... but... God directed the molecule to behave this way in the lab. Tis a trick of Satan!!! :eek::eek::eek:

I'm sure it will be taken as evidence that intelligence is needed to create such self-replicating molecules. There's lots of stuff in the publication that the creationists will use as a reason to dismiss the work entirely.

Having done a little digging, it seems that this is actually not "a first" at all. The same group have done loads of work on RNAs with enzymatic functions, including ligation self replication as seen here. These are the first ones to demonstrate perpetual self-replication and natural selection though.

And the replication is not quite what I'd like to see- ligation rather than polymerisation. But it's baby steps. We can't expect to do in a decade what takes a billion years by itself.

Flamed Diving

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We can't expect to do in a decade what takes a billion years by itself.

I think you mean six days...

AtomicHorror

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I think you mean six days...

Oh you scally-wag. Let's have a debate about that!

santing

I still owe AtomicHorror an answer on a question ... I was offline for a day and fear the discussion has moved on, so my answer maight be irrelevant.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

And you have not answered my question. Do you think that it is reasonable to point to a phenomenon with an unknown cause and suggest that the most likely explanation is not something that we can observe but is instead a specific, defined thing that we cannot observe? Is that not merely the same as wild speculation? If we do not have specific evidence, could we not be equally justified in claiming any one of an infinite number of random but specified things fits into the gap in our understanding?

The answer to this questions lies in my limitations of Science. But let me first explain what I mean by those limitations. To do this, I have to introduce a bit of philosophy, to be specific reformed philosophy. You can find detailed discussions on this in a page called "Dooyeweerd's Theory of Aspects.(http://www.dooy.salford.ac.uk/asp.html)" In wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformational_philosophy) it discusses the Modal Theory:

Although accounts differ, it is customary to distinguish fifteen modal aspects which evince the ways or modes we experience reality. These are: numerical, spatial, kinematic, physical, organic, psychical, logical, historical, linguistic, social, economic, aesthetic, jural, moral and pistical. Each mode expresses itself in all the other modes through analogies within the mode that either "anticipate" later modes or “retrocipate” earlier modes. Any non-reductionist account of reality must acknowledge the particular ways each entity, action or process function within all of the modal aspects or else fall, once again, into antinomies

If, for the sake of this threat, we reduce the Modal Theory to just have four modes (Physical, Biological, Psychical and Spiritual), than it means that every mode is based on the previous mode but introduce a new aspect that cannot be reduced to the previous mode. So the Physical mode includes "stones," the Biological mode includes "Trees," and the new aspect is "life." The Psychical mode includes "animals" - quite distinct from "trees" and the spiritual mode includes humans.

The tendency within Science is to reduce say a human to a biochemical machine trying to explain everything from a physical/chemical viewpoint. According to the Modal Theory, we cannot reduce human behaviour to just biochemical reactions - although we can always measure these biochemical reactions - we have to take into account the Psychical and Spiritual aspects. These aspects can of course be subjected to Science, but Science has than to understand the nature of the underlying modal aspect. I think not much work has been done on understanding what “Life” (biological) really is, or what makes animals different from plants, or humans than animals.

Coming back to the question. If I observe a phenomenon with an unknown cause, I would first try and classify the phenomenon in its proper Modal Aspect. After that I would indeed try to – using the scientific process – explain the phenomenon within known functions, laws etcetera belonging to that Mode, supported by the known functions and laws of lower Modal Aspects. So at first, no wild guessing...

However, I would also know that some events will never fit in the Scientific Model. For instance, the miracles the Lord Jesus performed cannot be explained scientifically. We can attempt to come up with a not miraculous explanation, but with that we dismiss the real nature of the event and equal the miraculous with a well performed magicians trick. So I am aware that events outside of my horizon can (and do) influence the world today.

So what are the limitations of Science? Science is – by its own definition – only looking at the world we can observe. That brings outside intervention immediately outside of science, and Science cannot say anything truthful about outside intervention as it is not looking at it.

Science is also only interested in repeatable events. This part of the Scientific process, that everything must be repeatable by other (independent) scientist with similar (or same) results. That brings my birth outside the scientific realm, as it only happens once, and is not repeatable. (I wouldn’t do that to you!) This is opposite to the science that researches births in general and which has given us (well, expectant mothers) a lot of support and well being. But the individual, the unique event is not predictable, not even an object of scientific research.

santing

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Any device that can measure a single H20 molecule can measure "pure water", since a single molecule of a substance cannot be contaminated. Even if there were practical limitations in our ability to create or measure pure water that would not be the same thing as it being categorically unobservable.

Now where would you store this single H2O molecule so that it doesnot do what it does by nature: attach itself to something?
And how do you measure it without touching it and changing its attributes?
And where is the baseline measurement coming from, a measurement without a single H2O molecule?

AtomicHorror

santing wrote: »

Now where would you store this single H2O molecule so that it doesnot do what it does by nature: attach itself to something?
And how do you measure it without touching it and changing its attributes?
And where is the baseline measurement coming from, a measurement without a single H2O molecule?

Again, these are practical limitations, not absolute ones- they may not even be real practical limitations for all that I know of current chemistry or physics. Your reply above is extremely interesting and I'll respond to it later when I get back home and can have a good think about it.

rockbeer

Santing, the first thing I notice about your reduced list of modes is that it includes two - biological and spiritual - that do not appear on the full list of fifteen. Can you explain your reasoning for this - in particular, why did you decide to include the spiritual mode?

2Scoops

santing wrote: »

tl:dr

What a complicated answer to a rather simple question! A simple 'yes' would have done. :pac:

Zombrex

santing wrote: »

If, for the sake of this threat, we reduce the Modal Theory to just have four modes (Physical, Biological, Psychical and Spiritual), than it means that every mode is based on the previous mode but introduce a new aspect that cannot be reduced to the previous mode.

But isn't the "psychical" and the "spiritual" just made up by humans?

Or at the very least, assumed by humans to exist without any actual idea of what these things are or are supposed to be, or (more importantly) method to determine any of this.

The point about science is that the scientific process allows you to model something and then test this model's predictions against observation to determine how accurate the model is (a theory in science is basically just a model). It is a process of feedback and refinement.

When one moves into what people like to call the "spiritual" all that goes out the window because it just comes down to people guessing at what is happening with no method to test any of these guesses to determine if any of them are accurate at describing something that is actually happening.

To put it in scientific terms we are back to the days of people declaring that wood is made up of "fire" and "earth" simply because such an explanation makes sense to them, with no attempt to try and find out if it is actually true or not.

No matter how considered one thinks their guess at what is happening is, it ultimately is pointless without some method external to one's own judgement to test if it is accurate or not.

santing wrote: »

The tendency within Science is to reduce say a human to a biochemical machine trying to explain everything from a physical/chemical viewpoint.

That is because that is the only realm we can test.

You can say we can't reduce human experience to the physical world, but ultimately that is pointless because all that means is that we can't know about human experience in an proper fashion.

We, again, go back to guessing about stuff. You think your love is "greater" than my love. Ok lets build a model of your love and then test this model against observation. Except we can't because we are just guessing at stuff, with no way to determine if we are actually correct or not.

santing wrote: »

I think not much work has been done on understanding what “Life” (biological) really is, or what makes animals different from plants, or humans than animals.

What makes animals different to plants is cell walls and about 2 billion years of evolution. And humans are animals.

Again you can guess at another explanation in what you might call the spiritual realm, but all you are doing is just guessing. One persons guess is as good/bad/pointless as the next persons guess.

santing wrote: »

Coming back to the question. If I observe a phenomenon with an unknown cause, I would first try and classify the phenomenon in its proper Modal Aspect.

And when you have done that how would you verify that the classification is correct.

What I mean by that is you classify something as spiritual and I classify it as physical. Ok, then what? Are you correct? Am I correct? Can you demonstrate to me that you are correct? Can I?

Aren't we both just guessing?

santing wrote: »

For instance, the miracles the Lord Jesus performed cannot be explained scientifically. We can attempt to come up with a not miraculous explanation, but with that we dismiss the real nature of the event and equal the miraculous with a well performed magicians trick.

Yes but you can't tell what the real nature of the event was though.

Again, you can guess as to what it was (It was God!) but that is ultimately pointless. Someone else could guess something completely different (It was Aliens!). Since neither of you have any way to test if one of you is correct or not this ends up being a dead end. You haven't learned anything. You can't determine if you are correct or not.

You will notice that "guessing" is a term I have used a lot. Ultimately that is what you are talking about. People standing around guessing as to what something is or isn't. And because it is people doing it the guesses are limited only by the human imagination.

While this may appear to provide more answers to life's questions that science, this is really only because the human imagination is vast.

Ultimately these are not answers though because they are impossible to verify. We can't tell if they are correct or not. You can guess at an explanation but at the end of that you still know the same as you would have known without bothering because you can't determine if your guess was correct or not and as such it is worthless.