Scientism, Skepticism and the Philosophy of Science

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

Scientism, In the words of a mathematics professor I am talking with–who by the way is agnostic, and not religious:

“Let us say that a person I am toalking to says ‘I believe in creationism’, then I can say I probably don’t want to talk with this person because they are ignorant…However if you think science is the answer to all, you’re an arrogant shithead. Not only that, but whereas I think the first person is ignorant, the second person I KNOW is ignorant. They must not know Bell’s theorem and Godel’s theorem, and they must not know a lot of other things…”

Btw, my professor friend really hates the Dawkins brand of atheism, termed “fervent atheism” by him. He has big problems with him (and Hitchens, et al.).

Godel was a logician, hung out with Einstein and a lot of those people, and he basically proved that no matter what there was no way to have a perfect list of axioms that explain everything.

“you write down your list of assumptions, and one of two things will happen: a) you will have too many and you will be able to deduce a contradiction of some sort in your list, or b) you have too few and there is at least 1 proposition that you do not know and CANNOT BE DEDUCED from your list (or in other words is permanently unknowable). There is no way to have just the right amount of axioms.”

In other words, no matter what you do you have the existence of a-rational premises (not to be confused with irrational). Again, in the words of my friend “Which is to say that there is ALWAYS a realm in which math and science has no purview. And this is speaking strictly in mathematics, which is extremely cut-and-dried, and you can’t tell me that the UNIVERSE, which is very much infinitely more a gray area than simple mathematics, can be deduced OR explained by science alone. In other words, if you want to believe that science is the answer to everything…well, you are supremely ignorant or arrogant, or both.”

It’s not necessarily saying whether an a-rational statement is true or false, and it is NOT necessarily saying that you have no evidence for this a-rational statement, or that you DO have evidence for it. It is basically saying that it is outside your sphere. It is absolutely beyond your power to understand it vis a vis your axioms. There exist these statements that have to be true or false, but which you cannot deduce. So you have to believe or disbelieve it without being able to deduce or prove (or DISprove) it.

202

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Btw, my professor friend really hates the Dawkins brand of atheism, termed “fervent atheism” by him. He has big problems with him (and Hitchens, et al.).[/quote]

How is it even remotely fervent? Apart from Hitchens, the mainstream figures who speak openly about the pitfalls of religion are pretty polite. Especially when put next to a religious figure. And even Hitchens is the epitome of high class when put next to preachers frothing at the mouth about original sin and homosexuality.

203

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Scientism, In the words of a mathematics professor I am talking with–who by the way is agnostic, and not religious:

“Let us say that a person I am toalking to says ‘I believe in creationism’, then I can say I probably don’t want to talk with this person because they are ignorant…However if you think science is the answer to all, you’re an arrogant shithead. Not only that, but whereas I think the first person is ignorant, the second person I KNOW is ignorant. They must not know Bell’s theorem and Godel’s theorem, and they must not know a lot of other things…”

Btw, my professor friend really hates the Dawkins brand of atheism, termed “fervent atheism” by him. He has big problems with him (and Hitchens, et al.).

Godel was a logician, hung out with Einstein and a lot of those people, and he basically proved that no matter what there was no way to have a perfect list of axioms that explain everything.

“you write down your list of assumptions, and one of two things will happen: a) you will have too many and you will be able to deduce a contradiction of some sort in your list, or b) you have too few and there is at least 1 proposition that you do not know and CANNOT BE DEDUCED from your list (or in other words is permanently unknowable). There is no way to have just the right amount of axioms.”

In other words, no matter what you do you have the existence of a-rational premises (not to be confused with irrational). Again, in the words of my friend “Which is to say that there is ALWAYS a realm in which math and science has no purview. And this is speaking strictly in mathematics, which is extremely cut-and-dried, and you can’t tell me that the UNIVERSE, which is very much infinitely more a gray area than simple mathematics, can be deduced OR explained by science alone. In other words, if you want to believe that science is the answer to everything…well, you are supremely ignorant or arrogant, or both.”

It’s not necessarily saying whether an a-rational statement is true or false, and it is NOT necessarily saying that you have no evidence for this a-rational statement, or that you DO have evidence for it. It is basically saying that it is outside your sphere. It is absolutely beyond your power to understand it vis a vis your axioms. There exist these statements that have to be true or false, but which you cannot deduce. So you have to believe or disbelieve it without being able to deduce or prove (or DISprove) it.
[/quote]

Yes thank you for your clear explanation. I posit that human’s have free will. Some people around here seem to think that there are not supposed to be unproveable axioms, but all logical constructs are built of unproveable axioms. But I wonder, I also believe that I can REASON that if we have free will it would be be axiomatic. Help me work through this if you can. Can reason convince you that a premise IS in fact unable to be deduced?

Anyway it comes down to this for me. The purpose of science is to reach the level of the proveably impenetrable. If you believe in the proveably impenetrable, then the arguments aobut God being outside of the realm of science are simply tautologizing, and in addition, you believe in equivalently GOD. The only debate is what kind of God is it?

204

[quote]Aragorn wrote:<<< no matter what there was no way to have a perfect list of axioms that explain everything.

“you write down your list of assumptions, and one of two things will happen: a) you will have too many and you will be able to deduce a contradiction of some sort in your list, or b) you have too few and there is at least 1 proposition that you do not know and CANNOT BE DEDUCED from your list (or in other words is permanently unknowable). There is no way to have just the right amount of axioms.” >>>[/quote]Form a post to Pat. Saving myself some typing.[quote]In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth:
Allow this to define the laws of logic and thermodynamics and you will see how comically futile (but entertaining) this entire line of autonomous human quibbling actually is. See Pat, you, like him, are attempting to support your theory of reality on self existent and self verifying universal abstractions in the form of all governing constructs of thought, “laws”, before which both your god and forlife’s godless universe must bow. They are in the end the same thing. Both the methods and the conclusions. They derive from finite fallen man’s bondage to his own sinful finitude and not the Word of God.

As long as amoral, impersonal, universally binding (or are they? =] ) “laws” of thought, and by extension laws of science, are given the idolatrous authority of final arbiter then the positions put forward by Forlife and Bodyguard and every other God hating pagan you’ll ever meet make far more sense than belief in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I’ll say again. The “laws” of logic are valid and binding when properly subordinated to the infinite mind of the most high God who is their author. Break down and face it. ALL human reasoning is eventually circular. Aristotle’s and Aquinas’s reasoning, and yours, and these guys in this forum, keep arguing against somebody else’s circular logic as if it could possibly ever be otherwise. It’s ALL circular.

Paul’s, Augustine’s, Calvin’s and Van Til’s and mine? We self consciously worship the God in whom it is not possible for contradiction to exist and assume before all else that any perceived inconsistency is the unavoidable function of not only OUR humble derivative creatureliness, but also OUR sin as an even further impediment to clear thinking on ultimate questions. Yes, the answer to “HOW CAN ____________ POSSIBLY BE?!” is that the God all creation for reasons sufficient unto Himself has designed and ordered it so, to His own purpose and glory. The most humbling and awesome of comforts to the redeemed of the Lord and the most pathetic of childish copouts to the heart yet dead in trespasses and sins.[/quote]

205

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Btw, my professor friend really hates the Dawkins brand of atheism, termed “fervent atheism” by him. He has big problems with him (and Hitchens, et al.).[/quote]

How is it even remotely fervent? Apart from Hitchens, the mainstream figures who speak openly about the pitfalls of religion are pretty polite. Especially when put next to a religious figure. And even Hitchens is the epitome of high class when put next to preachers frothing at the mouth about original sin and homosexuality.[/quote]

Well you would have to ask him why he terms it that, specifically, as opposed to something else with a similar meaning. It’s his term not mine. The point I think stands, however, when even a long time non-religious person and entrenched academic looks at Dawkins and Hitchens and sees them as arrogant and vitriolic.

And neither of us are pretending there aren’t plenty of preachers out there playing demagogue. We both solidly agree, and there are tons of very devout religious people of all sects who agree.

I mentioned it because as famous atheist apologists and scientists both of them, I think, fit the bill for “science has all the answers” people, or close to it. In any case, this wasn’t a war of words to say which side was worse at frothing at the mouth, so I really fail to see why you would bring up the question of degrees where arrogance and vitriol are concerned. Both of them I felt at least partially illustrated the point I was making with my first post–definitionally science does not and cannot answer everything, nor is it even categorically possible to put all available knowledge into the umbrella of scientifically provable or disprovable. Certainly as a person who has been trying to stay as far on to the sidelines as possible in the whole apologetics fight…well I see them as that type of person.

206

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Scientism, In the words of a mathematics professor I am talking with–who by the way is agnostic, and not religious:

“Let us say that a person I am toalking to says ‘I believe in creationism’, then I can say I probably don’t want to talk with this person because they are ignorant…However if you think science is the answer to all, you’re an arrogant shithead. Not only that, but whereas I think the first person is ignorant, the second person I KNOW is ignorant. They must not know Bell’s theorem and Godel’s theorem, and they must not know a lot of other things…”

Btw, my professor friend really hates the Dawkins brand of atheism, termed “fervent atheism” by him. He has big problems with him (and Hitchens, et al.).

Godel was a logician, hung out with Einstein and a lot of those people, and he basically proved that no matter what there was no way to have a perfect list of axioms that explain everything.

“you write down your list of assumptions, and one of two things will happen: a) you will have too many and you will be able to deduce a contradiction of some sort in your list, or b) you have too few and there is at least 1 proposition that you do not know and CANNOT BE DEDUCED from your list (or in other words is permanently unknowable). There is no way to have just the right amount of axioms.”

In other words, no matter what you do you have the existence of a-rational premises (not to be confused with irrational). Again, in the words of my friend “Which is to say that there is ALWAYS a realm in which math and science has no purview. And this is speaking strictly in mathematics, which is extremely cut-and-dried, and you can’t tell me that the UNIVERSE, which is very much infinitely more a gray area than simple mathematics, can be deduced OR explained by science alone. In other words, if you want to believe that science is the answer to everything…well, you are supremely ignorant or arrogant, or both.”

It’s not necessarily saying whether an a-rational statement is true or false, and it is NOT necessarily saying that you have no evidence for this a-rational statement, or that you DO have evidence for it. It is basically saying that it is outside your sphere. It is absolutely beyond your power to understand it vis a vis your axioms. There exist these statements that have to be true or false, but which you cannot deduce. So you have to believe or disbelieve it without being able to deduce or prove (or DISprove) it.
[/quote]

Yes thank you for your clear explanation. I posit that human’s have free will. [/quote]

What is interesting is that if you understand Godel’s theorem–and the implications of Bell’s–it all but disproves determinism, which I had always thoufht little more than a philosophical parlor trick.

I am not sure if I quite understand you here, and i’m at work so this is a first impression, but I would say that yes, that is the case. Reason (meaning logic and observation) is the only skill we possess. And that is exactly what Godel did via logic.

207

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Scientism, In the words of a mathematics professor I am talking with–who by the way is agnostic, and not religious:

“Let us say that a person I am toalking to says ‘I believe in creationism’, then I can say I probably don’t want to talk with this person because they are ignorant…However if you think science is the answer to all, you’re an arrogant shithead. Not only that, but whereas I think the first person is ignorant, the second person I KNOW is ignorant. They must not know Bell’s theorem and Godel’s theorem, and they must not know a lot of other things…”

Btw, my professor friend really hates the Dawkins brand of atheism, termed “fervent atheism” by him. He has big problems with him (and Hitchens, et al.).

Godel was a logician, hung out with Einstein and a lot of those people, and he basically proved that no matter what there was no way to have a perfect list of axioms that explain everything.

“you write down your list of assumptions, and one of two things will happen: a) you will have too many and you will be able to deduce a contradiction of some sort in your list, or b) you have too few and there is at least 1 proposition that you do not know and CANNOT BE DEDUCED from your list (or in other words is permanently unknowable). There is no way to have just the right amount of axioms.”

In other words, no matter what you do you have the existence of a-rational premises (not to be confused with irrational). Again, in the words of my friend “Which is to say that there is ALWAYS a realm in which math and science has no purview. And this is speaking strictly in mathematics, which is extremely cut-and-dried, and you can’t tell me that the UNIVERSE, which is very much infinitely more a gray area than simple mathematics, can be deduced OR explained by science alone. In other words, if you want to believe that science is the answer to everything…well, you are supremely ignorant or arrogant, or both.”

It’s not necessarily saying whether an a-rational statement is true or false, and it is NOT necessarily saying that you have no evidence for this a-rational statement, or that you DO have evidence for it. It is basically saying that it is outside your sphere. It is absolutely beyond your power to understand it vis a vis your axioms. There exist these statements that have to be true or false, but which you cannot deduce. So you have to believe or disbelieve it without being able to deduce or prove (or DISprove) it.
[/quote]

Yes thank you for your clear explanation. I posit that human’s have free will. [/quote]

What is interesting is that if you understand Godel’s theorem–and the implications of Bell’s–it all but disproves determinism, which I had always thoufht little more than a philosophical parlor trick.

I am not sure if I quite understand you here, and i’m at work so this is a first impression, but I would say that yes, that is the case. Reason (meaning logic and observation) is the only skill we possess. And that is exactly what Godel did via logic.[/quote]

Earlier I wrote about Belles theorem, basically “no hidden variables”, is that right.

And Goedel is basically saying that the map can never match the territory, (as the map is in fact part of the territory?

I posed what I saw as a paradox though. Quantum mechanics eliminates determinism by positing a limit on the detail of the universe-the planck length, however chaos theory eliminates determinism by positing infinitely fractaled detail.

How do those 2 opposite ideas both give the same conclusion?

I have a couple of ideas.

208

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Well you would have to ask him why he terms it that, specifically, as opposed to something else with a similar meaning. It’s his term not mine. The point I think stands, however, when even a long time non-religious person and entrenched academic looks at Dawkins and Hitchens and sees them as arrogant and vitriolic.

And neither of us are pretending there aren’t plenty of preachers out there playing demagogue. We both solidly agree, and there are tons of very devout religious people of all sects who agree.

I mentioned it because as famous atheist apologists and scientists both of them, I think, fit the bill for “science has all the answers” people, or close to it. In any case, this wasn’t a war of words to say which side was worse at frothing at the mouth, so I really fail to see why you would bring up the question of degrees where arrogance and vitriol are concerned. Both of them I felt at least partially illustrated the point I was making with my first post–definitionally science does not and cannot answer everything, nor is it even categorically possible to put all available knowledge into the umbrella of scientifically provable or disprovable. Certainly as a person who has been trying to stay as far on to the sidelines as possible in the whole apologetics fight…well I see them as that type of person.[/quote]

Except both of these figures you mention have acknowledged quite clearly that science is merely a tool for finding answers. Staying on the sidelines does not mean you should ignore vital information. Go read their books, and not a wiki. I’m sure your public library has copies for loan.

Hitchens makes a career out of arrogance, so I will gladly concede your point there.

Dawkins is anything but arrogant. Is it the British accent that makes him sound that way to you?

209

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Well you would have to ask him why he terms it that, specifically, as opposed to something else with a similar meaning. It’s his term not mine. The point I think stands, however, when even a long time non-religious person and entrenched academic looks at Dawkins and Hitchens and sees them as arrogant and vitriolic.

And neither of us are pretending there aren’t plenty of preachers out there playing demagogue. We both solidly agree, and there are tons of very devout religious people of all sects who agree.

I mentioned it because as famous atheist apologists and scientists both of them, I think, fit the bill for “science has all the answers” people, or close to it. In any case, this wasn’t a war of words to say which side was worse at frothing at the mouth, so I really fail to see why you would bring up the question of degrees where arrogance and vitriol are concerned. Both of them I felt at least partially illustrated the point I was making with my first post–definitionally science does not and cannot answer everything, nor is it even categorically possible to put all available knowledge into the umbrella of scientifically provable or disprovable. Certainly as a person who has been trying to stay as far on to the sidelines as possible in the whole apologetics fight…well I see them as that type of person.[/quote]

Except both of these figures you mention have acknowledged quite clearly that science is merely a tool for finding answers. Staying on the sidelines does not mean you should ignore vital information. Go read their books, and not a wiki. I’m sure your public library has copies for loan.

Hitchens makes a career out of arrogance, so I will gladly concede your point there.

Dawkins is anything but arrogant. Is it the British accent that makes him sound that way to you?[/quote]

Haha. Hell no. I love the British accent! It’s the way he comes off in print to me. And yes, I’ve read his books. I haven’t watched enough of him in video to see if he comes across that way in person. Honestly after reading him I pretty much couldn’t stomach the idea of watching him, the exception being the bad ass Brit tones. At any rate, I am not the only one that he bothers, among agnostics or even atheists there are a number of people who do not care for the tones that bother mem and that is reassuring to me. We may all be wrong, but a shared opinion among a portion of neutral observers seems likely to be more than a simple “bad vibe” from someone you disagree with. I think perhaps you and I will have to agree to disagree here.

However, all that aside, I mentioned the names merely to illustrate my point, or rather my math friend’s point. I am beginning to wish that I didn’t mention names because I feel our side bar is distracting from the primary point. Names aside, I do agree with my friend.

210

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

Another is that there is a reason but basically it is inaccessible-basically the idea that you can not measure something smaller than an “atom” with a ruler composed of atoms. You can not measure something smaller than the planck scale because that is the shortest wavelength of “information”.

[/quote]

My money is on the above. I’m in Einstein’s camp though I’m not sure he articulated it or understood it as above. [/quote]

Some days I favor Einstein’s view, and others I like to think like the “orthodox” QMers. I think that its worth considering the implications of both.

What I have been told: and I had a roommate who was finishing his PhD in theoretical physics and worked at the German particle accelerator, and he told me this, that the problem with general relativity is that it requires that space and time are NOT quantized. I don’t know enough to evaluate that but he basically was saying that if GR could incorporate quantized space and time we would be on the verge of a unified theory without drastically changing QM or GR. [/quote]

I believe the problems is our paradigm of “time”. I’m convinced “time” only exists within our perception. Did he tell you once you remove time from some of these formulas, that the theories merge together quite well?

211

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You are denying Him. You are not at liberty and neither am I to define for yourself who God is and or what attitude you will take toward Him. HE tells YOU. Ya know bein God n all. I’m holdin out hope that the true miracle of resurrection will be given to you an you WILL then see. I promise you. (That you’ll see if raised , not that you’ll be raised. That’s not mine to promise)
[/quote]

But YOU and others, certainly surrendered your will to men and an instititution who determined for you, exactly who God is.

Read the above twice, and then read it again…and then read and consider this:

You consider other religious teachings false (Islam for one example). If Islam is false, isn’t Islam false on the basis that whoever claimed they were “divinely inspired” was in fact not? If they were not divinely inspired, did it stop millions from believing? No.

The claim of Truth for the big three religions (and others) is some claim of inspired or divine instruction given to man, and then passed along by man, sans corruption or error.

Your faith lies no less in man than the Muslim or any other follower of religion.

212

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Paul’s, Augustine’s, Calvin’s and Van Til’s and mine? We self consciously worship the God in whom it is not possible for contradiction to exist [/quote]

“contradiction” runs rampant in the bible.

213

I just know there is somebody my all wise and sovereign Lord has me writing these posts for. Could be somebody who’s already a believer or might be one of these Christ denying warriors. Maybe somebody who posts… or maybe not. I may not find out who it is while on this earth (I might though too), but somebody is getting this… or will.

214

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Scientism, In the words of a mathematics professor I am talking with–who by the way is agnostic, and not religious:

“Let us say that a person I am toalking to says ‘I believe in creationism’, then I can say I probably don’t want to talk with this person because they are ignorant…However if you think science is the answer to all, you’re an arrogant shithead. Not only that, but whereas I think the first person is ignorant, the second person I KNOW is ignorant. They must not know Bell’s theorem and Godel’s theorem, and they must not know a lot of other things…”

Btw, my professor friend really hates the Dawkins brand of atheism, termed “fervent atheism” by him. He has big problems with him (and Hitchens, et al.).

Godel was a logician, hung out with Einstein and a lot of those people, and he basically proved that no matter what there was no way to have a perfect list of axioms that explain everything.

“you write down your list of assumptions, and one of two things will happen: a) you will have too many and you will be able to deduce a contradiction of some sort in your list, or b) you have too few and there is at least 1 proposition that you do not know and CANNOT BE DEDUCED from your list (or in other words is permanently unknowable). There is no way to have just the right amount of axioms.”

In other words, no matter what you do you have the existence of a-rational premises (not to be confused with irrational). Again, in the words of my friend “Which is to say that there is ALWAYS a realm in which math and science has no purview. And this is speaking strictly in mathematics, which is extremely cut-and-dried, and you can’t tell me that the UNIVERSE, which is very much infinitely more a gray area than simple mathematics, can be deduced OR explained by science alone. In other words, if you want to believe that science is the answer to everything…well, you are supremely ignorant or arrogant, or both.”

It’s not necessarily saying whether an a-rational statement is true or false, and it is NOT necessarily saying that you have no evidence for this a-rational statement, or that you DO have evidence for it. It is basically saying that it is outside your sphere. It is absolutely beyond your power to understand it vis a vis your axioms. There exist these statements that have to be true or false, but which you cannot deduce. So you have to believe or disbelieve it without being able to deduce or prove (or DISprove) it.
[/quote]

Yes thank you for your clear explanation. I posit that human’s have free will. [/quote]

What is interesting is that if you understand Godel’s theorem–and the implications of Bell’s–it all but disproves determinism, which I had always thoufht little more than a philosophical parlor trick.

I am not sure if I quite understand you here, and i’m at work so this is a first impression, but I would say that yes, that is the case. Reason (meaning logic and observation) is the only skill we possess. And that is exactly what Godel did via logic.[/quote]

Determinism as defined how? Neither theory seem to outright reject that humans don’t have free will. Not being predictable in behavior is NOT the equivalent of having free will. Free will, at least as most define it, implies a conscious control over outcomes and actions distinct from one’s makeup and environment. Now if you define ‘free will’ as simply being inherently unpredictable, well then perhaps they do, but that is not what most people are driving at when they say humans have free will otherwise EVERYTHING would have ‘free will’.

215

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Well you would have to ask him why he terms it that, specifically, as opposed to something else with a similar meaning. It’s his term not mine. The point I think stands, however, when even a long time non-religious person and entrenched academic looks at Dawkins and Hitchens and sees them as arrogant and vitriolic.

And neither of us are pretending there aren’t plenty of preachers out there playing demagogue. We both solidly agree, and there are tons of very devout religious people of all sects who agree.

I mentioned it because as famous atheist apologists and scientists both of them, I think, fit the bill for “science has all the answers” people, or close to it. In any case, this wasn’t a war of words to say which side was worse at frothing at the mouth, so I really fail to see why you would bring up the question of degrees where arrogance and vitriol are concerned. Both of them I felt at least partially illustrated the point I was making with my first post–definitionally science does not and cannot answer everything, nor is it even categorically possible to put all available knowledge into the umbrella of scientifically provable or disprovable. Certainly as a person who has been trying to stay as far on to the sidelines as possible in the whole apologetics fight…well I see them as that type of person.[/quote]

Except both of these figures you mention have acknowledged quite clearly that science is merely a tool for finding answers. Staying on the sidelines does not mean you should ignore vital information. Go read their books, and not a wiki. I’m sure your public library has copies for loan.

Hitchens makes a career out of arrogance, so I will gladly concede your point there.

Dawkins is anything but arrogant. Is it the British accent that makes him sound that way to you?[/quote]

Haha. Hell no. I love the British accent! It’s the way he comes off in print to me. And yes, I’ve read his books. I haven’t watched enough of him in video to see if he comes across that way in person. Honestly after reading him I pretty much couldn’t stomach the idea of watching him, the exception being the bad ass Brit tones. At any rate, I am not the only one that he bothers, among agnostics or even atheists there are a number of people who do not care for the tones that bother mem and that is reassuring to me. We may all be wrong, but a shared opinion among a portion of neutral observers seems likely to be more than a simple “bad vibe” from someone you disagree with. I think perhaps you and I will have to agree to disagree here.

However, all that aside, I mentioned the names merely to illustrate my point, or rather my math friend’s point. I am beginning to wish that I didn’t mention names because I feel our side bar is distracting from the primary point. Names aside, I do agree with my friend. [/quote]

Just keep in mind, with The God Delusion (Dawkins) - I read this because I very much enjoyed the Blind Watchmaker. Anyone who calls his writing vitriolic or shrill needs to read some Evelyn Waugh, because (by his own admission) he rips off that style a lot.

216

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

Another is that there is a reason but basically it is inaccessible-basically the idea that you can not measure something smaller than an “atom” with a ruler composed of atoms. You can not measure something smaller than the planck scale because that is the shortest wavelength of “information”.

[/quote]

My money is on the above. I’m in Einstein’s camp though I’m not sure he articulated it or understood it as above. [/quote]

Some days I favor Einstein’s view, and others I like to think like the “orthodox” QMers. I think that its worth considering the implications of both.

What I have been told: and I had a roommate who was finishing his PhD in theoretical physics and worked at the German particle accelerator, and he told me this, that the problem with general relativity is that it requires that space and time are NOT quantized. I don’t know enough to evaluate that but he basically was saying that if GR could incorporate quantized space and time we would be on the verge of a unified theory without drastically changing QM or GR. [/quote]

I believe the problems is our paradigm of “time”. I’m convinced “time” only exists within our perception. Did he tell you once you remove time from some of these formulas, that the theories merge together quite well?[/quote]

Well he did say that a problem was that GR requires continious flow of time.

I think that there is a minimal unit of time in QM which is the time it takes for light to traverse the planck length.

Are you talking about spans of time? I am interested. In GR I think that while the sequence of events can vary relative to the observer, that there are instances where the sequence of events can be known to be constant for all reference frames.

Would you say that spacetime is only in our perception?

217

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Well you would have to ask him why he terms it that, specifically, as opposed to something else with a similar meaning. It’s his term not mine. The point I think stands, however, when even a long time non-religious person and entrenched academic looks at Dawkins and Hitchens and sees them as arrogant and vitriolic.

And neither of us are pretending there aren’t plenty of preachers out there playing demagogue. We both solidly agree, and there are tons of very devout religious people of all sects who agree.

I mentioned it because as famous atheist apologists and scientists both of them, I think, fit the bill for “science has all the answers” people, or close to it. In any case, this wasn’t a war of words to say which side was worse at frothing at the mouth, so I really fail to see why you would bring up the question of degrees where arrogance and vitriol are concerned. Both of them I felt at least partially illustrated the point I was making with my first post–definitionally science does not and cannot answer everything, nor is it even categorically possible to put all available knowledge into the umbrella of scientifically provable or disprovable. Certainly as a person who has been trying to stay as far on to the sidelines as possible in the whole apologetics fight…well I see them as that type of person.[/quote]

Except both of these figures you mention have acknowledged quite clearly that science is merely a tool for finding answers. Staying on the sidelines does not mean you should ignore vital information. Go read their books, and not a wiki. I’m sure your public library has copies for loan.

Hitchens makes a career out of arrogance, so I will gladly concede your point there.

Dawkins is anything but arrogant. Is it the British accent that makes him sound that way to you?[/quote]

Haha. Hell no. I love the British accent! It’s the way he comes off in print to me. And yes, I’ve read his books. I haven’t watched enough of him in video to see if he comes across that way in person. Honestly after reading him I pretty much couldn’t stomach the idea of watching him, the exception being the bad ass Brit tones. At any rate, I am not the only one that he bothers, among agnostics or even atheists there are a number of people who do not care for the tones that bother mem and that is reassuring to me. We may all be wrong, but a shared opinion among a portion of neutral observers seems likely to be more than a simple “bad vibe” from someone you disagree with. I think perhaps you and I will have to agree to disagree here.

However, all that aside, I mentioned the names merely to illustrate my point, or rather my math friend’s point. I am beginning to wish that I didn’t mention names because I feel our side bar is distracting from the primary point. Names aside, I do agree with my friend. [/quote]

Just keep in mind, with The God Delusion (Dawkins) - I read this because I very much enjoyed the Blind Watchmaker. Anyone who calls his writing vitriolic or shrill needs to read some Evelyn Waugh, because (by his own admission) he rips off that style a lot.[/quote]

I would say that the blind watchmaker creates a strawman-it stages a hypothetical god of the theists which only a small minority of theists have even been tricked into thinking they believe, because they’ve heard it presented as a strawman.

218

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Scientism, In the words of a mathematics professor I am talking with–who by the way is agnostic, and not religious:

“Let us say that a person I am toalking to says ‘I believe in creationism’, then I can say I probably don’t want to talk with this person because they are ignorant…However if you think science is the answer to all, you’re an arrogant shithead. Not only that, but whereas I think the first person is ignorant, the second person I KNOW is ignorant. They must not know Bell’s theorem and Godel’s theorem, and they must not know a lot of other things…”

Btw, my professor friend really hates the Dawkins brand of atheism, termed “fervent atheism” by him. He has big problems with him (and Hitchens, et al.).

Godel was a logician, hung out with Einstein and a lot of those people, and he basically proved that no matter what there was no way to have a perfect list of axioms that explain everything.

“you write down your list of assumptions, and one of two things will happen: a) you will have too many and you will be able to deduce a contradiction of some sort in your list, or b) you have too few and there is at least 1 proposition that you do not know and CANNOT BE DEDUCED from your list (or in other words is permanently unknowable). There is no way to have just the right amount of axioms.”

In other words, no matter what you do you have the existence of a-rational premises (not to be confused with irrational). Again, in the words of my friend “Which is to say that there is ALWAYS a realm in which math and science has no purview. And this is speaking strictly in mathematics, which is extremely cut-and-dried, and you can’t tell me that the UNIVERSE, which is very much infinitely more a gray area than simple mathematics, can be deduced OR explained by science alone. In other words, if you want to believe that science is the answer to everything…well, you are supremely ignorant or arrogant, or both.”

It’s not necessarily saying whether an a-rational statement is true or false, and it is NOT necessarily saying that you have no evidence for this a-rational statement, or that you DO have evidence for it. It is basically saying that it is outside your sphere. It is absolutely beyond your power to understand it vis a vis your axioms. There exist these statements that have to be true or false, but which you cannot deduce. So you have to believe or disbelieve it without being able to deduce or prove (or DISprove) it.
[/quote]

Yes thank you for your clear explanation. I posit that human’s have free will. [/quote]

What is interesting is that if you understand Godel’s theorem–and the implications of Bell’s–it all but disproves determinism, which I had always thoufht little more than a philosophical parlor trick.

I am not sure if I quite understand you here, and i’m at work so this is a first impression, but I would say that yes, that is the case. Reason (meaning logic and observation) is the only skill we possess. And that is exactly what Godel did via logic.[/quote]

Determinism as defined how? Neither theory seem to outright reject that humans don’t have free will. Not being predictable in behavior is NOT the equivalent of having free will. Free will, at least as most define it, implies a conscious control over outcomes and actions distinct from one’s makeup and environment. Now if you define ‘free will’ as simply being inherently unpredictable, well then perhaps they do, but that is not what most people are driving at when they say humans have free will otherwise EVERYTHING would have ‘free will’.[/quote]

I agree that Goedel, to me seems to only show our limitation in ever fully describing the deterministic laws. The only perfect model of the universe IS the universe.

But the Bell theorem, as I understood it perhaps 10 years ago, was that not only is there an array of “apparently” possible paths, but that there could not have been inherently inaccessible data present in the physical universe that actually made one of those paths occur. One path occurs instead of another, or another, for no physical reason whatsoever.

That’s why the multiple simultaneous universe model was created (as a pure assumption) because some physicists couldn’t accept that the course of events in the universe could actually in theory be inluenced by factors that were not part of the physical universe.

IOW not only is the universe a dice game, but the dice are not in the universe.

219

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Well you would have to ask him why he terms it that, specifically, as opposed to something else with a similar meaning. It’s his term not mine. The point I think stands, however, when even a long time non-religious person and entrenched academic looks at Dawkins and Hitchens and sees them as arrogant and vitriolic.

And neither of us are pretending there aren’t plenty of preachers out there playing demagogue. We both solidly agree, and there are tons of very devout religious people of all sects who agree.

I mentioned it because as famous atheist apologists and scientists both of them, I think, fit the bill for “science has all the answers” people, or close to it. In any case, this wasn’t a war of words to say which side was worse at frothing at the mouth, so I really fail to see why you would bring up the question of degrees where arrogance and vitriol are concerned. Both of them I felt at least partially illustrated the point I was making with my first post–definitionally science does not and cannot answer everything, nor is it even categorically possible to put all available knowledge into the umbrella of scientifically provable or disprovable. Certainly as a person who has been trying to stay as far on to the sidelines as possible in the whole apologetics fight…well I see them as that type of person.[/quote]

Except both of these figures you mention have acknowledged quite clearly that science is merely a tool for finding answers. Staying on the sidelines does not mean you should ignore vital information. Go read their books, and not a wiki. I’m sure your public library has copies for loan.

Hitchens makes a career out of arrogance, so I will gladly concede your point there.

Dawkins is anything but arrogant. Is it the British accent that makes him sound that way to you?[/quote]

Haha. Hell no. I love the British accent! It’s the way he comes off in print to me. And yes, I’ve read his books. I haven’t watched enough of him in video to see if he comes across that way in person. Honestly after reading him I pretty much couldn’t stomach the idea of watching him, the exception being the bad ass Brit tones. At any rate, I am not the only one that he bothers, among agnostics or even atheists there are a number of people who do not care for the tones that bother mem and that is reassuring to me. We may all be wrong, but a shared opinion among a portion of neutral observers seems likely to be more than a simple “bad vibe” from someone you disagree with. I think perhaps you and I will have to agree to disagree here.

However, all that aside, I mentioned the names merely to illustrate my point, or rather my math friend’s point. I am beginning to wish that I didn’t mention names because I feel our side bar is distracting from the primary point. Names aside, I do agree with my friend. [/quote]

Just keep in mind, with The God Delusion (Dawkins) - I read this because I very much enjoyed the Blind Watchmaker. Anyone who calls his writing vitriolic or shrill needs to read some Evelyn Waugh, because (by his own admission) he rips off that style a lot.[/quote]

I would say that the blind watchmaker creates a strawman-it stages a hypothetical god of the theists which only a small minority of theists have even been tricked into thinking they believe, because they’ve heard it presented as a strawman. [/quote]

You’ve never read the Blind Watchmaker, have you?

220

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Well you would have to ask him why he terms it that, specifically, as opposed to something else with a similar meaning. It’s his term not mine. The point I think stands, however, when even a long time non-religious person and entrenched academic looks at Dawkins and Hitchens and sees them as arrogant and vitriolic.

And neither of us are pretending there aren’t plenty of preachers out there playing demagogue. We both solidly agree, and there are tons of very devout religious people of all sects who agree.

I mentioned it because as famous atheist apologists and scientists both of them, I think, fit the bill for “science has all the answers” people, or close to it. In any case, this wasn’t a war of words to say which side was worse at frothing at the mouth, so I really fail to see why you would bring up the question of degrees where arrogance and vitriol are concerned. Both of them I felt at least partially illustrated the point I was making with my first post–definitionally science does not and cannot answer everything, nor is it even categorically possible to put all available knowledge into the umbrella of scientifically provable or disprovable. Certainly as a person who has been trying to stay as far on to the sidelines as possible in the whole apologetics fight…well I see them as that type of person.[/quote]

Except both of these figures you mention have acknowledged quite clearly that science is merely a tool for finding answers. Staying on the sidelines does not mean you should ignore vital information. Go read their books, and not a wiki. I’m sure your public library has copies for loan.

Hitchens makes a career out of arrogance, so I will gladly concede your point there.

Dawkins is anything but arrogant. Is it the British accent that makes him sound that way to you?[/quote]

Haha. Hell no. I love the British accent! It’s the way he comes off in print to me. And yes, I’ve read his books. I haven’t watched enough of him in video to see if he comes across that way in person. Honestly after reading him I pretty much couldn’t stomach the idea of watching him, the exception being the bad ass Brit tones. At any rate, I am not the only one that he bothers, among agnostics or even atheists there are a number of people who do not care for the tones that bother mem and that is reassuring to me. We may all be wrong, but a shared opinion among a portion of neutral observers seems likely to be more than a simple “bad vibe” from someone you disagree with. I think perhaps you and I will have to agree to disagree here.

However, all that aside, I mentioned the names merely to illustrate my point, or rather my math friend’s point. I am beginning to wish that I didn’t mention names because I feel our side bar is distracting from the primary point. Names aside, I do agree with my friend. [/quote]

Just keep in mind, with The God Delusion (Dawkins) - I read this because I very much enjoyed the Blind Watchmaker. Anyone who calls his writing vitriolic or shrill needs to read some Evelyn Waugh, because (by his own admission) he rips off that style a lot.[/quote]

I would say that the blind watchmaker creates a strawman-it stages a hypothetical god of the theists which only a small minority of theists have even been tricked into thinking they believe, because they’ve heard it presented as a strawman. [/quote]

You’ve never read the Blind Watchmaker, have you?[/quote]

No. Excerpts only. I was a highschool biology teacher, and had several colleagues who talked about it for hours with me, and the science is supurb based on my discussions, and I incorporated it into my curriculum, however, a) the watchmaker analogy that it attacks is flawed and b) 90% of theists don’t belong to a “denomonation” that dogmatically believes anything like the watchmaker analogy. Only 10% of CHRISTIANS belong to a denomonation that dogmatically rejects MACRO evolution. NO theist need resort to the watchmaker analogy to begin with!

If my hours of discussion, and reading of excerpts is indicative it certainly does a good job of knocking off “special creation” which some people falsely label “intelligent design”.

The way I interpret it, he sets up a strawman the “watchmaker”, tells us that this is what theists believe in, and then does a fantastic job of scientifically knocking that strawman down.

Miller basically knocks down “special interventionary creation” but doesn’t draw the non sequiter that the god of theists acts through special creation, ie he’s nothing like a watchmaker and the universe is not put together like a watch.