Author |
Topic: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist (Read 5539 times) |
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender: 
Posts: 1825
|
 |
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #50 on: Apr 1st, 2004, 12:50am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
Nicely put, towr; which is why I used the quote from Xenophanes.
Over time our view of God has evolved; this is what Christians believe: the Bible is a history of the revelation of God to His people, culminating in the most complete expression of God through Jesus Christ.
The "truth" has changed, at least from man's perspective (the pre-Christ Jews had very different ideas about what the Messiah would be and do), and so I must reluctantly accept that the anti-realist view has some credence.
The question is, have we invented the truth or did we discover it? This question is not some naive suggestion that we invent God, rather it is an admission that we invent ideas about God. And anything we know about God can never be complete and any truth we possess about the nature of God is always going to be imperfect. Hence the real question is this: is God knowable, in which case our understanding becomes more perfect (but never complete), or is God unknowable, in which case our understanding will be logical and consistent, but always imperfect (man-made)?
To use an analogy:
(realist) If God were infinite like the list of primes, we would never know Him completely, but we could know parts of God with certainty.
(anti-realist) If God were infinite like transfinite integers, we could invent ways of talking about Him, but never really know anything about His nature.
A realist would say that our understanding has improved, and will continue to improve. An anti-realist would say that any truth (like an old man sitting in a cloud with a white beard) will never be correct. So, as long as it is coherent, it is "truth". Notice that anti-realists do not say that the truth about God's nature is not absolute, they simply insist that the truth we possess will be relative; He is so intangible that anything we do know will be as wrong as the old man sitting on the cloud.
|
|
 IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
    
Gender:
Posts: 2873
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #51 on: Apr 1st, 2004, 6:40am » |
Quote Modify
|
The problem with the analogy of the pocket-watch is that there are well-defined "natural" processes that tend to produce something resembling life as we know it. If you've ever seen frost patterns on a window on a winter's morning, you've seen an alternate analogy - something that is generated by simple "blind" laws yet is complex, beautiful, and (almost certainly) unique. Applying the analogy of the pocketwatch you'd conclude that there is some artist who sneaks around painting windows at night (Jack Frost) - when the truth is something stranger.
The fact we exist as complex beings is evidence for some creative process, but evolution can account for the existence of beings like us.
That doesn't mean we weren't created - there's a massive open question as to why anything exists in the first place, and a (scientifically) unresolvable "why" about the intial conditions that caused life as we know it to be possible.
I have yet to see conclusive objective evidence either way for the existence of a creator - and don't expect to see any during my lifetime - but that's where faith comes in. After all, scientific reason is built on unprovable assumptions (starting with the existence of an objective universe) so whatever you believe, your world picture is built on faith anyway.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
kellys
Junior Member
Gender:
Posts: 78
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #52 on: Apr 1st, 2004, 6:44pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Thanks for clearing that up, rmsgrey. I believe the teleological argument is valid not simply because humans are here, but because there is so much order on this little planet. Now, I realize that there is a lot of science and mathematics which is still being developed to study how order can come from random processes. I'm sure that some day soon we will be able to better theorize about how all of this order could have arisen out of something as random as the Big Bang.
Even though processes such as the formation of ice crystal and evolution occur through naturally random events, I still think that their existence, and the fact that there are so many of them, is striking.
In response to the existence of miracles and other proof that the Bible is the word of God, let me just say this. In my life I, just like anyone else, have seen cruelty and kindness. I have seen people whose lives have been changed by Jesus. I have seen people who have been changed by a mob mentality. I have witnessed remarkable coincidences. But these things only serve to reinforce my belief that I am, and will always be, ignorant. I have complete confidence that when I die, I will be no wiser about the workings of the universe than I am now.
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 1st, 2004, 6:45pm by kellys » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #53 on: Apr 2nd, 2004, 12:04am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 1st, 2004, 6:44pm, kellys wrote:| Thanks for clearing that up, rmsgrey. I believe the teleological argument is valid not simply because humans are here, but because there is so much order on this little planet. |
|
I find the amount of disorder quite striking myself.. Clearly proof of the goddess Eris 
There is a very simple problem with the teleological argument, it assumes something complex must have been created by something even more complex. So who/what created God then?
The only way to solve this is to say some ((very) complex) things don't need to have been created.
And if there is anything that didn't need to have been created, why would that only be God?
I'm more inclined to think very simple things needn't have been created than possibly the most complex one.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
kellys
Junior Member
Gender:
Posts: 78
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #54 on: Apr 2nd, 2004, 1:29am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 2nd, 2004, 12:04am, towr wrote:
I find the amount of disorder quite striking myself.. Clearly proof of the goddess Eris |
|
Of course... I don't want to offend her. Did I say I was an atheist? I didn't mean it. Eris is the true goddess and only the true goddess fnord
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2873
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #55 on: Apr 2nd, 2004, 5:08am » |
Quote Modify
|
The trouble with pointing at all the order and structure in the world is that humans, in general, are extremely good at pattern recognition, and see patterns even when they're not really there. Also, while we may notice coincidences when they occur, estimating the field of possible occurences from which they are drawn is very hard - for instance, suppose some pair of (minor) celebrities each had twin children born at the same time (say noon, February 29th, just to keep things interesting). So what is the "universe" of possible events we should consider to decide whether this is significant or not? All TV presenters having babies? All celebrities of any kind having babies? All pairs of TV presenters doing something unusual at the same time? All births on February 29th?
A tree has a certain amount of structure - roots, trunk, branches, twigs, leaves... but there's also a certain amount of randomness - patterns in the bark, the precise arrangements of twigs, which leaves were blown off in the recent wind storm, which branches have birds nesting in them... When we think of a tree, we tend to think of all the common structure of "trees" and ignore the uniquenesses of individual trees.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Pietro K.C.
Full Member
Gender:
Posts: 213
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #56 on: Apr 18th, 2004, 8:49pm » |
Quote Modify
|
All this talk of bad science by Dr Unwin... was I the only one to interpret the article as a joke? I mean, the whole idea is ludicrous to begin with, and the part about bets on the second coming removed any trace of doubt I may have had.
Maybe we all need to Unwin(d) a bit. *dodges tomatoes*
Regarding The Big Questions, I must congratulate my forum-mates on what must be some kind of record for politeness while discussing these matters online. (What is it about not seeing your 'opponent' that makes people so hostile on Internet forums?)
I'll try to keep my two cents short.
The 'watch on the beach' argument has been refuted here on the grounds that, while stopwatches do not have self-reproducing, self-organizing mechanisms, life does, so the analogy is flawed. I agree with this rebuttal.
There is another, which is: when you find a watch on the beach, it is clearly very 'different' from everything around it, in a sense that can be made physically precise if one wishes. If you find a lone apple in an orange crate, you're liable to go, 'who put that there?' With life, though, there's no standard with which to compare it with and say 'holy moly, life is so different from the standard, who put life in the standard crate?' Life is 'the same' as the world: there is a continuous transition from human to dog to bird to fish to protozoa to bacteria to viruses to those-weird-things-they-find-in-the-bottom-of-the-ocean-the-names-of-whi ch-I-forget to organic molecules to regular molecules. It's like finding a stopwatch in a world full of stopwatches without as many functions, stopwatches without displays, circuit boards, single chips and transistors. That being said, I still like the first answer better.
Next, there is the 'first cause' argument. That has been refuted as well, by noting that it applies equally well to God, i.e. God must have a cause, by the same argument. I assume that answer has been around for a long time, but, as far I know, the following alternative response is due to Kant (with shades of Hume), and in my opinion it addresses more fully the problems with 'first cause' arguments.
[Kant]
Take a book from your shelf, and place it somewhere sunny.
Now wait a few minutes, and pick up the book. The book will be warmer than before.
'Aha,' you say, 'the sunlight made the book warmer.'
Consider this carefully. What did you see? You took a cold book. You put it under sunlight. You picked it up again, and it was warm. You never saw sunlight *make the book warmer*.
'Cause' is a human concept, and not necessarily intrisic to 'reality'. The existence of anything, proved thus, is subjective at best, and wrong at worst. Among the many characteristics of the usual conceptions of God, 'subjectiveness' does not figure, so this argument is not valid.
[/Kant]
Also, we must be very careful of ontological arguments, i.e. things existing by virtue of their definition! See
http://www.religiousstudies.co.uk/tripod/onto.htm
for a quick introduction.
Well, so much for short.
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 18th, 2004, 8:52pm by Pietro K.C. » |
IP Logged |
"I always wondered about the meaning of life. So I looked it up in the dictionary under 'L' and there it was --- the meaning of life. It was not what I expected." (Dogbert)
|
|
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender:
Posts: 1825
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #57 on: Apr 19th, 2004, 9:49am » |
Quote Modify
|
The main problem with Aristotle's prime mover (first cause) argument is that its solution provides an alternative. I humbly point out that the argument, "God must have had a cause," misses the point slightly.
The argument is usually stated as:
Each effect has a cause.
It is reasonable to say that existence is the effect of some cause.
However, the cause of any existing thing must have had a cause, and that cause must have had a cause, ad infinitum.
If there was no beginning, there would be no first cause, hence nothing that exists would exist.
As things do exist, there must have been a prime mover, and that is God.
In other words, the existence of God solves the infinite chain problem. It is a convincing argument, but as I mentioned, the conclusion undoes itself.
If God can exist without a cause, He must have existed for all time: no beginning. Therefore it is quite logical to argue that if God's existence can stretch back forever, so too can the chain of causes.
Note that there are two possible conclusions of this argument: God exists or there are an infinte chain of causes. There is NO logical alternative.
William Paley's Teleological argument is usually argued against by saying that given a sufficient length of time, chance would produce all that is. The "order" we percieve is not designed, it is just one of Nature's many random configurations. In my view and that of many modern philosophers, the "chance" argument is weak. Especially in light of the Fine Tuning Principle (which is a more intellgent version of the Anthropic Principle). I recommend that you take a look at the link (Dr. Hugh Ross).
St. Anselm's Ontological argument is much more difficult to argue against, mainly because its subtlety is rarely understood; which includes the writer of the article you referred us to, Pietro. In fact, the geniuses Descartes and Spinoza were both proponents of the argument. It took around seven centuries from its birth and the brilliance of Kant to make an intelligent attempt to refute it.
It is usually stated as:
Let God be defined as "that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought".
If it exists only in the mind, then "that-than-which-a-greater-CANNOT-be-thought" is actually the same as "that-than-which-a-greater-CAN-be-thought", which is clearly a contradiction.
Therefore, "that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought" must exist in both mind and in reality.
Hence God, being "that-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought", exists.
Now for Kant's attempt to argue against it...
A predicate is what is necessary for something to be what it is. For example, a car having an engine and four wheels are predicates. However, Kant argued that existence is not a predicate of God. In fact, existence is not a predicate of anything imagined. Furthermore he said that imagining that God is the greatest conceivable thing cannot be enhanced by imagining that He exists. For example, I can imagine a cool glass of beer; whether or not that glass of beer exists adds nothing nor takes anything away from the thought. Equally I can imagine a naked woman riding the back of a unicorn.
Having said this, the Ontological argument is still the most hotly contested arguments, and has been quite stubborn in its refusal to disapper. Some philosophers argue that it has not been properly refuted and continue to find a more definitive rebuttal. It is Kant's attempt to separate existence from "that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought" which has caused the disagreements. They argue that existence is preceisly one of the components that makes it "that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought".
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 19th, 2004, 10:59am by Sir Col » |
IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
asterix
Guest
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #58 on: Apr 19th, 2004, 11:02am » |
Quote Modify
 Remove
|
You know, God was way ahead of those philosophers. He told Moses, just call me I AM. No beginning, no end, no cause, no source, no proof, no ontological or teleological deductions, no predicate, not even a tense (Hebrew verb tenses don't denote time but a type of action).
To paraphrase Decartes, "We think, therefore God is." And if he doesn't fit into our thoughts and definitions and logic and observations, then he isn't. But he says, I AM. Period.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #59 on: Apr 19th, 2004, 11:52am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 19th, 2004, 9:49am, Sir Col wrote:| there must have been a prime mover, and that is God. |
|
Why should the prime mover, if there is one, have to be God? And not, say, the Big Bang?
Quote:| St. Anselm's Ontological argument is much more difficult to argue against, mainly because its subtlety is rarely understood; |
|
What's wrong with the unicorn argument? The most perfect unicorn should have to exist just as much a God, wouldn't it?..
But of course if God was the most perfect <whatever> imaginable, he would be such that nobody would doubt his existence..
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 19th, 2004, 12:09pm by towr » |
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Pietro K.C.
Full Member
Gender:
Posts: 213
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #60 on: Apr 19th, 2004, 4:43pm » |
Quote Modify
|
It's me again!
Quote:| The main problem with Aristotle's prime mover |
|
I'm afraid I disagree with your assessment of the main problem. I think that questioning the very notion of causality is a much more fundamental attack than accepting the argument and building on top of it.
In short,
Quote:| God exists or there are an infinte chain of causes. There is NO logical alternative. |
|
is quite false in my opinion, for I have shown a 'logical' alternative: 'cause' is subjective and 'reality' need not abide by it. Also, why must there be a *single* causeless cause? I could very well envision an upwards tree of causes, giving rise to 1010+ first (uncaused) causes.
To me, the main problem of attempting to prove anything about 'reality' based on thought alone is this: why does reality have to abide by our logic? If I spent 50 years locked away in an ivory tower, logically proved that 'every crow is black', went out and found a white crow, well, tough luck, it's back to the calculations for me - not for reality. To me, this is the main reason the ontological argument is unconvincing. Without leaving my imagination, I can *prove* stuff only about my imagination. The ontological argument, I think, does nothing more than make my *mental* conception of 'perfect being' a bit clearer. It does not make it actual. If stuff existed by virtue of their definition, I might as well say 'the existing God', which exists by definition. The problem is, I might have said 'the existing pink dog in my living room', and THAT sure isn't there.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but you (Sir Col) said much the same thing against the ontological argument as the site I posted, i.e. 'existence' is not a predicate of objects.
The teleological argument, I think, has the least credit in modern times. Though we cannot yet fathom what happened as far back as the third or fourth 'causes', let alone the first, we can and have seen evidence that 'chance' has nothing to do with the evolutionary process. I agree that the 'chance' argument is quite weak, but it is NOT used by anyone studying evolution or the origins of life. It's just not needed.
The 'Fine Tuning' argument doesn't hold much water with me either: 'fine tuning' of galaxy size or frequency of supernovae explosions can be dismissed by noting that, in a LARGE number of cases, these are not 'fine-tuned', and life probably doesn't show up. It's very hard to estimate probabilities on these kinds of things, knowing next to nothing about cluster/galaxy/system/planet formation in the universe; it's harder still to place bounds and conditions on all forms of 'life', based only on what we see here on Earth.
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 21st, 2004, 6:28pm by Pietro K.C. » |
IP Logged |
"I always wondered about the meaning of life. So I looked it up in the dictionary under 'L' and there it was --- the meaning of life. It was not what I expected." (Dogbert)
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #61 on: Apr 20th, 2004, 4:11pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I have to agree with towr & Pietro about these arguments. I find no philosophical argument for God even in the slightest convincing. All of them strike me as houses built on the sand of numerous assumptions, none of which are particularly verifiable.On the other hand, the exact same is true of the various philosophical arguments against God.
My philosophy is the scientific method: Does the existence of God or non-existence of God better explain the evidence I observe? More importantly, which better predicts future observations? From what I personally see, God wins this one hands down.
|
|
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
Pietro K.C.
Full Member
Gender:
Posts: 213
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #62 on: Apr 21st, 2004, 10:01am » |
Quote Modify
|
I agree with Icarus. To me, arguing against the existence of God based on your reason alone is an empty pasttime at best.
However, I can't even bring myself to use the scientific method on this issue. Arguing that something is a 'better explanation' is fine in physics and whatnot, because we always take the explanations with a grain of salt. (Better usually means simpler, and from here might ensue another long discussion of how much simpler an infinite perfect being is than any other explanation, however convoluted.) We change our explanations all the time, and we are well aware that such justifications make a theory attractive, not true.
Whenever I personally study or do math or any 'hard science' or philosopy (it's what my aptitudes limit me to), I always find myself acutely aware that it might all be nonsense, irrelevant to any objective aspect of 'reality' - if such even has any meaning. I have Socrate's motto tattooed on my brain, is my best guess (but then I can't REALLY know  ).
I have never met anyone who takes God thus, as a 'working hypothesis', which is not to say that it can't be done. I don't know if this view is inconsistent with the concept of God (I would guess it's not). The question alone of how you would act on that asumption is an intricately tied philosophical knot.
Where do you all stand on this?
(Sorry to press the point, but it's SO rare to be engaged in such an intelligent discussion of these matters - most people I've met are easily offended when asked about their reasons for faith, and the conversation stops dead.)
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 21st, 2004, 6:26pm by Pietro K.C. » |
IP Logged |
"I always wondered about the meaning of life. So I looked it up in the dictionary under 'L' and there it was --- the meaning of life. It was not what I expected." (Dogbert)
|
|
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender:
Posts: 1825
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #63 on: Apr 21st, 2004, 5:05pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I will glady answer as a believer, but first I hope my posts above (on this page) haven't been misunderstood. As I said on the first page of this thread:
on Mar 10th, 2004, 10:02am, Sir Col wrote:
"Discussions pertaining towards religious philosophies will never resolve by reason... (snip) ...Belief is entirely independent of logic, reasoning, or intelligence. If we could be persuaded one way or the other, a book would be written, we'd all read it, and we'd all believe/not believe. |
|
For me, I would emphatically declare that my faith is a mystery and, dare I say, irrational. It is not based on empirical or logical merits, but rooted in a deeper sense of truth beyond reason. What distinguishes it from fanaticism is its non-destructiveness and the very fact that it is personal.
I have read more thelogical/philosophical books than I should have done; I wish I could unlearn some of the things I have learned. As Solomon said, "For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief." [Ecclesiastes 1:18] But for all the wisdom and the wonder of our understanding (and I still find it addictive) I have never obtained even a smidgen of contentedness or the same measure of divine peace that my faith has offered.
Why do I believe? Paradoxically it is because of the lack of rational justification. The fact that I still believe despite the "proof" is proof to me that my faith is real. This is the deeper sense of truth that I talked about.
As St. Paul wrote to the Church in Corinth:
"I know very well how foolish the message of the cross sounds to those who are on the road to destruction. But we who are being saved recognise this message as the very power of God. As the Scriptures say, 'I will destroy human wisdom and discard their most brilliant ideas.' So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world's brilliant debaters? God has made them all look foolish and has shown their wisdom to be useless nonsense. Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never find him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save all who believe." [1 Corintians 1:18-21]
|
|
IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #64 on: Apr 21st, 2004, 7:05pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Sir Col - I understood that these philosophical arguments were not the basis of your belief, but simply something you are adding to the discussion (and quite appropriately).
I too would like to make sure I have not been misunderstood. I do not take God simply as a "working hypothesis". I have said before that my faith goes far beyond any scientific basis. My only point is that my faith is does not go against any scientific basis. The base for my faith is the effect God has had on my life, and on the lives of many others I know.
I agree with Pietro that it is good to be able to discuss these things with others who do not believe as I do, without having people take offense and get upset.
|
|
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
Pietro K.C.
Full Member
Gender:
Posts: 213
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #65 on: Apr 21st, 2004, 8:33pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Regarding both your faiths (I dunno if that's grammatically correct), I understand neither of you actually uses any of the 'logical' arguments as basis. I'm sorry if I gave the impression of thinking that - the regulars in this forum (the three of you in particular) are among the people I hold in highest intellectual regard.
Also, I quite agree that faith does not go against anything scientific - and if it is ever claimed that it does, I believe the notion of science will have been made too restrictive. I, for one, always want science to admit what it is: systematic, consistent, admirably simple and often beautiful guesses.
I think you have given me a deeper understanding of what 'faith' is than I've had before - plus an invigorating discussion! For that, many thanks.
|
|
IP Logged |
"I always wondered about the meaning of life. So I looked it up in the dictionary under 'L' and there it was --- the meaning of life. It was not what I expected." (Dogbert)
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #66 on: Apr 22nd, 2004, 4:38pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 21st, 2004, 8:33pm, Pietro K.C. wrote:| Also, I quite agree that faith does not go against anything scientific - and if it is ever claimed that it does, I believe the notion of science will have been made too restrictive. |
|
My sentiments almost exactly. The only change would be "faith does not go against any scientific principle". Beliefs abound that go against scientific evidence, and current scientific theory. (There are some here in the USA who insist the earth is flat and square, because the Bible talks about the "four corners of the Earth".) It is with those who try to define God out of science that I strongly dispute. With those who argue that the evidence does not support the existence of God, I disagree, but respect (unless their stance is supported by willfully ignoring or mishandling evidence).
Quote:| I, for one, always want science to admit what it is: systematic, consistent, admirably simple and often beautiful guesses. |
|
I would not go that far. Scientific theories start out as guesses, but receive more credibility as experimental confirmation mounts. Scientific theories are theories, stronger than guesses, but never, ever, "facts". This is not a weakness of science, but instead is its great strength! Which is why I don't like to see people abandon it in foolish attempts to prop up their favorite theories.
|
|
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
John_Gaughan
Uberpuzzler
Behold, the power of cheese!
 
Gender:
Posts: 767
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #67 on: Apr 22nd, 2004, 7:35pm » |
Quote Modify
|
This reminds me of the Baha'i religion. One of its tenets is that science trumps religion when they disagree.
|
|
IP Logged |
x = (0x2B | ~0x2B)
x == the_question
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #68 on: Apr 23rd, 2004, 4:57pm » |
Quote Modify
|
And unfortunately, that is exactly the sort of corruption of scientific principle that I find bothersome. Not actually for the Baha'i, because they apparently admit that this tenet is religious. But this attitude tends toward turning science into a religion, at which point it ceases to be science!
It was this exact phenomenon that led to one of the most well known science/religion clashes: the Roman Catholic church's attempted suppression of Copernican theory, and the heresy trial of Galileo. Some centuries before, Jerome (I think) reconciled Ptolemaic theory with biblical tradition, and this adoption of a scientific theory by the church led to the theory becoming religious dogma. So when more accurate observations showed that Ptolemy was wrong, it became a religious issue instead of just a scientific one. This problem was deepened by the Zoroastrian heresy - which was a real religious heresy (as defined by the Catholic church), attempting to mesh Christianity with the ancient middle eastern religion Zoroastrianism - whose supporters enthusiastically embraced Copernican theory, thereby linking it to their own cause. Had it not been for this connection (and unfortunately, one of Galileo's chief supporters was also an outspoken supporter of the Zoroastrian heresy), it is doubtful that Galileo would have been convicted, and quite possible that he never would have been charged.
While science has much application to religious study, treating its conclusions in a religious fashion is a terrible idea.
|
|
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2873
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #69 on: Apr 24th, 2004, 9:57am » |
Quote Modify
|
At the risk of stirring more controversy, my view on Science vs Religion is that Science, which consists of a process of observation and extrapolation, is very good at explaining observed facts, and the phenomena of "objective" universe in a descriptive fashion, but lacks explanatory power.
Religion, on the other hand, concerns itself largely with subjective matters and the nature of worlds beyond objective reach.
The two exist primarily on entirely separate layers of reality (to the extent reality has separate layers - I'm still looking for a better handle on the concepts involved) and, except in exceptional cases, the two don't interact. When either attempts to intrude upon the other's aspect of reality, the native, as the natural method of explanation of that aspect, should take precedence.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender:
Posts: 1825
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #70 on: Apr 24th, 2004, 3:28pm » |
Quote Modify
|
One of the many contributions that Einstein made to science, apart from his obvious scientific insights, was his ability to articulate complex ideas to the uninitiated; if anyone has read his book, Relativity, they will appreciate this.
Because of his ability to express ideas succinctly and with objectivity, I find his thoughts on religion and science fascinating. Everyone has probably heard this clever, albeit overly quoted, remark: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Like many of us, Einstein was in constant conflict over what he knew and what he believed. He said, "The mind can proceed only so far upon what it knows and can prove. There comes a point where the mind takes a higher plane of knowledge, but can never prove how it got there. All great discoveries have involved such a leap."
Despite his respect for religion, it seems that Einstein did not believe in a personal God.
But perhaps most interesting were his own words that were quoted in his obituary (New York Times, 19 April 1955):
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible Universe, forms my idea of God."
I found this excellent website by the physicist, Professor Arnold V. Lesikar, that records some of Einstein's thoughts on the whole subject of God, religion, and science.
http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/index.html
|
|
IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
Three Hands
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 715
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #71 on: Apr 25th, 2004, 6:45am » |
Quote Modify
|
I think Kirkegaard summarised the problem with looking for rational explanations for God with "Faith begins where reason leaves off". Basically, although an argument for the existence of God might appear to be rational to an individual, if you look closely enough at it, there will be some points at which you have made assumptions. This is not to say you are wrong about your beliefs, just that they are not based on a rationally sound argument. One of the best example of apparant rationalisation I've found is from C. S. Lewis, where on various occasions in the Narnia series people's fundamental beliefs about what is going on differ from others (Uncle Andrew not being able to understand the beasts talking to him in The Magician's Nephew, Eustace believing that they were sailing through a storm in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, and the dwarfs unable to see Aslan in the stable in The Last Battle are the three that spring to mind). In each case, these characters believe that their rationalisations are perfectly sensible, while others around them just feel they are being silly.
I generally dislike the idea of basing a belief in God because it is likely that such a being exists. After all, what use is 75% of a God? Also, basing your belief in God on a "risk assessment" like Pascal's wager also appears to me to miss the point of a belief in God. Generally, people either believe completely that God exists, believe completely that God doesn't exist, or honestly don't know what they believe about God. The consequences of such beliefs generally don't matter in terms of whether they believe or not, and probabilities are something of a temptation only to those who aren't sure, and is not going to affect their beliefs about God significantly. Of course, several people may well feel that they can rationalise their beliefs, but the arguments tend to either make a large jump which is not logically justified (e.g. "A first cause exists, and this first cause is God" in the First Cause argument) or turn out to be a circular argument (Descartes' Reconstruction in the Meditations, shortly after the Cogito is a good example of this). Tihs doesn't mean that the conclusions are necessarily wrong, just that the arguments don't prove the issue.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender:
Posts: 1825
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #72 on: Apr 25th, 2004, 8:55am » |
Quote Modify
|
Greetings Three Hands, and welcome to the forum!
You make an excellent point about "proofs" for the existence of God: "...if you look closely enough at it, there will be some points at which you have made assumptions."
I'm a little curious as to why you think that Aristotle's Prime Mover is "not logically justified", or Descartes' construction of God from a premise of doubt is "circular"?
For those who are unfamiliar with Descartes' work, here is a summary of his thinking. I will present it in the first person, and once more, I remind people that I am only the messenger of ideas...
The senses can deceive, so who is to say that everything I perceive is not the creation of some "demon"?
As a result, everything must be doubted; this would include my very own existence.
(now for the reconstruction)
The very fact that I am able to doubt my own existence means that I am thinking, therefore (at least) I exist (cogito ergo sum).
In other words, I can be sure, at least, of my own existence.
(now for God)
To know is greater than to doubt, so I cannot be perfect.
I cannot be God, otherwise I would have made myself perfect and without doubt.
I have an idea of what it is to be perfect, and it must come from somewhere.
As I am imperfect I cannot have invented the idea of perfection, so it must come from God.
Therefore, God exists!
He then goes on to conclude that, as God is perfect, he is not capable of deceiving us.
Clearly there are a number of problems with his argument, and we haven't even gone on to see how he proves that bodies, and the world, exists.
You will recall that I mentioned eariler that Descartes was a strong proponent of the Ontological argument, and he has, in effect, used this method in his "proof". However, I think it is more difficult to dispose of Descartes argument, as his method is subtlely different.
Most importantly, other philosophers/theologians, like Pascal, insisted that the statement, "God is perfect," is meaningless. Pascal argued that our thoughts and ideas are finite and, by definition, are limited. Perfection suggests to be without limit and beyond all bounds. How can a finite being comprehend what it means to be perfect? The notion of perfection is both abstract and intangible to us, therefore any argument that starts with a premise of perfection will lead to uncertainty.
|
|
IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #73 on: Apr 25th, 2004, 10:22am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 25th, 2004, 8:55am, Sir Col wrote:(now for God)
To know is greater than to doubt, so I cannot be perfect.
I cannot be God, otherwise I would have made myself perfect and without doubt. |
|
I don't see why this should be true. Maybe God wouldn't want to be perfect and without doubt, and thus make himself imperfect and with doubt (if nothing else it'd be a way to deal with the monotonity of omniscience and omnipotence).
Quote:| I have an idea of what it is to be perfect, and it must come from somewhere. |
|
imagination, delusion, maybe?
Quote:| As I am imperfect I cannot have invented the idea of perfection, |
|
Why not? The person who created the (idea of the) wheel wasn't a wheel either..
Quote:| so it must come from God. |
|
How does that follow?
Quote:Therefore, God exists!
He then goes on to conclude that, as God is perfect, he is not capable of deceiving us. |
|
If God is perfect he can do everything, which must include deceiving us. If God is incapable of anything (except perhaps making mistakes) then he isn't perfect.
And clearly in leaving us in doubt we are deceived anyway.
Quote:| Clearly there are a number of problems with his argument |
|
No kidding..
I suppose he must have had some better ideas for people to take him seriously..
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Speaker
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 1118
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #74 on: Apr 26th, 2004, 12:43am » |
Quote Modify
|
Why does perfection suggest to be without limit? Couldn't there be a perfect pebble? A pebble that is complete and without flaw in its pebbleness.
And, doesn't it say in the Bible someplace that God can and will deceive us. Does telling a lie indicate imperfection? I do not think that it does. God is unfathomable. So in what way is He perfect? I do not know. His perfection could include something that we think is imperfect (because we do not understand). All his pictures have gray hair, which is probably not perfect, or is it.
And, an old joke from my grammar school days.
Q: If God the creator is all powerful, can he create a rock so big that he cannot lift it?
Sure he can. And then, he can also create a lever to lift the rock. He created physics afterall..
|
|
IP Logged |
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. <Ben Franklin>
|
|
|
|
RIDDLES SITE
WRITE MATH!
Home 
Help 
Search 
Members 
Login 
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print