Hey!

I was looking for a group like this! :D

Greetings one and all.

What was that about, jclements?

I've heard a little about the flying spagetthi monster.

That was me being something of an ass posting what could be considered an inflammatory article.

I wasn't attempting to hijack your thread but it went a week without any reponses, so I thought I'd incite a little conversation.

I'm not religious, but I wish Richard Dawkins would just STFU, really. The whole science v. religion debate is more irritating than anything else. Besides, as far as I see it, science isn't as immeasurably superior to religion as many so-called scientists would have us believe. In many instances, science itself can come across as being a religion, exhibiting the same faults those on the hardline of this tedious debate would point out in religion.

See the way "scientists" often ignore or dismiss what they can't explain within science's current limits. OIr have a look at some of the ideas at the frontier of physics - they're not "science", they're philosophical - and yes, bordering on the mystical. Many of the even basic ideas are physics are taken for granted, assumed to be true without there necessarily being any good reason for believing this to be the case.

Richard Dawkins says that faith is "evil", but this only serves to weaken his point and diminish his credibility. There's nothing evil about faith, only in the way in which it can be used (historically, as a form of social control, for example). But ain't that the same with science?

Here's the thing:

Science is based on facts.
Religion is based on faith.

They're apples and oranges, folks.

"Science is based on facts"

Only to some extent. As I said previously - the further you go into physics, the less it is based on facts, and the more philosophical and mystical it becomes. Science is also VERY fixed in what it regards as being "facts", often dismissing perfectly valid views that go against currently held prejudices. In fact, a great many of the "facts" in science are actually based on unverified (sometime possibly unverifiable) assumptions.

Richard, thanks for the reply. Also, FFS, we've effectively hijacked your thread. If you'd like us to take this elsewhere, just say so and we can create a new one.

I have quite a few questions for you, Richard. Most of which are requests for examples. (I sometimes have a difficult time staying on-topic. Let's see how I do.)

"In many instances, science itself can come across as being a religion..."

I can somewhat see this. Most avenues of modern science have become so specialized that it can require years of study to understand the significance current research. Lacking the knowledge to determine the validity of a claim does require you to take the scientists claim basically on faith. E.g. - Does the fusiform gyrus actually govern our ability to recognize human faces? How the hell would you even know what that is without having an interest in the field?

I think an incorrect assumption is being made here, though. In my experience, no one is asking you to take anything on faith; if you're genuinely curious, try it out for youself. Now, as I said earlier, without years of study and possibly access to labs or equipment, this effectively means most people will never have the opportunity. And this is okay, because you don't need to understand or accept everything from thermodynamics to string theory to properly appreciate the problems with religous faith.

"See the way "scientists" often ignore or dismiss what they can't explain within science's current limits."

I'd have to ask for examples of this. Anyone who ignores what they can't explain doesn't sound like a scientist to me. Curiousity about the unexplained is the primary motivation for most good scientists.

"Many of the even basic ideas are physics are taken for granted..."

Like what? Every student on the planet who could reasonably be called a physicist performed similar experiments to learn the basic forces that govern our existance. The beauty of science is that ideas that are widely accepted are verifiable; that is, if you don't believe it, test it for yourself. The "science fairs" that schools have every year are the most basic examples of this.

"the further you go into physics, the less it is based on facts, and the more philosophical and mystical it becomes."

Well, who says you have to believe it? If it doesn't make sense to you, I would say that it's only reasonable for you not to believe it (or at least withhold judgement until you have more or better information). And yeah, there are some pretty weird ideas floating around the upper echelons of the physics world. Most of them are in the category commonly referred to as Theoretical Physics, supported only by mathematical or empirical abstractions.

So yeah, if people who do this stuff for a living argue about it, then I don't think anyone expects the average person to intelligently differentiate between current theories. Again, I don't see how this affects the science/religion debate, either.

"In fact, a great many of the "facts" in science are actually based on unverified (sometime possibly unverifiable) assumptions."

I have to say that this is categorically false. A "fact", such as they exist in the world of science, must be a testable and verifiable result of a test or experiment. SJ Gould put much more eloquently that I ever could:

"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
- Stephen Jay Gould

Hopefully I haven't come across as combative, as it is certainly not my intention. Also, I hope I haven't scattered my thoughts to the point that none of this makes sense. Anyway, thanks again for the reply and hopefully we can have a focused discussion.

"Richard, thanks for the reply. Also, FFS, we've effectively hijacked your thread. If you'd like us to take this elsewhere, just say so and we can create a new one"

Yes, I was wondering if there's maybe a more appropriate group - something for discussing science, philosophy etc.?


"I think an incorrect assumption is being made here, though. In my experience, no one is asking you to take anything on faith; if you're genuinely curious, try it out for youself. Now, as I said earlier, without years of study and possibly access to labs or equipment, this effectively means most people will never have the opportunity. And this is okay, because you don't need to understand or accept everything from thermodynamics to string theory to properly appreciate the problems with religous faith."

My point was merely that some scientists do believe in certain things that have not a scrap of supporting evidence and, as far as we know, may never have (e.g. parallel universes). They may have perfectly good reasons for believing that such things do exist, but it still seems to be a matter of faith. Personally, I don't see any difference between supporting the existence of parallel universes and supporting the existence of God (some physicists even manage both).

As for religious faith: I tend to view it as more of a moral framework than anything else. So long as it isn't used to further selfish agendas, or to hurt others (which, sadly, it often has - and is), I don't see it as having any problems. I would agree, however, that science has been far more successful in describing the nature of the universe than has religion. But, there again, the two aren't necessarily incompatible - a physicist can, for example, accept evolution, but still believe that God created the universe. I do believe that science isn't as comprehensive as many people seem to think it is, though, and that, like most earthly myths, many religious ones could also have a grain of truth in them. I certainly find Eastern philosophies about the nature of the universe more insightful than commonly-held Western ones.


"I'd have to ask for examples of this. Anyone who ignores what they can't explain doesn't sound like a scientist to me. Curiousity about the unexplained is the primary motivation for most good scientists."

The most obvious example, though not necessarily the best for our purposes, would be ghosts, and other paranormal phenomena. Now, before I go on, I'll state that I don't doubt for a second that most "ghostly" activity has a more earthly explanation - whether it be panicky misinterpretation of perfectly normal phenomena, or whatever. But, there *is* a body evidence substantial enough to warrant serious consideration - even if 1% of documented ghost sightings are genuinely supernatural, that's a pretty hefty number. I think the problem is, most scientists can't begin to think how to accomodate such things as ghosts into their worldview, and so, rather than stopping to think whether that worldview is actually complete, or needs stretching in certain directions, they dismiss the notion. Whereas I think there's plenty of space to accomodate such things if we're not too rigid in our thinking about the nature of reality, and consciousness. As far as I'm concerned, any "supernatural" occurances genuinely unresolvable within our current understanding of the universe are indicative of a need for us to expand our thinking. Maybe there are no "genuine" ghosts after all, and we're pretty much spot on with our understanding of the universe. But, if we dismiss ideas and notions *just because they at first seem to be irreconciliable with current understanding*, we're holding ourselves back.


"Like what? Every student on the planet who could reasonably be called a physicist performed similar experiments to learn the basic forces that govern our existance. The beauty of science is that ideas that are widely accepted are verifiable; that is, if you don't believe it, test it for yourself. The "science fairs" that schools have every year are the most basic examples of this."

The assumptions I was thinking of are of a more fundamental level than the derivative macroscopic theories we can demonstrate at science fairs etc. Examples: the idea that all phenomena can be reduced to fundamental particles, and that human knowledge is most fundamentally concerned with mathetical prediction of statistical aggregates of particles; that the Cartesian co-ordinate system is the deepest conception of underlying order as a basis for analysis and description of the universe; that there's a distinction between thought and reality; that a given analysis or description of reality can be unlimited in its field of relevance... and so on... These, and other things, are some very basic assumptions, around which modern physics is hinged. All of them have been challenged (David Bohm challenged them quite persuasively with his "implicate order" theory, for example), but they're rather blindly taken for granted by many. For example: what reason do we have to believe that there actually *is* a distinction between thought and reality, other than the way we *perceive* both?


"Well, who says you have to believe it? If it doesn't make sense to you, I would say that it's only reasonable for you not to believe it (or at least withhold judgement until you have more or better information). And yeah, there are some pretty weird ideas floating around the upper echelons of the physics world. Most of them are in the category commonly referred to as Theoretical Physics, supported only by mathematical or empirical abstractions."

I wasn't commenting on my own views about such things, but, as I've just said above, simply saying that some physicists *do* accept the existence of things they have no evidence for. They may have perfectly good reasons - just as a Christian, say, may make a persuasive argument for the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent God. But both, without supporting evidence, is a matter of faith. What's the difference between a scientist's faith and a religious person's faith, if neither of their claims can be falsified?

Whether *I* believe in any of the things theoretical physics has to offer is beside the point. Sure, I'm not compelled to accept any of them (though some of them I do anyway), just as I'm not forced to believe in God, or any other deity.


"So yeah, if people who do this stuff for a living argue about it, then I don't think anyone expects the average person to intelligently differentiate between current theories. Again, I don't see how this affects the science/religion debate, either"

Hopefully, you do now? I would also say that the basic concepts and reasoning behind even the most revolutionary ideas can be - and are - accessible to anyone of reasonable intelligence. Which is why there's a market for popular science books, like Hyperspace, Parallel Worlds, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, The Universe Next Door... etc. (if you've not read any of them, check them on my books list, and track any of them down, if you're interested).


"I have to say that this is categorically false. A "fact", such as they exist in the world of science, must be a testable and verifiable result of a test or experiment. SJ Gould put much more eloquently that I ever could:" {Quote snipped}

I've already answered this above, with the "basic assumptions" :-)


"Hopefully I haven't come across as combative, as it is certainly not my intention. Also, I hope I haven't scattered my thoughts to the point that none of this makes sense. Anyway, thanks again for the reply and hopefully we can have a focused discussion."

Combative? Nah, not at all, squire :-) And you've probably made more sense, and been more focussed than I have!


[To "Jesus Freaks" members - like jclements said; sorry to have "hijacked" your thread. Hopefully, you might find it of some interest. It'd certainly be interesting to hear the thoughts on any of this, from some people who *are* religious]

(Tom - can I have 20 points for that post? ;-p)

Hey Richard, I created a Philosophy group so we can quit crowding this guy's table. Will respond to your post a soon as work allows. Thanks again for the reply.

Okey doke (and no problem :-D)

Um, thanks.......

Hey im new anyone wanna talk wit me!!!!!!!!!!!!

hiya huns
how r u