Taking Science on Faith

[jakee 1,379]

Quote

Quote

You can imagine all kinds of similiaritys, but that's all they are, imagined.

Everything in the world is imagined. Do you think a rock is really solid? Do you think you see things as they actually are? Do you really believe that it is possible to experience now? When are our imaginings reality and when are they not? All we have are our explanations, and they serve us no better (or worse) than they did the prisoners in Plato's cave.

I'm trying to see how this is at all relevant, but I just can't. t seems like this is such an overused fall back position...

"I think you're wrong"
"No I'm not"
"Yes you are"
"You can't say I'm wrong because reality is just a construct!"

Gets us absolutely nowhere.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[beowulf 1]

Quote

>Let me shine a big bright light in your eyes. Don't worry you aren't really
>seeing it your imagining it, so it really doesn't hurt, your imagining the
>pain.

Let me shine an IR laser in your eyes. You won't see anything (even afterwards!) and it won't hurt, so don't worry; it can't possibly do any harm.

I'll be right there BillVon. Send me your address. Sight is so over rated.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

How is that useful for anything?

Who said it was useful for anything? It's interesting; that's all.

Quote

Religion is what people imagined to create a structured world around them and to explain what they didn't understand.

Sounds a lot like science. The methodology is (significantly) different, but the goals are largely the same.

The only thing we know for certain is that we don't know anything for certain. Sooner or later science will even come to understand the determining cause of what is now considered to be random positions of particles. Eventually, quantum theory and/or relativity will be abandoned for something more consistent between cosmological and quantum scales, that models things more accurately.

The theories change, but the explanations sometimes stay pretty much the same, western interpretations involving bearded men meddling in the affairs of humans notwithstanding.

I'm really surprised to find such insecurities about similarities in explanations between ancient religions and modern science. Is it not the same natural world being explained? Explanations are nothing but convenience in science, an aid to visualization. The credibility of science lies in the theory, the means of predictions.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jakee 1,379]

Quote

Sounds a lot like science. The methodology is (significantly) different, but the goals are largely the same.

Methodology is what defines science. Not the search itself, but the way the search is conducted. That's why it's called the scientific method!

Quote

The theories change, but the explanations sometimes stay pretty much the same,

You haven't yet actually shown any eastern religious explanation that is similar to a modern scientific explanation for the same phenomena.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Methodology is what defines science. Not the search itself, but the way the search is conducted. That's why it's called the scientific method!

I've not claimed otherwise.

Quote

You haven't yet actually shown any eastern religious explanation that is similar to a modern scientific explanation for the same phenomena.

You might be surprised to find that light is energy.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jakee 1,379]

Quote

Quote

Methodology is what defines science. Not the search itself, but the way the search is conducted. That's why it's called the scientific method!

I've not claimed otherwise.

Yes you have. You said it sounds like science except for the methodology. Without the methodology there is no science - it's simply a contradiction in terms. You're either doing science, or just making stuff up.

Quote

Quote

You haven't yet actually shown any eastern religious explanation that is similar to a modern scientific explanation for the same phenomena.

You might be surprised to find that light is energy.

It's hardly the same energy that they're talking about, and hardly the same duality.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Nice history lesson. I was referring to the conversion of Constantine, the Roman Emperor ( 306-337CE), in 312 and his subsequent declaration of Christianity as the official faith of the Roman Empire.

Official. OK, I'll buy that.

BTW, not being condescending. Just think it is good to share, and guessing that not everyone knows.

Didn't Constantine "convert" merely as part of his power stuggle with the Maxentians and Maximinus? I don't think there's any evidence that he was actually a believer in anything except his own political interests.

The stuff I've read indicates he might have been posturing initially, but that he did become a true believer at some later point.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Yes you have. You said it sounds like science except for the methodology. Without the methodology there is no science - it's simply a contradiction in terms. You're either doing science, or just making stuff up.

Are you denying that the purpose of science is to better understand the world around us? The methodology is what makes science different, but the questions are much older than DesCartes.

Quote

It's hardly the same energy that they're talking about, and hardly the same duality.

Enlighten us. To what energy were they referring?

You're trying to make it sound like I claim religion and science are the same, and have reached the same conclusions. I've said nothing similar to that. I've said that there are religious explanations that are similar to some scientific explanations (but specifically not scientific theory). That doesn't lessen the validity of science, nor does it strengthen the case for religion. It is, nonetheless, interesting (at least for some) to note the similarities.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[pirana 0]

Quote

Everything in the world is imagined. Do you think a rock is really solid? Do you think you see things as they actually are? Do you really believe that it is possible to experience now? When are our imaginings reality and when are they not? All we have are our explanations, and they serve us no better (or worse) than they did the prisoners in Plato's cave.

I'd suggest you drop a really big one on your toe to find out.

Otherwise this post is the perfect opening for the warning to "Put the elephant bong down."

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Everything in the world is imagined. Do you think a rock is really solid? Do you think you see things as they actually are? Do you really believe that it is possible to experience now? When are our imaginings reality and when are they not? All we have are our explanations, and they serve us no better (or worse) than they did the prisoners in Plato's cave.

I'd suggest you drop a really big one on your toe to find out.

Otherwise this post is the perfect opening for the warning to "Put the elephant bong down."

I'm guessing that you have either never read Plato's Allegory of the Cave, or it has been a LONG time since you read it. Otherwise, you would see the irony of your post!

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[pirana 0]

Quote

The duality concept in religion, most often of the masculine and feminine energies, in comparison to the dual nature (particle/wave) of light is but one obvious example.

Sorry, off the top of my head I can't remember the Hindu name for the duality concept, but Taoism refers to it as yin and yang.

What is obvious to who?

So if you compare the masculine/feminine duality of religion with the wave/particle duality of light, you get what? Maybe the recognition that you've identified 2 dualities that have absolutely nothing to do with each other? Or are you trying to say the theorists that first elucidated the wave/particle duality were basing it on the feminine/masculine duality.

It's like comparing Wil E. Coyote to Jeb Bush. What is the point? Let's say the answer is Jeb Bush. Huh?

In other words, what about them are you comparing?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[jakee 1,379]

Quote

Quote

Yes you have. You said it sounds like science except for the methodology. Without the methodology there is no science - it's simply a contradiction in terms. You're either doing science, or just making stuff up.

Are you denying that the purpose of science is to better understand the world around us? The methodology is what makes science different, but the questions are much older than DesCartes.

No I'm not denying the purpose of it, but to say that religion sounds a lot like science because they both attempt to explain things is completely disingenuous. To say 'except for the methodology' when methodology is the defining characteristic of science is mind boggling.

Quote

Quote

It's hardly the same energy that they're talking about, and hardly the same duality.

Enlighten us. To what energy were they referring?

You're trying to make it sound like I claim religion and science are the same, and have reached the same conclusions. I've said nothing similar to that. I've said that there are religious explanations that are similar to some scientific explanations (but specifically not scientific theory). That doesn't lessen the validity of science, nor does it strengthen the case for religion. It is, nonetheless, interesting (at least for some) to note the similarities.

You've also taken umbrage at the suggestion that the similarities are only superficial (which, in the only example you've so for provided, they are). Unless you can show some writing on yin and yang that explicity uses the concept to explain properties of light then my sheep/cloud analogy is spot on.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

So if you compare the masculine/feminine duality of energy with the wave/particle duality of light, you get what?…are you trying to say the theorists that first elucidated the wave/particle duality were basing it on the feminine/masculine duality.

I'm not saying anything like that, but there are sure enough people trying to put words into my mouth.

I said there were similarities in the explanations, and that it is interesting to note. I didn't say one had anything to do with the other beyond the fact that both science and religion attempt to explain the world around us.

Quote

In other words, what about them are you comparing?

Nothing, you are reading way too much into my posts.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Everything in the world is imagined. Do you think a rock is really solid? Do you think you see things as they actually are? Do you really believe that it is possible to experience now? When are our imaginings reality and when are they not? All we have are our explanations, and they serve us no better (or worse) than they did the prisoners in Plato's cave.

I'd suggest you drop a really big one on your toe to find out.

Otherwise this post is the perfect opening for the warning to "Put the elephant bong down."

I'm guessing that you have either never read Plato's Allegory of the Cave, or it has been a LONG time since you read it. Otherwise, you would see the irony of your post!

Yes, and I am familiar with all kinds of tricks and stories to demonstrate how our perceptions can be deceiving. I agree it is good to be cautious, but to be paralyzed to the point of denying the obvious is just silly. We could take the idea to an extreme and end up with a tautology about knowing nothing and being unable to prove anything.

Nice thought experiment, and utterly useless.

A better experiment still would be for someone to drop a big rock on your foot - somehow totally unbeknownst to you. I'll bet you still scream quite loudly. That should settle the rock-is-solid issue.

What else you got?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

No I'm not denying the purpose of it, but to say that religion sounds a lot like science because they both attempt to explain things is completely disingenuous. To say 'except for the methodology' when methodology is the defining characteristic of science is mind boggling.

More accurately, I said that your description of purpose of religion sounded similar to the purpose of science. I'm having trouble understanding why that is such a difficult concept for you to understand.

How is it mind boggling to note that science an religion both seek to explain the world around us but their methodologies are different?

Quote

You've also taken umbrage at the suggestion that the similarities are only superficial (which, in the only example you've so for provided, they are). Unless you can show some writing on yin and yang that explicity uses the concept to explain properties of light then my sheep/cloud analogy is spot on.

If you can't see the difference between comparing two explanations of energy, and comparing a sheep and a cloud, then I'm not sure I can explain it to you.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jakee 1,379]

Quote

I'm guessing that you have either never read Plato's Allegory of the Cave, or it has been a LONG time since you read it. Otherwise, you would see the irony of your post!

That you seem to think you know exactly what the allegory of the cave means is also quite ironic.

(BTW, the way you crowbarred the first reference into the thread seemed quite forced, are we supposed to be impressed that you've read the Republic?)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

A better experiment still would be for someone to drop a big rock on your foot - somehow totally unbeknownst to you. I'll bet you still scream quite loudly. That should settle the rock-is-solid issue.

What else you got?

How would that settle the "rock-is-solid" issue? The rock isn't solid. Even while consisting primarily of empty space, the rock has energy, and can exert force in interaction with other energetic spaces. Did someone deny that rocks conform to Newton's third law while I wasn't looking?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

That you seem to think you know exactly what the allegory of the cave means is also quite ironic.

It was tough to understand Plato's explicit explanation.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[JackC 0]

Quote

How would that settle the "rock-is-solid" issue? The rock isn't solid. Even while consisting primarily of empty space, the rock has energy, and can exert force in interaction with other energetic spaces. Did someone deny that rocks conform to Newton's third law while I wasn't looking?

You seem to have a very non-standard definition of "solid". Not to mention a very non-scientific definition of the word "energy" (possibly the most misused word of all in these science/religion crossover debates).

This is the problem with comparing concepts in the hard sciences with esoteric philosophies of religion and mysticism and is the exact point I made earlier. Science has very strict rules on what is and what isn't energy. People take a very tortuous definition of scientific "energy" and try to force it to fit the esoteric mystic "energy". It's pure 100% bollocks because they aren't even the same concept, let alone the same "stuff". Pop science books do more harm than good sometimes.

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

Correct again. But we all know how the devotees of those religions turn out, except maybe skydiving.

Can i just say .. Charlse Manson (aka Jesus Christ)

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

You seem to have a very non-standard definition of "solid".

The definition I was using for solid was: "not hollow or containing spaces or gaps". Wasn't it Ernest Rutherford that first demonstrated that (Au) atoms were not solid by this definition?

Quote

Not to mention a very non-scientific definition of the word "energy" (possibly the most misused word of all in these science/religion crossover debates).

Is electro-magnetic radiation not energy? Hmmm…kinetic, potential, thermal, mass, chemical, nuclear, etc.- it seems that science's definition of energy is sufficiently broad.

Quote

This is the problem with comparing concepts in the hard sciences with esoteric philosophies of religion and mysticism and is the exact point I made earlier. Science has very strict rules on what is and what isn't energy.

I agree. Science has (usually) strict definitions of things, which is important to maintain scientific methodology. Out of curiosity, what doesn't science consider energy? Mass (resting) is energy divided by the square of the speed of light, momentum is energy per velocity unit, velocity is the square root of energy per mass unit, etc.

Quote

It's pure 100% bollocks because they aren't even the same concept, let alone the same "stuff".

You might be surprised to find that many ancient religions considered the sun a major source of energy. Of course if that's "pure 100% bollocks", then I guess in your opinion, as a theoretical physicist, we receive no energy from the sun, right?

Just as science considers some things energy that mystics wouldn't, and mystics consider some things (likely far fewer, considering E_0=m·c²) energy that physicists don't, there are also things that both groups would agree to be energy.

Quote

Pop science books do more harm than good sometimes.

As do scientists who appear so insecure about the validity of their field they are afraid to acknowledge similarities with fields with which they have absolutely nothing in common except for asking some of the same questions about some of the same stuff.

I confess that I find the reflexive denial of such trivial similarities quite baffling, and quite inconsistent with a scientific outlook. It's too much like someone arguing that my conclusion that the sky is blue is wholly different from a scientific conclusion that the sky is blue, because I arrived at my conclusion by comparing the sky to crayons and found the crayon labeled blue to offer the closest match instead of measuring the wavelength of the light wave (or momentum of the photons) reflected back from the atmospheric gases. That one method is scientific does not change the fact that the same conclusion can be reached with an unrelated, and possibly invalid, method.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

Many of us have studied the principles taught in the major and minor faiths that abound around the world. Although very interesting with many common themes, the Christian faith is the only one that adequately deals with the issue of sin.

Utter rubbish, let me “adequately” deal with the issue of sin…

So according to the Christianity’s version of “original sin” we are all born with the hereditary stain of sin due to the belief that we are descendants of Adam, who committed the first sin by eating the fruit of the forbidden tree.

Now God had said, 'you shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'" (Genesis 3:3)

So, the original sin was disobedience, mistrust, and disloyalty against God.

Now this is the fundamental underpinning of particularly the Christian dogma, as story is that Christ son of god came to earth and died to free us from this sin, so without Adam and Eve and the original sin, then the story of Christ is pointless and meaningless, and Christianity is nothing more than a fable…

Oh dear……….

So, God creates Adam and Eve, he creates them without knowledge of good or evil, right or wrong. He pits them in a Garden, and creates a tree whose fruit gives them the Knowledge of Good and Evil (probably through some god magic).

God tells them not to eat the fruit or they will DIE…

Now, as Adam and Eve don't have the faintest idea of right and wrong, they don't know it's a Bad Idea to disobey God .The only way they can gain this knowledge is by.... Eating from the Tree!

To make matter worse, Adam and Eve were threatened with the punishment of death. How can this be any sort of threat? There was no death in The Garden - they had never witnessed it, and would probably have a hard time grasping the concept anyway. So, they were told not to do something (and had no way of knowing that disobedience was bad), otherwise something would happen to them (and they had no idea what that was, or whether it was a good or bad thing to happen anyway).. "We'll die? What does that mean? Maybe it's fun!"

Now on top off all that we know that Adam and Eve never existed, and that we are not all descendants of them, (lets ignore that the burden of proof is with those that assert they were real, currently we are all waiting still for this proof). We know this because of real evidence, this from multiple lines of evidence from biology and palaeontology which provides an altogether different picture of human origins, namely our arising from a common evolutionary ancestor dating back around 7 million years or so, which gave rise to two lineages - one lineage producing the chimpanzees and bonobos, the other giving rise to the hominids including us. As well as the fossil record, which contains numerous fossil hominids.

Now since that story is invalid, the idea that Jesus died in order to forgive us for their "Original sin" is laughable, because by all accounts this sin event never took place, and therefore the bible and the fables in it are just that, fables..

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[maadmax 0]

--Utter rubbish, let me “adequately” deal with the issue of sin…"(.................. ............ .......................................................................) "
Now since that story is invalid, the idea that Jesus died in order to forgive us for their "Original sin" is laughable, because by all accounts this sin event never took place, and therefore the bible and the fables in it are just that, fables..

[JackC 0]

Quote

The definition I was using for solid was: "not hollow or containing spaces or gaps". Wasn't it Ernest Rutherford that first demonstrated that (Au) atoms were not solid by this definition?

There is a branch of physics called "soild state physics" that deals with, you guessed it, solids. The sort of solids that Rutherford discovered actually had gaps in them. Physicists use the word solid because that's a pretty good description of what it is, despite Rutherford's "gaps". In strict physics terms, the phrase "soild state" actually refers to anything that isn't a gas or a plasma but that will just confuse the issue so forget I mentioned it.

On an atomic scale, solids do have gaps in them but they are "quantum gaps". They are not macroscopic gaps or even what most people would consider to be a gap. You cannot drive you car through a "quantum gap" nor can you poke your finger through one. "Quantum gaps" only allow quantum particles to pass through. Rutherford didn't use golf balls in his experiment, he used alpha particles. Alpha particles are quantum particles, not golf balls. They behave like alpha particles, they do not behave like golf balls. You can diffract alpha particle, you cannot diffract golf balls. Or cats (I could tell you why but it's a bad joke and a long story)

If we take your definition of solid, not only will physicists have to work hard to decypher what you're talking about but in fact there can be no earth bound solids. You'd have to travel to the nearest neutron star to find anything that you would even recognise as being "a bit firm".

If you want to carry on with your definition, go right ahead but don't expect people to understand you.

Quote

Is electro-magnetic radiation not energy? Hmmm…kinetic, potential, thermal, mass, chemical, nuclear, etc.- it seems that science's definition of energy is sufficiently broad.

That's not the energy I was refering to which is the exact problem with using the same word for mystic energy* as you do for scientific energy (mystic energy* will henceforth be denoted by an asterisk).

To quote you "The duality concept in religion, most often of the masculine and feminine energies*, ... Taoism refers to it as yin and yang."

Note the asterisk. This is the type of energy* that is not energy but is a completely different concept.

Quote

Out of curiosity, what doesn't science consider energy?

Mass is not energy, momentum is not energy, velocity is not energy, coal is not energy, rock is not energy and energy* is not energy. All of those things (except energy*) may possess energy or have a mathematical relationship to energy but they are not energy.

Quote

You might be surprised to find that many ancient religions considered the sun a major source of energy. Of course if that's "pure 100% bollocks", then I guess in your opinion, as a theoretical physicist, we receive no energy from the sun, right?

No, the sun does have energy. It does not have energy*, or if it does then I don't know anything about it.

Quote

I confess that I find the reflexive denial of such trivial similarities quite baffling,

It's not these trivial similarities that are being denied. In fact I am asserting that these similarities are just that. Trivial. The thing I'm denying, is that these similarities are non-trivial as you originally tried to suggest. But I'm glad we have now agreed that any similarity between concepts in hard science and concepts in eastern religion are trivial.


Synonyms for trivial include:
commonplace, diminutive, evanescent, everyday, flimsy, frivolous, immaterial, inappreciable, incidental, inconsequential, inconsiderable, insignificant, irrelevant, little, meager, mean, meaningless, microscopic, minor, minute, momentary, negligible, nonessential, nugatory, paltry, petty, piddling, puny, rinky-dink, scanty, skin-deep, slight, small, small-town, superficial, trifling, trite, two-bit, unimportant, valueless, vanishing, wee, worthless

I'm glad we cleared that up.

[jakee 1,379]

Quote

I have found the literature produced by genetic anthropologists, mapping the and migration of Homosapien sapiens, very interesting. According to them, tracing the mitochondrial DNA passed by mothers and the Y chromosomal DNA passed by fathers, everyone alive today has descended from one breeding pair of our Homosapien sapien ancestors.

Correct in some respects, but misleading in others.

If you go far enough back you will find people who are common ancestors of everyone alive today. However this is not in any way a suggestion that there is one pair of human ancestors that are the sole ancestors of humanity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor

Quote

As far as the original sin, I have understood the story to be a description of how sin is committed. The initial act is self-deification, from there , the individual grants themselves the rights and privileges of a supreme being, masters of their created reality. In this state they are justified to do or take what ever they want with a clear conscience. These individuals usually act covertly since exposure of their deeds can carry undesirable consequences.

"These individuals"? The whole point of original sin is that it taints everybody.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?