Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Albert Einstein's True Religious Beliefs Revealed
guardian.co.uk — In the letter, he states: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
sleepyjjk- 5681 diggs
- digg it
- rikkizenith, on 05/13/2008, -148/+643spoken like a true genius.
- ePuck, on 05/13/2008, -125/+20He retracted all the things he said about the supernatural on his deathbed.
- jcastillo81, on 05/13/2008, -11/+92source?
- johnsaulrubio, on 05/13/2008, -12/+76Probably his pastor.
- BoonTobias, on 05/13/2008, -9/+14last thing einstein said on his deathbed
lulz religion - JapaneseEconomy, on 05/13/2008, -3/+6I think you meant his rabbi.
- BoonTobias, on 05/13/2008, -9/+14last thing einstein said on his deathbed
- mal1964, on 05/13/2008, -43/+14In 1917, Albert Einstein added a fudge-factor to his theory of general relativity in order to balance the attractive force of gravity. After Edwin Hubble showed the universe is actually expanding, Einstein retracted his cosmological constant, which he called his greatest blunder. Now, a survey of distant supernovae reveals that dark energy — the mysterious force accelerating cosmic expansion — behaves like Einstein's constant to a precision of 10 percent.
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=3 ...- consoneo, on 05/13/2008, -4/+53Nice, but completely irrelevant to the post you replied to..
- mal1964, on 05/13/2008, -39/+2@consoneo
Oh you think so? - sandburn, on 05/13/2008, -3/+28agreed. irrelevant.
and 10% is ***** for scientific accuracy - PawnsOfJoshua, on 05/13/2008, -23/+7I love how people quote theoretical physics as scientific fact. Very similar to the way that various religions quote their scriptures as unequivocal truths.
- mal1964, on 05/13/2008, -5/+7@sand,
I was just playing around, But 10% in this science is not *****. - Nitrodist88, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1*Some* evidence is better than ***** guesses.
- xexx, on 05/13/2008, -3/+15Ignore it, even if he did it's irrelevant. Christians claim this about Darwin too. Apparently they believe these to be Pope-like figures whereas if they refute anything they previously claimed that's now accepted it invalidates it.
- flashback99, on 05/13/2008, -6/+4Probably that guy the religious call god. I hear he's supposed to be the answer to everything.
- humperdeath, on 05/13/2008, -5/+3Since the nearest black hole is said to be 1,600 light years from Earth, a 10% error is a range of 320 light years. That, my friend, is a HUGE amount of error.
- Buu700, on 05/13/2008, -0/+6@humperdeath
Wrong post. - humperdeath, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Sorry. But I was within 10% of the right post.
- johnsaulrubio, on 05/13/2008, -12/+76Probably his pastor.
- Fordi, on 05/13/2008, -19/+12A deathbed conversion is a coward's conversion. It has no bearing on a man's thoughts in life.
- Anonchrist, on 05/13/2008, -1/+8He was actually doing a math problem, but that was how he saw his intimate connection with the universe.
- Logicexe, on 05/13/2008, -3/+15Yeah just like Darwin and evolution.
Excuse me while I go roll my eyes. - RobotCitizen, on 05/14/2008, -1/+9Richard Dawkins said that when he's on his deathbed he'll have a recorder running, so that no one can invent a "deathbed conversion" myth about him.
- jcastillo81, on 05/13/2008, -11/+92source?
- mal1964, on 05/13/2008, -85/+12"lame"
- mal1964, on 05/13/2008, -31/+5Oh its on now!
- mal1964, on 05/13/2008, -17/+4I was kidding I never really turned it on.
Oh its on now!- gutistg, on 05/13/2008, -4/+10I am going to block you.
- mal1964, on 05/13/2008, -14/+3I'm blocked?, If you could read this it would say "SO WHAT"
- mal1964, on 05/13/2008, -11/+3Sorry gutistg about the "so what" reply i was an ass. Seriously
- javip, on 05/13/2008, -1/+8i really hope 1964 isn't representative of your age...
- mal1964, on 05/13/2008, -7/+2Why?
- Xspire, on 05/14/2008, -3/+1because it was 20 years before 1984 when the world was divided into several country/continents, and england was part of a totalitarian government, and big brother was watching us all.
- mal1964, on 05/13/2008, -17/+4I was kidding I never really turned it on.
- cdahlkvist, on 05/13/2008, -16/+33Another quote by Einstein.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Furthermore, Einstein did not deny the existence of God. He just doubted God met the criteria so many religions expect.
He believed in Spinoza's God: "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists."
He once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."
I don't know what I believe, personally, since I don't have all the answers yet. Seems like Einstein was the same way, speaking only from what he could prove.- UberNick, on 05/13/2008, -7/+56It's called Pantheism, and it's a sort of a running joke among physicists. They're simply giving the title of "God" to inanimate objects like the universe or physics. Hawking does this all the time, while monotheists completely miss the point and get a fuzzy feeling that he's talking about their special friend in the sky.
- BoonTobias, on 05/13/2008, -6/+14^ basically sums up everything about religion and why we should abandon it
- flashback99, on 05/13/2008, -1/+7There's also the god of the gaps.
- jwanderson, on 05/14/2008, -3/+2UberNick you are indeed uber, that's how it's done folks.
- WriterSD, on 05/14/2008, -1/+3Source?
- mal1964, on 05/13/2008, -22/+15 I don't share those beliefs and feelings on digg, Because many diggers don't have respect for them.
- eviltandem, on 05/13/2008, -9/+3boohoo. Are you seriously saying you refuse to talk about a topic if other people are going to criticize you for it?
Over time millions of people have given their lives protecting the freedoms we enjoy today. You repay all that by refusing to talk if you think someone is going to call you a poopy head? - bratterscain, on 05/13/2008, -4/+8Maybe because his beliefs may offend others who don't have the same beliefs and if he mentions them, it could cause some diggers to go all spaztic over things we don't know in the first place. And as we can see, this seems to be a no win situation.
- flashback99, on 05/13/2008, -11/+7No religious belief deserves respect. Respect has to be earned. Not something you get overnight for claiming you can communicate with an imaginary being.
- mal1964, on 05/13/2008, -8/+2@evitandem Hey anytime you want to use me to reflect away from you dealing with yourself and the thoughts and feelings that make you a miserable human-being , I'm here for you.
- mal1964, on 05/13/2008, -9/+1@fllashback."No religious belief deserves respect" Where did i say anything about anything like that?
You must be having a flashback99, 1999 must of been a hell of a year. - mal1964, on 05/13/2008, -6/+2Some diggers cant even respect my opinion on not sharing my beliefs
- buckrogers1965, on 05/13/2008, -3/+1Respect mah oh-pen-ion!
- mal1964, on 05/13/2008, -5/+1@buck
.dats mah ohpenion k?
- eviltandem, on 05/13/2008, -9/+3boohoo. Are you seriously saying you refuse to talk about a topic if other people are going to criticize you for it?
- vuke69, on 05/13/2008, -2/+22@mail1964
I respect your right to have those beliefs, but I am under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to respect the beliefs themselves.- mal1964, on 05/13/2008, -16/+5"those beliefs" you mean "Your beliefs" meaning mine if you knew what they were.
I agree, But I'm talking about being called an idiot, dumb *****, and a moron. - mal1964, on 05/13/2008, -13/+3I don't care about diggs but all of the diggers I'm talking about do. They've gone through my comments and dugg down over a weeks worth more than once, How would you like to be that person? I'm surprised they dugg down my last comment, It has some of their favorite words in it.
- bratterscain, on 05/13/2008, -2/+9mal, you worry too much. That is low that people would go back and bury your past comments because of your beliefs. I'm pretty much a hardcore atheist and I assume you may be a theist since it's not as popular here on digg, but even if we disagree, we still love ya. If they throw a verbal punch, block and counter.
- mal1964, on 05/13/2008, -9/+5bratter, I agree and enjoyed your comment. I have no problems with anyone beliefs and i cant say that strong enough or anymore meaningful. The only thing i worry about is my soon to be 6 year old son, Absolutely nothing on digg worries me.
- mal1964, on 05/13/2008, -16/+5"those beliefs" you mean "Your beliefs" meaning mine if you knew what they were.
- UberNick, on 05/13/2008, -7/+56It's called Pantheism, and it's a sort of a running joke among physicists. They're simply giving the title of "God" to inanimate objects like the universe or physics. Hawking does this all the time, while monotheists completely miss the point and get a fuzzy feeling that he's talking about their special friend in the sky.
- mal1964, on 05/13/2008, -17/+9@Everyone, I thought it was funny that Albert Einstein used the word "Lame" That's all.
Can’t see the forest for the trees.- vuke69, on 05/13/2008, -2/+8Please look up the word lame, especially it's etymology.
(cliff notes version:It means weak or broken, and has been around for many hundreds of years)- mal1964, on 05/13/2008, -14/+3So I cant think its funny?
- svenr, on 05/13/2008, -1/+3He probaably didn't. Most likely a translator did. Einstein was German after all.
- mal1964, on 05/13/2008, -4/+1"Billige"
- vuke69, on 05/13/2008, -2/+8Please look up the word lame, especially it's etymology.
- mal1964, on 05/13/2008, -14/+3I forgot some diggers need a tag for sarcasm.
- mal1964, on 05/13/2008, -31/+5Oh its on now!
- houndeyex, on 05/13/2008, -7/+59Einstein's letter makes view of religion "relatively" clear
I see what they did there. - Gambit89, on 05/13/2008, -3/+17Comment hijacking here, but here's a nice collection of quotes, notes, etc, on Einstein and religion:
http://einsteinandreligion.com/ - chambana, on 05/13/2008, -20/+12don't politicize his comments, einstein was a master of science not religion, 2 separate things by his own admission
- Willy99, on 05/13/2008, -36/+10At that time Jesus said in reply, "I give praise to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for although you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned you have revealed them to the childlike.
Yes, Father, such has been your gracious will.
All things have been handed over to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him.
"Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest. (from Matthew Chapter 11)
Food for thought... bug digg me down if you like.- getbusyliving, on 05/13/2008, -8/+8Jesus THIS, mofo!
- Fordi, on 05/13/2008, -7/+13Ah, meaningless pap. That'll add something to the conversation!
- xsmasher, on 05/13/2008, -1/+14Wait, I see. So god hides from the wise and shows himself to fools, which means religious folk are *really* the smart ones, not the elitist smartypantses. But, god hides from the wise and shows himself to fools, so maybe he hides from you and shows himself to the real fools, who are really right?
Wait though - you must have studied... and in studying you must have learned that Man is mortal so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me! You've given everything away! I know where the poison is, and I choose...What in the world can that be?- bdawg123, on 05/13/2008, -1/+7Inconceivable!
- zazzalicious, on 05/13/2008, -1/+6I don't think that word means what you think it means!
- flashback99, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2Damn this scourge of religious tourettes. God damn it to hell.
- sc0rpi0n, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Ok, you should say the same if you see a Christian using Einstein's "He doesn't throw dice" to support Christianity. I mean, c'mon!
- Willy99, on 05/13/2008, -36/+10At that time Jesus said in reply, "I give praise to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for although you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned you have revealed them to the childlike.
- Willy99, on 05/13/2008, -45/+10At that time Jesus said in reply, "I give praise to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for although you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned you have revealed them to the childlike.
Yes, Father, such has been your gracious will.
All things have been handed over to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him.
"Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest. (from matthew chapter 11)- furbyboy, on 05/13/2008, -5/+13...and the Lord said "Go Mets..."!!!
- zazzalicious, on 05/13/2008, -3/+9or to put it another way....
'I'm the only one who knows ***** about *****... so come all ye retarded ones and buy my *****!' - buckrogers1965, on 05/13/2008, -2/+2I think he said blessed are the cheese makers.
- elamr, on 05/13/2008, -13/+35*Rejected Atheism too.. really was a genius*
Despite his categorical rejection of conventional religion, Brooke said that Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism. He was offended by their lack of humility and once wrote. "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."- zazzalicious, on 05/13/2008, -13/+13exactly... he rejected both religious and athgeistic dogma because they both claim to know the unknowable...
there is only one rational position on what it all means: wtf!?- ICSU, on 05/13/2008, -5/+18Atheistic dogma .. any more oxymorons?
Atheism says I don't believe.- artofwar420, on 05/13/2008, -2/+11Why digg him down? Atheism is not a dogma. Only the lack of belief in God. No more, no less. Look up dogma you fools.
- dollar0dot02, on 05/13/2008, -7/+1Atheism is not lack of belief in God. That would be agnosticism. Atheism is belief in lack of God.
- booshack, on 05/13/2008, -0/+12Strong Atheists *believe* that there is no god. Weak atheists deem it extremely unlikely for there to be a god, but they admit that they can't rule it out, especially if the definition can stray from the gods of human religions. However, weak atheists still live their life in the assumption that there probably is no god, and that if there is a god or creator, that it does not interfere with the universe or require worship, and thus pique only scientific and philosophic interests that are largely irrelevant to the daily life.
The difference between weak atheists and agnostics is that agnostics typically delve in a more equal sense of indecisiveness, ie. they will say that since god can't be disproved, we can't know either way so we shouldn't base our lives on either possibility. They typically don't delve into deeper considerations of statistics or the ramifications of alternative god definitions.
People have differing views on the meaning of atheism and agnosticism, but please just realize that if you disagree with me, it means you are just in a different category than you thought, not that your views are different. My loose definitions are based on the historical meanings of the words, along with the definitions of scholars such as Richard Dawkins.
Einstein thought that strong atheists are stupid - so do I and so should you. - zazzalicious, on 05/14/2008, -8/+2Dogmatic atheists include people like 'Richard Dawkins'.
- booshack, on 05/14/2008, -1/+6@ zazzalicious: That is a half truth. Dawkins says that the probability of Judea-christian god is infinitesimal, and that the existence of a logically possible god would be a type of creator that would be undetectable and pointless, and even that would be highly unlikely since it would be an unnecessarily complex solution. His actual belief is weak atheism, BUT he advocates that atheists stand up and fight, and that to be able to carry a strong argument, for all reasonable circumstances you are better off just assuming a strong atheistic view.
- ICSU, on 05/14/2008, -1/+2booshack,
"strong atheism" is also only a practical conclusion based on lack of evidence.
Or are there or also weak and strong a-astrologers, a-leprechaunists ... ? - booshack, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2If it is only a practical conclusion, it is exactly what weak atheists do. "Practical" meaning in all daily-life circumstances. And yes that is exactly right that there are weak and strong a-mysticism. It is not a proper analogy to choose specific fantasies when you include ALL religion in theism. But yes, it is indeed impossible to know ANYTHING for certain. We all make practical assumptions in science and otherwise based on available evidence and logic.
- sc0rpi0n, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2You know what, Einstein just faked it while speaking to Brooke. Einstein is obviously himself an atheist calling Bible a joke with childish fairy tales and he did apparently call you Christians weak. This is the view of a typical atheist. If he was not an one, what was he?
- ICSU, on 05/13/2008, -5/+18Atheistic dogma .. any more oxymorons?
- Tanath, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1The correct phrase would be "proselytizers for atheism." To evangelize is to convert to Christianity.
- zazzalicious, on 05/13/2008, -13/+13exactly... he rejected both religious and athgeistic dogma because they both claim to know the unknowable...
- Robbs94, on 05/13/2008, -9/+2I Completely Agree!!
- pingster, on 05/13/2008, -29/+19It looks like 100% of the people that have internet access who dont believe in God are on digg.
FYI.. I believe in God.- flashback99, on 05/13/2008, -7/+14Including the fundamentalists who like to put their beliefs (sorry I mean copy and paste parts of old outdated books) on here as comments for us nonbelievers. Oh, wait, maybe you calculated your 100% wrong?
- HannahBelle1221, on 05/13/2008, -18/+5I wonder where Einstein is right now. Bet he wishes he could take those words back. Hmm....
- getbusyliving, on 05/13/2008, -2/+15Nah.. I'm sure he's just dead.
- buckrogers1965, on 05/13/2008, -0/+11I love how supposedly Christian people are so gleeful about wishing people to hell.
- monsieurginger, on 05/14/2008, -0/+4Einstein died in 1955 I believe.
- HannahBelle1221, on 05/13/2008, -18/+5I wonder where Einstein is right now. Bet he wishes he could take those words back. Hmm....
- fcukthisgame, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1god? buried.
- sc0rpi0n, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2100%? So pingster, you must be the guy without internet who posts comments on Digg. Oh! I see you channeled your thoughts to god and have him connected to the net and posted comments on digg on your behalf, which of course makes him a person who don't believe in god too.
That's ***** up! So I suggest you go back to grade 1 and start over all the math lessons.
- flashback99, on 05/13/2008, -7/+14Including the fundamentalists who like to put their beliefs (sorry I mean copy and paste parts of old outdated books) on here as comments for us nonbelievers. Oh, wait, maybe you calculated your 100% wrong?
- diggerine, on 05/13/2008, -18/+17Albert Einstein, Science giant, Theology dwarf. He never claimed to be an expert in religion or God, now did he? Just because Einstein said it doesn't mean it is true. He was a towering genius at his specialty, physics, but even then he struggled (and failed?) to accept in his mind quantum physics because of its uncertainties and probabilistic nature.
What he said was his own personal opinion, and just an opinion it all is. Just goes to show no one's a genius at every single thing.- JohnboiWaltune, on 05/14/2008, -4/+16You are a douchebag, and I'll explain why. If Einstein had said, "God is real, God is great, everyone let's pray to God" you would be the first one to shout it from the rooftops to support belief in your childish and primitive fables -- and you don't need to be a genius to recognize the Bible as being exactly that.
So shut the hell up before Einstein's zombie corpse comes and slaps the stupid off you.- SicKiller, on 05/14/2008, -2/+7Excellent!
- naysayer1, on 05/14/2008, -6/+2Why are you attacking the poor guy? Because he might not be an atheist and might be agnostic, or a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu, etc? He never stated exactly what if any religion he subscribes to and that makes you a fascist. Are you going to bomb the local mosque this afternoon? The hatred that such a general post has raised in you would suggest you're planning just that.
Cool off and stop being the world's biggest douche!
- diggerine, on 05/14/2008, -4/+2Oh. I'm sorry JohnboiWaltune! Didn't mean to insult the all-knowing, omniscient Albert Einstein you love and worship so much. I apologize.
One thing though. I don't want to shock you, but zombies, they don't really exist. They're just part of "childish and primitive fables" your dear mommy told you to scare you into behaving. And Einstein's corpse? I'm afraid you've been misled. His body was cremated and the ashes scattered. Only his brain, or rather 240 slices of it, has been preserved and distributed to several research institutions.
- JohnboiWaltune, on 05/14/2008, -4/+16You are a douchebag, and I'll explain why. If Einstein had said, "God is real, God is great, everyone let's pray to God" you would be the first one to shout it from the rooftops to support belief in your childish and primitive fables -- and you don't need to be a genius to recognize the Bible as being exactly that.
- eximious, on 05/14/2008, -7/+5I'm offended deeply by this story. One group of people says another has oversimplified a famous scientist's interpretation of the universe, then the original group uses one letter to do the same? Einstein's "religion" was far more nuanced, perhaps definable as "pantheism."
Please, read a book instead of a quote: "Einstein: His Life and Universe." (Amazon link: http://preview.tinyurl.com/5kfc6e)
I'm honestly disgusted with Digg right now. Some of the users here, who claim to have some level of intelligence, have made me lose so much faith in humanity. Time to go meditate, I guess.- sc0rpi0n, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Ok, you hated the facts that digg has no control over. What is your problem, young man?
- moush, on 05/14/2008, -1/+2Insanity is mistaken for genius too often.
- known, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Every religion now is a form of socio-economic Collusion.
- known, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Every religion now is a form of socio-economic Collusion.
- mal1964, on 05/14/2008, -1/+3"Lame" Sorry that's a typo.
"de l'âme" - Xspire, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2I would like to say one of his statements wasn't necessarily true or genius, not entirely at least. He said "Science without religion is lame, Religion without science is blind." However isn't religion blind no matter what? Who is to say what is true? Only those that can "see" the truth are not blind. And no one to comment on this topic would know for sure they were speaking the truth in religious terms? No Atheist. No Christian. No Muslim. No Scientologist (well they wouldn't be true for sure. Also I would like to note that digg doesn't even count scientologist as a word so that just proves my point).
- mal1964, on 05/14/2008, -1/+1"However isn't religion blind no matter what? Who is to say what is true? Only those that can "see" the truth are not blind"
"Also I would like to note that digg doesn't even count scientologist as a word so that just proves my point)"
Scientologist is a word.- Xspire, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1No my point was that when I typed Scientologist in, the spell check says that it is misspelled. Therefore it isn't considered a word.
- mal1964, on 05/14/2008, -1/+1"However isn't religion blind no matter what? Who is to say what is true? Only those that can "see" the truth are not blind"
- mykotron, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1people say the darndest things......................on their deathbed.. wouldn't you think? Not that I believe "oh, Einstein whispered that he suddenly believed in god while he was diing" then that person told someone else and that person told someone else. What a load of crap. God is a fairy tale, the story created to make sense of the BIGGER fairy tale... THE HUMAN SOUL. The human soul which was only devised to give people hope against their biggest fear.....DEATH. Thats right the SOUL was only ever invented so that people would have a lessened fear of death.
- smek2, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1I would have been disappointed if it where anything else.
- nathanprophet, on 05/22/2008, -0/+0"Spoken like a true genius" as opposed to a "false genius" or a "pretend genius" or a "whatever genius"? Einstein was weird. Genius and madness are next door neighbors. He occasioned both houses. Check out his personal values with how he treated his children. Einstein was totally wrong about quantum mechanics ("God doesn't play dice with the universe.") why would an unbeliever in God invoke God?
- ePuck, on 05/13/2008, -125/+20He retracted all the things he said about the supernatural on his deathbed.
- BigManOnCampus, on 05/13/2008, -117/+979Why do we care? Are we attempting to make a saint of Einstein? Think for yourself. Einstein would be the first person to tell you to think things out on your own.
- themarq, on 05/13/2008, -48/+386It only matters because time and time again the Christians have held up Einstein as the "Uber Scientist" who believed in god. This example, in their minds, was intended to illustrate that science and religion are compatible in some way. After all, if the worlds most famous scientist was a god fearing christian then you should believe as well.
- BigManOnCampus, on 05/13/2008, -78/+55Science and religion are compatible. Science and Dogma are not.
- vagyok, on 05/13/2008, -15/+103That there exists a supernatural being manipulating our universe is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence.
- consoneo, on 05/13/2008, -4/+12Or antithesis.
- cdahlkvist, on 05/13/2008, -29/+9So that means there is no point in researching it any further? Wow. You have just destroyed the scientific world with that method of reasoning.
"Well, there is no supporting evidence that we know of so we might as well just give up researching."
Guess we wouldn't know anything about black holes, quantum physics, galaxies, etc. Since, at one point, we had no supporting eveidence for most of what we know now. - Metman, on 05/13/2008, -1/+21"Well, there is no supporting evidence that we know of so we might as well just give up researching." - Where exactly did you extract that quote? I do not remember 'giving up' to be any part of the comment to which you replied.
- chromerium, on 05/13/2008, -2/+25@cdahlkvist
Actually, research only continues on a given subject if there is supporting evidence. The evidence may just be a thought experiment, or an indication that something behaves in a certain way, but generally scientists don't investigate something that has zero evidence to support it at the time.
Black holes, quantum physics, galaxies, etc are all indirectly evidenced by things such as being able to observe the effects these things have on what we can observe.
The is no point 'researching' the question of a supernatural being, because there is zero, nil, none, nothing, zilch, nada - to support the assertion that there is one.
You can 'research' it all you want, but if you have to use some book that some guy wrote and was agreed on in a committee, you've failed. - chromerium, on 05/13/2008, -1/+6@Metman
It's a "straw man" argument. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man - PawnsOfJoshua, on 05/13/2008, -22/+6No supporting evidence? How blind can you be? The causal nature of the universe sets up a fundamental paradox for which a creator is the best possible explanation...the laws of physics didn't spontaneously define themselves. What you are suggesting is the equivalent of plugging a computer into the wall and expecting it to start writing its own programs - it is preposterous. I swear - all the circular atheist logic that I see online is so feeble-minded it makes me sick.
- Speed, on 05/13/2008, -1/+9Religion simply isn't falsifiable. It is impossible to prove or disprove. That is why it is not scientific.
- jezsik, on 05/13/2008, -1/+14Oh, my dear pawn. How you have been manipulated. Let's just suppose that "God" caused the universe to exist. Now what? Everything that's happened since then can be attributed to non-mystical explanations. So why do you feel the need to worship this thing that caused the universe to come into existence. Seems a bit of a waste of time, eh?
- Fordi, on 05/13/2008, -0/+10@jezsik:
Christians and other religious sorts can't accept the fact that they're entirely made up of physical matter and the interactions thereof. They appear to think that such an existence is meaningless, without purpose.
I don't know what brought them to that conclusion, except that they had such nonsense hammered into their heads since birth. - PawnsOfJoshua, on 05/13/2008, -8/+2Jezsik - I didn't say I worship anything, and in fact I don't. So don't put words in my mouth. I simply suggested that the paradox of causality is evidence of a creator - not that I worship the God of the Bible. In fact, one of the biggest flaws with every religious belief system that I know of is their tendency to define the nature of the creator, which is an absurd thing to do. My perspective is the result only of what makes logical sense to me - there is no manipulation. How ignorant can you possibly be to assume that you even *know* everything that has happened since the dawn of existence...or why it happened. You are talking about observing an infinitely vast cosmos from a incomprehensibly limited perspective to come up with the supremely arrogant and obnoxious conclusion that mankind can explain or define existence from that perspective. What a fool. If you cannot see the mysticism in the fact that there are two diametrically opposing forces that define all of reality as we know it (namely gravity and electromagnetism), and that minus either one of these forces the cosmos could not exist in any way recognizable to us, then you are a hopeless buffoon. You silly atheists have no respect from me because of your cop-out "Its always been this way" reasoning. Your post is evidence of your desire to convince people that there is no God, with utter disregard to whether or not its true. As far as wasting time...making absurd posts on Digg.com that contain no factual data to support your ignoramus claims is a far greater waste of time than people who spend their lives trying to live up to the standards of a belief system that probably isn't true. Come talk to me when you gain the ability to observe reality from an open-minded perspective. Until then, peddle your pandering atheist sentiment to someone with a weak enough mind to buy it - someone like yourself.
- bdawg123, on 05/13/2008, -1/+13@PawnsOfJoshua - "a creator is the best possible explanation...the laws of physics didn't spontaneously define themselves."
It amazes me how religious types are quick to proclaim that the universe is so complex that there must have been a creator. Tell me then, how complex must this creator have been to create the universe? Does not the same "too complex" argument apply to God? Please explain. - jezsik, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3@PawnsOfJoshua, I guess my simple post really touched a nerve there. Sorry, pal. So, you don't worship a god? Fair enough, but I'm sure you can easily see how I could be drawn to that conclusion. Most theists, after all, worship a god of some sort or other. Defining the nature of the creator is indeed absurd; just as absurd as calculating the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin or the size of the turtle upon which the universe rests. So, what, exactly, makes logical sense to you? When you observe (for lack of a better term) some phenomena which you can not explain, do you write it off as the work of "the creator" and go on about your merry way, or do you think up ideas that could explain the phenomena? If it's the later, then there's hope for you. As for knowing everything since the dawn of existence, I don't. We, as in the scientific community, have some pretty good ideas what happened and those ideas are refined and even overturned as better ideas and new evidence are uncovered. So far, there's been no need to fall back on the ol' "Jehova did it!" cop out.
As for understanding existence, whatever do you mean? Can you not observe all that is about you and can you not provide an explanation as to how these things came about? I can, indeed. There's no mysticism involved. Mystery, yes, but no mysticism. You're blown away by fact that if either gravity or electromagnetism didn't exist we wouldn't exist? Why do you find that so astonishing? So, uh, just out of curiosity, what is it that this god of yours does for you, anyway? If you think he created the universe, kicked off the big bang if you will, what then? - Fordi, on 05/13/2008, -0/+7"How ignorant can you possibly be to assume that you even *know* everything that has happened since the dawn of existence...or why it happened. You are talking about observing an infinitely vast cosmos from a incomprehensibly limited perspective to come up with the supremely arrogant and obnoxious conclusion that mankind can explain or define existence from that perspective."
Actually, we're pretty certain we *don't* know exactly what happened at the dawn of the universe, and readily admit that the theories we've got going are supported by evidence, but that the evidence is derived.
We know that there was a big bang, and we now live in a period of universal expansion. We have no idea what caused the big bang or what's causing the expansion*.
That's not license for anyone to jump in, yelling "Magic Man Done It!", which is increasingly what it feels like. Postulating a deity for which there is no explanation to explain something which has no explanation is only ever adding an extra step.
So, science readily admits vagueness at best as to the cause of the universe. Theists claim absolute knowledge of the cause, and go on to assume that their causer is better than anyone else's causer. Who is arrogant here? Who is ignorant? I don't roll with your assertion that it's those that humbly admit information gaps, then proceed to search for the data to fill those holes. - Chronoped, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2@Fordi
"Christians and other religious sorts can't accept the fact that they're entirely made up of physical matter and the interactions thereof. They appear to think that such an existence is meaningless, without purpose.
I don't know what brought them to that conclusion, except that they had such nonsense hammered into their heads since birth."
I'm a religious sort. I'm a Buddhist. I acknowledge that I'm made of physical matter. I also acknowledge that the majority of the universe is made of dark energy and dark matter, as in, ***** that we know nothing about. I say, keeping that in mind, people have a fair amount of wiggle room for their beliefs to be scientifically plausible, once we advance to a certain degree of scientific understanding. By the way, I wasn't born as a Buddhist, I converted. - ashfish, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1Science does not claim to make any assumption about religion. Religion and science can co-exist quite well, it's all about the person interpreting them.
- SampleX, on 05/14/2008, -4/+1"That there exists a supernatural being manipulating our universe is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence."
Actually, it has a wealth of supporting evidence. So-called 'scientists' don't like 'supporting evidence' if they cannot control it or interpret it in the rationalist 'scientific' manner that they now profess, which is fatally tainted by a philosophical underpinning. However, historians, archaeologists, and anyone who is prepared to think outside of the box that strict 'scientific' rationalism demands must be built can all testify to the existence of evidence which they believe presents a supporting argument for the 'hypothesis' that the universe is a product of a supernatural being, just as much as Evolutionists and Big Bang theoreticians believe in supernatural occurrances which are every bit as fictional, assumptive, and open to interpretation as any religious book on the planet. Oddly one of the major arguments put forward by such 'rationalists' against the 'God' hypothesis is 'if God once did such things, why isn't he doing them all the time and why can't we see him.' They don't seem to have a problem with Big Bangs not happening all the time, and evolution from one type of animal to another combined with supposedly 'natural' extinction events not occurring within recorded human history either, but assume nonetheless that those conditions and events took place in history so remote that no one could ever verify them...
- Nougat, on 05/13/2008, -6/+68Religion is dogma. Philosophy is not.
- fyngyrz, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1That, I'm afraid, depends entirely on the specific philosophy.
- Nougat, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2fyngyrz - it's just semantics. My point being that an honest seeking of objective truth is both science and philosophy, but never dogma.
- Phyraxus, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2Philosophy is required in order to define the word "truth" and what it means. Religion tells you what truth is (i.e. the bible/koran/etc.).
- BigManOnCampus, on 05/13/2008, -45/+77And how many scientific explanations for the beginning of the universe have no supporting evidence? Lots. Science cannot explain what it cannot observe, and religion constantly asks you to believe in what cannot be observed. They are not in any way mutually exclusive.
- macweirdo42, on 05/13/2008, -3/+35The difference is, when we have a hypothesis with no supporting evidence, we don't automatically assume it as fact. You are asking scientists to accept without supporting evidence the concept of God as fact, which is completely incompatible with scientific thinking.
- BigManOnCampus, on 05/13/2008, -30/+4While true, what you are saying in your first sentence is beyond the scope of this argument.
I never asked any scientists to accept anything without supporting evidence. I simply said that there are lots of "scientific explanations" for things that have no supporting evidence. They're called theories. They don't mean jack squat until data confirms them.
Religion is in a completely different realm. Religion says, "We have no evidence, we ask for your faith."
They *are not* mutually exclusive. - Meep3D, on 05/13/2008, -1/+18Actually they are hypothesis. Theories generally have corroborating evidence, with the strange exception of string theory.
Someone will say 'I think x is caused by y' (hypothesis), and if it seems like a logical idea then experimentation will be designed to test the hypothesis. If it survives rigorous testing it is generally then elevated to the level of 'theory'.
Maybe religion and science are not mutually exclusive, but they certainly have no business interacting in any way. - macweirdo42, on 05/13/2008, -1/+20No, they're called hypotheses. Not theories, hypotheses. There's a big difference that I'm sick of getting into it about because apparently our piss-poor education system didn't teach anyone about basic scientific principles. They are not different realms. You also expect us to accept real-world consequences for things that we can't observe.
- cdahlkvist, on 05/13/2008, -2/+4I'm not. As an Agnostic I prefer to see if there is any supporting evidence. At the same time that means I do not automatically deny the existence of a God. It means I don't have all the facts.
- chromerium, on 05/13/2008, -5/+7Ah, a fence-sitter.
- paperclipsNsoup, on 05/13/2008, -3/+1The beginning of the universe does have supporting evidence (big bang theory), ie expanding in all directions, how matter is placed in the universe. These are things that can be modeled on a computer using real world physics... While not proof, it is still supporting evidence, and that is how theories are formed.
And as far as science cannot explain what it cannot observe. There is always indirect evidence, its just a matter of know where/how to look. - BigManOnCampus, on 05/13/2008, -7/+2@macweirdo.
Call them what you will, they are explanations put forth by scientists for unanswered questions that have no supporting data. These concepts exist in the heads of scientists. So simply saying, "That there exists a supernatural being manipulating our universe is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence," means jack squat because a scientist's job is to use his/her imagination to come up with potential explanations for things. An eternal, unobservable creator is one possible explanation. Better yet, it is an unprovable untestable explanation and hence falls completely outside of the realm of science. In this fashion, it cannot exclude scientific explanations for things observed and neither can science measure what is defined as unobservable.
You are putting words in my mouth very badly. You are also engaging in near ad-hominem. - Mechanicat, on 05/13/2008, -5/+4I agree with you that the God hypothesis is outside the scope of science. Its a wider philosophical issue. I believe in God but I will be the first to admit I don't have sound, objective reasons for it. Its more an instinct which I've grown to trust over the years.
- bratterscain, on 05/13/2008, -1/+6BigMan, I think it's better that us not dwell on magic, fairy tales, and other *****. Whether you're wanting to believe in the Abrahamic God or what, it depends on the God you're wanting to believe in. There's all kinds of magical ***** that goes on in those books. And when you want to believe in illogical matters, then the whole foundation for what we see, hear, taste, smell, and observe gets thrown out the door. How do we know what we observe is really what we observe if we throw logic out the door? You can try to come up with some ***** explanations but it's best our mind not get away from us or else we're living in a ***** fairy tale.
You see the birds, the bees, trees, and all other things? Well, that's what I see. No ***** fairy magical sky prince. What I see, what I observe and checksummed with what others observe and not 'believe', that's what I know. Belief is a ***** word. There's nothing wrong in not letting your mind get away from you while I can say making ***** assumptions based on ***** that science can't or has not approved as being real can make you very ***** up.
I was once a Christian and when you start believing in *****, you wonder if everything else is *****. Sooner or later, nothing seems to make sense when you try to compare your beliefs with the real world. You can ultimately reach a spot in your belief if you continue challenging it long enough where it converges with science and then you realize, what you believe is basically science. Religion is ***** and there's just no need for it. It's good stories for little kids but when you grow up, if you have any decent IQ, you realize it's just a bunch of ***** made up by people who haven't grown up with over-active imaginations. - fyngyrz, on 05/13/2008, -0/+7There's a very simple human tendency that underlies this entire argument. That is the need to pretend one knows the answer to an interesting, but so far unanswered, question.
For instance, the question of "How did the universe start" is an interesting and unanswered question. It may be an incorrectly framed one (for instance, it may be that there was no start), but it is interesting to contemplate, regardless.
Where the cognitive error comes in is in either presuming that we must, or ever will, have an answer to such a question -- or more naively, presuming that we do have an answer to that question at present.
Religion is a relatively simple case of people claiming to have an answer without data. they're aware of this, at least at the level of leadership, and as a counter, they bring to the argument an interesting concept, essentially "believe this without evidence"; they call this concept "faith."
However, faith is a poor tool for planning one's actions.
If one walks up to a priest and says "I believe you're a child molester", and the priest responds "why, there's no evidence?" and you respond perfectly truthfully "I have faith that you are, end of story", the priest will be very unlikely to accept your argument.
Yet they want you to accept the same type of reasoning and base your entire life's rationale upon it.
The bottom line is that there are questions we may never know the answers to, there are questions that are formed imperfectly such that they may not be answerable, and there are questions that assume facts not in evidence and as such may be completely invalid.
Once you understand this absolute truth, you won't worry so much about where the universe comes from, and can focus more on things such as whether your neighbor is going to get adequate healthcare for that cancer. - Phyraxus, on 05/13/2008, -1/+9@ BigManOnCampus: NO, YOU CAN'T CALL IT WHATEVER YOU WANT. If scientists called ideas whatever they wanted, they would be in the business of theology.
IDEAS aren't even HYPOTHESIS until they make PREDICTIONS. If HYPOTHESIS makes a PREDICTION which CAN BE PROVEN due to certain FACTS that prove it, then it becomes a THEORY. If it is not PROVEN by FACTS or CANNOT BE DISPROVEN, then it does not become a THEORY. There is NOTHING "HIGHER" than a THEORY. You may have heard of a LAW before, but regardless to common misconceptions, THEORIES do NOT "UPGRADE" into LAWS. You may have heard of the 2nd LAW of thermodynamics. The reason it is a LAW is because the THEORY of thermodynamics makes it a LAW (a LAW is PART of a THEORY). LAWS generally have to do with mathematical concepts because they can be relatively easy to explain. This website may help you http://www.notjustatheory.com/
Sorry about all the caps words. I just get so goddamn pissed when ignorant people don't even know these basic tenets of science and think they can even begin criticize it. - fyngyrz, on 05/13/2008, -1/+4Phyraxus: Very well said, and to which I would append that theories are always open to revision or dismissal by disproof; that is, a fact or prediction may be found which causes the laws (essentially predictions) of the theory to fail as measured against the real world. This is the basis for the underlying strength of the scientific method: It is always attempting to converge upon the most accurate laws (in the sense of predictions made by the theory) and theories (in the sense of explaining why the laws seem to work out as they are described by the theory.)
I have always felt that one of the most grievous failings of the US educational system (can't speak for others) is that in 12 years, YEARS, of schooling, people can actually come out of the process with a diploma that says they're competent human beings with reasonable cognitive skills, yet many of them couldn't explain the scientific method to you if their very lives depended directly upon it.
It's pitiful, is what it is. - StaticThunder, on 05/13/2008, -1/+4I defer to Bayesian Epistemology on this. I can come up with a greater infinity of possible explanations for metaphysics. Religion asks me to pick one of them (God), and believe in it on faith. In the absence of supporting evidence, the likelihood of being correct, because of the huge number of possible explanations is as close to zero as I can be. I could be a brain in a jar. I could be living in the matrix. Maybe its turtles all the way down.
Based on the fact that I have 0 evidence, and the prior probabilities are very low, I choose not to believe (better than being wrong). And when religion claims that I should, I tell it to blow it out its ear. It is no closer to the truth than me, its absolutely, unequivocally wrong.
Now is this science? YES. Its natural philosophy and epistemology. How we know what is true from what is false. Science DOES deny faith, because science can measure empirically how wrong we will be about any given hypothesis. There is a science of ideas. God is a bad one.
What happened "before" the universe? Don't know. Don't care. Doesn't matter. Anything we say about it will be wrong. - Phyraxus, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2Yeah, it's the damn change comment crap. I decide to submit, then look it over thoroughly and I see something else I need to add. I should probably make some prefabricated responses to common misconceptions about evolution and science.
Right now, I can see I meant to say "even begin to* criticize it." - BigManOnCampus, on 05/13/2008, -5/+1@Phyraxus: I have a masters in Physics. I know science.
"NO, YOU CAN'T CALL IT WHATEVER YOU WANT. If scientists called ideas whatever they wanted, they would be in the business of theology."
You didn't read anything else I wrote, so you're forgiven for going all-caps. You didn't even attempt to understand the point I was making, you just assumed I had no idea what the scientific method was, and you went off on me. - BigManOnCampus, on 05/13/2008, -4/+1@bratterscain
"I think it's better that us not dwell on magic, fairy tales, and other *****. Whether you're wanting to believe in the Abrahamic God or what, it depends on the God you're wanting to believe in."
I'm not dwelling on magic, I'm simply trying to say, religion and science are not mutually exclusive.
"How do we know what we observe is really what we observe if we throw logic out the door? You can try to come up with some ***** explanations but it's best our mind not get away from us or else we're living in a ***** fairy tale."
I'm putting forth no ***** explanations. I'm simply illustrating that where science and knowledge end is a playground where religion can always exist.
"Belief is a ***** word."
No, it is not. Belief covers everything that cannot be known by the frail human mind from, "I believe in democracy" all the way to "I believe in the tooth fairy." - BigManOnCampus, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1@fyngyrz
"However, faith is a poor tool for planning one's actions."
Faith is a poor tool to frame knowledge in. Faith is a poor tool to live your life by. You will get no disagreement from me on faith being a poor reasoning tool. You will get no disagreement from me on whether or not belief and importance placed on what God is supposedly saying to us is a human weakness. I completely agree with all of that. I consider organized religion a burden on society and a blind belief in what the pulpit says tantamount to following a dictatorship.
That doesn't change the fact that imagination and knowledge are perfectly capable of coexisting. Science is a foundation for gaining knowledge. Religion is a picture created from imagination. They are different worlds entirely, they coexist quite peacefully in any educated mind, and there is nothing mutually exclusive about them as where one ends, the other begins. - StaticThunder, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3@BMOC
Knowledge ends where there is no knowledge. You can put forth whatever idea you want, and you'll be wrong, 100% of the time. You can't escape the linkage between the truth value of a proposition and your knowledge about it. There are higher orders of infinity ways to be wrong, and only one way to be right. - StaticThunder, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3Or, to rephrase, where knowledge ends, ***** begins. They aren't mutually exclusive at all.
- Mechanicat, on 05/13/2008, -2/+2I think you're all being a bit hard on Bigmanoncampus. He doesn't come across as a naive theist at all and none of what he says is really unreasonable in any way. I think some of you aren't taking the time to read his comments properly and are jumping to unwarranted conclusions. He's simple stating the obvious truism that religion in of itself doesn't conflict with science. That isn't tantamount to denying or overlooking the self-evident fact that certain religious dogmas obviously do. Dogma, of whatever stripe, is the enemy of science, not religion.
- Phyraxus, on 05/13/2008, -1/+3@ Mechanicat: He may be not as naive as the usual fundie here, but he is still naive to think god and science are compatible.
I can't blame him to think this way if he is a deist or something, but also intelligent and still wants to hold on to god, regardless of what his physics degree tells him. Its hard to imagine fighting such indoctrination in the first place, for me, because I was never indoctrinated. - StaticThunder, on 05/13/2008, -0/+4I don't think he's a naive theist, I think he's mistaken. If its an ovious truism that religion doesn't conflict with science, you should be able to logically support that assertion.
Anytime someone says Science doesn't get an opinion on God, so they are compatible, means that he is exempting God from rational inquiry. Things that are exempt from rational inquiry are uniformly bad ideas because we can't know anything about them. I'd say thats a pretty big conflict.
If you want to make up fictions in your head, more power to you, but thats what they are, fictions, and you can't expect reasonable people to take your fictions seriously unless you are going to subject them to rational inquiry. When religion expects others to take it seriously, there is conflict. If you want to call that dogma, and say that any religion that keeps its beliefs to itself is not in conflict, fine, but then there are very few religions.
I understand that many people, including many smart people, have compartmentalized their minds, and exempted certain ideas from criticism that would be levied at others of similar composition. Perhaps thats comfortable, but don't expect me to do the same. - Mechanicat, on 05/13/2008, -3/+2@StaticThunder and Phyraxus. You're pigeon-holing religion as a whole as sectarian doctrinaire superstitions. Many religions are like that but it simply isn't the case that religion, as a concept, is just that. The part is not the whole. Since this started about Einstein, read up on what Einstein thought about the "Cosmic religions" of the future and buddhism. He explicitly had a problem with the common juvenile beliefs of a personal God(s) interested in our affairs and the whole host of other superstitions and codified rituals and ethics tacked on to it, as do I. But he never took the position that religion in of itself was inimical to science, neither do I.
- StaticThunder, on 05/13/2008, -0/+4No, when I tar religion with a broad brush, I mean it.
You and Einstein are both epistemologically incorrect. As soon as you assert something to be true with no evidence whatsoever, you are as close to wrong as its possible to get. This is what religion does. If yours does not, it probably shouldn't be classed as a religion. Buddhism is frequently called a philosophy, but then there are some Buddhists who revere the Buddha as a deity, and make claims as to the existence of heavens and hells.
That too, is epistemologically wrong.
Einstein is not special, his ideas are just as vulnerable to mistakes of logic as anyone else, and this is not physics. - Mechanicat, on 05/14/2008, -1/+1As I've already admitted that for me its a matter of intuition. I fully admit that from a more objective perspective it isn't empiricically justified. I'm also willing to admit that I could be totally wrong. My beliefs about God are totally tentative and I don't pretend therwise. And if you want to absorb yourself in epistemology then the sad fact is that the ONLY proposition that we can be absolutely sure of is "I think therefore I am". The corollary of that is that science rests on a sort of naive realism, the scientific method itself also depends on abduction and induction, the former is formally fallacious and the latter is logically unjustifiable. Don't take that as a disparagement of science because I am an unwavering proponent of it, just that even science and its methods cannot survive a ruthless epistemic examination.
- Mechanicat, on 05/14/2008, -1/+1You also asked me to demonstrate that science and religion are compatible. I'll try me best. Science at its most fundamental level is a naturalistic, empirical investigation of reality. Religion on the other hand can be reduced to a wider spiritual search for meaning and purpose. If you accept these definitions then it should be apparent that there is NO inherent contradiction or incompatibility. I can't avoid sounding trite but they ask and deal with different questions.
- BigManOnCampus, on 05/14/2008, -2/+3@ST
"Anytime someone says Science doesn't get an opinion on God, so they are compatible, means that he is exempting God from rational inquiry. Things that are exempt from rational inquiry are uniformly bad ideas because we can't know anything about them. I'd say thats a pretty big conflict."
I find that completely illogical for this reason... Not all of human existence can be explained rationally. If you believe that, then please rationally explain love to me. Please rationally explain Picasso to me. Please rationally explain folk songs to me. Please rationally investigate the existence of these things, and then explain everything about them. This is not to imply, in any way, that rational investigation is undesireable. Merely that there are facets of human existence that cannot be reasoned out, they just are. Since these things exist, and since it is not impossible, but also not worth the time of the average single human to reason them out, then to patch-over the cognitive burr humans use their imagination. This is not unreasonable and Einstein himself is not misquoted as saying that imagination is more important than knowledge. In point-of-fact, scientists investigating what they do not understand use their imagination heavily.
Here's a science example for you. String theory is untestable, it is unprovable, it is, technically *not science*. Scientists work on it, heavily. Why?
They work on it because while they cannot explain the universe, they actually hold faith that the path their taking in their mathematical manipulations will lead to new physical understanding.
By your reasoning, since String theory is being exempted from data collection, from physical investigation, and hence rational inquiry, it is a bad idea.
If you say, "yes, string theory is a bad idea." I would agree with you actually. But that doesn't change the fact that an untestable, unprovable idea that requires faith is compatible with science. - Mechanicat, on 05/14/2008, -1/+2Also questions of values and morals are beyond the scope of science and reason. As Hume said: Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.
- Nougat, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3String theory - and other sciences which depend heavily on mathematics - are built upon the strong, proven, tested and logical foundation of mathematics. Theism has no such foundation; it's founded on conjecture, delusion and whim.
String theory is subject to rational inquiry through mathematics. Theism is not subject to rational inquiry at all. Any time someone puts an invalidating query to theism, the theist(s) are free to generate an additional piece of dogma to counter the query - not through hypothesis, experiment, observation and calculation, mind you, but by "introspection" and "meditation" and "prayer." - Phyraxus, on 05/14/2008, -0/+4Love is an emotional mechanism that evolved throughout our ancestors that promoted the fitness of our species. We, as a species, take a long time to grow and reproduce and a mother would be unable to fend for herself for an extremely vulnerable nine months and the subsequent ten years (minimum) to take care of a child. Remember, 1000 years ago, the life span of an average human was 29 years (I think), so females became mothers at a very young age.
Art is another concept that also evolved due to our highly sophisticated brain. I believe it is understood to be more of a side-effect of our brains' evolution of causality more than actually actively evolving.
These things we find beautiful and have intrinsic moral value regardless of their evolutionary purposes. To understand the reasons why we have these emotions in no way diminishes them.
I must tell you a story, that happened two days ago. I was talking to my friend, (a doctor and an agnostic {I'm not sure to what extent, he simply said agnostic]) and I asked him if the thought dogs really had emotions or not. He said that of course, they do. I replied that, well they may have an appearance of an emotion because they evolved in order to better manipulate our emotions. To which he replied, "Does that make them any less real?" It seemed so simple and clear to me that, yes, dogs do indeed have real emotions, as real as ours. We evolved emotions in order to better become social animals, you and I both feel the same kinds of emotions, the chemical precursors in our brain is a testament to their reality. Would it really be a stretch of the imagination to give the same benefit to dogs? In fact, considering that they have experienced our artificial selection for thousands of years, wouldn't they be able to feel our emotions better than we do considering their diminished mental capacity for thought?
String theory is not CURRENTLY testable, but it does make predictions and one day we will be able to test them.
Scientists do not require any "faith" other than what any other person requires to believe what his senses tell him and that his mind is perceiving reality as it actually is. ST said that, sure, you could think that we are all in the matrix and the what we perceive isn't reality. Ultimately, everyone of any ideology (other than hardcore agnostics) must assume that what they perceive to be real and deemed to be accurate to a certain degree in order to get anywhere. Whether or not things exist outside of human consciousness is actually another question entirely, but I'd like to think so. - Phyraxus, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3(Damn, change comment crap)
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound."
Yes, in the sense that sounds are simply vibrations of molecules in the air that we are capable of perceiving as sounds. The vibration of molecules will happen regardless of whether or not anyone is there to hear those vibrations. - Mechanicat, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3Nougat, since string theory is untestable it cannot be considered a science, at best its a proto-science. A scientific hypothesis MUST be empiricially testable and open to falsification. Mathematics on its own cannot inform us about the natural world. I refer you to the case of non-euclidian geometry.
- StaticThunder, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2I haven't finished reading the thread. Just the first reply.
"Not all of human existence can be explained rationally. If you believe that, then please rationally explain love to me."
Well, you then need to provide one thing that definitively can't be explained, and not just a subjective bias you've brought to the table... like, oh, I don't know, explain love without metaphysics. Or would you like me to explain irrationality, rationally?
What would you like to know about it? The evolutionary selection to form strong pair-bond relationships and encourage long-sighted behavior for the benefit of offspring and societies? The chemistry that occurs in the brain? The magic of complicated neural nets?
Why do you require more than what it is? And even if I can't explain it... that doesn't mean "substitute ***** here." - StaticThunder, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2Okay, to continue.
Yes, string theory hypotheses are not testable as physics. The math behind it may be logically sound, and testable, but that doesn't mean its PHYSICAL. Again, I can make up logical fairy tales, that doesn't make them real. Why do they study it? Because they feel like it. Maybe someday they'll be able to test it. If I thought that exploring the theory of God might someday prepare you to do an experiment on it, I'd understand why you do it. The way you're going about it will not achieve that end. You already have your conclusions, you're not asking "if God existed, what would he be like?" You already know.
When you have an experiment that suggests a specific divinity out of the infinity of possible extra-unversal possibilities, we can revisit it. Until then, you are wrong if you think it is real.
Questions of values and morals are not outside the scope of reason. What is pragmatism but an attempt to come up with a rational set of rules that maximizes utility? Is that relying on metaphysics?
Guys, I understand the cognitive dissonance, but seriously, you tell me. I have a hypothesis with no evidence supporting it. How do I evaluate its truth content? How often will I be correct? - StaticThunder, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2""I think therefore I am". The corollary of that is that science rests on a sort of naive realism, the scientific method itself also depends on abduction and induction, the former is formally fallacious and the latter is logically unjustifiable. Don't take that as a disparagement of science because I am an unwavering proponent of it, just that even science and its methods cannot survive a ruthless epistemic examination."
Now who is being nihilistic. Clearly there is no way the rest of what I know can follow from I think therefor I am. I mean, after that I get to questions such as what am I, why do I think this way, what led me to these conclusions. There's no way I can establish a logical framework from THAT? Its completely unlike discovering the integers using just the empty set (which has been done). If induction was fallacious, it wouldn't WORK so often, would it. I suppose if I don't find an elephant in my refrigerator, that means there was an elephant and I just didn't look hard enough.
If it is impossible to know anything, then why do you expect the sun to rise tomorrow?
This is another one of those bad arguments against atheism. "You can't be moral" has evolved to "you can't possibly know anything"
Maybe so, it still doesn't make God real, it just makes me question reality. He's still one possibility out of an transfinite number.
There is a big difference between having a hypothesis, doing a test, and accumulating a reason to think that the results hold, and picking an answer, never testing it, and saying "well, there has to be something more than reality, so I'll just believe this for the hell of it" - StaticThunder, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2And as far as it goes, I think string theory is bad science if its anything other than math, I think every string theorist is wrong if he thinks that his math represents reality. He has too many degrees of freedom and not enough observations to pin it down.
- Mechanicat, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2@Static Thunder. With regard to morality and values, I don't know anyone who's been able to come up with one unconditional normative statement. It seems impossible. And I said abduction is formally fallacious (it follows the form of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy), and induction can only be logically defended through circular reasoning. Your rationalisation that "it wouldn't WORK so often, would it" itself begs the question (look up the Monte carlo fallacy). But your argument that it seems to work is actually good enough for me. All I was doing was demonstrating that unremitting, extreme skepticism leaves us with very little to logically hold on to. That's all. And I never resorted to the argument from morality as an argument for theism. I was merely defending Bigmanoncampus. I'll maintain that issues of values and morality are ultimately beyond science and pure reason.
- StaticThunder, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2I'd only reply, that you still have no evidence for God, and every other argument with no evidence for it usually falls flat when we have the ability to test it. The likelihood you are correct approaches nil. If the entire universe is a lie, and logic and reason do not work, that still doesn't establish the existence of God in the absence of evidence. It just removes the reason for everything else.
I hate to invoke a pragmatic argument, but there it is. Induction seems to work. It still doesn't apply without evidence.
The most important thing I said, which I think needs addressing, given a hypothesis with absolutely no evidence, what is the likelihood I am correct? Do you have a number other than zero, or not?
I think issues of morality are completely reasonable. What compromises on my freedom do I need to make to insure that I have a reasonably secure life? Can I kill people? Obviously not. Most things follow from not wanting to suffer personally for removing the freedoms of others. Its not an appeal to a superanatural authority and doesn't dismiss reason at the door. - StaticThunder, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2So if you are ultimately digging for an admission that reason could be wrong, yes, reason could be wrong. Reason says religion is hogwash, reason could be wrong. It doesn't mean religion is correct, but consider the odds, ∞:1 man!
Transfinite number of possibilities, very finite number of ideas about God. If you can reconcile this, without just ignoring it, you are a deeper thinker than I. Thus, rational scientific inquiry, and religion are incompatible. They follow different rules, and one says the other is as close to impossible as it can get unless you accept cognitive dissonance. - StaticThunder, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3I did look up Monte Carlo fallacy, and as I suspected, it really doesn't apply; the reason induction works is because it weighs the odds, not because its relying on a run of events. I can estimate whether a die is biased or not based on its history without assuming that it must defy that behavior in the next roll, which would be the monte carlo fallacy.
Induction is not we have seen the sun rise so often, its about time it fails to do so tomorrow. Its given the history of the sun, we estimate the odds it will rise tomorrow at close to unity. We could be wrong, but its a very good bet. - SampleX, on 05/14/2008, -3/+1"The beginning of the universe does have supporting evidence (big bang theory), ie expanding in all directions, how matter is placed in the universe. These are things that can be modeled on a computer using real world physics... While not proof, it is still supporting evidence, and that is how theories are formed."
Shame that the old dogma of 'the universe is expanding' isn't actually strictly true, nor is it remotely accurately measurable, and its a shame that in your 'mass still travelling through space in an outward direction emanating from a point of explosive origin' argument you also mentioned 'how matter is placed in the universe' which is kind of contradictory, explosions tending to 'fling' things rather than 'place' them, not to mention the fact that the apparently observable 'stasis' of a convenient number of bodies in the 'universe' which give rise to apparently making conditions for life on this single rock utterly ideal seems to defy the 'objects flying out from a point of emanation in an expanding and constantly fluid universe causing 'ripples' that we can observe with sufficient confidence to assert that the universe exploded into being is, well, beyond belief... Not a single naturalistic explanation seems to be suitable for demonstrating how what amounts to massive far reaching ripples which all have inherent momentum can propel so many of these chunks of rock and gaseous masses and radition and gas and such like into the furthest reaches of the ever-expanding universe, while certain leaves floating on the surface of this cosmic lake seem to stay perfectly still, apparently having found a whole new set of principles by which they are utterly unaffected, or in defiance of, what YOU say we can observe as a universal constant from which we can draw scientific law. Seems to me like an example of a person gazing out of a single window their whole life, and believing that they can accurately predict, define and describe what is happening in the rest of the world and why.
"I think it's better that us not dwell on magic, fairy tales, and other *****."
So what you're saying is that anything that someone says once happened, which we cannot see happening right now, is *****? Seems logical. All history is *****. Evoloutionary theory is *****. Big Bang is *****. It's all *****. But of course, since you're dominated and directed by a philosophy (atheism) rather than intelligent process, you don't actually look at specific examples and examine them to draw conclusions about whether there is sound material reason for you to say 'its *****', it simply happens to be that if a certain thing is inconvenient to your clearly indoctrinated philosophical position, it must inevitably be *****.
I always like Conan-Doyle... 'when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.' The accounts of the Bible (and indeed other traditions) are as implausible as you like. But the only thing that science cannot do is to prove them impossible, because the nature of 'science' is that what we perceive to be 'scientific' is always inherently capable of being superceded by something we never knew, never considered, never observed before. If you want to confine your mind to the closed-minded false-reliance upon 'everything we think we know scientifically about everything we already think about scientifically' then go right ahead. Denial of the possibility of the supernatural is never an intelligent position. It might be a popular position. But then again so is drinking and taking drugs, and they're not smart pastimes either.
"Faith is a poor tool to frame knowledge in. Faith is a poor tool to live your life by."
Not necessarily the case. Faith in something proven to be sound, predictable, recurrent, reliable is exercised daily, and scientists exercise faith daily in concluding that 'one hundred predictable outcomes is sufficient' and assuming that the one hundred and one occasion will not bring the 'rule' crashing down. Faith in what appears to be reliably demonstrated is neither religion, nor illogicality. It is humanity doing a natural thing - placing confidence in the tried and tested reliability of something tangible. And if you're placing faith in something sound which has not failed, has not been proven incorrect, cannot be ruled out, then living life by such exercise of faith would be inevitable, undeniably logical in the greater process, The gravest assumption in this line of thinking is the most fundamental of all... that it is all well and good to assume that what a volume like the Bible might have to say about events, histories, people, occurrances must inevitably be '*****' or 'fatally flawed' simply because it promotes a reaction of faith in some - but at the end of the day, that's all it is - your assumption, and your assumption that it is wrong and cannot be relied upon, 'trusted in', is as blind and uninformed as anyone who asserts that it can be trusted in just because... Bible believers are very well versed in their reasons to believe, reasons which appear to be indelibly etched in recorded history and are supportable, directly and indirectly, as being factual and honest. The opposition argument to that is nothing but assumption - the assumption that the Bible couldn't be right, the assumption that implausible things could not possibly have happened, the assumption that the way we see things now could not possibly be a flawed perception of reality which was not a hinderance to open mindedness back then. The position we're taking in 'atheism' or 'skepticism' is a relatively modern phenomenon which necessarily discards without research and without testing and without proof a massive weight of inconvenient evidence of all forms which paints a wholly different picture, and the sole single reason for us behaving so unprofessionally in this manner is the fact that philosophically we choose to reject those evidences because we refuse to accept that they might indeed be everything they appear to be, prima fascie. 'Constancy' is the biggest myth of science. Evolutionary theory has had to necessarily adapt to the idea that laws of science as we observe them might be randomly altered or affected, suspended, facilitated, exacerbated or catalysed in order to produce a necessary result simply because the model we have fabricated requires that exceptions to rules must have occurred in order to make the assumption (the science fiction) fit the reality (the science fact). And we accept these random, chance execeptions and catalysts as a given, to suit the purpose. Yet we still claim to be able to date the age of rocks, and the age of the earth and the age of the universe using methodology which has been demonstrated to be utterly flawed, and which is, in principle, not remotely plausible as an empirical methodology for the simple reason that it uses data gathered over five minutes of geological time, to make assertions about conditions, patterns, processes and events over thousands of hours of geological time, based on the most ridiculous notion in the universe - that constancy can be assumed and we can bank on having reliable, predictable results. Theoretically we can, and have, demonstrated that land mass under water, under pressure, under heat, in motion, with fluctuations in solution pH, and varied exposure to chemical reactions, not to mention cataclysmic catalysts, can be distorted and 'messed with' so profoundly as to totally confuse all the conventions of prediction, assumption and expectation in various fields, and yet when we raise the spectre of a global flood involving meteor strikes, supervolcanic eruption and a massive extinction event (all of which are directly evidenced in the earth's geology as well as historical accounting) we call this '***** legend' and dismiss it out of hand solely because it is in the book of Genesis and we do so on the basis of reciting out ability to measure everything based on the assumption of constants - constants which, I hasten to add, if science was an honest discipline, would have to be thrown out the window, because constancy is not determined by observing the last two milimetres of what could be a hundred meter curve as much as it could be a hundred meter straight line, and without 'year zero' figures to pose a scientific starting place, trying to formulate conclusions out of latter-stage data is like looking at the last five frames of a movie reel and claiming to be able to tell the plot, the script, the costume, the set pieces, the soundtrack, and the names of the participants in the making of a film, without having seen the whole or knowing a thing about it.
This is what we've become expert in - taking what we observe now, and throwing up a fantasy story about how it got here. 'Science' as devoted evolutionists and atheists know it, is every bit as guilty of doing this as any religion, and the results are undeniably religious in nature - believers believe regardless of their own familiarity with the evidence, and they recite verbatim what their high priests tell them, making sure they send their kids to seminary (schools and colleges) in order to learn 'the truth', shunning violently in many cases any alternative viewpoints, and continually making reference to the self-serving processes and self-congratulatory intellectual masturbations of self-obsessed 'celebrity' priests and consensus councils who cannot prove their objectivity and are in turn hopelessly devoted to the religion already and hoping to turn out a new generation...
To demonstrate my point about false notions of 'constancy'... "Induction is not we have seen the sun rise so often, its about time it fails to do so tomorrow. Its given the history of the sun, we estimate the odds it will rise tomorrow at close to unity. We could be wrong, but its a very good bet." - Mechanicat, on 05/14/2008, -2/+1No, you've just totally failed to grasp the significance of it. The point of the monte carlo fallacy is it that it invalidates the probabilistic defense of induction you're appealing to right now. A common inductive inference is that if phenomenon x has been observed to occur often in the past it'll likely continue to occur in the same fashion in the future (like the sun will rise tomorrow because it has always done so in the past). But this kind of reasoning is really indistinguishable from the monte carlo fallacy since we're assuming that past instances are a reliable indicator of future events or in some way determine it. That's the crux of the issue here. You can't simply say it has a good history because that just begs the question.
- Nougat, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3I find it amusing that everyone is considering mathematics as somehow less sound than physical observation. Mathematics is far more stable, testable, repeatable and verifiable than physical observations and all their subtle variables. Not to mention that every single scientific discovery on the quantum scale has been preceded by the mathematics that describe it. Physicists don't just dream up new particles; the calculations demonstrate the existence of particles, and then they figure out how to experiment to see them. And even then, you can't "see" a quantum particle, you can only observe its effects. You're not even "seeing" anything - your brain is interpreting light that's landing on your retina.
Mechanicat, in reference to the above, and your comments regarding "saying it has a good history." -- What else are we to go on, then? No, you're correct, just because something has happened with certain regularity over and over again does not mean that it will necessarily happen again. Observation is not the cause of events.
Except when it is. Do look up up the double slit experiment. It is compellingly weird, testable, repeatable. In this experiment, simply observing which slit each photon passes through causes the photon to behave as a particle. Not observing causes it to behave like a wave.
But I'm getting off track a little. No, past observations do not cause future events, at least not on the macro scale. What past observations do is provide us with the probability of the observed past event happening in the future. We have observed the sun rising in the east so consistently that the probability of it happening tomorrow is impossibly close to 100%. It would be correct to say, then, that "While there is the smallest, most infinitesimal chance that the sun will not rise tomorrow morning at 6:12 AM, the odds are so significant that I can say with almost absolute certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow at 6:12 AM." Translated into normal speech: "Sunrise tomorrow: 6:12 AM."
What you're niggling over is semantics. - Nougat, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1^INsignificant
- Mechanicat, on 05/14/2008, -2/+1I'm sorry but you cannot say with any degree of certainty that the sun will rise tommorow without begging the question. Arguments from probability will not help you here either. I know it sounds ridiculous but thats where extreme skepticism leaves us. I'm familiar with the double slit experiments and I believe recent experiments have challenged the principle of complementarity. And when it comes to science matters mathematics will always be a slave to empirical data. It should be obvious that without the reins of empirical observations mathematics cannot guide us to truths about nature.
- Phyraxus, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3@ mechanicat: Like I said in my comment (which no one cared to reply to )= ), there are certain assumptions we must ALL make in order to get anywhere. Although hardcore agnostics don't, everyone else has to decide whether or not they perceive reality correctly and draw up conclusions based on that reality.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc appeals to a false causality. You may be able to say, we see the sun rise every day, so it is a safe bet that it will tomorrow. However, we know it is not because we SEE it happen it will happen again, it is because we know the laws of gravity which control earths rotation, which makes the sun appear to rise again, and again. With our laws of gravity, we can say with a GREAT degree of certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Although, ultimately, yes you are right. If you want to be some hardcore agnostic, who thinks we may never know anything about life, the universe and everything, that's your deal. I know that I'm going to decide on what works, I know that science best describes the reality that we live in, so I will choose science because it is the best bet. - Phyraxus, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2LOL, sample x is preaching to the wrong crowd, he needs to find some ignorant people that those arguments will actually work on.
- alkajazz, on 05/14/2008, -0/+5"chunks of rock and gaseous masses" Giant chunks of rock and perfectly formed stars did not get "Flung" from the big bang.
"Over a long period of time, the slightly denser regions of the nearly uniformly distributed matter gravitationally attracted nearby matter and thus grew even denser, forming gas clouds, stars, galaxies, and the other astronomical structures observable today. The details of this process depend on the amount and type of matter in the universe. The three possible types of matter are known as cold dark matter, hot dark matter and baryonic matter. The best measurements available (from WMAP) show that the dominant form of matter in the universe is cold dark matter. The other two types of matter make up less than 18% of the matter in the universe.[22]."
Also you stated that there is no way for us to Judge whether the Universe is expanding. This is simply not true there a few ways we can see if the universe is expanding. Gravitational Redshift was demonstrated by Hubble, proving that other galaxies were moving away from us. By studying the CMB we know that it was warmer at earlier times, cooling of the CMB suggests that the universe is expanding. Eventually earths sky will be dark, granted that the earth is still around. All known galaxies will of eventually moved so far away from us we will no longer be able to observe them. Nothingness is coming.
"Cosmologists speculate that 10^14 years from now (a mind-boggling stretch) the stars in our relentlessly expanding Universe could run out of fuel and fade from view. The night sky, once the TV set of ancient peoples, will become dull and boring: a blank tableau with no stars or nebulae. Sounds like an astronomer's nightmare!"
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast01nov_1 ... - Nougat, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3Mechanicat: what you seem to be saying is that nothing is ever predictable and that probability is an illusion. What is empirical data, if not a measurement of what has happened in the past, used to describe the probability of what will happen in the future?
Let's get to begging the question, and sunrises are a good place to stay with that. I think we can agree that "The sun has always risen in the east, every day throughout human history" is a fact. That measurement does not tell us *that* the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. It does not prove that to be true. What it does give us is a representation of the probability of the sun rising in the east every day, which is very near 100%.
You seem to be arguing that events of the past give zero indication of probability of future events. This is not true; science itself is based on collecting evidence of past events, and using that evidence to predict future events - and science works. We have computers, telescopes, electricity, wheels and levers. There are atoms, molecules, stars and planets, light. Everything that exists can only exist because real things behave predicatbly - most often the same way - from one moment to the next. A universe where real things behaved unpredictably from one moment to the next could not exist.
And yet on very small scales, things stop being things, and become just the probabilities of those things. You can know where a particle is, or where it is going, but the more you know about one characteristic, the less you know about the other. There is uncertainty down there. I hear theists always saying that the organization of the universe belies a creator. I don't think so; the part that doesn't quite fit is the uncertainty, and I think that if theism is real, that's where we'll find it. - StaticThunder, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3Monte Carlo fallacies have to do with independent events; the sun rising tomorrow is not independent of it rising today. This is not another dice roll, its the same sun, the same physics, the same processes, the same thermodynamics.
And if as you say, this is all begging the question, then congratulations, you've created a completely unworking model for knowledge because you wanted to acquire a rationalization for your bad hypothesis.
Yes, we could all be wrong. It still wouldn't make believing things on faith correct. The probability the sun will rise tomorrow still approaches unity. The probability of an arbitrary superbeing you have no evidence for is still approaching zero. - Phyraxus, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3It seems to me that:
Philosopher = Strong/Weak Agnostic
Philosopher + Scientist = Weak Atheist
Philosopher + Scientist + Social Activist = Weak Atheist & Antitheist
Angst-ridden teen = Strong Atheist
Delusional teen = Theist/On Drugs - Mechanicat, on 05/14/2008, -2/+2With regard to induction, as I've mentioned I like all you take the pragmatic approach. Whenever I take a flight I assume that the law of nature will remain constant because it always has done in the past. This is an almost subconscious inference we all make. The problem is't logically tenable and for philosophers of science (and many scientists) it has been an epistemic monster in the closet. And as Hume and Popper admitted we cannot invoke probability to get us out of the quagmire of circularity we face. Since this is getting too drawn out for my liking I'll refer you to a short essay dealing with the problem itself and unsuccessful solutions to it - http://www.proginosko.com/docs/induction.html . Why am I going down this route? I guess the kind of epistemic chauvinism regularly exibited by some atheists bothers me. The pragmatic utility of certain assumptions doesn't mean they automatically get a free pass from skeptical examination. If we're going to rigorously skeptical we should be consistent throughout.
- StaticThunder, on 05/14/2008, -0/+4@mechanicat
As I said, if you throw out the epistemic foundation of science in order to create room for Gods, you are simply to the equivalent of 'last Thursdayism'. I can't prove ANYTHING at that point. But it still doesn't mean that magical thinking becomes correct. It simply means that we can no longer have a discussion about it because reason no longer applies.
You've essentially thrown out the ability to make distinctions without replacing it with some other tool. We no longer can evaluate statements for truth or falsehood. So yes, I am rigorously skeptical up to the point that I can't be any more. Accepting inductive reasoning explains a great many more things than not to do so, even though in absolute terms, I can't prove the universe existed last Thursday, or that it will still be here next.
Not being able to prove things does not however suddenly mean we can talk about God intelligently. Its not chauvinism. It is explicitly showing that if you use natural science, God can't exist. And if God CAN exist, you have to throw out the baby with the bathwater. You are now arguing for the incompatibility that we've been trying to show. - Phyraxus, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3The only real problem with that is logic is a construct of the human mind. We would have to give logic, itself, some credence before we could even get anywhere. Either logic is bunk, or it is not. If it is bunk, my arguments don't make sense and I haven't proven anything. If it is not bunk, my arguments make sense and I have proven that it is bunk.
You have to start with an assumption one way or another in order to get anywhere. Which, as always, you assume the one that is the best bet (which is where inductive reasoning comes in.) It is a problem, indeed, but strict skepticism gets you nowhere. - Phyraxus, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3I would also say, that being reasonably skeptical is at the heart of science and weak atheism.
- StaticThunder, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2This all reminds me of a false discovery rate problem; if I accept these as true, what else must I accept in order to be cogent. What things I hold as true must I throw away in order to accept this hypothesis.
Right now, hypotheses about Gods are at the very bottom of the list; I have to accept every other hypothesis, including ones I strongly suspect are false, in order to get to them.
The only way to avoid this is to say, its ok not to be cogent. - Nougat, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1I'm reading that essay now, and I'll make some points here.
Regarding future-1 and future-2 - this is just what I'm talking about with probabilities. future-1 is a probability waveform while the event is in the future, and the waveform breaks down when the event actually occurs and passes into history. It is possible to know, to some degree of certainty, the probability of a future-1 event (a coin flip, for example) being A or B. The coin flip is very nearly 50/50 heads:tails, along with an infinitesimal sliver of weird other probabilities like the coin landing on its edge or failing to land at all. So the probability of the coin landing tails is 50% +/- some insanely small amount of variance.
What Hume was not aware of, and what your essayist does not comprehend, is that events are not certain unless they are in the past. Predicted future events do not have fixed values that we guess at - future events *are themselves probabilities.*
Along these lines, no, past events have nothing at all to do with future events. What past events do, in sum and statistically, is demonstrate what their probability was when they were future-1 events. Thereby, the probability of future-1 events can be known, to some degree of specificity.
And this is the important part: again, future events do not have static values that can be guessed at and the guesses at which can be right or wrong. Future events *are probabilities.*
The problem of induction is not with the answer - any answer. It's with the question, and the premise that the question infers, that future events are static. - Nougat, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Expanding just a bit:
*First* there is a future event, a probability. *Then* there is the present, where the event occurs. *Then* the event has a fixed value, in the past. The hitch here is "what causes the probability waveform to collapse into a fixed value?
Or, what causes a future event? Before an event occurs, there is uncertainty about it. After the event occurs, there is no uncertainty; it is fixed. Subtraction of uncertainty about an event appears to be its cause.
- ElAssoWipo, on 05/13/2008, -16/+46Religion is a set of Dogmas.
Theism can be compatible with science, as long as God didn't create the universe, isn't perfect, didn't create life on earth, doesn't have any impact in our lives and never manifested himself.
In other words, the only God that is compatible with science is a God that serves absolutely no purpose.- Chronoped, on 05/13/2008, -4/+3What's wrong with believing that science merely explains god's work? If you could create a universe, wouldn't you want it to work logically and practically? This is a silly conflict. Why can't we maybe speculate that god invented evolution and physics and chemistry and the models of reality? THAT'S the true wonder and genius of it all, not the ancient bible stories everyone argues over. Perhaps people also need to admit that there may be much more to the universe than we know, and that we may one day have scientific explanations for spirits and the afterlife and reincarnation. Eventually, one day, we'll find out one way or another. Until then, why don't we just concede to the possibility that it could go either way?
- fyngyrz, on 05/13/2008, -0/+5"What's wrong with believing that science merely explains god's work?"
What is wrong is that there is no evidence for a god or gods; there is no theory that assigns reality to the "hand" of god; there are no laws created as a consequence of a theory, seeing as how there isn't a theory anyway; there is no way to link the idea of god or gods to science; and finally, were one to even accept, simply for the sake of argument, that "god did it", then we are left with "what created god", which is the same question as before, essentially -- the unexplained existence of a huge, incomprehensibly complex "thing" for which we have no answers. If you are moved to reply that "god doesn't need an explanation", then I simply counter with "neither does the putative continuous existence of the universe in some form."
The fact is, if it is an ultimate explanation you wish to believe in, god, by definition as an intelligent, ineffable, omnipotent being, does not explain itself, and so you remain without any final belief at all.
Or to put it another way, if you're not satisfied with "the universe was always here in some form", and feel you must replace that with "god did it", then I ask you bluntly: Either (a) what made god, or, (b) why is the answer "god was always here in some form" satisfactory while "the universe was always here in some form" is not? Especially since we do have evidence for the universe (pinch yourself) and we don't have evidence for god. It seems to me - just offhand - that the basis for presuming the universe was always here in some form is a lot strong than the basis for presuming that a god or gods was. Since the universe *is* here, after all.
And frankly... if you are *not* searching for an ultimate explanation to the question of where the universe came from, they why are you searching for an explanation at all? It isn't like the answer is going to make you more lucky at the track, you know. - Chronoped, on 05/13/2008, -2/+2Well, we aren't done investigating yet. Science is far from understanding everything, and who knows, maybe we'll discover something surprising as we keep exploring. I'm simply saying that there's an unnecessary conflict being constantly created by those who deny the existence of god and those who believe. Just because our scientific institutions at this very moment cannot prove whether or not there is a god doesn't mean having faith in god's existence is totally unreasonable. Maybe we'll find out how god came to exist as well at some point, and continue to gain further insight.
I noticed most of your rant was against arguments I didn't make. Please don't make wild assumptions about my opinion. - StaticThunder, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3The problem @chronoped, is not that there are things we don't know. The problem is relig
- vagyok, on 05/13/2008, -15/+103That there exists a supernatural being manipulating our universe is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence.
- BigManOnCampus, on 05/13/2008, -78/+55Science and religion are compatible. Science and Dogma are not.
- themarq, on 05/13/2008, -48/+386It only matters because time and time again the Christians have held up Einstein as the "Uber Scientist" who believed in god. This example, in their minds, was intended to illustrate that science and religion are compatible in some way. After all, if the worlds most famous scientist was a god fearing christian then you should believe as well.