A Free-for-All on Science and Religion

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
I reject chance in the sense of true randomness, but that isn't science.

[/ QUOTE ]
I put that firmly in the domain of science, actually. It's kind of the crux of the hidden variables debate in QM.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I put that firmly in the domain of science, actually.


[/ QUOTE ]

We've had a few rounds concerning chance. If we're talking pure randomness, a completely uncaused event, it isn't science because there's no possibility to show it empirically. If it just means something like chance in cards, for instance, then it means "I don't know" or "we can't calculate it", which is different from absolute chance.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I put that firmly in the domain of science, actually.


[/ QUOTE ]

We've had a few rounds concerning chance. If we're talking pure randomness, a completely uncaused event, it isn't science because there's no possibility to show it empirically. If it just means something like chance in cards, for instance, then it means "I don't know" or "we can't calculate it", which is different from absolute chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'd hate to rehash old ground. But it can be shown empirically. It's one of the outcomes of the EPR experiments (though one open to interpretation). 'Hidden Variables' is equivalent to 'we don't/can't know'. Hidden variables theories are falsifiable. This may qualify as arcana to most folks here, so I'll just say it and drop it, rather than banter back and forth any more. But it's good stuff - the most philosophically interesting part of QM IMO, if you have an interest in those things.

[madnak]

But this means the Bible makes no concrete predictions at all. Meaning it can never be empirically supported.

And it also means that you have no system for interpreting the Bible. In other words, what's to prevent a totally arbitrary interpretation? What makes it any less valid than your interpretation?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Q: And everything that counts as evidence must ultimately be reducible to the data of perception?

A: This is a non question. This is not a requirement of science, but of life. To know anything external to an individual - in fact to know anything at all, or to be conscious - requires the actual existence of an outside world, which is perceived through our senses.

[/ QUOTE ]

We basically agree except for the possible implication that all knowledge is received through the senses.

[ QUOTE ]
So all of life and all of belief is ultimately reducible to the data of perception.

[/ QUOTE ]

That does not follow.

[ QUOTE ]
Q: Where is there any observation made by science establishing the intrinsic properties of an object independent of the conscious mind?

A: Again, this is not specific to science. The assumption that an external world exists is the foundation of both science and religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

We basically agree.

[ QUOTE ]
Provided you accept that assumption (and you have to to even have this conversation), then the intrinsic properties of objects can be established, independent of the conscious mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, your perceptions of the outside world don't necessarily tell you anything about its properties independent of your perception.

[ QUOTE ]
Q: Can these perceptions themselves be subjected to scientific inquiry.

A: Well that's called psychology. However, the quality of these perceptions, and the degree to which they describe reality, can be tested by requiring that perceptions can be replicated, and that models based on these perceptions fit with all available data.

[/ QUOTE ]

Psychology is yet another set of perceptions.

[RJT]

David and to others whom it may concern:

Here is a quick lesson on how to put quotes in a box when posting. It makes ones’ post much easier to read.


1) type the following:

[ quote]


(Yes, type the left bracket, then the word “quote” then the right bracket.

2) Copy the words you are quoting that you want to put in the box. (Cut and paste or retype it, however you want to do it.)

3) type the following:

[/quote ]

This ends what you are putting in the box.


That’s it.


The only thing you have to do differently is not leave any spaces between the brackets and the word quote or forward slash quote. I had to leave a space in my instructions because if I didn’t my wording would put itself in a box.




Hope that makes sense.


RJT

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
...I agree that science and scientists need to be more active in spreading scientific knowledge, but I oppose the aggressive stance that people like Dawkins take. I think books like "The God Delusion" do more harm than good. The facts should be stated, questions answered, and their interpretation left to the individual. Science is just another tool with which to know the world, it doesn't give the scientist a monopoly on knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I agree with you Phil. (First time I have, fwiw.)I would reword the last sentence, but I get your point.

RJT

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">The chasm is at least as wide as the gap between the religious person and the mildly retarded. </font>

You've impressed upon me the importance of intelligence when it comes to almost any endeavor (between humans), during my very first threads on this forum. However, I still question one thing...

You're fond of making reference to the intellectual gap between the average scientist Vs. the average religious person, and now... The average religious person Vs. the average retarded person, and yet...

When dealing with the concept of gods and other deeper philosophical questions, is this really important? I ask because the difference between the average low IQ humans and the next smartest creature in the known universe is significantly greater than the disparities between any of the groups you mentioned.

In other words, the intellect required when it comes to solving the questions of the universe, might be so much greater than man is capable of, that these disparities you point to might be insignifiacnt in the grand scheme of things. If the required intellect is a 90 and the smartest human is at .1, does it really matter that the average scientist are is much smarter than the average religious person? Before you say it...

I understand an edge is an edge, but it might not be as important as you make it out to be. Please clarify for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stat,

I was going to post similar sentiments. I was going to word it this way:

So, what? If one scientist can convince why Science is the be all and end all, I will fly to England and kiss Dawkins’ feet.

I don’t understand the ego that I see in folk like Dawkins.

I am not talking about when religion harms people - like the twin towers, or even less harmful effects that a religion might have others.

This symposium was not about addressing harmful affects some aspects of some religions might have. Or harm caused by some who misinterpret their religion.

They were basically talking about ending religion, yet give no real reason to.


RJT

[vhawk01]

I think Dawkins feels like religion ALWAYS harms people, and the events like 9/11 are the only times people take note of it. While Dawkins certainly feels science is superior to religion, I think he would be perfectly happy to see religion gone and not necessarily to see science as the be all and end all. If there is something that could take religions place BESIDES science it would probably be preferable to religion. I dont know what that would be, exactly.

[RJT]

hawk,

[ QUOTE ]
I think Dawkins feels like religion ALWAYS harms people, and the events like 9/11 are the only times people take note of it…

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are exactly correct that Dawkins feels religion ALWAYS harms people. That is the irony of it all. Harms people? What does that even mean?

[ QUOTE ]
…I think he would be perfectly happy to see religion gone and not necessarily to see science as the be all and end all…

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t think so. I think he thinks science is the be all and end all. If not, then what is his goal? If he has no goal then why is he so passionate about ending religion?

RJT