Re: Science versus religion fnord

On Jul 14, 10:46 pm, John McKendry <jlastn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 18:35:23 -0700, snex wrote:
On Jul 10, 10:01 pm, John McKendry <jlastn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:45:53 -0700, snex wrote:
On Jul 9, 7:17 pm, John McKendry <jlastn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 08:01:51 -0700,snexwrote:
On Jul 2, 6:23 pm, John McKendry <jlastn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:46:08 -0700,snexwrote:
On Jun 29, 11:58 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:36:30 -0700,snexwrote:
[...]
because the claims about gods are empirical! good lord man,
pay attention.

I just corrected you about this two days ago.  *Some* claims
about gods are empirical.  There is nothing inherent in the
concept of godhood which requires empiricism.

yes, there is. he created the universe. this is an empirical
claim. it doesnt matter if you make 10 billion other
non-empirical claims about him after that. you only need the
one to make me demand the evidence and call you anti-science
when you insist that none is necessary.

 Good, let's narrow it down to this one issue. I don't think
 that
"God created the universe" is an empirical claim. I've told you
why; there is nothing about the observable universe that would be
different depending on whether God created it or not. You say
otherwise. But you have never told me what would qualify as an
observable difference between a created universe and a
just-happens-to-exist universe.

again, its simply not my problem to come up with such experiments..
its the problem of the people making the claim. if they cant, then
maybe they should re-evaluate their beliefs in such silly claims.

 Why is the assertion "it is an empirical claim that god created
 the
universe" so specially privileged that it doesn't require evidence?
It is not self-evidently true. It appears to be false, in fact. Why
should I accept it if you can't provide any evidence for it? How is
"I don't have to provide evidence" congruent with your insistence
that people who make claims without evidence are foolish, deluded,
and intellectually dishonest?

you have been told why it is an empirical claim. it is an assertion
about what events actually occurred in the history of the universe.

 If the universe was created, its creation was not an event that
 occurred
in the history of the universe. Logic pretty much requires this;
anything that happens in the universe is not the creation of the
universe. Things that happen in the universe are in principle
observable, things that do not happen in the universe are not
observable.

you contradict yourself. if the universe was created, then its creation
was the *first* event in its history. but even beyond that, there is a
"omniverse" that consists of the universe and whatever created it. there
is no reason that this "omniverse" should not also be amenable to
scientific study, if it in fact exists.

 If you're saying that science can talk about "before the Big Bang",
I agree. That's not the creation I'm talking about. The difficulty
with talking about what happened before the Big Bang, as I understand
it, is that the laws of physics that we know cannot be extrapolated
to the teeny-tiny times and distances involved. As we learn more
physics, it seems likely that we will eventually have a good theory
that takes us across that barrier. But it doesn't seem likely, at
least to me, that we will have a theory that says why the universe
has to be like that. I don't think this is a matter of lack of
observations, or limitations of instruments, or not enough time
or money to carry out the experiments; it's that science figures
out what the rules are, but there's a level of "why" that science
just can't touch.

 I'm saying that there are limits to what questions science can
answer, and "why are the laws of physics what they are?" is one
of those questions that science can't answer. Ever.

just because science cannot answer some question, even in principle,
does not mean that religion or some other enterprise can. to suggest
otherwise is the same argument from ignorance that the ID crowd uses.
its not valid for them and its not valid for deists. its simply a
garbage argument, period. honestly, is this what passes for
"sophisticated theology?" its no different than the "make *** up"
approach that fundamentalists have always used.



 It is a strange sense of the word "empirical" you are working
 with,
it seems to me, where you get to ask me for evidence when I have
explained that there can be no evidence, and where you say that
the existence of God is an empirical question but utterly fail to
say what kind of observation would count as evidence.

if "there can be no evidence," then "there should be no belief."
what leads us to believe things is evidence. if you are going on
something *other than* evidence, then you are acting in a manner
that is inherently anti-scientific.

 Ray Martinez and you share, among other things, the inability to
distinguish between "being without" and "being against". If you are
going on something other than evidence, your belief is inherently
non-scientific. To be not simply non-scientific but anti-scientific,
you have to be operating in the realm where science operates.

and theists are doing this when they say "god exists," or "jesus rose
from the dead."

 So you keep saying. But first of all, we're not talking about the
theists' personal god here, let alone the Resurrection; we're talking
about a Creator god. We narrowed it down to this one issue.

 Second of all, this whole argument is about whether "god exists"
is a statement that lives in the realm where science operates, so you
don't get to use it as a fact until the argument is settled.

 Third of all, you have consistently failed to offer supporting
evidence for your own claims. Every time I ask you for evidence you say
again that you don't need evidence, the other guys need evidence.

 The canonical example of that kind of imbalance is Russell's teapot
orbiting between Mars and Jupiter. If I say there's a teapot out there,
I need to provide evidence. If you say there's not, nobody is going to
press you to prove it. But that's not to say that you don't need any
evidence for your claim; it's that there is already plenty of evidence
against the presence of a teapot out there. We know how teapots come
into being; people make them. We know how man-made objects (would) get
into orbit between Mars and Jupiter; people go to a lot of trouble to
put them there, and it is done with great hoopla and fanfare. We know,
with a high degree of assurance, that nobody has put a teapot out
there. That's the evidence.

 That's the kind of evidence I'm asking for. If you think it's highly
unlikely that some purposive First Cause accounts for the existence and
character of the universe, tell me why you're so sure. Don't just tell
me that God is like an orbiting teapot, tell me why God is like a
teapot.

we know a lot about purposive causes, just like we know a lot about
teapots. we know that they are always accompanied by biological
organisms with significant brain sizes. we know that they often leave
physical evidence of their methods behind. so where is any of this for
the alleged universe creator? oh wait, the theists claim that it has
none of this. so the evidence would seem to indicate that it isnt really
there.

 That's a good argument if God is like a teapot, but I don't think
God is like a teapot. I don't think God is like a potter, to be
more on-target with the analogy; it's the universe that isn't like a
teapot. The answer to "why is there anything?" is not going to be
anything like the answer to "why is there this teapot?" It's unfortunate
that the questions look so much alike.

if god is not like a potter, then you cant assign creative abilities
to him. you cant have it both ways here. you are simply making up an
explanation out of thin air, and then calling it "religion" so that
nobody can criticize it. its the same bull*** that all theists have
always done.


you could make the excuse that it can somehow exist without a brain, but
then i can reply that teapots can be formed and placed into orbit by the
same type of magic supporting your argument.

 Sure, but if I'm entertaining the notion of believing in some Power
that caused the universe to come into existence, it doesn't really
trouble me that it doesn't have a brain inside a living body. I'm
already talking about something that's not in time and space.

then you cant possibly have any evidence for this being, so how did
you arrive at the conclusion that it exists? you are just using the
"make *** up" approach.


 The point is, if there is a First Cause, it is singular, unique.
It is not *like* anything. Arguments by analogy with things inside
the universe (or omniverse, even) just do not apply; the response is
always going to be "no, but *before* that". It's like explaining
things to a three-year-old; there's always going to be one more
"why?"

if arguments by analogy dont apply, then why are you using one to
arrive at this conclusion in the first place? all you have is the
analogy of causes and effects within the universe. give me some real
reason to accept that this entity exists other than some argument from
analogy that you admit is invalid anyway.




 You take it as self-evident that science operates everywhere. It
 is
not self-evident; in fact, it is self-evidently false, and people
have given you plenty of examples to show that.

people have given examples which are not analogous to the types of
claims that religious people make at all. "i prefer chocolate over
vanilla" is NOT the same type of claim as "2000 years ago, a virgin
gave birth to the son of god."

 You keep wandering off topic. I'm talking about "god created the
 universe".
And you're right that some of the examples have been off-target. I
think it's because people are trying to get you to see that science
doesn't exhaust the universe of things we can think about, without
setting off your Religion Alarm.

"god created the universe" is the same type of claim as "2000 years ago,
a virgin gave birth to his son." its an assertion about what happened in
reality, not a personal preference or aesthetic value.

 It is not the same kind of thing as an opinion or preference or
artistic judgment, true, but it is also not the same kind of thing
as asserting that there is a teapot on the table. If you persist in
thinking that the universe is like a teapot, you simply don't understand
what "creating the universe" means.

it absolutely is like asserting that a teapot is on the table. it is
either true or false. "not provable" is not a third option - it is
orthogonal. whether or not you can prove the statement is simply not
relevant to whether or not it is true. but if you admit that it is not
provable, why on earth are you failing to criticize people who
maintain that it is in fact true?




 We agree that the reality of the Biblical Flood is an empirical
question, right? What makes it empirical is that we can say what
kind of observation would count as evidence. A world-wide layer
of sediment containing organic remains that can be carbon-dated
to the late third millennium BCE, for instance. Evidence that the
Pyramids were once submerged in salt water. Mention of the flood
in chronicles of that date. Evidence of extreme genetic
bottlenecks in all known genomes at that time. Mathematical
demonstration that the existing diversity of life could have
evolved in four thousand years from a population of basic kinds
small enough to have been housed on a small wooden ship.
Discovery that the Earth's interior contains vast subterranean
pockets of salt water, sufficient in volume to account for where
the waters of the Flood went. Lots of things would count as
evidence.

 So if the existence of God-as-creator is an empirical question,
 why
can't you name one single observation that would count as
evidence?

thats a question you should be asking theists. the fact that they
use the word "created" is what makes the matter empirical.
creating things requires action. action involves causes and
effects. but if they cant come up with the evidence, they should
stop making the claim.

  Well, credit for sort of answering the question, but I don't
  think it
works. If you want to talk about causes and effects you are nose to
nose with the First Cause argument; either there is a cause (or more
than one, granted) that has no prior cause, or else there is an
infinite sequence of previous causes. If you think that one of those
is obviously true and scientific, I want to know how you know. I'm
perfectly happy to let you believe one or the other on the grounds
that it makes sense to you, but if you tell me that I have to agree
with you, then you owe me some evidence first.

i dont believe either one, because there is simply no evidence
pointing in either direction. but theists pick one (and even give it
an amazing level of detail they couldnt possibly know!) and assert
that not only is it true, but that it is the most important fact that
there is or can ever be.

 Over in Dale Kelly's "prime mover" thread you say that the First
Cause or Prime Mover is "called the universe", so I'm not convinced
that you're entirely neutral. And here you seem to be answering a
question different from the one I asked. I didn't ask what annoys you
about theists; I asked why I should believe that "there is a First
Cause to the universe" is incompatible with science. If,as you say,
there is simply no evidence pointing in either direction, isn't that
pretty much the definition of "not empirical"?

my reply in the dale kelly thread is obviously a facetious reply to a
non-serious poster. whether or not there is a first cause or a series of
infinite causes just isnt relevant to anything at the moment. im sure we
would all like to know, but its unlikely that we will in any of our
lifetimes.

but that does not mean it isnt an empirical matter. just because we cant
experiment now doesnt mean we never will.

 I can't prove that science will never find or create an answer to
"why is there anything?", but that's what I believe. And I believe
further that people who think otherwise have not thought hard enough
about the topic, and do not really understand the question. I'm
sorry if that sounds like a personal attack, because it's really
not meant that way, but I think that "why is there anything?" is
a meaningful question, and "because something caused it" is a
meaningful and plausible answer, and science has no way to answer
the question.

if science has no way to answer the question, then why do you think it
is a meaningful question? meaningful questions have ways to answer
them. and science is the only known way we have for answering
questions about the universe. religion is certainly *not* a reliable
way to answer *anything,* let alone questions about the universe. and
i notice that your answer has become far less committal that
previously. "because something caused it" certainly is a plausible
answer. but "because a magic man *willed* it into existence, and maybe
even wrote a book to tell us to stop masturbating so much" is *not* a
plausible answer, but i never see you criticizing people who offer it
as one.


what it does mean is that we
should not offer automatic respect for only one view of the matter.
there is certainly no default respect in society for strong atheism, nor
is anybody advocating that there should be. people only demand default
respect for religions.

 Maybe true, but this is a separate question from whether there is
or is not a First Cause.



 If the matter is empirical, that means it can be decided on the
 basis
of evidence. You can convince me that it's an empirical issue by
telling me what kind of evidence can decide it. If you can't tell me
what kind of evidence can decide it, you're playing word games.

there are plenty of ways that an all-powerful god could make himself
known to us. if you cant think of any, then you must really have a
lack of imagination.

 But I'm not talking about a God who acts in history, I'm talking
strictly about a God who caused and causes the universe to exist and to
be the way it is. A God who acts in history is a completely different
argument, one that I'm not going to get involved in until this one is
resolved. I can't think of any way to distinguish a universe that arose
from a First Cause from a universe that just happened. If you say this
is lack of imagination, tell me how I'm wrong.

if you cant think of a way to distinguish, and if *nobody* can think of
a way to distinguish, then why are you arguing with me, rather than with
people who assert that they know what happened?

 In no particular order, just as the reasons occur to me,
I'm arguing with you because:
1. You actually think about your answers.
2. Too many of the responses to your posts here are solely directed
at your personality, and do not address the substance of your claims.
I figure that it doesn't matter how abrasive, obnoxious, confrontational,
belligerent, and generally unpleasant you are, if you're right, you're
right; so I figure it's important to discuss whether you're right. And
in my opinion you're right some of the time, but not quite as often as
you think.
3. You remind me of myself when I was younger, so I can't believe that
you're a hopeless brainless nincompoop.
4. You actually think about your answers.

 As to people who assert that they know what happened: if you're
talking about people like Ray and Tony and [M]adman and spintronic,
it's a waste of breath talking to those guys. If you're talking about
people like Francis Collins, it doesn't look to me like they're doing
any harm.

it doesnt look like it if one doesnt look too closely. but would
people like ray, tony, et al, even exist if people like francis
collins werent going around making religion look like a good way to
get a handle on things? when somebody like francis collins says that
yes, god exists and yes, the bible is his written word, how can you
blame the less intelligent for actually reading the book and saying
"well gee, right here it says that gays are evil, and over there it
indicates a worldwide flood happened" and then actually believing
those things?

.

Loading