the naturalists
Alan Wostenberg
have sometimes been told that belief in naturalism -- i.e. that the
natural world is all that exists and there is thus no supernatural --
has an inverse relationship with how close the individual is with the
hard sciences. In particular, I've heard that physicists are rarely
naturalists, chemists slightly more frequently, biologists more, and
then when you get into the social sciences and philosophy, naturalism
and even anti-religious sentiments often play a large role."
http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2009/12/naturalists.html
fiddler
member of the "Einstein was a devout theist" camp. As always, the bare
majority of scientists in any discipline are deist and agnostic, with
naturalist/atheist either tying or coming in a close second.
archytas
subsume it as 'real'. Energy is borrowed from other universes and so
on. Some scientists even believe they are tapping into a 'cosmic
code'. Scientists are probably less willing to accept 'things as
real' than most. Social scientists are a rare breed, if they exist at
all. What one tries to do is not to work from and in nonsense and
much religionising fits easily into this. How religion works is an
area of study in social science, but social scientists neglect what is
religion-like in their own reasoning and practices, not least in
elevating themselves into a hierarchy of knowers through hermeneutic
practices, laying claim that their theories are under constant review
when they are not. Belief has to come in somewhere, at the very least
in terms of epistemic risk, which generally favours 'evidence' rather
than theory, though 'evidence' is seen as 'theory related'. We work
in a history of theories being under-determined by evidence and are
pragmatic with regards to 'truth' as something that changes - but this
is a 'history' we regard as better examined than dross about kings and
queens and fairy stories about miracles or 'economics'. Most
scientists are highly opinionated and passionate, even religious about
what they do. The world's dominant 'religion' is seen by the use of
an 'objective voice' seeking domination through apparently
'disinterested' argument that is easily exposed as not as rational as
it claims and is broadly adversarial and slickly emotional and
'mannered'.
fiddler
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vrpPPV_yPY&feature=related
His study lists around 40% of general scientists as some form of
religious and specialised and elite scientists between 12-15%.
On Dec 26, 10:08 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
archytas
garbage in, gospel out. God is as little use in science as concepts
like the 'light medium' or trying to establish the age of the Earth
through the Bible. Yet we end up wondering about a 'world of
information' (as a 'reality') or why we might put so much effort into
collecting Swahili male pig sweat, theorising mathematically on its
construction in agonising depth, getting this wrong but just
approximate enough to make the stuff, and then setting out with
barrels of it to rid Africa of the bane of sleeping sickness (by
attracting male tse-tse flies to the sweat, irradiating them and then
releasing them to the wild where they will have sterile relations with
females that only mate once). Who is the more religious, this set of
agnostic scientists, or some muckle of chanting monks blessing away?
Harder to say than any examination of whether they speak 'believer
language'. Science is not really set against religion, just nonsense,
and plenty of this is religious.
On 27 Dec, 18:01, fiddler <kenandk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Neil deGrasse Tyson addresses this.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vrpPPV_yPY&feature=related
Slip Disc
I've got to get this off to the Patent Office straight away!
Heeerre Fido, lick this stamp, good boy!
yar...@aol.com
On Dec 27, 9:09 am, archytas <archy...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> If we find anything outside general experience Alan, we tend to
> subsume it as 'real'. Energy is borrowed from other universes and so
> on.
No evidence exists for the existence of other universes.
>>Some scientists even believe they are tapping into a 'cosmic
> code'.
Why should anyone care what scientists "believe"? I care about what
they "know".
">> Scientists are probably less willing to accept 'things as
> real' than most. "
There are drug addicts that are far less likely to accept 'things as
real'. Such as their need for treatment being real. That doesn't put
them ahead of the pack. It puts them behind the eight ball.
"> Social scientists are a rare breed, "
Some of them are actually half baked. Depends on the individual.
"if they exist at
> all. What one tries to do is not to work from and in nonsense and
> much religionising fits easily into this. How religion works is an
> area of study in social science, but social scientists neglect what is
> religion-like in their own reasoning and practices, not least in
> elevating themselves into a hierarchy of knowers through hermeneutic
> practices, laying claim that their theories are under constant review
> when they are not."
" Belief has to come in somewhere,"
Yep. It comes in defining what knowledge is. Knowledge is a justifed
true belief. For us to know anything at all that is true, we must have
that or else we can know absolutely nothing. Dedicated scientists of
letters all practice belief...if they did not, they would know
nothing.
"at the very least
> in terms of epistemic risk, which generally favours 'evidence' rather
> than theory, though 'evidence' is seen as 'theory related'. "
It is through evidence that one justifies his belief and therefore
gains knowledge.
"We work
> in a history of theories being under-determined by evidence and are
> pragmatic with regards to 'truth' as something that changes - but this
> is a 'history' we regard as better examined than dross about kings and
> queens and fairy stories about miracles or 'economics'. "
Or the fairy tale linked to the worldview that the universe came from
nothing that there was no cause and effect behind it. That the kind of
information necessary for the building of intelligent organisms that
is contained within the DNA of every human being on this planet did
not come from a mind (the only source ever proven scientifically of
this type of information) but rather simply arose from unguided
processes of chance, mutation and selection. Now there is a fairy
story if ever I heard one. Yes that is what it is because it is not
only not based on evidence, but intentionally ignores what evidence
exists. It is make believe because those who latch onto it, make
themselves believe it while ignoring the evidence around them.
" Most
> scientists are highly opinionated and passionate, even religious about
> what they do. "
So what? Just because you can make science into a religion, doesn't
mean that it is right.
"The world's dominant 'religion' is seen by the use of
> an 'objective voice' seeking domination through apparently
> 'disinterested' argument that is easily exposed as not as rational as
> it claims and is broadly adversarial and slickly emotional and
> 'mannered'."
Does that include the religiously emotional and opinionated
scientists?
Simply attaching the label of rational or irrational to a particular
group makes them neither and that goes both ways. There must be
evidence provided for both conditions for there to be any reason to
believe it.
Believing that there can be only a naturalistic explanation for the
universe coming into being, when no naturalistic explanation is
available and an alternate explanation is...seems to me to be utterly
irrational. To blindly cling to a worldview that is not supported by
the evidence is clearly not rational. Based on this I am perfectly
justified in calling scientific materialism as an irrational cult that
has abandoned science and reason.
archytas
world-view can be done for 'prudential reasons'. Guessing on what you
say above, neither of us would believe epistemic rationality could be
correctly involved in that.
There is evidence for 'other universes' - evidence spun in the M-
theory form of string theories.
I know of no knowledge justification that discounts belief as a
condition for propositional knowledge.
The dominant religion I refer to is the legal-economic paradigm held
by some to be in a condition of Lakatosian decadence.
Scientific materialism would need unpacking - I tend to a practical
understanding of my science as involving 'tropical fish realism', a
tentative hold on the realist hypothesis as structured and the books
of science as my guide. We try to be philosophically based in
science, but only succeed in part Much philosophy can seem utterly
irrational until we do some hard work on it. The concept of evidence
has no neutral observation language.
We lack perfect justification for anything. Science is still
questioning what is material - a key question in Einstein that can
still usefully be undermined by considerations such as the 'one way
speed of light'.
What might happen, if more we to put the protocols of their reasoning
forward as you have, is a fuller discussion in which we could examine
more of the 'desire' that seems to return so inevitably in skewing a
more consensual way forward that did not just lapse to diplomacy.
yar...@aol.com
On Dec 28, 1:10 am, archytas <archy...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> I personally tend to the old computing adage GIGO, slightly modified -
> garbage in, gospel out. God is as little use in science as concepts
> like the 'light medium' or trying to establish the age of the Earth
> through the Bible.
Scientific materialism is quite useless in explaining what the cause
was behind the universes existence. It is useless at explaining how
information of the kind that exists in the DNA makes human organisms
possible came to be without having its source some kind of mind. The
type of information described is the same kind that makes it possible
to build computer, cars, houses, space stations, watches, calculators,
television sets, submarines, aircraft, electric motors, combustion
engines, scram jets, yachts, oil refineries, flour mills,
hydroelectric generators....etc. To think that such things can come to
be in such a great number...count the species if you will....without a
mind behind it is preposterous.
fiddler
> the evidence is clearly not rational. Based on this I am perfectly
> justified in calling scientific materialism as an irrational cult that
> has abandoned science and reason.
I'm not sure you understand science if this is your belief. The
evidence is quite clear in almost every facet of science, especially
those that deal with beginnings. Considering that science is the only
worldview that contains any evidence, are you simply without a
worldview? How does that work? Or do you instead follow a fairy-
godfather that that sits above and judges creation harshly for doing
exactly what we were built to do best? Any religious view is sadly
lacking in evidence and simply impossible to accept if one wants to
look clearly at what surrounds one.
Ash
world, galaxy, universe, cosmos such that it may be rationally
examined by beings such as us. So maybe in looking to the world for
'proofs' of god one might miss the most important proof one may find,
in the experience of faith.
The fears are not misplaced however, Occam's razor renders the
traditional religious authority obsolete to modern minds. The best
option from there might be: give up the power-dominance struggle over
knowledge for living as an example... Unless, that is, if god-of-the-
gaps is preferable?
IMHO
Vamadevananda
archytas
lacks evidence - though I do think it plays monstrous and nasty games
with it. It's more what it does in the face of evidence it doesn't
like that concerns me. "Scientific materialism" does seem like a cult
to me and I think I claim to be a scientist and generally operate from
a 'scientific world-view'. Religious authority has long been exposed
as a means of social control. I suppose Dawkins and others tell us to
'get over it', whilst making money from books that really tell us
little and are very ill-informed as sociology. I don't say this to
support any religionist cause - I am prone to the term 'godswanker',
though must say, if the terms are turned on me, I'd prefer this to
'bwanker'.
There are many questions about how we ever get into a condition in
which we can assess 'evidence', even before you or I start to dismiss
some stories as the 'fairy godfather type'. Like Ash, I would be very
concerned about any 'god' that wouldn't have us discussing just what
it is we might worship - and one can easily extend 'god' to 'epistemic
principles' here. Those of science are far from clear.
We have some Jehovas locally. I could not be further away in terms of
my beliefs, but when they knock at the door I am either as politely
dismissive as I can be and explain deadline pressures, or ask them in
for tea and spend a little time. They are likeable enough, and I hope
I am showing hospitality and not patronisation. Their arguments are
utterly unconvincing, yet some spark of something can be present.
Better an hour with them than a minute of endless tedium with a soap
opera.
Theories in science are often under-determined (perhaps always) by the
evidence, and we come to them long after the evidence was available to
make the theory. The reasoning is defeasible, broadly rule-of-thumb,
good at explanation and prediction in part and amenable to being
wrong. My physics (poor as it is) is not based in the texts of
Aristotle, but those that informed Einstein, like Drude. My life is
similarly not informed by religious parchment but more modern record
and experience. This does not stop me seeing that Archimedes was a
better engineer than me.
I'm inclined to the view that religion is nonsense, a mistake, indeed
a whole manipulative history of them. This includes attempts to make
science a religion (Compte, Saint-Simon and even Enfantin who used
'free love' as part of his positivism). We scientists may be little
more than a sect of 'New Protestants'.
Lee
Science vs Relgion thing, as we know I have no problems with living
with both in my life.
Heh it's almost like asking Cake or Chocolate? Plenty of room in my
life for both, and as an extra treat I want a Chocolate Cake!
> > > and even anti-religious sentiments often play a large role."http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2009/12/naturalists.html- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pat
If something happens, then it happens due to 'sufficient cause' and
all causes could only be natural. Therefore, there IS no
supernatural. There are, though, rare events. Some rare events are
so rare that very few people ever experience them. Many of these
cases are one-off events and are, therefore, difficult--if not
impossible--to recreate. This makes investigation difficult, if not
impossible. But rare events DO occur. And NONE of them are outside
'nature'. They may well be 'well outside' the normal, expected
events, though. Put another way, ghosts (or other rare/spiritual
phenomena like angels or telepathy or telekinesis) may well exist, but
encountering them is rare and investigation is not usually done, so
'Science' can easily dismiss it, if it so desires (and it usually DOES
desire to dismiss these rare events, as it has no explanation FOR them
and their 'occurrence' makes 'Science' look inept). Remember: lack of
evidence does not prove OR disprove anything and NO logical conclusion
can be drawn from a lack of evidence. So the unwritten scientific law
that says 'God cannot be the answer' is, itself, unscientific and
completely illogical.
yar...@aol.com
On Dec 28, 5:17 pm, fiddler <kenandk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >To blindly cling to a worldview that is not supported by
>
> > the evidence is clearly not rational. Based on this I am perfectly
> > justified in calling scientific materialism as an irrational cult that
> > has abandoned science and reason.
>
> I'm not sure you understand science if this is your belief.
Allow me to clarify that my "belief" is justified by evidence, which I
will provide in the rest of my response, so don't jump in until
you've heard me out.
>>The
> evidence is quite clear in almost every facet of science, especially
> those that deal with beginnings.
Right. The part that deals with beginnings is that through
observation we have found evidence that everything that has a
beginning, has a cause adequate to explain it coming into existence.
This is within the parameters of rational scientific inquiry.
>>Considering that science is the only
> worldview that contains any evidence, are you simply without a
> worldview?
That's nice. Allow me to correct you please. I am not anti-
intellectual or anti science. However, it is the scientific
materialism philosophy that I am and was addressing. That is not the
same thing as addressing the issue of scientific inquiry. The two are
not inseparable and they are not mutually dependent. As to my having a
worldview. Yes I have one....everyone has one. I have one in which the
scope of science is clearly defined and does not spill over into areas
for which it is ill-equipped to handle. Scientific materialism works
at odds with this approach as it tries to blur the lines of
demarcation in order to insinuate itself into every area, citing other
areas in which it has found success as an excuse for legitimizing its
claims...even when such claims are not supported by the evidence. It
is like an major motion picture star jumping on a forklift and
claiming that their acting experience makes them a fully qualified
forklift operator. This kind of view of things is dangerous to the
person and those around him and should not be encouraged for
idiotically obvious reasons.
>>How does that work? Or do you instead follow a fairy-
> godfather that that sits above and judges creation harshly for doing
> exactly what we were built to do best?
What the dickens are you talking about?
>> Any religious view is sadly
> lacking in evidence and simply impossible to accept if one wants to
> look clearly at what surrounds one.
Then you can easily explain the DNA information, that has the
same nature as the information needed to build a working computer, and
how its origin is other than a mind. You have no doubt seen countless
examples in natural history where simple chemical compounds just
magically rearrange themselves into a highly organized rational
structures of information that can do useful work such as building a
fully functional organism. Yes, chemicals are constantly doing this
sort of thing all around us and there is no need for a mind to have
this kind of information arise out of the natural processes. So, we
have ample evidence that a mind is not necessary for information as
being its effect and the mind being its source. This is what you
expect me to believe without providing adequate evidence? Don't you
find it rather odd that a human mind is capable of taking this
information and recognizing it as a source of its own kind? Yours is
doing this right now as you are reading this. You know that the source
of the information in these words placed in a precise order to convey
ideas and meanings did not just come from a keyboard typing by itself
being processed through the south/north bridge interfaces being shot
through the front side buss at the CPU, digested there then shot out
through the NIC , going through the various OSI layers to form
packets, going through the routers and switches on its way to you all
by its lonesome with no mind needed to create the network itself or
the devices attached to it. I should think that there is plenty of
evidence if you are willing to look closely at what is presented. If,
on the other hand, you wish to feel warm and fuzzies about your own
worldview that is at odds with reality, you are more likely to ignore
every piece of evidence pointing you to reality. Being comfortable has
its allure, but it has its downside too. Being too comfortable is
dangerous...ask anyone who is morbidly obese as a result of being too
comfortable. Better yet, ask their doctor.
yar...@aol.com
On Dec 28, 8:30 pm, Ash <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would be ashamed to kneel to a god who could not create our species,
> world, galaxy, universe, cosmos such that it may be rationally
> examined by beings such as us. So maybe in looking to the world for
> 'proofs' of god one might miss the most important proof one may find,
> in the experience of faith.
Well, that depends on what you mean by faith. If you mean a blind
leap of faith...I'm completely against that. If on the other hand you
mean justified true belief, then I'm with you on that. I really don't
care for the word faith...just because the natural tendency is for
people to jump to the conclusion that it is just blind faith. But
knowledge is a justified true belief. The justification being the
evidence that supports it. To have any knowledge at all requires
faith...but not of a blind variety. This is a critical distinction
that makes a whole world of difference. To blur the line between the
two is just plain foolishness.
>
> The fears are not misplaced however, Occam's razor renders the
> traditional religious authority obsolete to modern minds. The best
> option from there might be: give up the power-dominance struggle over
> knowledge for living as an example... Unless, that is, if god-of-the-
> gaps is preferable?
God of the gaps concept is simply plugging in god for things that
people didn't understand. That might have been the case in the past
but there have been scientists in the past that believed in using
leeches to cure ailments that were only made worse by the treatment.
Does that nullify all scientists from chiming in on new treatments
being proposed? The two situations here are absolutely identical. Some
of us are not just plugging in god for things we don't understand, but
see clearly evidnece of intelligence(a mind being the only source of
intelligence) at work in the information contained within the
DNA...just as you can clearly see that the information spilling out of
this news group is not a product of a random number generator in a
computer connected to a network, but is a work of the mind. It is not
something that you need a whole branch of science in order to
decipher, you get it instantly and intuitively.
>
> IMHO
>
Your opinion might be honest, but it needs some tweaking to be
accurate. If you think about it I'm sure you can work it out.
yar...@aol.com
On Dec 29, 6:04 am, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 Dec, 18:08, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Can you scientists confirm or deny Quodilebeta's observation: "I
> > have sometimes been told that belief in naturalism -- i.e. that the
> > natural world is all that exists and there is thus no supernatural --
> > has an inverse relationship with how close the individual is with the
> > hard sciences. In particular, I've heard that physicists are rarely
> > naturalists, chemists slightly more frequently, biologists more, and
> > then when you get into the social sciences and philosophy, naturalism
> > and even anti-religious sentiments often play a large role."http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2009/12/naturalists.html
>
> If something happens, then it happens due to 'sufficient cause' and
> all causes could only be natural. Therefore, there IS no
> supernatural. There are, though, rare events. Some rare events are
> so rare that very few people ever experience them. Many of these
> cases are one-off events and are, therefore, difficult--if not
> impossible--to recreate. This makes investigation difficult, if not
> impossible. But rare events DO occur. And NONE of them are outside
> 'nature'.
How can you say something like this unless you have witnesses of
every single event in order to confirm the fact? How can you know that
NONE of them are outside of 'nature'?(I take it you mean within the
laws of nature here) Good grief, can you actually tell me with any
degree of certainty that the speed of light is constant in every
corner of the universe in order to confirm that the laws of nature are
set in stone?
Based on the same kind of thinking, I can deny that Rome exists since
I have actually never seen Rome or have visited Rome. Does that mean
that Rome does not exist? Just because I think it doesn't, does not
prove or disprove its existence. Having a crowd of people in the same
condition as myself affirm the same thing does nothing to confirm the
accuracy of my view on Rome. Therefor for me to say that Rome does not
exist is the same thing as my saying that NO events are outside of
the, so called, laws of nature as if natural laws were so accurately
defined by us that there is not a single shred of doubt of the
accuracy of our information. While I have a certain level of
confidence in the laws of nature, it does not reach this level of
fanaticism.
yar...@aol.com
On Dec 28, 5:40 pm, archytas <archy...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> You have my intent all wrong Yar. Blindly clinging to an irrational
> world-view can be done for 'prudential reasons'. Guessing on what you
> say above, neither of us would believe epistemic rationality could be
> correctly involved in that.
> There is evidence for 'other universes' - evidence spun in the M-
> theory form of string theories.
These things are highly speculative and counter-intuitive. Theories
are not by themselves evidence. Their validity relies on sound
evidence and speculation alone cannot provide it.
> I know of no knowledge justification that discounts belief as a
> condition for propositional knowledge.
> The dominant religion I refer to is the legal-economic paradigm held
> by some to be in a condition of Lakatosian decadence.
> Scientific materialism would need unpacking - I tend to a practical
> understanding of my science as involving 'tropical fish realism', a
> tentative hold on the realist hypothesis as structured and the books
> of science as my guide. We try to be philosophically based in
> science, but only succeed in part Much philosophy can seem utterly
> irrational until we do some hard work on it. The concept of evidence
> has no neutral observation language.
> We lack perfect justification for anything.
Really? If you are thinking of an apple....could you be mistaken?
Could you really be thinking of a banana instead? I think you are
perfectly justified in believing that you are thinking of an apple and
not a banana. So, your claim seems to not work in the real-world
scenario. Perfect justification is a real possibility and in some
cases an actuality. Considering this obvious mistake, how much weight
should I place on your fundamental assertions without carefully
examining them for accuracy?
> Science is still
> questioning what is material - a key question in Einstein that can
> still usefully be undermined by considerations such as the 'one way
> speed of light'.
> What might happen, if more we to put the protocols of their reasoning
> forward as you have, is a fuller discussion in which we could examine
> more of the 'desire' that seems to return so inevitably in skewing a
> more consensual way forward that did not just lapse to diplomacy.
Consensus has its uses. However, coming to a consensus that an
aircraft is push broom can hardly be useful. A consensus of this type
would lead to catastrophe. Science is hardly the enabler of
catastrophe as its principle end. That is why you have detractors even
within the scientific community and it is a good thing they are there.
They should be encouraged, not exiled as has often been the case. If
they are eventually proven to be mistaken, they will probably be
proven to be because they had genuine opposition. If they were
correct, science will benefit from that as well. Keeping them is a win-
win proposition, exiling them is a loss for science as a whole.
Consensus is a bridge builder, but be careful you don't build bridges
to nowhere.
yar...@aol.com
On Dec 29, 6:04 am, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I agree with this, but it is not the only possible answer. What I
suggest is not to take any option off the table without adequate
reason for doing so. I accept the possibility that my view is
mistaken. I am open to such a notion. However, being open to it, does
not mean that I will not require adequate evidence to prove it wrong.
I need the line of evidence that shows a reasonable cause and effect
before I can place a high percentage of confidence in it.
gabbydott
of understanding included.
Ash
> being proposed?
I can relate to the spirit of that, but time after time ad nauseum, it
seems the horse is beaten to dust already. It jades ones hopes to be
disappointed so many times. If there's a new treatment examine and
document it, verify findings and submit it for wider review.
> Some
> of us are not just plugging in god for things we don't understand, but
> see clearly evidnece of intelligence(a mind being the only source of
> intelligence) at work in the information contained within the
> DNA...
Pardon the proverbiage, I understand that there is a unified front
these days in universalism. Is intelligence required for expert
systems? Or is it intricacy, complexity, fitness, or polymorphic
reusability? Perhaps what might look like signs of intelligence might
be spliced spaghetti code, or genetic relics. In the past it seems all
the indications of an intelligent agent have amounted to magical
middlemen, negative proofs (proof that no proof is available), and
harddrives running on smoke (dont let it escape!).
Short of a staticly encoded, hashed, and quarantined variable within a
primary, common gene reading, "Ash was here" its not likely to be
remotely convincing. Then again perhaps something more has been found,
inquiring minds would like to know. Which is a challenge and an
opportunity, I think.
"I'm sure you can work it out."
Touche! :p
Best Regards,
Ash
archytas
Japanese quality joke? I agree with my mate Lee, especially on the
chocolate cake. Much religion is severely short on culinary quality
though, and like a Scotsman eating his porridge without salt is to be
avoided.
Pat
I can tell you, with EVERY degree of certainty, that the speed of
light (C) is a constant, as 'C' represents the speed of light in a
vacuum; however, no 'pure' vacuum exists, so the actual speed of light
(that is, the velocity of a given photon) will be slightly slower than
'C', due to its moving through a medium. If you want the 'proof' of
my 'no vacuum' statement, then look at all the photons bouncing around
the universe--as long as you can see light from any distant source,
then you KNOW you're not in a vacuum. I'll withdraw the statement if
you can present me with a position in space-time from which no photons
can be detected, yet they are not obscured by inter-galactic dust. As
far as the laws of physics being 'set in stone' well, we KNOW that the
Hubble 'Constant' has varied over time, as that's part of the
explanation of the rapid expansion that occurred just after then Big
Bang. I define nature as 'the laws of physics'. Now, some of them
may not be known, yet (in fact, I'm almost positve that's the case).
simply because I cannot give a scientific explanation for 'all events'
does not mena that no such explanation exists. So, my statement
stands and is backed up by CERTAIN logic.
> Based on the same kind of thinking, I can deny that Rome exists since
> I have actually never seen Rome or have visited Rome. Does that mean
> that Rome does not exist? Just because I think it doesn't, does not
> prove or disprove its existence. Having a crowd of people in the same
> condition as myself affirm the same thing does nothing to confirm the
> accuracy of my view on Rome. Therefor for me to say that Rome does not
> exist is the same thing as my saying that NO events are outside of
> the, so called, laws of nature as if natural laws were so accurately
> defined by us that there is not a single shred of doubt of the
> accuracy of our information. While I have a certain level of
> confidence in the laws of nature, it does not reach this level of
> fanaticism.
Yet, not even YOU believe your own statement about Rome's
existence; so your logic is, again, flawed, from a false premiss. I
like your attempt, though, keep trying. I don't imagine you'll ever
succeed in giving an example of something that exists outside the laws
of nature/physics, though. That's not to say you can't give an
example of things for which we have not, yet, discovered the
explanation. THAT'S a horse of a different colour, and there are
countless examples, some of which I listed. I have had, by the way,
some particularly rare events occur to me for which I have no
scientific explanation; but, because I know they occurred, I know
there MUST be a 'physical/natural' explanation FOR them. But I don't
have it, yet.
Fanatical? Well, my 'faith' in physics is pretty strong but I
also know we don't have the full scientific picture yet. For example,
we have never discovered a graviton. But that doesn't prevent gravity
from working, does it? Does that make a graviton 'outside the bounds
of nature', simply because we haven't discovered it yet? No. It just
means we know there MUST be a mechanism FOR gravity, but we haven't
yet found the 'gear' (gauge boson) responsible FOR it. In this
particular case, I would 'suggest' that it's because we are IN the
graviton and there is only one of them; but it's very tenuous (Planck-
scale!) and spaghetti-like and forms the 'unseen pillars', if you
will, that hold up our space-time continuum. Additionally, space-time
expands because of the expansion OF the graviton at the rate of the
Hubble Constant (which we KNOW can vary) dragging the other forces
with it from the past into the future (as moving through space is ALSO
moving through time). I don't expect we ever will 'see' a graviton
(or, THE graviton, if I'm correct) because it's on the order of the
Planck-scale in size and we just don't have the capacity to detect
things that small...yet.
Pat
Fair comment. You'll have to wait for my book for the whole picture
on that. In a nutshell, I've used String Theory to rectify the
'problems' between QM and the Standard Model and what came out of it
was that the universe is a function of one entity of stringy energy.
Give that some considered thought and see what other conclusions might
be drawn from it. Also, remember that "energy is neither created nor
destroyed". One object that is neither created nor destroyed and is
the only actor in the system--it's everywhere that energy is--
throughout all space and time, thus Omnipresent. It's the only actor
IN the system--thus responsible for every action down to the quantum
level, thus Omnipotent. And, irrespective of HOW consciousness works,
if there is only one actor in the system, then all consciousness is
its, therefore it's Omniscient. What else would YOU call it?
Vamadevananda
Elsewhere, Fran is talking about a God of reward and punishment.
frantheman
implications involved in Yarrido's posts, Vam!
Otherwise I see Pat's monist/panentheist God as something quite
different to and much more comprehensive than the traditional
Abrahamic view of God (though Pat, of course, would argue that his
concept is implied by it).
Personally, while I have nothing but the greatest of admiration for
Pat's intellect, scholarship and gentle nature, I am still not
convinced by his arguments. But perhaps this is because I am still in
a state of searching/not searching for satori ;-)
Francis
archytas
high degrees of probability. In logical construction, one can only be
agnostic about god. Even on the speed of light in vacuum we can raise
doubts. Zeno of Elia argued that motion is impossible and Einstein
postulated light travelling from A to B and back again does so at the
same speed out as back (see 'The Philosophical Significance of the One-
Way Speed of Light' - Wesley Salmon - Nous 1977). I would merely
assert here that such doubts do give rise to progressions in thinking
and our science. I take both Pat and Francis' intellect, scholarship
and gentleness for granted these days and as with many others who post
in here I have few reservations that we share concerns about how we
can act with integrity as far as we can. I can only guess that, if
our science was good enough and we were just aligning the last laser
needed to produce inertial fusion, in which high-powered pulses of
laser light - or charged particles lasting about a billionth of a
second - heat and compress plasmas to the point where targets of
hydrogen atoms undergo fusion, releasing enormous amounts of energy in
the process (clean energy on Earth and technology light enough to
power starships), we might be rather testy about anyone diverting us
with 'god questions'. Someone passing the sonic screwdriver would
seem more valuable in that moment.
Lee
> its, therefore it's Omniscient. What else would YOU call it?- Hide quoted text -
Pat
On 30 Dec, 18:03, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah Pat, you've put that simply enough.
>
> Elsewhere, Fran is talking about a God of reward and punishment.
>
Ahh, well, reward and punishment are possible. And an omnipotent
entity MUST do that which is possible, or it becomes impotent via its
'decision' to NOT do that which it knows it can. An omnipotent entity
must perform all that is possible and rewards and punishments ARE
possible. Especially if consciousness is outside of space-time, as I
purport, for existence 'outside of space-time' is eternal; therefore,
all forms of existence outside of space-time (i.e., in the Calabi-Yau
space) are eternal, thus any 'space-time time' spent there would seem
eternal, thus making any rewards or punishments SEEM eternal, even if
they only lasted for a 'relative to space-time time' split second.
This allows for reincarnation after a 'seeming' eternity spent in some
heaven or hell. With my physics, this is all extremely plausible.
And, because it's plausible, it would be incumbent for an omnipotent
entity...like Brahman/Allah/YHVH.
Pat
On 30 Dec, 18:37, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Only within the particular context of trying to draw out some of the
> implications involved in Yarrido's posts, Vam!
>
> Otherwise I see Pat's monist/panentheist God as something quite
> different to and much more comprehensive than the traditional
> Abrahamic view of God (though Pat, of course, would argue that his
> concept is implied by it).
>
I would argue that it's better expressed in the Qur'an than in any
previous 'revelation', as we currently have them. Although the
Advaita Vedantic Brahman I see as no different from Allah/YHVH.
Within Brahman, The One, all things that are possible will occur, even
if it takes kalpas of kalpas and a hundred googolplex serial universes
to actually perform all those possibilities.
> Personally, while I have nothing but the greatest of admiration for
> Pat's intellect, scholarship and gentle nature, I am still not
> convinced by his arguments. But perhaps this is because I am still in
> a state of searching/not searching for satori ;-)
>
Cheers, mate. I could only take that as a compliment. I have never
entertained the idea that everyone would simply accept what I say, nor
should they. Rather, it is what God wills that will occur and your
'not being convinced' is obviously possible and, therefore, by my own
theory, MUST be explored in Reality, so there's no reason for that to
NOT be in this particular Big Bang iteration of creation. In previous
or later ones, you will (or will have). ;-)
Pat
On 31 Dec, 10:03, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> Hah hah new blood Pat? Gorge yourself my freind.
>
{chuckles} Well, I like his brazen style. Plus, I can tell from what
he writes that he's a good person. But he doesn't know ME yet, nor my
theories, like the rest of you do.
But the points he raises are things I've covered already in my
own research. And, to give him great credit, he may well have given
me the solution to an age-old conundrum/discrepancy between what
science tells us about the age of the universe versus the 6-days
theory. The trick is the FACT that the Hubble Constant (which governs
the rate of expansion of space-time) isn't constant and we KNOW that,
as there is evidence of it. There's no evidence, and none could EVER
be found, that the universe couldn't have been in a state of 'fast-
forward' (relative to our time scales) for quite some time. We KNOW
that the value of the Hubble Constant was different (during that
period of rapid expansion just after the Big Bang, known as
'Inflation') but what we don't know and could never deduce, because of
Special Relativity, is just how quickly that expansion rate slowed
down. Remember, I often liken this universe to a film (because, like
a film on a reel, space-time contains the whole universe). In THIS
respect, the universal film could well have been in a fast-forward
mode and, as all radioactive decay is relative, the evidence would be
misleading, because there's no way to tell what the value(s) of the
Hubble Constant was/were in between the value it is NOW and the value
it HAD during the period of Inflation. It is, by scientific
standards, plausible that there were varying rates of exapnsion (as we
KNOW that the Constant' has varied at least once, the likelihood of it
varying is pretty high) and the 6-days (in today's time) isn't
impossible given a differing rate of expansion than the current
value. So, he may well have helped me resolve a very key discrepancy
between scientific evidence (which is dubious, because the rate of
radioactive decay is relative to the rate of the expansion of space-
time) and scriptural revelation. I bet something like that was the
LAST thing he would have thought he'd have played a role in. ;-) It
has to go into the book, and, as I've admitted all this here, in
public, I must, therefore, give him some official credit...and, of
course, I will.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Lee
I do like that though, I mean that if you look hard enough you can
find even in arguments that seem to go against yours some form of
worthwhile knowledge huh.
It is nice, it is one of the resons I come here, you can if you try
really learn something new everyday.
Pat
On 31 Dec, 12:08, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> Hahah sweet!
>
> I do like that though, I mean that if you look hard enough you can
> find even in arguments that seem to go against yours some form of
> worthwhile knowledge huh.
>
Yes, I consider yesterday's 'conversation' as leading to another one
of my religio-scientific epiphanies. Although, somehow, I thinhk I'm
not the first to have HAD that thought, although I might be the first
to push it forward.
> It is nice, it is one of the resons I come here, you can if you try
> really learn something new everyday.
>
Absolutely!! It's a worthwhile place, this little corner of cyber-
space-time. ;-)
archytas
Molly
Alan Wostenberg
agnostic". I was asking a different question: is there is an inverse
relation between religiousity and "hard sciences"? That is, do
phycisists tend to be more religious than chemists who are in turn
more religious than social scientists?
And from an answer by Jim S to a comment in the blog entry referenced
in original post:
"Yes, the Carnegie Commission in 1969 surveyed 60,000 academic
scientists and found that those in mathematics and the "harder"
sciences were more likely to be religious than those in the "softer"
or social sciences.
The results were summarized by Roger Finke and the (in)famous Rodney
Stark in the book Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of
Religion. You can see the relevant text at GoogleBooks:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yausryh
But that was 1969. Maybe things are different now.
On Dec 26, 9:04 pm, fiddler <kenandk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Utter nonsense. The only method of even claiming this is if one is a
> member of the "Einstein was a devout theist" camp. As always, the bare
> majority of scientists in any discipline are deist and agnostic, with
> naturalist/atheist either tying or coming in a close second.
Alan Wostenberg
On Dec 29, 6:04 am, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 Dec, 18:08, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Can you scientists confirm or deny Quodilebeta's observation: "I
> > have sometimes been told that belief in naturalism -- i.e. that the
> > natural world is all that exists and there is thus no supernatural --
> > has an inverse relationship with how close the individual is with the
> > hard sciences. In particular, I've heard that physicists are rarely
> > naturalists, chemists slightly more frequently, biologists more, and
> > then when you get into the social sciences and philosophy, naturalism
> > and even anti-religious sentiments often play a large role."http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2009/12/naturalists.html
>
> If something happens, then it happens due to 'sufficient cause' and
> all causes could only be natural. Therefore, there IS no
> supernatural.
It looks like what your'e offering here is a demonstration of
naturalism: the view that "the natural world is all that exists". If I
read your argument aright, it is
1. whatever happens, happens due to sufficient cause [premise]
2. all causes can only be natural [premise]
3. therefore, there is no supernatural [conclusion]
What are we to make of this? In logical form this argument seems
invalid -- the conclusion does not seem to follow from the two
premises. Even if one granted that second premise that "all causes can
only be natural" it does not follow "there is no supernatural".
For nothing had to happen. Time is not absolute but relative to
movement. No moving things, no time. But before a thing can move, it
must first be. Being is prior to moving, and causing, and happening,
and time.
As philosopher Garrigout-Lagrange reminds us "Causality is the
realization of non-being". (*)
(*) God: his existence and his nature. Page 163
Alan Wostenberg
real' than most. " and I have noticed this. Modern scientists are
rather shy about reality, and speak not of X but of models of X. For
example: the big bang model of cosmology; the standard model; the
string theory model. Do scientists know their model of the thing, or
the thing itself?
On Dec 27, 9:09 am, archytas <archy...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> If we find anything outside general experience Alan, we tend to
> subsume it as 'real'. Energy is borrowed from other universes and so
> on. Some scientists even believe they are tapping into a 'cosmic
> code'. Scientists are probably less willing to accept 'things as
> real' than most. Social scientists are a rare breed, if they exist at
> all. What one tries to do is not to work from and in nonsense and
> much religionising fits easily into this. How religion works is an
> area of study in social science, but social scientists neglect what is
> religion-like in their own reasoning and practices, not least in
> elevating themselves into a hierarchy of knowers through hermeneutic
> practices, laying claim that their theories are under constant review
> when they are not. Belief has to come in somewhere, at the very least
> in terms of epistemic risk, which generally favours 'evidence' rather
> than theory, though 'evidence' is seen as 'theory related'. We work
> in a history of theories being under-determined by evidence and are
> pragmatic with regards to 'truth' as something that changes - but this
> is a 'history' we regard as better examined than dross about kings and
> queens and fairy stories about miracles or 'economics'. Most
> scientists are highly opinionated and passionate, even religious about
> what they do. The world's dominant 'religion' is seen by the use of
> an 'objective voice' seeking domination through apparently
> 'disinterested' argument that is easily exposed as not as rational as
> it claims and is broadly adversarial and slickly emotional and
> 'mannered'.
>
> On 27 Dec, 05:04, fiddler <kenandk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Utter nonsense. The only method of even claiming this is if one is a
> > member of the "Einstein was a devout theist" camp. As always, the bare
> > majority of scientists in any discipline are deist and agnostic, with
> > naturalist/atheist either tying or coming in a close second.
>
archytas
still 'things' we put up in pursuit of the things-in-themselves -
though I remember that I thought this was reality/nature we were
finding directly when I was younger. I can remember a point as a
postgrad when I realised everything was somehow in relation to
everything else and nothing was 100% pure. For much of what we do as
scientists this doesn't matter much - it can be like following a cook
book.
Philosophy is so demanding we can't be sure we know what light is, or
the electron or even that motion exists in the universe (Zeno of
Elia). Logic is unlikely to prove or disprove much about reality.
All I can say about the supernatural is that I have not met any of
such creatures of my mind in what I term reality, other than in what I
term 'dreams' or 'hallucinations' - but what are they there? Some
philosophy raises questions that show we scientists have made
assertions that are just that and which lead us to question our
models.
I would say history, studied on the basis of a sceptical view of
ancient writings, is the real challenge to organised religion and
religious thinking as we have seen it come into practice so far. My
own view is that there is a swamp to drain, but that we should have a
go. Rationality is not enough, and rarely, if ever, what it claims to
be. Religions, in turn, are rarely about god and community, even
whilst claiming they are. Truth is probably beyond us, yet we could
still find more accommodating models of working towards this 'holy
grail'.
fiddler
framework/saying: "But what can I know?"
I do not mean this in the recent comedic sense but in the
philosophical sense. It was nearly it's own movement in Greece and
then again in Persia, just before the philosophy of al-Ghazali
completely reversed the islamic renaissance. This concept truly found
it's end with Descartes and his one true truth. As I said, I could be
wrong but that seems to be the point. This would tend to give models a
bit more credibility than an all too subjective and witnessed reality.
Just so I'm a little more clear: In my mind I see a crime scene
investigator measuring tire marks, brake stopping ability, skid
lengths, castoffs from the victim, etc., rather than the six people
all giving differing accounts.
Speaking personally, I adore my models. I have the ability to add or
subtract variables to find alternate conclusions and I can (and must)
ask friends and colleagues to add theirs. Science is the ultimate
democratic concept. Experts have the ability to measure and gauge
another experts work and/or models, and then justifiably feel that
they may lend credence or criticism. This is one reason that I do not
appreciate members of society (read:lawmakers and creationists) that
criticise science when they only barely comprehend the difference
between oxygen and belly button lint.
fiddler
simply view each concept as completely independent? Some chemicals
only react with some other chemicals. Some, in fact, only react in
specific quantities (which is why the idiot explosive beetle concept
is no longer heard). Now, imagine that when some basic chemical
reactions COULD be occurring, a rainstorm hits the primordial pond. A
trace chemical found on the overlooking hillside is splashed into the
pond, creating just just enough of a comfortable chemical reaction to
induce a self replicating acid! There is the beginning of life. The
common argument against this is the "astronomical chance" argument.
when one considers that this repeated over millions of years until the
spark finally took...
Not only is it far more feasible than some psychotic sky-daddy, it
makes sense and is provable to be accurate, recent work in the field
is creating just such an acid. From this, there is no complexity
argument. Complexity develops, it doesn't begin. This is one reason
that a creationist can never win an argument along these lines, THEY
PRESUME animals and man to have always existed as animal and man. The
cell developed, nothing else need be said unless one has a degree in
the field and then decides to be paid by a church, goes to work for
the discovery institute with the express purpose of perpetuating tired
falsehoods and polluting the minds of otherwise intelligent children.
Sadly, beginnings is the last argument of a failed idea. Every concept
that faces extinction tries the "we were first" argument. Creationism
tries to make this a headliner concept, yet it is still irrelevant.
"Oh yeaH? well then scientist, tell me how everything started!!"
"Well, we don't know exactly. But there isw a lot of evidence that
there was a massive and sudden expansion someodd billions of years
ago."
"So you don't know? Well I do!! a bronze-age goatherder told some
other bronze age goatherder that God did it and you just PROVED that
you can't prove otherwise!! HAHAHA!!! II WWIIIIINN!!!"
ummm sorry creationist, you just scored on yourself...
On Dec 29, 8:00 am, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 5:17 pm, fiddler <kenandk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >To blindly cling to a worldview that is not supported by
>
> > > the evidence is clearly not rational. Based on this I am perfectly
> > > justified in calling scientific materialism as an irrational cult that
> > > has abandoned science and reason.
>
> > I'm not sure you understand science if this is your belief.
>
> Allow me to clarify that my "belief" is justified by evidence, which I
> will provide in the rest of my response, so don't jump in until
> you've heard me out.
>
> >>The
> > evidence is quite clear in almost every facet of science, especially
> > those that deal with beginnings.
>
> Right. The part that deals with beginnings is that through
> observation we have found evidence that everything that has a
> beginning, has a cause adequate to explain it coming into existence.
> This is within the parameters of rational scientific inquiry.
>
> >>Considering that science is the only
> > worldview that contains any evidence, are you simply without a
> > worldview?
>
> That's nice. Allow me to correct you please. I am not anti-
> intellectual or anti science. However, it is the scientific
> materialism philosophy that I am and was addressing. That is not the
> same thing as addressing the issue of scientific inquiry. The two are
> not inseparable and they are not mutually dependent. As to my having a
> worldview. Yes I have one....everyone has one. I have one in which the
> scope of science is clearly defined and does not spill over into areas
> for which it is ill-equipped to handle. Scientific materialism works
> at odds with this approach as it tries to blur the lines of
> demarcation in order to insinuate itself into every area, citing other
> areas in which it has found success as an excuse for legitimizing its
> claims...even when such claims are not supported by the evidence. It
> is like an major motion picture star jumping on a forklift and
> claiming that their acting experience makes them a fully qualified
> forklift operator. This kind of view of things is dangerous to the
> person and those around him and should not be encouraged for
> idiotically obvious reasons.
>
> >>How does that work? Or do you instead follow a fairy-
> > godfather that that sits above and judges creation harshly for doing
> > exactly what we were built to do best?
>
> What the dickens are you talking about?
>
> >> Any religious view is sadly
> > lacking in evidence and simply impossible to accept if one wants to
> > look clearly at what surrounds one.
>
> Then you can easily explain the DNA information, that has the
> same nature as the information needed to build a working computer, and
> how its origin is other than a mind. You have no doubt seen countless
> examples in natural history where simple chemical compounds just
> magically rearrange themselves into a highly organized rational
> structures of information that can do useful work such as building a
> fully functional organism. Yes, chemicals are constantly doing this
> sort of thing all around us and there is no need for a mind to have
> this kind of information arise out of the natural processes. So, we
> have ample evidence that a mind is not necessary for information as
> being its effect and the mind being its source. This is what you
> expect me to believe without providing adequate evidence? Don't you
> find it rather odd that a human mind is capable of taking this
> information and recognizing it as a source of its own kind? Yours is
> doing this right now as you are reading this. You know that the source
> of the information in these words placed in a precise order to convey
> ideas and meanings did not just come from a keyboard typing by itself
> being processed through the south/north bridge interfaces being shot
> through the front side buss at the CPU, digested there then shot out
> through the NIC , going through the various OSI layers to form
> packets, going through the routers and switches on its way to you all
> by its lonesome with no mind needed to create the network itself or
> the devices attached to it. I should think that there is plenty of
> evidence if you are willing to look closely at what is presented. If,
> on the other hand, you wish to feel warm and fuzzies about your own
> worldview that is at odds with reality, you are more likely to ignore
> every piece of evidence pointing you to reality. Being comfortable has
> its allure, but it has its downside too. Being too comfortable is
> dangerous...ask anyone who is morbidly obese as a result of being too
> comfortable. Better yet, ask their doctor.
archytas
I'm not much of a fan of Descartes, though he was taught subversively
in England in and just after his own time. Some of his letters are
good, especially one in which he worries about his mad book Le Monde
and says he won't publish - 'Look what they've done to Galileo - what
would they do to me, a Frenchman'?
Much has been said about 'paradigms' or 'generic frames of reference',
but the term model always felt more like it to me - no world-views
were really involved. We can fiddle with them until one or a few seem
about right and increasingly can allow computers to do this. My guess
is that the age old notion of propositional knowledge and related
knowledge justification has had its day, but also that we need to get
rid of many of the trappings of power that get in the way of a
general, realistic honesty. Any politician or crook claiming he will
make his peace with god should be allowed to do so, after, of course,
serving the fair sentence here as soon as uttering this defence!
Most decisions are not made rationally, fairly or with much regard for
science.
There were always two questions - 'what can I know' and 'how can I
know'? The problem of the criterion results from asking which comes
first. Sextus Empiricus knew this, but I suspect it's much older.
Descartes might have been happy in his pot-smoking with discovering
himself as certain, but it seems to me thoughts in no way need a
thinker and that one has to do an awful lot of excluding to be that
internalised in thinking. To put it baldly, a bit like your oxygen
and fluff, I'm not sure I want to trust anyone daft and selfish enough
not to recognise the role of others and who can't see one can take on
their views and reject them rather than seeking some puerile
'innocence'. I would never have trusted one of my crime scenes to a
novice, but have to say too that far more forensics are bent than we
know.
I can accommodate religious experience in my models, though have never
found any worthwhile other than in what we might share in peace and
friendship.
I think things have moved on to considerations of defeasible
reasoning, recognition that evidence and theory are linked (though
this doesn't mean the evidence of some madman is valid, or even worse
as valid as anyone else's) and that what we know influences how we
know and vice versa. This is all broadly communal, but about
communities recognising more than socially approved epistemic
authority and structuring freedom for individuals. Rationality is not
all in this and not really known to us in any full sense (pretence of
this is perhaps our major problem). The individuals in my model are
persons - individualism has to be seen as problematic (with a baby in
its bathwater) and 'blinding light subjectivity' only likely to lead
to a 'Day of the Triffids', though explorations of what we can access
in subjectivity and fellowship seem worth more time than we give
them. Problems arise for my model just on looking around. The idea
is to recognise this. It would be easier if most people were literate
and educated to high standards. The first problems lie in this - we
ain 't.
fiddler
exist because I question whether or not I exist." Other than that,
no... not so much...
archytas
broad context of evaluating what we know in the sense we may well have
just soaked up old wives' tales and might just go on doing that. I've
tended to prefer Francis Bacon's 'Idols'.
> ...
>
> read more »
gwilli...@aol.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to mind...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
fiddler
am" as such an important concept. My very first submission as an adult
was based on Bacon's idols and I succeeded in being published -the
only accepted paper out of a field of 200.
Having to study dozens of previous philosophies that concluded with
the philosopher finding no basis to conclude their own existence...
Descartes was the first philosopher in my schooling to actually reason
out a concept of starting with his own existence. I had a christian
philosophy teacher, so I have been told many times that my education
lacks. Still, I find a soft spot for Descartes as a person from the
theistic side that showed uncommon common sense.
> ...
>
> read more »
fiddler
Molly
each other, so that dialogue without personal agenda is possible. If
when we are listening, our ego is going off in our head in multiple
directions on what we say next, how it effects us, our own goals, what
we can "get" out of it, we all too often miss the point of what is
being said, instead, using what is familiar to remind us of our own
greatness. Understanding our individuality, the unique qualities of
others and the fellowship we share must get beyond all that somehow.
Not easy, if some of us are boiling over with our own nagging internal
issues that prevent us from truly hearing other. Literacy is
important, but at some point, we transcend our educated minds and our
egos to honestly commune, and the exchange in dialogue may mean that
we put to rest our current models, and give understanding to the
models of others as well as the ideas and awareness that are their
foundation.
archytas
of staying in bed in the morning and keeping warm. Bacon's Idols are
not immutable and our public dialogue could do with more heed of new
versions of them. Science could do with working out why so many are
resistant to it.
Molly
and inquiry, to name a few, is, I think, important. As soon as we set
ourselves against, we limit ourselves. In the words of Dr.
LeoSpaceman (30 Rock) "Science is whatever we want it to be."
archytas
It's a determined effort to show that Islam is concerned with human
rights. I tire easily with such attempts in some ways, but it is
clearly a worthy attempt. I could not read it without the 'literacy'
you mention. I prefer, of course, the hospitality shown to me by
Muslims, including the joy my grandson experiences with his two
friends who will stop with us tonight.
We do not ground what you often speak of well (two senses here - you
speak of it well and we don't make it 'real' enough). The 'communing'
is too often in the hands of diplomats who just make polite play with
it (as I'm sure you know). I am in compete agreement with your last
post. One of the views that seems to almost get it all is that of
those who presume I can have no morality as an atheist! I would not
be happy with Orn if he would make decisions on me based on his
'divining rods' (no offence Bill - shorthand). Indeed, I only want to
know more, as commonalities are established as well as differences.
Lee often gets to the place I'm at with a few examples I could write
'travelling tickets' (conference papers) on and say no more. Your
post could be taken as the nub of soft systems theory.
We often convince children with 'rationality' that is just about
convincing them to do what we want. I always try to resist, but don't
always succeed.
Pat
On 1 Jan, 00:46, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 29, 6:04 am, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On 26 Dec, 18:08, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Can you scientists confirm or deny Quodilebeta's observation: "I
> > > have sometimes been told that belief in naturalism -- i.e. that the
> > > natural world is all that exists and there is thus no supernatural --
> > > has an inverse relationship with how close the individual is with the
> > > hard sciences. In particular, I've heard that physicists are rarely
> > > naturalists, chemists slightly more frequently, biologists more, and
> > > then when you get into the social sciences and philosophy, naturalism
> > > and even anti-religious sentiments often play a large role."http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2009/12/naturalists.html
>
> > If something happens, then it happens due to 'sufficient cause' and
> > all causes could only be natural. Therefore, there IS no
> > supernatural.
>
> It looks like what your'e offering here is a demonstration of
> naturalism: the view that "the natural world is all that exists". If I
> read your argument aright, it is
> 1. whatever happens, happens due to sufficient cause [premise]
> 2. all causes can only be natural [premise]
> 3. therefore, there is no supernatural [conclusion]
>
> What are we to make of this? In logical form this argument seems
> invalid -- the conclusion does not seem to follow from the two
> premises. Even if one granted that second premise that "all causes can
> only be natural" it does not follow "there is no supernatural".
>
I don't see how 'there is no supernatural' cannot follow from 'all
causes can only be natural'. Perhaps you can put forward an example
of a 'supernatural' event. Note, I don't mean 'an event that is,
currently, unexplainable given our understanding of science' but an
actual 'supernatural' event.
> For nothing had to happen.
At what time? If 'nothing' hapened, then 'nothing' was the something
that happened, as 'happened' is a verb, which involves motion and
time, as described below. If you are referring to creation-ex-nihilo,
that's a different story. That was simply a point at which all energy
was in a state of potential and the only 'action' that COULD take
place was to actuate the potential, which is what brought forth the
universe.
>Time is not absolute but relative to
> movement.
It's the other way around, though, isn't it? Movement occurs over
time.
>No moving things, no time. But before a thing can move, it
> must first be. Being is prior to moving, and causing, and happening,
> and time.
>
Perhaps a poor choice of words. 'Existence' is better, as it avoids
using an '-ing' ending indicating that time is involved. Yes, I agree
that any given thing must exist prior to it moving. And I grant that
ability to abstracts, as well. That is, I see abstracts as having
existence, yet in an eternal state--outside of space-time, in the
Calabi-Yau space of String Theory, as that's the only current theory
that allows for things like abstracts to have a 'place' to exist that
is outside of time, and, therefore, retrievable (by thought) at any
time.
> As philosopher Garrigout-Lagrange reminds us "Causality is the
> realization of non-being". (*)
>
No offence, but this phrase doesn't mean much to me. How can 'non-
being' realise anything? Surely, by your own logic above, something
must exist prior to it moving (and realisation is a form of movement
of thought) and 'non-being' defines itself as non-existent. So, by
your own logic (which is good), it refutes the statement of Garrigou-
Lagrange. Besides, Garrigou-Lagrange was a Trinitarian, i.e., he
believed in the doctrine of 'The Trinity'. I'm a monist and can't
accept 3-in1, except as a type of oil used to lubricate rusted bolts.
He was also a believer in the 'Supernatural', although I doubt he
could cite any real examples--heck, a battery-powered flashlight
(torch, for your British readers!!) would have SEEMED 'supernatural'
in 1605 but is purely natural (although built by the artfice of
humans, who are, themselves, natural and create things by artifice
THROUGH their nature). I cannot rectify GL's quote with any sense
other than nonsense.
Lee
Supernatural huh.
Okay try this one.
In the natural world a man dies, 3 months latter his wife starts to
see him in the house they owned and she still lives in. Ghost!
Ohhhher!
It's all going to get down to semantic wordplay-eer-isim agian isn't
it?
What do we mean by Supernatural?
Personaly I would say that all things are perfectly natureal, even
those things we term supernatureal.
> > (*) God: his existence and his nature. Page 163- Hide quoted text -
gwilli...@aol.com
From: Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com>
To: "Minds Eye" <mind...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Jan 4, 2010 8:37 am
Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: the naturalists