[Cold Iron]

If I were any happier, my dear, my head would explode.

Me heap big stone head, remember?

[rlfcl]

EMPIRICAL THANK YOU. i've actually been trying to remember that word for three days now and it was just a total blank.

well we disagree but there's not really much room here for discussion as you seem to believe what you believe because you wish to believe it, and that's fine.

also i'm just so happy you reminded me of the word. *goes to edit his posts*

[Agraba]

Nobody said that God and evolution don't go together, but I did say that evolution and christianity (and judaism, my native religion) don't go together, because those religions give a general model of how God created life on Earth, and that model is clearly inconsistent with evolution.

@Monk: What kind of experential evidence can suggest God's existance? Are you talking about factors of luck that work in people's favour, that seem so unlikely under natural circumstances, that you'd hypothesize there was some other factor besides luck?

@Potsherds (or another astronomy major): I'm doing my 2nd year undergrad as a physics major, but not as an astronomy major, so I'll ask you, do most physicists suggest that there was absolutely no existance before the Big Bang? One of my profs told us of a famous analogy referring to the universe as the "ultimate free lunch", suggesting that all this could have come from absolutely zero energy (i.e. nothing) because the positive energy things attain in mass and speed counterbalance the negative energy attained by loss of potential from the center of the universe, as it expands. I was quite perplexed by that, though, and barely convinced (perhaps because of my lack of understanding). It suggests that the center of the universe is the ultimate repulsion force, because that's the only way that things can gain energy from diverting away from it. But then that would suggest to me that it will be impossible for the universe to collapse one day, but that is the running theory. Is the "ultimate free lunch" a popular theory?

[Dolorous Menhir]

I've never heard that before Agraba. Most people would argue that the universe doesn't have a centre, so that makes the rest of your argument somewhat pointless.

[Agraba]

The part about the repulsion force isn't a part of the free lunch theory, just something I brought up. But isn't there a point of origin which the universe is diverting from, where the Big Bang took place?

[Dolorous Menhir]

No, there isn't.

edit:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela.../GR/centre.html

http://en.wikipedia....of_the_Universe

[D Man]

Cold Iron;159230 said:

*sigh* D Man, let me repeat myself. I'm not advocating creationism or claiming that at the end of the scientific method rainbow there is a pot of god.

I'm saying that science can not replace religion unless you make it a religion, which, if you believe that science fully explains the existance of life or the universe, is what you are doing. The point of the scientific method is that faith is not necessary because all assertions are proved.

Remove the supernatural from religion.

What do you have left?

Ritual.

Science has no rituals, per se. There are repetative tasks and procedures that have to be followed, but the object is indeed the object, not the state of mind of the participants (though objectivity helps when you come round to interpreting them, but there are no rituals involved in thinking objectively).

So if we supplant the supernatural of religion with the natural of science, which we are well into the process of doing, what are we left with? Rituals. Like going to the pub, dating, sports, work, art. Naturalistic ritual.

But thats clearly not religion.

Why?

The focus of religions rituals are supernatural beings and religious activities are enforced dogmatically.

Science is the process of constructing models to describe physical reality with as high a degree of accuracy as possible using observation and experiment. This precludes any invlovment of the supernatural and any dogma, by definition.

Ergo, science can never be a religion.

Edit:

Cold Iron;159259 said:

Also, this is the second time you have tried to flex educational superiority in this discussion. Firstly, it's irrelevent. Secondly, it's embarassing. If you need to appeal to your credentials to make a point, you appear threatened.

Its far from irrelvant. Try turning up at CERN and asking for a job with no science education. You'll be laughed out. Its no less relevant than a degree in medicine if you want to be a doctor. You have to know what youre talking about to have a relevant opinion. Theres no way around that. You cant just barge into a ward and contradict prescritions because you disagree and, surely, all opinions have the same merit!

What makes you think this is any different? Youre talking about science with scientists. Its very big of Postherds to make out that its DM and me that shes aluding to her experience for (very kind of you, Postherds, but you make plenty good points and yours and DMs knowledge of physics in general is a few years fresher than mine!), but I think its you thats threatened or you wouldnt have even batted an eyelid, let alone lifted fingers in response.

I do agree though that you should be abe to make your point clear and understood without quoting qualifications, but thats entirely a different thing than saying experience and knowledge of a field are irrelevant to its discussion, which is frankly stupid.

Edit 2: I dont mean to pick on you, CI! Your posts are just what I picked up on fastest, theres lots more to say but like brood, I dont care that much (hence the frequent extended absences) *shrugs* Still buddies? Good man!

[Cold Iron]

D Man;159418 said:

Remove the supernatural from religion.

What do you have left?

Ritual.

Science has no rituals, per se. There are repetative tasks and procedures that have to be followed, but the object is indeed the object, not the state of mind of the participants (though objectivity helps when you come round to interpreting them, but there are no rituals involved in thinking objectively).

So if we supplant the supernatural of religion with the natural of science, which we are well into the process of doing, what are we left with? Rituals. Like going to the pub, dating, sports, work, art. Naturalistic ritual.

But thats clearly not religion.

Why?

The focus of religions rituals are supernatural beings and religious activities are enforced dogmatically.

Science is the process of constructing models to describe physical reality with as high a degree of accuracy as possible using observation and experiment. This precludes any invlovment of the supernatural and any dogma, by definition.

Ergo, science can never be a religion.

Thank you for the discussion of ritual, it was fun to read, if a little irrelevant. Just to clear up what seems to be a difficult concept, by religion, i mean a belief system, and my claim is that by taking scientifically verifiable information (like evolution and the big bang), and inferring unscientifically verifiable conclusions, (like life and the universe came about by chance) violates the fundamental concept of science. People who choose to believe in unscientifically verifiable conclusions because they believe they are inferred by science, are making of science a belief system, in the same way that religion is a belief system.

Your assertion that religion must involve ritual, supernatural and dogma is demonstrably false. If you need me to do so, please ask.

Quote

Its far from irrelvant. Try turning up at CERN and asking for a job with no science education. You'll be laughed out. Its no less relevant than a degree in medicine if you want to be a doctor. You have to know what youre talking about to have a relevant opinion. Theres no way around that. You cant just barge into a ward and contradict prescritions because you disagree and, surely, all opinions have the same merit!

What makes you think this is any different? Youre talking about science with scientists. Its very big of Postherds to make out that its DM and me that shes aluding to her experience for (very kind of you, Postherds, but you make plenty good points and yours and DMs knowledge of physics in general is a few years fresher than mine!), but I think its you thats threatened or you wouldnt have even batted an eyelid, let alone lifted fingers in response.

I do agree though that you should be abe to make your point clear and understood without quoting qualifications, but thats entirely a different thing than saying experience and knowledge of a field are irrelevant to its discussion, which is frankly stupid.

Edit 2: I dont mean to pick on you, CI! Your posts are just what I picked up on fastest, theres lots more to say but like brood, I dont care that much (hence the frequent extended absences) *shrugs* Still buddies? Good man!

Don't worry about picking on me, I love this stuff, and much of the way I phrase my words is intended to... shall i say... inspire debate.

As for the relevancy of your qualifications, if you somehow got me confused with the HR manager at CERN, I assure you, I'm not. This is a discussion between peers and as you so valiantly conceded, we should be able to make our points without quoting qualifications. Remember, some of the people in the ID video had scientific qualifications too.

[D Man]

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

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp...66731&dict=CALD

Its a weird and wonderfull world out there, and I'm sure you can find exceptions, but the accepted norm is clear. Lets save talk about outliers for another day.

And cheers for the rep, most gentlemanly of you! Let the fun continue!

Edit:

Oh, yeah, this is interesting.

Quote

scientifically verifiable information (like evolution and the big bang), and inferring unscientifically verifiable conclusions, (like life and the universe came about by chance) violates the fundamental concept of science

What about, say, force? Y'know, good old F=Ma? scientifically verifiable information would be a: acceleration. You see that. You dont see force. You infer force. You feel acceleration. You dont feel force. See general relativity and the principle of equivelance for explanation that you can feel acceleration without force. Gravitational 'force' in particular, it turns out, doesnt exist, its 'really' spacetime curvature and accelerations through curved space.

Is force scientifically unverifiable?

Edit 2:

Quote

People who choose to believe in unscientifically verifiable conclusions because they believe they are inferred by science, are making of science a belief system, in the same way that religion is a belief system.

I see what you mean, but thats just touting sciences conclusions. Thats not science. When I talk about science I'm talking as much about the doing of it as anything: practice of the scientific method. Its impossible to make that into a religion, since its anti-dogma and anti-supernatural (you have to be able to think, take in new data and create new models and always within the bounds of objective reality).

So perhaps 'science' as a set of 'teachings', if you like, can be made into something of a religion. But I dont think so: it lacks the imposition of purpose on natural events and the behavioural manipulation. These strike me as crucial to religion.

'Science' as a mode of thought cant be religious. It can be numinous, yes, but not religious.

[Agraba]

Excuse me, Dman, even though I'm on the atheist side of this debate, you don't seem to understand what CI is saying. Just telling yourself that God doesn't exist is not a valid interference of proven scientific ideas like evolution and big bang, so making such a conclusion is still taken on faith and lacks its own evidence, and thus, is the same thing as taking religious theology on faith (without all the rituals). Therefore you can not call it a scientific conclusion that God doesn't exist, or else your hypothetical "science" isn't actually a science, but it's just as good as a religion (if not technically so, since it doesn't involve rituals and the like). "Force" is obviously a mathematical term that we made up in order to model physical situations, and we've found empyrically that the F=MA model works out in all situations, but F still doesn't exist, even though mass and acceleration both exist. (Actually, acceleration doesn't exactly exist either, it's also our made up term, but both distance and time exist, and derivatives are a valid tool for us to model the universe.) But assuming that God doesn't exist is not an empirically correct model like MA is.

@DM: Thank you for that page. But have you heard of the free lunch theory? It's just a theory, but it seems to be popular among scientists. It doesn't contradict known facts about the Big Bang, it's just a theory that's generally liked, if not accepted.

[Cold Iron]

D Man;159478 said:

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

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp...66731&dict=CALD

Its a weird and wonderfull world out there, and I'm sure you can find exceptions, but the accepted norm is clear. Lets save talk about outliers for another day.

I'm not just talking about outliers. Modern protestantism is virtually ritual free, buddhism is virtually supernatural free, and Scientology virtually dogma free. (Ok, scientology is hardly mainstream, but its one of the biggest of the small fries).

Quote

What about, say, force? Y'know, good old F=Ma? scientifically verifiable information would be a: acceleration. You see that. You dont see force. You infer force. You feel acceleration. You dont feel force. See general relativity and the principle of equivelance for explanation that you can feel acceleration without force. Gravitational 'force' in particular, it turns out, doesnt exist, its 'really' spacetime curvature and accelerations through curved space.

Is force scientifically unverifiable?

Come on, in the list of scientifically verifiable things I put evolution and the big bang. Obviously the sphere of what i'm including in scientifically verifiable goes outside just things that are directly observable. By scientifically unverifiable (thanks for the correction, i said unscientifically verifiable before) I mean things like how the universe got here, how life started, why does the universe have these particular values for cosmological constants. Things that are usually answered (by scientists as well as lay persons) with chance or the anthropic principle

Quote

I see what you mean, but thats just touting sciences conclusions. Thats not science. When I talk about science I'm talking as much about the doing of it as anything: practice of the scientific method. Its impossible to make that into a religion, since its anti-dogma and anti-supernatural (you have to be able to think, take in new data and create new models and always within the bounds of objective reality).

So perhaps 'science' as a set of 'teachings', if you like, can be made into something of a religion. But I dont think so: it lacks the imposition of purpose on natural events and the behavioural manipulation. These strike me as crucial to religion.

'Science' as a mode of thought cant be religious. It can be numinous, yes, but not religious.

Thanks for the concession. I don't need to argue semantics with you, the point ive been trying to make isnt that science can be a full fledged religion, more that the only way you can argue that science completely nullifies religion is if you treat it like one by putting faith in it. If you do this then you're contradicting the process that gives science its validity and legitimacy.

We live in an age and a culture where we have a vastly better understanding of our universe than ever before. But to have the opinion that traditional wisdom warrants no attention or consideration simply because it is no longer possible to believe in the same things that our predecessors did is, in my not-so-humble opinion, juvenile, naive and detrimental to future generations.

[D Man]

First off, whats an empirically correct model? Find one, theres a nobel prize waiting for you.

Second, acceleration is perfectly observable, as are, obviously, its constituents distance and time. Force is not. Thats was kinda the point...

Third, I never tried to scientifically disprove God. Ever, actually. In this thread I've espoused Gods redundancy in the beginning and development of life, and maybe the universe, I forget now (its been known, and these threads sort of blur together) and the contradiction of allowing supernatural entities into physical models.

I think its you that got the wrong end of the stick, mate. You may have better elucidated CIs case, though. I didnt realise people were taking the escewing of using any supernatural intervention to explain a physical thing as me offering an actual scientific substitute. There are some, but theyre unproven (abiogenesis in its various forms).

Oh, and on what you were talking about before: free lunch universe; this is one of those things that I couldve said but CI distracted me! consider this: you cant say anything about what 'before' the universe was, but you can say some things that it wasnt. For example, a normal singularity is finite in space and infinite in time, right? But the big bang one was different: it was infinite in space (extended through all of it) but finite in time. Which means that time is finite, starting at the big bang. i.e. the whole universe was infinitely curved so experienced no time until it started to expand.

Now consider causality. What do you need for one thing to cause another? Three things.

1. Energy
2. Conservation of energy
3. Time

You need energy to be passed along, a law to say that it will be and time for one event to follow another in.

Which means that in the fashion we understand causality, as one of this universes most fundamental properties (at this scale: QM dances around CoE rather gracefully, and be glad it does or you wouldnt be here) the universe cant have been caused because time didnt exist for anything to happen in. You can have all the extra-universal energy you want, but it cant do any work on anything else, including the 'pre'-big bang universe.

And as for conservation of energy...well, like I said, that property of this universe doesnt even hold in this universe. What makes you think it would be around 'before' it to start it?

[D Man]

CI: A very quick respose before I go to bed:

We have very different views of 'virtually'. I dont think weekly service attendance for a few hours, sending your kids to sunday school, bell-ringing, hymn singing and tea with the vicar are virtually not rituals, nor is reincarnation virtually not supernatural and theten levels, causes and methods to enhancment thereof not dogmatic.

Ive said a little on para 2 already, have fun.

Para 3 depends very much on your definition of faith. Is it faith that when I click 'post quick reply' my typing will be stored on ME forum servers? Or that I'm not going to fly off into space due to a sudden local gravity failure?

And I dont think bronze age social teachings, theologies or mythologies are all that much good these days. Some still have merit (edit: social stuff and a little mythology: people dont change all that much, but my oh my is society different!), but I for one am glad that poeple arent killed for wearing garments of mixed fabric, for example.

We have these mythologies now precisely because people were so stupid then: someone said some shit, no one knew better so lots of people belived it. Nowadays, as Sam Harris says, we persist with these insane ideas of divine observers that created the universe and filled our home with stuff that kills us, but love us, guide our lives, that we talk to (!!!!) but only meet when we die (how convenient) because "There is sanity in numbers".