Reconciling science and religion: doomed to fail

[modest]

Originally Posted by Hasanuddin

...but you already argued the line that 99.9% of the scientific community (ps: I’d like to see the source of that huge statistic) believes, as you fervently do, that the Higgs must exist.

That's not at all what INow said. I get the feeling you're not really closely reading nor considering other's posts.

I'll go ahead and say the following even though it'll probably go nowhere. The scientific community has their theory called the standard model of particle physics. The religious community has their theory about God. The distinction is this: Scientists are activly trying to break the standard model. How are they doing this you ask? They are building the LHC which will falsify (or not) a prediction of the standard model: the existence of the Higgs boson.

Scientists don't believe in the Higgs particle. That's what INow was trying to tell you. The particle is a prediction, a logical conclusion, of the standard model. It is a test. If the Higgs is found then the standard model survives the test. If it is not found at the predicted energy level then the standard model fails the test and will be falsified.

Your characterization of the Higgs as something like faith seems very misinformed.

~modest

EDIT: I just reread this and realized it sounds very condescending. I didn't intend that and I do apologize. I hope you consider the content and not necessarily the tone (I sometimes have an awful style of writing that really puts people off).

[lawcat]

Originally Posted by freeztar

I'm not quite sure I understand your point here.

Though, given the exchange between you and Modest, I think we're on the same page. But just to be sure, can you clarify the quote above por favor?

Well, I do not think that Modest necessarily agreed in principal with the statement above--in fact he mocked it--but simply understood the fine point which was necessary to set up the conclusion on whetehr the two can be reconciled.

First, I said this:

Originally Posted by lawcat

A person who is clueless can claim to be an atheist--lacking belief--and therefore not religious. But a scientist who knows of the possibility can not claim to be not religious because she is knowingly adopting an atheistic belief; in essence, a non-believer scientists must be agnostic; any other construction is absurd.
Moreover, when a scientist posits "goodness" arguments against inelligent design--such as: God promotes destruction, femine, kills people, does not heal, etc.--the scientist is in the moral territory which is a matter of belief.
An atheist scientist is just as religious as any other religious person because that scientist knowingly rejects what is possible because of the belief that science is better than God--a normative standard.

.

Then, I simplified that to this--I stated a conceptual rule:

Originally Posted by lawcat

Great, but to banalize my previous assertion:

An atheist must be clueless.

An agnostic must be skeptical.

A religious person must be normative.

And vice versa.

This simplification was necesary to understand the nature of the beliefs and why they can not be squared away. But more importatnly to draw some conclusions about reconciliation theoretically. So, I CONCLUDED:

Originally Posted by lawcat

First, if science takes a stand, and chooses what we ought to do, than it is normative. Then, the two conflicting norms--religoius and scientific--can not be reconciled because they are different norms.
If science is skeptical, as it often is, then it is not normative and can not reconcile with religion because they are at different levels.

The only way the two can be reconciled is if religion ceases to be normative, and science ceases to be normative, and both are skeptical. The only way to do that is to be skeptical about "goodness" of Creator, but open to possibility of the Creator; and I do not see that happeneing on a large scale, beyond a small group of like minded scientists.

The bold part was my conclusion on reconciliation. Then, Modest said, without agreeing with my conclusion, that: If that is true, then religion will be no different than philosophy. I agreed, and said: That is where western thought has been moving. And Modest nodded. So we essentially only agreed at the end on the train of the western thought.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Hasanuddin

Dear InfinitieNow

Hi Hasanuddin,

You continually exhibit critical comprehension failures about the points being put forth in response to your posts. Your last post was ripe with strawmen and red herrings. This is not intended as an attack, it is simply a statement of truth.

I will again repeat a point which I made earlier in the thread. The arguments you have thus far put forth have caused me to lose any respect for you which I previously held, and I no longer have any desire to continue this exchange with you, since all we're doing is spinning our wheels and talking past one another. Despite my repeated attempts to articulate my points in different ways, your responses suggest that you have remained unsuccessful in properly interpreting them, and unsuccessful in understanding how they cut your argument off at the ankles.

I understand the core the point which you've been trying to make. You think there is tremendous overlap between "belief in god" and "predictions of the Higgs Boson." I profoundly disagree, and I have repeatedly explained why, as have others in this thread.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I find your logic strained, your analogies weak, and your points without merit, and I have discussed my reasons for this in my previous posts. If you still don't understand why your points are fallacious (specifically, nonsequitur), then I fear additional effort from me won't be enough to rectify that.


I am still shocked that you would equivocate the whole of atomic physics with the words of scripture, and how you continue to conflate acceptance of empirical data with blind faith. I just can't get past that, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with science or atheism being some sort of "religion" for me.

[HydrogenBond]

Religion works under the assumption that humans can behave higher and lower than the animals. Science tries to correlate human behavior to animals. Religion uses nebulous standards high in the clouds or deep in the bowels of the earth. Science appears to set the bar around animals, especially apes. For example, religion will say gay is wrong because a god beyond human comprehension says so. Science says gay is right, because apes and even lower level critters do it.

I am not sure which is irrational. But I can see the two standards, one by religion and one by science. The choice appears to be whether humans should act more like the nebulous gods which science says do not exist. Or we should act more like apes and critters that don't even walk upright.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Science tries to correlate human behavior to animals.

No, it doesn't.

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Science appears to set the bar around animals, especially apes.

No, it doesn't.

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Science says gay is right, because apes and even lower level critters do it.

No, it doesn't.

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

I am not sure which is irrational.

That explains a lot.

[Hasanuddin]

When I first came on to what was going to flow into this thread I said

Originally Posted by Hasanuddin

Though I probably should leave well enough alone, there were a couple statements I can’t ignore:

I was quite serious about being hesitant. The reason is that arguing theology is a zero sum game. Actually, the result is usually a loss rather than a gain. Emotions usually run very high. Winning an argument, especially between two people of faith, could mean shaking your “opponent’s” belief system, which has more negative repercussions than positive ones. Besides, I meant what I said earlier: we’re all born alone; we all die alone; and (I believe) we are all going to be judged alone. In other words, the only life I can control, and which I should be truly concerned for, is my own. What the rest of you do is your own business. (No, I’m not telling you to go to Hell…...but if you do, my own path will be unaffected.)

My goal in entering this thread was never to convert anyone. Rather, to hopefully persuade people from talking less categorically. Honestly, I’ve never understood why some atheists are so rabid in inflicting their views on others. For instance, last year a vocal and active atheist parent blocked the neighboring Town of Winchester from allowing a planned school 8th grade outing to see the play Miracle of 34th St, however, a couple months later no complaints occurred when Winchester Middle Schools drama classes performed Cole Porter’s Anything Goes, which is arguably much less age appropriate.

Atheists have imposed their views on other aspects of society. I find it absolutely appalling that most current middle and high school age students do not know how to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Why? Again, another atheist imposed their view that the line “One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,” was an abhorrent and blatant attempt to contaminate and/or proselytize the children of atheists. So, the Pledge is no longer said in either California or Massachusetts schools, perhaps not in the whole country (but those are the only states where I possess 1st hand knowledge.)

Possessing faith adds value, structure, and moral ethics. I have taught advanced forms of science in high schools for the last fifteen years. One truism that I have found confirmed over and over again, is that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Open House is a fun day because meeting the parents explains a lot about the behavior of the child. One other truism that seems to have repeated itself over and over is that the best students (most respectful, most diligent, and most well-rounded) come from religious households. It doesn’t matter what religion: Hindu, Buddhist, Southern Baptist, etc. No, this observation is not true for all cases, but it does seem to hold true for the most part. I’d love to see a study done on this topic. So in that respect, whether there is a God or not, the lessons and values that are conveyed under a spiritual upbringing do appear to translate positively in the children being raised.

As far as the Higgs is concerned, I am as interested as anyone to see how/if that projection is either confirmed or falsified. If you thought I stating otherwise then you either misread my post, or I wasn’t clear enough. Personally, I see the notion of God being a much stronger parallel to the Higgs (than to unicorns) as InfiniteNow tried arguing. You see, unicorns are something we all know is false. To say God is the same as believing in unicorns is to assert that it is a necessary waste of time. This also implies a level of understanding/omniscience that none of the rest of us have. However, the question of the Higgs is debatable. As Modest put quite well, that there are experiments that could falsify its existence (Actually, only a partial falsification would result as was the case with LEP, since there is a continuum of possibilities as conveyed in the article supplied by InfiniteNow: Closing in on the Higgs Boson | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine .) Similarly, the exact existence of God is not yet known for sure. The only time we will ever know for sure whether God exists or not is after we die.

This brings up an interesting point that may be of relevance to this forum. Among people who have actually had near-death experiences (NDE), many report very profound spiritual God-filled experiences.
Elisabeth Kubler-Ross - near-death experience research
T. Lee Baumann - physics and near-death experiences
Science has Crippled Christianity
(Of the three links, I can attest to the methodology of only the first link. Dr Kubler-Ross’s groundbreaking research is a profoundly interesting scientific read: On Death and Dying—the 2nd & 3rd links may be hacks, who knows—Kubler-Ross is definitely legit.) But, the question is, do commonalities of love, light, warmth, and religion among reported NDE constitute scientific fact? Quite debatable. Also, the “tests” of such a hypothesis are borderline unethical and/or criminal, so this is a very difficult debate to try and settle.

To me, the catalyzing connection between religion and science comes not from the NDE of others, but from the Food Laws shared by Jews, Exodus (though not followed by Christians), and Islam. The big 3 differ slightly between each other, but basically they cover the same core group of animals. Here they are in Islam:

Prohibited
1: Anything with a hand, i.e. all primates: monkeys, gorilla, people…
2: No terrestrial carnivores, e.g., dogs, cats, bear, hawks, owl, ferrets, etc
3: No terrestrial carrion-eaters, e.g., jackals, hyena, skunk, raccoon, vultures, etc
4: Nothing living in two environments, e.g., whale, otters, seal, penguin, hippo (and also crocodilians, frogs, turtles, etc)
5: And specifically: pigs

Now, I remember being taught this list in my Indonesian high school Islamic studies class and had an eye-opening epiphany. Forget the age-old “cleanliness” excuses that some try to explain-away the prohibition of pigs, but consider ALL of these animals together. Is there a common denominator? Yes! The entire top of the animal kingdom, in terms of intelligence, is deemed off limits for consumption, unless, a later scriptural caveat says, that you are near death/starvation. To me, this epiphany was huge. Consider the level of science at the time the ancient scriptures were (allegedly divinely) conveyed to tribes in the Middle East—approx a 2nd grade education level, right. If there really is something to the notion of the sanctity of life, wouldn’t a caring god try to safeguard those animals most able to feel pain, anguish, fear, and/or hurt? I mean seriously. Look into the eyes of a cat or dog, and you can see something semi-sapient looking back. Look into the eye of a pigeon or cow, and you see a glazed-over vacancy. In modern times animal behaviorists have confirmed and ranked the animal kingdom. I, for one, am shocked that the food laws of a desert people safeguards marine mammals. But those are some of the most intelligent of all. As far as pigs go, they are by far the most intelligent of all barnyard animals. Feral populations of pig exist in all fifty USA states and are the result of escapees from farms. Pigs are especially hard on ecosystems because they test, learn, and capitalize on foreign flora and fauna. For example, in many states, like California and Hawaii it is legal to shoot and kill wild pigs on any day of the year. In Hawaii, pigs have learned that climbing, breaking, and jumping on top of the trunks of tree-ferns yield a “tasty” starchy pulp. Several types of tree fern are now highly endangered. ScholarSpace at University of Hawaii at Manoa: Vegetation above a feral pig barrier fence in rain forests of Kilauea's East Rift, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park

My points in this post are these:
1. Religion is good for society—at least that is confirmed by the students that have passed through my care.
2. The notion of God is a true unknown, like the existence of the Higgs, not a known imaginary creation, like unicorns.
3. Scientific “evidence” of God can be found measuring commonalities between survivors of NDE.
4. Tangential evidence of the hand of God comes in the form of the ancient Food Laws that effectively ban the consumption of all of the most intelligent animals.
5. Finally, imposing one’s atheistic views on others does no-one any good. There are many good debaters on this thread. But why expend the effort to try to unhinge somebody else's heuristics that are helping that person make sense of the world? There is nothing to gain by such discourse.

My favorite quote on this thread comes from freeztar who said,

Originally Posted by freeztar

I can not falsify God or any religion. It seems logical to me to be agnostic.

This to me is the most scientific and logical position. (True, in the same post, he took it a step further, which I didn’t agree with.) However, unless there is some hidden motivator or agenda, being an agnostic seems like the most "scientific" of all positions.

I guess what I’m trying to say is summed up in the immortal words of Rodney King, on this issue, “Why can’t we all just get along?”

[Moontanman]

Sadly Hassanuddin the things you accuse the atheists of I see from the religious many times over ever day. A day never goes by that I am not assailed multiple times by people trying to make me feel guilty for not believing in their version of religious BS.

The very pledge of alegence you quote was changed by the religions to contain the worlds "under God", originally it did not say that. I raised two boys independent of religion to be good citizens of our fair land, One is still on college, UNC Chapel Hill, he is routinely on the Deans list, the other is a grad student at NC State and does just as well. Intelligent, kind, gentle young men who are moral decent human beings. all with out the aid of religious BS.

I resent the implication that religion is the source of morals in our society, religion has hijacked morals and has nearly everyone convinced they have a strangle hold on them. Nothing could be further from the truth. This has been discussed many times on this forum so i will not repeat it any further here.

Religion is a cancer, a parasite on society, it gives people false reasons to feel superior to their fellow man and causes huge amounts of social conflict up to and including war and genocide. I suggest you read a few more statistics of the family's of the religious before you start making such huge assumptions about how religious family's are superior to non religious families.

The concept of god has no more evidence than the "Flying spaghetti monster" or unicorns, or Santa Claus. Now I will be the first to admit I cannot disprove the existence of god but I am sure god is not falsifiable. The Higgs boson is indeed falsifiable. that is the main difference to me between the two ideas....

[Moontanman]

BTW hasanuddin a lot of the animals that are forbidden have nothing to do with intelligence, how do you explain those?

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by Hasanuddin

My favorite quote on this thread comes from freeztar who said,

This to me is the most scientific and logical position.

While on the face of it, the above might sound reasonable and seemingly make sense, I have to differ with both you and Freeztar.
Religion, or, more specifically, the belief in God, is a pre-technological and pre-scientific theory as to the prime cause, and an explanation for why things are the way they are and stuff happens the way they do. There is no discernable difference between the belief in God or the belief in Thor, or Jupiter, or Zeus. Yet, Christians and Muslims will deny this - as they should; their scriptures tell them that the God of Abraham is the One God. But please understand that from an objective scientific view, there is as much evidence for the existence of both.

Therefore, if you're an agnostic regarding the Abrahamic God, then you must also be an agnostic regarding each and every deity that have graced every single human society through the ages. And they are all mutually exclusive.

Granted, Science can take us back towards a time just a few microseconds after the Big Bang. What came before, is anybody's guess. But invoking God into that point does not answer anything - it merely introduces a redundant element. Because when we look for the Prime Cause, and we introduce God, we now have to follow through with our questioning and ask the next humdinger: "Where does God come from?"

So, if a scientist should be agnostic regarding the God hypothesis, he should also be agnostic regarding each and every baseless theory put forward regarding anything for which no evidence exist. And based on what we know, based on Standard Theory, baseless theories can be called out for being just that, and a scientist will tell you that no, we haven't actually landed on Europa's surface yet, but we can guarantee you that it's not made of cracked Colchester cheese. So a good skeptical scientist will most definitely not be "agnostic" to the theory of a cheesy Europa. He will be an "atheist" regarding that particular hypothesis.

Same with God.

There is no reason to invoke him, apart from deeply seated human psychological needs. Which means absolutely nothing in the real, physical universe.

[Hasanuddin]

Hi Moontanman,

I will not defend atrocities done “in the name” of religion. Why, because such actions actually go against the teachings of the religion itself. When you said,

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Religion is a cancer, a parasite on society, it gives people false reasons to feel superior to their fellow man and causes huge amounts of social conflict up to and including war and genocide.

I believe you are actually misdiagnosing the illness… though I do agree there is pervasive sickness. No, the fault/cause is not religion, but religious pride. They are two very different things. The Catholics list “pride” as one of their 7 deadly sins. Yet Catholic-pride has led to murder in Northern Ireland, the Inquisition, and the crusades. No argument from me. From my own metaphysical understanding I would take another step and argue that such folks were actually acting as the hand of Syatan but under the guise of righteousness (a multiplicative sin/perversion.)

Atheists are people too. And as such, they are just as weak and susceptible to pride. Once afflicted, they too could proceed to impose their structure of beliefs on others, as I noted with the banning of a public school from watching Miracle on 34th St, which incidentally has no true religious connection (Santa Claus was a pagan myth that was adopted by Christian missionaries in order to convert Germanic tribes, i.e., it has nothing to do with the Bible or the actual religion.)

As far as your question

Originally Posted by Moontanman

BTW Hasanuddin a lot of the animals that are forbidden have nothing to do with intelligence, how do you explain those?

Please look again at the way I listed the prohibited animals:

Originally Posted by Hasanuddin

Prohibited
1: Anything with a hand, i.e. all primates: monkeys, gorilla, people…
2: No terrestrial carnivores, e.g., dogs, cats, bear, hawks, owl, ferrets, etc
3: No terrestrial carrion-eaters, e.g., jackals, hyena, skunk, raccoon, vultures, etc
4: Nothing living in two environments, e.g., whale, otters, seal, penguin, hippo (and also crocodilians, frogs, turtles, etc)
5: And specifically: pigs

You will notice that I purposefully put parentheses around the “dumb” ones or line 4. Why would the ancient scriptures care to protect walnut-brained crocodilians? Simple: to save the marine mammals. Remember, these texts were “delivered” to tribes with a 2nd grade science-understanding. You may know that when dealing with 2nd graders, instructions need to be clear and broad. Had that line gotten too in depth, especially since many of the species covered by that line would’ve been unknown to the desert tribes, then the entirety of the scriptures could have been discarded.

Finally, you say

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Now I will be the first to admit I cannot disprove the existence of god but I am sure god is not falsifiable. The Higgs boson is indeed falsifiable. that is the main difference to me between the two ideas....

to assert that “God” is not a falsifiable construct is to assert that you will never die. Upon death the truth or falsity of God will be made known to us individually. (I know, I know, a lot of good it does our discussion today.) But the fact that neither of us has returned from the dead does not mean that others have not had near-death experiences (NDE.) I strongly suggest you read some of Dr Kubler-Ross’s case-studies. They are quite fascinating; and Dr Kubler-Ross is extremely analytic/clinical, i.e., I do not believe she had a hidden-agenda to falsely bolster any notion of God. With the notable exclusion of burn-victims, there is a huge degree of commonality between NDE of very different people—tunnel, white light, warmth, love, religious imagery, ghost visitations, etc. The commonality of NDE crosses religious divides also. This commonality between NDE seems to supply evidence in favor of the notion of God