FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Evolution/Intelligent Design (Page 0)

  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: Evolution/Intelligent Design
Shigosei
Member
Member # 3831

 - posted      Profile for Shigosei   Email Shigosei         Edit/Delete Post 
No, it's "That's 'condescending.'"
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boothby171
Member
Member # 807

 - posted      Profile for Boothby171   Email Boothby171         Edit/Delete Post 
That's "condescending"

Sheesh!

Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
because neither logic nor observation can prove any of them is true.
This is one of the MANY reasons why you have to be an engineer and not a philosiphist to work on bridges. [Razz]


And I for one am glad that that is the way it is done. Hell, to me his arguments don't even hold water let alone 200,000 tons of people in cars. [Big Grin]

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I don't much care how important IDers consider the role of the superior being; it is notionally separable, which is easily demonstrated by evolutionary theory not rejecting its possibility, but that the presence of the superior being is scientifically establishable.
It is only separable if He does nothing of importance to the process at hand. But if He does alter the process and results, then He is no more separable from the model than the moon is separable from our model of the tides.

quote:
That's going right off in the direction of "we can never really know anything," which I have previously established as the last desperate gasp from the religious side in a failed theological argument.

I can gurantee you that the George Washington Bridge, barring a terrorist act or a Richter 10 earthquake or 200 foot high tsunami wave, will remain standing for the next 10 years. If I knew more about its maintenance schedule, I'd put it at 50 years or more.

That is because you are, like everyone I think, a person with faith, just like the many people who have told me they are certain that God exists. However, the fact that they guarantee such things or have such faith does not make it certain that God exists, and the fact that you said the above does not make it certain that the bridge will stand. All sorts of things could occur to destroy it, ranging from an accidental explosion to an inexplicable alteration of the natural laws of the universe. Bridges have, historically, fallen when they weren't supposed to.

And it sounds like we never know anything because, at least in regards to the future, we don't. Whether this is desperate or not, it is accurate.

quote:
The issue I have is with conflating such degenerate definitions of faith will all other sorts of faith
You don't have to call it "faith" if you don't want to, but claiming that belief in science requires only logic and observation is still false.

I am not sure what would make it categoricly different from religious faith though. It seems to me the difference is only in the degree to which people find that faith reasonable, and varies from person to person.

quote:
This is one of the MANY reasons why you have to be an engineer and not a philosiphist to work on bridges.
Beware! Philosophers DID work on those bridges you drive across, indirectly - they invented the original theories used to design them, and the method through which those theories were figured out. Besides, to say someone is an engineer is not to say they aren't a philosopher. [Wink]
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Bridges have, historically, fallen when they weren't supposed to.
Far more bridges have remained standing in accordance with engineering principles than have fallen down, though. Let's say that I build a sturdy bridge using tested civil engineering principles and you build one using alien tractor beam principles. I think I know which bridge I'd rather drive an 18-wheeler across.

quote:
Philosophers DID work on those bridges you drive across, indirectly - they invented the original theories used to design them, and the method through which those theories were figured out.
In all of those cases the philosophers were also engineers. Nowadays we have very few philosopher-engineers. [Wink]

Of what value, significance, or meaning is the "faith" I have that the world will continue to operate in largely the same way from one moment to the next?

Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Will B
Member
Member # 7931

 - posted      Profile for Will B   Email Will B         Edit/Delete Post 
Is Intelligent Design falsifiable? If so, how could this be done?
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, considering you can't "prove" a negative, at least not using Tres' style of logic...

[Wink]


There is a difference between complete faith and a faith based on logic and empirical logic, Tres. When you say faith you mean something other than what most people mean when they say it.....not that that is anything new. [Big Grin]

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Beren One Hand
Member
Member # 3403

 - posted      Profile for Beren One Hand           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
All sorts of things could occur to destroy it, ranging from an accidental explosion to an inexplicable alteration of the natural laws of the universe....

And it sounds like we never know anything because, at least in regards to the future, we don't. Whether this is desperate or not, it is accurate.

If we accept your idea that "inexplicable alteration of the natural laws of the universe" is somehow relevant in our discussions, then not only are we unable to know the future, we are, under your reasoning, also unable to know anything about the past or the present.

You think you are touching your keyboard. But are you sure, 100% sure, that the laws of the universe governing your sensory perception have not suddenly changed? You think you remember your last wedding anniversary. But are you sure the laws of the universe governing your linear perception of time are still unchanged?

We are unable to know anything in your universe, period.

Concepts like "evidence" or "logic" cannot exist in your model. They are all invalid because your broad definition of "faith"--the idea that believing in anything we cannot know as eternally true is considered an act of faith--undermines every foundation of human knowledge.

I cannot define science then, in terms of "evidence" or "logic"--for you have rendered those words meaningless. [Smile]

It is fun to say "there is no spoon" once in a while. But when you are hungry for soup, or need to cross a bridge....

[ August 15, 2005, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]

Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
No, he's only not separable if the superior being both does not alter the process in a testable manner and if the way it alters it in may not be adequately explained by another model (such as an appropriately constructed random variable).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Is Intelligent Design falsifiable? If so, how could this be done?
It depends on what exact model you'd be using, I'd think. I doubt you could falsify ID in general - it's just too broad. However, if you develop a specific model as to HOW God is influencing evolution, you could falsify it by finding something that conflicts with that specific model.

quote:
Well, considering you can't "prove" a negative, at least not using Tres' style of logic...
You can prove a negative, if you are talking about universal propositions. If you talk about a rule that is sup posed to ALWAYS be true, you prove it false by finding one instance when it is false. You falsify "All Dogs are brown" by finding one dog who is not brown.

quote:
There is a difference between complete faith and a faith based on logic and empirical logic, Tres
What is "complete" faith? I don't believe there is anyone who believes anything that isn't based in part on logic and empirical evidence. Why would one believe such a thing?

I certainly base my faith in God on various empirical observations and logical arguments, as do many who have explained their belief to me. Usually those observations have to do with unanswerable questions in the world, internal feelings, and the correctness of supposed authorities.

quote:
If we accept your idea that "inexplicable alteration of the natural laws of the universe" is somehow relevant in our discussions, then not only are we unable to know the future, we are, under your reasoning, also unable to know the past or the present as well.
That depends on just how skeptical you want to be. There are very few you can know for certain without any faith - things like the contents of your own consciousness.

quote:
Concepts like "evidence" or "logic" cannot exist in your model. They are all invalid because your broad definition of "faith"--the idea that believing in anything we cannot know as eternally true is considered an act of faith--undermines every foundation of human knowledge.
You say "undermines"... Why does faith undermine anything? It only does so if you think it is bad to have faith in things. I don't believe this is so. Faith is necessary, within certain limits, and it is an important contributor to the usefulness of logic and observation.

Why would logic and evidence cease to exist if they often also required faith in order to result in belief? I don't see why this would be true. Just like logic is pretty useless without pairing it with observation, both of those are also somewhat useless without adding faith. This is why (and this is my point in saying this) faith is not a bad thing, or an element of belief to be frowned upon.

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Will B
Member
Member # 7931

 - posted      Profile for Will B   Email Will B         Edit/Delete Post 
The reason I asked (about falsifiability) is that a blogger I know and respect has said that it *is* falsifiable, but unfortunately, you can't comment on his blog w/o MS Passport ... and then I found this thread.

I tended to think it was not. Although I don't agree with ID, I think it's worth discussing, but it seems like more of a "philosophy of science" thing than a science thing.

Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Beren One Hand
Member
Member # 3403

 - posted      Profile for Beren One Hand           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
That depends on just how skeptical you want to be.
I'm just following your definition of faith to its logical conclusion. [Smile]

quote:
Why would logic and evidence cease to exist if they often also required faith in order to result in belief?
As I've stated in the sentence below the one you quoted, "I cannot define science then, in terms of 'evidence' or 'logic'--for you have rendered those words meaningless."

Can you have evidence of anything under your definition of faith? If we cannot achieve perfect knowledge of anything in this world, how can anything be considered evidence?

Your tactile perception of your keyboard cannot be considered "evidence" that the keyboard exists. You can never really be sure about that pesky keyboard's existence, given that we do not have perfect knowledge about the nature of keyboards (or our sense of touch) in our universe. [Smile] (Remember how we don't have perfect knowledge of the safety of bridges? This is a lot like that.)

Your perception of the keyboard is, at most, evidence that you believe the keyboard exists. But then how do we even know you exist?

Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
My understanding of most proponents' claims about ID is that it is scientifically provable to be true. Since that is falsifiable, I would say that ID as a scientific theory certainly is falsifiable.

If it is merely meant as a "philosophy of science" claim, then I really question its place in a public school science classroom. But as a philosophical construct, I probably agree with it. As a scientific theory, I don't.

Do I think the most likely scenario is God-guided evolution? Yup. Do I think there is scientific evidence to back this up? Not really, nor do I especially think there should be.

[edit: typo]

[ August 15, 2005, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: rivka ]

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
No aspect of ID that is not borrowed from evolutionary theory is scientifically falsifiable.

The question of whether or not it is a scientific theory is decidable (falsifiable's not quite the right concept), as rivka notes. And it isn't.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
Rivka,
Why do you think that "the most likely scenario is God-guided evolution"? Do you have reasoning for this beyond personal preference? (If this sounds confrontational, please know that it isn't meant that way. I'm genuinely curious.)

As for science as a window into the Mind of God, does new insite into "God's Mind" change your perception of what, exactly, God is? To clarify: Let's say a "scientist" a thousand years ago believed that all the variety on earth was evidence itself of a divine creator. It was clear to him from the vast diversity of life and the fact that everything had its place in nature and its own function in the cycle of life that God just made everything "poof", ex nihilo, as he saw it then. He might literally believe the story of Adam and Eve, and believe that the post Eden natural world was now as it was then.

Today I think you'd be hard pressed to find a real scientist who believes that, even though you could probably find many that believe in God in some form. A God who created the world as we see it today, by influencing evolution (i.e. presumably by actively tweaking the random mutations in DNA), is really a different creature from the God believed in by the ancient scientist. He might think that such an idea of a God tweaking "imperfect" beings toward some ultimate goal as a heresy. You, clearly, do not.

***

One major issue I have with ID is that no matter which paradigm you use, ID seems to be saying "That which we don't know" = GOD. This illustrates why they might find science to be such a threat -- the larger our body of knowledge becomes, the smaller "GOD" becomes.

Additionally, why don't the ID folks also have a problem with the "theory of planetary formation"? Why are they just attacking evolution? Why aren't they clamoring to include ID concepts in star formation or rocky planet formation or in discussions of the Big Bang?

Oddly enough, I can accept the possibility that some intelligence influenced the creation of life on Earth at some point, but I wouldn't necessarily call that intelligence "God". And if it claimed the title for itself, I still wouldn't believe this was the "God" of Christianity or Judaism, or any other religion I know of unless it claimed such for itself and did a helluva lot of explaining of specifics.

It just seems like as time goes on, all the old religious "knowledge" gets watered down into allegory, poetics, and parable in, what seems to me, an attempt to cling to a premise that objective observations do not support and in many ways prove, if not "false", then certainly "incorrect as previously interpreted".

That is why I think science moves forward better without having to address the metaphysical. No matter how one couches it in the language of science, ID is a metaphysical theory. This is demonstrable from the fact that the claim never changes, no matter the evidence. The term "God" is kept sufficiently vague as to fit any new evidence. Because of this it has no scientific value. At least scientific "knowledge" changes as new data is discovered.

(NOTE: Yes, I know that the word "God" is scrupulously avoided by ID proponents, but I hope we can at least agree that this is what is meant by "intelligence". I have yet to find an ID proponent who espouses ID while entertaining even the possibility that this "intelligence" is other than the God of The Bible.)

Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boothby171
Member
Member # 807

 - posted      Profile for Boothby171   Email Boothby171         Edit/Delete Post 
Here we go.

I have totally and ultimately disproven the concept of "Intelligent Design":

wea44ih 98dyr4o87ty jhgb jhg087t iuhg liug p7yt jhb sjhg pfghwp[98uy pguh. u8y piuhd p8uy .kgh ;8y ;fuh iuuhiuh .kjh[ihe ,jkhg ph .kh uhg ljieiuhgp uh.

Now, as long as reality stays what it was when I wrote it, it should be all good.

--Steve

[edited: DAMN! I hate when reality shifts like that! Damn Damn Damn!]

Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
John Van Pelt
Member
Member # 5767

 - posted      Profile for John Van Pelt   Email John Van Pelt         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I have yet to find an ID proponent who espouses ID while entertaining even the possibility that this "intelligence" is other than the God of The Bible.
Actually, I have seen quotes from ID-proponents stating, "heck, it could have been aliens!"

Granted, these are probably disingenuous statements.

Which leads me to my other comment about the ID movement generally: I despise its dishonesty. It was one thing, 20 years ago, to have to argue 'evolution' vs. 'creationism.' That at least could be argued on its merits.

But the movement today is a calculated political movement, that seeks to spoonfeed pat quotes, bad science, and not a few lies to susceptible school boards, with the goal of sowing sufficient doubt to let this proto-creationism get a foothold.

'Don't mention God,' is their mantra -- don't trigger the church-and-state clause.

It just riles me that a group that supposedly includes many religious people is choosing the low road. It is as if in the thrust to make religion about science (or science about religion), they have forgotten that religion is also about right and wrong, about ethics and morals, about truth.

Maybe I missed it where Jesus said 'the ends justify the means.'

Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Can you have evidence of anything under your definition of faith? If we cannot achieve perfect knowledge of anything in this world, how can anything be considered evidence?
I believe the contents of our immediate consciousness are known for certain. If I think I am in pain, for instance, I am definitely in pain. It's a direct observation. From this and other assumptions we have simply faith in, I think we have evidence for all the things we come to believe.

You seem to be implying that evidence is not evidence if you aren't certain of it. I disagree. For instance, if I claim I witness a murder, my claim will be evidence of the conclusion that there was a murder, despite the fact that we all know it could be possible I am lying or making it up for some reason. This does not mean it ceases being evidence - it only means we must have some faith in that evidence in order use it to justify the conclusion.

And no, I don't think I know for sure if my keyboard or anything else physical exists. But I consider my perception of it as evidence, and when combined with the faith-based assumption that the things I percieve reflect an objective reality, I conclude that it exists. Note that this does not constitute perfect evidence, but it does constitute some evidence - enough that when combined with a degree of faith that I consider acceptable, I can accept the conclusion. I think that is how evidence works to justify beliefs.

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Beren One Hand
Member
Member # 3403

 - posted      Profile for Beren One Hand           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I believe the contents of our immediate consciousness are known for certain.
Why? What do you mean by certain?

quote:
You seem to be implying that evidence is not evidence if you aren't certain of it.
Based on your "universal laws may change at any time" model, how do you compare between a person who actually saw a murder versus another who merely thinks he saw one? How do you evaluate which evidence is more reliable in a universe where nothing is certain?

The person who actually saw a murder only has his sensory perceptions as "evidence" that he witnessed a crime. But according to you, sensory evidence makes at least one faith-based assumption--that the things you perceive actually reflects objective reality.

How do we know that another faith-based assumption--that things you make up in your head actually reflects objective reality--isn't just as valid?

What makes one faith-based assumption better than the other?

Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
To answer the "How did whales evolve:?" question from a little while back, I typed "whale evolution" into google and here's the second page I got back. From that page:
quote:
The evolution of whales has been a mystery. How did a large, big-brained mammal -- air-breathing, warm-blooded, giving birth to live young -- come to live entirely in water, when mammals evolved on land? The discovery of many fossils with transitional features documents the transformation of whales from land animals to ocean dwellers. Another indication of whales' evolutionary heritage can be seen in the way they move.
Funny thing is that the evolution of whales from land mammals was for some time a confounding question that has been resolved through a remarkable fossil history in which you can actually see the macroevolution of land creatures into proto-whales occuring. From being a stumbling block to evolutionary theory, it has become some of the strongest supporting evidence for the idea that macroevolution does actually occur.

As a sidenote, this is like the 5th time I've mentioned the whale macroevolution thing on Hatrack. Is this something that people don't agree with but don't voice their disagreeement or does it just not sink in for some reason?

---

On another note, the purpose of science is not to say what is true and what is not. This is forever beyond it's scope. Rather, science is a system of observation and testing with the end goal of having a certain level of confidence in the predictive ability of certain hypotheses. To put it more simply, science doesn't actually ever say "This is right.", but instead more something like "If you use this idea, you're likely to be right." The idea itself doesn't even have to be right (e.g. we know the earth is round, but we use flat maps when we're driving anyway); it just has to have good predictive validity.

The criticism that Tres is leveling "You can't be totally sure of anything." is not a valid as this is a long understood and acknowledged part of the philosophy of science. Equating the untestible, untransferrible faith that Tres is talking about with the faith required by the at best 99.999999999999999999 and so on percentage that is the ceiling of scientific testing is an egregious epistemological error.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
BTW, your timing sucks. [Razz] I saw this post literally two minutes before I popped out the door (running late, as usual). I knew I didn't have time to answer it then, and I forgot about it until now.

Oh, look! Shiny!

quote:
Rivka,
Why do you think that "the most likely scenario is God-guided evolution"? Do you have reasoning for this beyond personal preference? (If this sounds confrontational, please know that it isn't meant that way. I'm genuinely curious.)

It's a reasonable question. *ponders* I guess it's a combination of my background (raised Jewish Orthodox by two people who became religious as adults . . . and who are both academics in the sciences) and my personal experiences and research. (Among the authors who helped shape my views: Aryeh Kaplan, Lawrence Kelemen, and Nosson Slifkin.)

I should clarify that if the world really is less than 6000 years old, that's fine with me too, and I consider it perfectly possible. It may be 5 minutes old too -- how would we know? And therefore, I don't think the actual age matters much.

quote:
As for science as a window into the Mind of God, does new insite into "God's Mind" change your perception of what, exactly, God is? To clarify: Let's say a "scientist" a thousand years ago believed that all the variety on earth was evidence itself of a divine creator. It was clear to him from the vast diversity of life and the fact that everything had its place in nature and its own function in the cycle of life that God just made everything "poof", ex nihilo, as he saw it then. He might literally believe the story of Adam and Eve, and believe that the post Eden natural world was now as it was then.

Today I think you'd be hard pressed to find a real scientist who believes that, even though you could probably find many that believe in God in some form. A God who created the world as we see it today, by influencing evolution (i.e. presumably by actively tweaking the random mutations in DNA), is really a different creature from the God believed in by the ancient scientist. He might think that such an idea of a God tweaking "imperfect" beings toward some ultimate goal as a heresy. You, clearly, do not.

Firstly, I actually know quite a number of scientists of the type you dismiss so readily. Secondly, you may see the two views as incompatible with the same concept of God (and I know some in that camp who would surely agree with you!), but I do not. IMO, regardless of His methodology, He had -- and has -- a plan. The method simply doesn't matter much. *shrug*
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Why? What do you mean by certain?
I'll put it this way: If I see a table, it might not really exist. I might just be imagining a table. However, the image of the table that I have in my mind definitely IS there, whether it is a dream or not. I can't be under the illustion that I am seeing an image of a table and yet not be seeing it, because seeing an illusion of an image IS seeing that image. That's how direct observation works - you can see, for sure, the contents of your own mind, so to speak.

That was confusing still. I blame the fact that is 1 am...

quote:
Based on your "universal laws may change at any time" model, how do you compare between a person who actually saw a murder versus another who merely thinks he saw one? How do you evaluate which evidence is more reliable in a universe where nothing is certain?
You rely on the things you have faith in, and act as if those things were known. It is all a sort of house of cards, ultimately, but it is a house of cards that continues to work, so we get by with it.

quote:
What makes one faith-based assumption better than the other?
Other assumptions, observations, and evidence that might influence what you choose to have the most faith in. If you want to know where the FIRST assumptions come from, those that you need to make everything else, I don't know. They may be hardwired into us, or learned somehow. I don't know the answer to why the universe continues to work the way we think it should, and why it continues to follow the major assumptions we make, but it does. We don't know it will, but it does seem to nonetheless.

quote:
Rather, science is a system of observation and testing with the end goal of having a certain level of confidence in the predictive ability of certain hypotheses. To put it more simply, science doesn't actually ever say "This is right.", but instead more something like "If you use this idea, you're likely to be right." The idea itself doesn't even have to be right (e.g. we know the earth is round, but we use flat maps when we're driving anyway); it just has to have good predictive validity.
This is not true because science can't logically prove what is "likely" to be right. This is because we have no idea what the likelihood is that things will change tommorrow. Yes, the sun has risen every day of my life. That doesn't mean the probability that it will rise tommorrow morning is 100%. It doesn't mean it is 99%. It doesn't even mean it is over 50%. This is because, whatever the probability was today, it could change completely tommorrow for any or no reason. Unlike a game with fixed parameters and rulests, like rolling a die, the future of the universe is open ended. We can assume the rules, and we do, but we don't know what the rules are for sure. Because of this, we can't calculate what is LIKELY to be true any better than we can calculate what WILL be true.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
So long as we keep turning up correct on what's likely to be true, I'm satisfied [Smile]

To use a phrase I've used before: I'm willing to settle for being right over being possible.

Though its not really probabilities that science works with, strictly, its confidence intervals. And those we can be sure of, because they're properties of observed phenomena, not of future phenomena, even though they relate to future phenomena.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Beren One Hand
Member
Member # 3403

 - posted      Profile for Beren One Hand           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
That was confusing still. I blame the fact that is 1 am...
No, actually you explained that very clearly. Thanks for the responses, you've been a good sport. [Smile]

[ August 16, 2005, 01:45 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]

Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
Tres,
Yes, and it's entirely possible that the next 1000 times I flip a balanced coin, it'll come up heads. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

On purely theoretical grounds, existentialism trumps epistemology. however, that gets thrown out the door as soon as you input empiricism. The fact is that coin will turn up heads around 500 times as has almost every coin that it's ever been tried on, fitted to a normal distribution.

The painstakingly worked out rules of scientific epistemology yield up definable confidence, if you assume that we exist in one of the subsets of universes where events occur according to deterministic rules. As this assumption has been and is constantly being supported by empirical experience and as it is necessary for us, constituted as we are, to deal with the world, the problems of existentialism can be safetly treated as little more than a philosophical abstraction. If we're wrong about that, which seems highly unlikely in the weight of what actually occurs, there's not a whole heck-a-ra-doo we could do about it anyway

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
rivka:
quote:
Firstly, I actually know quite a number of scientists of the type you dismiss so readily.
I'll grant you that. However, in my experience the type of scientist I'm aware of who believes in a post-Eden static world I have dismissed with the caveat "real scientist" primarily because all that I have read from such self-proclaimed scientists has been garbage from a scientific standpoint. I'll grant that you have most likely been exposed to far more scientists and scientific literature than I have, but I do try to keep abreast of the field as much as a layman of varied interests can. If I can I will look into the authors you mentioned (do they fall into the category in question? If not, can you point me to some who do that you respect?) and will temper my dismissal until I do. [Smile]

quote:
Secondly, you may see the two views as incompatible with the same concept of God (and I know some in that camp who would surely agree with you!), but I do not. IMO, regardless of His methodology, He had -- and has -- a plan. The method simply doesn't matter much. *shrug*
I'm not sure I can concede this. Surely the one belief implies a God with some pretty important differences from the God indicated by the second belief. It surprises me that someone with the logical mind and (heretofore-evidenced) well-examined faith that you seem to me to have would dismiss this so glibly.

quote:
I should clarify that if the world really is less than 6000 years old, that's fine with me too, and I consider it perfectly possible. It may be 5 minutes old too -- how would we know? And therefore, I don't think the actual age matters much.
This attitude baffles me coming from a scientist. Actually, it baffles me coming from a person of faith as well. I've been under the impression from other things you've written that you're a science teacher. As a teacher of science, how can you not care whether the subject you teach can actually show us anything real? If the Earth is indeed only 6000 years old, how can we trust science to be able to indicate anything with any degree of validity when almost everything we know from science indicates an Earth orders of magnitude older.

As a person of faith, how can you not care whether the earth is only 5 minutes old or not? I'll assume this is hyperbole on your part, but my puzzlement holds for any value less than 4000 years old. Can you conceive of and respect a God who would basically create a grand deception and hold people accountable for being deceived? Or do you think that he will not hold people accountable regardless of what they believe or perceive? If the Earth is only 5 minutes old, well we shouldn't really care about the Holocaust or the genocides in Africa because they really didn't happen, did they? They are all part of this grand illusion thrust upon us by a capricious and unknowable God. Please tell me you don't really believe this or even entertain the possibility outside the philosophical sandbox.

*****

Tres:

You've been using a lot of words I recognize as English, but I can't parse the meaning of much of what you have posted.

quote:
This is not true because science can't logically prove what is "likely" to be right. This is because we have no idea what the likelihood is that things will change tommorrow. Yes, the sun has risen every day of my life. That doesn't mean the probability that it will rise tommorrow morning is 100%. It doesn't mean it is 99%. It doesn't even mean it is over 50%. This is because, whatever the probability was today, it could change completely tommorrow for any or no reason. Unlike a game with fixed parameters and rulests, like rolling a die, the future of the universe is open ended. We can assume the rules, and we do, but we don't know what the rules are for sure. Because of this, we can't calculate what is LIKELY to be true any better than we can calculate what WILL be true.
How is the future of the universe open-ended yet the future of the rules of dice games is not? Do not the rules of probability for dice depend on the same factors that determine whether tomorrow's Universe will be just like today's? You write, "whatever the probability was today, it could change completely tommorrow for any or no reason." How, then, can you use the word "probability" for things referring to today? There could have been no calculated probability for today either, if there can't be one for tomorrow. And if we can't calculate a probability for the sun's rising tomorrow, how can we calculate a probability for the throw of a dice. As has been stated before, you seem to be defining terms in this discussion at your own convenience, apparently now even within the same sentence.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
quote:
Firstly, I actually know quite a number of scientists of the type you dismiss so readily.
I'll grant you that. However, in my experience the type of scientist I'm aware of who believes in a post-Eden static world I have dismissed with the caveat "real scientist" primarily because all that I have read from such self-proclaimed scientists has been garbage from a scientific standpoint. I'll grant that you have most likely been exposed to far more scientists and scientific literature than I have, but I do try to keep abreast of the field as much as a layman of varied interests can. If I can I will look into the authors you mentioned (do they fall into the category in question? If not, can you point me to some who do that you respect?) and will temper my dismissal until I do. [Smile]
You misunderstand me. I mean, know personally. I actually agree with your assessment of much of the science produced by such viewpoints. (And none of the authors I cited hold such views. They all are of the God-guided evolution school, more or less.) I merely disagreed with your claim that they don't exist. They do, and they are "real scientists."

quote:
quote:
Secondly, you may see the two views as incompatible with the same concept of God (and I know some in that camp who would surely agree with you!), but I do not. IMO, regardless of His methodology, He had -- and has -- a plan. The method simply doesn't matter much. *shrug*
I'm not sure I can concede this. Surely the one belief implies a God with some pretty important differences from the God indicated by the second belief. It surprises me that someone with the logical mind and (heretofore-evidenced) well-examined faith that you seem to me to have would dismiss this so glibly.
I know I sound glib. But I really do believe that the method doesn't actually matter. He could have done it any of the ways -- created the universe a moment ago (actually, I believe He did that as well, more on that later); created it full-fledged less than 6000 years ago; created it utilizing evolution and natural laws. Therefore I choose to believe that it is most likely that he did the latter, but I'm not invested in that belief. If it's one of the first two, that's fine.
quote:
quote:
I should clarify that if the world really is less than 6000 years old, that's fine with me too, and I consider it perfectly possible. It may be 5 minutes old too -- how would we know? And therefore, I don't think the actual age matters much.
This attitude baffles me coming from a scientist. Actually, it baffles me coming from a person of faith as well. I've been under the impression from other things you've written that you're a science teacher. As a teacher of science, how can you not care whether the subject you teach can actually show us anything real? If the Earth is indeed only 6000 years old, how can we trust science to be able to indicate anything with any degree of validity when almost everything we know from science indicates an Earth orders of magnitude older.

As a person of faith, how can you not care whether the earth is only 5 minutes old or not? I'll assume this is hyperbole on your part, but my puzzlement holds for any value less than 4000 years old. Can you conceive of and respect a God who would basically create a grand deception and hold people accountable for being deceived? Or do you think that he will not hold people accountable regardless of what they believe or perceive? If the Earth is only 5 minutes old, well we shouldn't really care about the Holocaust or the genocides in Africa because they really didn't happen, did they? They are all part of this grand illusion thrust upon us by a capricious and unknowable God. Please tell me you don't really believe this or even entertain the possibility outside the philosophical sandbox.

*laugh* I have encountered this bafflement before. I apologize for finding it amusing. Let me try to explain, although I suspect (from past experience) that I won't be terribly successful.

As I said, I consider it most likely that the evidence our senses and science presents (a world far older than 6000 years) is true -- at least as long as it doesn't contradict the Torah. Since there are many views that are compatible with this notion, all well and good.

But one of the interesting things about traditional Judaism is the importance of examining even deeply held notions from every side. Sometimes even admitting that we do not know which of two mutually-conflicting bits of Truth are literally true (and cannot know until Moshiach (the Messiah) comes). So, I am fairly comfortable with holding two mutually-exclusive facts to both be true. (Presumably only one literally, but no way to know which. Thus accepting both meanwhile.) Certainly doesn't apply to apply to very basic beliefs (I do not for instance both believe God is and is not); but when it comes to things like the age of the universe and the literal method of creation, sure.

Because I don't actually consider those very important. He could have done it any way He wanted to. If the Genesis story is merely allegorical (and I tend to believe there is more to it than that, but I'm not sure exactly how much is literal and how much is not), the lessons are still all there. And still all presented to us for good cause.

We say in the daily prayers that God (re-)creates the entire world every day, every moment. The entire universe is within (whatever that means in a non-physical plane) and of Him, and He re-creates every person, every blade of grass, every molecule and atom, each moment. And then recreates everything again.

As far that negating our responsibilities to the world we see, nonsense! Our job is not to decode the mysteries of creation (nothing wrong with doing so, but it's not our primary task). It is to deal with the universe we see and know, to play the hands we have been dealt (both collectively and individually) as best we can, following the guidelines He has given us. No matter how the world sprang into existence, it IS all temporary and illusory. The World to Come is the World of Truth.

But we were placed in this world, and our task is to make this world (and ourselves) the best we can. If indeed He placed us into a chess problem already half-solved (and I reiterate that I consider this possible but unlikely) it is not because He is capricious but because in His infinite wisdom and kindness that is what He determined to be best for us. And we still have to play out the remainder of the game.

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
rivka:
Thank you for taking the time to explain that. Your ideas are very foreign to me, but not having studied Judaism, or even known many practicing Jewish people, that's not too surprising. (I know many Jewish people, but only a few who practice the religion. Of those, none of them really talk about it in the common circles in which we move.)

I understand the issue with two conflicting "truths" (I think), but my mental processes can't really hold on to two mutually-exclusive "facts" as both being "true". To me, either one is true, or the other is true or they are both false. I can deal with not knowing which of the two is true, but until I do, I don't tend to call them "truths" or even "facts".

When God "re-creates" the world daily, is it assumed that today's world (or this moment's world) is basically the same as the world that preceeded it? If so, what is the value of this idea that wouldn't also be expressed in the idea that "God holds the universe together", or "God is everywhere and all things come through him" (incidentally, both ideas that hold little value to me beyond their poetic nature--I'll admit the possibility that there is value there that I just don't see [Smile] ).

I can see where as a person of faith, it might not matter what method God uses if you believe the end result is beneficial. But does this not conflict with you as a person of science? If you truly give equal weight to the liklihood of a world where your science gives you answers and one where your science is an illusion, what motivates you toward scientific study at all?

Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If you truly give equal weight to the liklihood of a world where your science gives you answers and one where your science is an illusion, what motivates you toward scientific study at all?
Two reasons I see for this - it's based onmy own beliefs, which are similar but not identical to those expressed by rivka here:

1.) Because science is empirically useful. Even if we're wrong about the origins, we can make predictions in this manner.

2.) Because if God did make the world 6000 years ago, he did it in such a way that our God-given reason would eventually stumble on the seemingly contradictory evidence. Learning more about this can teach us more about Him.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
*nod* Yes, what Dags said. Also, I didn't say I gave equal weight to both possibilities. You'll note that this started with my statement that I considered God-guided evolution the most likely scenario.

quote:
When God "re-creates" the world daily, is it assumed that today's world (or this moment's world) is basically the same as the world that preceded it?
Probably. [Smile] (That was a serious answer, not a flippant one.)

quote:
If so, what is the value of this idea that wouldn't also be expressed in the idea that "God holds the universe together", or "God is everywhere and all things come through him" (incidentally, both ideas that hold little value to me beyond their poetic nature--I'll admit the possibility that there is value there that I just don't see [Smile] ).
I don't think I can explain this one using only English words. Suffice it to say that the distinction is fairly subtle.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Does it involve the difference between passivity and activity? Certainly Karl's second alternative is different on that score, as it does not contain the concept that our ongoing existence is owed to an ongoing act of God. Even the first alternative ("God holding the universe together) seems more of a passive act. I would love to learn more about this if you ever feel up to explaining, Rivka.

By the way, thank you both, Karl and Rivka - I'm loving this conversation.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
Does it involve the difference between passivity and activity?

Definitely. That would be an important aspect of the difference. (Although I don't know what that difference means when referring to God. I believe everything that happens in this universe happens through His action -- never His inaction.)

Dunno, ask me on a day when I'm not meant to be packing to move . . . *shifty eyes*

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I don't think I can explain this one using only English words. Suffice it to say that the distinction is fairly subtle.
I know enough about languages that I can accept that answer. However, your exchange with Dag sheds some light on it for me. I think I can understand where you are coming from, and I thank you for taking the time to explain what you can, especially since you're supposed to be doing something else.

Given your "probably", would it be more or less correct to re-phrase the idea as follows: God re-creates the universe moment-to-moment, each one being a reasonable proximation of the previous, the differences being those differences we call the passage of time? Or am I way off base here?

Dag:
quote:
2.) Because if God did make the world 6000 years ago, he did it in such a way that our God-given reason would eventually stumble on the seemingly contradictory evidence. Learning more about this can teach us more about Him.
Were I already a believer, I'd have faith in this, too, though in no way would my belief in God be contingent on a 6000 year old Earth. (This is not to imply yours or rivka's is either.) However, I don't see this as an idea that should prompt anyone toward belief. Now, the discovery that the world is only 6000 years old might, depending on the evidence. (Again, I'm not implying you were suggesting it should.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I know enough about languages that I can accept that answer. However, your exchange with Dag sheds some light on it for me. I think I can understand where you are coming from, and I thank you for taking the time to explain what you can, especially since you're supposed to be doing something else.
*whistles innocently*
quote:
Given your "probably", would it be more or less correct to re-phrase the idea as follows: God re-creates the universe moment-to-moment, each one being a reasonable proximation of the previous, the differences being those differences we call the passage of time? Or am I way off base here?
I don't know. My "probably" mostly had to do with the fact that I don't know what the differences are, if any.

quote:
Now, the discovery that the world is only 6000 years old might, depending on the evidence. (Again, I'm not implying you were suggesting it should.)
Actually, this is (IMO) a big part of why there cannot ever be definitive proof of a young earth -- it would destroy free will.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, that just opens a-whole-nother can o' worms. [Wink] I have a big problem with the whole "sure knowledge destroys free will" bit. According to many Christians, Lucifer rebelled against God. Surely he had the free will to do so. Surely he knew against what he was rebelling. Mormons, specifically, believe that we all chose to side with God's plan at that point. Surely we had free will to do so even though we were with God at the time.

(Of course, if you don't believe either of those things, then there's probably less of a conflict here. I just know too many humans to believe that people can't exercise their free will in the face of strong evidence.)

But "free will" is probably a discussion best moved to another thread if anyone is interested in it.

More to the point:
quote:
I don't know. My "probably" mostly had to do with the fact that I don't know what the differences are, if any.
OK. I'm not asking you so much what you know as what you believe, or what may or may not be deduced from the idea you have introduced me to. If it is something like what I tried to express above, then I see the idea as a way to describe how God fits the universe we perceive rather than some new insite into the universe itself. As a descriptor alone, I can categorize it with the two similar ideas "God holds the universe together", and "God is everywhere and all things come through him."
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boothby171
Member
Member # 807

 - posted      Profile for Boothby171   Email Boothby171         Edit/Delete Post 
Treso,

quote:
I believe the contents of our immediate consciousness are known for certain. If I think I am in pain, for instance, I am definitely in pain
Well, since my lower back problem has led to somepinched nerves down there, I (fairly) constantly feel pain in my ankles and feet, even though there's nothing there causing the pain. The "pain" sensation is a response to the nerves being pinched as they pass by my L4 & L5 vertebrae.

So you can't even rely on "pain" as an absolute. What do you have left? Brain in a vat?

Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
You are feeling pain, even if there's nothing there causing it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, there is something causing it. It's the pinched nerve. However, I think the point is that ssywak is feeling pain in his/her feet and ankles, and that is not the source of the pain. Therefore, her concious experience of pain in her feet is unreliable.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
His. [Smile]
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
You are clearly not packing. [No No]
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Tres' point wasn't that pain is somehow mystically always accurate as to location, but that you can be absolutely sure you're feeling pain -- the proof is the experience, and nothing more.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by twinky:
You are clearly not packing. [No No]

I plead the fifth. However, I would like the court to note that thus far three loads of laundry have entered the washing machine. I need to go buy more detergent . . . am currently looking up local prices on Tide.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
. . . except that five minutes after that, I got a call from SBC and had to zip over to the apartment. But I'll pack when I get back to the house, really I will!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boothby171
Member
Member # 807

 - posted      Profile for Boothby171   Email Boothby171         Edit/Delete Post 
But that's all it is--it's the experience of pain. It's source cannot be accurately determined. If you bring the discussion to its logical conclusion (this is "solipsism," right?), then how do you know that anything outside your own mind exists.

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

"Bomb, please come back inside the ship..."

Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boothby171
Member
Member # 807

 - posted      Profile for Boothby171   Email Boothby171         Edit/Delete Post 
KarlEd,

Rivka's right.

I'm packing.

Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheHumanTarget
Member
Member # 7129

 - posted      Profile for TheHumanTarget           Edit/Delete Post 
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

link

This makes almost as much sense...

Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by ssywak:
KarlEd,

Rivka's right.

I'm packing.

Someone should be. I could use a little help . . .
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by ssywak:
KarlEd,

Rivka's right.

I'm packing.

I'm not entirely sure why that was addressed to me, specifically, unless that's supposed to be a turn-on. [Wink]
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boothby171
Member
Member # 807

 - posted      Profile for Boothby171   Email Boothby171         Edit/Delete Post 
Sorry, KarlEd, I didn't mean to turn you on. It was more addressed to both you (who dared to doubt my sexuality) and Twinky, who I thought was commenting on the ease with which I might be mis-sexed due to the possibility that I might not be "packing."

Oh, nevermind!

Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
Honestly, I thought at first that twinky was implying the same thing, and that brought a chuckle. I was about to post something along those lines in reply, but then I realized that he was chastizing rivka for not packing and his comment really didn't apply to you at all.

(unless, of course, my first impression was right and he was making a joke at your expense.)

Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2