Reconciling science and religion: doomed to fail

[Moontanman]

The concept of infinity more than likely stemmed from religious thinking in an attempt to explain the limitlessness of a god concept. Math saw value in this religious article and picked it up. Science uses it, even though infinity does not exist in a provable way using the scientific method.

 

The term infinity is use because it has a religion mojo that can expand the mind beyond the measurable. But it needs faith because infinity never underwent the scrutiny of the scientific method to prove it exists. We may never be able to prove it except with circular logic. The value of infinity is within the mind expansion not within its proven reality. Infinity allows the atheist to sneak a religious candy bar without knowing they are eating one. This is the bridge science left attached to religion.

 

HB, which religion at what time in the past came up with the idea of infinity? I think religion stole the idea of infinity from philosophy not religion. The idea of infinity was around far before the idea of an infinite god came into being. Before the current monotheistic religions came around the idea of gods was simply a much more powerful clone of humans with the same human flaws and problems including death. The idea of infinity was already in use at that time. So no, infinity is not a candy bar for atheists it more of a crutch for religion to make even more unsupported grandiose claims....

[InfiniteNow]

Well, that's certainly an interesting conjecture you've put forward there, HydrogenBond, but I regretfully inform you that it is mistaken.

 

 

http://www.math.tamu.edu/~dallen/history/infinity.pdf

we will begin the story of infinity with the ancient Greeks. Originally the word

apeiron

meant unbounded, infinite, indefinite, or undefined. It was a negative, even pejorative word. For the Greeks, the original chaos out of which the world was formed was

apeiron

.

 

<...>

 

Yet, to the Greeks, the concept of infinity was forced upon them from

the physical world by three traditional observations.

• Time seems without end.
  
  
• Space and time can be unendingly subdivided.
  
  
• Space is without bound.

 

 

I encourage you to actually read this article for a nice exposition of the history of infinity, one which is well referenced and not based on some insecure desire to find ways to substantiate ones own religious belief and personal faith. Enjoy. :)

 

 

EDIT: Much like Moontanman, I think you're putting the cart before the horse, and are contenting yourself with wish-thinking instead of facts grounded in reality.

[Hasanuddin]

Thank you InfiniteNow, let me try in replying to Moontanman,

“You seem to be intent on proselytizing religion but your claims need to be backed up even in the Theology forum. Like most religious supporters you make grandiose claims but show no evidence to back them up. Atheism is not a belief system it is simply the null position.”

First off, I am proselytizing no-one. I honestly don’t care what you believe; I don’t care what you do with your life; I don’t care what you build/destroy, help/hurt, whatever. That is you business. Just don’t try to impinge, infringe, impede, or undermine me. We were all born alone; we’re all gunna die alone. The only reason I entered this fray at all was because Boerseun was evoking categorical terms when professing his atheistic zealous and dogmatic views

There is no higher calling, there is no higher authority, there is no bigger purpose or reason. You've got this one shot at life, and you better make it count. Because for whatever you do during your stretch on Earth, you will not be punished or rewarded for it afterwards.

Which was posted on a thread on the Astronomy board (now wisely moved to this board.)

 

Second, this is a theology board so the starting premise is based on “faith,” regardless of which ultimate conclusion you reach. I have faith there is a god, although I do not possess actual proof of god’s existence. You believe in no god, although you do not possess actual proof that you are correct. You bring up unicorns to support your position, I could bring up the popular assumption of the Higgs Boson to undermine it.

 

As far as the scenario of the evolution of religions that I recounted, it didn’t invent that on my on. What I did was paraphrase and interpret writings of the Quran itself. Sorry, but I do not bookmark or dog-ear that book. Nor would I know how to hyperlink it. But that account is definitely within the Quran. The central idea of that quranic narrative is that Abraham, Noah, Jesus, were not the first or only people god tried to make its presence known to. These passages essentially detail how the animist religions came into being and that such religions did have worth and were manifestations of God. Such narratives go on to say that God did not fall asleep and forget the Earth after Jesus/Mohammad. No, I’m not trying to convert you; you life is your own. If you truly possess a null-position, then think of the stories that I recounted as interesting historical notes from one of the oldest books on Earth.

 

Lastly to say that atheism “is not a belief system it is simply the null position” is in conflict with the fact that you are now making a stance. If you truly had no position on this subject then why do you care what anyone thinks? As I started this post saying, I honestly don’t care what you do/think. Your metaphysical health is of no consequence to me. However, what I won’t stand for is when someone assert the categorical and absolute position promoting atheism, when there is nothing absolute or categorical that can actually be said.

[InfiniteNow]

Second, this is a theology board so the starting premise is based on “faith,” regardless of which ultimate conclusion you reach. I have faith there is a god, although I do not possess actual proof of god’s existence. You believe in no god, although you do not possess actual proof that you are correct. You bring up unicorns to support your position, I could bring up the popular assumption of the Higgs Boson to undermine it.

I would like to point out that your mention of the Higgs Boson is a false comparison, and undermines nothing. The Higgs Boson is based on a well-tested and well-supported theory of subatomic particles. It has been put forth as a logical extension of the supremely successful equations currently in use. Further... and here's the key... it is being presented in a manner which is falsifiable. On top of that, we're actually running the test to see if we can find it at CERN.

 

For you to compare this... a falsifiable prediction based on an extension of a hugely successful description of nature... to a "pink unicorn" is disingenuous at best. The unicorn example is EXACTLY like your god concept, in that there is no way to falsify it. There is no way to subject it to empirical test and to determine whether the concept is representative of reality or if it's instead nothing more than the product of human imagination.

 

You have conceded this yourself, that you have nothing more than your own faith, so I fail to see where your argument is. The Higgs Boson is not based on faith whatsoever... it is not based on some personal worldview and ideology, but is instead based on hugely successful subatomic theories which have proven to be an enormously accurate representation of the universe in which we exist.

 

Your comparison, in sum, fails miserably.

 

 

Lastly to say that atheism “is not a belief system it is simply the null position” is in conflict with the fact that you are now making a stance. If you truly had no position on this subject then why do you care what anyone thinks? As I started this post saying, I honestly don’t care what you do/think. Your metaphysical health is of no consequence to me. However, what I won’t stand for is when someone assert the categorical and absolute position promoting atheism, when there is nothing absolute or categorical that can actually be said.

Atheism is NOT a belief system, and as has been pointed out numerous times already, is simply the acceptance that there is no evidence suggesting that belief in deity is the proper position. It is NOT the all out assertion that god doesn't exist as you suggest, so that is a total strawman. It is about acknowledging that there is no evidence for existence of god... itself an ambiguously defined three letter word which is completely unfalsifiable... in much the same way that we don't say unicorns DON'T exist, but instead state accurately that there is zero evidence of their existence, and consequently no reason to believe they are real.

 

I further wish to point out to you that one can care about what others think, believe, and do without atheism itself being some sort of belief system in which to base their concern. This is especially true since the beliefs of others can (and, very often, do) have a direct impact on me, my family, and the society in which we live. I care if people think that racism is okay. I care if people think that homosexuality is wrong. I care if people continue burning coal and fossil fuels and pollute our planet, and I care if people keep wasting their time worshiping a petty sky pixie based on nothing more than the fairy tales of barely literate tribal peoples in the iron age... and I can care about ALL of these things without some unifying ideology as my foundation. The proof is in the fact that I DO care about all of these things, all while noting accurately that atheism is NOT what informs my concern.

 

I say again... One can care about the worldview of others without this concern being in any way, shape, or form based on an ideology. I further remind you that atheism is NOT a worldview, nor is it an ideology. Quite simply, if atheism is a religion/worldview/ideology, then bald is a hair color. That's the easiest way I can make the heart of my point clear for you.

 

 

Let me repeat what Moontanman very successfully articulated already just a few short posts ago, a point which you either missed, misinterpreted, or completely ignored:

 

Atheism is not a belief system it is simply the null position. I do not believe there is no god, I simply see no evidence of gods existence. To say I do not see any evidence of the existence of unicorns doesn't mean I do not believe in them, belief doesn't figure into it. I need not prove this non existence but to say unicorns exist does indeed require evidence.

[Moontanman]

Unfortunately, the fact that each of the major religions possess some aspect of absolute truth

 

Again Hasanuddin, this is a theology forum but you still need to back up claims with evidence, do you have any evidence that each of the major religions possess some aspect of absolute truth? You made the claim can you back it up? To say that any religion possess absolute truth is quite a giant claim, very inflammatory, and this forum requires proof of claims as much as any other if you don't think so please read the rules.

[modest]

I know you asked Modest, but I figure I can help you with this request, and let him address the actual content in your post.

 

Thank you.

 

Hasanuddin, do you have anything what so ever to back up this claim?

 

Hasanuddin, Moontanman is correct. Claims such as "god exists" or "god does not exist" need to be backed up—it's a site rule. This is usually avoided by saying "I believe...". You may have intended to express a belief rather than something you were intending to support and the same could be said for the quote you posted of Boerseun.

 

So, it's fine. We're all aware of the rules now and we'll all be careful in that regard. Yes? Ok. Moving on...

 

Sorry if I misunderstood you, I couldn't tell which side of the fence you were on. You’re your last post, it appears you understand both sides. Personally I find it quite hard to follow someone’s reasoning if the intent behind the words is not known. For example,

theists have an easier time incorporating science into their belief system than do atheists incorporating religion into theirs. It’s easier for the religious person to use science despite his religion than it is for the atheist to use religion despite his atheism—simply because science is more useful.

To me, following such a quote is quite tricky without knowing what your actually predisposition is.[my bold]

 

My position is that atheists have a harder time incorporating religious thought into their thinking than do theists incorporating science into theirs. I'm simply agreeing with something you said. There's no hidden agenda behind it. I would hope it is true regardless of my beliefs. I wasn't trying to argue science vs. religion with that. I really was just agreeing with you, and giving reasons for my agreement.

 

Ussher: [/b]My point was that he is obscure to the point of irrelevance.

 

It's not obscure for 2 reasons. First, grab your nearest English, Christian bible. Open to the first chapter of Genesis. You'll find it right before the genocide starts and right after the preface talks about how loving and benevolent the book is. Look at the top of the page. That date, 4004 BC, that's printed there was found by Ussher. It is the date of the creation of the known universe according to the Bible. That's not obscure, it's in almost every English bible.

 

Second, this discussion was split from a thread discussing the origin of the universe. Naturally, I was going to use an example which was relevant to the thread's title. Hubble vs. Ussher seemed like the way to go. And, trust me, the Christian date for creationism vs. the scientific date of the big bang is not obscure.

 

The point I would make is that Ussher’s method (the religious method) is fundamentally flawed—so much so that you’re nearly guaranteed to obtain bad answers, and history attests to this. Discoveries that lead to advancement in knowledge and understanding come invariably by means other than divine revelation or transcendent ‘perception’.

 

Isn’t this fallacious reasoning:

Ussher utilized a religious method

Ussher’s methodology was inherently flawed

Therefore religious methodologies are inherently flawed.

 

Well, no, that's not my argument. I'm using Ussher as an example. I'm saying that the entirety of the religious method seems flawed—not just Ussher's example of it. I'm saying history attests to the flaw wherever it is found (not just this one case). So, there is no logically fallacy.

 

Although you could argue, if you'll allow me to help you out here, that my argument is inductive. I cannot prove that the religious method is flawed by providing 1, 20, even 100 examples of it not working. To get an idea of what I mean let me find a link... a good link... any link... Well, it's not the best, but here you go (under "Informal Fallacies"): Logical Fallacies

 

But here's the thing (and I apologize for turning this into a kind of formal debate), you are claiming that the religious method (or, a form of the religious method: spiritualism) works. Yet, examples of it not working are many. You claim that anything which the 5 major world religions share in common must be some kind of truth. Yet, I've given an example (supernatural miracles which have subsequently been proved natural) where all 5 religions have failed us.

 

I think there's a point where we can admit, collectively, that religion just doesn't work. It has told us so many things which are subsequently disproved. I'm skeptical, you know?

 

I apologize. I wanted to respond to the rest of your post this morning, but I'm really preoccupied. Let me just say, Hasanuddin, you seem like a very tolerant person, and I respect that greatly. You might consider extending some of that tolerance toward atheism. Atheists, like me, are just people who are unconvinced that there is a god—people who have no particular belief in god. That belief may not be the same as yours, but you should see it is worthy of consideration and certainly worthy of tolerance.

 

And, yes, before you tell me so: there are atheists who could be more tolerant of your theism. Yes.

 

~modest

[Hasanuddin]

Good morning InfiniteNow,

 

Actually, sir, the reference to the Higgs boson was in comparison to the notion of God, not unicorns. You see, belief in God and belief in the existence of a Higgs particle have a lot in common.

 

1: Belief in either God or the Higgs is to submit one’s perception of reality to include a concept that has never been directly measured.

 

2: The existence of both God and the Higgs is supported by a complex framework of assumptions: scriptures for one and equations for the other.

 

3: Both scriptures and equations possess attractive, yet fallacious allure. Scriptures have stood the test of time and have been followed by huge swaths of humanity. Equations possess numbers and odd symbols that dazzle. Both produce mindless followers who truly have no understanding of the actual “proofs” leading to the conclusion of either God or Higgs, but believe nonetheless. Within both groups are those who have faith in the existence of the elusive concept largely because of groupthink consensus of others within the sub-group.

 

4: The complexity of both scriptures and Higgs equations leads to the formation of two different types of high clerics to which the masses put their faith. Religions developed the superfluous mullahs and popes, while Higgs proponents rely on a few top scientists to prop up and assuage equation correctness.

 

5: Neither God nor the Higgs is actually “needed” given a null hypothesis. In other words, it is perfectly easy to imagine a world run wholly by chance and scientific principles, without the existence of God. Likewise, it is quite easy to imagine a world where actual particles did not include the Higgs. However, in both cases (God & the Higgs) to the believers of either concept, the world “seems more complete” with the inclusion of the faith-held concept.

 

In defense of belief in the Higgs (despite any direct physical evidence) the following arguments were presented

The Higgs Boson is based on a well-tested and well-supported theory of subatomic particles. It has been put forth as a logical extension of the supremely successful equations currently in use. Further... and here's the key... it is being presented in a manner which is falsifiable. On top of that, we're actually running the test to see if we can find it at CERN.

To these points clarifications are needed. True, parts of understanding of subatomic particles are well-tested and evidence supported. However, it is equally true that other aspects of fundamental particle theory are merely based on assumption. Near and dear to my own heart is the question of gravitational interaction between matter and antimatter. Popular-bias (which becomes the foundation of Higgs equations) is of universal-attraction, but the more modern Dominium model yield a complete and seamless cosmologic narrative based on gravitational-repulsion between matter and antimatter. http://hypography.com/forums/alternative-theories/19536-the-dominium-model-part-2-a.html CERN’s AEGIS project might have a definitive answer to this fundamental question in a few year’s time, but today that basic question is unresolved. Therefore, given that one of primary of all aspects of particle theory is completely disputable, one cannot make the claim that current subatomic theory is either “well-tested” or “well-supported.”

 

Now, the key of the quoted argument appears to be that CERN experiments for the Higgs are “falsifiable.” Hmm. Does that mean that the LEP, Tevatron, and/or SLAC efforts to find the Higgs were not falsifiable? I mean, in each case proponents of these projects vowed that they’d be the first to find the Higgs. Yet they didn’t. Yet the search wasn’t abandoned. Yet, if these scientific projects were “falsifiable” shouldn’t that have meant that lack of detection should have nullified the Higgs hypothesis—but it didn’t. Rather than conclude that the lack of detection falsified the Higgs hypothesis, results were deemed inconclusive and plans for bigger projects drawn up. Isn’t that exactly what is most likely to occur if LHC pulls up a goose-egg?

 

Now as far as belief-systems go, why is it so important that atheism not be called a “belief-system?” To me all a belief-system is, is a structure of premises that lead to choices. Every human possesses belief systems whether they like to admit it or not. We follow tradition, group-think, and patterns usually more unconsciously, rather than consciously.

 

Let it be noted that my own personal definition of a spiritual person is not defined by the sect they self-identify with nor does it have to do with attendance at religious services nor with clothes/masks worn. To my understanding, one’s metaphysical presence is defined by the totality of their actions. Surprisingly, many of the people who I have come across who self-describe as atheist or agnostic are also some of the most piously caring, attuned with nature, and spiritual folks I have ever known. Conversely, some of the most dreadfully evil, self-interested, and destructive people I have ever known were bible-thumpers, hajjis, and other evangelicals.

 

One of my favorite verses from the Quran seems to confirm the first observation:

Those who believe

And those who follow the Jewish,

And the Christians and the Sabians,

Any who believe in Allah

And the Last Day,

And work righteousness,

Shall have their reward

With their Lord on them

Shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.”

--Al-Baqarah the Heifer section 8 verse 62

To me, this incredibly inclusive passage reads that all humans will possess potential reward based on how they live their lives. The most hopeful of all the words of this passage (and also the most controversial) is inclusion of the “Sabians.” There is a bit of debate over this word because two different ancient tribes were known as “Sabian.” I prefer to believe that this passage refers to the highly successful neighboring traders of Yemen and S. Arabia (and probable ethnicity of the Queen of Sheba) rather than a similarly-named obscure sub-cult of Judaism in further-away Mesopotamia. Why? Because the Sabians of S. Arabia were polytheists, e.g., as close to Islam as atheists. In other words, this passage appears to be inclusive of all humanity regardless of what stripes one “thinks” they are wearing during life.

 

I bring this up because within your post appears indication that you live by rules governed by concern for other humans, for the future, and for the planet.

the beliefs of others can (and, very often, do) have a direct impact on me, my family, and the society in which we live. I care if people think that racism is okay. I care if people think that homosexuality is wrong. I care if people continue burning coal and fossil fuels and pollute our planet, and I care if people keep wasting their time worshiping a petty sky pixie based on nothing more than the fairy tales of barely literate tribal peoples in the iron age... and I can care about ALL of these things without some unifying ideology as my foundation. The proof is in the fact that I DO care about all of these things, all while noting accurately that atheism is NOT what informs my concern.

The fact that you profess to care about such things does not put you in the camp of what a no-Big-Picture, no-God, no-ultimate-consequence, self-serving, and dog feasting on dog atheist should logically feel. If there is no God, no Judgment, and Death is as simple as turning off a light bulb, then amoral behavior logically follows:

 

1: stolen money spends the same a earned money, as long as you don’t get caught (ALAYDGC)

2: gains through lies and deceit are the same as those earned through skill and effort (ALAYDGC)

3: plagiarism is a way to scientifically advance (ALAYDGC)

4: euthanatizing the sick is preferable to wasting resources to keep them alive since it’s just turning off the bulb.

5: no-one should fear Death/suicide, esp when done w/out pain since it’s just turning off the bulb.

6. etc

 

However, even though, logically there is no justification, even atheists often act morally. The obvious question is, Why? I’d venture that even though atheist profess to feel no metaphysical connection, they in fact do, because God will not ignore them. Those that act on these metaphysical instincts, (rather than the straightforward logical gains of theft, deceit, plagiarism, murder, and suicide) apparently according to the Quran, will receive reward.

 

But back to the ultimate question of this thread. Why hasn’t anyone commented on the scientists, past and present, who were able to resolve the superficial conflicts between God and science? Curie, Einstein, and Sagan were all put forward. Einstein is probably the most curious of them all because he started off agnostic and became increasingly more devote as his working the realm of the frontiers of science advanced. His life-progression (and central position in modern theory) make him especially interesting.

[InfiniteNow]

2: The existence of both God and the Higgs is supported by a complex framework of assumptions: scriptures for one and equations for the other.

 

3: Both scriptures and equations possess attractive, yet fallacious allure. Scriptures have stood the test of time and have been followed by huge swaths of humanity. Equations possess numbers and odd symbols that dazzle. Both produce mindless followers who truly have no understanding of the actual “proofs” leading to the conclusion of either God or Higgs, but believe nonetheless. Within both groups are those who have faith in the existence of the elusive concept largely because of groupthink consensus of others within the sub-group.

Dude, I'm sorry to say, but I pretty much stopped reading when you said this. You are seriously here equating scriptures to empirically supported equations describing accurately our subatomic world and the interactions therein? You then go on to suggest that the numbers in these equations are nothing but "odd symbols that dazzle."

 

 

EDIT: Also, your comparison fails on another front. The Higgs Boson is not something people "believe in" or have "faith that it exists." It is being posited as a possibility based on the extreme success of our current understandings. It is still, however, unproven and awaiting confirmation. So, your whole diatribe up there about people "bowing down to the high clerics of science" is fallacious, and frankly rather ignorant and misrepresentative of reality. I don't "believe in the Higgs Boson" and I don't have "faith that it exists despite evidence." No sir. I'd posit that 99.9% of the entire scientific community agrees with me on this point. It's just a logical explanation based on what we know now... much like we were able to logically deduce the presence of Neptune based on our understanding of planetary motion.

 

Nobody "believed it" because scientists told them to. It was falsifiable, and testable, and the test was passed.

 

At no time and at no place has your scripture or god passed any falsifiable tests (in fact, each and every test put forth thus far has miserably failed, which would be enough for most rational human beings to discard the hypothesis and move on). This failure and inability to successfully pass tests is due especially to the fact that your god concept is so ill-defined, ambiguous, and non-falsifiable.

 

Learn these words: Falsifiable. Predictive test. Empirical evidence. These are the words which allow science to kick the *** of religions and faith based belief every day of the week, and twice on Sunday. [/EDIT]

 

 

I am sorry, friend, but I no longer consider you a serious nor credible debating partner after your response above. I am quite done if this is the logic underlying your positions... that "scripture" is equivalent to "empirically supported equations regarding subatomic particle interactions which can accurately predict future phenomenon."

 

 

 

Except, to respond to this bit:

 

Now as far as belief-systems go, why is it so important that atheism not be called a “belief-system?”

This seems so painfully obvious to me that I almost think you are pulling my leg. Unfortunately, I know you are sincere, so I will respond.

 

It's important not to call atheism a belief system quite simply because it is not one. In much the same way, my lack of belief in the efficacy of astrology is not "a belief system." In much the same way the fact that I think numerology is bunk is not "a belief system." In much the same way that my disagreement that 2+2 = 7 is not a "belief system."

 

Atheism is NOT a system of beliefs. It is not some worldview, and it is not a centralized dogma by which people change their behaviors or rituals. It is the perspective that there is no evidence in favor of gods existence, and hence no good reason think this ambiguously defined three letter word is any different than a pink unicorn or the tooth fairy.

 

We don't have words like "non-astrologers" or "non-racists" to describe people who reject astrology and people who reject racism, so why should we need a term to describe people who reject a god concept which has failed to bring forth a single shred of evidence in favor of existence after millenia of millions and millions of people searching? Atheism is simply a ridiculous label which has been attributed to this group to more easily cast aside their criticisms instead of actually addressing them. If you can just call someone an "atheist" instead of dealing head-on with their actual criticisms, then you circumvent the argument without ever having addressed it. It's quite a ploy, and one I find lacking tremendously in academic integrity and supremely disrespectful to any critically thinking and reasonable human being.

 

I highly encourage you to read this post over here which I've put forth if you truly seek an answer to that question you've asked.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-of-science/19866-what-is-science-4.html#post268726

 

 

Again, back to my previous point, I can't take you seriously if your arguments suggest that our equations about subatomic physics are nothing more than numbers which dazzle people, and that nobody understands them, and hence they are equivalent to faith-based beliefs taken from scripture. If that's the logic you are using, I cannot respect you enough to continue with this.

[Hasanuddin]

Hi Modest,

 

You posted while I was replying to InfiniteNow. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe we are more in synch with each other than not.

 

First, you are correct to point out that the supposition that each major religion possesses some aspect of absolute truth is a firm belief of mine, based on my understandings of quranic narratives. Although this belief cannot be directly supported, other than through the Quran itself, this belief is tangentially supported by the fervor of some individuals, religious wars, and the mass-appeal of these religions as discussed previously.

 

I can see your point when you state

”My position is that atheists have a harder time incorporating religious thought into their thinking than do theists incorporating science into theirs.”

That would explain Curie. But both Einstein’s emersion into faith concurrent to developing much of modern scientific theory and Sagan’s finding science to be a source of his spirituality are left unanswered. Even so, I do see your point.

 

Ussher and religious methods: I guess the issue you are presenting is less about Ussher and more against religious methodology. I am okay with that, but I think we’re talking about two different things. I never meant to advocate the use a “religious methodology,” rather I am referring to religious directive to approach science. To me, the religious calling I use when approaching science is the Quranic promise that can be paraphrased: “The answer to every question can be found within the Earth.” You and I already touched on this lightly. This challenge to humanity was first delivered by Mohammad and became the driving force behind the development of much of early sciences (not usually taught in Western Civ classes), e.g., “al-gebra,” “al-chemy” (chemistry), Euclidian geometry, Ptolemaic maths, taxonomy, and botany all got initial starts because of this fundamental Islamic directive. The “al” of both algebra and alchemy both come the Arabic form of “the.” Euclid and Ptolemy were both products of firmly Islamic societies. And the cataloguing of the plants and animals were the first logical steps in understanding biological systems.

 

So, it appears were are talking about two different things. I am referring to a religious directive to approach science. This religious directive leads to the mission of understanding the facts from data and trying to solve the riddles within this data for the purpose of answering questions. The methodology used could be either deductive or inductive depending on the data-set and degree of certainty. In other words, the methodology I advocate is no different than the methodology employed by modern atheists when approaching scientific questions. On the other hand, you appear to be talking about a methodology using scripture as a guide (something I have not professed.) Also, as I have said, reading scripture too literally is a hazardous game doomed to failure.

 

My point is: being spiritually minded is not mutually exclusive to being analytic. Religious directive to explore the wonder (“beauty”) of the natural world may be the initial motivator, but need not be the methodology. I don’t see us in disagreement.

 

As far as the last part of your post,

Let me just say, Hasanuddin, you seem like a very tolerant person, and I respect that greatly. You might consider extending some of that tolerance toward atheism. Atheists, like me, are just people who are unconvinced that there is a god—people who have no particular belief in god. That belief may not be the same as yours, but you should see it is worthy of consideration and certainly worthy of tolerance.”

Thank you for the huge complement. I don’t accept complements readily, Being humble, tolerant, equitable w/ justice and respectful are elusive goals that I try for (none of which come naturally to me at all times.) If you read my reply the InfiniteNow, you’ll see that I honestly do not think that I am “better” than an atheist, nor do I believe that I am any closer to God than an atheist. As I said before, I believe the names/labels we call ourselves by are virtually meaningless. I’d much rather associate with a bunch of caring, inclusive, and thoughtful “atheists” than a bunch of self-interested, xenophobic, religious zealots.

[Hasanuddin]

Hi InfiniteNow,

 

Let’s see:

You are seriously here equating scriptures to empirically supported equations describing accurately our subatomic world and the interactions therein? You then go on to suggest that the numbers in these equations are nothing but "odd symbols that dazzle."

Yes, I am suggesting that with regard to scriptures used to support the notion of God there are sharp parallels to the equations used to prop-up the notion of the Higgs.

 

And yes, you did correctly read that numbers, statistics, charts, and complex equations are often used in persuasion theory (whether consciously or unconsciously) to argue points, justify conclusions, or assert power over others. Persuasive effects of story and statistical evidence | Argumentation and Advocacy | Find Articles at BNET

 

Okay, now the burden of proof falls to you InfiniteNow.

The Higgs Boson is not something people "believe in" or have "faith that it exists." It is being posited as a possibility based on the extreme success of our current understandings. It is still, however, unproven and awaiting confirmation. So, your whole diatribe up there about people "bowing down to the high clerics of science" is fallacious, and frankly rather ignorant and misrepresentative of reality.

1: If it is not something people have faith in its existence, then the only conclusion is that people don’t have faith it exists. {Be careful with the logic of your assertion.}

2: What “extreme success of our current understandings?” Are you either unaware or blind to the paradoxes plaguing current theory? Please refer to the first post of this thread for a sampling of current paradoxes http://hypography.com/forums/alternative-theories/19536-the-dominium-model-part-2-a.html

3: By admitting that the Higgs hasn’t been observed, aren’t you contradicting #1 & #2?

4: What fallacy has been committed by calling top proponents of the Higgs the high-clerics of the faith of Higgs’ existence? Please specify exactly to extablish the charge of "fallacy." Aren’t those top scientists the ones who people go to for guidance/misunderstandings--similar to parishioners to clergy? Aren’t they the ones most able to unlock answers for the exalted equations--as clergy are to their flock?

5: Please refrain from Ad-Hominum attacks. Don’t label me “ignorant,” show that my assertions are incorrect. Not cool, dude.

 

Immediately after your attack, you make a testimonial

No sir. I'd posit that 99.9% of the entire scientific community agrees with me on this point. It's just a logical explanation based on what we know now...

First off, you just committed the informal fallacy of Argumentum ad Populum by evoking popular-bias. Whatever, I’ll overlook that, you seem very emotional. Sorry. But you have not shown what logical progression you are referencing. That would be interesting to see detailed. I’m sorry you’re threatening to leave this thread without supplying such crucial info. If you change your mind, remember to include explanation for the paradoxes.

 

Actually, your words help prove the point I was trying to establish. Just replace the phrase “scientific community” with “congregation” and you’ll see how even you’re rebuttal exemplifies the comparative point I am making between fervent belief in God vs similar (empirically unsupported) fervor towards the Higgs.

 

Later your words stop making sense, e.g., this paragraph/sentence

Nobody "believed it" because scientists told them to. It was falsifiable, and testable, and the test was passed.

How could the test be “passed” if no evidence for the Higgs yet exists? Do you disagree that LEP tried to find the Higgs, yet failed? By your definition, LEP’s failure constitutes a failed test, does it not? So how is that different than these not supplied, but referenced failed tests for the existence of God? Please supply those tests, if you decide to explain this incongruity.

 

Learn these words: Falsifiable. Predictive test. Empirical evidence. These are the words, which allow science to kick the *** of religions

 

Please calm down. I agree we should discuss things no longer if you continue Ad-Hominum abusive tactics. Do not call me ignorant unless you have solid proof (and even then it is not very cool.) Do not talk down to me and suggest that I learn common words such as “falsifiable,” “predictive test,” or “empirical evidence.” Please also do not use guttural terms like “***” or presume that your arguments are infallible. Calm down & don’t reply right away (if you do change your mind about leaving the thread, that is.)

[InfiniteNow]

Later your words stop making sense, e.g., this paragraph/sentence

How could the test be “passed” if no evidence for the Higgs yet exists? Do you disagree that LEP tried to find the Higgs, yet failed?

I was talking then about Neptune, man... about how our understanding of planetary bodies allowed us to predict its existence, a prediction which was later confirmed. Pay attention.

 

 

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

Neptune was the first planet found by mathematical prediction rather than by empirical observation. Unexpected changes in the orbit of Uranus led astronomers to deduce that its orbit was subject to gravitational perturbation by an unknown planet. Neptune was subsequently found within a degree of its predicted position, and its largest moon, Triton, was discovered shortly thereafter, though none of the planet's remaining 12 moons was located telescopically until the 20th century.

 

 

 

Suggesting that belief in scriptures is equivalent to our acceptance of the equations governing subatomic physics... Give me a break.

 

 

Closing in on the Higgs Boson | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine

They set a 95% confidence bound on the Higgs mass at about 114 GeV. Their limit does not extend very far beyond that mass at all; it was limited by the energy of the LEP accelerator. The mass range above 114 GeV is open experimentally, but if you take the W mass/top mass constraint seriously (in the context of the Standard Model you must) then it would certainly appear very likely that the Higgs must lie in the range 114-185 GeV, with a strong preference for the lower end.

 

The new Tevatron result takes a new bite out of the upper end of the range, excluding from 160-170 GeV the “sweet spot” where the Higgs can decay to two W bosons. This is in some sense “first blood” for the Tevatron: at last the two experiments can exclude a Standard Model Higgs boson somewhere it hasn’t already been excluded!

 

But, to my mind, the interesting end of the range is at the low end. The data favor it, and theory favors it in the sense that if nature is more complicated, and supersymmetry is manifest, then one would expect that the light Higgs boson in supersymmetry exists in the range 120-130 GeV or so. In this picture there would be heavier Higgs bosons lying in wait for either the LHC or the Tevatron, though the LHC has the edge here with higher energy.

 

 

 

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Higgs Boson

An oft-cited analogy describes it well: Imagine you're at a Hollywood party. The crowd is rather thick, and evenly distributed around the room, chatting. When the big star arrives, the people nearest the door gather around her. As she moves through the party, she attracts the people closest to her, and those she moves away from return to their other conversations. By gathering a fawning cluster of people around her, she's gained momentum, an indication of mass. She's harder to slow down than she would be without the crowd. Once she's stopped, it's harder to get her going again.

 

This clustering effect is the Higgs mechanism, postulated by British physicist Peter Higgs in the 1960s. The theory hypothesizes that a sort of lattice, referred to as the Higgs field, fills the universe. This is something like an electromagnetic field, in that it affects the particles that move through it, but it is also related to the physics of solid materials. Scientists know that when an electron passes through a positively charged crystal lattice of atoms (a solid), the electron's mass can increase as much as 40 times. The same might be true in the Higgs field: a particle moving through it creates a little bit of distortion -- like the crowd around the star at the party -- and that lends mass to the particle.

 

Scientists at CERN use the enormous ALEPH detector in their search for the Higgs particle.

 

The question of mass has been an especially puzzling one, and has left the Higgs boson as the single missing piece of the Standard Model yet to be spotted. The Standard Model describes three of nature's four forces: electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Electromagnetism has been fairly well understood for many decades. Recently, physicists have learned much more about the strong force, which binds the elements of atomic nuclei together, and the weak force, which governs radioactivity and hydrogen fusion (which generates the sun's energy).

Electromagnetism describes how particles interact with photons, tiny packets of electromagnetic radiation. In a similar way, the weak force describes how two other entities, the W and Z particles, interact with electrons, quarks, neutrinos and others. There is one very important difference between these two interactions: photons have no mass, while the masses of W and Z are huge. In fact, they are some of the most massive particles known.

 

The first inclination is to assume that W and Z simply exist and interact with other elemental particles. But for mathematical reasons, the giant masses of W and Z raise inconsistencies in the Standard Model. To address this, physicists postulate that there must be at least one other particle -- the Higgs boson.

 

The simplest theories predict only one boson, but others say there might be several. In fact, the search for the Higgs particle(s) is some of the most exciting research happening, because it could lead to completely new discoveries in particle physics. Some theorists say it could bring to light entirely new types of strong interactions, and others believe research will reveal a new fundamental physical symmetry called "supersymmetry."

 

CERN scientists were unsure whether these events recorded by the ALEPH detector indicated the presence of a Higgs boson. Check out the links listed below for the latest information on the search for the Higgs Boson.

 

First, though, scientists want to determine whether the Higgs boson exists. The search has been on for over ten years, both at CERN's Large Electron Positron Collider (LEP) in Geneva and at Fermilab in Illinois.

 

 

Yep... I sure do see what you mean. That's EXACTLY like people accepting iron age fairy tales based on no empirical evidence and doing so for no other reason than their faith. ;)

 

 

 

EDIT:

I just came across this quote from a friend on another forum, which I found strangely relevant to this recent exchange about how you are trying to conflate the equations of subatomic particle physics with scripture, and how you continue to equivocate the scientific method with religion.

 

"Science is not about searching for truth. It's about constructing models to explain how nature behaves. Much of nature is invisible to us, yet we still need to know how it works in order to exploit it. So I'll savor the irony that you used a computer — which depends on the actions of electrons — to type your statement that it's like a religion or belief system."

[lawcat]

It is not possible to rule out the intelligent design possibility. Yet sciencs rejects this possibility outright, and accepts that such ordered system is self created.

This is a matter of unsubstantiated belief in scientific community. 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 they are 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.

[InfiniteNow]

It is not possible to rule out the intelligent design possibility.

Actually, this is false. It IS possible to rule it out. ID has put forward predictions, and when those predictions were put to the test, they failed.

 

Would you like to try again? You seem to have whiffed a bit on your first swing.

 

(Not to mention the fact that nobody here except you is talking about intelligent design) :)

[freeztar]

in essence, a non-believer scientists must be agnostic; any other construction is absurd.

 

We agree here, lawcat.

I can not falsify God or any religion. It seems logical to me to be agnostic. I take it one step further, with a denunciation of theistic beliefs. Technically, this would make me an a-theist. As C1ay pointed out to me, this makes me an agnostic atheist. To me, this seems like the most rational position one could assume regarding spiritual/theistic beliefs. It's the position of least bias, which is a perfect platform for science, imho.

[modest]

Just to throw my weight aboard,

 

INow is right, Hasanuddin. Your comparison of the Higgs particle and God goes only as far as neither being observed. The rest of your comparison seems incredibly forced. No scientist has faith in the Higgs' existence. It's just a possibility predicted by the standard model of particle physics—a possibility which can and will be tested.

 

Atheism is not a belief system. If you are operating under an assumption otherwise then it would explain some of your thoughts expressed so far. There are belief systems which are atheistic and there are belief systems which are theistic. A single belief cannot be considered a belief system. It's really that simple. Believe me, Hasanuddin. You should really think about this before continuing to argue it.

 

Also, not a philosphy, an ideology, a religion, or anything of that sort.

 

~modest

[lawcat]

Actually, this is false. It IS possible to rule it out. ID has put forward predictions, and when those predictions were put to the test, they failed.

 

Would you like to try again? You seem to have whiffed a bit on your first swing.

 

(Not to mention the fact that nobody here except you is talking about intelligent design) :(

 

I disagree with relevance of your assertion. And, let me clarify the misunderstanding like this: When I say intelligent design, I use such description to be fair to all concepts of Creator other than self created nature; not as a scientific theory.

Now, since I do not assert that the methods of "intelligent design theory" are scientific, I do not refute that science is better than religion at science. Of course, science is the only valid inquiry into science.

However, I do assert that the possibility of Creator, which I previously called intelligent design but now I see it may cause confusion with the discipline of intelligent design, the possibility of Creator can not be ruled out.

[InfiniteNow]

However, I do assert that the possibility of Creator, which I previously called intelligent design but now I see it may cause confusion with the discipline of intelligent design, the possibility of Creator can not be ruled out.

 

Thank you for clarifying. That certainly does help to clarify your intent, and you're right... We cannot rule out the possibility of a creator, in much the same way that we cannot rule out the possibility that the smell of farts coming from the *** of pink unicorns causes erections in leprechauns, or the possibility that James Dean was an octopus in a former life, or the possibility that Eric Clapton's guitar is really made out of the penis of a space alien.