Faith and uncertainity

[Edella]

 

Now on the other hand, non-religious scientists do not believe whatsoever in religion and thus do not concern themselves with it, even to discern if what many people believe may or may not be right.

Hogwash. Non-religious scientists such as Eugenie Scott and Richard Dawkins do concern themselves with religion and its impact on society and science education.

They just ignore the possibility because they don't like it's ramifications...

Have you considered that some non-religious scientists have considered the possibility or have you ignored that possibility?

...and they continue on with their fingers stuck in their ears with their faith centered solely on science and man's ability to figure things out. What keeps them going? Continuing scientific discovery.

All non-religious scientists walk around with there fingers stuck in their ears? C'mon cwes, that's insulting, and who are you to say what keeps another "going?"

[Buffy]

Particularly christians are taught through the scripture (1 Thes 5:21) to keep testing whether the things they hear are in line with scripture and observation.

So what keeps them from questioning the scripture? They question everything but? Doesn't that say something about Faith requiring being unquestioning in at least one thing in the world?

They just ignore the possibility because they don't like it's ramifications, and they continue on with their fingers stuck in their ears with their faith centered solely on science and man's ability to figure things out.

All of 'em? I can show you at least a few that spend plenty of time evaluating the veracity of religious claims! Its quite an industry! Oh, but there's probably some "rule" that they've broken that make their investigations invalid. And who gets to decide if those investigations are valid? Probably requires faith to judge....

...you don't see that there are those in the middle who are both scientist and religious adherent. These do go to religion to verify their principles.

Even those that do verify are not necessarily religious and in many cases do not find anything valid or even verifiable. Nor do many of them care even if they are quite religious.

 

Its nice you have religious faith, but don't cast aspersions against people who don't: it makes all people with religious beliefs look small-minded, ignorant and self-absorbed, which is provably not the case.

 

Conversely for the rest of you.

 

I'd say the only reason why someone who was religious would work so hard to make "religious faith" equivalent to "scientific statistical likelihood" is that they have doubts about the veracity of their religious faith!

 

And conversely for the rest of you!

 

Statistics require no faith and conversely,

Buffy

[Qfwfq]

Just in case you're still listening Chile... :)

Yeah, I've heard that there are similarities in the math

They're the exact same thing!!!!!!!!!! If you look at the microstates, that is, not just the macrostates...

 

I keep telling them: information has no temperature and no heat content

Perfectly true...

therefore it has nothing to do with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

...therefore A has absolutely nothing to do with B! :rolleyes:

 

But B does have a whoppin' helluvalot do do with A!!!!!!!!!!! :rant:

 

And as a mod I recommend you not to get over-heated in your replies without making a clear factual point when you could, even if it doesn't turn out to be wrong. :)

 

As initially introduced by chaps like Clausius and Kelvin, the second law was a postulate and seemed a somewhat mysterious one. It got completely explained with Nernst and information theory. What the heck does a parallel line through an external point have to do with gravity? :xx: :hihi: :edizzy: :blink: It ain't got no mass!!!

 

So,

But they just keep talking about their room getting messy and stuff...:shrug:

why can't Maxwell's demon work, whereas we can easily separate a mix of beans into the dark ones and the white ones?

 

Very well then, you're right... now you reverse all the momenta! :hihi:

[Qfwfq]

What would you then say about the faith in God of very many great scientists who are very popular too?

I say there is nothing in science that actually rules out the existence of God. Currently, the standard model doesn't predict why Weinberg's angle is a little over 13 degrees.

 

If it's stuff like Creationism you're arguing about, look at how few Christians and Jews believe it. Hermeneutics has long been the path to The Truth, for a great majority of them.

[cwes99_03]

Yah, but then you are traveling away from the question at hand Q. Plus, look at how many of those "christians" and "jews" don't follow the commands and principles that are Chistian and Jewish.

Calling yourself a Christian or a Jew does not a religious person make.

Calling yourself a scientist does not make you a scientist if you likewise believe the scriptures are God's word, at least that is what many above seem to be saying.

[ughaibu]

Here's a reasoned critique of the religious scientist: Overcoming Bias: Outside the Laboratory

[Qfwfq]

Alright, the only true Christians and Jews aree those who believe in Creationism and are convinced the world is little more than 6000 years old. :hihi:

 

"A witty saying proves nothing," as Voltaire said.

...and neither does that guy's post, I say. Quite full of non-sequiturs.

 

Why should an almighty god be bound by the laws of physics, by probability, or even by logic?

[ughaibu]

That's not the point, is it? It's about relinquishing one's critical faculties when dealing with certain matters, it's about personal bias and denial, etc, it has nothing to do with god.

[chilehed]

To put that information there or maintain it takes energy, hence a system elsewhere shows a corresponding increase in entropy...

 

Just in case you're still listening Chile... :cheer:....They're the exact same thing!!!!!!!!!!

 

And as a mod I recommend you not to get over-heated in your replies without making a clear factual point when you could, even if it doesn't turn out to be wrong. :).....

 

So,why can't Maxwell's demon work, whereas we can easily separate a mix of beans into the dark ones and the white ones?...

I didn’t mean to come across as over-heated. I was being silly. I apologise.

 

Believe it or not, if I'm wrong I want to know exactly why and how. How about I start a new thread over in Physics and Mathematics?

[InfiniteNow]

How about I start a new thread over in Physics and Mathematics?

Good idea. :cheer: An even better one would be to search the forums to determine if the topic of your post has already generated some discussion (i.e. is there already a thread discussing what you want to?).

 

 

No worries on being heated. Sometimes staff remind a single poster of a point they want all readers to remember. ;)

 

 

Cheers. :)

[Qfwfq]

No problem Chile. :cup:

 

We all let ourselves be silly now and then, you %*&£#$ you!!!! :hyper:

 

:naughty:

 

I suspected you weren't seriously angry, though wasn't sure exactly what and just wanted to make 100% certain. :hihi:

 

That's not the point, is it?

:hyper: What is, then?

 

It's about relinquishing one's critical faculties when dealing with certain matters, it's about personal bias and denial, etc, it has nothing to do with god.

:)

 

I wouldn't say religious scientists are relinquishing their faculties. BTW that guy mentions Popperian falsificationism but doesn't appear to have read much of Popper's work. "God exists" is an example of what Popper calls a non-falsifiable assert.

[ughaibu]

Here's another making basically the same point: Edge: MY GOD PROBLEM By Natalie Angier

[Sacri Sankt]

the problem with religions claiming that only faith matters, and that proof of thier doctrines, or even of the existance of god, would in some way infringe on our free will, is that if this is true, why do we know anything about god at all? is it really beyond his ability to stay hidden?

 

the free will angle also demonstrates the futility of prayer, since answering a prayer or granting a miracle would be tantamount to revealing himself, and therefore ending the free will of the person involved (i dont know about you, but i recveived proof that god exists, such information would radically change how i live).

 

so, either god cant keep himself hidden, in which case he isnt omnipotent, or he chooses not to keep himself hidden, in which case he doesnt care about our free will. either way, worshipping such a being seems totally futile. a secret god wont help you, a god who does not grant free will would help you anyway if it was in its interests, and wont if its not in gods interests.

 

and thats quiet apart from whether god deserves our worship. in simple practical terms, its a pointless endevour.

[chilehed]

No problem Chile. :hihi:

 

We all let ourselves be silly now and then, you %*&£#$ you!!!! :rant:

 

:confused:...

;)

 

 

New thread: http://hypography.com/forums/physics-mathematics/10046-thermo-vs-information-entropy.html#post155659

[TruthChaser]

 

Now throw some energy into the mix and you can make those curves dance!

 

 

:eek: Who, what threw in the energy? :doh:

[LaurieAG]

I think this is yet another thread that tries to explain faith as something equal to religious faith.

 

Good point Tormod.

 

Unfortunately if the scientific 'faith' promotes religious style dogma and doctrines it is probably just as dangerous.