Science discovers God

Well, again, I don't see Campbell saying that every storyteller consciously meant the same thing when they spoke of their gods. He is very clear about what he means when he says he believes in them or when he asserts that the myths are true. Personally, I don't think he was doing his case a great service, using language in ways that would put Rafiki to shame. From what little I gathered he does not strike me as a man with no critical faculties, who believed any number of contradictory things simultaneously, which we would need to conclude he did, if we take statements like these of his literally the way he says we shouldn't anything.

Moving on.
Complementary is a term that both colloquially and in mathematics describes a relation of two sets that renders them for one non-overlapping, but also completely filling out their common superset. Two complementary things together cover their entire domain. There is of course quite a debate to be had whether science and religion are indeed non-overlapping, let alone complementary. Now, I don't have the exact context of that quote, so I have no way of guessing what Mr. King meant by some of those things exactly, but at face value I have to say that neither religion nor science are actual agents, so they don't do anything, nor give anyone anything, nor do they deal with anything or do anything to each other. And people of neither profession are limited to their respective one, so it is probably safe to say that this is not how he meant it, but pending further elaboration, what he said there is gibberish so far.
As for the other names, pending citations and context, I have nothing to address there. I'm pretty sure Einstein wasn't very fond of people attributing specifically religious faith to him while he was still alive, because it came up then as often as it does today, so we have the luxury of having his responses on record.
Now, yes, some of the brilliant minds in history and today did and do believe in various kinds of gods, others insist that science and religion can coexist, and in many minds it does. To conclude from this that therefore there should not be any conflict between the two is, in my humble opinion, premature and unnecessary. Whether there can be, should be, or is, has minimal relevance to the questions either face.

First of all, as someone who has had but a few formal introductions to logical fallacies, my opinion is hardly relevant here, but I am sure to be corrected if I am mistaken. In a situation when the empirical soundness of a proposition implies a high probability that evidence for it can be recovered within a finite time, a consistent failure to recover any does count as evidence to the contrary and its strength is a direct function of the aforementioned probability. As a popular example, if someone says that a building is rigged to explode but yet no search party and no amount of specialized technology can identify so much as a trace of explosives, there is technically an absense of evidence of a bomb, but because the presence of one would imply some indication of it being found within a finite timeframe, we understand the failure to find it as evidence that the building is not in fact rigged and we do not declare it unsafe until the end of days.
It is also false that to debunk nonsense is always easier than to make it up (or going the lazy way of posting someone else talking bollocks on your behalf instead). The opposite is the case. This is why in threads like these, the responses get longer and longer. It is very easy to pull some asinine assertion out of thin air, like the idea that absence of evidence is no evidence of absence. But it takes quite a bit more effort to explain all of why it can be wrong and in what context.

It is funny how you respond in such detail, only to, once you sniff critique incoming, refer back to "I really don't care what you closed-minded dogmatic folks think, because no argument can ever be good enough for your narrow worldview." in the cowardly hopes that you won't be made to second-guess your own. First you call this thread 'Science dicovers God', then post a video with a title that implies that it is a definitive argument, a 'scientific proof', no less, but now that people started thinking about it, it wasn't meant to be definitive or to prove anything, all of a sudden. Oh, but thank you so much for permitting us, nay, granting us the freedom to believe what ever we like, because that's not at all condescending and patronizing, is it! And before you come back with "Hey, if this doesn't apply to you, then obviously I didn't mean you.", keep it. The rest of the post was rather clearly a response to mine. You can pedal back if you must, but don't try and pretend like this is not what you are doing yet again.

The name of the video was “science discovers God”. And since it was the video I was sharing I saw no point in naming it something else. And as I clearly wrote, in plain English, before the video, for all to see…

This is an interesting video explaining how one person’s interpretation of what science has discovered confirms the existence of the Biblical God

And I think that particular section of MLK Jr’s sermon quite eloquently describes how science and religion complement each other.

And I quite plainly said that none of this is definitive proof of anything and that it was just something that I found neat.

And exactly as I expected, nothing was offered to the contrary. Just a long written out post in an obvious attempt to tear down anything that I might have written, ignoring any disclaimer that was written, and offering little to nothing constructive to add to the conversation. And the last paragraph was aimed at all those that post with the idea of tearing down and disproving anything that was implied in the original post. So, I guess you might want to ask yourself why you feel it was aimed at you in particular.

And any response I make is so that people who might believe the opposite of others can post without feeling like they will be shamed for their ideas or beliefs by those that don’t share them. As you are trying to do to me.

And just out of shear politeness for the man’s accomplishments (masters and PhD from MIT) if he wants to entertain the plausibility, that Science has “DISCOVERED”, not proved, God, then I’ll give it a few minutes of my time to hear. After all, I am only an Engineer with a strong back ground in science, mathematics and I only dabble in theology… which is why I found it interesting enough to share in the first place.

Wescli Wardest wrote: ... I think that particular section of MLK Jr’s sermon quite eloquently describes how science and religion complement each other.

Fair enough. I don't know what he meant though. Come to think of it, I'm not even sure what "complement" means in this context. What is the superset?

... I quite plainly said that none of this is definitive proof of anything and that it was just something that I found neat.

And exactly as I expected, nothing was offered to the contrary.

Well, I can't read your mind, so I cannot offer anything to dispute that you do in fact find this neat. It is false that there was no critical response to the content of the video, but of course here you are saying that you just found it neat and that it isn't to be taken as a serious argument, so I don't understand why you think anybody should have addressed the video. After all, tzb, Jack, OB1, and Kyrin actually did comment on its contents but because your position is effectively "I'm not saying anything this man is saying, I just find it neat, leave me alone.", of course there is nothing you need to say to them. On that note, tzb, I apologize: my last paragraph in response to you stemmed from a misreading of the quoted passage. I stand by what I said, but it is not contrary to your remark.

Just a long written out post in an obvious attempt to tear down anything that I might have written, ignoring any disclaimer that was written, and offering little to nothing constructive to add to the conversation.

First of all, there is nothing wrong with tearing down anything, no matter who wrote it. Secondly, because of your disclaimers I knew that there would be no point responding to the video because you'd come back with "Oh, I just found it neat, nothing more." and I'd rather discuss the substance and not anyone's taste. I did offer what I think of Mr. Schroeder's credibility as a scientist in a conversation that is mostly about his opinion on matters of science. Of course I don't really have much of a metric for constructiveness, so I don't have anything to say about whether my contribution has a lot of it. Additionally I responded to what you said irrespective of the video or relevant disclaimers, namely we discussed what some big names of history thought of the relationship between science and religion and specifically about what in Campbell's view the extent was to which all of the traditional deities are comparable or even equivalent. Again, I don't know how constructive it was, but I didn't do much to tear anything down except the absence of evidence thing. I'm sorry if I went in too much detail on that. I considered keeping it at either only the example or skipping it, but then decided to leave it in along with the theoretical explanation. I'll try and keep it brief next time, if I feel like it.

And the last paragraph was aimed at all those that post with the idea of tearing down and disproving anything that was implied in the original post. So, I guess you might want to ask yourself why you feel it was aimed at you in particular.

I might, given that I tore nothing of the original post down. I also anticipated you picking this "Oh, I didn't mean you, please, don't criticize what I said." defense and thus responded to it in post #253401. Come on, you can do better than this.

... Any response I make is so that people who might believe the opposite of others can post without feeling like they will be shamed for their ideas or beliefs by those that don’t share them. As you are trying to do to me.

I suppose that given how I ascribed motivations to you, I cannot really object much to you doing likewise to me. What I can say is that you are lying though. You didn't declare anything you believe, you only declared what you took away from Campbell, what some people in history thought of something else and what Mr. Schroeder thinks of yet a third thing. So I cannot attempt to shame you (what ever that means) for what you believe because I don't know what you believe... Only what you find neat... And there is no "shame" in that. Speaking of shame and shaming, there is no definition of that provided by the rules and no prohibition against it. So while I encourage anyone and everyone to speak their minds openly and freely, either for themselves to learn and grow, or for their fellow registered TOTJO users or for both, I have no way of promising them what kind of response they will be getting except for the response they can expect from me. I will never pretend like I am under attack only because what I find neat somebody else doesn't.

... Just out of shear politeness for the man’s accomplishments (masters and PhD from MIT) if he wants to entertain the plausibility, that Science has “DISCOVERED”, not proved, God, then I’ll give it a few minutes of my time to hear. After all, I am only an Engineer with a strong back ground in science, mathematics and I only dabble in theology… which is why I found it interesting enough to share in the first place.

You already made it clear that you just find it neat (or interesting, lest I sound too passive aggressive again) and don't wish to actually discuss any of it. Still, thank you for sharing.

First of all, there is nothing wrong with tearing down anything, no matter who wrote it.

Tearing things down is a very useful tool when it is used in constructive purposes. Tearing it down because you don’t like it, agree with it or because you can… that is just destructive. And it speaks more to a person’s character than it does to the point they may be trying to make.

I did offer what I think of Mr. Schroeder's credibility as a scientist in a conversation that is mostly about his opinion on matters of science.

That’s perfectly fine. You are welcome to believe what you like. I will not tell you that you are wrong for believing it. I will not question your credentials in the field as a base line for comparison. I am not here to tear you down or disprove anything you might believe. I am here to help keep it possible for everyone to explore what they believe. Not just one view.

Nor did I ask you not to criticize what I said. That is your interpretation of it. And I don’t have to “do better” because I speak the truth. If you need me to make something so you can have something to argue about or fight about you might want to look somewhere else. I don’t play those games.

Still, thank you for sharing

Thank you for sharing.

Wescli Wardest wrote: As most of us who have studied the logical fallacies knows, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is always easier to tear down and/or try to disprove that which we do not agree with or understand. It is much more difficult a task to ask how can it be or look for the truth to something.

There are caveats to the absence of evidence argument and one caveat fits perfectly with this subject and that's Russell's Teapot which says:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

Thanks Master Wess for this video. I love seeing people try. Illl never say right or wrong, not my place and I really don't see a need to point one or the other , im my mind its a waist of valuable time. My time is valued by many other people than my self!

interesting idea. A very different way to look at some science evidence. Most of us don't freguent charts and diagrams of that nature. its nice to see some ones full hearted interpretation of new charts. Im hobbit like in that sence but I love new maps and charts. The chart he uses seems Legit. If I look at it with out the sound I would say that everything has rotated away from that beginning point. slipped away falling away how ever you wanna think. It is awesome we are smart enough to be able to follow that to the past. I wonder if we can learn anything from charts and ideas like this? Could we time travel if we get to a point where we will be in the future? Better yet, can knowing the beginning effect the present? our future? Thanks for the food for thought Master Wess, still learning feels great!

Jack…

I appreciate the effort. And I understand yours, and Gisteron’s point about the fallacy argument. What I don’t think is taken into consideration is that with all our science and technology we do not know what to look for when trying to find “God” if one believes in such a thing. So, looking for ultra violet light with a set of calipers would be just as pointless. And would have just as fruitless results. So, my thought is that the argument still stands, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And that is also why I say that it is perfectly fine for people to believe whatever they like. It is not because I am beyond persuasion; but, as it stands there is no proof one way or the other and it is purely a matter of faith. You either believe there is something out there that we may one day may be able to explain (the Force), or you don’t.

Wait...someone thinks it is not okay to believe something without empirical evidence? Who has time to confirm empirical evidence of every single actionable thought that enters their head?!?

We require faith just to function...even if it is faith in the idea that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for anything there is.

The chart is actually for purposes of public understanding. Theoretical physicists do not operate on pretty pictures but on mathematical models extrapolated from observations. That means for one that their accuracy is of course limited, which, for instance, is why the "quantum fluctuation" thing at the beginning point of the chart is pretty much a speculation (albeit for what we know not a completely unreasonable one) as we cannot observe beyond the Planck time.

As another note on the absence of evidence thing, I feel like it needs pointing out that nobody argued that there was actually no thinking agent kicking off the universe based only on a lack of evidence indicating so. A much more present argument was that the Biblical God is a far more fleshed out character, with far more specific attributes than mere timelessness and externality to and power over nature. While we are at it, we do not actually know that any of those apply to what Dr. Schroeder calls the "laws of nature" either. It is things like these that make me question his credibility despite his credentials. MIT is not a place of sub-par education, so at some point he must have been made to understand what is false about the things he says about his field of science, be it in this video or in his lectures and books (that no doubt sell well). It stands to reason that either he forgot them because he hasn't been working in science for a while, or that he rejects things he was taught on religious grounds, or that he is knowingly lying about them now.

I would as well dispute that there is no evidence one way or the other, proof being an undefined thing when it comes to synthetic propositions. The Biblical God is not described as a mere prime mover in either the text nor in the minds of most believers. Rather it is an intelligent agent who allegedly interacts with the natural world in detectable ways. So we are in the "there is a bomb under my seat in theatre" scenario where we would expect to see evidence if it were the case, rendering the absence of evidence an indicator of the contrary. The absence of evidence argument would still stand if we were talking about something abstract or fundamentally unfalsifiable. In that case Occam's Razor would have to chime in, I'm just not all that positive that we are dealing with such purely deistic notions here.

Now, of course that doesn't mean either position is necessarily correct in this, and any one individual can of course either believe in The Force (which, by the way, is not the same thing as the Biblical God either in the fiction or in the minds of most real world Jedi, AFAIK) without evidence or not. One can of course likewise believe that there is no such thing on what I think is inconclusive evidence, or not. Whether either belief is justified or which one is more justified than the other would of course remain up for debate and whether either proposition is correct may ultimately be a matter of definition more than discovery. I would like to stress that it is not necessary to believe either and not unreasonable to reject both until either is backed by a convincing argument.

And finally,

rugadd wrote: Wait...someone thinks it is not okay to believe something without empirical evidence?

Can't recall anyone saying so, no...

We require faith just to function...

It depends on what you mean by faith. If every position that is not met with full certainty is a faith position, then we believe pretty much everything on faith and the term becomes meaningless as a discriminator to the same extent. If faith is what comes in when ever otherwise we have no justification to believe something, then please speak for yourself, since I never do need any such thing.

Now, before we start, I would like it recognized that I do not believe the Bible is a literal interpretation. I think it is a set of stories set to best explain things to a people in a certain time period where many of the lessons are timeless and universal. Just like many other religions.

At least one other has disputed the biblical definition of the Christian God. So…
God is not matter, He has no flesh and bones or material substance of any kind (Lk. 24:39). He is not dependent upon any other source for His spirituality or existence, as are we. We derive our spirituality from our Father (Acts 17:24-25). An essential characteristic of spirituality is life (Jer. 10:10; 1 Thes. 1:9; John 5:26; 14:6; Heb. 7:16). Personality also inheres in spirituality. God is self-conscious, He has the attribute of self-determination and purpose.

Eternity is part of God's character (Dt. 32:40; Ps. 90:2; 102:23-27; Isa. 41:4; Eph. 1:4; 1 Tim. 1:17). Eternity is relative to us because in order for us to define this concept we must relate it to time and space. God existed before time and space, they are His creations (Gen. 1:1, 8, 14), and He will exist independently of them after they are destroyed (Heb. 1:10-13).

Another aspect of the Biblical God is that he gave us free will. This is because he wants us to choose him. Faith has little merit if it is backed by proof. Then it is not faith at all but knowing. There are amazing coincidence that can either be attributed as influence of something greater than ourselves working in our lives or shear dumb luck.

If one chooses not to believe, then no argument short of definitive proof will satisfy. I one believes, then no argument is needed. And faith is not blind. For those that believe in something more than themselves, the results, actions and efforts are felt and seen in everyday life. For those that choose not to believe it is commonly dismissed as folly or unfounded superstition. So Occam’s razor could support the existence of the Biblical God. Occam’s razor is often quoted as, if all other possibilities have been eliminated then what ever is left is the answer. But it is actually a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities.

Gisteron - Do you accept personal experience as justification to believe something?

rugadd wrote: Gisteron - Do you accept personal experience as justification to believe something?

ooo...

Im on pins and needles at this moment...

(quick wink at Gisteron, lol)

Wescli Wardest wrote: "...but, as it stands there is no proof one way or the other and it is purely a matter of faith. You either believe there is something out there that we may one day may be able to explain (the Force), or you don’t."

The problem with this position is that it seems to say that ignorance = faith....

Faith is not ignorance, it is arriving at a position informed by data which is unacceptable to the Scientific method...

Whether or not we one day can explain it should be irrelevant to one's faith position.

I try to adhere to the philosophy of science in most aspects of my thought-processes, however, I acknowledge that my "faith" in the Force is not compatible with the scientific method.

I accept that it will not be justified by scientific data and I'm fine with that. I just don't feel the need to prove my "faith" scientifically....

The absence of evidence is just that, nothing. To argue from any position based on the strength of the "lack of evidence" is to build a sandcastle below the tide-line....

Each individual has to decide for hirself the shape of their faith. To me, one of the most important aspects of my faith is that it's mine, informed by my investigations of the world, which I do not seek to impose upon anyone else...

Not necessarily. Many people have faith via indoctrination, or in spite of evidence to the contrary. Like stockholm syndrome for an idea.

The problem with this position is that it seems to say that ignorance = faith....

I wouldn’t say so. And I would hope that is not what happens or what people interpret.

Whether or not we one day can explain it should be irrelevant to one's faith position.

I agree.

I try to adhere to the philosophy of science in most aspects of my thought-processes, however, I acknowledge that my "faith" in the Force is not compatible with the scientific method.

I would not say that it is opposition or conflict with science either. Just a few hundred years ago we had no idea what bacteria were. Yet they existed even though we couldn’t describe them, identify them or even know what to look for. That is the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence. If I told any of you to go and fetch my “machine” none of you would be able to do it. You wouldn’t even know what to look for. But I know for a fact that it exists. I built it, you can see it’s effect (if you knew what to look for), I have pictures of it and I have used it successfully many times and plan to continue using it. But, but the logic that is continually thrown at me, several on this thread would suggest that me asking someone to go and fetch my machine would be wrong in some manner because you can’t find it or even prove it exists. But, I would tell you that you have to trust me and then I could show you how to find it.

Now, if one decided that they wanted to believe in “God”, the Force, whatever; I cannot tell you how to do that or where to find it. I can tell you how I did but that may have little effect for you.

rugadd wrote: Gisteron - Do you accept personal experience as justification to believe something?

Well, that's not what the video was arguing for or from...
To answer your question though: Technically, I shouldn't. However, for practical reasons, I recognize varying degrees of believability and justification. If you tell me that you now own a pet cat when a week ago you didn't, I might just take you by your word. It's an inconsequential claim and I know people come to own new pet cats every day. Notice that this inference is not based on my faith in your honesty, but rather on how believable the claim is absent further information. If I know you are allergic to feline hair, for example, I might want to see it before I'd be quite so convinced. If I know you as a person who has always hated cats in the past, I may wish to see some sort of certificate or at least know how this came to be. The more extraordinary the claim (feel free to ask what I mean by that, since I promised I'd try and keep things brief), the more critical I am of it, and if I do come to believe it eventually, I try and proport my confidence in it to the justification available to me.

Gisteron wrote:

rugadd wrote: Gisteron - Do you accept personal experience as justification to believe something?

Well, that's not what the video was arguing for or from...
To answer your question though: Technically, I shouldn't. However, for practical reasons, I recognize varying degrees of believability and justification. If you tell me that you now own a pet cat when a week ago you didn't, I might just take you by your word. It's an inconsequential claim and I know people come to own new pet cats every day. Notice that this inference is not based on my faith in your honesty, but rather on how believable the claim is absent further information. If I know you are allergic to feline hair, for example, I might want to see it before I'd be quite so convinced. If I know you as a person who has always hated cats in the past, I may wish to see some sort of certificate or at least know how this came to be. The more extraordinary the claim (feel free to ask what I mean by that, since I promised I'd try and keep things brief), the more critical I am of it, and if I do come to believe it eventually, I try and proport my confidence in it to the justification available to me.

A very good and pragmatic answer.

And by that, would the idea of there being something out there that is greater than us, something that binds us and the universe together and gives us the basis for a moral existence. Something that could crate from seemingly nothing. Not anything we have definition for now (other than the Force) and I am pretty sure that there is some kind of cosmic balance that this thing keeps or regulates back to center as much as possible. Would that be plausible or too spectacular to believe without question or proof?

Also, would you say that the soul is something you would believe exists?

[hr]

Nothing wrong with being pragmatic.

I would say to dismiss it out of hand would be personal incredulity in action, but likewise admitting one simply does not know would not be the same as admission of possibility. If anything it is merely an arguement for an individuals right to believe whatever they want....which we respect to some degree here already.

Wescli Wardest wrote: Just a few hundred years ago we had no idea what bacteria were. Yet they existed even though we couldn’t describe them, identify them or even know what to look for.

I don't think the debate here is about whether there are bacteria (or gods, for that matter) or not, but whether or not it is reasonable to believe in them. At a time when we had no idea that microorganisms were even possible, it would have been just as irrational to believe in them anyway. To say that just because our knowledge progresses, therefore every idea is equally plausible or believable is simply false. Everyone is happy to remember Democritus' atoms and how right he was that all matter consists of tiny particles, yet we forget that he also insisted that the atoms were blocks of the four alchemical elements and how completely wrong he was about that. The fact that we don't have reasons to believe a thing now doesn't make the belief reasonable; it makes it unreasonable. And this has nothing to do with whether the proposition in question is correct or not. Schroeder's argument is nonsensical even if his 'The Biblical God' exists, and is indeed the master of our universe.

Wescli Wardest wrote: And by that, would the idea of there being something out there that is greater than us, something that binds us and the universe together and gives us the basis for a moral existence.

i posted a video in the J. Peterson thread where he basically says that proper morality is not some puritanical authority demanding us to conform to its arbitrary preferences, but rather the recognition that there are ways of acting which have shown themselves to work best, generally speaking and with all things considered, over long periods of time

the idea is that we call them "moral truths" not because we stand up on a high chair and demand perfection from everyone else, but because we sit back and watch who does what and see who prospers as a result of what they do, and then seek to adopt the positions that lead to the best personal life experiences for ourselves and our loved ones

you might find that consistent with your view, or not, but i personally think it makes sense and is interesting

a link to the video, for those interested
Jordan Peterson Q&A: Disney Propaganda and Why Bashing Religion Doesn't Make You Smart