Atheistforums.com

//http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/12/faith_within_science.html

Posted for those within the atheist community that still possess an intellectual curiosity that hasn't been destroyed by naturalism/materialism or some other a priori philosophical assertion that pre-empts & distorts their ability to both perceive and evaluate topics that don't fit within the aforementioned philosophical system.

QuoteFaith within Science
By Thomas P. Sheahen
AmericanThinker.com
December 15, 2013

For quite some time, science has been presented to the public in a distorted way.  Reports of statements by scientists are often stated as absolutely certain truths, never mentioning any doubts or questions.  Seldom do reporters inquire about how they became so certain, why they have such high confidence.

That image simply isn't true.  A major disconnect exists between what really happens and reported science.  Real science is always subject to revision, never "absolutely final."  In everyday conversation, a person might say "I'm absolutely certain about that" but among responsible scientists, even the strongest affirmations always begin with "To the best of our scientific knowledge at this time ..."

Maybe, given the history of corrections in science (which come slowly), it might be wiser to show a little humility and allow for the possibility of a revision.

The 20th century gives a perfect example of how that process works, in the way Quantum Mechanics superseded Classical Mechanics.  What we term Classical Mechanics was basically invented by Isaac Newton in the late 1600s, and refined by many other scientists over the next two centuries.  By the end of the 19th century, it appeared to nearly everyone that Classical Mechanics was absolutely true.

Philosophers were making much of the concept of determinism that necessarily followed from the physics-principle that if you knew the exact position and momentum of all bodies at any one time, you could predict everything that would happen in the future.  Among other things, this determinism implied that there are no real choices open to humans, no such thing as free will.  It seemed to be necessary to choose either religion or science, but not both.

Imagine the difficulty of being a clergyman in those days, trying to convince your congregation that it's important to choose between good and evil, when the accepted "sure thing" science of the day said that everything that happens is determined by position and momentum of particles, and humans are merely subject to blind molecular forces.

That philosophy of determinism also gave credibility to things like Social Darwinism and theories of racial superiority, which had very ugly consequences.

Then along came Quantum Mechanics circa 1925, which replaced Isaac Newton's equations with a more fundamental understanding of how atoms behave.  Classical Mechanics was shown to be just a limiting special case of reality, applicable to big objects.  Baseballs and trains still move as usual, but atoms behave quite differently from what had been believed.  Philosophically, a very significant correction was forced upon Classical Mechanics: It is impossible to know both the position and the momentum of a particle exactly.  That change completely undermined the philosophy of determinism.

As word got around that determinism was out, a lot of spokesmen for morality breathed a sigh of relief.  From a religious point of view, it turned out that God created a pretty flexible universe after all.

Physicists, chemists, biologists and others immediately started using Quantum Mechanics to explore new ideas and invent new devices.  An important change came over science, in that we must trust the testimony of others in order to grasp the experimental basis for the theory.  Centuries ago, you could repeat for yourself all the original experiments of Faraday or Galileo, etc.; but no more - many quantum experiments are too complicated.  You wind up believing what others state they observed.  In that way, faith enters the realm of science.  Today it's routine practice to read a technical journal and believe what another scientist says is valid.  The progress of science has become an interlocking system of faith in other human beings.

One of the foremost physicists of the 20th century, Richard P.  Feynman, famously said "Nobody understands Quantum Mechanics." That statement is very likely correct.  One counter-quip is "shut up and calculate," meaning that Quantum Mechanics gives correct numerical answers, even if its philosophical interpretation is unclear.  The accomplishments of Quantum Mechanics include transistors, lasers, satellite communications, cell phones and countless aspects of everyday life that we take for granted.

Is Quantum Mechanics the final word?  No.  Over the decades as new sub-atomic particles were discovered, it has been further corrected and advanced to become Quantum Electrodynamics, then Quantum Chromodynamics.  In striving to assemble one theory that covers everything from quarks to galaxies, we have composed the Standard Model, which is certainly very comprehensive, but doesn't quite enable Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity to fit together.

Currently there is great attention given to a branch of theoretical physics called String Theory, which uses very elegant mathematics to form a picture of fundamental particles.  Here the component of faith is even stronger: to get anywhere, you must believe that mathematical symmetry principles are the basis for all reality.  String Theory does not make any predictions that can be tested experimentally; that shifts the balance even further away from the customary practice of physics, where experiments take precedence over hypotheses and theoretical models.  For that reason, a finite fraction of physicists completely reject String Theory.

There are many other possibilities for corrections in the future.  It is generally believed by cosmologists that most of the universe is composed of dark matter and dark energy, which are inaccessible to our observations.  Dark matter is quite plausible: starting from our belief in the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, we see that galaxies are rotating so fast they would fly apart, unless there is additional unseen (dark) matter present to hold them together.  That is a reasonable conclusion.

On the other hand, dark energy is a bigger stretch! The universe seems to be expanding faster than it should, based on observations from spacecraft of the last two decades.  To account for that, dark energy is postulated, along with a possible "fifth force" that drives the expansion of space.  Again, we're dealing with something that cannot be seen; it is only faith in equations that justify the presumption that dark energy exists.

In the years ahead, further spacecraft will investigate the far reaches of the universe, and the hypothesis of dark energy may be revised.  It's important to keep in mind that those investigations will be guided by theory that rests upon a large dose of faith.  Scientists who understand the limits of their own profession are comfortable with this reality, and won't commit themselves to believing that any scientific theory is absolutely true and final.

Classical Mechanics is a very good theory ... for the range it covers.   Likewise, Quantum Mechanics is very good in its applicable range.  Will it too be superseded one day? Perhaps.  The fact that I'm unable to imagine how doesn't make it impossible.  It's a safe bet to anticipate future corrections.

There is a further lesson here.  Knowing that faith and belief are significant components of science, it is reasonable to discern a similar role for faith and belief in other aspects of our lives.  There is no exclusive single path to knowledge, nor does science have some exalted status with other pathways of learning relegated to second-class status.  The human mind is very resourceful, combining different inputs to advance in understanding.  Prudent scientists are humble enough to respect that.

In today's world, there are plentiful challenges to religious faith, and some of them lay claim to the "mantle of science."  Ignoring the observational evidence from the universe we inhabit, some popularizers of science have invented speculations that the universe created itself, or that there are an infinite number of unobservable universes, etc.  Those speculations are entertaining parlor games, not to be confused with rational science.  None of these need be taken seriously.

What is worthy of serious attention is that the universe greatly exceeds human comprehension.  The elegance and mathematical beauty of the laws that govern it virtually shout "intelligence!" at everyone who thinks about it.  The most reasonable and responsible conclusion to draw is that the universe was created by that supreme intelligence.  It's a fairly short step from there to the inference that God cares about the universe and the rational beings who inhabit it.

Thomas P. Sheahen holds B.S. and Ph.D. degrees in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

This article provides an interesting combination of basic facts that all people should know (such as the idea that a scientist who says "X is" always means "as far as science has figured it out, X is"), things that are only relevant to extremely advanced scientists (like the idea that you can't just trust another scientist if he says something, which is basically meaningless to laymen) and complete and utter bullshit, like the idea that ancient goat herders should be believed on their word regardless of the ignorant nonsense they wrote down while scientists should be scrutinized and verified and distrusted when they build lasers and satellites and computers and spaceships.

It's a nice way to once again see that no matter how intelligent you are, religion can still make you come across as a dumbass.

LOL. This article is so inconsistent.

In the first part: praise science as QM shows some faults in this whole idea of determinism! (Pat on the shouders, our belief in free will is saved), but then turns around on the idea that the universe could create itself, how silly science can sometimes be!! ( big frown, we know that God created the universe)

Quote from: "gomtuu77"//http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/12/faith_within_science.html

Posted for those within the atheist community that still possess an intellectual curiosity that hasn't been destroyed by naturalism/materialism or some other a priori philosophical assertion that pre-empts & distorts their ability to both perceive and evaluate topics that don't fit within the aforementioned philosophical system.

[youtube:a71wyrxp]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XierBpLGgwQ[/youtube:a71wyrxp]

Quote from: "gomtuu77"//http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/12/faith_within_science.html

Posted for those within the atheist community that still possess an intellectual curiosity that hasn't been destroyed by naturalism/materialism or some other a priori philosophical assertion that pre-empts & distorts their ability to both perceive and evaluate topics that don't fit within the aforementioned philosophical system.

Faith within Science
By Thomas P. Sheahen
AmericanThinker.com
December 15, 2013

For quite some time, science has been presented to the publsic in a distorted way.  Reports of statements by scientists are often stated as absolutely certain truths, never mentioning any doubts or questions.  Seldom do reporters inquire about how they became so certain, why they have such high confidence.

That image simply isn't true.  A major disconnect exists between what really happens and reported science.  Real science is always subject to revision, never "absolutely final."  In everyday conversation, a person might say "I'm absolutely certain about that" but among responsible scientists, even the strongest affirmations always begin with "To the best of our scientific knowledge at this time ..."

Maybe, given the history of corrections in science (which come slowly), it might be wiser to show a little humility and allow for the possibility of a revision.

The 20th century gives a perfect example of how that process works, in the way Quantum Mechanics superseded Classical Mechanics.  What we term Classical Mechanics was basically invented by Isaac Newton in the late 1600s, and refined by many other scientists over the next two centuries.  By the end of the 19th century, it appeared to nearly everyone that Classical Mechanics was absolutely true.

Philosophers were making much of the concept of determinism that necessarily followed from the physics-principle that if you knew the exact position and momentum of all bodies at any one time, you could predict everything that would happen in the future.  Among other things, this determinism implied that there are no real choices open to humans, no such thing as free will.  It seemed to be necessary to choose either religion or science, but not both.

Imagine the difficulty of being a clergyman in those days, trying to convince your congregation that it's important to choose between good and evil, when the accepted "sure thing" science of the day said that everything that happens is determined by position and momentum of particles, and humans are merely subject to blind molecular forces.

That philosophy of determinism also gave credibility to things like Social Darwinism and theories of racial superiority, which had very ugly consequences.

Then along came Quantum Mechanics circa 1925, which replaced Isaac Newton's equations with a more fundamental understanding of how atoms behave.  Classical Mechanics was shown to be just a limiting special case of reality, applicable to big objects.  Baseballs and trains still move as usual, but atoms behave quite differently from what had been believed.  Philosophically, a very significant correction was forced upon Classical Mechanics: It is impossible to know both the position and the momentum of a particle exactly.  That change completely undermined the philosophy of determinism.

As word got around that determinism was out, a lot of spokesmen for morality breathed a sigh of relief.  From a religious point of view, it turned out that God created a pretty flexible universe after all.

Physicists, chemists, biologists and others immediately started using Quantum Mechanics to explore new ideas and invent new devices.  An important change came over science, in that we must trust the testimony of others in order to grasp the experimental basis for the theory.  Centuries ago, you could repeat for yourself all the original experiments of Faraday or Galileo, etc.; but no more - many quantum experiments are too complicated.  You wind up believing what others state they observed.  In that way, faith enters the realm of science.  Today it's routine practice to read a technical journal and believe what another scientist says is valid.  The progress of science has become an interlocking system of faith in other human beings.

One of the foremost physicists of the 20th century, Richard P.  Feynman, famously said "Nobody understands Quantum Mechanics." That statement is very likely correct.  One counter-quip is "shut up and calculate," meaning that Quantum Mechanics gives correct numerical answers, even if its philosophical interpretation is unclear.  The accomplishments of Quantum Mechanics include transistors, lasers, satellite communications, cell phones and countless aspects of everyday life that we take for granted.

Is Quantum Mechanics the final word?  No.  Over the decades as new sub-atomic particles were discovered, it has been further corrected and advanced to become Quantum Electrodynamics, then Quantum Chromodynamics.  In striving to assemble one theory that covers everything from quarks to galaxies, we have composed the Standard Model, which is certainly very comprehensive, but doesn't quite enable Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity to fit together.

Currently there is great attention given to a branch of theoretical physics called String Theory, which uses very elegant mathematics to form a picture of fundamental particles.  Here the component of faith is even stronger: to get anywhere, you must believe that mathematical symmetry principles are the basis for all reality.  String Theory does not make any predictions that can be tested experimentally; that shifts the balance even further away from the customary practice of physics, where experiments take precedence over hypotheses and theoretical models.  For that reason, a finite fraction of physicists completely reject String Theory.

There are many other possibilities for corrections in the future.  It is generally believed by cosmologists that most of the universe is composed of dark matter and dark energy, which are inaccessible to our observations.  Dark matter is quite plausible: starting from our belief in the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, we see that galaxies are rotating so fast they would fly apart, unless there is additional unseen (dark) matter present to hold them together.  That is a reasonable conclusion.

On the other hand, dark energy is a bigger stretch! The universe seems to be expanding faster than it should, based on observations from spacecraft of the last two decades.  To account for that, dark energy is postulated, along with a possible "fifth force" that drives the expansion of space.  Again, we're dealing with something that cannot be seen; it is only faith in equations that justify the presumption that dark energy exists.

In the years ahead, further spacecraft will investigate the far reaches of the universe, and the hypothesis of dark energy may be revised.  It's important to keep in mind that those investigations will be guided by theory that rests upon a large dose of faith.  Scientists who understand the limits of their own profession are comfortable with this reality, and won't commit themselves to believing that any scientific theory is absolutely true and final.

Classical Mechanics is a very good theory ... for the range it covers.   Likewise, Quantum Mechanics is very good in its applicable range.  Will it too be superseded one day? Perhaps.  The fact that I'm unable to imagine how doesn't make it impossible.  It's a safe bet to anticipate future corrections.

There is a further lesson here.  Knowing that faith and belief are significant components of science, it is reasonable to discern a similar role for faith and belief in other aspects of our lives.  There is no exclusive single path to knowledge, nor does science have some exalted status with other pathways of learning relegated to second-class status.  The human mind is very resourceful, combining different inputs to advance in understanding.  Prudent scientists are humble enough to respect that.

In today's world, there are plentiful challenges to religious faith, and some of them lay claim to the "mantle of science."  Ignoring the observational evidence from the universe we inhabit, some popularizers of science have invented speculations that the universe created itself, or that there are an infinite number of unobservable universes, etc.  Those speculations are entertaining parlor games, not to be confused with rational science.  None of these need be taken seriously.

What is worthy of serious attention is that the universe greatly exceeds human comprehension.  The elegance and mathematical beauty of the laws that govern it virtually shout "intelligence!" at everyone who thinks about it.  The most reasonable and responsible conclusion to draw is that the universe was created by that supreme intelligence.  It's a fairly short step from there to the inference that God cares about the universe and the rational beings who inhabit it.

"Posted for those within the atheist community that still possess an intellectual curiosity that hasn't been destroyed by naturalism/materialism or some other a priori philosophical assertion that pre-empts & distorts their ability to both perceive and evaluate topics that don't fit within the aforementioned philosophical system."

Is this copy and paste what someone said to you about Christianity replacing superstition and supernatural for naturalism and materialist?  :roll:  Solitary

Quote from: "gomtuu77"//http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/12/faith_within_science.html

Posted for those within the atheist community that still possess an intellectual curiosity that hasn't been destroyed by naturalism/materialism or some other a priori philosophical assertion that pre-empts & distorts their ability to both perceive and evaluate topics that don't fit within the aforementioned philosophical system.

Sounds like someone has his own preconceptions about the atheist community.

Here, allow me to deconstruct this sloppy, inconsistent, and essentially meaningless article:

Quote from: "Sheahen"Faith within Science
By Thomas P. Sheahen
AmericanThinker.com
December 15, 2013

For quite some time, science has been presented to the public in a distorted way.  Reports of statements by scientists are often stated as absolutely certain truths, never mentioning any doubts or questions.  Seldom do reporters inquire about how they became so certain, why they have such high confidence.

That image simply isn't true.  A major disconnect exists between what really happens and reported science.  Real science is always subject to revision, never "absolutely final."  In everyday conversation, a person might say "I'm absolutely certain about that" but among responsible scientists, even the strongest affirmations always begin with "To the best of our scientific knowledge at this time ..."

Maybe, given the history of corrections in science (which come slowly), it might be wiser to show a little humility and allow for the possibility of a revision.

The fact that science is reported in the media with certitude does not mean that that certitude flows from science or the scientific method.  It follows that the phrase "faith in science" is muddled as it could mean faith inside scientists, or faith in science held by laypersons.  A better phrase would be "faith in the capapbilitites of science", if we accept the author's assessment of media coverage.

Quote from: "Sheahen"The 20th century gives a perfect example of how that process works, in the way Quantum Mechanics superseded Classical Mechanics.  What we term Classical Mechanics was basically invented by Isaac Newton in the late 1600s, and refined by many other scientists over the next two centuries.  By the end of the 19th century, it appeared to nearly everyone that Classical Mechanics was absolutely true.

Philosophers were making much of the concept of determinism that necessarily followed from the physics-principle that if you knew the exact position and momentum of all bodies at any one time, you could predict everything that would happen in the future.  Among other things, this determinism implied that there are no real choices open to humans, no such thing as free will.  It seemed to be necessary to choose either religion or science, but not both.

Philosophers positing thoughts about "what if you knew the position and momentum of every particle" are not promulgating a physical law; they are conducting a thought experiment.

Quote from: "Sheahen"That philosophy of determinism also gave credibility to things like Social Darwinism and theories of racial superiority, which had very ugly consequences.

This is what happens when people who are ignorant of the science seize upon its findings.  This does not, however, impeach the scientific method, any more than the Crusades show that that Jesus Christ was a bloodthirsty murderer.

Quote from: "Sheahen"Then along came Quantum Mechanics circa 1925, which replaced Isaac Newton's equations with a more fundamental understanding of how atoms behave.  Classical Mechanics was shown to be just a limiting special case of reality, applicable to big objects.  Baseballs and trains still move as usual, but atoms behave quite differently from what had been believed.  Philosophically, a very significant correction was forced upon Classical Mechanics: It is impossible to know both the position and the momentum of a particle exactly.  That change completely undermined the philosophy of determinism.

As word got around that determinism was out, a lot of spokesmen for morality breathed a sigh of relief.  From a religious point of view, it turned out that God created a pretty flexible universe after all.

Physicists, chemists, biologists and others immediately started using Quantum Mechanics to explore new ideas and invent new devices.  An important change came over science, in that we must trust the testimony of others in order to grasp the experimental basis for the theory.  Centuries ago, you could repeat for yourself all the original experiments of Faraday or Galileo, etc.; but no more - many quantum experiments are too complicated.  You wind up believing what others state they observed.  In that way, faith enters the realm of science.  Today it's routine practice to read a technical journal and believe what another scientist says is valid.  The progress of science has become an interlocking system of faith in other human beings.

He is here equivocating two different connotations of the word "faith".  The secular connotation, meaning trust, is not the same as the religious connotation, meaning knowledge in the absence of evidence.  

Quote from: "Sheahen"One of the foremost physicists of the 20th century, Richard P.  Feynman, famously said "Nobody understands Quantum Mechanics." That statement is very likely correct.  One counter-quip is "shut up and calculate," meaning that Quantum Mechanics gives correct numerical answers, even if its philosophical interpretation is unclear.  The accomplishments of Quantum Mechanics include transistors, lasers, satellite communications, cell phones and countless aspects of everyday life that we take for granted.

Is Quantum Mechanics the final word?  No.  Over the decades as new sub-atomic particles were discovered, it has been further corrected and advanced to become Quantum Electrodynamics, then Quantum Chromodynamics.  In striving to assemble one theory that covers everything from quarks to galaxies, we have composed the Standard Model, which is certainly very comprehensive, but doesn't quite enable Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity to fit together.

The beauty of the scientific endeavor is twofold: 1) it builds upon the works of previous generations, meaning that it is a separate stream of knowledge retention, and 2) it is self-correcting.

Quote from: "Sheahen"Currently there is great attention given to a branch of theoretical physics called String Theory, which uses very elegant mathematics to form a picture of fundamental particles.  Here the component of faith is even stronger: to get anywhere, you must believe that mathematical symmetry principles are the basis for all reality.  String Theory does not make any predictions that can be tested experimentally; that shifts the balance even further away from the customary practice of physics, where experiments take precedence over hypotheses and theoretical models.  For that reason, a finite fraction of physicists completely reject String Theory.

There are many other possibilities for corrections in the future.  It is generally believed by cosmologists that most of the universe is composed of dark matter and dark energy, which are inaccessible to our observations.  Dark matter is quite plausible: starting from our belief in the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, we see that galaxies are rotating so fast they would fly apart, unless there is additional unseen (dark) matter present to hold them together.  That is a reasonable conclusion.

On the other hand, dark energy is a bigger stretch! The universe seems to be expanding faster than it should, based on observations from spacecraft of the last two decades.  To account for that, dark energy is postulated, along with a possible "fifth force" that drives the expansion of space.  Again, we're dealing with something that cannot be seen; it is only faith in equations that justify the presumption that dark energy exists.

This is not faith.  It is guesswork, that will one day be subjected to comparison with reality. The process of modifying a hypothesis to accord with the facts presented by our senses is exactly why science is much more trustworthy than any faith-based endeavor.

Quote from: "Sheahen"In the years ahead, further spacecraft will investigate the far reaches of the universe, and the hypothesis of dark energy may be revised.  It's important to keep in mind that those investigations will be guided by theory that rests upon a large dose of faith.  Scientists who understand the limits of their own profession are comfortable with this reality, and won't commit themselves to believing that any scientific theory is absolutely true and final.

And that is exactly as it should be.  ALL knowledge is tentative, and subject to further clarification -- or perhaps even overthrow --  by newly-discovered facts.

Quote from: "Sheahen"Classical Mechanics is a very good theory ... for the range it covers.   Likewise, Quantum Mechanics is very good in its applicable range.  Will it too be superseded one day? Perhaps.  The fact that I'm unable to imagine how doesn't make it impossible.  It's a safe bet to anticipate future corrections.

Yes.  This is far superior to any approach espousing adherence to dogma as its methodology.

Quote from: "Sheahen"There is a further lesson here.  Knowing that faith and belief are significant components of science, it is reasonable to discern a similar role for faith and belief in other aspects of our lives.  There is no exclusive single path to knowledge, nor does science have some exalted status with other pathways of learning relegated to second-class status.  The human mind is very resourceful, combining different inputs to advance in understanding.  Prudent scientists are humble enough to respect that.

Given that the premise of this paragraph hasn't been demonstrated, this paragraph is pretty meaningless, especially since it doesn't define crucial terms such as "other pathways of learning", and "different inputs".  What "pathway" or "input" aside from science has figured out such a basic principle as, say, the inverse-square law?

Additionally, this paragraph contains a non sequitur and a false equivocation.

Quote from: "Sheahen"In today's world, there are plentiful challenges to religious faith, and some of them lay claim to the "mantle of science."  Ignoring the observational evidence from the universe we inhabit, some popularizers of science have invented speculations that the universe created itself, or that there are an infinite number of unobservable universes, etc.  Those speculations are entertaining parlor games, not to be confused with rational science.  None of these need be taken seriously.

Of course they're speculations.

The author, however, seems unaware that many if not most scientific discoveries begin life as -- hold your breath, folks -- speculations.

Quote from: "Sheahen"What is worthy of serious attention is that the universe greatly exceeds human comprehension.  The elegance and mathematical beauty of the laws that govern it virtually shout "intelligence!" at everyone who thinks about it.  The most reasonable and responsible conclusion to draw is that the universe was created by that supreme intelligence.  It's a fairly short step from there to the inference that God cares about the universe and the rational beings who inhabit it.

Thomas P. Sheahen holds B.S. and Ph.D. degrees in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

[/quote]

This last bit is the Argument from Ignorance, gussied up in high-falutin' language.  

Perhaps BS, PhD is Bullshit, piled high and deep?

Science trumps faith.

This article is a mess. Anyone that studies or conducts science knows that science is never a "final word". Scientists can be arrogant, biased, or faithful, but science self corrects and goes beyond those human limitations.

QuoteThe elegance and mathematical beauty of the laws that govern it virtually shout "intelligence!" at everyone who thinks about it. The most reasonable and responsible conclusion to draw is that the universe was created by that supreme intelligence. It's a fairly short step from there to the inference that God cares about the universe and the rational beings who inhabit it.

Elegance and beauty are subjective concepts which have no place in science nor mathematics. What we do know about the universe does not shout "intelligence" to anyone but the deluded. The most reasonable conclusion is to withhold judgment on something one cannot possible know. The notion of an intelligent, conscious creator is based on, literally, nothing. It is essentially trying to anthropomorphize the universe.

The universe is far more "fine tuned" for stars, mountains, black holes, and gas giants than it is for humans. Life is something that can (rarely) arise in the universe, not a cause of the universe.

When a scientists doesn't know sound reasoning and logic or the difference between faith and trust he is more of a theologian than a scientists.  :roll: Solitary

Quote from: "gomtuu77"//http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/12/faith_within_science.html

Posted for those within the atheist community that still possess an intellectual curiosity that hasn't been destroyed by naturalism/materialism or some other a priori philosophical assertion that pre-empts & distorts their ability to both perceive and evaluate topics that don't fit within the aforementioned philosophical system.

There's so much wrong with this essay... thanks for sharing this. It makes for a great laugh.

Problems with the essay:

• It pulled the "Social Darwinism" card, which stemmed from popular misconceptions about epistemology and the way evolution works.
• It specifically addresses determinism without considering that even a statistical bias amid QM's chaos could render a deterministic universe.
• This article, like so many others, conflates belief without evidence with trust; these are completely different concepts. Trust is based on evidence, but faith in the supernatural is not.
• The mere inability to measure a detail, e.g. the position vs. speed of a particle, can't undermine determinism. It only means you're not in a position to measure both. Additionally, some scientists say that they are very close to circumventing this limitation.
• The article's author made the point dishonestly because they failed to mention what really makes science better than any particular individual's experience. Scientists repeat their experiments, share their methods and results (with extensive detail, much more than any common person would think is sensible), and apply great scrutiny to understand what any given set of results can tell them. They intentionally trick themselves to reduce their own ability to change the experiments' outcome. Scientists measure with very high precision, and they add the chance that they're wrong as part of their calculations. Seriously, does this "thinker" even SCIENCE?

How do uncertainties in science lead to acceptance of God? They only mean that we need to look closer. I am an atheist Hindu, believing in non-duality, since I find that all things in the universe are forms of energy. So I term 'physical energy' as Brahman, the word which we have used for thousands of years as the constituent of all things in the universe. I will change my views suitably if science discovers something else. Is Dr. Sheahen now teaching in a christian university?

So you, completely believing in your faith, state that you are posting this to Atheists that have not swung over to the other extreme end of the spectrum? Don't you realize how hypocritical that is, that you are allowed to hold an extreme conviction without absolute evidence and yet you don't like it when Atheists can hold a conviction with absolute evidence?

I realize that you are trying to pose as an intellectual on the Internet to convince others, and yourself, that what you believe is correct, but you need to be a little less bias and judgmental when you address other people that do not believe what you do.

This part is also ironic:

Quote from: "gomtuu777"philosophical assertion that pre-empts & distorts their ability to both perceive and evaluate topics that don't fit within the aforementioned philosophical system.

Yet you, holding a conviction of your own, based on faith and speculation, also are guilty of such.... considering you have faith in the first place. You are also guilty of filtering things out of your mind that do not match up to your preconceived belief system, and if you deny that then I'll just laugh at you.

Quote from: "gomtuu77"//http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/12/faith_within_science.html

Posted for those within the atheist community that still possess an intellectual curiosity that hasn't been destroyed by naturalism/materialism or some other a priori philosophical assertion that pre-empts & distorts their ability to both perceive and evaluate topics that don't fit within the aforementioned philosophical system.

Yeah... That's as far as I read.  Climb down off your soap box and we'll have a nice chat.

This article is a non-starter.  No definition of "faith" in provided.  As he uses the term, it can easily be replaced with "trust" or "confidence".

Using the Biblical definition of "faith", with is the substance of things hoped for (i.e., wishful thinking), and (nepotistically) such "faith" is evidence itself for unseen things, the article become quite disingenuous and silly.

Oh yeah? Well when the zombies attack you'll be the first fuck we throw at em....useless fuck. So there!

^ Because he belongs with his brethren.  :wink:

Quote from: "frosty"Don't you realize how hypocritical that is, that you are allowed to hold an extreme conviction without absolute evidence and yet you don't like it when Atheists can hold a conviction with absolute evidence?

Frosty, were you replying to my post. If you were, I would say 'absolute evidence' is a misnomer. Do we have 'absolute evidence' that a teapot is not circling around the globe, perhaps left there by the sky-daddy. However, I have already mentioned that if science comes up with something new, I would change my views accordingly.

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"The mere inability to measure a detail, e.g. the position vs. speed of a particle, can't undermine determinism.

It bloody well can.

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"It only means you're not in a position to measure both. Additionally, some scientists say that they are very close to circumventing this limitation.

[Citation Needed]

Quote from: "Aupmanyav"

Quote from: "frosty"Don't you realize how hypocritical that is, that you are allowed to hold an extreme conviction without absolute evidence and yet you don't like it when Atheists can hold a conviction with absolute evidence?

Frosty, were you replying to my post. If you were, I would say 'absolute evidence' is a misnomer. Do we have 'absolute evidence' that a teapot is not circling around the globe, perhaps left there by the sky-daddy. However, I have already mentioned that if science comes up with something new, I would change my views accordingly.

Uhhh..... no I was not replying to you at all. I was replying to the OP in the context of the bold words he added before he copypasta'd the article. I thought you were a staunch Atheist anyhow?

Quote from: "gomtuu77"//http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/12/faith_within_science.html

Posted for those within the atheist community that still possess an intellectual curiosity that hasn't been destroyed by naturalism/materialism or some other a priori philosophical assertion that pre-empts & distorts their ability to both perceive and evaluate topics that don't fit within the aforementioned philosophical system.

It is a two way street, I could ask "do you still possess an intellectual curiosity that hasn't been destroyed by religion". Religious faith believes things not because of evidence but in spite of the evidence. It is just the opposite in science, I have faith in science because it works.

Quote from: "aitm"Oh yeah? Well when the zombies attack you'll be the first fuck we throw at em....useless fuck. So there!

Tossing him in a church probably won't prevent stupidity.. :-$

Quote from: "frosty"I thought you were a staunch Atheist anyhow?

That is right, in spite of hundreds if not thousands of Gods and Goddesses in Hinduism.

>  By the end of the 19th century, it appeared to nearly everyone that Classical Mechanics was absolutely true.

Not true.  There was evidence even then that classical mechanics was incomplete.  The planet Mercury orbits so close to the sun that the space it travels through is warped by the sun's gravitational field.  It was known that the orbit of Mercury deviated slightly from that predicted by classical mechanics.  So they at least had an inkling that there was more going on.

Today, the media are at least partly responsible.  Everyone wants certainty.  Remember the lines from the song:

When I was a boy, world was better spot.
What was so, was so; what was not, was not.
Now I am a man; world have changed a lot.
Some things nearly so; others nearly not.

The media seek out quotes that represent certainty, because it sells commercial time.  And sometimes, scientists over-sell their conclusions, in hopes of fame and fortune.  Scientists are, after all, people.

> What is worthy of serious attention is that the universe greatly exceeds human comprehension. The elegance and mathematical beauty of the laws that govern it virtually shout "intelligence!" at everyone who thinks about it. The most reasonable and responsible conclusion to draw is that the universe was created by that supreme intelligence. It's a fairly short step from there to the inference that God cares about the universe and the rational beings who inhabit it.

That is a totally unwarranted conclusion.  Just because there are things that we can't comprehend at the moment doesn't imply an intelligent creator.  Just a century ago, we had no idea what made the sun shine.  That didn't mean a god did it.  Through the process of science, that assumes materialism, we have learned not only what makes the sun shine, but we can duplicate it.  The fact that some suns explode, taking their planets and all life thereon with them, indicates that either the universe wasn't designed, or it was incredibly badly designed.

Think about it.  If your god really cared about people, why would he make tidal waves that kill hundreds of thousands, including women, children, and babies?  Why would horrible diseases ravage the population?  Why would some starve while others feast?  If I were God, I would fix that.  I seem to be more caring than your god.

Frank

Quote from: "Jason78"

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"The mere inability to measure a detail, e.g. the position vs. speed of a particle, can't undermine determinism.

It bloody well can.

I specifically meant that the inability to measure something doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't work in a cause-effect manner. What else are you taking from that statement?

Quote from: "Jason78"

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"It only means you're not in a position to measure both. Additionally, some scientists say that they are very close to circumventing this limitation.

[Citation Needed]

Citations:

• Exploiting Subtleties in the Uncertainty Principle (//http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=5692)
• Outsmarting Heisenberg (//http://www.mpg.de/7324504/gravitational_wave_detectors_sensitivity)

I did say circumventing, not disproving. Admittedly, I should have used the word circumvented.

This isnt about the mere inabilyty to measure but about the ontological properties of these particles.

Gerard

HOLY NECRO BATMAN!

Quote from: Gerard on November 27, 2016, 12:05:51 PM
This isnt about the mere inabilyty to measure but about the ontological properties of these particles.

Gerard

What is an ontology?  That is from philosophy, not physics.

Let's see.  In ancient times, we assumed that lightning and other natural events were caused by a deity.  We learned different.  We have passed all that superstitious nonsense now.  Is there some reason that things we don't undertand now must therefore be caused by a deity?  Of course not. 

We will learn and dismiss all the deity-explanations one by one as we advance as humans.

Science advances, people do not.  See destruction of Library of Alexandria.