Reconciling science and religion: doomed to fail

[lawcat]

We agree here, lawcat.

.

 

Great, but to banalize my previous assertion:

 

An atheist must be clueless.

 

An agnostic must be skeptical.

 

A religious person must be normative.

 

And vice versa.

[Moontanman]

Hey! Don't desecrate Clapton, I would hate to see you struck by lightning! He will smite the unbelievers!

[modest]

Great, but to banalize my previous assertion:

 

An atheist must be clueless.

 

An agnostic must be skeptical.

 

A religious person must be normative.

 

And vice versa.

 

How insightful. So.. these people are normative and these people are clueless. How very banal :(

 

~modest

[lawcat]

How insightful. So.. these people are normative and these people are clueless. How very banal :(

 

~modest

 

Yes. Normative refers to what we ought to do or think, regardless of the weight of evidence.

A person that lacks belief, has no belief. What human lacks belief but the one that is utterly clueless--someone that has no mental capacity; an animal? If you decide on what to think--believe--then you are making a normative stand; a decision on what we, or you, ought to do.

But, if you decide that there are competing conflicting conclusions, then you are reserving judgment and you are skeptical. It is not that you lack belief, but you have conflicting conlcusion which prevent you from taking a stand. You are skeptical.

[modest]

Yes, clearly saying "I don't know" concerning something for which you cannot know is just silly. It's normative to claim to know the mind of God. Of course, by the reasoning in your above post hard atheists would be normative, because... "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof" – C. Hitchens

 

I think lawcat's post puts a fine edge on the point. Science is skeptical by nature. Religion (and faith) are the opposite. They are undoubting. I can think of no way to reconcile the chasm.

 

~modest

[lawcat]

Modest, I agree with the second part.

 

First, if science takes a stand, and chooses what we ought to do, than it is normative. Then, the two conflicting norms--religoius and scientific--can not be reconciled because they are different norms.

If science is skeptical, as it often is, then it is not normative and can not reconcile with religion because they are different beliefs.

 

The only way the two can be reconciled is if religion ceases to be normative, and science ceases to be normative, and both are skeptical. The only way to do that is to be skeptical about "goodness" of Creator, but open to possibility of the Creator; and I do not see that happeneing on a large scale, beyond a small group of like minded scientists.

[modest]

When religion ceases to make metaphysical claims for which it can have absolutely no knowledge (when it becomes skeptical) then it will be "religion" no longer. It will be indistinguishable from philosophy.

 

~modest

[lawcat]

When religion ceases to make metaphysical claims for which it can have absolutely no knowledge (when it becomes skeptical) then it will be "religion" no longer. It will be indistinguishable from philosophy.

 

~modest

 

I Agree that religion will no longer be religion as we know it; and my sense is that western thought has been socially moving in that direction for awhile.

[modest]

:(

 

~modest

[freeztar]

Great, but to banalize my previous assertion:

 

An atheist must be clueless.

 

An agnostic must be skeptical.

 

A religious person must be normative.

 

And vice versa.

 

I'm not quite sure I understand your point here. :)

 

Though, given the exchange between you and Modest, I think we're on the same page. But just to be sure, can you clarify the quote above por favor?

[Hasanuddin]

Dear InfinitieNow,

 

I hope you realize that the tenor of your last two posts feeds into my assertion that the notion of God is very similar in form to the belief held for the existence of the Higgs. Note: I am not saying that either one does/doesn’t exist All I’m saying is that the type of belief for these two different unverified “things” is based on faith.

 

In post 59 you were as rabid and insulting as an evangelical being told there is no God. You expressed dismay and outrage that I dare compare the yet unverified equation-based predictions to ancient scripture. Question: are all equations/proofs correct? Of course not, right… but you already argued the line that 99.9% of the scientific community (ps: I’d like to see the source of that huge statistic) believes, as you fervently do, that the Higgs must exist. Cool, assuming you didn’t make that statistic up, the question becomes: Has the scientific community ever 99.9% believed in a system based on complex mathematical formulae that were later proven incorrect? Answer: Yes, Ptolemaic maths stood for several centuries virtually unchallenged only to be proven categorically wrong (except for describing the Moon’s path.) Ptolemy, the Man

 

Now, before I go on to reply to your post, let me explain why I brought up the Higgs in the first place. I was trying to address the underlying message that atheists are somehow more rational, more logical, and immune to groupthink messages (since the flipside arguments of each of these characteristics appears to be the basis of some atheists to explain why delusional, easily-led simpletons believe in religion in the first place.) Basically I was trying to put a mirror up to your face to show you that you are just as human as your local church-lady. I’m sorry if the comparison enraged and disgusted you. Just reread your words, your rage itself is very similar to religious rage. But honestly, I believe that the only way to achieve our own max potential is to acknowledge all of our weaknesses and frailties.

 

For instance, if you ever did acknowledge that the Higgs is based on a belief, perhaps you would begin to question that hypothesis with the same agility that you are applying yourself to the personal spirituality of others. Ptolemaic maths literally stood for centuries. The equations supporting the Higgs have only been around for a few centuries. Would it really be such a shame if they turned out to be wrong?

 

Now reread the eleven paragraphs that you cut&pasted without any analysis of your own. They read like Sunday School narratives. A quick read makes it sound as if the Higgs is fully understood, nailed, down and verified, just like Sunday School booklets make it sound as if God is known by all.

 

You quoted verbatim 3 paragraphs from Discover, without drawing any conclusions and you’ve lifted 8 paragraphs from a CERN cite without making any conclusions. A moment ago you were chortling about the importance of the words: “falsifiable,” “predictive test,” or “empirical evidence” but now have gone mute about these concepts with reference to these articles. You present these “higher authority” type of articles with this introduction

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

However, in doing so you are again making my case. Just like the fervor of post #59 was so akin to the fervor of a zealot challenged, the appeal to the unprocessed and undigested words of multiple paragraphs of text from a higher-authority is similar to a religious person’s reliance in the words of a Sunday school booklet.

 

My question must be: What is your point? What is your point of copying eleven paragraphs of other peoples’ writing. (Does that violate copyright laws?) You cap these eleven borrowed paragraphs saying, sarcastically

Yep... I sure do see what you mean.

The problem is you, yourself, haven’t really said anything. So what do you mean? I already knew the background of the Higgs; your articles just confirm my position: it is an unverified “thing” that particle physicists have faith in its existence. Your articles just confirmed that. So the logical question is: If it’s okay for scientists to have faith in the existence of an unverified “thing” why is it not-okay for people to believe in God, when though there is no physical verification in either case?

 

Another concern about the direction of this dialog: why did you change the topic of the post from the thread topic regarding reconciliation of religion and science to take on the personal undertones ”I don't often suffer fools kindly, nor am I very patient with ridiculous assertions”. I don’t get it. Have we gone from analytically considering the compatibility of religion and science to “your feelings”… or is your topic heading a more subtly concealed Ad-hominum reference against me? Either way, it is neither cool, scientific, or professional. For the last time, please calm down & separate your emotions and needs from this discussion.

[Boerseun]

Theorizing about the Higgs Boson has predictive powers, and we can test for it.

Theorizing about the existence of God explains absolutely nothing, and merely serves to obfuscate matters. If the tests disprove the existence of the Higgs Boson, not a single scientist will shed a single tear and suddenly feel lost - they will merely discard the entire hypothesis and move on to the next one.

 

There is no comparison to be made between the two, unless you have absolutely no idea what science is about, why it works the way it does, and what those men in the white lab coats are up to.

[modest]

...but you already argued the line that 99.9% of the scientific community (ps: I’d like to see the source of that huge statistic) believes, as you fervently do, that the Higgs must exist.

 

That's not at all what INow said. I get the feeling you're not really closely reading nor considering other's posts.

 

I'll go ahead and say the following even though it'll probably go nowhere. The scientific community has their theory called the standard model of particle physics. The religious community has their theory about God. The distinction is this: Scientists are activly trying to break the standard model. How are they doing this you ask? They are building the LHC which will falsify (or not) a prediction of the standard model: the existence of the Higgs boson.

 

Scientists don't believe in the Higgs particle. That's what INow was trying to tell you. The particle is a prediction, a logical conclusion, of the standard model. It is a test. If the Higgs is found then the standard model survives the test. If it is not found at the predicted energy level then the standard model fails the test and will be falsified.

 

Your characterization of the Higgs as something like faith seems very misinformed.

 

~modest

 

EDIT: I just reread this and realized it sounds very condescending. I didn't intend that and I do apologize. I hope you consider the content and not necessarily the tone (I sometimes have an awful style of writing that really puts people off).

[lawcat]

I'm not quite sure I understand your point here. :)

 

Though, given the exchange between you and Modest, I think we're on the same page. But just to be sure, can you clarify the quote above por favor?

 

Well, I do not think that Modest necessarily agreed in principal with the statement above--in fact he mocked it--but simply understood the fine point which was necessary to set up the conclusion on whetehr the two can be reconciled.

 

First, I said this:

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 she is 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.

.

 

Then, I simplified that to this--I stated a conceptual rule:

Great, but to banalize my previous assertion:

 

An atheist must be clueless.

 

An agnostic must be skeptical.

 

A religious person must be normative.

 

And vice versa.

 

This simplification was necesary to understand the nature of the beliefs and why they can not be squared away. But more importatnly to draw some conclusions about reconciliation theoretically. So, I CONCLUDED:

 

 

First, if science takes a stand, and chooses what we ought to do, than it is normative. Then, the two conflicting norms--religoius and scientific--can not be reconciled because they are different norms.

If science is skeptical, as it often is, then it is not normative and can not reconcile with religion because they are at different levels.

 

The only way the two can be reconciled is if religion ceases to be normative, and science ceases to be normative, and both are skeptical. The only way to do that is to be skeptical about "goodness" of Creator, but open to possibility of the Creator; and I do not see that happeneing on a large scale, beyond a small group of like minded scientists.

 

The bold part was my conclusion on reconciliation. Then, Modest said, without agreeing with my conclusion, that: If that is true, then religion will be no different than philosophy. I agreed, and said: That is where western thought has been moving. And Modest nodded. So we essentially only agreed at the end on the train of the western thought.

[InfiniteNow]

Dear InfinitieNow

Hi Hasanuddin,

 

You continually exhibit critical comprehension failures about the points being put forth in response to your posts. Your last post was ripe with strawmen and red herrings. This is not intended as an attack, it is simply a statement of truth.

 

I will again repeat a point which I made earlier in the thread. The arguments you have thus far put forth have caused me to lose any respect for you which I previously held, and I no longer have any desire to continue this exchange with you, since all we're doing is spinning our wheels and talking past one another. Despite my repeated attempts to articulate my points in different ways, your responses suggest that you have remained unsuccessful in properly interpreting them, and unsuccessful in understanding how they cut your argument off at the ankles.

 

I understand the core the point which you've been trying to make. You think there is tremendous overlap between "belief in god" and "predictions of the Higgs Boson." I profoundly disagree, and I have repeatedly explained why, as have others in this thread.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I find your logic strained, your analogies weak, and your points without merit, and I have discussed my reasons for this in my previous posts. If you still don't understand why your points are fallacious (specifically, nonsequitur), then I fear additional effort from me won't be enough to rectify that.

 

 

I am still shocked that you would equivocate the whole of atomic physics with the words of scripture, and how you continue to conflate acceptance of empirical data with blind faith. I just can't get past that, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with science or atheism being some sort of "religion" for me.

[HydrogenBond]

Religion works under the assumption that humans can behave higher and lower than the animals. Science tries to correlate human behavior to animals. Religion uses nebulous standards high in the clouds or deep in the bowels of the earth. Science appears to set the bar around animals, especially apes. For example, religion will say gay is wrong because a god beyond human comprehension says so. Science says gay is right, because apes and even lower level critters do it.

 

I am not sure which is irrational. But I can see the two standards, one by religion and one by science. The choice appears to be whether humans should act more like the nebulous gods which science says do not exist. Or we should act more like apes and critters that don't even walk upright.

[InfiniteNow]

Science tries to correlate human behavior to animals.

No, it doesn't.

 

Science appears to set the bar around animals, especially apes.

No, it doesn't.

 

Science says gay is right, because apes and even lower level critters do it.

No, it doesn't.

 

 

I am not sure which is irrational.

That explains a lot.