Religion, relevant and rational?

[C1ay]

If by "supernatural" you mean elements of nature that cannot be confirmed by the scientific method, this is categorically untrue. On the contrary, it is quite unreasonable to assert that if something cannot be proven, it is untrue, or even not a part of nature. It would have to be proven untrue to be refuted.

I disagree with that. If someone wants to claim that apples are blue, then it should be their burden to prove that apples are blue. It should not be everyone else's to prove they are not. If a scientist wants to claim we were all created by the big bang then it is their burden to prove it. It is no one's burden to disprove it just because someone made a claim. If someone wants to claim we were created by some God then it is their burden to prove it, not the critics burden to disprove it.

 

IMO, the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, not everyone else. Why should it be any different?

[paultrr]

I might also add that if one wanted to invoke say the Bible's account of creation when the universe was first formed into what it is today everything stated out as unfilled and chaotic(Unformed, as the Hebrew implies). Even there, there is an implied state of matter or energy(The Waters) which according to the story God's spirit moved upon and brought light forth from. Its more the old English that tended to translate that story into an empty void also.

[rds1331]

The BB theory does not actually prepose that energy comes from nothing, in the strict sence of the word. The nothing spoken of is the vacuum itself and its vacuum energy that matter came from.

 

I don't understand. How can the term 'nothing' be describing a vacuum? Or for that matter how can nothing be describing a tangable something, vacuum energy, that can be altered?

[rds1331]

If someone wants to claim we were created by some God then it is their burden to prove it, not the critics burden to disprove it.

 

IMO, the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, not everyone else. Why should it be any different?

 

Would it matter that our existance proves some sort of creation, or is there an explanation I have not heard of? The BB theory? I absolutely cannot accept that a vacuum decided to change form and produce thought.

[C1ay]

Would it matter that our existance proves some sort of creation, or is there an explanation I have not heard of?

Our existance proves nothing except that we are here. There is certainly no proof that any sort of creation occured.

[BEAKER]

Our existance proves nothing except that we are here. There is certainly no proof that any sort of creation occured.

There's no proof that my computer was created either. If I catagorically refuse to believe that is was, I can extrapolate data from the most minute sources and concoct a theory based on my findings as to how this computer could have gotten here simply through natural forces and throw some absurd length of time into the mix until I have created a scenario that somehow fits into the hypothetical model I have designed.

 

If the world is still around a few hundred years for now, it's residents may unearth some of the millions of computers we throw in the dump every year and say; "...this is evidence that proves computers are a product of natural forces, forming in the earth's crust"

 

How much more complex are we than those computers? Is it likely that we had any less design involved in our begining?;)

[C1ay]

There's no proof that my computer was created either. If I catagorically refuse to believe that is was, I can extrapolate data from the most minute sources and concoct a theory based on my findings as to how this computer could have gotten here simply through natural forces and throw some absurd length of time into the mix until I have created a scenario that somehow fits into the hypothetical model I have designed.

 

If the world is still around a few hundred years for now, it's residents may unearth some of the millions of computers we throw in the dump every year and say; "...this is evidence that proves computers are a product of natural forces, forming in the earth's crust"

 

How much more complex are we than those computers? Is it likely that we had any less design involved in our begining?;)

Is there some point to your rambling here? If you have some claim, put it forth and make your case. Prove your point though, don't just try to tell us that it's so just because you say so. Blind faith proves nothing.

[BEAKER]

Is there some point to your rambling here?

 

If you dont see it, I can't explain it.

[C1ay]

If you dont see it, I can't explain it.

I didn't think you could support your claim. Maybe you can find some help here.

[REASON]

Since this thread is asking the question of relevancy and rationality of religion, I would like to offer a different take on this.

 

I was raised a Methodist, my father is a retired minister, yet I am agnostic and a believer in the scientific method. I have spent a lot of time in my own mind and in discussions with my father trying to understand the question here. ultimately, I have arrived at this:

 

Religion, and more importantly the belief in a creator, has evolved in the human species as a natural coping mechanism. It is a method of providing meaning in one's life. It provides guidance and rules to live by, and has always attempted to explain the unexplainable. But more than anything, I believe people are drawn to it because it gives them hope. To many, living life without hope is a life not worth living. The question is, what are we hoping for. Humans are the only species on this planet that can truly contemplate life, existance, and death. And while we spend plenty of time discussing creation and life, I believe the crux of the matter, and why religion and belief is so important to so many, is the contemplation of death. We can all agree that survival is inate in all forms of life. This is so true in humans that we have created a means in which we can survive even after we die. Heaven, hell, purgatory, haunted houses, and even reincarnation are examples of how we psycologically medicate ourselves when considering our impending death. We will get to live on and on, for all eternity. It just feels better to look at it that way (unless, of course, you're going to hell. But that opens up another element of religion that I won't go into right now). And if that's what a person chooses for themself, so be it.

 

When believers sense that some aspect of scientific research might be challenging some of these core beliefs, the reaction almost suggests that it is an attack on their ability to survive. I believe that the reason that so many resist the objective scientific analysis of the universe and of life in particular, is that they just don't like the way it feels. It's produces an empty result to them, and it's just not acceptable. This is their choice.

 

Therefore, what makes religion and belief relevent and rational is in the eye of the beholder. I am not concerned with an individuals personal beliefs in this matter. But I resent the need to condemn those who believe differently than ourselves. That is a whole different psycological issue in-and-of itself. Healthy debate and discussion is a good thing, but condemnation and self righteousness is abhorrent.

[paultrr]

The BB theory does not actually prepose that energy comes from nothing, in the strict sence of the word. The nothing spoken of is the vacuum itself and its vacuum energy that matter came from.

 

I don't understand. How can the term 'nothing' be describing a vacuum? Or for that matter how can nothing be describing a tangable something, vacuum energy, that can be altered?

 

Einstein's original cosmological model was a static, homogeneous model with spherical geometry. His was an empty vacuum in which the gravitational effect of matter caused an acceleration in this model. Einstein proposed his cosmological constant into his equations for General Relativity. This term acts to counteract the gravitational pull of matter, and so it has been described as an anti-gravity effect.

 

This term acts like a vacuum energy density. Vacuum energy density out of quantum theory is used in the Higgs mechanism for spontaneous symmetry breaking in the Standard Model we have today when it comes to cosmology. For the first picosecond after the Big Bang a fairly large vacuum energy density existed during the inflationary epoch and even at the start. The vacuum energy density must be associated with a negative pressure because:

 

1.) The vacuum energy density must be constant because there is nothing for it to depend on.

 

2.) If a piston capping a cylinder of vacuum is pulled out, producing more vacuum, the vacuum within the cylinder then has more energy which must have been supplied by a force pulling on the piston.

 

3.) If the vacuum is trying to pull the piston back into the cylinder, it must have a negative pressure, since a positive pressure would tend to push the piston out.

 

The magnitude of the negative pressure needed for energy conservation is easily found to be P = -u = -rho*c^2 where P is the pressure, u is the vacuum energy density, and rho is the equivalent mass density using E = mc^2.

 

In General Relativity, pressure has weight, which means that the gravitational acceleration at the edge of a uniform density sphere is not given by

 

g = GM/R^2 = (4*pi/3)*G*rho*R

 

but

 

g = (4*pi/3)*G*(rho+3P/c^2)*R

 

Now Einstein wanted a static model, which means that g = 0, but he also wanted to have some matter, so rho > 0, and thus he needed P < 0. In fact, by setting

rho(vacuum) = 0.5*rho(matter)

 

he had a total density of 1.5*rho(matter) and a total pressure of -0.5*rho(matter)*c^2 since the pressure from ordinary matter is essentially zero (compared to rho*c^2). Thus rho+3P/c^2 = 0 and the gravitational acceleration was zero,

 

g = (4*pi/3)*G*(rho(matter)-2*rho(vacuum))*R = 0

 

allowing a static Universe as his model he was after required.

 

Einstein's model was unstable. It tends over time to flip one way towards either expanding or towards contraction. He thus, after the discovery that the universe was expanding abondoned that model. Later with the advent of quantum theory and its development we discovered the vacuum does have an energy density and is not an empty nothing to begin with. However, to this day people still tend to refer to the vacuum as a nothing even though that was long ago disproved. (See: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html )

 

I think what the problem is that some of the sources you've learned the BB out of have all wrongly made the statement that energy came from nothing. Thats not the Standard model accepted today at all.

[paultrr]

Therefore, what makes religion and belief relevent and rational is in the eye of the beholder.

 

I agree with that. Part of the problem is those who believe tend to think in what comes across as the general athiest position on the subject. To the believers in general that seems to imply we are simply bio-mechanical robots as many treads related to this subject keep bringing out. Its also been pointed out by a few believers in this forum in general that faith is not something one can take pure logic and prove out. Its a personal thing to begin with and at times leaps way beyond logic.

 

I think some of us agnostics tend to have problems also with the die hard athiest position as well. If we didn't we'd be athiests at the very least. From a science perspective we simply are not out to prove or disprove God. We want to discover how the universe works. At the present there is no scientific evidence for anything working in this universe except natural process and natural law. However, given the knowns we have discovered if there is some God that God does not come across by the facts as the same exact God most religions tend to favor or worship. If anything it would have to be something closer to the deist type of creator. It's the lack of evidence(disreguarding the order issue the religious tend to raise) that makes for the agnostic position in the first place as the primary finding of science.

 

Personally I think people have the right to believe the way they choose to myself. There are scientists out there who do believe. Most of them just recognize that science and belief do not mix that well and tend to keep the two seperate. There are also scientists who are agnostic and many who are athiests. We're not as complete a whole as believer's tend to picture us at all.

 

But all in all, you're statement about why religion and faith exists is very much on for the most part.

[paultrr]

The nothing if one can properly term it a nothing to begin with is the singularity at the start of time. That was why I mentioned how the singularity out of Blackholes while a singular point is in fact itself not devoid of energy to begin with. Energy is neither created of distroyed. The BB, and one of the reasons we have cosmological theory of many different types out there, does not actually answer the question in and of itself where that energy came from to begin with. That's where the different cosmological models come into play as we further attempt to decern the answer to that big question itself. Hawking perfers his instanton of time as an explination. Smolin tends towards the camp that sees it as always having been there. Gott, tends there also with the admixture of a loop in time perhaps answering partly the question on those hidden variables out of certain quantum interpretation. Others have different views. I tend to fall in the always been there camp myself with the admixtrure of more modern hyperspace thinking of the string theory camp.

 

To not construe the wrong meaning I personal see that stuffed with energy nothing as some call it having always existed with the potential to form a multitude of universes of which our's is but one example. To me if there is a creator its that impersonl stuffed with energy nothing that gave birth to all the rest. Now in our universe that nothing brought about life and intelligence. As part of nature one could take the view that by evolving intelligence nature itself became partly intelligent or thinking since we are part of nature and an extension of nature. Thus, adding in a group/individual personality aspect to nature of which we are part. But that does not require in and of itself a thinking first cause. That's just order forming out of what appears like chaos much the same as fractuals on higher scales can produce order themselves even though they stem out of chaos based math.

[Biochemist]

I disagree with that. If someone wants to claim that apples are blue, then it should be their burden to prove that apples are blue.

It depends who is making the claim. If someone claims that 1) no apples are blue, 2) there really is no reason at all for nature to have created blue apples, and 3) that the scientific method is paramount, then that claimaint would be the one with the obligation to show the burden of proof for the absence of blue apples. If the claimaint did not, he/she would be obligated to allow for blue apples, but could ony suggest they may not exist because they have not yet been discovered.

 

As I recall, that is your position, C1ay.

[Biochemist]

....I believe people are drawn to it because it gives them hope. To many, living life without hope is a life not worth living...Humans are the only species on this planet that can truly contemplate life, existance, and death.....

And these considerations can be viewed as at odds with a deterministic universe. Items like that have surfaced in the several free-will-related threads, as potential conflicts with determiism.

...When believers sense that some aspect of scientific research might be challenging some of these core beliefs, the reaction almost suggests that it is an attack on their ability to survive. I believe that the reason that so many resist the objective scientific analysis of the universe and of life in particular, is that they just don't like the way it feels.

Only some believers. This is probably similar to the fraction of non-believers that react adversely to any discussion of a Creator. This is not a behavior related to theists. It is a behavior related to humans. Personally, I have never viewed the scientific method as in conflict in any way with theism or Christianity.

...I resent the need to condemn those who believe differently than ourselves. That is a whole different psycological issue in-and-of itself. Healthy debate and discussion is a good thing, but condemnation and self righteousness is abhorrent.

Agreed.

[C1ay]

If the claimaint did not, he/she would be obligated to allow for blue apples, but could ony suggest they may not exist because they have not yet been discovered.

 

As I recall, that is your position, C1ay.

That's really comparing apples and oranges though isn't it? To say that maybe there are blue apples somewhere and we don't know it is quite different than claiming apples are blue. One view is open to the possibility, the other is a statement of fact.

 

For the agnostic to say maybe there is a God, maybe there is not, does not incur any burden of proof. In fact the agnostic has said this because they believe there is no proof. OTOH, for the creationist to claim outright that we were created, period, incurs a burden of proof. I have encountered creationists myself that argued that creation should be accepted as a postulate, without proof. IMO, that is not rational.

[Biochemist]

That's really comparing apples and oranges though isn't it?

Touche.

To say that maybe there are blue apples somewhere and we don't know it is quite different than claiming apples are blue. One view is open to the possibility, the other is a statement of fact.

 

For the agnostic to say maybe there is a God, maybe there is not, does not incur any burden of proof.

Agreed.

In fact the agnostic has said this because they believe there is no proof.

Agreed.

OTOH, for the creationist to claim outright that we were created, period, incurs a burden of proof. I have encountered creationists myself that argued that creation should be accepted as a postulate, without proof. IMO, that is not rational.

I understand the point. I do understand that theists (Creationist or not) generally use a model other than the scientific method for evidenciary analysis. There are other valid models, just not other scientific models. In American law we have two evidenciary models: 1) preponderance of evidence (for civil litigation) and 2) proof beyond reasonable doubt (for criminal cases). Neither of these models require falsifiability (as does the scientific method) to be valid.

 

With the execption of the narrow-case-thread on the historicity of Jesus' resurrection, I have not seen anyone in these forums argue that God's existence is demonstrable by the scientific method. But to suggest that it is irrational to believe in Him because a theist uses a different evidenciary analysis technique is, I think, a little stong. It would be quite fair to claim that the existence of God has not yet been proven by the scientific method.