±«Óătv

If you are so bored Michael, I'll not expect any more comments from you on this thread!

No matter how impressive the scientific credentials, the acheivements, the peer accolades, no matter who they are, when they start talking about god, they have invariably taken off their scientific hats and reverted to the frightened primitive huddled in the dark at the mouth of a cave wondering about whether or not life is meaningless and terrified of inevitiable eternal death. Rational thought goes out the window and is replaced by rationalization to arrive at what they emotionally want to believe. That circuit of thought becomes their religion. Logical deduction from careful observations evaporates to be replaced with spiritual feelings. They become delusionary as though their normally objective critical thinking minds have been shut down and all thought has been allowed to be monopolized by a primitive part of their brain. The ego cedes power to the id. Are humans genetically predisposed to this instinctive need to find meaning beyond the natural in the supernatural even though it flies in the face of what they have devoted much of their life's efforts to? That's the real question, why do they do it? Is the alternative for them insanity or suicide? This is the question those of us who do not suffer this fate ponder about those who do.

Any thoughts Peter K? Dylan Dog? Amenhotep?

PB

As Director of the NHS Research and Development at the Hammersmith Hospitals Trust I wonder how long Robert Winston had to wait for his 2004 pay rise, I wonder did he have to wait over two and a half years for his pay rise of that year I dare say not, I wonder has he ever raised in the House of Lords the disparity of treatment that is common within the NHS between the low paid and the fat cats of the NHS, who cares what he and Dawkins are sparing about it won’t affect the public at large there are more important things that Robert Winston could constructively expend his energy and knowledge on such as the unacceptable state that the health service is in which does affect the general populace.

Alan watson wrote:

If you are so bored Michael, I'll not expect any more comments from you on this thread!

Your wish is my command ;-)

Glad to oblige.

Regards,
Michael

BTW Michael
Your 'Yawn' used to be post 1 but has now gone!!
Now my comment looks like an orphan.

In post # 6 Alan Watson wrote: BTW Michael, Your 'Yawn' used to be post 1 but has now gone!! Now my comment looks like an orphan.

Hi Alan: I saw that – must be embarrassing for you – looks like you are reacting to imaginary threads. But before it disappeared I did indicate that the whole thread could disappear as far as I am concerned ;-)

Seriously, I think secular humanism can put forward a lot better advocate than Dawkins. He is killing your case and sounding like the other ranting fundamentalist ‘believers’.

By the way while we await further ‘new thinking’ on matters Dawkins to appear in this thread, on which I shall not be commenting as per my promise to you, would you like to continue the discussion that your fellow traveller, Les Reid, abandoned on the “Belfast Embraces Darwin” thread?

His worldview dead ended as does Dawkins’ with Darwinism and I’m afraid I could not induce him to venture into the world of parallel universes. Hawking got stuck with his own worldview when he was forced to confront that his ‘cone’ of the universe started from a singularity i.e. the universe had a beginning. He then used imaginary numbers (a legitimate mathematical tool) to get rid of the singularity and make the end of the ‘cone’ rounded but seems unable to describe the reality to which his use of imaginary numbers led him. Those of us who deal with ‘models’ in the sciences and with ‘metaphors’ in philosophy are quite happy with the use of imaginary numbers in the sciences (models) and imaginary constructs (God) in metaphysics.

I was discussing these points with Reid and trying to get him to tell us what world view physics and cosmology offers that has a higher probability than that of a Creator world view. He provided Dawkinsesque ad hominem comments in support of secular humanism’s position.

Maybe you have some training in the sciences and would like to finish the discussion?

My nemesis, Maureen McNeill, summed the thread up quite neatly from my point of view with a comment which I quote in part below ....

Begin quote: Post # 61. “Has Belfast Embraced Darwin” thread At 12:57 PM on 12 Apr 2007, Maureen McNeill wrote: Mr Reid: In following this very interesting thread as a mathematician, physicist, and theologian I was very interested in seeing you respond to 2 questions from Mr Hull which you have studiously avoided. Mr Hull asked if you would accept that it was a reasonable position to adopt probabality theory in choosing which belief to follow. He asked if you would accept that such a worldview was "rational and reasonable". Simple question! In my view the only possible answer you should give is 'Yes that is a rational and reasonable position'. I suspect you refuse to accept that anyone who places a high probability on a worldview that is not humanist is "rational OR reasonable". That is arrogant thinking which leads eventually to fundamentalist thinking. Mr Hull also asked that if he can get his mind around the existence of imaginary concepts in science (imaginary numbers, parallel universes etc) why you would not, as a matter of logic, permit a similar "non-physical construct" as he put it to be employed in a study of metaphysics. Again you avoided the question. That was very revealing! You asked him a series of scientific questions on his views concerning evolution which I noted that he answered directly and succintly. He put probablities on his beliefs about evolution which make it transparent what his views are. Hull then followed up with a similar set of very interesting questions for you about parallel universes, string theory etc which you avoided with demeaning personal attacks (drowning man clutching at straws etc). That is the response that I have seen from many secular humanists when forced off their attack on religion and into a defence of scientific evidence that is raising questions about determinism, certainity, purpose etc. All of this is evident to the readers of this blog especially those of us who are trained in both the philosophical and scientific fields. I have been watching Hull's attempts to engage you and there was some early support from Wright on the general philosophical ground I saw him staking out around you. You ran for every exit that could be found. Hull commented at one point that your response about 'straws and drowning men' was 'sad'. I think it was beyond 'sad' it was pathetic from a person who represents the Belfast Humanists and who is invited to appear as an 'expert' on the airwaves. End quote

Incidentally, if you bump into Les on Royal Avenue some day tell him I said that an interesting read is Paul Davies latest book “Cosmic Jackpot”. It will take him one step beyond ‘cosmic conjurer’ (his term).

Cordially, Michael

PB

Robert Winston is an intelligent theist who has no problem with evolution nor with the world being billions of years old.

Any thoughts?

Regards

DD

Ironically, if you go to Winston's blog on the Guardian website "Comment Is Free", the first article is a defence of science against the half-baked ideas of some animal activists. The blurb reads: "The shame of our silence.
Instead of being cowed by activists, scientists should trumpet the virtues of animal testing." What Dawkins is doing is trumpeting the virtues of science in general. He simply carries the trumpeting that Winston advocates to its logical conclusion.

As for the shame, it is surely a lot easier to stick to tradition, follow your family religion and turn a blind eye to all the supernatural baloney which that entails, rather than voice any criticisms of those powerful institutions, the churches. Shame on any scientists, including Winston, if they allow ancient ideas about the supernatural to pass unchecked.

Well, he isn't the first. I have yet to read an intelligent favourable review of Dawkins book. Seemingly anyone with more than 2 neutrons firing can see through its pseudo-philosophical mush mixed with some bluster and a dollop of patronisation.

SG

DD

I fully respect Winston's views in all respects and it appears he would be quite gracious with those he differs with.

We might have more in common than you might think, ref the God of Abraham and I would certainly be interested to chat with him on evolution etc.

The reason I find it hard to chat to you is that you seem so agressive on the matter and dont seem to acknowledge I have a right to a viewpoint different from yours.

The point I was actually drawing you on is that Winston is arguing for more gracious relationships between science and faith.

And of course he is an accomplished scientist who sees no problem whatsoever in having faith in God as an integral part of his worldview.

Does it seem odd to you that he is able to do that and keep his intellectual integrity?

PB

Stephen: couldn't agree more. Well said.

Third attempt to get this post accepted!

Re Post 7:

Michael: The gentleman in question clearly has no reply – as the song goes – better forget him.

I assume that you have read AC Grayling’s article entitled “What’s up with Physics” in the New Humanist magazine?

Grayling discusses the problems arising with string theory etc. and the apparent battle for the ‘soul’ (sic) of science.

I wonder what Dawkins would think of the statement that “string theory makes no testable predictions” and we are now dealing with a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe that is moving into the realm of metaphysics? I am reminded of Gregg Easterbrook (I think he is an editor of the Atlantic Monthly) who commented that the multiverse idea rests on assumptions that would be laughed out of town if they came from a religious text”.

The religion of atheism now asks us to join a church that believes in an infinite number of parallel universes one of which got all of the physical constants required for life exactly right.

Woe to me of little faith!

Peace,
Maureen

PB

I am not all aggressive! what do you want ? do you want that you should post links to dodgy websites and go unchallenged? when you repeat tired old canards-should they go unchallenged? or should it be when PB posts that is the final word?

That's not how it works PB.

I have no problem with him believing in his respective god PB, indeed PB I posted many links for you of Scientists who are theists who have no problem with evolution.

"Does it seem odd to you that he is able to do that and keep his intellectual integrity?"

It's a shame that the same could not be said of creationists...

DD

Hello Maureen,

It appears the article you link to was not up-to-date with the latest developments. In 2006 the announcement of the launch of a sattelite made headlines, as the sattelite would aim to carry out the first test of a prediction from string theory. The fact that this would be the first test of a prediction of string theory was the reason why even the announcement (rather than waiting for the outcome) of an experiment already made headlines.

String theory had indeed long been dogged by the lack of ways to verify it experimentally, something crucial in physics. The reason why no possible way of verification had been thought of sofar, had been that predictions had been concerned with phenomena on the scale of 10^-30 m, beyond any measurement tool today. But then a prediction involving larger length scales was conceived.

The experiment that the sattelite will carry out would be a measurement of gravitational lensing, i. e. the bending of light by gravity. Both relativity and string theory predict this phenomenon, however they differ in the fine details of how it should occur. If the measurements give a conclusive answer, then it would allow the experiment to come down on either the side of relativity or string theory (or contradict both). Thereby fulfilling a first bit of the requirement that anything in physics should be verifyable.

The info above does not come from a webpage I can link to. If you want more detail, please let me know and I'll contact the author, scan some other stuff and post it here.

You wrote
"The religion of atheism now asks us to join a church that believes in an infinite number of parallel universes one of which got all of the physical constants required for life exactly right."
Oh dear, it is very much the old story of religious people being ignorant of science and then rejecting and bashing it. Just because you don't have the knowledge of some things or are unable to understand them, doesn't mean it's not correct. I suggest you immerse yourself a bit deeper in the things you comment on before making statements such as yours above. It doesn't do your credibilty any good in the eyes of those less ignorant on the matter. But maybe you're pandering to the religious audience here, banking on ignorance of your target audience to carry you through?
As I said, i'd be happy to provide you with some reading on it.

greets,
Peter

update for Maureen

In the tradition of science coming up with the goods when questioned, I googled a little bit. Not all reporting that I mentioned in my previous post requires paid registration to journals. I found the following publicly accesible article which describes the experiment and some small bits of the theoretical background:

I quote from the article (braneworld gravity is a part of string theory):

--------------------
Better yet, general relativity and braneworld gravity make different predictions for certain qualities that the lens will possess. In particular the interference pattern produced by gamma rays will differ.

Now this story gets more interesting because one of the lucky few science missions that survived the mission-to-Mars purge happens to be the Gamma-ray Large Area Telescope, which is a multinational collaboration (which would be why it survived) and is due to be launched next year. This telescope should prove to be more than adequate for observing such patterns thus braneworld gravity should be tested very soon.
-------------------

Please read the article and reread your article by Grayling. Seems to me he really was just not up-to-date.

You could hold out that the experiment hasn't been carried out yet, so no actual verification has been done yet today. But then Rome was not built overnight. Christians have been holding out for Gods kingdom on earth for two millenia and nothing has come sofar. The experimental confirmation of string theory would be a revolution in physics equal to quantum mechanics and relativity combined and it seems it might be here only a few decades after the first early idea of string theory was conceived. It would be a rather disgraceful case of double strandards not to give string theory a little more time to carry out a couple of experiments before condemning it, wouldn't it?

Peter:

Thank you for a very detailed, rational and courteous response on my criticisms of string theory (really mostly Hull's as I was following his arguments with Les Reid).

We probably are becoming a little too technical for the readers here but a couple of small comments in my own defence:

Yes string theory is struggling to get something to test and I don't mind waiting longer for more experimental outcome but I think that the point of the article (and the book that it was discussing) is that the 'returns' from this theory have been next to nothing given the amount of effort put into it amd it might now be at the point of actually damaging physics research. I think you basically agree with me on this point when you wrote:

You could hold out that the experiment hasn't been carried out yet, so no actual verification has been done yet today. But then Rome was not built overnight. The experimental confirmation of string theory would be a revolution in physics equal to quantum mechanics and relativity combined and it seems it might be here only a few decades after the first early idea of string theory was conceived. It would be a rather disgraceful case of double strandards not to give string theory a little more time to carry out a couple of experiments before condemning it, wouldn't it?

Now I need to give you a gentle rap on the knuckles for your comment:

Oh dear, it is very much the old story of religious people being ignorant of science and then rejecting and bashing it.

Peter: I am trained in both philosophy and science. I do not reject science or 'religion' but I do 'bash' people who misrepresent the known information on either side.

Christians have been holding out for Gods kingdom on earth for two millenia and nothing has come sofar.

Maybe that might not take as long as confirmation of string theory at the rate it is going?

Thanks again and Peace to you,

Maureen

ps Michael I was accused by Mark of being the quiet one - where are you?

Maureen and Peter:

As you and the readers of this blog know I think that humans, as a symbol creating species, have only two ways to discuss ideas – with the use of a model (science) or with the use of a metaphor (philosophy/religion). Neither approach gets to the true ‘heart’ of reality. That is, although I can draw you a picture of hydrogen and oxygen atoms and write an equation for their combination to produce water I have not really understood the essence of either hydrogen, oxygen, or water. It is the same for metaphor. I can write a piece of poetry, a novel etc to describe love, greed – I can not write equations or draw pictures.

I would also comment that neither science (search for factual truth) or philosophy (search for intrinsic truth) can be spoken of in terms of ‘certainty’ but only in terms of a range of probabilities. People in the science or philosophy fields who talk of ‘certainty’ are ‘fundamentalists’. Dawkins, for example, is close to being a fundamentalist in this regard as is Jerry Falwell in the USA.

There are two basic stories of why we are here – one is a model (string theory and like physical theories) and the other is a metaphor (God, the ‘More’, a “higher intelligence”, and like descriptions)

My point is that we as individuals have to decide for ourselves what probabilities we place on each of the explanations after we make a personal examination of the fields and then live our lives with the one that is most probable (as we have determined) to us.

In my own blog a comment from “Peter” might be quoted here which summarizes my own position:

Peter wrote: Begin quote There are two stories of how the universe came to be here. One is a ‘big bang’ out of nothingness and physics can tell us nothing of what was before the ‘big bang’. The other story is that it was created by some ‘intelligence’ (for want of a better word) that is superior in intelligence to me as a human. Let me explain it this way. I am more ‘conscious’ that say a horse and a horse is more ‘conscious’ than a moth. I can understand algebra, while a horse and a moth can not. Like me a horse might share feelings of companionship while a moth can not. Now what if we look at ourselves from the perspective of the moth. If I consider myself to be the ‘moth’ then what ‘consciousness’ lies beyond mine that I can not possibly comprehend? Consciousness seems to be coming alive in the universe and humans have an infinitely small amount of it. In my thinking “God” is the ultimate, the eternal, the infinite consciousness. So I guess my world view involves the ‘spirit’ or the ‘consciousness’ and your’s involves the ‘material’. But who is correct? I don’t know but what I do know is that the ‘consiousness’ paradigm that I work with gives me a better sense of who I am than the physical or material one. End quote

To this I would add that I think there is say a 60% probability that the higher intelligence explanation is correct and a 40% probability that the ‘big bang – string theory’ is correct so why am I being irrational or unreasonable if I live my life in the 60% belief world? As I mentioned to Les Reid in an earlier thread, imagine that my son has just left for work and I need to speak with him immediately. Once he gets to work he turns off his mobile phone. I think there is a 60% chance he has arrived at work. Is it not rational therefore that I should attempt to reach him first on his work phone?

Dawkins, Falwell et al make life ‘either/or’. That is fundamentalist thinking. Life is ‘both/and’ – it is both physical and metaphysical and much richer when we live within both modes, the model and the metaphorical.

Regards,
Michael

Hello Maureen,

Thanks for your swift reply.

You wrote
"Now I need to give you a gentle rap on the knuckles for your comment:"

and

"Peter: I am trained in both philosophy and science. I do not reject science or 'religion' but I do 'bash' people who misrepresent the known information on either side."

Hmmmm, am I getting a gentle rap on the knuckles for 'misrepresenting the known information'? Or did that apply to someone else than me? If the former, could you please point out where I misrepresented information. If it does not apply to me, then why am I getting the gentle rap of the knuckles? This is not nagging for its own sake btw, I really and politely don't think I misrepresented anything and if it was directed at someone else than I genuinly don't understand why you don't address it to them?

"Maybe that might not take as long as confirmation of string theory at the rate it is going?"

I think your extrapolation is a bit off here. Let's compare Christianity's prediction of Gods kingdom on earth and string theory. Two millenia of waiting for Christianity's prediction to come true and no realisation in sight (if you say it is in sight then please state when and I'd be up for placing a bet. I'd be willing to give you odds that are very much in your favour). String theory has been around less than three decades and there is an announcement that it may be tested in an experiment for the first time already this year. So it's 2 millenia -> nothing for Christianity vs. less than three decades and on the verge of something tangible for string theory. Could you elaborate on how you came to he conclusion that Christianity is doing a quicker job?

What a fun discussion you guys are having. I was interested in the article Peter linked to, and couldn't help but notice that even if braneworld gravity is disproved by this experiment, it won't "take string theory down with it" because braneworld gravity is only one possible derivative of string theory. Of course, if braneworld gravity is verified by this experiment - as I understand it - things will be very different in the discipline of physics (string theory will become a focus). But if braneworld gravity is not verified by this experiment? Now, I don't want to take sides and I think Peter's been very rational, but I have a question for Peter.

Would you agree, Peter, just for the sake of argument, with the sentence: "This experiment in incapable of disproving string theory"?

I apologise if this post has appeared more than once - I am having trouble posting to this blog again.....

Maureen:

As you and the readers of this blog know I think that humans, as a symbol creating species, have only two ways to discuss ideas – with the use of a model (science) or a metaphor (philosophy/religion). Neither gets to the true ‘heart’ of reality. That is, although I can draw you a picture of hydrogen and oxygen atoms and write an equation for their combination to produce water I have not really understood the essence of either hydrogen, oxygen, or water. It is the same for metaphor. I can write a piece of poetry, a novel etc to describe love, greed – I can not write equations or draw pictures.

I would also comment that neither science (search for factual truth) or philosophy (search for intrinsic truth) can be spoken of in terms of ‘certainty’ but only in terms of a range of probabilities. People in the science or philosophy fields who talk of ‘certainty’ are ‘fundamentalists’. Dawkins, for example, is close to being a fundamentalist in this regard as is Jerry Falwell in the USA.

There are two basic stories of why we are here – one is a model (string theory and like physical theories) and the other is a metaphor (God, the ‘More’, a “higher intelligence”, and like descriptions)

My point is that we as individuals have to decide for ourselves what probabilities we place on each of the explanations after we make a personal examination of the fields and then live our lives with the one that is most probable (as we have determined) to us.

In my own blog a comment from “Peter” might be quoted here which summarizes my own position:

Peter wrote: There are two stories of how the universe came to be here. One is a ‘big bang’ out of nothingness and physics can tell us nothing of what was before the ‘big bang’. The other story is that it was created by some ‘intelligence’ (for want of a better word) that is superior in intelligence to me as a human. Let me explain it this way. I am more ‘conscious’ that say a horse and a horse is more ‘conscious’ than a moth. I can understand algebra, while a horse and a moth can not. Like me a horse might share feelings of companionship while a moth can not. Now what if we look at ourselves from the perspective of the moth. If I consider myself to be the ‘moth’ then what ‘consciousness’ lies beyond mine that I can not possibly comprehend? Consciousness seems to be coming alive in the universe and humans have an infinitely small amount of it. In my thinking “God” is the ultimate, the eternal, the infinite consciousness. So I guess my world view involves the ‘spirit’ or the ‘consciousness’ and your’s involves the ‘material’. But who is correct? I don’t know but what I do know is that the ‘consiousness’ paradigm that I work with gives me a better sense of who I am than the physical or material one.

To this I would add that I think there is say a 60% probability that the higher intelligence explanation is correct and a 40% probability that the ‘big bang – string theory’ is correct so why am I being irrational or unreasonable if I live my life in the 60% belief world? As I mentioned to Les Reid, in an earlier thread imagine that my son has just left for work and I need to speak with him immediately. Once he gets to work he turns off his mobile phone. I think there is a 60% chance he has arrived at work. Is it not rational therefore that I should attempt to reach him first on his work phone?

Dawkins, Falwell et al make life ‘either/or’. That is fundamentalist thinking. Life is ‘both/and’ – it is both physical and metaphysical and much richer when we live within both modes, the model and the metaphorical.

Regards,
Michael

Re Post #18

Peter: You asked Am I getting a gentle rap on the knuckles for 'misrepresenting the known information'? Or did that apply to someone else than me?

I was responding to .....

Oh dear, it is very much the old story of religious people being ignorant of science and then rejecting and bashing it. Just because you don't have the knowledge of some things or are unable to understand them, doesn't mean it's not correct. I suggest you immerse yourself a bit deeper in the things you comment on before making statements such as yours above. It doesn't do your credibilty any good in the eyes of those less ignorant on the matter. But maybe you're pandering to the religious audience here, banking on ignorance of your target audience to carry you through?

Now with respsect to ...

I think your extrapolation is a bit off here. Let's compare Christianity's prediction of Gods kingdom on earth and string theory. Two millenia of waiting for Christianity's prediction to come true and no realisation in sight. String theory has been around less than three decades and there is an announcement that it may be tested in an experiment for the first time already this year. So it's 2 millenia -> nothing for Christianity vs. less than three decades and on the verge of something tangible for string theory. Could you elaborate on how you came to he conclusion that Christianity is doing a quicker job?

Peter: Define your understanding of ‘God’s kingdom on earth’ for me. Are you in agreement with Marcus Borg’s definition? If so we can take it up from there.

As to String theory it appears to me in danger of a total collapse in the physics community unless something perks up with it soon – that’s just an opinion – one possible test of a small part of it in 30 years is not going to hold its advocates for much longer. But I will defer to you on this question given you are looking at the subject daily and I only follow along on more of a monthly basis.

Right now philosophy in general (including the metaphorical stories associated with Christianity) have more to tell me about the 'why' of life than string theory offers me scientifically. That’s the point I would make.

In saying this I am cheering all physicists on. I’m here and listening to everything they say!

Again peace to you.
Maureen

Hello John,

I would agree to the extent that you seem to ask if it would disprove ALL of string theory. It could disprove the braneworld gravity part of it, but the sentence you quote says cleary that that would not be its end. So my answer is I would agree.

Ive got the world on a string
Im sitting on a rainbow
Got the string around my finger
What a world, what a life - Im in love

Ive got a song that I sing
I can make the rain go
Any time I move my finger
Lucky me, cant you see - Im in love

Lifes a wonderful thing
As long as I hold the string
Id be a silly so-and-so
If I should ever let her go

*I couldn't resist the temptation to inject a serious note in this discussion.

In Post 20 M Hull wrote: "As you and the readers of this blog know I think that humans, as a symbol creating species, have only two ways to discuss ideas – with the use of a model (science) or a metaphor (philosophy/religion). Neither gets to the true ‘heart’ of reality."

This strikes me as a peculiar way to categorise utterances. "Model or metaphor" - on what basis was that dichotomy made? (perhaps on the basis that you can upgrade religion from the status of obsolete beliefs to something more plausible?).

A more useful distinction is between utterances which seek to describe the world as it is and those which describe human inventions. The former include science and philosophy. The latter include soap operas, fairy tales and ancient religious beliefs.

As for "getting to the true heart of reality", I have no use for such quasi-mystical bombast. Any statement which is generally agreed to be "true" (ie. carries a high probability of being accurate) is a description of reality. "My car is blue" gets as close to the true heart of reality as any other statement.

Sometimes it seems that religious apologists will abandon all common sense and all contact with everyday reality in order to hang on to their ingrained doctrines. They will abandon the distinction between fact and fiction, or between truth and lies, if they think it will protect their obsolete beliefs. Get a grip!

Hi again Maureen,

You're ahead of me in a few areas, so my answer will have some instances of 'I don't know' I'm afraid. Sorry if it disappoints.

"Peter: Define your understanding of ‘God’s kingdom on earth’ for me. Are you in agreement with Marcus Borg’s definition? If so we can take it up from there."

To be honest, I didn't know there were multiple significantly different definitions. I grew up in a Catholic family. I can't say that too many questions (definately no critical ones) about religion were encouraged. As you'll no doubt know, Catholicism is the epitomy of non-thinking. Just follow the party line. The pope knows best. After all, he's infallible. He said so himself. Come on, switch off your brain. Don't question. You must have faith. And have it in the way as proscribed by the CEO.

The (admittedly vague) concept of it that I got was that god would reveal himself, and not throught the 'I can feel him' way but clear beyond doubt for all. There would be no more pain, hunger, disease, injustice. Everything would be lovely. Except perhaps that all good rock music would be replaced by the sounds of angel choirs. Ok, that last bit wasn't part of the picture.
I'm quite sure that the picture above is not about to happen in the short term. Or long term. If you do, then please state the date and I'll happily take you up on a little bet. Would odds of 2:1 in your favour suit you? Or 3:1? Or 10:1?

"As to String theory it appears to me in danger of a total collapse in the physics community unless something perks up with it soon – that’s just an opinion – one possible test of a small part of it in 30 years is not going to hold its advocates for much longer. But I will defer to you on this question given you are looking at the subject daily and I only follow along on more of a monthly basis."

Most of what I look at is scientific writing, not the policies or politics of the field. You state your expectation of collapse of the field as an opinion. Is that an opinion widely shared among e. g. those responsible for approving funding to it at the moment? If so, do you have some urls of where it was reported please. I wouldn't mind also learning about the current politics of it a little.

"Right now philosophy in general (including the metaphorical stories associated with Christianity) have more to tell me about the 'why' of life than string theory offers me scientifically."

I can easily understand how philosophy would offer someone more about the 'why' of their existance. Science offers me very little about it. It gives a satisfactory explanation of how it came about, but not the 'why' of it.

To John Wright:

John: You reason along similar lines to me as does Maureen. Would you care to make a comment about post #24?

Am I am missing something here that perhaps a neutral party might help with? I don't think Les is an idiot but I can't seem to get him beyond the Dawkinsesque personalized rants.

I have followed the Peter Klaver Maureen McNeill discussion with much interest and as you commented it is clearly a fun discussion between two highly intelligent and civil individuals. But these Reid responses baffle me.

Thanks
Michael

Re post # 24 Les Reid wrote: This strikes me as a peculiar way to categorise utterances ... perhaps on the basis that you can upgrade religion from the status of obsolete beliefs to something more plausible?....... The latter include soap operas, fairy tales and ancient religious beliefs..... As for "getting to the true heart of reality", I have no use for such quasi-mystical bombast.....Sometimes it seems that religious apologists will abandon all common sense and all contact with everyday reality in order to hang on to their ingrained doctrines..... Get a grip!

To John Wright:

John: You reason along similar lines to me as does Maureen. Would you care to make a comment about post #24?

Am I am missing something here that perhaps a neutral party might help with? I don't think Les is an idiot but I can't seem to get him beyond the Dawkinsesque personalized rants.

I have followed the Peter Klaver Maureen McNeill discussion with much interest and as you commented it is clearly a fun discussion between two highly intelligent and civil individuals. But these Reid responses baffle me.

Thanks
Michael

Re post # 24 Les Reid wrote: This strikes me as a peculiar way to categorise utterances ... perhaps on the basis that you can upgrade religion from the status of obsolete beliefs to something more plausible?....... The latter include soap operas, fairy tales and ancient religious beliefs..... As for "getting to the true heart of reality", I have no use for such quasi-mystical bombast.....Sometimes it seems that religious apologists will abandon all common sense and all contact with everyday reality in order to hang on to their ingrained doctrines..... Get a grip!

M Hull is asking for help.

In Post 20 M Hull wrote: "As you and the readers of this blog know I think that humans, as a symbol creating species, have only two ways to discuss ideas – with the use of a model (science) or a metaphor (philosophy/religion). Neither gets to the true ‘heart’ of reality."

I replied: "This strikes me as a peculiar way to categorise utterances. "Model or metaphor" - on what basis was that dichotomy made?"

So the challenge is for you to defend the dichotomy that your argument depends on. It is your dichotomy. If you have to ask other people for help, I think that we can safely conclude that it is not worth defending.

And that means that the alternative distinction (between the world as we discover it and the things that we imagine ourselves) should be the preferred option. Which is only common sense anyway.

In post #25 Peter wrote:

Hi again Maureen,You're ahead of me in a few areas, so my answer will have some instances of 'I don't know' I'm afraid. Sorry if it disappoints. "Peter: Define your understanding of ‘God’s kingdom on earth’ for me. Are you in agreement with Marcus Borg’s definition? If so we can take it up from there." To be honest, I didn't know there were multiple significantly different definitions.

Ah, an honest man! I am not disappointed, I admire and respect you for your frank confession [sorry about that given you said that you grew up Catholic ;-)]

I think this is part of the problem with these types of discussions. Dawkins et al. see theology through 10th Century spectacles and are not really interested [and therefore not informed] about modern religious thought. In my opinion from what I can judge (and having looked at your website) I am probably up to about 90% of your understanding on the physics stuff and you are (I am guessing) about 50% or less up to my understanding on the philosophy/theology stuff. Please do not read this as a criticism – it is not – what I am trying to say is that it is just my opinion of your present understanding of the philosophical literature. You know the old saying that ‘ignorance is temporary but stupidity is permanent’. You are obviously a highly intelligent person and will correct this as you read a little more in the philosophical realm. Since your background is Christian Borg would be a good place to start to learn a little bit about present progressive (as I see it) Christian thinking.

I grew up in a Catholic family. I can't say that too many questions (definately no critical ones) about religion were encouraged. As you'll no doubt know, Catholicism is the epitomy of non-thinking. Just follow the party line. The pope knows best. After all, he's infallible. He said so himself. Come on, switch off your brain. Don't question. You must have faith. And have it in the way as proscribed by the CEO.

I agree – I am not Catholic – and this type of fundamentalist thinking I will not defend. If I talked to a physicist in the 10th century he might give me some strange science but I would respect him for his knowledge of that time. Today’s physicists are in the same position – in another 10 centuries man might look back and think that it was strange science. On the other hand if one asked the pope a theological question in the 21st century I am not sure one would get a different answer from that a pope in the 10th century would have given. That is stasis and it will mean the demise of the Catholic church.

Most of what I look at is scientific writing, not the policies or politics of the field. You state your expectation of collapse of the field as an opinion. Is that an opinion widely shared among e. g. those responsible for approving funding to it at the moment? If so, do you have some urls of where it was reported please. I wouldn't mind also learning about the current politics of it a little.

My comment comes from a guest on Sunday Sequence a couple of weeks ago whose name at the moment has slipped me (Les Reid was on the same program .... maybe William Crawley can help here with the name) and also from the book “The Trouble with Physics” by Lee Smolin. A review of the book by Library Journal (see the Barnes and Noble website) said:

"Physicist Smolin (The Life of the Cosmos) posits that the funds and brain power dedicated to the development of string theory over the last two decades has led to an unprecedented stagnation in theoretical physics. Attracting some of the best minds in science, string theory, which seeks to unify the known laws of quantum mechanics with those of gravity, has become the accepted framework from which to explain these natural phenomena. Noting that Einstein was denied an academic position while working on hypotheses that would open a new way to view the world, Smolin offers a compelling argument that young physicists who depart from string theory are similarly ignored. This is a well-written, critical profile of the theoretical physics community, free of equations, from the perspective of a member.”

Re Posts 27 and 28: Michael, I agree; let's see what John comes up with. Reid seems to make pesonal attacks, avoid questions, and then throw out more of his own. I gave up! Peter Klaver challenges me intellectually while Reid frustrates me. Mark at least makes frustration entertaining!

Peace to all,
Maureen

Les Reid #24, I have some big problems with your posting. "Any statement which is generally agreed to be true (ie has a high probability of being accurate) is a description of reality." First of all, I only tentatively accept that anything even exists beyond my own mind. When I am asleep, you could not convince me and when I had a concussion after a car accident and couldn't think straight, I wasn't even certain that I was actually still alive. The question of the probability of something being true strikes me as absurd. Something either is true or it isn't. That every person alive in the entire world once believed the earth was flat didn't make it any less round. If I accept that the universe is rational and therefore consistant in its behavior from place to place and time to time, then the notion of probability itself and randomness becomes absurd because every event has a cause and every cause has an effect. The notion of random motion of particles such as gas molecules confined to a container such that it is equally probable that you will find the same number of them in any comparable volume is an anti-rational notion because it overlooks the fact that each molecule is a separate individual entity which has a trajectory and therefore a position at any given time which is the consequence of all of the forces which have acted upon it since it was created. This leads to the inescapable concludion that the notion of free will is pure illusion because all of the atoms in your brain behave in the only possible way they can. So once the universe was created, everything that would ever happen was predetermined. On the other hand, if the laws of nature can change or be changed capriciously as say by a god, then there is no point in looking for an understanding or ultimate truth because when you find what you think is one, all of the assumptions which lead to it may have become false and what is proven true today may become false tomorrow and visa versa.

Peter klaver, I don't know what makes you think string theory will collapse. Scientists try to create the best theory they can which fits all of the facts they have. If they can't create a theory which does, then they throw up their hands and go back to their blackboards to keep on working until they can. One theory is abandoned when it is disproven by facts it can't explain or may be discredited to a degree when another theory which explains the facts as well or better comes along. One thing scientists can do which theologians and other philosophers can't is to say that they just don't know. Are you aware of an alternate theory which will replace or challenge string theory?

By the way, what makes you think there is a reason for life? It strikes me that the question of why we are here is absurd. What is your reasoning which led you to a different conclusion? I'll bet I know, someone once convinced you your life is part of god's plan.

Les Reid, as anyone who read my postings during discussions of the Dawkins/McIntosh debate knows, I have rejected the notion that metaphors can provide anything more than entertainment and diversion. As it is difficult enough to agree on the explicit denotation or definition of words as symbols for thoughts, it becomes impossible to agree on their connotations after one word or phrase has been deliberatly substituted for another to obfuscate its meaning. "A" actually mean "B" to you but "C" to me. How can that effect communication when we can't even agree on what "A" means? I think if someone has a thought to express to convey an idea as accurately as possible, it should be as direct and forthright as it can be made. Metaphors should be left to poets and other dreamers (which gets me back to my origional problem of disproving my existential existance a la Satre and Camus.)

So, if Dawkins is Darwins Rottweiler, is Les Reid Darwins Poodle?

SG

Hello Maureen,

Thanks for your kind words. Just two things for now.

It's slightly funny when you compare the two instances where you mention the 10th century. :)
You start by criticising Dawkins for treating religion like it's still stuck in the 10th century (let's leave the discussion of whether that is correct or not for now). Then you go on to state that the CEO of the Catholic Church corporation is himself quite possibly stuck in the 10th century. And you agree about the non-thinking nature of the faith of the ~billion clients (aka adherents) he squeezes out. And on whom he imposes his views through the hierachical nature of the Catholic church. From your post, should you not be agreeing with lots of what Dawkins says then, even if he treats religion like it's 10th century? Have you not just made a good case against yourself?
I could add that even Catholicism has had some of its rough edges removed by the Enlightenment. And you still agree it's a bad thing after that. Now try Islam, with over a billion adherents, that hasn't gone through Enlightenment. Add to that the Christian funda-mentals in the US. Maybe you should make a contribution to Dawkins' education fund? :)

I read about Smolin in the article you linked earlier. He has a clear opinion, I can't judge from what I know if it's correct. What I can say is that one or two men expressing their criticism of the field is not enough to support your statement that string theory faces imminent collapse. Any more broad source in support of that opinion?

kind greets,
Peter

Stephen- ROTFLMAO! (I promise I won't start using i-breviations like this too much, but it was a smirk-worthy comment at least.)

Les- It sounds to me like you don't like this discussion too much and wish to shut it down before it's properly developed. Why else would you object to Michael's seeking the perspectives of similarly-minded people?

Michael- I believe the problem is that Les thinks of truth only in scientific terms, but never in philosophical terms. For the record, I agree with Les that "My car is blue" is as fundamentally capable of being true as any other true statement, including those regarding the meaning of life or the origins of the universe or metaphysical matters. Les' problem is that he doesn't acknowledge that there IS a metaphysical. His worldview takes no account, seemingly, of anything that can't be quantified or measured in mathematics or physics or biology.

Les calls your suggestion of 'models and metaphors' a "dichotomy". In what sense is it a dichotomy? They are merely two ways to conceptualise reality, as you've done an excellent job of explaining many times on this blog. If Les can't imagine any ways philosophy is useful where science is not, and ascribes the word "dichotomy" to something other than a dichotomy, I'm not sure he's as well qualified as he thinks to comment on the debate.

Peter Klaver, ref post 25.

wow.

Is this the same Peter Klaver I have been conversing with before?

You admit you have limited knowledge of the kingdom of God, and politics and policies in relation to scientific funding and that your science offers you no "why" for your existence.

Perhaps I can understand your problems with Christianity a little better now.

While I wouldnt question the faith of any individual in the catholic church, there is much in the official teaching and culture of the church that is, as you say, contrary to freedom of thought etc.

Perhaps that means when I speak of faith I mean one thing and you might understand something quite different, because of your upbringing.

Maybe my attitude and approach and lack of scientific backround has riled you in the past????

But the PK on this thread is very interesting and approachable... I think anyway.

PB

John Wright #33
"My car is blue"
What does that mean to a scientist? The first question he will ask is for you to define blue. You say it is the frequency of light between so many angstroms and so many angstroms. Is blue at the center of the range bluer than blue near the limits of it? What about the saturation of the color, and whether it is a tint or shade of blue (combined with black or white.) Would it be bluer if it were pure monochromatic or less blue if it contaned a range of different mixed colors? Is this just peversity on my part? No. Here's an example of why not. Take a film camera, load it with daylight balanced film, and take a photograph under fluorescent light with no flash. Ever done that? Guess what you will get. What appears white to the eye is green to the camera and the photographs will prove it when they are developed.

Now to a philosopher what does "my car is blue" mean? It could mean it is sad. Perhaps it is being anthropomorphized and the metaphorical meaning is that it just doesn't seem to drive properly even if a mechanic can't determine why. Or maybe it means it's like an inbetween note in a jazz composition (a blue note.) Maybe it means it belonged to the union army in the American civil war (the Union soldiers were sometimes called blues as opposed to the rebels who were the greys.) Or maybe it means it is prim an proper like the "blue laws" which prohibit the sale of alcohol on Sundays in some places. Or it might mean it is like a blue (off color) joke. There can be no truth when the meaning of words is unclear and since a metaphor is by its very nature a substitution of one word representing one idea for another, it introduces orders of magnitude of ambiguity which make it too imprecise, too vague to use for developing hard logical arguments and drawing hard and fast conclusions. Remember my attacks on philosophers and philosophy? The war is back on. In fact in my mind, it was never really off. Who was it who asked where I got the slogan "Why do we study philosophy? Because the unexamined life is not worth living?" Yes who was that?

Re #32 Peter wrote:

You start by criticising Dawkins for treating religion like it's still stuck in the 10th century. Then you go on to state that the CEO of the Catholic Church corporation is himself quite possibly stuck in the 10th century. And you agree about the non-thinking nature of the faith of the ~billion clients (aka adherents) he squeezes out. And on whom he imposes his views through the hierachical nature of the Catholic church. From your post, should you not be agreeing with lots of what Dawkins says then, even if he treats religion like it's 10th century? Have you not just made a good case against yourself?

I oppose all fundamentalists, religious and scientific. Where Dawkins criticises fundamentalism he has my blessing though not my interest.

I could add that even Catholicism has had some of its rough edges removed by the Enlightenment. And you still agree it's a bad thing after that.

I don't. I welcome the RC church adopting a more modern theology. I fear, however, it is moving too slowly.

Now try Islam, with over a billion adherents, that hasn't gone through Enlightenment. Add to that the Christian funda-mentals in the US.

Peter: Same comment as above.

Re #33
John: I agree with your comment. Michael is correct in that it is not possible to convey a 'thought' or a 'concept' from one person to another without the use of either a 'model' or a 'metaphor'.

Have to sign off for the rest of the weekend.

Peace,
Maureen

Hi Maureen,

"I don't. I welcome the RC church adopting a more modern theology. I fear, however, it is moving too slowly."

I think there was a little misunderstanding here. When I said it's still a bad thing, I meant Catholicism with its remaining intellectually demotivating traits and 'thinking hierarchy'. You expressed your disapproval for that earlier on. Of course I would agree that change in Catholicism that makes it less reminiscent of the Dark Ages is good.

Peter K

I want to pick you up on what you mean by fundamentalists.

I understand they differ from "evangelicals" perhaps primarily in attitude but also in sophistication and nuance.

But there and again, I am guessing the core identifying features you would find in fundamentalists would also be found in, for example, Billy Graham, CS Lewis, William Booth, William Wilberforce, John Wesley, Martin Luther, the Church fathers and the apostles.

Would you classify all of these figures as Fundamentalists too?

Any thoughts Peter?

PB

Hello Mark,

The server seems to have eaten my earlier reply. Let me try again.

"Peter klaver, I don't know what makes you think string theory will collapse.

I don't know that string theory is facing imminent collapse, my post that made you think I am was probably one where I was quoting Maureen. She mentioned one interview and one book that state so. I don't think two persons criticising it are enough to make a significant dent.

"One thing scientists can do which theologians and other philosophers can't is to say that they just don't know."

Well spoken. What I often hear (from religious people that is, I can't say I've spoken to nearly as many with philosophical interest) is the fallacy of 'There must an explanation for it, so in the absence of a scientific explanation it must be God'. That's one very good reason for despising religion. That's a prime example of how religion is intellectually demotivating and discourages thinking. Instead of trying to find out, they say 'It's God. That's that. No reason to think any further. Oh, and switch off your brains, you can't question the Lord.'. In the same way that a quack dokter keeps you from getting a real cure, religion keeps many people from doing any real inquisitive, critical thinking.

"Are you aware of an alternate theory which will replace or challenge string theory?"

No.

"By the way, what makes you think there is a reason for life? It strikes me that the question of why we are here is absurd. What is your reasoning which led you to a different conclusion? I'll bet I know, someone once convinced you your life is part of god's plan."

I don't know of any purpose to my life other than way I choose to make of it. I have no sense of 'given purpose' or destiny. I think you may again have been mixing up quotes from Maureen in my post?

greets,
Peter

Peter, sorry for mixing up your thoughts wtih Maureen's. Maureen is fully capable of defending him/her/itself (we don't really know Maureen's gender, Maureen claims to be a Geroge Sands in reverse which to me implies male.)

I would say that at an intellectual level, religion is to be rejected by me because it does not draw rational explanations as the logical consequence of verifiable facts. I feel very lucky not to have been indoctrinated in any religion when I was a child. We went through all this some months ago. But I have met many both on the internet and personally who have great difficulty coming to terms with their adult minds rejecting what their child minds were forced to accept. I also researched some of Thomas Aquinas' quotations but I could not find the one I recalled where he said words to the effect that if you gave him a five year old, he return to you a Christian for life.

If there is a reason for me to despise religion it is because it is a tool for some people to exercise power over others through mind control used to its greatest effect when people are at their most vulnerable, as children unable to intellectually question and challenge the power that is being exercised over them, the ideas which are being forced on them which will affect the rest of their lives. It often leads to a lifetime of subservience accepting the defining of the "us" and the "them", us being gods good people who will spend all eternity in heaven because he loves us and "them" the wicked people who are all going to hell because they deserve it. If you don't obey the commands of the priests, you will be cast out of the us forever to fend for yourself in life and afterwards with the them. Every person who was killed as the result of "the troubles" lost their life as the consequence of this mentality and yet it is so ingrained in both populations that they cannot see it or if they do, they cannot give it up. One way or another, that is what all religions have always been about.

I think it was Conrad who wrote "god is for men, religion is for women." Even if one day I were to belive in god (which I think is an impossiblity unless I become senile) I would still reject religion. They have no more clue than anyone else as far as I can see.

I think our society owes much to the world religeons,

Music - The idea of a divine creator has inspired some of the most wonderful pices of music ever written. I think its hard to say it has had a negitive effect.

Philosophy - The question of god has inspired thinkers not held them back.

Litrature - The impact of the world religeions has been massive, many brilliant writters have had a deep faith and explored it in ther work to brilliant succces

Art - The idea of a god has inspired some of the most wonderful work. Michelangelo may never have been so magnificently inspired.

Science - Many scientics have studdied the subject to know the mind of god? Newton wanted to dicover gods creation, he worked tirlessly at this, with much more motivaltion that he might have did he not belive in a divine structure. I think science is a much more exciting subject to explore when you belive it is beaulifully made. This gives me more motivation to ask questions and figure things out.

Mathematics - The greeks sought to prove theorems be cause they belived it would bring pleasure to god.

The above are just a few areas i know a very little about. I think that the idea that faith in a god stops people thinking is a pile of crap.

Sure there are problems with religeon, i think these are man made problems. When people in autority get too much power they cock things up. It is the people in charge of the churches that have messed up. not the god they worship.

I belive that the search to find god and know him better has probably given our society more that any other single factor.

How can you say this is demotivating and dicourages though?

Immanulel Kant

"see things alter, come into being, and pass away; and these, or at least their state, must therefore have a cause. But the same question can be raised in regard to every cause that can be given in experience. Where, therefore, can we more suitably locate the ultimate causality than where there also exists the highest causality, that is, in that being which contains primordially in itself the sufficient ground of every possible effect, and the concept of which we can also very easily entertain by means of the one attribute of an all-embracing perfection."

Immanulel Kant was one of the greatest RATIONALIST philosophers. One of the greatest most creative thinkers ever. his belief in god freed his mind to soar to hights.

it is ludicrous to say that;

"religion is to be rejected because it does not draw rational explanations as the logical consequence of verifiable facts."

Kant would disagree!

am;
You think Immanual Kant was right in his belief in god? Prove it!

I cant prove anything that is what faith is, even Kant didn't give a proof.

Im just trying to get you to appreciate that

a belife in god has lead many people to produce some of the greatest intellectual work of all time, and in my opinion had a wonderful impact on our culture;

one of my personal heros is the hindu mathematician

Srinivasa Ramanujan

I would like you to pay these great intelectuals the respect they deserve. As religeous men and thinkers.

Hello am,

Welcome to this blog (at least I don't recognise the forum user name, apologies if you had been around for longer on other threads). I'd like to respond to your post 41 where you state a number of fields where religion has contributed.

To start with, would you agree that the greatness of the achievements in several of those fields (music, literature, art) are very much a matter of personal taste?

You also mention science. I see many cases where science and religion are mortal enemies. The obvious example of the field of evolutionary biology is just the tip of the iceberg. Suppose that that would be allowed to be demolished by creationism/Intelligent Design, then what's next? Astronomy, for pissing off the geocentrists by showing the earth is not the immoveable centre? Space exploration, because sattelite photography pisses off the remaining flat-earthers by showing the earth is spherical? Volcanology and plate tectonics, because they involve the movement of the earth's plates over time scales much longer than 6000 years? Geology, because some might not like it if people hack some rocks out of old sediment layers that prove to be 700 million years old?
Could you give me a reference for your statement about Newton? I like reading history, and your statement surprises me as I hadn't come across what you mentioned in anything I've read about Newton sofar. (note: I hope any reference would not be to that revisionist idiot, prof. Rodney Stark)

I would have the same request for the Greeks: could you give me some references please? And I assume the 'bring pleasure to god.' is a typo as far as the single god is concerned?

greets,
Peter

Srinivasa Ramanujan

"An equation for me has no meaning, unless it represents a thought of God."

In Post 45 Peter wrote:

I see many cases where science and religion are mortal enemies. The obvious example of the field of evolutionary biology is just the tip of the iceberg. Suppose that that would be allowed to be demolished by creationism/Intelligent Design, then what's next?

Peter: You can NOT use the word ‘religion’ in this generalized context. For example, Buddhism is a religion and it has no problems with evolutionary biology. Neither does most main stream American Protestanism. You may be referring to a group of fundamentalist/literatists associated with perhaps some elements, for example, of the American evangelical right. As a scientist you know that one must use terminology very precisely!

Could you give me a reference for your statement about Newton? I like reading history, and your statement surprises me as I hadn't come across what you mentioned in anything I've read about Newton sofar. (note: I hope any reference would not be to that revisionist idiot, prof. Rodney Stark)

Peter: Try “In the Presence of the Creator: Isaac Newton and His Times” by Gale E. Christianson. It’s 600 pages long but well worth it.

Regards,
Michael

To start with, would you agree that the greatness of the achievements in several of those fields (music, literature, art) are very much a matter of personal taste?

No i would not. The vast majority of critics whould hail most of the work i am discussing as masterpieces,

I think it was these great peoples faith that inspired there work in a way that was truly extraordinary.

I see many cases where science and religion are mortal enemies?

So i agree with you that there are times when, people in authority (religeous, political, moral or whatever type) are gulity of controling the masses they represent. this is not a valid argument agianst religeon. Just like it is not an argument against politics . I want to let everyone see that religeon has had a massive positive impact on our society. see post 41.

Could you give me a reference for your statement about Newton?

Here is a direct quote form the genius sir isaic newton,

"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

see: Tiner, J.H. (1975). Isaac Newton: Inventor, Scientist and Teacher. Milford, Michigan, U.S.: Mott Media. 

I would have the same request for the Greeks: could you give me some references please?

I cant find much but it should be easy if you look into it. I think i remember something about it from reading "sofies world". After all the word THEOrem (THEO - greek for god).

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments. It is doing these intilectuals a great injustice not to recognize their religeous belifes.

am, I wrote a reply to your posting #41 last night which seems to have not survived the trip in cyberspace. I'll try again only this time I'll save what I have to say just in case.

Frist of all, while those who had interesting ideas, innovative inventions, insight into the natural sciences and mathematics may ascribe their work to divine inspiration, that does not mean that they wouldn't have achieved the same had they not felt that way or that others wouldn't have achieved the same who did not feel such inspiration. I don't know what inspired Newton but the German mathematician Leibnitz invented calculus at the same time Newton did. Was he divinely inspired too?

On the other hand, there were other things inspired by religion such as the crusades and the inquisition. Iran's program to acquire atom bombs to destroy Israel and America is inspired by religion, so is Al Qaeda's determination to destroy Western Civilization and create a worldwide Caliphate run along the lines of the Taleban.

Insofar as philosophers are concerned, just because they had some interesting ideas, that doesn't mean everything they say is true. Look at Aristotle, his explanation of the natural world is laughable in light of what we know today. Did Kant get it wrong about god? Give me evidence that he didn't.

OK, this brings up an informal survey I'd like to see. Give it your best shot, why do you think god exists? I've heard lots of explanations of course which I didn't buy. "I have this spiritual feeling." "There are laws so therefore there must be a law giver." "I can't find any other explanation for existance so god must exist." Well I hope I hear some more thought provoking ideas, so far in more than half a lifetime nobody's come up with anything I can take seriously. BTW, as someone who has had a scientific education, my training precludes me from accepting anything as true by taking it on pure faith so anyone who can appeal to my intellect rather than emotion....

am #46
So far all equations represent the thoughts of men. If god wrote the ten commandments, where are his equations? This was his big chance to prove himself and he fluffed it. An equation could have imparted knowlegde which couldn't have been verified for centuries. Then he would have been seen as someone important.

I have yet to hear even one conspiracy theory that there were fifteen commandments on three tablets and that Moses dropped and broke one of them on the way down from Sinai and just decided to forget about it and not say anything. If god could have written smaller, don't you think he should have gotten all ten of them on one tablet? What if Moses had dropped one and broke it? Then where would we be?

Hello Michael,

Ok, I may have used too broad a brush there. I probably did equate religion too narrowly with flavours of Chistianity or Islam. Maybe this is an example of the bad apples among religions giving the rest a bad name.

Someone (may have been on this very blog, I can't remember exactly or vouch for the accuracy) once stated there are 3000 religions or sub-flavours within religions. Knowing a little about no more than one percent of those 3000, it would indeed be wrong for me to throw them all on the same dung heap.

Dear Mark,

Give it your best shot, why do you think god exists?

I belive that God exists.

I want to talk to you about what you think could ever make a sound reason for that desicion?

The scientific method is unable to deal with absoultes like this. I love what Richard Feymann (an atheist) has to say about this.

Philospohers have tryed to build a frame work for absolute truth and failed again and again. Now one of the most popular philosopies is pragmatism.

Even the foundations of lodgic are constantly being shaken by philosophers and mathematicians.

Intelectually i belive that the gounds for beliving in god just as strong as those for rejecting him.

Many of the great intelectuals i have methoined would agree.

With all due respect am, I know you believe in god, you have said so many times, I am asking you to tell me why in your own words. So far all I can glean is that you belive in god because other people do. Remember what I said about people believing the earth was flat? That it didn't make it any less round. I can also infer from your statement about the challenge to methods of logical deduction that you are telling me in different words that since you can find no other explanation for existance, god exists by default. Is this what you are telling me?

Dear Mark,

In the last post 52 I tried to expalin how people require faith to belive in the existance or the non-existance of god.

you say that;

"my training precludes me from accepting anything as true by taking it on pure faith"

I am saying that it takes "pure faith" to belive in the non-existance of god as well.

I have been a christian for as long as i can remeber. I have always questioned things and i love science and philosophy.

Lots of people come to faith in different ways. For me it was propbably talking to people of faith and seeing it in action of the lives of others. Some people have come to faith by reading scriptures, others by praying and so on.

Deciding to lay down you life to follow god is probably the biggest decision anyone could ever make. It is not some easy decision that weak minded people make to get themselves into heaven. It takes tremendous courage.

am, I am not getting a convincing message from you. In fact I think what you are telling me is that you have no convincing arguments. While I don't come from Missouri, "The Show Me state," I take things as only tentatively true at best until I have some tangeable convincing evidence to base a belief pn. You see, I was born and raised in one of the greatest scam capitals of the world New York City and lived for a time in another, California. If you believed everything you were told in either of those places, you'd probably wind up walking out with little left to your name but the clothes on your back. You say you have always questioned things and that laying down your life to follow god is probably the biggest decision anyone (including you) could ever make. So have you questioned the existance of god and how did you arrive at your answer that he exists? That's what I'm asking.

dear mark,

its been good chating to you, it was fun. you are skeptical which I admire. You should read the book of Ecclesiastes.

"In fact I think what you are telling me is that you have no convincing arguments." [for the existance of god]

I am arguing that both science and philiosphy are not adiquaite disiplines to answer a question such as this. see post 52.

people belive by faith,

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" Hebrews 11

I am arguing that there is no other posible way to belive or not-belive in the existance of god. see post 52.

I have come to faith in Jesus through being introduced to him by others, reading the bible and seeking him for myself. Sure everyone has their doubts, but i find reading the bible reminds me of who jesus is. it stops me doubting.

However we are getting off the point of this thread.

I am trying to stress the MASSIVE contribution of people of all faiths to science and the arts. And to show that having faith does not hinder our intelectual discovery.

I get the horrible felling that if some of these religeon hating people were let loose they would burn every religeous book ever written! Imagine the loss that would be in terrms of our intelectual heritige.

I think I have made my point. This will be my last post.

am, I am sorry you have left the discussion. It seems to me your willingness to question what you are told has its limits. Mine does not.

While it may be true that people who made many valuable contributions in many fields of endeavor in life believed in god, many, in fact most of those before Magellan, and certainly before Columbus believed that the earth was flat. And before Copernicus and Gallileo, that the earth was the center of the universe. I look at it differently than you do, as I see it their absurd misconceptions were not insurmountable obstacles to their creativity.

I don't know of anyone who does not believe in god who advocates burning bibles or korans or any other books. We do not burn the communist manifesto or mein Kampf but we regard them as badly discredited and we still read them for whatever interest they have and for their historical significance. We simply don't believe what they have to say.

Hello am,

Thanks for responding to my post. I have a few small nags in response:)

"I think it was these great peoples faith that inspired there work in a way that was truly extraordinary."

Hmmm, you *think*.....

"So i agree with you that there are times when, people in authority (religeous, political, moral or whatever type) are gulity of controling the masses they represent. this is not a valid argument agianst religeon. Just like it is not an argument against politics ."

I don't think you can separate the abuses of religion or politics so easily. When either is the tool used for wrongdoing, I'd have a problem with them. And wrongdoing is not limited just to controlling people.

"Here is a direct quote form the genius sir isaic newton,

"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

That quote doesn't tell me it was God who inspired Newton to discover what he did. It merely tells me he believed in God as omnipotent and omniscient.

Why on earth do some people insist on speaking of "religion" in broad sweeping terms? Which religion? All of them? What understanding of religion do they mean? Just what is an abuse of "RELIGION?" It all sounds a bit like GWB's war on "TERROR." Please define and specify the terms of reference folks. There's no excuse for not doing so since many of you seem smart enough to do so.

Thanks, and apologies for being a moan about this.

SG

SG, Speaking only for myself, I use the term only to refer to the ones which insist on a supernatural explanation for existance.

Hello Stephen G,

Yes, your point came up earlier. We should not hurl criticism at 'religion' in general if it may not apply to all religions. When I did so, I guess my words were 'coloured' by being a westener who sees Christianity round him, much of which deserves the criticisms. If I should make the same slip in future posts, please keep in mind this limitation of scope.

AM / SG

I feel you guys are saying quite a few things I would agree with, as a Christian.

I'm impressed with Peter K and Mark's engagement too, but I am slightly baffled as to why Peter wont engage in the same way when I raise some of the same points.

I would appreciate it if you might discuss this Peter, I'm nore than willing to listen to you.

cheers
PB

pb, see my last posts on the Dawkins-to-Stormont and Alliance-welcomes-Dawkins threads. The ones about you falsely attributing statements to me or distorting them, never answering questions so repeatedly put to you, etc.
You might also want to look at the various responses from several different posters who pronounce their familiarity with my experiences with you. How they too have been misrepresented by you. How they too see that you avoid questions when cornered, making any further debate pointless.

pb, see my post on the Dawkins-to-Stormont and Alliance-welcomes-Dawkins threads. The ones about you falseley attributing statements to me, and not asnwering questions when you're cornered. Making discussion with you useless. Also see a number of comments by several others confirming my criticism.

Peter

I think you are being a little diversinary.

You were pressing me to answer questions on fossils etc and as a non-scientist I told you repeatedly I just couldnt answer them, but you wouldnt accept that. I just dont have the knowledge and you were forcibly presuming I had been researching the matter for months, without any justification.

You also avoided answering questions I posed.

Where you accuse me of falsely attributing statement to you there were two cases;-

1) You quoted a wikipedia excerpt and I attributed the following sentence in the same paragraph in that excerpt to you also, mistakenly.

2) In the second quote you said you spent most of your time reading science and not so much reading about funding and politics of science. I had missed the additional words of yours which stated you were talking specifically about string theory only in this context.

I quickly apologised for both.

Neither postings of mine were attacks on your character, credibility or intellect, just reasonable discussions.

Sure, people do criticise me at times, sometimes rightly and other times not rightly.

Amenhotep gave me a right slagging recently but then had to climb down on his assertion that Jesus didnt work as a carpenter, for example.

As I said before, during the debate on whether the bible promotes slavery around two dozen posters attacked me quite ferociously with many personal comments. John wright was one of them.

However, a later posting by Will vindicated my position 110% (thanks for the balance there Will!)

Does it therefore follow that every criticism on me is valid at all times and on all subjects and by all people?

I think you are sore because I previously revealed on this blog how you went around other websites behind the scenes, drumming up votes to win Will's person of the year award for Dawkins.

And the fact that I showed you had no concern about your friends on the Spaghetti Monster Website creating muliple false idenitities to snow me under with said questions about fossils.

I didnt want to bring all that up again Peter, I did ask to play nice,
but, you are playing hardball.

But I dont bear grudges and if you ever want to start on a clean sheet, Im here, no probs.

Peace

PB

PS Orthodox Agnostic and Guthrie, both evolutionists, said they had very civil conversation with me on this thread. They were decent guys who answered my questions in a pleasant manner;-

/blogs/ni/2007/01/the_thermodynamics_of_andy_mci.html

Anyone interested can also see how you turned pretty mad on this thread when I uncovered the stuff i mentioned on Spaghetti Monster.

PB- When are we ever, EVER, going to hear the end of this slavery thing? To imagine that you won the slavery debate is farcical:

"As I said before..."

Many times, PB!

"...during the debate on whether the bible promotes slavery around two dozen posters attacked me quite ferociously with many personal comments. John wright was one of them."

I've been through the archives looking at these posts and I can't find anywhere I attacked you ferociously over the slavery issue. In fact, I can't find any where I attacked you! I would like you to find them and reference them here, for once and for all, so that we can finally put this to bed PB. Instead, I found some I posted that agreed with certain portions of what you were saying about slavery and the bible.

"However, a later posting by Will vindicated my position 110% (thanks for the balance there Will!)"

This is like a broken record. How (ie. in what way) were you "vindicated" by what was simply another point of view by Shibboleth? Obviously you regarded the essay as some kind of authority on the matter. Even if you did find that Shibboleth agreed with you on slavery, it's still unclear how and in what way Shibboleth DISAGREED with ME. If you can, I'd like you to post quotes from anything I said to you about slavery, juxtaposed with quotes from Shibboleth's essay and referencing the points of contention between them. I don't believe you'll find any points of contention, and I believe you'll find instead that Shibboleth and I basically agreed on slavery in the bible.

If, as I suspect, you can't do this, PB, then I'd like you to do everyone a favour and stop this exhausting reiteration. If you can do it, let's have it, for once and for all.

pb, if you end your statement of good intentions with yet another distortion like

"Anyone interested can also see how you turned pretty mad on this thread when I uncovered the stuff i mentioned on Spaghetti Monster."

then that's hardly an encouragement for anyone to believe that your previous distortions were just innocent mistakes. It doesn't say anything about your sincerety.

Guys

Do you enjoy extensive ad hominem debates?

I dont.

John, the reason I have to mention the slavery debate is because the regular ad hominem assault on me here, made by you too, is simply this;-

"PB most people on this blog dont like you because you wont listen to them, and because so many people on this blog disagree with you, you must be wrong."

Here is one of John's such attacks on my person, rather than my ideas, see post 38
/blogs/ni/2007/03/primate_of_homophobia.html

It is slightly circular and also a form of totally intolerant secular fundamentalism; why can you not accept opinions which differ to your own?

The slavery debate was typical of this but atypical in that I was vindicated by Will;-

/blogs/ni/2007/03/shibboleth_on_slavery.html

As the only regular bible believing poster on this blog - which defaults to ridiculing bible believers as normal behaviour - I would be astonished if many people here did not like me.

Why would you ridicule bible believers every day on this blog and not ridicule me?

So we have 2 choices - endless whataboutery - which I wont engage in, or a committment to bite our tongues before pressing the "post" button in order to see if we are politely engaging with another poster's *ideas* - or viciously attacking the individual?

John, you previously agreed to these terms but it seems you have slipped.

I appreciate I may slip up here too, but I dont think it is my default position, so feel free to pull me up on this anytime and I will apologise.

Ad hominems or idea debates?

Your choice guys, and I know which one I will take. I hope you join me.

peace

PB

PS When I say bible believer, I mean people who believe it to be the word of God.

PPS Now you see that I fully agree with Amenhotep when he says common perceptions of Christ as "cuddly" are wide of the mark; he didnt take any prisoners in debate!

To Stephen G- you really havent read an intelligent favourable review of Dawkins?????? Ive been reading some of your posts and you are making up things as you go along!

Pinker
Weinberg
Dennet
Grayling etc etc etc

have all written favourable reviews and they are all pretty intelligent dont you think???????

PB- For all your talking, you didn't answer the question I asked in #65. Where did I "attack" you "quite ferociously" on the issue of slavery? The comment you linked to was simply me warning the other guys of potential frustration in their endeavour to reason with you about homosexuality. I tried hard with you on that, PB, both on my own blog and here, to no avail. Anyway, answer the question, and rest assured I don't dislike you in any way whatsoever.

Joe...yes, they're intelligent. Their reviews were not.

SG

PB

I think you should look at what John actually said rather than what you think he said.

Stephen, maybe then you should add Plantinga's review to that list, as we've previously agreed that it wasn't intelligent either.

-A

"we" agreed?

I take it that's a royal "we"?

SG

John

You can settle this quite easily; whose "pure facts" do I argue against?

I dont doubt you have no personal dislike against me, just what I stand for.

PB