Religion vs. Science

[jBirch]

Not sure where the old thread went on this topic, but here's some more interesting news for those interested in the "ultimate questions"....

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...rnational/home

Essentially, a cosmologist/mathematician/philosopher has received a very prestigious religious award. His concepts are quite interesting for anyone wondering about the boundaries of scientific understanding, the limits of the scientific method and whether religion has anything useful to add to our understanding of the life.

James.

[Epee_Pox]

John Barrow is a proponent of a specialized version of the strong anthropic principle. The strong anthropic principle is a tautologous perspective of cosmology -- the reasoning that "the odds may be nigh infinity to one against that the universe would have worked out so that, at this moment, we could observe it as it is and be here to make such observations and reason about it; but because here we are at this moment observing it as it is and reasoning about it, obviously that's the way it worked out." Barrow's version goes beyond this to say add that the best explanation of that is that something outside the universe set it up that way -- that the universe didn't create itself, so something else must have done so.

This is actually an age-old "answer" that only begs the original question that religion and science and philosophy try to answer: what is the "first cause" of it all?

Barrow takes the perspective that the first cause of the universe must be separate and independent of the universe. A logical position, but only if one accepts certain premises: (1) the universe is not everything, which many would say is a contradiction in terms; (2) the universe did not exist at some point, but something else did exist; (3) it is possible for the universe to have come into existence where it had not existed; (4) it is possible for the universe to have come into existence as a causal effect of purposeful acts of the thing that existed when the universe didn't; and most importantly (5) there must be a "first cause" that existed "before" everything else and caused everything else, but was not caused by anything and before which nothing else existed.

The critical nature of each of these premises, with the exception of #3, is that they are not the result of observed data, but are merely aspects of uniquely human psychology that (1) requires cause-and-effect but cannot comprehend multidimensional infinity, (2) requires patterns even where none exist, and (3) infers human intelligence where none exists.

These human traits result naturally in religion, ritual, symbolic thought, art, beauty and creativity. But it is the recognition that inference does not equal truth that led to science.

Barrow's musings are neither original nor scientific. They are rather highly debatable inferences based on premises that are little more than conjecture.

Religiously satisfying, but not logically sound or scientifically valid.

[jBirch]

I'd disagree with some of the points you raised Epee_pox. In particular the "non-observable" nature of any of the hypothesis that he has proposed. Now I'm not saying he's right but there is more to his thought then just blind naval-gazing.

In particular, some of his hypothesis on currently unexplainable sudden variences in the natural constants of the universe (as well as the base assumption that constants do exist) implying not neccessarily a human intelligence, but rather an organised thought system with an unknown agenda for creating the universe.

He presents only weak evidence that the universe was created inferred from the beautiful explanability of natural phenomenae. Things behave in a predictable fashion and there is no reason why that ought to be. Evolutionary process must lead to total Chaos unless every now and again there is a "tweak" in the system to keep it in balance. This "tweaking" is observable and testable.

At any rate, it is interesting reading and good spiritual/mental exercise.

James.

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by jBirch

At any rate, it is interesting reading and good spiritual/mental exercise.

This I do agree with!

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by jBirch

He presents only weak evidence that the universe was created inferred from the beautiful explanability of natural phenomenae. Things behave in a predictable fashion and there is no reason why that ought to be. Evolutionary process must lead to total Chaos unless every now and again there is a "tweak" in the system to keep it in balance. This "tweaking" is observable and testable.

I'm confused. Is the part beginning with "Things behave..." your interpretation of Barrow's arguement, or is it your assertion?

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

I'm confused. Is the part beginning with "Things behave..." your interpretation of Barrow's arguement, or is it your assertion?

My interpretation of his argument.

James.

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Evolutionary process must lead to total Chaos unless every now and again there is a "tweak" in the system to keep it in balance. This "tweaking" is observable and testable.

This conclusion derives from an incomplete understanding of evolutionary processes.

There is always "balance," by definition -- when the environment changes, species and behaviors and interrelations either adapt to balance nicely with the new situation, or they die out. But this balance is part and parcel of natural chaotic evolutionary processes.

"Tweaking" occurs by ordinary genetic mutation, behavioral adaptation, or the dying out of genera that don't adapt successfully. No outside decision-making being is required, and there is no observed evidence that any such being has performed any such tweaks.

The process of evolution, contrary to your assertion, must by definition lead to a state of balance in an ecosystem. It is a chaotic system, in that adaptations are often the result of random mutations and behavioral reactions to chaotic environmental change. But though the process is chaotic, the end result is necessarily highly-ordered and long-term stable. Like the weather, or a river, or a pattern of sand dunes are ordered and balanced yet derive from chaotic processes.

[jBirch]

Let there be LIGHT...

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~mlindsey/asimov/question.htm

James.

[OROD]

Can you post the text of the article? I dont really feel like registering to some crackpot website just to read the same old pseudo-scientific crap from religious fanatics trying to explain to me why there must be a god. <sigh>

.

[Have At You]

It's not an article, it's a short story by Isaac Asimov. And you don't need to register to anything to read it.

[OROD]

Originally Posted by Have At You

It's not an article, it's a short story by Isaac Asimov. And you don't need to register to anything to read it.

Uhmm... no, I'm refering to the article that's the subject of this thread.

.

[jBirch]

Hey OROD,

Sorry, but they locked the content down. It was a story in the Globe and Mail (a Canadian national newspaper) about a philosopher/scientist called John Barrow and his receipt of a very prestigious religious prize.

Here's his Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Barrow

and his principal research for the Templeton prize: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_Principle

Yes, this rehashes the "Universe by design" argument, albeit from a much more intelligent perspective and with the nuanced twist that the universe may be designed but with no purpose. Interestingly, they also argue that we may exist in this universe simply because this universe happens to be the one that is most conducive to our existence. That there are a host of other universes which go unnoticed simply because they are constructed such that intelligence can not evolve to notice them.

Talk about bending your brain.

James.

[Gav]

I take it this physicist read Forever Free by Joe Haldeman?

[introspective]

I think it's a waste of money that could be spend on a good levee. No-one needs a scientist to tell them that there is a God. Does he expect to meet up with the Almighty and interview him? People have either believed in a God or not based on faith. God is supposed to be invisible. It's just ridiculouse. The universe came about as a result of billions of years of explosions and compressions and collisions and gases and solids and liquids jumping around in accordance to their gravitational forces. Science has taken everything down to the atom, the so-called microcosm of the universe in which we see spinning atomic particles, ions, electrons, neutrons and protons each carrying their own weight. There doesn't seem to be a plan per se - but some people believe that the plan is free will. That the atom moves and bumps into another causing more reactions. [12 linked chain of causation]. Therefore we could say the entire universe is an effect of all causes previously made. We seem to be spending billions and billions of dollars to support a faith that people want emperical proof of, simply because they don't really have absolute proof - and are not able to sustain faith without it. Space exploration, geological excavations and so forth are all designed to try to help a group of people involved in the Christian faith find absolute proof of their religious theories. No matter how far they take it, they won't prove their faith. It all backfires on them as the earth itself becomes more sick and embroiled in warfare. No other religion spends so much on proving themselves.

[cl00bie]

Originally Posted by introspective

I think it's a waste of money that could be spend on a good levee. No-one needs a scientist to tell them that there is a God. Does he expect to meet up with the Almighty and interview him? People have either believed in a God or not based on faith. God is supposed to be invisible. It's just ridiculouse. The universe came about as a result of billions of years of explosions and compressions and collisions and gases and solids and liquids jumping around in accordance to their gravitational forces. Science has taken everything down to the atom, the so-called microcosm of the universe in which we see spinning atomic particles, ions, electrons, neutrons and protons each carrying their own weight. There doesn't seem to be a plan per se - but some people believe that the plan is free will. That the atom moves and bumps into another causing more reactions. [12 linked chain of causation]. Therefore we could say the entire universe is an effect of all causes previously made. We seem to be spending billions and billions of dollars to support a faith that people want emperical proof of, simply because they don't really have absolute proof - and are not able to sustain faith without it. Space exploration, geological excavations and so forth are all designed to try to help a group of people involved in the Christian faith find absolute proof of their religious theories. No matter how far they take it, they won't prove their faith. It all backfires on them as the earth itself becomes more sick and embroiled in warfare. No other religion spends so much on proving themselves.

You must have been really introspective on this one. I don't have a clue what point you were trying to make.

[introspective]

You don't have a clue? Well, maybe it is time to get a clue. Think about it. Why should Americans pay their tax money to send people into outer space to 'discover God'. Look at the nitwit they spent a few million dollars on to go into space, the female astronaut who was recently arrested for attempted kidnapping and murder. In other words, I don't want to belabor this point - is that we need to take care of the planet Earth, and then worry about space.