Science and Religion: Confrontation or Accomodation?

[Jim__]

The June/July 2011 Free Inquiry contains the opening statements from an October 2010 discussion of this topic between Accommodationists: Eugenie Scott and Chris Mooney, and Confrontationists: P Z Meyers and Victor Stenger ( a 2 hour vieo can be viewed: here) - Stenger's remarks begin about 1 hour and 12 minutes into the video.

This issue of Free Inquiry is not currently available online. But, I have an extract from Chris Mooney and one from Victor Stenger.

Chris Mooney:

...

For me the answer begins with basic human psychology. People are highly resistant to information that contradicts their pre-existing world views.Human beings are notorious for seeking out "facts" to support what they want to believe anyway and for arguing away any information that contradicts those supposed facts. There's a vast research literature on this, though most of it doesn't strictly involve religion. But it's the same core issue of belief persistence, and let me give you just one study as an example.

...

The example he discusses is Brendan Nyhan's study that I think most people here are familiar with (a report of this study is: here). Part of what Mooney discusses is that in this study, when liberals were given an article that accused then-President Bush of banning stem cell research, and then an article that corrected this to say he didn't actually ban it, the liberals would not accept the correction. I raise the example of the liberals having this bias just to emphasize that it not only conservatives or the religious that suffer from this.

I think Victor Stenger falls into this trap in his argument for confrontation. I wish I could excerpt more of Stenger's statement because, I've read it a few times, but it still sounds contradictory to me:

Many of the growing number of Americans who do not practice any religion and see no merit in traditional God-beliefs still find it hard to be full-fledged atheists. Although not religious in the usual sense, these nonbelievers have not yet completely freed themselves from all religious or metaphysical notions, most of which have no rational foundation.They will tell you they intuitively feel that something still must be "out there" - some power that is responsible for the universe and the laws that govern it. After all, they ask, "How can something come from nothing?"

Cosmologists have an easy answer to this question. The universe is eternal, and so the question is moot. Something did not have to come from anything. Something always existed. And, if the universe always existed, then there was no creation and consequently no creator. This tosses a monkey wrench into most theology, where the existence of a creator God is the primary dogma.

...

I will start with the frequently heard claim that an eternal universe can't exist for mathematical reasons. The argument made is that in an infinite universe, it would take an infinite time to reach from the beginning to the present.

However the eternal universe is not infinite. Time is the number of clicks on a clock. In the eternal universe that number is endless in the past as well as the future. Counting backward in time, the eternal universe has no beginning - not a beginning an infinite time ago. The time interrval from any moment in the past to the present is finite. So an eternal universe is not mathematically impossible.

...

Looking at Stenger's claim that the universe is eternal; that is speculation, it really cannot be a definitive answer to the question, "How can something come from nothing?" It's a possible answer, but not a definitive one. An eternal universe does indeed cause problems, and in spite of Stenger's claim that the number of clicks on the clocks of an existing universe is not infinite; it indeed is. Stenger is arguing mathematics here, after all he claims: an eternal universe is not mathematically impossible. So, we are free to appeal to a mathematical infinity, and the Axiom of Infinity in the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms is:

∃I(∅ ε I and ∀x ε I (x u {x} ε I))

and, the clicks on the clock that has existed for an endless time, satisfies the definition for I. Therefore, there are an infinite number of clicks on this clock - an infinity of time has to pass before the present. Again, I believe Stenger is falling into the trap of clinging to an irrefutable belief.

The argument for accommodation seems clear. My version of this argument is: given that we are all subject to stubborn resistance to arguments against facts that interfere with our strong beliefs, we should not embrace unproven beliefs too strongly because we become unable to accept, or even to honestly consider, arguments against these beliefs. I believe that a confrontational embrace of our beliefs, leads to this type unwarranted resistance.

[enki23]

1. Well, your "bias" example is wrong. Bush very much did functionally ban most stem cell research.

Saying he didn't is almost exactly analogous to saying the republican proposal doesn't destroy medicare, because it leaves some ineffectual thing they would continue to call by the name "medicare."

More the the point, your argument for accommodation is apparently that we can't prove with absolute certainty there isn't something like a god, therefore we shouldn't argue against religious propositions. The fact that this is actually an argument against all forms of argument about all possible propositions would make it self refuting, if someone were so silly as to take it seriously. At least Mooney makes the effort to pretend he's arguing for accommodation for putative practical reasons.

[Jim__]

2. Actually it's a bias example cited by Mooney, and used in the original psychological test.

My argument is not anything to do with the proof of the existence or non-existence of a god. My argument for accommodation is that everyone's beliefs are uncertain. Confrontation can emotionally tie us to a belief in such a way that we become unable to see its error even if one is pointed out to us. My examples of that are Stenger's arguments. Stenger is a highly educated and very intelligent person. But, the psychological test discovered that the most educated people are the one's that cling most stubbornly to disproved beliefs. Stenger claims, seemingly unequivocally, that the universe is eternal. There are cosmological arguments that make that claim; I'm not sure that there are any cosmologists that will state these arguments are definitely correct. Stenger's argument about the universe being eternal but past time, in mathematical terms, not being infinite is demonstrably incorrect, and he should know that.

[enki23]

3. Wouldn't be the first time Mooney was wrong about something.

The Bush admin explicitly banned federal funding of stem cell research. Pretending that this was not actually a ban on stem cell research because private organizations had not been prohibited by law from doing it (so long as they jumped through tiny hoops to *completely* separate it from any federal funding) or used a few adulterated cell lines that he decided were okay, is about as nonsensical as saying he didn't ban stem cell research because it was still being done in China. Leave it to Mooney to make some stupid quibble about strict definitions and claim it's somehow equivalent to denial of biological evolution. Mooney is a fucking tool. That's an objective assessment.

As for the rest... wow. You say your argument isn't about the uncertainty of "proof" about god, then turn around and say it's about uncertainty of "proof" about everything. As if that's somehow different in any way that's relevant to this issue. Then you pull out some sort of transmutation of Zeno's paradox to go on about some minor, unnecessary argument of Stenger's as if it is somehow relevant to whether accommodation is warranted. You think Stenger is wrong about A, therefore we can't know for certain there isn't a god, therefore scientists and atheists should shut up about whether the moon is made of blue cheese. This is ridiculous.

The entire argument can be simplified: I might be a brain in a vat, therefore people should shut up about X. Where X = whatever the fuck you want X to be.

[Jim__]

4. Mooney was not wrong about this - as can be verifed by checking the documentation provided.

Mooney was merely citing an example that was provided in the original test by Nyhan. In the OP, I provided a link to a report by Nyhan. That link confirms that he did run this test; so, Mooney's citation was correct as can easily be verified.

As for You say your argument isn't about the uncertainty of "proof" about god, then turn around and say it's about uncertainty of "proof" about everything.. That's not at all what I said. I said My argument for accommodation is that everyone's beliefs are uncertain. Most people are aware that there is a big difference between a proof and a belief.

As to your attempt at a restatement of the argument; it's just an indication that you have a problem with simple reading comprehension.

[trotsky]

5. "everyone's beliefs are uncertain"

And that's where you go off the tracks - you assume that means everyone's beliefs are EQUALLY uncertain. Like FAUX News presenting "both sides" of the climate change issue. When the issue is not whether climate change is happening, it's about how fast the change is happening and whether we can stop it.

[enki23]

7. It's like arguing with a wall.

I know what your argument is. I already covered this with all the care it requires. Your argument reduces to "maybe solipsism, therefore shut up." It's absurd.

"You don't know for certain lowering taxes won't increase revenue, so kindly accommodate my viewpoint by shutting up about it. Seriously. Accommodate me. Shut up and accommodate me. Accommodate me and shut up."

[Jim__]

13. The wall is composed of facts which you have failed to address.

Your latest post is more pure nonsense:

I know what your argument is. I already covered this with all the care it requires. Your argument reduces to "maybe solipsism, therefore shut up." It's absurd.

"You don't know for certain lowering taxes won't increase revenue, so kindly accommodate my viewpoint by shutting up about it. Seriously. Accommodate me. Shut up and accommodate me. Accommodate me and shut up."

Point to any place where I have said "shut up."

As to you claim that my argument is solipsistic, my argument is based on Nyhan's test - that is sufficient to refute your claim that it is solipsistic.

I haven't said anything about tax cuts or revenue.

Again, your post is pure nonsense.

[trotsky]

22. "everyone's beliefs are uncertain"

However, some beliefs are MORE uncertain than others. You do not seem to be able to, or perhaps you just don't want to, acknowledge this.

Which is more uncertain:

A) The diversity of life on Earth is primarily due to two factors: genetic mutation and natural selection.
B) The diversity of life on Earth is due to a supernatural being creating each species separately.

When two beliefs conflict, and policy requires that we embrace one and reject the other, how do you propose we deal with it? How can we determine which beliefs are more certain, more representative of reality?

[enki23]

41. 1. "shut up" is what "accommodate" means in these contexts.

2. Facts don't matter, according to your arguments, because they all might be wrong. Therefore we must accommodate them all, by not saying they're wrong. This applies to you as well. The bit about the tax revenues was mocking this idea. The fact that you didn't get it doesn't mean it doesn't apply.

3. Nyhan's test is completely irrelevant to the question. Whether people have unreliable memories or ideological biases is completely beside the point of whether we are able to learn things about the universe. If we are to agree that it is possible to learn things about the universe, then we have to be able to communicate those things. To communicate those things, we are saying some things are probably true about the universe, and some things are probably not. That is, unless you are making the not at all unusual but ridiculously fallacious special pleading argument for the specialness of "religious" claims.

4. It's at least *possible* to make accommodationist arguments from a practical standpoint. Mooney is a schmuck, but he isn't trying to say "we can't know anything, so everybody might be right, so stop saying religious claims are wrong." He's making a sociological/psychological case for his viewpoint. I think he's wrong, but at least it's a real argument. Yours is not. Taken to its logical conclusion, yours means "the universe is unknowable, so stop saying things I don't like." The fact that you don't seem to understand that doesn't mean it isn't true.

[Jim__]

43. 1. Your need to change the meaning of words to make your case, makes mine.

2. I've neither said nor implied that facts don't matter. I have said that beliefs are uncertain.

3. I am not making any pleading about religious claims.

4. Your complete misrepresentation of my argument makes your claims about it irrelevant.

[enki23]

47. My god.

It's not that I haven't been clear. It's that your comprehension is opaque.

[Silent3]

6. The issue isn't whether time is infinite...

...it's whether you try to anchor the passage of time at "the beginning", as if counting the passage of time must be referenced to some absolute "beginning".

The number 0 on a number line is both preceded and followed by an infinite number of integers. This does not make 0 an impossible number to reach, or make all numbers impossible in general, because for some reason all of the preceding integers would "have to pass" before you reach 0.

At any rate, I think this time issue is one of the weaker arguments Stenger could have made against the imagined necessity of a creator God. In my opinion, a greater problem is either the need for an infinite regress of creators, or otherwise having to terminate this regression by choosing to assign the special quality of being the "first thing" to some point in that process, a choice which does not favor a necessarily initially complex intelligent being (a God) as being the first thing over a simpler physical universe capable of emergent complexity.

Further, one needs to realize that the idea of "the beginning of time" is probably no more coherent an idea than "the height of up", a mistake of trying to apply the concept of a flow of time to the existence of time itself.

While I don't believe Stenger put the best argument forward, I don't see how you're taking what he said as an example of the trap of refusing to accept contradictory information. Is it because you see your own counterargument as so dazzlingly convincing that anyone who does not accept it must be actively denying its "obvious" merit?

As for Bush and stem cells: As I recall, what Bush did was limit federally-funded stem cell research to already-existing stem cell lines, not allowing new lines to be created. That's certainly not an outright ban, but the existing lines were degraded and would continue to degrade, and, while purely private research could create new stem cell lines, not very much research of that sort manages to steer totally clear of at least a little direct or indirect federal funding.

Bush's policy definitely hurt stem cell research in the US even if it didn't totally end it. Back when this was a big story in the news, I don't recall any great difficulty on my part accepting these finer points about the stem cell story. By national standards I'm very liberal. By DU standards, since I'm not a anti-capitalist vegan living in an organic farming commune, I'm only moderately liberal.

[AlecBGreen]

11. this has always confused me

Cosmologists have an easy answer to this question. The universe is eternal, and so the question is moot. Something did not have to come from anything. Something always existed.

If we believers can say with a straight face that "God has always existed," why could the universe (or physical matter, or some "thing") not also be without beginning?

For me, this forms part of my conceptualization of 'God', namely, the root, the foundation, that which has always existed.

edit: Re-reading this, I am being unclear. What has confused me is how some can say that God is able to have no beginning yet it is impossible for the universe to have no beginning.

[Jim__]

17. The argument goes back at least to Aristotle's unmoved mover argument.

His key point is that the beginning has special characteristics - here's a summary of his argument.

I believe the current version of the argument is the Kalam Cosmological argument - described here.

Note: I don't think either of these arguments actually lead to a correct conclusion. I do think they serve to tell us about problems that we have in understanding questions that deal with ultimate origins.

[Jim__]

12. "In the eternal universe that number is endless in the past ..." - Stenger

Let the current time be represented on the number line by 0, i.e. let 0 be the current end. But Stenger's own words say that the time it takes to reach 0 is endless. Zero can't be reached in a step by step manner, e.g. clicks of time measured on a clock, when you have to start at minus infinity. The problem is that Stenger is claiming that we have fully instantiated an infinite set in the universe. There are mathematical reasons why this can't be done. Mathematics is not an actual constraint on the universe; but Stenger is claiming to have resolved the mathematical problem - he hasn't.

There are cosmological arguments for an eternal universe. There are problems with these arguments; just as there are arguments with postulating a beginning to existence. No one knows enough at this time to tell us how existence comes to be. Stenger does not have sufficient evidence to claim unequivocally that the universe is eternal. Therefore, he can't claim that the question of how something comes from nothing is moot.

[Silent3]

19. "when you have to start at minus infinity"

Wow. You really can't get passed that idea that you have start somewhere, at some defined beginning, and proceed from there to get to the present. There is no such necessity. That was my whole point about the number line. If you applied your reasoning to a number line, you could never "get to" zero. Why can't time in the physical universe be just like the conceptual space of infinite numbers, similarly unencumbered by a need to "start" from a defined "beginning", as if some object or being, like a machine painting lines on the highway, would have to trudge along creating each successive number/moment in time?

...when you have to start at minus infinity.

That's where you run the train off the rails. "Minus infinity" is not, cannot be, a starting point. Since any point in an infinite sequence has points both before it and after it, no point is the "minus infinity" point.

At any rate, since I already said I don't think Stenger put the best argument forward, the fact that I'm addressing what I consider to be an error on your part about time and infinity should not be construed as a defense of Stenger. If you're trying to interpret my words as a defense of Stenger, that will only lead to more confusion.

Therefore, he can't claim that the question of how something comes from nothing is moot.

The question is moot because no one's supposed answer is really any better than dressing one's ignorance up with a fancy label like "God" in a way that really says nothing more than "that which does what I don't understand in a manner which I can't explain".

[Jim__]

23. No matter how you say it, you have to have instantiated an "endless number" of clicks.

It's Stenger's claim: Time is the number of clicks on a clock. In the eternal universe that number is endless in the past as well as the future. He claims that the number of clicks in the past is endless. So, the universe has to have traversed those clicks to get to the present. Claiming we can count back to any point doesn't resolve the problem, we have to have traversed those "clicks" going forward. Note that an infinite future does not encounter the same problem because those clicks have not yet been traversed.

The question is moot because no one's supposed answer is really any better than dressing one's ignorance up with a fancy label like "God" in a way that really says nothing more than "that which does what I don't understand in a manner which I can't explain".

Because we can't answer a question at present does not make that question moot. We can continue to search for answers to the question, and hopefully, we learn while while we're searching. If the question were moot, there would be no point in trying to answer it. I claim that there are good reasons to continue trying to answer the question, not the least of which is, we don't currently know how the universe began or whether it has a beginning, and that is certainly a question worth exploring.

[Silent3]

26. Where is the difficulty in traversing those clicks?

If the universe had to traverse endless time, so what? You consider it somehow impossible for it to do so? If that's the nature of the beast, it's the nature of the beast. It's not impossible simply because we haven't figured out or can't imagine how the universe does what it does.

It's Stenger's claim

So what if it's Stenger's claim? What is that to me?

Because we can't answer a question at present does not make that question moot.

moot |moōt|
adjective
subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision: whether the temperature rise was mainly due to the greenhouse effect was a moot point.
• having no practical significance, typically because the subject is too uncertain to allow a decision: it is moot whether this phrase should be treated as metaphor or not.

Looks like an applicable issue of the word "moot" to me. (Although I think the first example usage of "moot" from this Oxford American Dictionary definition sucks as an illustration of the concept.)

No one can answer how something comes from nothing, including the religious, which makes trying to use that utterly unremarkable fact as a "gotcha" absurd. Nothing Stenger has said (which, as far as I'm concerned, is allowing myself to be once again diverted on tangential point -- for the nth time I'll point out I don't think Stenger put forth a great argument) obligates Stenger to any particularly higher degree than anyone else to have to answer a currently unanswered (and perhaps unanswerable) question.

[Jim__]

29. "If the universe had to traverse endless time, so what? "

If it's endless, it can't be ended yet. IOW, we can't be past that endless time.

Stenger's use of the word implies that the point is not worth debating. His claim is that the universe is eternal, so there is no need to answer the question.

I don't consider the question to be any type of "gotcha" and I do recognize that it is used this way. I consider its use as a "gotcha" as meaningful as Stenger's claim that the universe is eternal - he doesn't actually know that. I also don't think we should ignore it just because we don't know the answer. It may be that there has always been something; but, if we don't investigate these things, we'll never know the answer.

[Silent3]

34. As someone else said, you're just playing up a variant of Zeno's Paradox

Being willing to accept infinite time, but only infinite going forward, is like being willing to accept the concept of infinite space, but then insisting it's only infinite going west, that there must be an east wall somewhere, or we couldn't be where we are. (Please don't make me have to argue about thermodynamics and the "arrow of time" and determinism verses free will here! That can of worms can be opened if you insist -- but at least give me credit ahead of time that I have indeed already considered it.)

His claim is that the universe is eternal, so there is no need to answer the question.

That's not my take on what he said, but as I have said, I don't think Stenger said what he said particularly well or that he brought up a particularly strong argument. (There's that damn caveat that I seem to have to make, again!)

I take what he said as meaning, we have available the option of considering an eternal universe with no beginning in time, and given that such an option exists, the necessity of a "creator" does not exist.

The reason I'm arguing this point has much less to do with what Stenger said than your response to what he said, a response that seems revolve around a Zeno's paradox argument that even the option of an eternal universe with no beginning in time is impossible.

So, from this point forward, PLEASE stop referring to what Stenger said and refer instead to my above interpretation of those words. And if you aren't arguing that an eternal universe with no beginning is impossible, then one or both of use is confused and we aren't arguing any more about any clear point.

To re-reiterate, there is no point here that requires that the universe be eternal with no beginning. The mere possibility of such a universe eliminates the necessity of a creator... regardless of how Victor Fucking Stenger said what he said!!!

[Jim__]

42. It's well-known that the concept of infinity is paradoxical.

Whenever someone invokes infinity as a solution to a problem in the universe, they have to deal with the paradoxes they have raised; or the proposed solution is at best raising new problems.

Being willing to accept infinite time, but only infinite going forward, is like being willing to accept the concept of infinite space, but then insisting it's only infinite going west, that there must be an east wall somewhere, or we couldn't be where we are.

No, they're not alike. Stenger claims that the universe is eternal and that the past is endless. The present is beyond the past, i.e. to get to the present, we have to go all the way through the past. Therefore, we have to have reached the end of an endless past to be at the present. To set up the same paradox with respect to space, you would have to claim that we have crossed the entire space to one side of us to get where we are. It's the crossing of an entire infinite side that's the problem and your example with space doesn't force that issue.

So, from this point forward, PLEASE stop referring to what Stenger said and refer instead to my above interpretation of those words. And if you aren't arguing that an eternal universe with no beginning is impossible, then one or both of use is confused and we aren't arguing any more about any clear point.

No, I'm not arguing that an eternal universe with no beginning is impossible. For instance, from my post #12:

... There are mathematical reasons why this can't be done. Mathematics is not an actual constraint on the universe; but Stenger is claiming to have resolved the mathematical problem - he hasn't.

There are cosmological arguments for an eternal universe. There are problems with these arguments; just as there are arguments with postulating a beginning to existence. No one knows enough at this time to tell us how existence comes to be. ...

My argument is that a universe with no beginning is paradoxical; and if Stenger wants to propose it as a solution to a problem, then he can't just ignore, or wave away, the questions it raises. Those questions are scientific. Science will investigate those problems as they become relevant. My opinion is that science will deal with this far more efficiently when the time comes. If Stenger wants to address this problem now, he should make a serious attemp to address it.

[Silent3]

45. No, we don't "have to go all the way through the past"

What "we" is it that you think has to do all of this "going"?

Time can be reduced to nothing more than a dimension. Regardless of how important the difference between past and present is to us as humans, even regardless of the entropy bias* towards viewing time as some sort of "flow" in a particular direction, none of that necessarily imposes any restrictions at all on the span of the time dimension, on the extreme negative and positive values as measured from our present that the a time value can assume.

The known physics of special relativity shows us, in fact, that time and space are greatly interchangeable. While Observer 1 might measure that Event A occurs before Event B, Observer 2 might measure that Event A occurs after Event B. This is not a simple matter of merely seeing one event occurring before or after the other. Actual temporal event order, even after compensation for light travel time, is relative. This is only a "paradox" in the weak sense of it being a difficult concept to grasp, not in the sense of any true contradiction or self-referential trap.

The entirety of the universe, not just the present, but the past and future as well, can be represented as a single static (frighteningly vast) phase space. For any given moment in time, everything about the universe -- where every particle is, how fast it's moving, every spin, every charge, etc -- can be represented by a single point in phase space. There is no before, no after, no present in this type of representation, and any notion of having to "go through" anything to reach any one of these points disappears.

As for infinity itself being paradoxical... some applications of the concept of infinity can lead to paradoxes, certainly many weak paradoxes, maybe even a few strong paradoxes. I know of none that make infinite backward time impossible, or even improbable.

*That entropy always increases going "forward" in time is statistical, not absolute, even if the odds of what we might call a "reversal" of time are incredibly low, and in any practical sense essentially impossible, like sugar cubes suddenly assembling themselves within a hot cup of sweetened coffee.

[trotsky]

46. There's also another way to look at the idea of an infinite past, yet we're here.

Consider the creation of particle/anti-particle pairs from energy fluctuations in the quantum foam. If the Big Bang is essentially one of those events - a very special one no doubt - why couldn't the same event have created anti-time, which flows backwards from the event? Time flows out to infinity from our standpoint, and anti-time goes to anti-infinity in the other direction.

I believe Jim___ thinks he's onto something so completely unsolvable and irreconcilable that we have to reject everything Stenger says, and of course reject the confrontation strategy along with it.

[Jim__]

52. You speak of representation and also of a Block Universe.

You say: The entirety of the universe, not just the present, but the past and future as well, can be represented as a single static (frighteningly vast) phase space. Are you just talking about a representation? Or are you claiming that the entirety of the universe, all of the past and all of the present, exist at different instances across a fully existing time dimension?

Representations don't change reality, they don't change anything that's been said. They can, of course, simplify computations and conceptual considerations; but a representation doesn't imply that we travel through time differently than we perceive we do. The remainder of this post is relevant only if you are proposing something other than representation.

If it's not just a representation, then you are speaking of a Block Universe. There are some known problems with the concept of a Block universe as a scientific hypothesis, for instance: it is not compatible with quantum theory; it has not been tested empirically; the universe must be completely deterministic; it contradicts the human experience of reality; dimension implies a degree of freedom, therefore we should be able to actively travel through time.

Before saying anything else, I want to bring us back to what Stenger proposes - an infinity of clicks on a clock. That seems to be proposing a passage of time in the way that we normally perceive it. The infinity of past time raises issues. Ultimately it raises far fewer issues than what you are now proposing.

Stenger's proposal was in answer to the question "How does something come from nothing." He proposes, unnecessarily I believe, that the universe is eternal to answer this. The simple answer is, "we don't know." We could make the answer scientific by adding, "but, however it happens is natural."

I know physicists often talk of the universe as a Block Universe. But, I don't believe any physics theories are dependent on the condition that an instance of the universe exists concurrently at each instance of time. Your claim, that there is no need to pass through time, does depend on this. To make your claim scientific, you need to either reference a test, or propose a test that can validate this claim. Given Occam's razor, I prefer Stenger's proposal over yours. He proposes an eternal universe. You propose an eternal universe and the concurrent instantiation of the universe across the entire time dimension.

[Silent3]

56. I certainly agree that "we don't know" is the simple, best answer.

Beyond that, I have no "claims" to prove, I'm just offering possibilities. If you think your wallet was stolen, and I suggest that maybe you accidentally dropped it somewhere, I'm not suddenly burdened with an obligation to prove you accidentally drop your wallet. Further, not offering such proof would do nothing to boost the case for theft as an explanation for your missing wallet.

Representations don't change reality

No they don't, but when we have no idea what the best representation of reality might be, considering possible representations is a way to explore possibilities for how reality might work.

If it's not just a representation, then you are speaking of a Block Universe. There are some known problems with the concept of a Block universe as a scientific hypothesis, for instance: it is not compatible with quantum theory

No, what I suggested is not a "Block Universe". The typical block universe is a mere four dimensional space. A phase space has as many dimensions as there are particles you wish to specify, multiplied by the number of attributes you wish to specify for each particle.

This kind of phase space allows for all possible universes, or at least a staggeringly huge number, limited only by the number of dimensional axis of the space and the significant numerical resolution for each coordinate value. A single point in this space can represent the entire momentary state of everything in the universe. A possible history of the universe would then consist of an ordered set of points within this space. That history could be a finite or an infinite set, the set could contain every point in the space or only a subset, it could contain some points more than once, it could form a continuous line or a disjoint set.

If the laws of the universe are completely deterministic, then all you'd have to do is select one point and all previous and subsequent points would mathematically follow from that single selection, producing one definitive history. If there's a random element to the way the universe changes from moment to moment, multiple possible paths through the phase space would extend from each point.

It's a purely philosophical question, unanswered and perhaps unanswerable, which points in the phase space are "real" states, and if only one set or multiple sets or an infinite number of sets of points represent "real" histories of the universe. Some sets of points would represent boringly predictable universes. Some sets would represent totally chaotic universes following no sensible rules at all.

If there's any "point" to mentioning all of this, it's merely to illustrate that getting all worked up about infinite backward time seems rather foolish to me when there are so many different ways time might work, that time might be measured, that time might be illusory, that time might occupy spacial geometries beyond our comprehension.

We're pretty far from fully understanding even the "inside view" of the physical universe as it appears to us. There is not only that mountain of ignorance about the perceived universe itself, but too much room for huge cognitive errors when we try to mentally "step outside" of that universe into a meta-view of how the universe we occupy functions, how it came to be (including the fact that words like "functions" and "came to be" might be totally inappropriate to the problem space, and we'd have a hard time realizing that if it were true) for you to get all bent out of shape about counting ticks on a clock, as if some perceived infinity paradox there is likely to have any devastatingly important bearing on the subject of whether the universe has a beginning in time or an infinite past.

[trotsky]

8. Do we confront creationists with facts...

or should we accommodate their views and allow creationism to be taught in science classes? Wouldn't want to be confrontational, would we?

[onager]

9. I like this approach...

Thus such a thing as a truly enlightened Christian is hard to imagine. Either he is enlightened or he is Christian, and the louder he protests that he is the former the more apparent it becomes that he is really the latter.

A Catholic priest who devotes himself to seismology or some other such safe science may become a competent technician and hence a useful man, but it is ridiculous to call him a scientist so long as he still believes in the virgin birth, the atonement or transubstantiation. -- H.L. Mencken

[AlecBGreen]

10. Birth w/o sex IS possible

...but it is ridiculous to call him a scientist so long as he still believes in the virgin birth...

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/teen-girl-vagina-pregnant-sperm-survival-oral-sex/story?id=9732562

Im not sayin Mary went down on Joseph then got cut up in a brawl, just sayin :hi:

[cleanhippie]

27. Technically, sex DID happen.

It was ORAL sex, but sex nontheless. And I think we are talking about a SUPERNATURAL virgin birth, no?

[AlecBGreen]

30. does fellatio = sex?

Bill Clinton didnt think so :blush: :rofl:

Im not trying to quibble or say thats what actually happened, just thought it might interest yall to know a baby can be created w/o vaginal intercourse.

[cleanhippie]

32. Well, yeah.

Yeah, to BOTH points.

Is fellatio = sex? Ask a wife for that answer.

And yes, its common knowledge that babies can be conceived without vaginal intercourse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilisation

[AlecBGreen]

36. lol

that reminds me of a certain definition of cheating as being "anything you did with another woman that you wouldnt tell your wife."

As to the in vitro, well, duh!

[AlecBGreen]

31. didnt answer your question

"And I think we are talking about a SUPERNATURAL virgin birth, no?"

Yes, according to the Nicene creed, Jesus was born of a virgin. Its the only part of the creed Im not 100% sure on. You might find this really funny, but its the only major part of the gospels that doesnt pass the "sniff test" with me. I just cant imagine two newlyweds NOT consummating their marriage!

[cleanhippie]

33. Wait, what?

"its the only major part of the gospels that doesnt pass the "sniff test" with me."


Really? the only major part?


Does that mean Moses parting the Red Sea, Noah getting two of every animal on the planet onto a homemade boat, a worldwide flood, a dead man literally being resurrected, and all the other associated supernatural claims DO "pass the smell test" for you? Really?

[AlecBGreen]

35. Not the whole bible, the 4 gospels

as for the resurrection, yes I believe it. There was a real actual person named Jesus, he really did die, and he really did come to life after his death.

[cleanhippie]

38. What about all of the other people that were resurrected? Matthew 27:52-53

27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.



Do you believe that, too?

[AlecBGreen]

40. not sure

:shrug:

[cleanhippie]

44. Why are you not sure?

I mean, if you take it as true that jesus was resurrected because it says so in the bible, why would you not take it as true that these other people were also resurrected as it says in the bible?

[Ninjaneer]

48. The words of the bible being tempered by reason and logic!?

Say it ain't so! :yoiks:

[Silent3]

28. It's perhaps theoretically possible...

...although I don't think there are any proven examples, for human parthenogenesis to occur. Of course, all such births would produce only female babies.

[Jim__]

14. Eugenie Scott, Executive Director National Center for Science Education, is also on the video.

She advises accommodation, not with creationists, but with religious points of view. You can watch the video to hear her full argument; but the gist of it is that the US is a democracy and in order to have honest science education, you need the cooperation of the community at large. You do not gain that cooperation by being confrontational.

[trotsky]

15. Which completely dodges the point.

1) Creationism IS a religious point of view. It is not backed up by any science, facts, or evidence whatsoever.
2) By merely saying "Evolution is correct", you are being confrontational to creationists. There is no way to play nice with them.

[Jim__]

16. The point is accommodation with religion.

Neither Eugenie Scott nor Chris Mooney suggest the denial of any science. Eugenie Scott goes into some detail about the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. Accommodation largely means keeping that distinction clear, and that science requires methodological naturalism.

[trotsky]

18. The counterpoint is that religion will not accommodate.

You cannot say evolution is true without saying creationism is false. There is no gentle, polite way to do this without watering down and weakening the science.

[Silent3]

20. Actually, I think it's more a matter of weakening religion...

...(which is fine with me, of course).

My main problem with workable reconciliations of science and religion is that all that remains for the religious after that reconciliation is complete are "god of the gaps" scraps. I can't much understand how or why anyone would or could treat those scraps as a hugely important center around which they organize their lives.

You cannot say evolution is true without saying creationism is false.

You can say that, without any hard logical contradiction, but only by leaving the creation part as a superfluous possibility with no important explanatory power -- that is, you can happily imagine a God starting up the process of evolution, maybe even intervening now and then to tinker with the results, but you don't have to do that, and doing so doesn't provide useful insights nor does it suggest interesting avenues of further research.

[trotsky]

21. Ah but accommodationism is all about avoiding religion having to do the accommodating.

Science must bend so as not to upset the religious. I'm with you, I'm fine with religion being pushed out of the way as science discovers more, just as has been the pattern for centuries now. But we both know that:

"...a God starting up the process of evolution, maybe even intervening now and then to tinker with the results..."

is definitely no longer creationism.

[Silent3]

39. There's capital-C Creationism, then there's creationism

One can define "creationism" as any explanation for the origin and diversity of life than entails divine intervention of any sort, to any degree. That would be such a watered down creationism, however, that we reach the same essential point on the issue... if you offer this watered-down creationism as your idea of accommodation, the people demanding accommodation the most aren't going to be appeased.

The fine distinction between methodological and philosophical naturalism isn't going to matter a whole hell of a lot to the God, Guns, and anti-Gay crowd. Making that distinction probably isn't even very satisfying for more moderate but still devout Christians.

[Jim__]

24. To repeat for the final time: accommodation means distinguishing between methodological naturalism

... and philosophical naturalism. Methodological naturalism leads to evolution, and so evolution is fully included in the science education that is proposed by the accommodationists. Again, Eugenie Scott is at the forefront of the fight to keep science education in this country accurate. Her years of experience on the front lines of this battle, and her clear statement that accommodation does not involve any compromise of science education trumps you consistent attempt to ignore what has been explicitly stated.

[trotsky]

25. You can repeat that as much as you want. It doesn't matter.

The religious viewpoint does not see a difference. THAT is the problem. No matter how much you bend science to accommodate, it will not be enough for certain viewpoints. It won't be enough until you cripple the science and allow the religion to take over. That is what we face.

[dmallind]

37. Both approaches are worthwhile.

The trick is what we should accommodate and what confront. My opinions:

Accommodate: The fact that life science does not have an answer for all the hows, and does not even care about whys
Confront: The assumption that religion gets to fill in the gaps with fables and guesswork

A: That science makes mistakes and sometimes is slow to correct
C: That religion is even as good, let alone better, at avoiding and correcting mistakes

A: That religion can, for some, be a useful if simplistic moral framework
C: That religion is foundational or necessary to effective moral frameworks

A: That religion can inspire and motivate good or even great deeds
C: That religion cannot inspire and motivate bad or even terrible deeds, and that lack of religion per se motivates at all, good or bad

A: That the existence of gods in general, or a specific god that is not internally consistent or contradicted by accepted phenomena, cannot be proven false
C: That it need be to justify lacking belief, or that a claim unable to be proven false is necessarily a claim worth considering even remotely probably true

A: That religion is a widespread, deeply held and important belief in a majority of people
C: That this means it should be respected or held above criticism any more than similar beliefs such as their children's intelligence, their own attractiveness, or the superiority of their preferred soccer team

A: That in a religious society with a dominant religion, it is natural that most elected politicians will be at least ostensibly of the majority, and will likely view their duties with a worldview influenced by it
C: That we should ever allow this religious worldview or any of its specific trappings, rites, restrictions or dogma to be imposed on all of a society that includes followers of a different or no religion

A: That religious people should be free to follow their faith as long as it is compliant with the secular laws of society
C: That other/non-religious people should ever be forced to support the above financially, personally or as a captive audience to have the same rights and access to any public place or event as religious people

Pretty simple really.

[Deep13]

49. "How can something come from nothing?"

We don't know, but god does not win by default.

[laconicsax]

50. *psst*

We actually have a pretty good, experimentally confirmed, idea of how something can come from nothing.

[Deep13]

54. Really?

If it isn't too dense, I would love to read about that. I know there are some ideas floating around about how the big bang happened, but I wasn't aware that any experimental work had been done on it.

[laconicsax]

57. Oh yeah. Some of the theoretical work won a Nobel (in 2004 I think)

The uncertainty in a system results in virtual particle/anti-particle pairs that appear and disappear continually. The idea is that if the energies are high enough, the transition from virtual to real is made, and because gravity acts as a negative energy, the total energy is unchanged, allowing for a universe's worth of stuff. Stephen Hawking's latest book discussed it, much to the chagrin of prime moverists, and here's a lecture by Lawrence Krauss on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdvWrI_oQjY

The experimental confirmation was recent (last month), and the team created light from nothing.
http://www.americanscientist.org/science/pub/moving-mirrors-make-light-from-nothing

Also, these properties result in the Casimir effect.

[Deep13]

58. Okay, that's bizarre. nt

[laconicsax]

59. Well, it is quantum physics... n/t

[Jim__]

51. I agree. I believe it's a far better answer than Stenger's.

To constrain the answer to being scientific, the assumption is that, if it happens, it is a natural process.

[Deep13]

53. Well, if it happens, a natural process is a pretty good bet...

...since "natural process" is just another way of saying it really exists. "Supernatural" is just an expression we invented to avoid having to explain how god does things or can even be possible. There is absolutely no reason to think anything supernatural exists.

[dmallind]

55. Of course that's the assumption

If it were not, we would have to assume a supernatural phenomenon, which by definition we have no way of understanding further beyond "and then by magic"