'Believing in God / following a religion fills this role in many people, and because of the strength and hope it gives us, we don't want to let it go, especially those of us who call God our Father.'

I agree religions (such as Christianity) fulfil a 'pragmatic' function in people's lives, such as making the loss of loved ones easier to cope with, answering certain metaphysical questions which neither science nor philosophy seem to be able to answer, to provide meaning, and so on. In fact, I have used this as a defence to my own philosophical theism.

But what I really dislike, especially in the creationist movement, is that the existence of God is accepted as demonstrated fact supported by reason, and their arguments against mainstream science (like evolution, cosmology, astronomy, etc) all derive from this premise. A cursory look at the creationists websites show contributors have to accept a 'statement of faith' accepting certain Christian dogmas (such as biblical inerracy, divinity of Christ, literal interpretation of the bible, the Nicene creeds, etc) and that creationists are expected to do science within the parameters set out by this faith.

Simply put, this means YEC's at least must 'force' science to fit within dogmas derived from the Christian faith, and reject those that don't fit. It is like an atheist rejecting all elements of 'order' and 'design' he (or she) sees in the universe and then calling it science.

My view is that science should not depend on your faith. Whether you see the universe as God's divine creation, or just a pointless accident with not ultimate purpose, the acceptance or rejection of scientific facts or theories should not appeal to the scientist's theological convictions, either positively or negatively. In other words, science and theology can complement each other, but one should not be confused with the other.

Another problem with YEC's is they accept the existence of God as demonstrated fact that can be defended by rational argument. This is in fact not the case, at least in philosophical theology. The traditional five proofs that God exists are:

1) Argument from design (most of creationism, YE or otherwise, is really just a rehash of this argument)

2) Argument from first cause (since everything has a cause, God must be the ultimate cause)

3) Ontological argument (God's existence derives from the definition of God)

4) Argument from morality (without God, there can be no absolute morals)

5) Argument from complexity (the universe and all organisms cannot have arisen by chance, thus a creator is needed)

Most of these arguments have either been demolished or shown to be deeply flawed by philosophers, notably Kant and Hume. Darwinian evolution also strongly undermines the 'argument from design', which is why it bothers (and has bothered) creationists through the ages so much. Reading about the undermining of most proofs of God's existence showed me that the underlying goal of creationists: to make the Christian faith seem more rational and in accord with the findings of science, is not possible, even in theory. It also damages, rather than aids, the credibility of belief in God by denying many of the findings of modern science, giving more ammunition for atheists and other unbelievers to throw at the rationality of religious belief.

My own stance is 'fideism'; I accept God's existence on faith, and also because I believe a universe without one is less meaning existentially and morally than one where God does exist. But I also accept that God's existence cannot be proven rationally, since the arguments for his existence can be met with arguments of equal force for his non-existence. Thus, I believe, you can accept Christian theism and Christian dogmas, but you do so on faith (faith being defined by absolute and fully-devoted trust in God or in the creeds of the Christian faith and not irrational belief) and not on empirically or rationally derived grounds. The failure of creationists in general to acknowledge this is what makes me engage in fierce criticism of not just their science, but their beliefs as well.

'As far as conflicts between science and religion, some people, like me, have sought and found a solution that compromises neither view (as I have mentioned in previous posts).'

I also admit the question of how religion and science are to be 'reconciled' is a difficult one. I often find it hard to reconcile my theism for instance, with the apparent 'evil' and 'suffering' that occurs in the world. My view though is that there is a better approach than either:

1) Giving up belief in God, or

2) Rejecting part (or all) of science and trying to replace it with a poor subsitute, as creationists do.


'Now for a thought, if there is a God and His handiwork begins at the quantum level, would it even be possible for us to see that?'


God can create through and by the laws of physics, and it would be undetectable, yes. But it can also be equally argued that God is either not involved, or is not needed, when it comes to things like quantum mechanics or evolution. Again, this is why I stress the importance that belief in God must be based on faith, and not reason.

Greg –

Thanks for your post!!!

I’ve been struggling for weeks to find the words to describe my feelings towards my belief in God and acceptance of the scientific evidence. You did it. Exactly!

'I also hope you understand that many of us of religious faith likewise feel frustrated that beliefs contrary to what we believe (such as humanism and atheism) are constantly being shoved down our throats in the public school system, in the media, and in entertainment - t.v. & movies).'

Yes, but it doesn't bother me so much that beliefs are being aired; I adhere firmly to Voltaire's principle 'I'll respect a person's right to say something, no matter how much I disagree with it, so long as they also respect mine'; but, I'm bothered by the sloppy reasoning underlying many beliefs. Bad arguments and sloppy reasoning don't just occur in creationism/evolution discussions; believers in UFOs, astrologers, the adherents to pseudoscientific cults (like Nibiru) also often are either unable (or more likely unwilling) to scrutinize their beliefs. That is what I find annoying; the unwillingness to admit you may be wrong. Creationists assume God exists, and that the type of God that exists is exactly the one as described from a literal reading of the bible. My own experience in science and philosophy leads me to believe the real story is something more complicated than that.

I will also grant that no-one should have a theological view thrusted down their throat with no good reason. This is where the importance of seperating religious belief and science comes in; creationism is a faith-based approach to science, and IMO religion has no place in the science classroom. By all means believe what you will personally, but don't push dogmas as science fact, and vice versa. This may seem offensive to a Christian as yourself, who might wish that the notion of a creator be taught alongside evolutionary theory or stellar astrophysics (as the Intelligent Design creationists seem to propose), and teaching an 'intelligent designer' created life, man etc so he could be in a loving relationship with him may seem the best thing; but what if the Hindu wants to teach that Brahma, Vishnu and other Hindu Gods created the universe for adherents to the Hindu faith? What if Muslims wanted to teach that the Qu-ran is the most accurate source of scientific knowledge? Several religions have teachings directly at odds to Christianity's creeds, not to mention non-religious worldviews with no God at all (i.e Marxism and Naturalism). Should all be teached in science class as 'science' alongside and equal to in credibility, as say, the theory of evolution or the big bang? Should philosophical atheism be taught as well for balance? I hope you see my point; if we confuse religion with science we get a messy, distorted picture that ruins science and religious education on one go.

'Granted, our religion compels us to share our faith, but either some of the time or a lot of the time, we react or overreact the way we do because we are fighting back.'

The question at hand is not so much I believe defending one's faith against other faiths (which is the task of apologetics and philosophical theology) but in confusing science with faith. The fellow I was debating claims the theory of stellar evolution is incorrect, not on scientific grounds, but because it conflicts with his belief in God; that being, a literal interpretation of the Christian bible. Again this may seem acceptable to the Christian who wants to accomodate other brethren, but what happens when the Hindu declares modern cosmology to be wrong because his belief demands the universe to be cyclical and trillions of years old? Would you think that science should bend to accomodate such a belief? In my view if the creationist demands that stellar evolution should be thrown out because it contradicts the bible, then the Hindu should also get the same right to throw out creationist cosmology because it doesn't allow the possibility for a trillion-year old cyclical universe. Likewise, the atheist should get the right to teach that the universe cannot have, and could never have, any designer or deity involved in the universe at any point.

My argument is rather lengthy, but you see the absurdities you introduce if science is mixed with religion. Do I have a right to declare your understanding of quantum mechanics is wrong because I believe the behaviour of subatomic particles is due to the machinations of the Golden Goblin? Do I have a right to declare your ideas on biology wrong because I believe the Great Arzebuckle created animals as they were six minutes ago, with the appearance they are very old? Of course not. Likewise, creationists should not declare science as wrong because it conflicts with their beliefs, or the authority to teach such in science education.


'(And just whyhave many students and teachers been told over the years that they can't practice their religion in public schools?'

I believe it is because in your country, the Government is forbidden from favouring certain religions or establishing rules about religions by the consitution. My own view though is that freedom to practice religion should be granted, but religion should be kept out of the science classroom, since to do otherwise leads to absurdities like those I've outlined above.

Other people have appealed to the nature and philosophy of science, but I don't believe this works. Science I believe is consistent with belief in a God or belief in no God. What science is not consistent with is treating certain religious dogmas as science, and vice versa. So trying to establish things like a Young-Earth, divine design of organisms, creation of the universe by (a) God, the divinity of Christ, the revelations of Mohammed or whatever by means of science is ridiculous. Likewise, trying to establish there is no God or deity using science is also ridiculous since a being may not be detectable by the means of scientific experiment and observation. So, adherents of any faith can do science, but those who try to establish doctrines or 'prove' the accuracy of holy texts cannot.

The other central weakness I highlighted; miracles, are also not part of science. Miracles involve a breaking of the laws of physics, biology, chemistry, etc by some being to set some event in motion. For example, it is common for creationists of various stripes to argue to creation of life by non-natural processes is impossible, because known laws alone cannot have overcome the improbabilities stacked against the random formation of something like a bacterial flagellum, a fully developed cell, a bird wing, a eye, a DNA strand, a protein molecule, or whatever. Yes, it is possible these were created by a miracle, and evidence to the contrary is some sort of 'grand deception' of the senses. But Occam's Razor (it should also be noted the originator of this principle, William of Occam, was a 13th century Christian theologian and philosopher) demands we adopt the simplest explanation, and this in my view, is where no miracles are involved.

A miracle may seem simpler because combinations of random chance with physical laws seem too 'complicated' to be taken credibly by 'common sense.' A 'miracle' seems so much simpler; rather than horrendously complex processes working over many aeons of time, you have a whizz-bang creation of something in an instant by divine intervention. So why should we not accept a miracle as the answer, be it for creation of stars, galaxies, cells, and so on?

From the viewpoint of science the problem is a miracle explains nothing. There is no answer as to questions like 'How did life get started, how did it occur, what conditions are conducive to the formation of life, could life exist elsewhere in the cosmos, what is life made of, how does life work, and so on. Science works by assuming these questions are answerable in terms understandable to the human mind, and this means in terms of categories like space and time, cause and effect, chance and physical law, and so on. Miracles by definition break apart these categories by means incomprehensible to the human mind by any means (since God is by definition totally transcendant and beyond human understanding). True, we can speculate on the nature of God, but this takes us into the realm of metaphysics, which is not science. So in addition to no longer being able to answer important questions in science, by invoking miracles we have also made sure we can never have an answer beyond that which religion can provide. This may be all fine and dandy for you if you are a theologian, but not for the scientist. A scientist wants to know why the stars shine, how they shine, what processes make them shine, and so on. The way to do this is for science to formulate hypothesis, theories and conjectures as to how this might happen and then subject these theories to comparison with experiment and observation. Hopefully, when all the human biases and flaws are finally excluded, we may find a self-consistent explanation to questions like 'why do stars shine', 'why do birds fly' and so on.

An analogy might help make this more concrete; suppose a child asks why the sky is blue. Do you reply, 'The sky is blue because God made me and you, and he loves you' or do you answer the kid in terms of photons being scattered off molecules in the atmosphere? Sentiment and emotion of course would make one favour the 'God' explanation, but which is better in terms of science?


'What happened to their first ammendment rights?) OK, I'm going off on a tangent, here. My point is the tug-of-war really does go both ways. YEC's most likely will never change their minds as long as they feel like their beliefs are being threatened.'

That may be true, but it doesn't give them the right to declare their own belief as the one final truth, and tell everybody else that it must be. This reminds me of another problem with religious explanations for scientific problems; they are religiously biased. In science there is strong incentive to have theories tested and shown to be wrong by various means, since scientists know (and yes, I'm aware of the problems this entails, which Kuhn and Feyerabend point out) science only progresses by being fallible. But with religion fallability in the belief is usually regarded with extreme hostility; just look at the number of Islamic countries with the death penalty still on the books for apostacy and blasphemy for instance. So religious explanations based on miracles tend to stifle criticism and skepticism which might lead to progress. The stakes for 'doubters' in some religiously based explanation are also worse as well; in science, if you get a theory wrong, at most you might lose your job; whilst in religion, you could be accused of being an unbeliever or heretic, and punished accordingly. This is what stifled the progress of science a great deal in the Dark Ages, until great theologian/philosophers like Aquinas and Augustine made room within the Christian religion for inquiry apart from religion. This was built on by greats like Bacon, Galileo and so on. Creation science, if it wins against evolution in America, will be the death knell for science in that country and the torch will pass to more liberal countries. Don't sniff at such a prediction; the same thing happened in Islamic countries where science was stifled by religious fundamentalism and the 'torch' passed on to Europe.


'I, fortunately, was in a safe environment when struggling with this issue. Unfortunately, though, most YEC's don't value science enough to take things into consideration appropriately.'

Perhaps. The problem as I see it is that fundamentalist creationists have invented a theology to inflexible to allow any accomodation or flexibility when it comes to science.



'I've been figuring out how to deal with the former issue; this latter issue, though, I am not sure how to work through yet (I keep practicing on my brother, but so far it hasn't worked; of course, he gets annoyed at me when I talk about scientific innacuracies in sci-fi movies, too. Oy!)'

Despite my extensive criticisms of mixing science and religion, I do not believe they are incompatible. Belief in God and statements about how he might interact or create things in the world are not 'wrong'; they are just not science. Belief in God is also not damaging to science; if anything, the history of science shows it can often be a strong support for it. It is only when science is confused with religion, and religious dogmas take priority over scientific investigation, that science stagnates.


'Why is it such a threat to conventional science that certain scientist want to probe into the possibility of a guiding hand, so to speak.'

See my explanation regarding 'miracles.' Intelligent Design creationism has several bad flaws, one of which is miracle invocation. The others are explained well elsewhere on other sites.


'If the theory can't be disproven, why can't it be explored (I am, of course, referring to ID and not YEC)?'

Most 'exploration' I have seen in IDC is mainly attempting to show either:

1) Random chance

or

2) Conventional science

is inadequate to explain many different kinds of apparent 'design' or 'complexity' in nature. A lot of 'exploration' is also about trying to find the theological or philosophical biases of scientists like Dawkins or Gould; whilst this may be very fascinating from the viewpoint of sociology it really doesn't contribute to the real business of science; understanding the world and why it is the way it is. The unanswered questions IDC's point out really don't show anything new; since science is a fallible, provisional enterprise there will always be unanswered problems and questions awaiting solution. What IDC really doesn't help with is explaining anything; it is just the 'argument from design' rehashed for modern times.

'As far as classrooms go, I believe science should be taught as an ongoing mystery, offering students exposure to the different views and controversies surrounding a matter beyond just making them memorize the current conventional theory.'

This is already done to a certain extent. Most science books I've read often repeatedly emphasize how science is provisional, ongoing, fallible, creative, mystery laden, etc. Science and scientists have no problem admitting that.

'This goes for all issues. It would make science classes a lot more interesting.'

Yes, but at the same time, attention needs to be paid to skeptical and critical thinking. Students need to be taught not to accept things by fiat or on authority, but to question, analyse, think, and view problems and ideas from different perspectives. They also need to be taught the possible fallacies and pitfalls that sloppy thinking can lead one into when it comes to science (and other things as well).

You might be wrong.

Thanks for responding, Greg! That was well written and well explained. I now understand what you meant by what you said. I appologize for any undue attack on my part.

Just to clarify something I posted: when I was in high, science was taught as a bunch of set facts and figures, and scientific theory and investigation were not explained very well. If things are improving now, great!

I didn't realize the ID theory was heavy on the concept of "miracles" as a means to explain things. If you define a miracle as something that occurs when the supernatural crosses into the natural (or the spiritual world crosses into the physical world), well then, yeah the formation of all that exists is a miracle if a supernatural being created it. In another sense, many people refer to a newborn baby as a "miracle". But, I can see your point, something like that can't be put through the scientific ringer of experimentation and what-not.

Genesis 1 only says that God spoke (commanded) and it happened. It says nothing of the how-it-happened beyond the cause of it happening. One of the major problems with YEC's is they don't seem to understand the context in which the account was written - different time, different culture, different language, different way of looking at things, different priorities of the people to whom the account was originally given. I wonder what they even thought the stars were back then?

I'd love to tackle the "why is there suffering?" issue that was brought forth, but I believe I've already dug myself into a big enough hole. So, I'll leave it.

_________________
"All that is gold does not glitter / Not all those who wander are lost..."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: nebularain on 2002-07-25 15:22 ]</font>

Tim is right about Faulkner being a poor PhD astronomer. Even though they both believe in <10,000 year universe, Geocentrist Bouw towers above Acentrist Fauklner, both in science & doctrine
http://www.geocentricity.com/fresp/index.htm

Isn't EVERYTHING a theory? Nothing can ever be proven to be abslutely true. What you need to do is find ways to prove the falsehood of an asserton. However, all the methods quoted use other theories to prove the falsehood of the original hypothesis (10,000 year old Earth). In the real world, we Occam's Razor or other common sense tools to differentiate between which theory is more likely. Then you argue over how to define common sense...

Exactly right. "Theory" is as good as it gets in science. We can never get to 100% of the truth (mostly because the universe is so big, and we can't perform every experiment under every possible condition) we can only get closer and closer to it. Einstien replaced Newton, but Newton is still at the core of physics. Whatever replaces evolution, for example, will have to explain why evolution explains so much correctly and will retain evolution at the core.

What the creationists and geocentrists want to do is take a step back...

__________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

"Getting lost is part of exploring." Uniqua in "Backyardigans-Heart of the Jungle"

"Trying to wrap my head around creationist astronomy is like trying to ride a unicycle around a Moebius strip: it’s off-balance, physically impossible, full of one-sided arguments, and in the end you don’t go anywhere." Phil Plait

Not the core, exactly, more like a sidebar.

Hi all,

GregL said:

> God can create through and by the laws of physics, and it
> would be undetectable, yes. But it can also be equally
> argued that God is either not involved, or is not needed,
> when it comes to >things like quantum mechanics or
> evolution. Again, this is why I stress the importance
> that belief in God must be based on faith, and not reason.

I'm not sure about believing in God by faith, but there are
certainly good reasons to believe in God. They might not be
provable, but they are very reasonable:

a: Our self awareness (above just ordinary consciousness)
b: The universe from 'nothing', and all its impossibly fine equilibriums.
c: The perception of colour - red, green and blue which are
impossible to define by mathematics. Not forgetting the 12
notes of the musical scale - each having an emotional effect
on us outside of science and maths.

Perhaps subconsciously, these points could be taken as 'faith',
but I'd rather refer to them as logical reasoning [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Further, I don't think God and science are mutually exclusive. One certainly cannot disprove either, right?

Yeah, all science is "theory," but as Rift said, that's as good as it gets in science. The theories fit the evidence, and what's more, they're constantly changing as new observations are recorded. Does this WEAKEN the scientific perspective? No. The fact that science is willing to--in fact, SEEKS OUT--change speaks to its usefulness in describing the universe around us.

__________________
PC load letter? What the @%$# does that mean?

The 12 notes of the musical scale are not really "natural" but instead are a cultural artifact. The equal-tempered scale that we use now is primarily of Western European usage from about the 19th century on. Other cultures divide the octave differently, usually into unequal pieces. Of course, this music also has emotional effects that cannot be explained, and really, who wants an explanation of why the Moonlight Sonata or Javanese gamelan music has the effects that they do!

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

Why do you say that? Actually, the latest and greatest new knowledge I've heard about is how genome patterns are redefining the family tree. They are certainly not redefining the core of evolutionary theory.

The current hypothesis is that following genome patterns instead of trying to categorize the 'end product' features of living organisms will provide a more accurate account of which organisms evolved from which. It turns out we, and all other animals as well, may be much more closely related to plants than was previously believed. That's pretty interesting.

Also, the earliest organisms may turn out to be bacteria that thrive in boiling water. This assessment comes from ribosomal DNA analysis and is well founded, not merely an early hypothesis. The implications here for the conditions needed for life to evolve on other planets are certainly interesting.

Hmmm. Just reread this, perhaps you were refering to physics, not evolution. Well then, nevermind.

_________________
For the record, that's Beskeptigal.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: beskeptical on 2002-08-15 04:10 ]</font>

I don't understand what a means. God doesn't explain b any more than science does.

Colors are perceived by our brains because different wavelengths of light stimulate light receptors in the eye to fire impulses to the brain at different rates. (Also we have two different light receptor cells in the eye.) The end result is interpreted as color.

The ear has receptor cells that distinguish sound wave frequency, wavelength, and amplitude.

Both are easily defined mathematically. Neither is mysterious. The fact that we associate certain colors or sounds with certain emotions may be partly genetic and partly a learned association. Pavlov's dog associated a bell ringing with food.

I remember lots of things when certain sounds, sights or smells for that matter stimulate my brain.

I don't understand your last sentence. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img]

_________________
For the record, that's Beskeptigal.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: beskeptical on 2002-08-15 04:33 ]</font>

This reminds me of the A.C. Clarke short story The Ultimate Melody, in which a scientist researches whatever it is that causes melodies to get stuck in people's heads. After formulating certain laws on the effects of music on the brain, he sets up a machine to find the melody that matches the brain's rhythms perfectly.

I'm sure you all know how aggravating it can be to get a song playing over and over in your head, so I think you can guess what happens at the end when this guy hears the final result. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img]

_________________
<font size="-1">PLEASE NOTE: Some quantum physics theories suggest that when the consumer is not directly observing this product, it may cease to exist or will exist only in a vague and undetermined state.</font>

<font size="-1">(korected sume tpyos)</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2002-08-15 04:59 ]</font>

Hmm. Well, it does explain some of the people I've worked with over the years.

(There was a short-lived science fiction/comedy TV show a few years back with a major character who looked human but was really a plant. His name was Benjamin Ficus.)

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

For me, religion, based on faith, can begin where the boundaries of science end. When religion contradicts science and the observable evidence, then the faith should change. What I observe is people trying to tamper with the observable evidence or re-interpret it to make it fit their beliefs.

Exactly. Religion is a question of philosophy, not science. And neither religion nor science can disprove one another.

__________________
PC load letter? What the @%$# does that mean?

Hi Celestial Mechanic,

>The 12 notes of the musical scale are not really "natural"
>but instead are a cultural artifact.

You'd be surprised. I really think there is something more
special about the 12 notes than just 'cultural' artifact.
In actual fact, music which has more than just the standard
12 notes is probably used mainly for 'atonal' music where
the emphasis is on the 'texture' of the sound, rather than
any actual decent harmony or melody.
See:
http://www.skytopia.com/project/scale.html

>The equal-tempered scale that we use now is primarily of
>Western European usage from about the 19th century on.
>Other cultures divide the octave differently, usually

Well, considering the fact that some people have such
poor taste in music anyway (even in western music), I'd
be willing to think anything's possible - even that a
whole scale system might ultimately be flawed...

>into unequal pieces. Of course, this music also has
>emotional effects that cannot be explained, and really,
>who wants an explanation of why the Moonlight Sonata or
>Javanese gamelan music has the effects that they do!

Well, an explanation would be fascinating, but that
wasn't the point I was trying to make anyway =P
The fact that it has an emotional impact at all - suggests
something more than just maths going on.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dwhite on 2002-08-15 20:32 ]</font>

Hi BeSkeptical,

>> a: Our self awareness (above just ordinary consciousness)
>> b: The universe from 'nothing', and all its impossibly fine equilibriums.
>> c: The perception of colour - red, green and blue which are
>> impossible to define by mathematics. Not forgetting the 12
>> notes of the musical scale - each having an emotional effect
>> on us outside of science and maths.
>>
>> Perhaps subconsciously, these points could be taken as 'faith',
>> but I'd rather refer to them as logical reasoning

>I don't understand what a means. God doesn't explain b
>any more than science does.

About A. Neither do I fully understand - it's an incredible
realisation - perhaps something we'll never fully understand either.
My point is, that it seems to be outside the realm of maths completely.
If everyone acted how they did - but didn't have that same
'self awareness' - then maths could expalin it, but now there's
a strong /possiblity/ that something 'supernatural' comes into
the equation.

About B: Even considering the previous case where everyone was
effectively a robot, even this would fall down on the basis
that even robots shouldn't exist; - nothing should exist. I'm
not saying this proves God, but you have to be open to the
possiblity [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

>Colors are perceived by our brains because different
>wavelengths of light stimulate light receptors in
>the eye to fire impulses to the brain at different
>rates. (Also we have two different light receptor
>cells in the eye.) The end result is interpreted as color.

Yes, I realise that [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] But I mean the sensation of colour
itself. There's absolutely no way you can adequately
or mathematically describe the sensation of 'red'.
It transcends maths/science.

>>The ear has receptor cells that distinguish sound wave
>>frequency, wavelength, and amplitude.

>Both are easily defined mathematically. Neither is

The pitch can be defined mathematically, but again, not
the sensation that comes with it. But I'm sure you really
knew I meant that ;P

>mysterious. The fact that we associate certain colors
>or sounds with certain emotions may be partly genetic
>and partly a learned association. Pavlov's dog
>associated a bell ringing with food.
>
>I remember lots of things when certain sounds, sights
>or smells for that matter stimulate my brain.

I certainly can't disagree there [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

>I don't understand your last sentence.

Well, basically, given the above realisations and
theoretical 'impossible possiblities', one has to
realise that there's a chance (maybe a good one) that
God exists.