dgruss, hi!
I appreciate your last reply. There’s little I would quarrel with.In fact, precisely the same thought crossed my own mind.
We badly need someone else to agitate this thread if we are to get to page 21!

__________________
"True skepticism encompasses not dismissing evidence because it seems to defy rational explanation."

My instincts are telling me the answer is "no" it does not invalidate the possibility of a Strict Causation universe, but it would be interesting to hear others thoughts on this.

I think "agitate"(ing) may describe how some feel about this thread at this point!

If this thread ain't locked before we get to 21, I'll eat my hat.

You must have a really tasty hat, you're always trying to eat it.

__________________
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.

Ok, maybe I've lost perspective here. I thought we're still close enough to the original thrust of this thread - but maybe not. Its not like we're debating bible quotations.

The latest page, number twenty, appears to be devoted to free will and Keanu Reeves.

I guess I thought free will had something to do with Belief Systems.

Baffled???
The name means nothing to me. Am I the last person in the Solar System not to have heard of him/her? I assume this arises from my non-consumption of popular culture and/or non-subscription to the cult of personality.

__________________
"True skepticism encompasses not dismissing evidence because it seems to defy rational explanation."

Or from a lack of a search engine.

Hi again! Been gone for a while, so I'll make an effort towards page #21 as well.

First of all, I would like to say that if there is an undercurrent of belief in science, it's not directed towards cause-and-effect as much as towards consistency. This goes for all sciences; just because we didn't know about depression or psychosises didn't know people didn't suffer from them, just because noone had seen the moons of Jupiter didn't know they weren't there, and a tree falling in the wood does make a noise, even if noone is there to hear it. The universe has followed the same laws for all existance, and will continue to do so. We would have a difficult time proving this, or even showing it to be strongly indicated; we simply assume that it does. Causality is important in science, but not critical. Consistency is indeed critical - if the underlying principles can change "ad hoc", science quickly becomes impossible.

Now, on the matter of predetermination:My impression is that it does; to put it humorously, not even the universe itself knows where all its parts are. There are many current theories who capitalize on this fact (vacuum fluctuations, Hawking radiation and so forth). So mainstream physics holds with option 2, without addressing option 3 at all - God's intervention is a matter outside of science.

Free will, or self-awareness, does indeed seem to be the Great Mystery. We can see how the thought processes work on a microscopic level - quantum effects and so forth do seem to allow for highly random processes in our brains. However, how these small, random firings of the neurons combine to form our conciousness is currently unknown. Chaos theory may help to give some understanding on the underlying mathematics, but I think that there is too much variation within the human psyche to make anything but the most generic statements.

Does self-awareness have a "physical" existance? Who knows - all we end up with is "cogito ergo sum". If nothing else, our brains seem to benefit from the impression that we are indeed aware of our own existance. This also is an unprovable idea, but philosophy aside, I think we may shed some light on self-awareness when/if we get true AIs or uplifted animals to study (and to study us).

To answer mutineer's question, my view is that the thoughts in our brains are indeed subject to the laws of nature. However, since the laws of nature in question are non-deterministic, objective free will is very much possible. Waxing philosophical for a bit, I personally believe that even the shape of our personalities, the "content of your character" as russ_watters put it, is to some degree subject to our own will, or to put it otherwise:
You are what you make yourself

__________________
"We do not require reality to conform to the expectations of the ignorant"

Thank you, kilopi.

I understand from my researches that Keanu Reeves is of the male gender, and is - as my instrincts suggested - connected with what used to be known in my day as "showbiz".

However, it appears that the gentleman is LEFT-HANDED, and may therefore be of exceptional intelligence or endowed with outstanding imaginative powers. I think, therefore, that he should be invited to make a contribution to the historic 21st page of this thread.

__________________
"True skepticism encompasses not dismissing evidence because it seems to defy rational explanation."

My appologies for butting in on - wherever this debate has gone to. But something came up I'd like some feedback on.

Having read the debate with regards to faith and belief in science, I have come to understand the scientific perspective on this issue and could see that science "Faith" are two different ball parks. But in trying to explain this to someone else, he mentioned something that I did not know how to respond to.

He said that science is founded on an unproven theory. I asked what that was. He replied that science is founded on the theory that everything can be explained. (I hadn't thought of it that way. . . .)

So, then I wonder - do we know we will find the answers to all mysteries? How so? Sure, we've cracked a lot of codes, but how do we know we will not find one that truly is uncrackable? Can it then be said that scientists have faith that "the mystery" is solvable and will be solved?

(OK, this ought to take the thread to 21 pages!)

(Edit: If people respond!)

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

Why are we trying to get to page 21? I'm surprised this is still going on! :-k

I doubt we will find the answers to all mysteries. It would be nice if we did, but as we learn more about the universe, the more questions arise.

I'm a subscriber to the theory that everything can be explained, given enough time. We see the evidence, and we find the best explanation for the evidence. If the explanation no longer works, a new one will be made.

Well, all theories are unproven, right? Some just have more supporting evidence than others. I suggested something similar here. But I also pointed out that the assumption that there is some sort of order to the way things happen is pretty much essential to living; even as simple an action as eating carries the implicit assumption that doing so will make you stop feeling hungry, like it has in the past. There's a lot of evidence that the universe is in fact a pretty orderly place, in spite of the underlying weirdness we've discovered in quantum mechanics and general relativity. We can rely on our actions having consistent results, and we've learned to do that not from faith, but from the fact that throughout our lives we see a universe that appears to behave in a predictable manner, once we learn the right way to make our predictions.

We expect that gravity will continue working as it always has, the Earth will keep turning in accordance with the rules of mechanics, the strong force will continue to hold nuclei together in precisely the same way, and every day, the theory that these aspects of the universe are stable is further reinforced by our observations. I'd say that this isn't based on faith at all, since it's a logical conclusion from the available evidence. Although it's "just a theory" that the universe won't dissolve into complete chaos tomorrow, it's a theory with a huge amount of empirical support.

Science doesn't necessarily claim that "everything can be explained". In fact, the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is that there is fundamental randomness in all things, and even the universe doesn't know exactly where an electron is and how fast it's moving at the same time. Rather, science simply claims that there are patterns in the way the universe work, and that at least some of them can be understood by humans. There are answers that perhaps cannot be provided by science (such as "is there a God?"), but science simply acknowledges these as beyond its purview, and continues to address the questions that it can. Of course, sometimes questions that might have been thought merely philosophical (most of the questions about the world began this way) may someday be answerable through scientific investigation, but we can deal with those questions when we get there.

Wow, its hard to believe its been since August that we had this discussion. Sorry, I had to bring this thing back out - just to say that I think this thread has to be one of the top 10 threads of the year! Any other nominations?

Well, it was worth it just to read Grey's last post, above.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Excellent idea!

Hey, thanks! Has it really been just since August? It seems like longer ago.

[Nothing like a guy that comes in 20 pages late, but, what the heck, everyone else as said somethin...]

It seems to me there are three models involved in these discussions - the scientific, philosophical and religious models. The areas of overlap seems to be the cause of the greater controversy.

If these models were clearly defined, and the areas in which they overlap, there would be fewer pages to these philosophical threads.

Inclusive of the models stated, my understanding of each makes me weak in at least four of them as I still have trouble glueing airplanes together.

However, in consideration of the degree of intellectual illumination and eloquence as evidenced in each prior page, it would be nice to see a clear definition of each model and where they overlap. A consensus would certainly improve on future references.

I'll even do bullets if you want me to. Just hand 'em to me not shoot 'em at me, please. [You know I'm serious if my spelling is correct and this would help me more than you probably.]

For example....

Scientific model....
.....> observable evidence
.....> repeatable evidence
.....> hypothesis that could be shown to be contradictory
.....> the "how" things behave
.....> the "means" to the end

Philosophical model....
....> the "why" things behave how they do
....> the "end" to the means
....> [ok. I happen to be weak in philosophy or am I not because I think?]


Religious model...
....> deity
....> transcendence
....> the eternal
....> moral absolutes
....> getting what we don't deserve (grace)
....> not getting what we deserve (mercy)
....> faith

Case in point...
In the middle of this post I had to dash to the bank but managed to get to a steakhouse and obtain a gift certificate from their female bar keep. Under her tv was a sign..."Life is too short to dance with ugly men". She showed no interest in dancing with me so clearly this is a philosophical issue.

Another sign stated..."No smokin, drinkin, cussin or dancin in church...The Pastor". Obviously this falls within the religious model.

The example given regarding a car starting in the morning may illustrate an overlap of models. If you trust your car will start the next morning that seems to indicate a degree of faith. But the car was built to start each morning by design and you should have enough evidence to support the logical conclusion that it will start (scientific). However, this faith would be magnified if your car never started any morning (blind faith which is irrational).

So...what's your pleasure. Bullets or what?? :-s

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

Hmmm....Forget I asked. That's way too heavy and I didn't even get a gun for Christmas!

But am I logical in assuming these three models, if clearly defined, would allow us to address issues more rationally? Or, am I too simplistic? Are there other models worth addressing?

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

its kind of funny i was just thinking about this but i couldnt sleep so i decided to check the board and found this topic.... (erie music plays now)


i read the first three pages but then realized that there were twenty more so im posting without getting most of the discussion but i think this might help. I hope it hasnt been covered. But i was thinking about the problems between people who believe in planet x and those who dont so i was trying to figure out how to fix it. In this thread the word belief seems to be implying faith to some extent such as blind faith. Id agree that blind faith can be practiced in religion, in my opinion religion requires it to some extent. But it seems that in this thread soupdragon is trying to apply it to science. Though i dissagree with this in many ways there are a few that cant be denied. Such as I have faith in astronomers to use the scientific method correctly to model the universe.. just as an example. But i dont think this implies that science is a faith system or belief system. Instead on the individuals level some amount of faith present, though im not sure if the word faith should be used. If i may be so bold id like to suggest a new term to this thread to see if it cant help. Tangible faith, Tangible belief. Unlike religion any science can be verified should the individual want to. And to some extent on the individual level already has by use of the peer review system in the scientific method. most of us dont recieve very much science news before the sciences is verified by outside sources.
sorry if the post makes little sense its pretty late.. so ill wrap it up. I guess im saying while it has been pointed out that individuals use belief systems when deciding what to believe. But overall that doesnt mean that science itself could be considered a belief system.

__________________
They call 'em fingers, but i've never seen em fing..... oh there they go!! otto

Words have strict definitions and they have connotations. Would the type of faith you're describing be better called trust?

Trust is defined (in my dictionary) with use of the word "confidence". Faith is also defined with "confidence" and with "trust". But with faith you usually have the religious connotation that is not automatically implicit when you "trust".

dgruss yeah trust would fit as well probably better but since its obvlious that the intention of the thread was to connect religion to science ( sorry to soupdragon for contradicting him but what ive read the thread so far has led me to only that conclusion) i thought it might be a good idea to keep the word faith or belief for their religions implications and tangible since that is the obvious difference bettween the two. Science may use some forms of belief (without a clear cut definition one could argue to mean just about anything) but the difference between religious belefs and scientific beliefs would the ability to test science.

__________________
They call 'em fingers, but i've never seen em fing..... oh there they go!! otto

I think... you know, one of the main things that's stuck with me as I've gone through my education in Chemistry is that just about everything we know in science is ultimately just a simpilified, slightly less accurate version of a better model. So you don't really trust it, it's just a useful and more enlightened way of understanding the universe. And you spend most of your time trying to figure out what the next step of intricacy is.

__________________
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?

I can't remember if it was Lavoisier or who it was in chemistry that established basic laws which were all shown to be in error. (It was too long ago when I read it.) Whoever it was, was very close to the mark, however. So "better" models, hopefully, is our direction.

But what do you mean by saying you "don't really trust it"? Do you mean that you do not have complete confidence in it?

I like the Indiana Jones movies. Remember in "The Las Crusade" where he had to leap from the lion, apparently, into the thin air of a chasm. I see this as an act of faith as his jump was not rational by all his available senses and experiences. He was putting his trust into something regardless of all his prior years of experience and logic. The "something", in this case, was the words of that book. This was not completely irrational as he did establish a degree of reliability to the directive words from the prior two tests. Otherwise, it would have been blind faith (and the movie would have been deemed unbelievable).

When faith, such as this, is directed toward a deity (or deities), it becomes religion. You do not have that faith in chemistry (science), if I am reading you right. Those who do might not see it as religion but aught to consider the idea. Nevertheless, the term "religion" tends to muddy-up the water. A better term might be scienceism or some other "ism".

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

Well, I mean that you don't have absolute trust in it- deep down, you know that there's going to be some sort of mistake in your work caused by its inaccuracies, however minor it may be. Religion often involves absolute trust, which is sad, IMO, as religion is at its best when it is questioned and adapted by its believers.

__________________
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?

That's the way it should be. All theories are approximations. The ideal gas laws work well enough under the right conditions, but there is a real gas law when needed. Newton's Laws can still be used even though Einstein's Relativity is an improvement. So there is trust in the current models with the understanding that eventually something better may come along.

Yep. That makes good sense. I suppose there are degrees to the amount of trust we place in anything. The “=” sign can be highly trusted especially when we know, ironically, when it can’t be trusted. I find it satisfying when I can comfortably design and build something that will work in accord with the equations. [Not that I get to do this much.]


Great statement. 8) The Protestant Reformation came as a result of this very idea. As I understand, it was believed too much trust was put in religion and leaders and it was a burden to them for a number of reasons. Prior to the Reformation, it had been feared, and with good reason, that scripture interpretation (questioning and adaptation) would be subject to many false ideas if allowed in the hands of all people. Nevertheless, “absoluteness” still remains. It belongs in the person of God himself [Jewish & Christian at least].

As I see it, some degree of trust must be in all possible models, otherwise, why have it? The scientific model is special in that a measurable event can be repeated thousands of times with the same results making it trustworthy. It seems unreasonable if we expect this to work well in the religious faith model (or philosophical model). For instance, I noticed Jabez prayer books (a wealth petition) in the bargain section at Barnes & Nobels. [BTW - finally saw the BA book in their astronomy section.]

I like the idea that we start with hope and it grows into faith. But faith that becomes known is no longer faith. Science drives us to the knowable. It may take some trust or at least hope to aim us in that direction, so science is not anti-fatih it [faith] just gets left behind where it was meant to stay. Kinda lick the launch pad and gantry for the Shuttle. Without 'em, she'll never get off the ground.

[edit is faith]

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

You know, I personally believe that the theory of everything ("the mind of God" as Hawking so enigmatically put it) is something that we will only ever get improving approximations of- in much the same way as religious thinkers get every improving approximations of their own ideas of what God is.

__________________
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?

The uncertainity principle will be a bit of problem as those approximations deal with the titanicly tiny. Maybe dark matter/energy and gravity will not have this problem.

I suppose you're right about improving our understanding of God. I hope so anyway.

The thread topic of science/belief suggests the two models overlap more than they do, in my opinion. It would be nice to be able to articulate which models exist and where each model overlaps. I avoided philosophy as it required reading and social constructs which were not as satisfying as a good functional equation. But then again, when I went to college, I couldn't spell "engineer" - now I are one! (ok-old joke :-? ) I have grown more interested in philosophy and God over the years as they are important.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!