A problem arises when those in group #4 try to use science to prove the non-existence of a supreme being. It is no more possible, or rational, to do this than to attempt to use science to prove the existence of such a being. Science is simply disjoint from such considerations and should remain so. Religion is not science. Science is not religion. Neither shoud be confused with witchcraft.

<Attempting to put the train back on the track>

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-atheists.html

__________________
smile, and the Universe smiles with you

There were rhinoceri in the American southwest 2,500 years ago?

I didn’t mean everywhere in the world. I meant around the world. I don’t know of any in the Americas 2,500 years ago.

Agreed. There is rarely a conflict between science and religion, but great interest seems to be found when these realms touch or overlap. It becomes a contest as to who the stronger is, but it shouldn't be advanced as a contest, rather as an opportunity for enrichment from science. Science can gain little or nothing from religion due to its objective requirements, but religion, in some instances, can gain from science. Concordance makes a religion more rational; incongruity breeds irrationality.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

Gould's "nonoverlapping magisteria" always made a lot of sense to me.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

I would agree. My only criticism is that he uses rather a lot of words to get across the point, but they are well-reasoned words.

In contrast, I recently read Leonard Susskind's The Cosmic Landscape, string theory and the illusion of intelligent design. It is quite an interesting book, but it does some blatant overreaching on the part of science, and strikes me as most unscientific in its thrust. The factual material is fascinating, but the position advocated seems to based on a series of unproven conjectures and wild extrapolations of notions based on those conjectures.

Perhaps a thread dedicated to that sort of extrapolation starting with Susskind's book might be interesting. The issue is not science vs religion, but rather the use of science in an unsupported manner outside of what Gould (Stephen, not Elliott) calls its magesteria.

I agree, that topic always makes a good thread (it's been considered, but not with the focus of a few juicy quotes from Susskind, for example). I would agree that the anthropic principle, and the multiverse, are not science, for the simple reason that there is no answer to questions like "what is the experiment that will come out A if there is just one universe, and not A if there is a multiverse". Suggestions have been made, but they are quite unconvincing. At the end of the day, all it boils down to is an alternate way to think about the universe where you don't need to imagine a creator, but the choice to think that way is just as subjective as the choice to imagine supernatural elements. If it were framed as "here's another possibility to consider", I'd have no problem with it, but it often comes out more like "this is what science tells us must be true". That's baloney.

Provided the pot of philosophy/religion adjusts its understanding of the physical universe to fit observed reality rather than relying on the literal reading of books written thousands of years ago then the pot of scientific understanding will fit inside.

As long as its understanding of the physical universe follows the books rather than the universe the pots are disjoint and trying to put one inside the other will crack both.

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

A reasonable idea was suggested by Paul Davies in "The Goldilocks Enigma". Basically, if the laws of our universe are assigned purely by chance, then they should fit within the laws of probability. If there is a wide variety of possible anthropic parameters, then our universe could very well be in a multiverse. But if one of those parameters happens to be SO fine-tuned that random chance is not a likely scenario, then the multiverse can be, if not disproven, then at least discounted. It's a bit like seeing someone standing on top of a wide hill vs. someone balancing on the top of a flagpole. In the first case, you wouldn't blink; such a situation is perfectly explicable, but in the latter, you would assume that some extra force or effort is going into keeping the guy in position.

__________________
There is a growing tendancy to think of Man as a rational, thinking being, which is absurd.- Marvin the Martian.

It's gotten to the point where careful investigation is needed just to tell parody from reality. I think that means reality is broken.- Noclevername.

But I actually find fault with that statement right there. "Assigned purely by chance" is not actually a description of anything that is "really happening". Chance is a concept of intelligence, it is a way of mathematically handling things where we don't have sufficient information (we may have all the information we can ever get, but it's still not enough, so we model the rest with "chance"). Quantum mechanics uses the notion at the most fundamental level, but that doesn't mean reality does, or can. It may have a different technique that we cannot probe with our methods, and all we get in our projection is "chance". What does "purely by chance" mean? How is that not supernatural? To me, saying "god did it", or "chance did it", both are just saying "it is outside science's ability to know". If you've said the latter, why argue about the former?

I have to agree with Ken G in objecting to this idea.

Probability theory is one of the most abused of the mathematical disciplines.

In most applications it is nothing more than a convenient ad hoc model that is used because of ignorance of the initial conditions of a system. In quantum mechanics it appears to be more fundamental.

However, in applying probability to statements involving the set of physical laws that govern the universe, the most fundamental requirement of probability is being ignored -- the necessity of framing the problem within a probability space.

It is far to easy to be glib and talk about "the probability of this" or the "probability of that" without first clearly stating the assumptions that allow one to talk about probability at all. If the laws of physics are selected at random then they are random variables on some probability space, and no one has ventured so much as a guess as to what that space might conceivably be, why any sort of probability measure should exist on this fictitious space, or what that probability measure would be.

Claiming that something should obey the laws of probability while simultaneously flaunting the very basic requirements of the theory is charlatanism.

Wouldn't the probability space be the boundaries assigned by the universe's ability to forge matter, energy, and ultimately, us? True, the absolute value range is infinite, but only a small portion of the probability space would lead to our universe. If there are a wide range of possible formulations of the laws of physics that lead to a universe with life, then you could reasonably argue that the multiverse is a plausible concept. If, however, the range of possible "landscapes" is very narrow, then the multiverse is an unlikely solution. Ultimately, as John Rees likes to say, there are only six numbers, so there can't be that many different ways to combine them.

Of course, probability arguments wouldn't be evidence for the multiverse hypothesis, but, it seems to me, they could be evidence against it, if the equations for the laws of physics appear to be so fine-tuned as to make random chance unlikely.

__________________
There is a growing tendancy to think of Man as a rational, thinking being, which is absurd.- Marvin the Martian.

It's gotten to the point where careful investigation is needed just to tell parody from reality. I think that means reality is broken.- Noclevername.

To be meaningful, a probability space has to be more than named, it has to be determined. How would we do that?
Many concepts are plausible. Plausibility is a necessary but not sufficient qualification for science.
I don't see how they could go either way. Indeed, the main purpose of the multiverse is to "explain" why there can be such a narrow regime suitable for life, yet still find life. For example, what fraction of the universe is hospitable to life, yet we find ourselves in that region. Does that "explain" why we are here? It tells us nothing about where we are, as for that we still need experiments and discoveries, nor about where we aren't, for that we still need telescopes.

Agreed, especially when those ancient books introduced unmanageable pots. If those texts, however, present pots (objective views) that allow for easy placement of the modern science pot, then all is well.

Yes, and the result is that the pot holders themselves will be labeled with a related pot term of non-integrity.

Yet I am puzzled. I wonder why the view of non-overlapping magisteria is justified? For the most part, religion and philosophy will not overlap; but didn't Gould have a microsope?

I see the overlap as being a juxtaposition of science over a few tiny regions of the much larger subjective realm. Admittedly, this very limited overlay of science acts only upon the specific beliefs, and not visa versa. Thus, it isn't a comingling overlap, which may be what Gould was restricting his view to. Was this the case? [I haven't read this part of Gould's work.]

Geocentricity was not a major aspect of religion, but it did occupy a religious corner and it was integral to the faith. Science knocked the stuffing out of the 17th century Church's deeply held belief in the Aristotle/Ptolemy/Thomist model. If science does not overlap religion, or philosophy, how did it manage to get such a powerful religious view quickly thrown into the trash can as soon as all the phases of Venus (and Mercury) were discovered? This sure looks like some kind of overlap, and no micrscope was needed for at least this one topic. [In 2008, the Pope was forced to cancel a visit to an Italian Univ. in part because of a comment he made regarding a defence for the Church in their action toward Galileo, which was almost 400 years ago. The impact from the overlap remains today. ]

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

But does the number of possibilities really matter if one simply dreams-up the spawning of an infinite number of universes? If that number isn't enough, they can dream up more than that, no doubt.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

I think the point of 'non-overlapping magisteria' is not that we never see overlap, it is that whenever there is overlap, it is an example of one or the other leaving their own "proper sphere". When the church makes claims about the physical properties of the universe, that anyone with the technology can see and check for themselves, then they have entered the proper realm of science-- and had better defer to the scientific method, or they will end up with egg on their face. Similarly, science does not necessarily comfort someone facing a loss, or give someone a reason to go on when they are facest the darkest times of their lives. I don't say that one has to turn to religion in these times, one can even turn to a philosophy inspired by science. But either way, it isn't actually science-- as science has nothing to offer there, it is outside of its own sphere.

I think that there is a cross over.

Take the origin of life, on this planet: suppose that the origin is super natural, and that molecules get organised into cells due to some supernatural effect.
If scientists are trying to show that life can start in a laboratory, then it could be due to something super natural, rather than whatever effect that the scientists are looking for; how would they know.
I suppose that computer simulations might cancel out a supernatural origin, although they might not.


And science can have a lot to say about human psychology, via theories of evolution. Mankind's relationship with God exists within the context of our evolutionary past, and is very much part of our history in general, rather than being an abstract, like maths, which would be maybe(though not necessarily) more universal.

__________________

On that basis I agree, but it is a description of the region where they don't overlap, which is the vast majority of their respective realms. I would even agree with the view that science can't argue from its realm that religion should change its view since that would be a subjective opinion, of which science is not made (or at least founded upon). Nevertheless, when any religion makes a clearly define objective claim within its broader subjective view, it will not require science to extend its realm to impact it; the realm of science is already there, thus there is overlap. Wouldn't the phases of Venus, required in the Ptolemy model, not be an isolated case of this overlap? Had religion not integrated this model, things would have been different, as they often are today.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

I'm sad this thread isn't really about the unicorn.

__________________
smile, and the Universe smiles with you

It sort of came acropper with the assignment of proving that they do not exist. But pictures don't lie, and maybe this will put things back on track.

If the summer camp, discussed in the article, is anything like the one I went to, some joker will have a horse with a horn glued to it's head running through the woods one night. Just to mess with the kids heads.

__________________
smile, and the Universe smiles with you

In my opinion, religion never had any business making assertions about the orbit of Venus in the first place. That's why there should not have been overlap-- religion is just not the way to learn about Venus. Being an objective entity that we can study with the scientific method, reach conclusions and then get new data and change those conclusions, knowledge of Venus sits squarely within the magisteria of science.

__________________
Logic is the grammar of truth.

Meaning and absolute certainty are incompatible, and profound meaning and absolute certainty are profoundly incompatible.

The only thing intelligence is capable of is recognizing itself.

Yes, and I think the Catholic Church may have learned this lesson, but it took other lessons to help them there. I am fairly sure that Lemaitre sent a letter to the Pope to send this message to him because Big Bang Theory was quickly gaining too much favor as a concordant discovery, though there is hardly any scripture that would warrant such an interest. "Let there be light" may have been the only connection and it is not that great a fit considering recombination came 380,000 years after the Bang, though it would have been a white light (maybe with a tinge of yellow).

Still, there are those who integrate cherry-picked scientific evidence with their religious view, much like the Church did with the Geocentric model. Of course, if the evidence truly is concordant with their religious beliefs, this will likely have a positive affect on their belief. The greater the details given by any one religion, the more likely positive [or] negative affects from overlaping results will occur.

If I had ever encountered a few unicorns and learned they had square hoofs, I might be laughed to scorn until the day others began encountering square hoof tracks. Objective elements found in any subjective claim will help or hurt the claim depending on how much scrutiny science can apply to those elements.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

I agree totally, but the trouble is that this depends on your definition of religion. Ancient Stoics for example believed that the deity was in fact Rational Thought, the very ability which enabled man to define scientific method and hence the orbit of Venus. I suspect this is the root of the statement 'in the beginning was the word' (John 1.1) which is (to me) incomprehensible until you give the Greek word logos its more sensible translation of Rationality, rather than just a Word.

In their view, the ability to perform rational thought processes deferentiated us from other animals and connected us with the deity, so I presume that they would have classified a modern scientist as a very religous person. I suspect though that you would not be impressed with their cosmology. Just a thought.

__________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν

Excellent point, I was using the common, but rather naive and exclusive, meaning. Yours is a more general and useful meaning. Indeed, in answer to the question, "do you believe in god", I've always found myself forced to respond, "define god". Rather than pick an arbitrary definition, and ask people if they believe it, we learn more about them by asking them to give a definition that fits their beliefs-- a question that may be put to anyone.

Well, they do have business with it until they realize they don't. Religion was around a lot longer than present science with its current level of empirical rigor. Maybe the separations of the concepts of physical things and abstract theology was made earlier, but in the case of lights in the sky, it should be understandable that it might have taken longer to figure out their physical properties and know which magisteria to which they should be assigned.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

Ahh, but how does that inform the debate? As much as someone might be tempted to explain away the idea of deity as a product of mere psychology or brain chemisty, all it really does is describe the physical processes of cognition or perception, but says little to nothing about the veracity of what might or might not be perceived. In other words, a theory that explains how man anthropomorphizes what he perceives to be a diety that resembles himself does not prove or disprove whether there really is a deity.

In the past of many cultures, we've gone from specific to broader categories and realms of spirits and deity. Generally, we've gone form believing in spirits that belong to specific trees or valleys or mountains, to gods of classes of them, like earth and river and sky, to tribal deities and on to all-but-universal pantheons to a universal singularity of deity. However, must this be evidence of man's ongoing invention of the concept, or man's ever-increasing understanding of the concept. Science can't answer that.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

that wasn't really what I was getting at Ara Pacis.

I just meant that science can inform us about where we are, what makes us tick, and explain why humans behave in the way we do.
This is the context of religious belief.

Take the example of the sex drive. Science can have a lot to say about the emergence of this property. Which can inform religious belief, rather than relying of dogmas about sin etc.

__________________

Certainly, we don't always know in advance the proper magisteria. The point is just that they are separate-- not that we fully understand either. Who knows, both religion and science may be quite a bit different far in the future, as they have each undergone evolution in the past, though it is quite slow-- they have both proven fairly stable on, say, thousand-year timescales.