Religion...

[ComandanteCero]

Ehhh, sort of.

if by "sort of" you mean "absolutely", i agree  :D

I think once you bring God into the equation you have stepped outside the realm of science proper and stepped into a whole different kind of discussion where philosophical and metaphysical assumptions take a much larger role.  It's a fundamentally different kind of discussion.  

Even if we were to know everything there is to know about the universe in terms of physical laws and natural phenomena, someone will always be able to just shrug and say, "I think God did it." No matter how fabulously unlikely it is.

Isn't that why folks call it "supernatural", as opposed to "natural, but we can't see it yet" (although AKP seemed to be subscribing to the latter... which... would be a bit problematic in terms of things like faith and what not).

[mean]

I think once you bring God into the equation you have stepped outside the realm of science proper and stepped into a whole different kind of discussion where philosophical and metaphysical assumptions take a much larger role.  It's a fundamentally different kind of discussion.  

We're going to have to agree to disagree. To me, and the rare physicist who cares enough about the God question to think about it at all, the existence or non-existence of God is generally considered to be an answerable question about the nature of the universe, and revelations about the nature of the universe are precisely the point of science.

Isn't that why folks call it "supernatural", as opposed to "natural, but we can't see it yet"

I guess, but the word "supernatural" is just silly because it suggests that there are things outside of the natural world which can have an effect on the natural world, but can never be detected. This is quite impossible, as pretty much any supernatural explanation for a phenomenon is falsifiable and therefore testable. If you're sitting in a library, and a book flies right off the shelf, you might hypothesize that a ghost did it. A fine supernatural hypothesis. Now, as we all know, a flying book is full of kinetic energy. If your hypothesis is true, this kinetic energy will have manifested out of absolute nothingness and propelled the book across the room with no detectable energy transference mechanism.

Were this to be the case, it would prove the existence of supernatural phenomena, and while we may not be able to see the ghost itself (or whatever other supernatural actor imbued the book with energy), we have clearly implied its existence--much in the same way we find distant planets. Therefore it is no longer "supernatural" but is in fact "natural, but we can't see it yet"--and, just as with distant planets, perhaps it will never be possible to see the supernatural actor itself in detail.

I encourage anyone who thinks they can demonstrate any kind of legitimate supernatural phenomenon to apply for the $1 million challenge: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

[ComandanteCero]

To me, and the rare physicist who cares enough about the God question to think about it at all, the existence or non-existence of God is generally considered to be an answerable question about the nature of the universe, and revelations about the nature of the universe are precisely the point of science.

Answerable?  Sure.  Answerable without coaching the science in certain philosophical assumptions?  Not so sure.  Physicists and other thinking people throughout time have made philosophical conjectures, there's nothing wrong with it.  And physicists (and scientists in general) are particularly good people to listen to because they have an understanding and grasp of the known universe that few others have.  However - once folks start conflating the scientists' views and conjectures with actual science, they start conflating the objectivity and partial authority that a scientific result has with the arguable philosophical stances the scientist has.  One doesn't even have to go to God to start getting into these issues where science blends into philosophy - an interesting book is Lee Smolin's "The Trouble with Physics" (which is mostly concerned with string theory and how it is testing the boundaries of what we traditionally consider a truly scientific theory).

Like I said before, this doesn't devalue or delegitimize the philosophical/theological views of a scientist at all, but it's important to distinguish between the man the scientist and the man the philosopher.  Roger Penrose (Hawking's partner in their big black hole work of the 70's) a mathematical physicist, seems to believe there are actual platonic ideals (his book "The Road to Reality" is quite a trip... most of it is really interesting stuff in which he ties mathematical concepts with physical analogues and explores the various relationships... but just to get a sense of his views read the intro). 

I think Hawking and Penrose and just about any other scientist who enjoy philosophizing on the side would be the first to point out where they are philosophically theorizing as opposed to scientifically theorizing - and any mention of God falls into the former.

I guess, but the word "supernatural" is just silly because it suggests that there are things outside of the natural world which can have an effect on the natural world, but can never be detected. This is quite impossible, as pretty much any supernatural explanation for a phenomenon is falsifiable and therefore testable

The God concept isn't falsifiable.... for any claim of falsifiability, someone can (and will) come up with a way to slip out of it.  This is precisely why God doesn't come under the purview of what's properly science.

Now - let's make an important distinction.  There are certainly some religious folks who make physical claims based on their religious traditions (i.e whether it be levitation, or that the earth was created 7,000 years ago) and that's where we have science to disprove and test the claims.  So i'm not saying science can't say anything about religion, there is plenty to test and debunk.  However, in terms of actually proving or disproving the existence of God, or making metaphysical affirmations that involve God... you've left science and entered philosophy. 

[mean]

The God concept isn't falsifiable.... for any claim of falsifiability, someone can (and will) come up with a way to slip out of it.  This is precisely why God doesn't come under the purview of what's properly science.

To at least some degree, we can test God hypotheses which involves God interacting with the universe in a tangible way, just like any other supernatural event. And yes, of course someone will come up with a way to slip out of it by moving the target, claiming that the observed natural process responsible for the occurrence was somehow set in motion by God--the question is whether their rationalization stands up to reason. Typically, in my experience, they don't, although of course sometimes we do fail to see the actual cause, or we can't be 100% certain, and believers declare a miracle.

A further question is, assuming there is a God intervening in our affairs, is there some way to detect the "divine energy" responsible for setting the events in motion?

However, in terms of actually proving or disproving the existence of God, or making metaphysical affirmations that involve God... you've left science and entered philosophy. 

So science is the business of proving or disproving everything we know about the universe, but only philosophy, which isn't in the business of actually proving or disproving anything about the universe, can prove or disprove the existence of God? Heh.

[ComandanteCero]

To at least some degree, we can test God hypotheses which involves God interacting with the universe in a tangible way, just like any other supernatural event. And yes, of course someone will come up with a way to slip out of it by moving the target, claiming that the observed natural process responsible for the occurrence was somehow set in motion by God--the question is whether their rationalization stands up to reason.

Agreed.  And once you step into the question of what is considered "reasonable" you have fully stepped into philosophical and theological matters.

A further question is, assuming there is a God intervening in our affairs, is there some way to detect the "divine energy" responsible for setting the events in motion?

I don't know, I personally don't know if that's true so I wouldn't know how to answer that.  You'd have to find someone who believed in an intervening God that used some form of divine energy to affect the physical world and have a discussion with them about how it would work.

So science is the business of proving or disproving everything we know about the universe, but only philosophy, which isn't in the business of actually proving or disproving anything about the universe, can prove or disprove the existence of God? Heh.

I don't think God can be proven or disproven without making a number of philosophical assumptions that go beyond the empirical and testable natural phenomena that science deals in.  This doesn't mean science doesn't contribute to the discussion, or provide valuable insight for either argument, but the God discussion is not scientific as such unless scientific hypotheses are made, and the God hypothesis is almost de facto non-scientific.

[mean]

Agreed.  And once you step into the question of what is considered "reasonable" you have fully stepped into philosophical and theological matters.

I'm sure you realize that's just hiding behind the definition of reasonable, almost like debating what the meaning of is is at an impeachment hearing. In any event, I mean "reasonable" in a legalese sort of way, which is to say that it should be possible for us to agree what is or isn't reasonable without having a philosophical debate on the matter. Such discussions can be interesting, but in general, they seem to exist primarily to (just as in the case of Slick Willie) laboriously obfuscate reality.

I don't know, I personally don't know if that's true so I wouldn't know how to answer that.  You'd have to find someone who believed in an intervening God that used some form of divine energy to affect the physical world and have a discussion with them about how it would work.

It seems to me that the universe and physics as we understand them would necessarily forbid interventions without some kind of divine energy. Otherwise, what acts on the physical form to motivate its alteration? I'm supposed to believe that the nature of "God stuff" is such that it can act upon a physical entity, altering it in some way, yet is otherwise completely undetectable? I say, nonsense.

Those questions were pretty much intended to be rhetorical.

I don't think God can be proven or disproven without making a number of philosophical assumptions that go beyond the empirical and testable natural phenomena that science deals in.  This doesn't mean science doesn't contribute to the discussion, or provide valuable insight for either argument, but the God discussion is not scientific as such unless scientific hypotheses are made, and the God hypothesis is almost de facto non-scientific.

Proven? No. Disproven? No. Demonstrated to be fabulously unlikely? That's a lot easier.

[ComandanteCero]

I'm sure you realize that's just hiding behind the definition of reasonable, almost like debating what the meaning of is is at an impeachment hearing. In any event, I mean "reasonable" in a legalese sort of way, which is to say that it should be possible for us to agree what is or isn't reasonable without having a philosophical debate on the matter. Such discussions can be interesting, but in general, they seem to exist primarily to (just as in the case of Slick Willie) laboriously obfuscate reality.

Well, we can certainly agree to disagree on this point.  What seems like labored obfuscation to one person may seem perfectly reasonable to another depending on the initial assumptions of either person.  It would be difficult to conclusively disprove that there is a God to someone who is starting from a position of believing in God, and it would be difficult to conclusively prove there is a God to someone who is starting from a position of not believing there is a God. 

If you think either person is being intentionally dense or trying to be dishonest, I completely disagree, these are simply different conclusions derived from differing assumptions and premises.  They are both using their faculties of reason, except they are beginning from different starting points.

It seems to me that the universe and physics as we understand them would necessarily forbid interventions without some kind of divine energy. Otherwise, what acts on the physical form to motivate its alteration? I'm supposed to believe that the nature of "God stuff" is such that it can act upon a physical entity, altering it in some way, yet is otherwise completely undetectable? I say, nonsense.

Those questions were pretty much intended to be rhetorical.

If God is an omnipotent being he/she controls the rules, there's no need for a natural explanation for why something happened.  That's why you have stuff like bread and fish being divided out of nothing.  All of reality could be reshaped in a blink of an eye.  You're trying to shoehorn supernatural events into a natural process by taking the super out of supernatural... once you do that it isn't supernatural anymore and you end up with a conundrum.

Proven? No. Disproven? No. Demonstrated to be fabulously unlikely? That's a lot easier.

Especially if you begin with the belief that there is no God 

[mean]

If God is an omnipotent being he/she controls the rules, there's no need for a natural explanation for why something happened.  That's why you have stuff like bread and fish being divided out of nothing.  All of reality could be reshaped in a blink of an eye.  You're trying to shoehorn supernatural events into a natural process by taking the super out of supernatural... once you do that it isn't supernatural anymore and you end up with a conundrum.

Ultimately, what you're describing appears to be a scientific hypothesis which postulates that things may exist which we can never detect by any means, yet which have real natural and physical effects on our universe, in defiance of any or all physical laws. Doesn't seem to be much philosophical about it at this point. It is when you get to this point that the "science and religion aren't incompatible!" argument starts to sound like bullshit.

[ignatius]

It would be difficult to conclusively disprove that there is a God to someone who is starting from a position of believing in God, and it would be difficult to conclusively prove there is a God to someone who is starting from a position of not believing there is a God. 

Try replacing God with flying unicorns.  There isn't ANY information such forces exist outside of our minds, which is why I challenge believers to consider if this god concept really is an external force, what information is there to even propose this... or is this more likely inside of our heads, especially when we have many similar ideas that are entirely in our heads, such as superstition.  We have extremely powerful imaginations capable of this.  Add power of suggestion and you get a culture depending on it.  Organize it well enough and it gains political power.

When you look at the transition from early humankind's explanation of nature to polytheism to monotheism they all have one thing in common - they are based on superstitions.  Take a look at all of the rituals and beliefs in modern monotheism as well as the Jesus story - a vast majority is borrowed from paganism.  So are the pagan gods real?  What makes your god any more real?  The Judeo/Christian god was clearly filtered from poly gods to a point of obscurity that it requires faith.  It's brilliant packaging actually.  A very effective placebo for those who accept it.  But a placebo is ultimately based on deception.  To base one's life on a placebo would essentially be living a sham.

[ComandanteCero]

Ultimately, what you're describing appears to be a scientific hypothesis which postulates that things may exist which we can never detect by any means, yet which have real natural and physical effects on our universe, in defiance of any or all physical laws. Doesn't seem to be much philosophical about it at this point. It is when you get to this point that the "science and religion aren't incompatible!" argument starts to sound like bullshit.

The God hypothesis in itself isn't scientific, but instances or claims that are testable certainly fall under the purview of science (like i said before):

Now - let's make an important distinction.  There are certainly some religious folks who make physical claims based on their religious traditions (i.e whether it be levitation, or that the earth was created 7,000 years ago) and that's where we have science to disprove and test the claims.  So i'm not saying science can't say anything about religion, there is plenty to test and debunk.  However, in terms of actually proving or disproving the existence of God, or making metaphysical affirmations that involve God... you've left science and entered philosophy.  

My point in the earlier paragraph you quoted was that by definition, in the case of an actual hypothetical supernatural act there wouldn't be a natural explanation.  It follows that if the act is explained through natural processes, then it isn't supernatural.

The only conflict between science and religion is when someone claims a natural act is supernatural or vice versa, and it seems that the only areas where there is credible disagreement on that is when it comes to areas that lie on the edges of what science can empirically explore, or when the questions start going from "how" to "why".

The exact delineation of where that edge lies is an interesting debate in itself, and largely depends on philosophical/theological stances.  As described in earlier posts: someone who believes the natural universe is all that exists and that any truths that we derive from it are a consequence of that universe will have a very different conception of where the edge of science is vs. someone who believes otherwise.  Luckily for all involved that edge is outside of most practical matters and only becomes important when folks start making metaphysical assertions or trying to convince someone that God does or doesn't exist.

[ComandanteCero]

Try replacing God with flying unicorns.  There isn't ANY information such forces exist outside of our minds, which is why I challenge believers to consider if this god concept really is an external force, what information is there to even propose this... or is this more likely inside of our heads, especially when we have many similar ideas that are entirely in our heads, such as superstition.  We have extremely powerful imaginations capable of this.  Add power of suggestion and you get a culture depending on it.  Organize it well enough and it gains political power.

When you look at the transition from early humankind's explanation of nature to polytheism to monotheism they all have one thing in common - they are based on superstitions.  Take a look at all of the rituals and beliefs in modern monotheism as well as the Jesus story - a vast majority is borrowed from paganism.  So are the pagan gods real?  What makes your god any more real?   The Judeo/Christian god was clearly filtered from poly gods to a point of obscurity that it requires faith.  It's brilliant packaging actually.  A very effective placebo for those who accept it.  But a placebo is ultimately based on deception.  To base one's life on a placebo would essentially be living a sham.

Personally, I haven't made any assertion trying to prove God does or does not exist (or unicorns, or flying spaghetti monsters).

My point has been, and continues to be, that anyone who claims one position or the other is going to have to make philosophical arguments.  Philosophical arguments that can use a wealth of scientific evidence for or against, but philosophical nonetheless.

That is all  :D

[aknowledgeableperson]

Ultimately, what you're describing appears to be a scientific hypothesis which postulates that things may exist which we can never detect by any means, yet which have real natural and physical effects on our universe, in defiance of any or all physical laws.

Again, that we know all that is real natural and physical effects have been discovered or known by us.

[mean]

The only conflict between science and religion is when someone claims a natural act is supernatural or vice versa, and it seems that the only areas where there is credible disagreement on that is when it comes to areas that lie on the edges of what science can empirically explore, or when the questions start going from "how" to "why".

Agreed on the first point, although such claims are disturbingly rampant in our society.

Mostly agree on the second, it's just that I have a problem with asserting a supernatural motivating actor (as you say, a "why") for things which are easily explained without needing a why. As I've said previously, it begs the question and seems to me a silly thing to do. Not only that, but as soon as someone begins believing that things in the natural world can have supernatural causes, and that the nature (for lack of a better word) of said supernatural forces are completely unknowable, they've opened a colossal can of worms wherein they've no logically defensible reason to believe that "God" was the motivating actor rather than a pink unicorn or a particularly generous winged teapot.

The exact delineation of where that edge lies is an interesting debate in itself, and largely depends on philosophical/theological stances.  As described in earlier posts: someone who believes the natural universe is all that exists and that any truths that we derive from it are a consequence of that universe will have a very different conception of where the edge of science is vs. someone who believes otherwise.  Luckily for all involved that edge is outside of most practical matters and only becomes important when folks start making metaphysical assertions or trying to convince someone that God does or doesn't exist.

Sure, it's just that people make metaphysical assertions all the time. Hell, I have a friend who's mom believes that everything that happens is angels or God trying to tell her something. Car breaks down? It's a message! Papercut? Message. Computer crashes? Another message. Got the flu? She must have done something wrong. Needless to say, that kind of thing appears to me to be sheer delusional lunacy, and it's kind of scary. We avoid each other.

I realize that most casual believers aren't quite so [neurotic / delusional] about it, but ascribing the supernatural to various events is nonetheless par for the course in America. Sadly, strong science education isn't.

Again, that we know all that is real natural and physical effects have been discovered or known by us.

I'm having a really hard time parsing that sentence, man. Reword?

[ignatius]

My point has been, and continues to be, that anyone who claims one position or the other is going to have to make philosophical arguments.  Philosophical arguments that can use a wealth of scientific evidence for or against, but philosophical nonetheless.

You can easily apply philosophy to a fantasy world yet exercise pure logic.  When applied to mythology, there is a misconception of logical 'truth'.  Mentioned it a couple times before... if tagans > obobans and obobans > stukans, then tagans > stukans.  Completely logical, completely made up.

A fantasy writer needs to use logic in the imaginary world created or will otherwise lose the reader.  An editor is often used to ensure logical flow with all elements of the story.  Theologists are the editors of mythical theistic stories and superstitions.  Theologists also apply this 'logical truth' to develop sins, etc.  Disturbing stuff.

Naturalists don't specifically use philosophical arguments.  Now there is a foundational acceptance that there is a reality of a physical world independent of our minds, and that is understood by what we are able to test and manipulate.  The other realm is our mind, which is the realm the god concept lives in, as do superstitions.  I suppose you would argue that is a philosophical position, I would not.    No theistic argument provides information that god concept is independent of our minds, most often rely on faith or philosophy, both are dependent our minds. 

If the physical world continues on without our minds, understanding this is not a philosophical position.  If you philosophically think the external physical world is also in our minds, well then of course the god concept is too.

[aknowledgeableperson]

I'm having a really hard time parsing that sentence, man. Reword?

Yeah, it didn't quite come out right.  In response to Means quote basically what I was trying to say was that all has not been discovered at this time.
I tend to believe that humans still have much to be discovered and who knows what that is until it is discovered.  If you go back over the last 200 years man has found out much about the world around him.  Go forward 200, 500, 1000 years and who knows what that future holds in the way of knowledge to be learned.

[mean]

Yeah, it didn't quite come out right.  In response to Means quote basically what I was trying to say was that all has not been discovered at this time.
I tend to believe that humans still have much to be discovered and who knows what that is until it is discovered.  If you go back over the last 200 years man has found out much about the world around him.  Go forward 200, 500, 1000 years and who knows what that future holds in the way of knowledge to be learned.

I agree. If you're saying that the hypothesis I was mentioning may yet be proven true, I can't argue with that, although I think it is fabulously unlikely.

[ignatius]

I tend to believe that humans still have much to be discovered and who knows what that is until it is discovered.  If you go back over the last 200 years man has found out much about the world around him.  Go forward 200, 500, 1000 years and who knows what that future holds in the way of knowledge to be learned.

Yup, and the trend of findings have been in the direction towards understanding natural forces and sweeping the idea of supernatural forces under the carpet.  Lightning storms that kill turn out not to be angry gods, they are natural churning of forces.  Violent seas aren't Poseidon's wishes, they are churning of natural forces.  Human consciousness isn't a product of a god, it is the result of billions of years of evolution.

Would be curious where the world would be by now if Thales findings (~600BC) were pursued with political power instead of supernatural forces maintaining political power.  He is attributed for being the first to attempt to explain the world in a natural context, but it never really got a foothold.  The western world was essentially suppressed into the supernatural until the time of Copernicus/Galileo about 2K years later.  That's about 2K years of missed opportunity.

Thanks to the wonderful &&& use of philosophical logic in theology, things such as dissecting the human body was considered a 'sin' for over a 2K years since Thales to the Mid 1400-1600s.  Theology has suppressed progress, not improved it.

[chrizow]

Violent seas aren't Poseidon's wishes, they are churning of natural forces.

whatever, dude.  you believe what you want to believe, and i will do the same.

[LenexatoKCMO]

It's Neptune damn it. 

[ignatius]

whatever, dude.  you believe what you want to believe, and i will do the same.

I guess I'm an unreasonable aposeidonist.