NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/physics/21772

Text File | 1992-12-26 | 6.7 KB | 131 lines

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Path: sparky!uunet!rde!aee!gene
From: [e-mail] (Gene Kochanowsky)
Subject: Re: Religion vs science: two questions, concluded
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: anthropics, faith, humor
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Associated Electronic Engineers
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 04:00:18 GMT
Lines: 118

[e-mail] (Andrew Mullhaupt) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>[e-mail] (Andrew Mullhaupt) writes:

>>>important if it comes from a dictionary. Even the OED cannot be taken
>>>as beyond dispute.

>>OK. If this is the way you feel, then what exactly is your definition of
>>"faith".

>It is not relevant to my postings here in sci.physics since I am trying
>to get people to discuss this in sci.philosophy.meta. Now this is not
>simply some notion of bandwidth or ettiquette, but it is an issue of
>what part of this question can physics speak to. My claim is that physics
>neither confirms nor denies the existence of God. It is entirely possible
>to do good physics with or without faith, religion, etc. So unless we
>are to contemplate outlandish definitions of faith, such as "the belief
>that physics is actually a psychotic delusion with no relevance to any
>reality", we don't really have to worry about what the definition is
>while talking about physics.

There have been several posts, in and parrallel to this thread, that claimed
scientist had "faith" of some type, in order to do science. It appears that
we both agree that at least physics does not care about or need "faith".

>>I guess is all boils down to that. As you said, it is what the
>>two parties agree to. But it seems to me that your reluctance to divulge
>>your definition, accompanied or not by one from the dictionary, indicates
>>an attitude of intellectual smugness, and certainly no desire on your part
>>to discuss the issues.


>Sort of. I have no desire to discuss the part of the issue (which is the
>larger part) in sci.physics, since as far as I can tell, physics has
>_nothing_ to say about the truth or falsehood of religion in general.
>It does contradict some particular religions, but there are plenty left
>over which do not. The puzzle of truth in religion is not a simple one,
>nor one that can be resolved in a debate, and ultimately it is one with
>solutions which are notoriously unstable.

BINGO! Again, we both agree. Science can say nothing about the mystical,
by the very nature of the mystical.

>>Again, Andrew, how can we agree to anything, IF WE DO NOT LET EACH OTHER
>>KNOW WHAT WE ARE THINKING!

>My position is that physics is mute on the subject of God. No useful
>physics follows from or is contradicted by the hypotheses of existence or
>non-existence of God.

>Another position I take is that informed religious believers are usually
>extremely circumspect about trying to describe, delimit, or define God.
>This means that aside from some of the more vocal/less thinking religions,
>very little problem is posed for many religions by the findings of physics.

>In particular, if God actually turns out to be manifested in a spark of
>probability giving rise to the universe, or a pre-geometric dust, it in
>no essential way inconveniences many possible religious beliefs. One
>example is the Judeo-Christian tradition where God is manifest as the
>explanation of light, as well as in human visions. In fact there is no
>essential contradiction to a literal interpretation of the Bible in
>places like Moses hearing the voice in a burning bush _and_ in taking
>the view that the mechanism by which God brought about this impression
>in Moses was what we would now understand as a hallucination. Only a
>small number of religious people would be so bold as to claim that
>God _did not perform the miracle in this way_, (assuming that they
>belong to a religion which subscribes to that story).

>Another example is Eka Desa Rudra, where Balinese Buddhists must attempt
>to convert seven evil spirits into good spirits every 100 years. Can
>you _prove_ that the world will not end if they fail? Can you seriously
>suggest an ethical experiment to test this hypothesis? Remember that
>when people's lives are at stake, there are very strict requirements
>imposed on the scientist.

>So trying to explain how physics confronts even the most hidebound
>and narrow interpretation of some unlikely event in someone's religion
>is really an exercise in finding out that the founding fathers of that
>religion did not provide testable hypotheses.

We are batting 1000. I agree, it is possible to create rational
explanations for any proported religious event. As you have brilliantly pointed
out, the _real_ problem is presenting the explaination as a hypothesis
in a manner that can be investigated scientifically. Again, I agree with you,
this is more than likely impossible for science to accomplish.

All of this brings me to the point I have been making all along, a scientific
person can be religious, but it is not easy, and requires the person to admit
that the two activities must be separated from one another, a sort of
"doublethink". They must hold two kinds of truths, the scientific and the
religious. These two different truths are explained and judged by two entirely
different systems of thought. This is not an impossible task, but it would be
refreshing if the people practicing it could admit to doing it.

>>PS. What is OED?

>The Oxford English Dictionary is by far the most authoritative and complete
>dictionary of any language. One interesting fact about it is that it is
>likely to contain _more_ definitions of a word than other dictionaries,
>along with literate examples to explain how people have used the word, in
>other words, the OED does not impose meaning on words, but tracks their
>historical use. You will find these large volumes and supplements take up
>a sizable space in your local college library.

Ah! Two great english speaking people separated by a common language. It would
seem more appropriate, when if required, that American dictionaries be used in
discussions involving Americans. It is not that I have anything against the
English, but if you have ever had a protracted converstation with an Englishman,
you would find that, in the meaning and use of words, they are almost two
different languages, very dodgy communication (get the point?).

Gene Kochanowsky
--
Gene Kochanowsky                           | "And remember ....
Associated Electronic Engineers, Inc.      |       The better you look ...
[phone] Voice, [phone] Fax     |       the more you will see."
[e-mail]                               |               Miss Lidia