NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/physics/21868

Text File | 1992-12-29 | 9.8 KB | 194 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
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Associated Electronic Engineers
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 23:54:36 GMT
Lines: 181

[e-mail] (Andrew Mullhaupt) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

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

>No. I didn't say anything of the sort, and have gone to some lengths
>to not say anything of the sort. What I maintain is that there is not
>any known connection between the existence of God, and physics. In
>particular this is the present state of affairs but there is no guarantee
>that such connections are impossible, or that either the nature of physics
>or God prevents such a thing. I have also been very careful to avoid any
>connotative terms such as mystical, limiting my statements to the question
>of physics and the existence of God.

>It seems we do not agree. For all I know science may very well be capable
>of arriving at important conclusions about God, but nobody has done this
>yet. There is no proof that this is impossible, and in the view of some
>philosophers of science one cannot be given. Note that I do not need to
>answer the question of whether science can _in principle_ or _in practice_
>provide information about God in order to say that the present state of
>the art does not provide any meaningful information. See below.

Sorry Andrew, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. When I use the word
mystical, I mean that which pertains to God, gods, demigods, spirits, the
afterlife, subjective and religious experiences, signs, portents,
and all other things of this type that are not obvious to the senses or
the intellect. From what you had said earlier, it seemed that this is what
you were talking about.

The one problem that I have with the _scientific_ exploration of God, is
that if we find it, how will we know the difference between it and a very
clever ET? Or, if we take a more phylisophical approach, is it likely to
end up with the equivalence of the Universe being God? If that were the
case, then who needs God.

If we require God to be _all powerfull_ and _all knowing_ it, there is no
way to prove that it is or is not God, since it can do or not do anything it
wishes, and if it does do something fantastic, how can we distinguish its
actions from a sufficiently clever ET? If we were to find that the universe
as we experience it was created, could it also be possible that the creator was
just a sufficiently clever ET? If this was the case, would you call this ET
God?

Whatever we call it, I would certainly wish to know more about it, however,
I would not classify the investigation as a religious experience, or even look
at the results as having much to do with religion.

Andrew, do you know of anyone that has created a God Protocol. A series of
questions and tests to subject the _Almighty_ to. I suppose that if such a
Protocol was created, it would certainly be the first step in scientifically
investigating God.

It also seems that those comming up with the Protocol would have to agree
just what God would have to be. It is possible, although I am not suggesting
it, that all religious miracles have been the result of ET's.

I guess, Andrew, the above discussion, illustraites the slippery nature of
the deity and religion. It certainly doesn't prove that the existance of God
is not scientifically provable, but points out that if you imbarked on the
quest, found the guilty party, _you still might not know_!!

>>>>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.
>>
>>>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.

>Again, I just say that it hasn't been done. I can speculate that if it _is_
>possible, it may be very difficult, (since it hasn't been done yet), but
>it isn't necessary.

See the above.

>>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.

>In other words, you are claiming that all religious scientists are Averroeists,
>(dualists). This is not the case. If you consider the case of rational
>explanations for miracles, you find that your proposed doublethink is not
>employed or even tolerated by the explanator. (I.e. why explain something
>if you have the option of labeling it 'religious truth' and being done with
>it?) So no, it is not necessary for a religious scientist to be a dualist,
>and in fact some religions (e.g. Roman Catholicism) explicitly contradict
>dualism.

My definition of a miracle is something that can only be explained by
divine intervention.  This difinition has problems, since it is not clear
what entitiy would qualify as divine. In any case it requires a God or
something like it. Since there is no proof for the existence of God, then
such miracles would have to fall in the realm of 'religious truths'. This
situation will change only when the following three things take place:

    A. There is a satifactory God Protocol
       (which would include a definition of what would be a God)
    B. A God hunt must be conducted

    C. Something has passed the Protocol

A positive result would be great, a negative results would keep things as
they are now. Untill then, as far as I can tell, religious scientist have
no choice but to operate on 'faith' if they maintain that God exists (as
opposed to might exist), and 'doublethink' would be highly indicated.

There is a big difference between saying

    'It exists but I have never seen one myself and I have never
        really looked for one.'

    and

    'I don't think it exists, I have looked myself, asked everyone
     I know if they have ever seen one, and I and they have never seen
     one.'

>>>>PS. What is OED?
>>
>>>The Oxford English Dictionary is by far the most authoritative and complete
>>>dictionary of any language.

>>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?).


>Nope. The OED is the best dictionary for the American use of English. If you
>consult it, you will find that the OED often makes clear many various uses
>of words, notably the differences between British and American usage. For
>purposes of this discussion, we can consider it a dictionary of the English
>language, as opposed to a dictionary of English usage. In fact, English
>usage is a much more specialized question than British usage, which is what
>would normally be opposed to American usage.

>In terms of great American dictionaries, there is (Noah) Webster's which
>is very much out of date. Note that the Webster's of today are Merriam-Webster
>which is a name which must be used as a result of a legal settlement in which
>they were prosecuted for wrongly using the name 'Webster's'. There is no
>dictionary remotely close to the OED for American usage, although there is
>a recent dictionary of slang which is getting up there. Partridge's Dictionary
>of American and Regional English is not in the same league.

>But enough about dictionaries. You will be very unlikely to find any book
>in which it is written what every word _means_. It is a matter of significant
>dispute among philosophers and scientists (Cf. Bernard d'Espagnat's Reality
>and the Physicist) whether such a thing is in any sense _possible_.

All of this is just opinion, but, OED it is. I do not have ready access to one,
so I will have to rely on you to provide definitions as required.

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