How do you explain a ordered universe without a Creator?

[Boss]

I'm just blowing off steam because I think the current balance is wrong. Many religious leaders are anti-evolution and think the earth is 10000 years old and are trying to push that in schools. It seems a large percent of our population are anti-science.

I know of no one who seriously wants to teach the earth is 10k years old in schools. I would reject such teaching as fact or scientific theory because there is no basis for it. However, I have no objection to teaching that there are some people who believe that.

I think when it comes to education, we shouldn't censor what is taught. Even if we have to teach "this is not a 'fact' just what some believe." I've never understood what is wrong with that... why are people afraid to teach the truth?

The origin of life should be taught as a question mark because it is... we don't know how life originated. There are many theories... including Intelligent Design. ALL theories should be taught, not just the ones we've pre-approved.

 

[Boss]

Yes, I understand. I'm saying the guiding force is not working all that well in the real world.

Well I think you're wrong and it's all a matter of perspective.... we are certainly not apes in a tree acting purely on our animal instincts. Civilization itself is a product of this guiding force. The fact we have law and order. Humanitarianism in general.

 

[Wuwei]

know of no one who seriously wants to teach the earth is 10k years old in schools. I would reject such teaching as fact or scientific theory because there is no basis for it. However, I have no objection to teaching that there are some people who believe that.

There have been many school boards, states and other groups that want to put creationism in the science class room. That is where we should separate science and religion.

 

[Boss]

There have been many school boards, states and other groups that want to put creationism in the science class room. That is where we should separate science and religion.

Again... what do you mean by "creationism" and "put in the classroom"?

I don't want any proselytizing happening in schools. Period. It's not the place for that... nor is it an opportunity to indoctrinate young minds into Atheism.

Teaching that we don't KNOW how life began and here are the various theories on that... A, B, C, D... that's fine. I have no problem with that.

But now, let's be clear about something else here... even if you are the biggest Atheist in the world, you believe in abiogenesis and don't believe in any deity god... you STILL believe in "creationism" because we were certainly created by SOMETHING. We exist and we didn't always exist... therefore, logic says we had to be created by something.

 

[Wuwei]

Again... what do you mean by "creationism" and "put in the classroom"?

I don't want any proselytizing happening in schools. Period. It's not the place for that... nor is it an opportunity to indoctrinate young minds into Atheism.

Search "creationism in schools" Kansas, for example, had a big debate a few years ago.

But now, let's be clear about something else here... even if you are the biggest Atheist in the world, you believe in abiogenesis and don't believe in any deity god... you STILL believe in "creationism" because we were certainly created by SOMETHING. We exist and we didn't always exist... therefore, logic says we had to be created by something.

I think you are using the word creationism in two different senses - religious being, and chemical spontaneity.
Abiogenesis is being studied in the laboratory. There are a lot of breakthroughs that cover what the original objections were such as the incremental development of the eyeball. I don't have time to go through that right now.

 

[zaangalewa]

Could you explain me please why someone should not go to church and get instead of this a degree in physics? Do you think Christians should not be allowed to study on universities at all, because to believe in god is an indicator for a lack of intelligence - or whatelse is the reason why Jews, Christians and Muslims should not be allowed to study physics?

I didn't mean to imply that.

Hhch ... Hhmm ... If I see it in the right way then Karl Marx referred to the wonderful verses and life of the famous german poet Novalis (Freiherr Friedrich von Hardenberg) when he was full of compassion writing the sentences: "Das religiöse Elend ist in einem der Ausdruck des wirklichen Elendes und in einem die Protestation gegen das wirkliche Elend. Die Religion ist der Seufzer der bedrängten Kreatur, das Gemüth einer herzlosen Welt, wie sie der Geist geistloser Zustände ist. Sie ist das Opium des Volkes". He said with this words that religion is the wrong medication against this what I would call the doctrine "the human being is the wolve of the human being". Because of this words millions and millions and millions and millions and ... of people from all religions were murdered all around the world from the believers in this words. This was not the fault of Karl Marx - it was the fault of the people who believed in their own wrongness and the people who did not try to correct the worst mistakes.

Not everyone can put in the time to understand the deepest aspects of the physical world. It's not easy.

Physics is the most easy thing of the world. Gravitation for example throws apples on heads and if some people don't react adequatly - Mr. Newton for example - then they end in school books as a unit for power.

If you want to look at the creation of the universe in both a religious and scientific sense, it's like walking into an art gallery where the artist, Rembrandt is present. Some people will worship the artist and ignore his art. Some will ignore the artist and study his work.

What kind of people do you know? Most people I know would turn the Rembrandt and would be very happy to find there the smiling Marilyn from Leonardo Vermeer.

I'm just blowing off steam because I think the current balance is wrong. Many religious leaders are anti-evolution and think the earth is 10000 years old and are trying to push that in schools. It seems a large percent of our population are anti-science.

I never believed that such Christians are existing - but indeed some Christians saying so seem to exist in the USA - and as far as I know only in the USA. And I don't have any idea why people hate science in the USA. There will be reasons for, I guess, or it's just simple L' Enfer c'est les autres (Jean Paul Satre).

 

[Boss]

Again... what do you mean by "creationism" and "put in the classroom"?

I don't want any proselytizing happening in schools. Period. It's not the place for that... nor is it an opportunity to indoctrinate young minds into Atheism.

Search "creationism in schools" Kansas, for example, had a big debate a few years ago.

I am having trouble finding any real specifics on this... just alarmist headlines. When we say "creationism" there is a whole realm of thought that varies from person to person on what that means. As I said before, in a pragmatic sense, we were obviously "created" by something because we exist where we didn't exist before.

But now, let's be clear about something else here... even if you are the biggest Atheist in the world, you believe in abiogenesis and don't believe in any deity god... you STILL believe in "creationism" because we were certainly created by SOMETHING. We exist and we didn't always exist... therefore, logic says we had to be created by something.

I think you are using the word creationism in two different senses - religious being, and chemical spontaneity.
Abiogenesis is being studied in the laboratory. There are a lot of breakthroughs that cover what the original objections were such as the incremental development of the eyeball. I don't have time to go through that right now.

Absolutely, I am using "creationism" in numerous senses because the idea has numerous variations. Just as there are breakthroughs in studies of chemical spontaneity, their are also breakthroughs in discovery regarding the "matrix" we appear to exist in. The overarching important point is.. we don't fucking KNOW! Everything is a theory at this time. Some theories may be more or less valid than others but that may also be a matter of perception or currently known information.

I do not want children being taught... HERE is what you should BELIEVE is the truth and disregard everything else! I would rather us teach them the truth is... we don't know... and here are the possibilities.

 

[Wuwei]

I never believed that such Christians are existing - but indeed some Christians saying so seem to exist in the USA - and as far as I know only in the USA. And I don't have any idea why people hate science in the USA. There will be reasons for, I guess, or it's just simple L' Enfer c'est les autres (Jean Paul Satre).

Yes, I'm speaking only of the USA. Strict religious fundamentalism is much higher in the US than other countries. Studies have shown that over half the people in the US don't believe in evolution and the big bang theory.

 

[Wuwei]

I am having trouble finding any real specifics on this... just alarmist headlines. When we say "creationism" there is a whole realm of thought that varies from person to person on what that means. As I said before, in a pragmatic sense, we were obviously "created" by something because we exist where we didn't exist before.

Yes, most headlines are alarmist. But the details have been in the news.

The overarching important point is.. we don't fucking KNOW! Everything is a theory at this time. Some theories may be more or less valid than others but that may also be a matter of perception or currently known information.

In the hard sciences we do fucking know! For example experiments in electromagnetic theory agree with computations up to one part per trillion in accuracy. The theory of particles, gravitation, etc are very solid. In the softer sciences such as biology and climate change, the systems are too complex for theory and observation to agree in many cases.

I do not want children being taught... HERE is what you should BELIEVE is the truth and disregard everything else! I would rather us teach them the truth is... we don't know... and here are the possibilities.

I agree. But the "truth" in science versus religion should be in separate classrooms.

 

[Boss]

In the hard sciences we do fucking know! For example experiments in electromagnetic theory agree with computations up to one part per trillion in accuracy. The theory of particles, gravitation, etc are very solid. In the softer sciences such as biology and climate change, the systems are too complex for theory and observation to agree in many cases.

No.. we don't know and you just spun our not knowing into some assumption that we somehow do. We don't know how the universe began or how life began. We have theories. Solid, sound or valid... they are still only theories. Empirical truth is not a theory.

There is something I like to call "Scientism" ...It is a "religious faith" centered around scientific theory. Zealots and fanatics who practice this religion are prone to argue that theories are truths... that hypothesis are facts. I reject Scientism just as I reject any organized religion.

 

[Boss]

I agree. But the "truth" in science versus religion should be in separate classrooms.

Not when discussing origin of the universe or life... that is science and should be taught in a science class. There is no "truth" whenever we don't know what the truth is. We don't know how the universe originated or how life originated. All we have are theories.

I have no problem with keeping "religion" out of the classroom but that includes the religion of "Scientism" and "Atheism" as well. We're not going to discriminate based on religion and we're shouldn't promote one religion over another. There is certainly something in the constitution regarding that.

As for what we teach... we should err of the side of more information and not less. I have no problem, in a science class, teaching.... here are the various things people believe with regard to the questions of origin... and we teach ALL the beliefs... not just the chosen ones. Now, we don't need to be specific... we don't have to go over the thousands of various religious beliefs or the hundreds of variations of abiogenesis theory... we can consolidate those beliefs into a more general sense.. but we should basically teach everything and under the understanding that the question is unanswered and unknown.

 

[Wuwei]

No.. we don't know and you just spun our not knowing into some assumption that we somehow do. We don't know how the universe began or how life began. We have theories. Solid, sound or valid... they are still only theories. Empirical truth is not a theory.

There is something I like to call "Scientism" ...It is a "religious faith" centered around scientific theory. Zealots and fanatics who practice this religion are prone to argue that theories are truths... that hypothesis are facts. I reject Scientism just as I reject any organized religion.

I think we have a disconnect in terminology. The hard sciences never looks for truth. It is meaningless in science. The basis of the hard sciences is in mathematical models of empirical experiments. Quantum mechanics evades intuition, but the equations always gives the correct answer to experiments with an unprecedented accuracy.

When a theory is able to predict observations outside of previous observations we know that the theory carries a great deal of validity in codifying nature. However you have to be careful of conflating religious faith, “unevidenced belief”, with scientific faith, “justified confidence”.

 

[Wuwei]

Not when discussing origin of the universe or life... that is science and should be taught in a science class. There is no "truth" whenever we don't know what the truth is. We don't know how the universe originated or how life originated. All we have are theories.

College has no problem because students are generally mature enough to have no confusion of what science is. I don't know what is in high school classes these days, but I never encountered abiogenesis nor the big bang theory. Those concepts are too difficult for HS students.

However I think it would be silly after an extensive lecture on the big bang for a teacher to say.... "Or God did it." What more can one say?

I have no problem with keeping "religion" out of the classroom but that includes the religion of "Scientism" and "Atheism" as well. We're not going to discriminate based on religion and we're shouldn't promote one religion over another. There is certainly something in the constitution regarding that.

I see that as a non-problem. I have not heard of anyone breaching that. Science that I have seen at all grade levels has never tried to bombastically preach science.

As for what we teach... we should err of the side of more information and not less. I have no problem, in a science class, teaching.... here are the various things people believe with regard to the questions of origin... and we teach ALL the beliefs... not just the chosen ones. Now, we don't need to be specific... we don't have to go over the thousands of various religious beliefs or the hundreds of variations of abiogenesis theory... we can consolidate those beliefs into a more general sense.. but we should basically teach everything and under the understanding that the question is unanswered and unknown.

Error on the side of more information? Usually science classes have a hard enough time teaching the basics, let alone dilute it with non-science issues. If I were teaching a science class I wouldn't do as you suggest. If a student asks about God, I would simply tell them to ask their parents to direct them to the proper material for that, and my role here is to teach only the science as we know it.

 

[Boss]

No.. we don't know and you just spun our not knowing into some assumption that we somehow do. We don't know how the universe began or how life began. We have theories. Solid, sound or valid... they are still only theories. Empirical truth is not a theory.

There is something I like to call "Scientism" ...It is a "religious faith" centered around scientific theory. Zealots and fanatics who practice this religion are prone to argue that theories are truths... that hypothesis are facts. I reject Scientism just as I reject any organized religion.

I think we have a disconnect in terminology. The hard sciences never looks for truth. It is meaningless in science. The basis of the hard sciences is in mathematical models of empirical experiments. Quantum mechanics evades intuition, but the equations always gives the correct answer to experiments with an unprecedented accuracy.

When a theory is able to predict observations outside of previous observations we know that the theory carries a great deal of validity in codifying nature. However you have to be careful of conflating religious faith, “unevidenced belief”, with scientific faith, “justified confidence”.

What do you mean, science doesn't look for truth? Does it seek non-truth? Of course it searches for truth... that's the purpose. It doesn't ever CONCLUDE truth because Science continues to ask questions. I don't know what you mean by "empirical experiments" so I guess we DO have a disconnect in terminology. Experiments have to be falsifiable... not empirical.

Quantum mechanics don't necessarily yield "correct" answers and we're uncertain of the accuracy since we don't know the answer. Furthermore, there can be just as much "justified confidence" with a religious belief as a scientific one, that is a matter of perception.

When you speak of "validity in codifying nature" you seem to ignore spiritual nature in deference to physical nature. You seem to be assuming that because spiritual nature lacks physical evidence it doesn't exist... how would you feel of I rejected physical nature on the basis it lacks spiritual evidence? Of course, I don't believe that... I think physical nature has spiritual evidence.

Now... Theories are great, Science is great... I have no problem with either. I simply don't believe that theories are necessarily facts or truths. They might be... or they could be completely wrong... we don't know. We can THINK we know... certainly, some people believe we DO know. But that is called FAITH.

 

[Wuwei]

What do you mean, science doesn't look for truth? Does it seek non-truth? Of course it searches for truth... that's the purpose. It doesn't ever CONCLUDE truth because Science continues to ask questions. I don't know what you mean by "empirical experiments" so I guess we DO have a disconnect in terminology. Experiments have to be falsifiable... not empirical.

Empirical = Relying on or derived from observation.
Experiments can falsify theory, but only a poorly done experiment can be falsifiable.

Science consists of experiments which result in data. In the hard sciences that data are numbers such as the wavelength of light coming from atoms, the force of gravity. Mathematical models are equations which tell or predict results of various scientific problems. There is no truth involved in mathematical models. Truth is too strong of a word in science. I would use the phrase "justifiable confidence".

Quantum mechanics don't necessarily yield "correct" answers and we're uncertain of the accuracy since we don't know the answer.

Quantum mechanics does give correct answers. Without it we would have never been able to develop lasers, super computers, GPS systems, cell phones, and countless other things.

When you speak of "validity in codifying nature" you seem to ignore spiritual nature in deference to physical nature. You seem to be assuming that because spiritual nature lacks physical evidence it doesn't exist... how would you feel of I rejected physical nature on the basis it lacks spiritual evidence? Of course, I don't believe that... I think physical nature has spiritual evidence.

This is another terminology disconnect. By codifying nature, I mean the mathematics of physics. You don't use mathematics in discussing spiritual nature. When scientists refer to laws of nature they are restricting it to the material universe.

Now... Theories are great, Science is great... I have no problem with either. I simply don't believe that theories are necessarily facts or truths. They might be... or they could be completely wrong... we don't know. We can THINK we know... certainly, some people believe we DO know. But that is called FAITH.

I completely agree with that. As far as science, the only faith that I have is that the fundamental nature of forces, matter, space, time, energy, etc. can be modeled with mathematics.

As far as my spiritual nature, which I never intermix with science, I am a sort of pantheist. My moniker is a concept from Taoism.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
if the universe were an intelligent design its basic ingredient would have been an Atmosphere throughout the same as planet Earth otherwise what order there may be has no relevance.

.

 

[Boss]

Empirical = Relying on or derived from observation.
Experiments can falsify theory, but only a poorly done experiment can be falsifiable.

Falsifiability - Karl Popper's Basic Scientific Principle

Karl Popper's Basic Scientific Principle
Falsifiability, as defined by the philosopher, Karl Popper, defines the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis.

Science and philosophy have always worked together to try to uncover truths about the world and the universe around us. Both are a necessary element for the advancement of knowledge and the development of human society.

Scientists design experiments and try to obtain results verifying or disproving a hypothesis, but philosophers are the driving force in determining what factors determine the validity of scientific results.

Science and philosophy have always worked together to try to uncover truths about the world and the universe around us. Both are a necessary element for the advancement of knowledge and the development of human society.

Often, they even determine the nature of science itself and influence the direction of viable research. As one theory is falsified, another evolves to replace it and explain the new observations.

One of the tenets behind science is that any scientific hypothesis and resultant experimental design must be inherently falsifiable. Although falsifiability is not universally accepted, it is still the foundation of the majority of scientific experiments.

Quantum mechanics does give correct answers. Without it we would have never been able to develop lasers, super computers, GPS systems, cell phones, and countless other things.

None of the things you listed rely solely on quantum mechanics although QM has been instrumental in helping to understand them better.

Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the formalism of quantum mechanics, the state of a system at a given time is described by a complex wave function, also referred to as state vector in a complex vector space.[22] This abstract mathematical object allows for the calculation of probabilities of outcomes of concrete experiments. For example, it allows one to compute the probability of finding an electron in a particular region around the nucleus at a particular time. Contrary to classical mechanics, one can never make simultaneous predictions of conjugate variables, such as position and momentum, with accuracy. For instance, electrons may be considered (to a certain probability) to be located somewhere within a given region of space, but with their exact positions unknown. Contours of constant probability, often referred to as "clouds", may be drawn around the nucleus of an atom to conceptualize where the electron might be located with the most probability. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle quantifies the inability to precisely locate the particle given its conjugate momentum.[23]

This is another terminology disconnect. By codifying nature, I mean the mathematics of physics. You don't use mathematics in discussing spiritual nature. When scientists refer to laws of nature they are restricting it to the material universe.

That's because "Science" is short for "Physical Science" ...we just leave the "Physical" part out. We can't currently use physical science to examine or explore things which are spiritual and it presents a rational paradox... for, if we prove something spiritual using physics (or physical science) the spiritual thing henceforth becomes "physical" and no longer "spiritual" in nature. So you see, the problem here is... one is not the other. When scientists refer to laws of physical nature they are restricting it to the physical material universe. This does not refute or negate Spiritual Nature in any way, nor is it evidence that Spiritual Nature doesn't exist or is invalid.

I completely agree with that. As far as science, the only faith that I have is that the fundamental nature of forces, matter, space, time, energy, etc. can be modeled with mathematics.

As far as my spiritual nature, which I never intermix with science, I am a sort of pantheist. My moniker is a concept from Taoism.

Yes, you have faith in physical science and mathematics. Now, as it turns out, physical science and mathematics are sometimes wrong. This is why hypothesis must be tested rigorously and experiments must be falsifiable. Case in point... Newtonian physics versus Einstein's theory of special relativity. Einstein's theory contradicts Newtonian physics, even though the math behind Newtonian physics is solid and for all practical purposes, is valid outside of special circumstances.

Now... Imagine if Einstein began working on his theory and he discovers that it doesn't jive with Newton? Well, if he believes that Newtonian physics is "empirical truth" then he gives up on his theory because he realizes it's not valid. Science cannot advance this way.... it has to continue to question even that which is firmly believed to be true... even if it doesn't make sense. Because, every now and then, we discover we're wrong.

Did you know that virtually every physics textbook in America is wrong? It's true! Most textbooks published before about 2004 will state that the universe is mostly comprised of atoms. However, we know now that this is untrue.... the universe is 96% dark energy and dark matter, of which we know virtually nothing about because we cannot interact with it.

So here is a PRIME example of something we know exists in the physical universe that we cannot observe, test or evaluate with conventional physics. The only way we've been able to estimate a measurement is due to mathematics and the gravitational forces it presents which effect physical bodies in material nature. So mathematics tells us there is something out there other than our material universe and it represents the overwhelming majority of our universe.

 

[zaangalewa]

I never believed that such Christians are existing - but indeed some Christians saying so seem to exist in the USA - and as far as I know only in the USA. And I don't have any idea why people hate science in the USA. There will be reasons for, I guess, or it's just simple L' Enfer c'est les autres (Jean Paul Satre).

Yes, I'm speaking only of the USA.

Perhaps you can tell me one day why the USA destroyed Germany, Austria-Hungaria and the empire of the Osmans in world war 1. That's a mystery to me. I never understood the US-american motivation to do so.

Strict religious fundamentalism is much higher in the US than other countries. Studies have shown that over half the people in the US don't believe in evolution and the big bang theory.

I'm a fundamentalist on my own, because the fundament of the christian religion is Peter, the rock. And our current rockstar is Francescso. For me personally is scientology for example an extremistic organisation, which has absolutelly nothing to do with religion. It's a criminal organisation - nothing else. This sociopaths use just simple mindmanipulating methods to make slaves out of everyone. By the way: Why did you use the formula "religiuos fundamentalism" (=¿antichristian?) and for example not "religious extremism"? Are you yourselve a victim of mindmanipulating methods?

I heard for example also about people who are torturing poor innocent snakes for their perverted games and call this "christian religion". Absurde - what every Christian knows who reads the bible and/or communicates with other Christians. If I think about Johnny Cash for example - He bought once his first guitar here in the area - then his form of religiosity is a little strange for me - but I have the feeling he got a lot of power from god and finally he found his way home.

Studies have shown that over half the people in the US don't believe in evolution and the big bang theory.

The father of the big-bang theory was the priest and phycicist Georges Lemaître and every farmer since thousands of years uses the natural law "evolution" by practicing "'natural' selection". On the other side the expression "evolution" or "genes" are today used in contextes which have often nothing to do with anythgin else any longer. Sometimes its pure ideology and I have the feeling the most people who are using the wors "evolution" don't know what they are speaking about. So no wonder if no one trusts in such people. For example exists not an evolution of cars (or any other machine including software). Such things follow justs simple human plans and fashions. I needed once a longer time to understand why it's impossible to understand the anglo-american discussion "creation vs evolution". It's an empty discussion. You say yourselve here that it is a problem not to believe in evolution (energy becomes tranformed in living entities) and creation (creation of rules, energy, space, time and so on). If you believe in the 'big bang' (=a beginning of the world) then you are a creationist.

 

[zaangalewa]

I think we have a disconnect in terminology. The hard sciences

¿What are "hard sciences"?

never looks for truth. It is meaningless in science. ....

No. It's for example a problem that the star HD 140283 has an age of about 14.5 billion years while the universe is about 13.8 billions years old. Both together is not able to be true - so everyone starts immediatelly to find out what's wrong with such measurements. The scientific paradigma behind such problems is: "What's not wrong is true". But in this case exists something what's wrong. To find the reasons why something is wrong brings progress.

 

[Wuwei]

Karl Popper's Basic Scientific Principle

I said Experiments can falsify theory..

And you come up with a long discussion on Popper which says theory should be falsifiable. We are essentially saying the same thing.

Then I said only a poorly done experiment can be falsifiable. I was thinking of something like cold fusion which was a bad experiment.

None of the things you listed rely solely on quantum mechanics although QM has been instrumental in helping to understand them better.

Oh yes they do I repeat: without QM we would have never been able to develop lasers, super computers, GPS systems, cell phones, and countless other things. QM was absolutely necessary in the whole invention process. Just because you copy and paste a QM paragraph doesn't mean you understand how to use it. QM allows us to understand atomic structure, which allows us to use it inventively.

When scientists refer to laws of physical nature they are restricting it to the physical material universe. This does not refute or negate Spiritual Nature in any way, nor is it evidence that Spiritual Nature doesn't exist or is invalid.

Yes, that is quite obvious.

Yes, you have faith in physical science and mathematics. Now, as it turns out, physical science and mathematics are sometimes wrong. This is why hypothesis must be tested rigorously and experiments must be falsifiable. Case in point... Newtonian physics versus Einstein's theory of special relativity. Einstein's theory contradicts Newtonian physics, even though the math behind Newtonian physics is solid and for all practical purposes, is valid outside of special circumstances.

Now... Imagine if Einstein began working on his theory and he discovers that it doesn't jive with Newton? Well, if he believes that Newtonian physics is "empirical truth" then he gives up on his theory because he realizes it's not valid. Science cannot advance this way.... it has to continue to question even that which is firmly believed to be true... even if it doesn't make sense. Because, every now and then, we discover we're wrong. Etc.

Please understand that I have been in science for decades and you don't need to tell me about Newtonian mechanics or relativity or QM or dark matter or Popper.