The Fundamental Conflict Between Science And Religion

[mfbukowski]

Practice?

btw, you know I don't think science is the only way to study things. Why would you defend such an accusation against what I'm saying?

I was replying to the words, not the context. Your replies are often like that one, regardless of what the question is.

But it does seem clear that the only way you believe we can know things is through objective verification of the evidence. It is an easy jump, though not an accurate one, to think you believe that science is the only way to "study things".

[elguanteloko]

I was replying to the words, not the context. Your replies are often like that one, regardless of what the question is.

But it does seem clear that the only way you believe we can know things is through objective verification of the evidence. It is an easy jump, though not an accurate one, to think you believe that science is the only way to "study things".

Since you do agree then my response was proper so, why do you complaint?

Logic is a way to study things, too, and so is poetry. Do you get now that I don't accept "objective verification of the evidence" as the only way to get to know things? I hope you do.

[Franktalk]

Once upon a time there was a man who discovered a way to open a door between universes. Then one day he decided to enter into another universe. He met people there in this strange universe who were studying how their universe works. They had built up a library of knowledge of the parts of their universe and could describe the cause and effect relationship between their forces. The man studied the data and found out that this other universe although looking almost the same did not in fact work like the one he had left. Most things were close but just a little different. The man spent some time learning the language of these men so he could tell them the greater truth that their universe was just a thing and the rules were set by some greater power. The day came and he gathered the great men of the other universe together to explain to them how their universe was but one of many and how the rules they saw as foundational were if fact arbitrary. The men listened to the stranger and asked him some questions. Then they looked at each other and smiled. They all stood up and took the new man outside where they burned him at the stake. Of course the wood burned slightly hotter in this universe.

When we look at this universe from a faith in God perspective we see this universe as created. We believe the scriptures that say that forces are bound and limits are placed on objects. We see what naturalists see. We just see beyond this world in our understanding.

[mfbukowski]

Since you do agree then my response was proper so, why do you complaint?

Logic is a way to study things, too, and so is poetry. Do you get now that I don't accept "objective verification of the evidence" as the only way to get to know things? I hope you do.

Sure, if you say so. I haven't heard that before from you.

My question that I can never get you to talk about is whether or not there is a "source" for experience that we can talk about. We can get to the others later.

[elguanteloko]

Sure, if you say so. I haven't heard that before from you.

My question that I can never get you to talk about is whether or not there is a "source" for experience that we can talk about. We can get to the others later.

The source of experience? The brain or brain states or neural states, etc.

well... sort of. Brain states correspond to experiences. Now, what causes a particular brain state? Could be many thing but I don't think you want to talk about those 'many things'. Did that answer your question?

[Jeff K.]

'Curiosity' and 'The Creation Question on the discovery channel this evening seems to answer this converation. It appears the answer, at least from the one physicists point of implies there is no conflict they answer distinct questions and require distinct proofs which do not necessarily interact. Dr. John Hott I believe said that (paraphrased).

[elguanteloko]

'Curiosity' and 'The Creation Question on the discovery channel this evening seems to answer this converation. It appears the answer, at least from the one physicists point of implies there is no conflict they answer distinct questions and require distinct proofs which do not necessarily interact. Dr. John Hott I believe said that (paraphrased).

"They said" appeals won't work here, Jeff. You keep on going without addressing the problem I presented here.

[mfbukowski]

The source of experience? The brain or brain states or neural states, etc.

well... sort of. Brain states correspond to experiences. Now, what causes a particular brain state? Could be many thing but I don't think you want to talk about those 'many things'. Did that answer your question?

Au contraire! That is precisely what I want to talk about. Does the brain state cause the experience or the experience cause the brain state? A bear jumps out in front of you and charges- is the brainstate causing the experience? (I think not- I think your scary experience is causing you to be flooded with adrenalin)

How is it that brain states "correspond" to experiences? What about Mary's room? Do brain states describe experiences? Do experiences describe physical mental states? Surely not. (see my siggy for Nagel quote)

Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like ‘red’, ‘blue’, and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence ‘The sky is blue’. [...] What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or not? ^[4]

I think that brainstates are clearly correlated with experiences, but you cannot say that one completely defines or causes the other. And I can show you a whole bunch of philosophers of the mind who would agree.

So scientific empirical observations are caused by brainstates? It seems you are becoming a "brain in a vat" guy- a development I would not expect.

On that view we are just pools of changing chemicals which cause our experiences.

Edited August 8, 2011 by mfbukowski

[elguanteloko]

Au contraire! That is precisely what I want to talk about. Does the brain state cause the experience or the experience cause the brain state? A bear jumps out in front of you and charges- is the brainstate causing the experience? (I think not- I think your scary experience is causing you to be flooded with adrenalin)

How is it that brain states "correspond" to experiences? What about Mary's room? Do brain states describe experiences? Do experiences describe physical mental states? Surely not. (see my siggy for Nagel quote)

I think that brainstates are clearly correlated with experiences, but you cannot say that one completely defines or causes the other. And I can show you a whole bunch of philosophers of the mind who would agree.

I'm not saying that the brain states 'cause' experiences or that experiences cause brain states. I'm not saying brain states describe experiences or that experiences describe physical mental states.

I'm saying that both are the same 'stuff' described differently which in a sense make them two different things. Think about a word written in a piece of paper. Did the letters cause the lines and curves? Did the lines and curves 'cause' the letters? Do the letters 'cause' the meaning of the word? Does the meaning 'cause' the letters? Those aren't appropriate questions that really get to describe the relationship that is going on (the way of speaking itself doesn't describe what is going on). That's how far I've figured out myself but I'm going to study Heidegger's Being and Time which I'm sure will help me much more (and take a Phenomenology class next semester for which I'm quite excited about!).

Edited August 8, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Jeff K.]

"They said" appeals won't work here, Jeff. You keep on going without addressing the problem I presented here.

Let me know when you present a problem. So far the only thing you have articulated is that you cannot... articulate. Moving goal posts and saying everyone else doesn't understand you is petulant. But then again, I could do as you do and say "You don't understand" or "Reread the posts and get back to me" or "You don't get it" or ..... That seems to be your stock and trade.

You presume from the outset there is a fundamental problem. But you cannot explain it well, even for the scientists on this board, you cannot seem to provide parameters, and you seem to move the goal posts with ease. I think the problem science has is an advocate that doesn't understand it, nor religion.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Jeff K.

[mfbukowski]

I'm not saying that the brain states 'cause' experiences or that experiences cause brain states. I'm not saying brain states describe experiences or that experiences describe physical mental states.

I'm saying that both are the same 'stuff' described differently which in a sense make them two different things.

I think you are just getting yourself in deeper postulating some kind of "stuff" which sounds an awful lot like Neoplatonic "substance"- the same sort of "stuff" which changes from flesh to the Eucharist for Catholics.

Think about a word written in a piece of paper. Did the letters cause the lines and curves? Did the lines and curves 'cause' the letters? Do the letters 'cause' the meaning of the word? Does the meaning 'cause' the letters? Those aren't appropriate questions that really get to describe the relationship that is going on. That's how far I've figured out myself but I'm going to study Heidegger's Being and Time which I'm sure will help me much more (and take a Phenomenology class next semester for which I'm quite excited about!).

That's great you are taking that class, but I think you might find Heidegger less than illuminating on that issue. But I am very interested in hearing your observations. Good for you!

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 07 August 2011 - 10:46 PM, said:

'Curiosity' and 'The Creation Question on the discovery channel this evening seems to answer this converation. It appears the answer, at least from the one physicists point of implies there is no conflict they answer distinct questions and require distinct proofs which do not necessarily interact. Dr. John Hott I believe said that (paraphrased).

"They said" appeals won't work here, Jeff. You keep on going without addressing the problem I presented here.

Chuckle, just realized I gave you a name and the television show. Not sure what more is expected. You certainly aren't providing much. However looking at the face value of the statement. What is wrong with the portion that is emboldened? Or are you able to answer without the usual "you don't understand" (which by the way reflects your understanding, not ours).

[elguanteloko]

I think you are just getting yourself in deeper postulating some kind of "stuff" which sounds an awful lot like Neoplatonic "substance"- the same sort of "stuff" which changes from flesh to the Eucharist for Catholics.

Could be. I don't know yet.

That's great you are taking that class, but I think you might find Heidegger less than illuminating on that issue. But I am very interested in hearing your observations. Good for you!

Ah, but I'm not interested so much in what he has to say about it but how he says it! He was purposefully looking for a different way of thinking (and consequently of speaking) which is what I'm most interested about.

You see, philosophy, too, can be seen as a language that tries to express something and that something is something I can only describe as a style. That's what I'm after primarily.

[elguanteloko]

duplicate.

Edited August 8, 2011 by elguanteloko

[thesometimesaint]

Robert F. Smith:

It's a bit more complacted than merely designing a test for God. Science is the study of the natural world/universe, and religion(taken broadly) is the study of the supernatural. It's a bit like studying which is better, Chocolate, or Vanilla ice cream. All of a sudden it becomes VERY subjective. I don't see where there will be a resolution, at least in this life, to the question of God. Science works because anyone, if they take the time and energy to learn it, can do it, regardless of belief. Religion works in the lives(actions) of its believers.

No matter how often I burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen all I'm going to get is water. IF a flying miniture pink elephant pops out. More than likely it is I who made a serious mistake, and not that God is playing tricks on me.

Edited August 8, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Jeff K.]

No matter how often I burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen all I'm going to get is water. IF a flying miniture pink elephant pops out. More than likely it is I who made a serious mistake, and not that God is playing tricks on me.

Sidenote, did Heisenberg find God's funnybone?

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

Quite possibly, but then again the God I believe in while he does know all the "rules" he does have quite a sense of humor.

[Robert F. Smith]

Ah, but I'm not interested so much in what he has to say about it but how he says it! He was purposefully looking for a different way of thinking (and consequently of speaking) which is what I'm most interested about.

[Re Heidegger]

You see, philosophy, too, can be seen as a language that tries to express something and that something is something I can only describe as a style. That's what I'm after primarily.

Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but it seems to me that what you find so attractive in Heidegger is tantamount to Wittgenstein's kicking down the ladder he had just used to get up into a loft, saying in effect "One cannot use ladders to get into a loft," i.e., philosophy itself cannot be used to come to any conclusions -- a somewhat suicidal axiom for thinkers.

[Robert F. Smith]

Jeff K.:

Quite possibly, but then again the God I believe in while he does know all the "rules" he does have quite a sense of humor.

Yes, but perhaps what might be described as a "wicked" sense of humor (very much like that of my late mother on every April Fools Day -- she showed no mercy). We can see that eastward in Eden when God knows full well beforehand that Eve will go along with the serpentine suggestion and take the hapless man along with her. It had to be, and we don't need right and left brain scientific explanations to know why . . .

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but it seems to me that what you find so attractive in Heidegger is tantamount to Wittgenstein's kicking down the ladder he had just used to get up into a loft, saying in effect "One cannot use ladders to get into a loft," i.e., philosophy itself cannot be used to come to any conclusions -- a somewhat suicidal axiom for thinkers.

With all due respect, I would like to see where you got that reading of Wittgenstein.

Most, if not all, philosophers of the 20th century would disagree heartily with that intepretation.

[Robert F. Smith]

to Robert F. Smith:

It's a bit more complacted than merely designing a test for God. Science is the study of the natural world/universe, and religion(taken broadly) is the study of the supernatural. It's a bit like studying which is better, Chocolate, or Vanilla ice cream. All of a sudden it becomes VERY subjective. I don't see where there will be a resolution, at least in this life, to the question of God. Science works because anyone, if they take the time and energy to learn it, can do it, regardless of belief. Religion works in the lives(actions) of its believers.

No matter how often I burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen all I'm going to get is water. IF a flying miniture pink elephant pops out. More than likely it is I who made a serious mistake, and not that God is playing tricks on me.

It's a bit more complicated than that, saint.

Elguanteloko, like you, mistakenly defines religion in terms of the supernatural (see webbie post #60). Since Mormonism is actually a materialistic and monistic belief system, it accepts all phenomena as natural. Normative Judeo-Christian religion does of course accept immaterialism and a transcendent God (an uncaused cause), assumptions which by themselves carry self-contradictions which are incoherent and self-destructive. This is the mistake which motivates Elguanteloko to declare unconditionally that religion appears as a bunch of premature conclusions to any rational individual, and that the methods of science and religion are completely antithetical to one another (see his post #32). This further leads Elguanteloko to his main point: " . . . we can discriminate between better (or more plausible or probable) explanations and worse explanations" (post #45). He is really declaring which are the most preferred explanations for phenomena.

As Ariarates pointed out (post #33), "conflict" is a premature description here.

In rejecting the objections of Wenglund (##73, 85), Elquanteloko erroneously states that the scientific method makes no claims about itself, nor do parsimony or falsifiability. Of course they do make fundamental hermeneutical assumptions about the nature of reality. Thus, he wants to have his cake and eat it too by dogmatically and hypocritically disallowing the methodology of religion. He says, for example, that "Parsimony isn't falsifiable because it doesn't make claims about the empirical world" (post #63). However, as an empirical matter, as many historians and actual events demonstrate, likelihood is no measure of the reality of specific incidents. A bell curve doesn't account for the odd and inexplicable nature of historical reality. It provides only a measure of likelihood or probability, but cannot describe individual choice any more than it can predict which horse will win a particular race.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[elguanteloko]

Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but it seems to me that what you find so attractive in Heidegger is tantamount to Wittgenstein's kicking down the ladder he had just used to get up into a loft, saying in effect "One cannot use ladders to get into a loft," i.e., philosophy itself cannot be used to come to any conclusions -- a somewhat suicidal axiom for thinkers.

I'm not sure Wittgenstein thought philosophy couldn't get you to conclusions (he himself got to many and was quite passionate about them) but, with the ladder analogy, instead that the things used to get there must be "kicked away". I don't know how I would translate what I'm looking for into Wittgenstein-language, though. Am I seeking to analyze our ladders? Am I seeking to ignore the ladder and get me somewhere? Am I seeking to create a new ladder to get me somewhere? I don't know.

[elguanteloko]

It's a bit more complicated than that, saint.

Elguanteloko, like you, mistakenly defines religion in terms of the supernatural

I'm saying actually the exact opposite! Religion makes 'material claims' or claims about the material which fall under science (in a specific area of science which I've explained already).

Of course they do make fundamental hermeneutical assumptions about the nature of reality.

"About the nature of reality" are not necessarily claims about themselves. When I say "You exist" I am making assumptions about 'reality' but that doesn't mean the proposition "You exist" is about myself... it isn't.

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm saying actually the exact opposite! Religion makes 'material claims' or claims about the material which fall under science (in a specific area of science which I've explained already).

But then you choose the least scientifically manageable or workable tests for that material religion -- tests for a superpowerful man (presumably God) of skin & bone -- instead of more reasonable empirical tests for religion which are both parsimonious and falsifiable. The calculation of probabilities then becomes more a matter of personal preference or "style." To each his own.

"About the nature of reality" are not necessarily claims about themselves. When I say "You exist" I am making assumptions about 'reality' but that doesn't mean the proposition "You exist" is about myself... it isn't.

Of course the axioms of Euclidean geometry, for example, are taken by us without any examination of the Grundlage upon which they rest. However, because there are other types of geometries based on quite different assumptions, they do reflect directly upon themselves in a fundamental way. They same applies to math and logic.

[elguanteloko]

But then you choose the least scientifically manageable or workable tests for that material religion -- tests for a superpowerful man (presumably God) of skin & bone -- instead of more reasonable empirical tests for religion which are both parsimonious and falsifiable.

Such as? I was only giving an example of a religious claim that falls under science but, what other "more parsimonious and falsifiable" claims do you have in mind?

Of course the axioms of Euclidean geometry, for example, are taken by us without any examination of the Grundlage upon which they rest. However, because there are other types of geometries based on quite different assumptions, they do reflect directly upon themselves in a fundamental way. They same applies to math and logic.

I don't understand why you are talking about this here at all. This comment is completely dislocated from what I said.

Again, the proposition "You exist" isn't a statement about me. Really, where's the difficulty there?

Edited August 9, 2011 by elguanteloko