The First Law Of Thermodynamics

[mfbukowski]

PFFFFT! You repeat far too often things you have simply been told without looking into it yourself. Victor J. Stenger will thrash your assumption that Mormonism and science is compatible. Read his brand new book "God and The Folly of Faith." Refute that, and I may think you have a possible chance to redeem such silliness as you posted here.

Ok, ok I guess I have to shell out 10 bucks to read the kindle edition.

But if he's wrong you owe me 10 bucks.

He better have a good argument against constructivism, because if he doesn't, he is already cooked.

Boghossian's book is a joke and he even acknowledged it was a mistake to have written it after he realized he didnt even understand constructivism.

http://www.amazon.com/Fear-Knowledge-Against-Relativism-Constructivism/dp/019928718X

Edited July 21, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Not at all. In fact, I'm usually the one doing the telling and I am confident in my research and understanding of LDS doctrine and science. People often fail to differentiate between atheist or anti Christian/Mormon conclusions and actual science and they also often don't even know what science is.

Bring him here and I will debate him. Or perhaps you'd like to represent his pov?

I will be happy to present his point of view. Evolution for starters is not about design or purpose. There is no direction, no intent, and no reason, it just happens. There is absolutely no god or gods directiing their creation via the means of evolution either. There is your first incompatibility with religion. Remember, Mormonism as the "only true religion" has taken a NEUTRAL stance on this issue. Haven't you ever wondered at such a weird take? Here God Almighty himself, the source and fountain and cause of eternal truth, of verifiable truth hasn't given the truth on this most important subject? And all the while evolution continues to show itself WITH EVIDENCE as completely certifiable, while creation has now been completely explained as natural occurrences with no supernatural add on hypothesis even needed? Remember you said Mormonism and science are compatible, but Mormonisms' stance on evolution is a cop out. Neutrality is NOT compatible with the evidence and proofs of evolution, it is a cop out.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I just started Stenger's book a few minutes ago. I hope the rest of the book is better than the tendentious, inaccurate and preposterous foreword. Please tell me it isn't more of the same pap and pablum.

Really? So you think the death of that 11 year old because of the ridiculously placed FALSE FAITH of her parents is legitimate, even when science could have EASILY prevented her death because it understands diabetes? You really think that kind of failure is inaccurate, tedious and pretentious? That doesn't OUTRAGE your MORAL FEELINGS even a tad? Are you so brainwashed into thinking faith always works and is always superior that when evidence is directly against it you think that is pretentious? Is the DEATH of that INNOCENT little girl, and the CONVICTION of her CRIMINAL parents tedious and inaccurate? Should the jury have forgiven them because of their righteousness and spirituality because they went the way of faith? Did their assinine choice of faith alone and belief in the Bible's truths prove them innocent or guilty? The jury's morality in court was OBVIOUSLY much HIGHER than their own faith based Bible morality which killed their daughter wouldn't you say?

Edited July 21, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I'm going to start a new thread for us to discuss whether Mormonism and science are compatible or not BCSpace. I shall call it, Is Mormonism and science compatible?

[mfbukowski]

I will be happy to present his point of view. Evolution for starters is not about design or purpose. There is no direction, no intent, and no reason, it just happens. There is absolutely no god or gods directiing their creation via the means of evolution either. There is your first incompatibility with religion. Remember, Mormonism as the "only true religion" has taken a NEUTRAL stance on this issue. Haven't you ever wondered at such a weird take? Here God Almighty himself, the source and fountain and cause of eternal truth, of verifiable truth hasn't given the truth on this most important subject? And all the while evolution continues to show itself WITH EVIDENCE as completely certifiable, while creation has now been completely explained as natural occurrences with no supernatural add on hypothesis even needed? Remember you said Mormonism and science are compatible, but Mormonisms' stance on evolution is a cop out. Neutrality is NOT compatible with the evidence and proofs of evolution, it is a cop out.

This is simply because science begs the question.

SCIENCE ITSELF IS NOT ABOUT PURPOSE DIRECTION OR INTENT- INDEED SUCH QUESTIONS ARE DELIBERATELY IGNORED.

The entire area it investigates is objective experience which is verifiable to more than one person at the same time. God doesn't enter into that description.

Science only seeks to explain one type of experience and it intentionally excludes questions like whether or not God "exists" because God is not empirically observable.

Neither are the reasons we should be "ethical". I hope he has some better arguments than this one.

Edited July 21, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Really? So you think the death of that 11 year old because of the ridiculously placed FALSE FAITH of her parents is legitimate, even when science could have EASILY prevented her death because it understands diabetes?

Indeed it is very sad that they falsely believed that science was incompatible with faith.

But they were just as mistaken about this as you are.

Edited July 21, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I'm going to start a new thread for us to discuss whether Mormonism and science are compatible or not BCSpace. I shall call it, Is Mormonism and science compatible?

Oh gosh. Really, do we have to?

[volgadon]

Really? So you think the death of that 11 year old because of the ridiculously placed FALSE FAITH of her parents is legitimate, even when science could have EASILY prevented her death because it understands diabetes? You really think that kind of failure is inaccurate, tedious and pretentious? That doesn't OUTRAGE your MORAL FEELINGS even a tad? Are you so brainwashed into thinking faith always works and is always superior that when evidence is directly against it you think that is pretentious? Is the DEATH of that INNOCENT little girl, and the CONVICTION of her CRIMINAL parents tedious and inaccurate? Should the jury have forgiven them because of their righteousness and spirituality because they went the way of faith? Did their assinine choice of faith alone and belief in the Bible's truths prove them innocent or guilty? The jury's morality in court was OBVIOUSLY much HIGHER than their own faith based Bible morality which killed their daughter wouldn't you say?

No, I think those parents are idiots. More than that, they are guilty of criminal neglect and will answer to God. Dan Barker, though, is being emotionally manipulative. He takes that one specific example to tar religion with a broad brush, whilst speaking of science in glowing, general terms.

Does modern medicine never fail? Do people always walk out alive after an operation? What of doctors who push pills on patients when there are more natural and less damagin alternatives? What of organ harvesting? Do faith healings indubitably fail?

The introduction is sanctimonious pap at its finest. Is it typical Dan Barker?

[ERayR]

Really? So you think the death of that 11 year old because of the ridiculously placed FALSE FAITH of her parents is legitimate, even when science could have EASILY prevented her death because it understands diabetes? You really think that kind of failure is inaccurate, tedious and pretentious? That doesn't OUTRAGE your MORAL FEELINGS even a tad? Are you so brainwashed into thinking faith always works and is always superior that when evidence is directly against it you think that is pretentious? Is the DEATH of that INNOCENT little girl, and the CONVICTION of her CRIMINAL parents tedious and inaccurate? Should the jury have forgiven them because of their righteousness and spirituality because they went the way of faith? Did their assinine choice of faith alone and belief in the Bible's truths prove them innocent or guilty? The jury's morality in court was OBVIOUSLY much HIGHER than their own faith based Bible morality which killed their daughter wouldn't you say?

Nope I think that stance is just idiotic as blind faith in science. Their blind faith, as disastrous as it was, proves neither innocence or guilt. Science, as adept as it is in providing marvelous tools and great medical advances still cannot give meaning to life. Blind faith whether it be in faith healing or in science is as you so succinctly put it "asinine".

[Damien the Leper]

I think hypothetical conversations make great straw men.

This is the hypothetical conversation:

The problem with your hypothetical is that nowhere in the original hypothetical does it allude to Big Bang nor suggests anything of the sort. So I will agree with you...your hypothetical is a strawman.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Valentinus

[Damien the Leper]

This assumes that what we refer to as physical laws are consistent within and without physical space as we know it.

I do not believe this is an assumption we are safe in making. Newton's laws are laws up to a certain level of understanding of the material world and then past that understanding cease to function effectively in telling us what is happening or should happen. How do we know this is not the case for other laws that have been determined by what amounts to limited observation....though much less limited than what Newton had to work with, still it is limited?

As soon as we introduce the concept of transcendence, I am not sure what else can be said in regards to physical laws.

It is not my point to make assumptions. As i stated in another thread, I like the Geometric law that states to NEVER ASSUME ANYTHING. If anything I would suggest testing a theory or hypothesis or to conduct a possible Proof chart similar to that of a geometric proof or some other logical, mathematical and scientific reasoning.

[Damien the Leper]

Double post

Edited July 21, 2012 by Valentinus

[WalkerW]

There isn't one. The logic is the refutation of the Kalam argument as well as Aquinas (I think it was him or else the yahoo before him, Anselm)....... it takes faith to say it is God. But that is the extra step hypothesis that is unnecessary. The physicist logically and impeccibly says what you say of God fits in very nicely with what we already know about the Cosmos based on the laws and math we currently understand, hence the universe could very well be as the logical statement says. In other words, God is the unnecessary hypothesis in the scenario.

Aquinas adopted an Aristotelian metaphysical framework in place of the more popular Platonic version. His First Cause argument is often misunderstood and conflated with that of Paley's Watchmaker argument (Dawkins makes this mistake in The God Delusion). Most of those bashing the Scholastic view usually misrepresent it. The position may be incorrect (Mormons would not conflate God with the Aristotelian First Cause), but one should at least get the position correct before arguing against it.

The first cause isn't some cause that started way back when that just so happens to be uncaused. Aquinas knew nothing of the Big Bang and maintained that a "first cause" is needed even if the universe had always been. Why? Because the universe is made up of finite parts (e.g. buildings that did not exist before are built, planets that did not exist before are formed, etc. These are things that had potential, but were then made actual.), the universe in principle does not have to exist. What maintains its existence? Edward Feser covers this extensively in his The Last Superstition: The Refutation of the New Atheism (St. Augustine's Press, 2008) and Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide (Oneworld, 2009). There is a difference between potentiality (essence) and actuality (existence). For example, you may have an idea for a building (e.g. blueprints), but this only represents its potential. It does not actually exist yet. Once it is built, fulfilling the prior plans, it is actualized. Would-be parents make love in order to produce a child. They have the idea of a child, which gives it the potential to exist. But until it is conceived, it does not actually exist. And so forth. This is atrociously oversimplifying the issue, but you hopefully get the gist. The classical theism as I understand it is that God's essence is pure actuality. If all things in the universe in principle did not have to actually exist, but do, then something must account for its existence. This would be pure actuality; where essence and existence (potentiality and actuality) are one and the same. This pure actuality, ground of all being, Being itself, has been equated with God. Aquinas was more so laying out that if there is a God, this is what we can really say about Him.

[WalkerW]

No, I think those parents are idiots. More than that, they are guilty of criminal neglect and will answer to God. Dan Barker, though, is being emotionally manipulative. He takes that one specific example to tar religion with a broad brush, whilst speaking of science in glowing, general terms.

Does modern medicine never fail? Do people always walk out alive after an operation? What of doctors who push pills on patients when there are more natural and less damagin alternatives? What of organ harvesting? Do faith healings indubitably fail?

The introduction is sanctimonious pap at its finest. Is it typical Dan Barker?

A girl with diabetes would be seen as unfit by "scientific" eugenicists. Praise 20th-century progressive scientism.

[Calm]

Really? So you think the death of that 11 year old because of the ridiculously placed FALSE FAITH of her parents is legitimate, even when science could have EASILY prevented her death because it understands diabetes? You really think that kind of failure is inaccurate, tedious and pretentious? That doesn't OUTRAGE your MORAL FEELINGS even a tad? Are you so brainwashed into thinking faith always works and is always superior that when evidence is directly against it you think that is pretentious? Is the DEATH of that INNOCENT little girl, and the CONVICTION of her CRIMINAL parents tedious and inaccurate? Should the jury have forgiven them because of their righteousness and spirituality because they went the way of faith? Did their assinine choice of faith alone and belief in the Bible's truths prove them innocent or guilty? The jury's morality in court was OBVIOUSLY much HIGHER than their own faith based Bible morality which killed their daughter wouldn't you say?

As someone with a diabetic daughter, I can say that while science has kept her alive, it has certainly not given us the answers or even tools with which to deal with the most significant problems of the quality of her life as it now is (or was) nor do I believe that some more evolved medical treatment would meet all her needs. What medicine/science can do is clear out the clutter, the influences that may overwhelm us, but it doesn't provide the answers on how to change the fundamental self or even more so the relationships that exist between our selves and other selves.

And claiming that science understands diabetes is an overstatement. It has no clue why my daughter got it, for example. It is not genetic in our family.

Edited July 21, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

It is not my point to make assumptions. As i stated in another thread, I like the Geometric law that states to NEVER ASSUME ANYTHING. If anything I would suggest testing a theory or hypothesis or to conduct a possible Proof chart similar to that of a geometric proof or some other logical, mathematical and scientific reasoning.

Excellent. Now describe to me how you would go about doing so for "things that transcend our known physical universe".

[WalkerW]

Also, Stenger is not a historian or philosopher of science by trade. Those who are have noted that the science vs. religion conflict is actually quite absurd:

Peter Harrison (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion (Cambridge University Press, 2010).

David C. Lindberg, Ronald L. Numbers (eds.), God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter Between Christianity and Science (University of California Press, 1986).

Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery (Princeton University Press, 2003).

Ronald L. Numbers (ed.), Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion (Harvard University Press, 2010).

[WalkerW]

Really? So you think the death of that 11 year old because of the ridiculously placed FALSE FAITH of her parents is legitimate, even when science could have EASILY prevented her death because it understands diabetes? You really think that kind of failure is inaccurate, tedious and pretentious? That doesn't OUTRAGE your MORAL FEELINGS even a tad? Are you so brainwashed into thinking faith always works and is always superior that when evidence is directly against it you think that is pretentious? Is the DEATH of that INNOCENT little girl, and the CONVICTION of her CRIMINAL parents tedious and inaccurate? Should the jury have forgiven them because of their righteousness and spirituality because they went the way of faith? Did their assinine choice of faith alone and belief in the Bible's truths prove them innocent or guilty? The jury's morality in court was OBVIOUSLY much HIGHER than their own faith based Bible morality which killed their daughter wouldn't you say?

I think it is ironic that a medical example is used. While religious conservatives are generally those opposing the science behind things like evolution, it is generally secular leftists leading the anti-vaccine movements. Stupidity is stupidity, whether informed by creationist dogma or hippie nonsense.

[Damien the Leper]

Excellent. Now describe to me how you would go about doing so for "things that transcend our known physical universe".

Cal, I'm not a scientist yet. I'd have to study deeper into physics to develop such a method. Maybe I can find something online that closely resembles the study which I propose.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Also, Stenger is not a historian or philosopher of science by trade. Those who are have noted that the science vs. religion conflict is actually quite absurd:

Peter Harrison (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion (Cambridge University Press, 2010).

David C. Lindberg, Ronald L. Numbers (eds.), God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter Between Christianity and Science (University of California Press, 1986).

Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery (Princeton University Press, 2003).

Ronald L. Numbers (ed.), Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion (Harvard University Press, 2010).

This will simply denegrate into my authorities are better than yours though. I can easily find as many authors who say the contrary to these gentlemen. Science, so far as we are able to tell, since we lack any counter-examples to the contrary has NEVER given in to a religious claim of a truth and agreed that whatever it is religion found that is accurate and true based on evidence, science has been forced to agree. But the flip side is religion has given ground, not once, not just twice, but in virtually EVERY single case that I am aware of. That is because as a democratic principle, to be shared, tested, learned, examined, and seen by everyone and anyone, the evidences of science whether in evolution, medicine, astronomy, chemistry, physics, cosmology, sociology, anthropology, etc. WORKS. Science has the track record. Once again, this is why religion tries so desperately hard to coddle with science, but science has no need to return the same. Science is based on observation of data, collection of data, analysis of data, and based on what we see and learn, we find knowledge that WORKS, hence the rise of our incredible technology. The track record is firmly established with science, as anyone peering into telescopes, microscopes, computers, televisions, x-ray machines, and medicine immediately recognizes. Does it have ALL the answers? Not by a long, LONG shot, but that doesn't mean nothing is working and we are not the direct beneficiaries of its magnificent knowledge to improve our lives and our world.

The problem with religion as Stenger so perfectly noted, is that it is stuck in medieval thinking. "Evolution and modern cosmology not only exemplify the ubiquity of change but also the absence of hierarchy, in direct contradiction to the medieval view. Humans share the same genetics with bacteria and the same physics with inanimate objects such as rocks. Magic, sorcery, and astrology are not confirmed as separate forces of nature. Modern science finds no evidence to support revelation as a source of information, no sign of intelligent design, and no need for everything to have a cause... the Bible is so filled with violence, contradictions, and downright errors that it provides no reliable source for the nature of reality or morality. God is not needed to explain any human observation." (Victor J. Stenger, "God and the Folly of Faith," Prometheus Books, 2012: 78). The overall problem with religion is simply this: it and its practitioners "still cling to medieval religious concepts." (Ibid., p. 78)

Edited July 21, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[Robert F. Smith]

PFFFFT! You repeat far too often things you have simply been told without looking into it yourself. Victor J. Stenger will thrash your assumption that Mormonism and science is compatible. Read his brand new book "God and The Folly of Faith." Refute that, and I may think you have a possible chance to redeem such silliness as you posted here.

Hang on there, pardner!

Stenger has an article out which summarizes his POV: See his “The Folly of Faith,” Huff Post Religion, May 17, 2011, online at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/the-folly-of-faith_b_863179.html . The thing to focus on is his rejection of supernaturalism and the like. His case doesn't touch Mormonism, which is naturalistic.

Moreover, the existence of a "fine-tuned universe" and "Goldilocks planets," makes intelligent design by a very advanced sentient being or beings quite likely. See Michael Sudduth, “The Universe, Design, and Fine Tuning,” handout #11 (2003), online at http://philofreligion.homestead.com/files/cumulativecase.htm , and Michael Ikeda and William H. Jeffreys, “The Anthropic Principle Does Not Support Supernaturalism” (April 2006), online at http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/anthropic.html .

Finally, note Anthony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (HarperOne, 2008). “At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A superintelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England” (interview by Richard Ostling, AP, Dec 9, 2004).

Mormonism is not only compatible with science, but it thrives on it.

.

[Robert F. Smith]

This assumes that what we refer to as physical laws are consistent within and without physical space as we know it.

I do not believe this is an assumption we are safe in making. Newton's laws are laws up to a certain level of understanding of the material world and then past that understanding cease to function effectively in telling us what is happening or should happen. How do we know this is not the case for other laws that have been determined by what amounts to limited observation....though much less limited than what Newton had to work with, still it is limited?

As soon as we introduce the concept of transcendence, I am not sure what else can be said in regards to physical laws.

That assumes that "transcendence" is a necessary condition . . .

[Robert F. Smith]

This will simply denegrate into my authorities are better than yours though. I can easily find as many authors who say the contrary to these gentlemen. Science, so far as we are able to tell, since we lack any counter-examples to the contrary has NEVER given in to a religious claim of a truth and agreed that whatever it is religion found that is accurate and true based on evidence, science has been forced to agree. But the flip side is religion has given ground, not once, not just twice, but in virtually EVERY single case that I am aware of. That is because as a democratic principle, to be shared, tested, learned, examined, and seen by everyone and anyone, the evidences of science whether in evolution, medicine, astronomy, chemistry, physics, cosmology, sociology, anthropology, etc. WORKS. Science has the track record. Once again, this is why religion tries so desperately hard to coddle with science, but science has no need to return the same. Science is based on observation of data, collection of data, analysis of data, and based on what we see and learn, we find knowledge that WORKS, hence the rise of our incredible technology. The track record is firmly established with science, as anyone peering into telescopes, microscopes, computers, televisions, x-ray machines, and medicine immediately recognizes. Does it have ALL the answers? Not by a long, LONG shot, but that doesn't mean nothing is working and we are not the direct beneficiaries of its magnificent knowledge to improve our lives and our world.

The problem with religion as Stenger so perfectly noted, is that it is stuck in medieval thinking. "Evolution and modern cosmology not only exemplify the ubiquity of change but also the absence of hierarchy, in direct contradiction to the medieval view. Humans share the same genetics with bacteria and the same physics with inanimate objects such as rocks. Magic, sorcery, and astrology are not confirmed as separate forces of nature. Modern science finds no evidence to support revelation as a source of information, no sign of intelligent design, and no need for everything to have a cause... the Bible is so filled with violence, contradictions, and downright errors that it provides no reliable source for the nature of reality or morality. God is not needed to explain any human observation." (Victor J. Stenger, "God and the Folly of Faith," Prometheus Books, 2012: 78). The overall problem with religion is simply this: it and its practitioners "still cling to medieval religious concepts." (Ibid., p. 78)

The problem with all that is that, as great a physicist as he is, Stenger is not a trained historian, and has given himself over to obvious confirmation bias.

[volgadon]

A girl with diabetes would be seen as unfit by "scientific" eugenicists. Praise 20th-century progressive scientism.

Very true. Have you ever seen the Nazi propaganda film Das Erbe? We were shown it and other Nazi euthanasia films in high school. Chilling.

[volgadon]

I think it is ironic that a medical example is used. While religious conservatives are generally those opposing the science behind things like evolution, it is generally secular leftists leading the anti-vaccine movements. Stupidity is stupidity, whether informed by creationist dogma or hippie nonsense.

This dichotomy also ignores the very real contribution missionary movements have made to the spread of modern medicine. As an example, for over half a century, one of the few modern hospitals in Israel/Palestine was the one run by Scottish missionaries in Tiberias. Tens of thousands owe their lives to the faith of the Torrances, and the number increases significantly if one takes other mission hospitals into consideration.