We definitely can test the predictions and theories made by theists. Theists have claimed the earth si 10,000 years old; it isn't. Theists have said that Zeus throws lightning; he doesn't. We know the real causes of these things. Dawkins explains the God exists in the gaps, for example, us not knowing how lightning occurs. In evolution there are literal missing links seized on by creationists as evidence of God's handiwork. How'd you get from A to B? Where's the fossil in between? Must be God. As we fill in the gaps, the role for God is progressively smaller. We will never have a video of each species developing from time zero, but we can sure expect to understand more and more as we keep studying. As more and more things we used to need God to explain become commonplace knowledge, more and more people will view God as having a smaller and smaller role in our culture (prediction; assumes continued march of widespread education and economic successes; societies under stress frequently undergo religious revivals).
As I said earlier, we can't prove a negative, but that shouldn't stop the relentless acquisition of knowledge and the gradual banishment of superstition and myth to the realms of literature and culture. You appear to believe that scientists are loathe to attribute phenomena to God, but that's not because they're automatically against the idea, but rather because there is nothing pointing that direction to speak of*. God was a preexisting faith that people pointed to when we realized species evolve, rather than a logical hypothesis drawn from the available data. If and when God appears on earth and gives direct instructions, violating physical laws for everyone to see, rather than primarily speaking through a few random prophets in the middleast, the situation will have changed. God would clearly be the best explanation for such events once shenanigans like well staged illusions are excluded. While I doubt all the purported instructions various religions have received from their dieties, should something definitive like this (or even just better explained by God than other possibilities) occurs, I'll be among the first in line to figure out the truth from the source. For now, however, verfied, Randi prize winning phenomena that disobey physical laws and explanation still number zero to my best knowledge. There are unexplained and heady phenomena out there, but other than the biggie (distant, relatively unstudiable, and weighty: origin of life) I can't say I know of any that one would think God would be behind (eg, something like the discovery of wave-particle duality).
Seriously, I think once God becomes the most likely hypothesis on the merits of the evidence, rather than the merits of the tradition of the embedded culture, we'll see plenty of scientists believing. Except then they'd be knowing, more than believing (apologies to Carl Sagan).
*same with aliens right? I betcha more scientists believe in intervening Gods than in intervening aliens!
Remembering the Barefoot Doctors
Moderator: Available
Nonsense. A scientist isn't "loathe to attribute phenomena to God". God is simply not a scientific explanation of anything. It's like trying to paint a car with gravel. Gravel is not paint. I might have more to say later, but I'm off to karate workout.IJ wrote:You appear to believe that scientists are loathe to attribute phenomena to God, but that's not because they're automatically against the idea, but rather because there is nothing pointing that direction to speak of*.
------------------------
OK, so karate workout done, also some astronomical observing (Mars is getting big--lots of surface detail available now).
Suddenly I'm bored with this topic. I think I've made my points, and I don't want to come across as being anti-chi myself, since I have an open mind about it with respect to some different places where it comes up, e.g. in the theories behind acupuncture, where I allow that someday it might be shown to be a conceptual model of some kind for something a lot less mystical. I think it's safe to say that I am skeptical to the point of disbelief in all forms of chi projection that I'm aware of, except insofar as it is simply another word for intent and good ole Newtonian mechanics (as was the case in Aikido classes I took).
Mike
No, I've never been motivated enough to go to a meeting. Now that you mention it, maybe I should think about it again, as the thought hasn't even crossed my mind since just after I moved here in 2004.
I actually built both of my scopes, 7" f/6.7 and 120mm f/8.3 Newtonians. I bought the mirrors, though, didn't grind them myself.
I actually built both of my scopes, 7" f/6.7 and 120mm f/8.3 Newtonians. I bought the mirrors, though, didn't grind them myself.
Mike
Mike, don't feel compelled to continue a discussion you think is toast, but I'm pretty sure the only reason God is not a "scientific explanation" is because he's not the best explanation for anything observable at present. I really doubt that if he held a press conference and the world's scientists and priests and master ranked karate guys all attended, and he made a 10 foot wide perfectly cut diamond out of the air in front of everyone on camera, that the scientists he invited out to lunch afterwards would say that His existence wasn't the best explanation of what happened because that wouldn't be "scientific." Anyone who pulled that nonsense would be laughed out of the public eye while everyone else lined up for knowledge and instructions.
And he doesn't have to get creative either... I mean, the rapture would do it for me. That's already supposedly in the works. I was 10% scared one morning in Boston walking down Blackfan toward my hospital when I couldn't figure out for a second why there was NOBODY else visible in any direction and the street is normally bustling with activity. Turns out it was 6 am on a holiday.
And he doesn't have to get creative either... I mean, the rapture would do it for me. That's already supposedly in the works. I was 10% scared one morning in Boston walking down Blackfan toward my hospital when I couldn't figure out for a second why there was NOBODY else visible in any direction and the street is normally bustling with activity. Turns out it was 6 am on a holiday.
--Ian
IJ wrote:Mike, don't feel compelled to continue a discussion you think is toast, but I'm pretty sure the only reason God is not a "scientific explanation" is because he's not the best explanation for anything observable at present.
What makes you so sure???I'm not arguing that God is the best explanation for anything, rather that your statement that it's the only reason or even the primary reason is bunk. The real reason is the scientific method itself. "God did it" is not a valid scientific hypothesis, even if God in fact, did it. Science is not synonymous with the pursuit of truth, or anything nearly so quixotic. It's simply a discipline for building knowledge and weeding out the opposite of knowledge. As such, you are allowed to do some things and not others. Blaming God because you can't think of another explanation is not one of those things you're allowed to do, at least not professionally. Privately, of course, you can think anything you like. However, professionally, if you can't explain something, you shrug your shoulders and move on to another problem, assuming that someday science will be able to handle this problem more easily in the future. You just never seriously entertain the notion that a supernatural being who exists independently of the universe, who is constrained by no physical laws, and who can act whimsically is the explanation for anything. According to you, this is always entertained and subsequently ruled out in favor of some other more likely or a "better" explanation, but what about all those things we can't explain today? Do you seriously think scientists are out there wondering if each of these things might be best explained by invoking God's name? And even when we can come up with an explanation, why would it necessarily be "better"? Even that could not possibly be determined, and who says God doesn't throw lightning bolts? Some theists would argue that absolutely nothing happens in the physical universe without God's tacit approval (a disturbing thought in some ways, I know, but it is tempered with the belief that God more than makes up for corporeal suffering in the afterlife), so that lightning bolt was exactly the way he wanted it, whether or not you prefer to think of it as an entirely God-less phenomenon. Some would even say that the entire universe is a thought in the mind of God, and if he simply stopped thinking about this universe then it would just blink out of existence. In either of these cases, all natural explanations are simultaneously consistent with "God did it."
I guess I just don't know how to explain this any more clearly to you, and for that I can only apologize. Serious scientists do not put "God did it" in their list of things even to consider. It just doesn't mean anything in particular. The standard operating assumption of science is that phenomena have natural explanations. They'll either find one or postpone the question. A scientist might be personally convinced by your 10 foot diamond, but the process by which they decided to believe would not have been scientific just because they are scientists in their day job.
Mike
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Well, for what it's worth it was pretty cool when I was 13. It wasn't boring meetings it was just guys going up to Groton on Saturdays to look at the sky and generally talk about astronomy and telescope making. And to watch Star Trek. I started grinding my own 6" mirror, but ended up not finishing because my mentor left the club.mhosea wrote:No, I've never been motivated enough to go to a meeting. Now that you mention it, maybe I should think about it again, as the thought hasn't even crossed my mind since just after I moved here in 2004.
As for the actual subject of this thread:
Chi is not Religion, nor is it God, souls or any other specific non-chi concept. But no matter what form the speaker believes chi takes, it's basically just as believable as any of the other supernatural explanations out there. Like any such phenomenon, when someone makes a testable claim you can debunk that claim, but you can never say "that thing doesn't exist at all". I'm perfectly willing to accept that believing in things that make you feel good confers a health benefit. That doesn't make the belief itself any more logical or rational, but it does make the choice to believe somewhat rational. If someone can make themselves hit harder by believing in Chi, then so what? It's like people who perform better in sports because they believe God is helping them. I might kind of roll my eyes, but human nature is not going to change just because I would prefer everyone (including myself) to be delusion-free. And hey, since it's not testable, maybe it's not a delusion anyhow.
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Is a positive mindset a delusion?Valkenar wrote:
I might kind of roll my eyes, but human nature is not going to change just because I would prefer everyone (including myself) to be delusion-free. And hey, since it's not testable, maybe it's not a delusion anyhow.
Would you like me to pour back through the literature on religion vs. outcomes and show where religion does and doesn't make a difference?
If you want the world to be "delusion free" (your choice of words), then you will suk as a doctor.
Professional competencies in health sciences education: from multiple intelligences to the clinic floor *
Right, Dr. Ian?
- Bill
* One random article yanked out of the literature
Why must it be supernatural at all, except as a hedge against failuire to detect? To me the closest analogy that springs to mind would be luminiferous aether.Valkenar wrote:But no matter what form the speaker believes chi takes, it's basically just as believable as any of the other supernatural explanations out there.
Mike
"If you want the world to be "delusion free" (your choice of words), then you will suk as a doctor."
Not convinced; I would prefer all humans made their decisions based on observations, rational thinking, and some guiding principles like the golden rule, but my preference (say, to believe that God had nothing to do with the death by metastatic cancer of the Catholic patient that I recently attended the death of with family and priest) only makes me a crummy doctor if I start shoving it on others and lose sight of the "if it works use it" principle. I would hardly be a real devotee of the idea that I should base my decisions and behaviors on observation and logic if I 1) observed that this family and patient wanted to 100% embrace a religious coping strategy around the time of his death 2) observed that doing so appeared to make him much more at peace 3) accepted my task of comforting him and then 4) opted to liberate him of his belief in his last hours of life, right? To your general point, that a robot won't necessarily make a good doctor, I heartily agree, however.
Mike, I get your point, that scientists don't seriously weigh the possibility that God is intervening in the lab, and focus on nonGodly hypotheses, and I agree, and acknowledge that "God did it" is not a scientifically useful theory, but I think it's worth thinking about my point a bit more, too. I didn't say that they weighed the God hypothesis each time they thought about some phenomenon. I said that he's not the "best" explanation for anything observable at present. This is true. It's not just because God is not a useful hypothesis, the way Freudian psychology was unhelpful because everything was about sex whether you did A B or C or their opposites, or the way Dillman's pressure point theories are unhelpful because basically every combination of pressure points follows one of their rules. It's because there is no reason, other than how we've been raised, to suspect that God is up to something.
You raise the issue that he in fact may be responsible for all events, down to the motion of every atom in the universe at all times, and that is not a refutable claim, but it sure is interesting that we're rapidly discovering his preferences for how those things tend to consistently happen (natural laws etc), and while the theory explains everything, it's not any more testable or productive or conceivable than the following:
1) maybe I'm just dreaming an elaborate dream
2) maybe agent smith has plugged me into the matrix
3) Maybe TWO Gods are in control and they decide where each atom moves by vote and they have always agreed
4) Maybe two Gods are in control and they decide where each atom moves by vote and a demigod settles ties.
5) Maybe there is a God senate and house and they write a law about each event that will occur in our world.
You see my problem? Evangelicals, somewhere, right now, are bemoaning the fact that scientists don't take the God hypothesis seriously, but there is no reason, whatsoever, to entertain the theory of their God more than the dozens or so other Gods that could be invoked. A person's preferred God depends not on observations but largely their culture and parenting. The whole idea of God doing something is not more likely on the basis of evidence than the idea that we're in the matrix, that aliens are controlling everything, or that we're dreaming. To seriously entertain the idea that God is throwing lightning means, if we're being fair and true to the evidence, to consider aliens throwing lighting and morpheus throwing lightning and wiccan spirits being involved. There's no way to consider all the possible explanations separately, so really what we're asking is whether we should wonder if something is supernatural in origin. Given our history to date, in which we learned that much illness wasn't an individualized judgment from above, or spread by mysterious ethers, but rather due to tiny organisms, or which we learned that religion sponsored theories on the nature of the cosmos didn't line up with the facts, it seems wise to keep looking for a mundane, quantifiable, natural explanation for observations for a long long time before invoking the supernatural.
Meanwhile, we haven't been saddled with a particularly large number of instances in which natural laws are getting broken to suggest the intervention of a thinking being like the God we usually think of. Maybe that will start happening. Personally, I don't see a reason to say that scientists who are impressed by Gods ability to produce 10 foot diamonds out of the air on demand are being unscientific. That's just your choice of the definition. To me, the scientific thing to do would be to confirm that this diamond exists and that it didn't come from anywhere else and to link the appearances of the diamond with the promises of the glowing bearded deity wandering around making them. Accepting stuff that is confirmed as its gonna be doesn't mean you stop being a scientist. Scientists have changed their practice a lot over time and corrected many of their own mistakes. They can adapt to plausible evidence of a supernatural being, too, had we any. Right now I'm not aware of any phenomena which we should suspect, on the basis of something other than traditional lore, is due to the presence of "God" rather than to natural explanation. Enlighten me?
So in sum: scientists aren't really considering God as a possibility. True. But that's because there's no reason to do so. And if we're to say that it can't be scientific to believe in God even in the face of an avalanche of evidence, because that's not science, we're dealing with definitions / tautology rather than concepts. One could rationally favor the God hypothesis after careful testing showed clear violations of natural laws and no other good explanation and some reason to suspect a certain type of supernatural being (the God we usually envision). If that's not science by definition, cool, but I'd still hire a scientist to run the investigation.
Not convinced; I would prefer all humans made their decisions based on observations, rational thinking, and some guiding principles like the golden rule, but my preference (say, to believe that God had nothing to do with the death by metastatic cancer of the Catholic patient that I recently attended the death of with family and priest) only makes me a crummy doctor if I start shoving it on others and lose sight of the "if it works use it" principle. I would hardly be a real devotee of the idea that I should base my decisions and behaviors on observation and logic if I 1) observed that this family and patient wanted to 100% embrace a religious coping strategy around the time of his death 2) observed that doing so appeared to make him much more at peace 3) accepted my task of comforting him and then 4) opted to liberate him of his belief in his last hours of life, right? To your general point, that a robot won't necessarily make a good doctor, I heartily agree, however.
Mike, I get your point, that scientists don't seriously weigh the possibility that God is intervening in the lab, and focus on nonGodly hypotheses, and I agree, and acknowledge that "God did it" is not a scientifically useful theory, but I think it's worth thinking about my point a bit more, too. I didn't say that they weighed the God hypothesis each time they thought about some phenomenon. I said that he's not the "best" explanation for anything observable at present. This is true. It's not just because God is not a useful hypothesis, the way Freudian psychology was unhelpful because everything was about sex whether you did A B or C or their opposites, or the way Dillman's pressure point theories are unhelpful because basically every combination of pressure points follows one of their rules. It's because there is no reason, other than how we've been raised, to suspect that God is up to something.
You raise the issue that he in fact may be responsible for all events, down to the motion of every atom in the universe at all times, and that is not a refutable claim, but it sure is interesting that we're rapidly discovering his preferences for how those things tend to consistently happen (natural laws etc), and while the theory explains everything, it's not any more testable or productive or conceivable than the following:
1) maybe I'm just dreaming an elaborate dream
2) maybe agent smith has plugged me into the matrix
3) Maybe TWO Gods are in control and they decide where each atom moves by vote and they have always agreed
4) Maybe two Gods are in control and they decide where each atom moves by vote and a demigod settles ties.
5) Maybe there is a God senate and house and they write a law about each event that will occur in our world.
You see my problem? Evangelicals, somewhere, right now, are bemoaning the fact that scientists don't take the God hypothesis seriously, but there is no reason, whatsoever, to entertain the theory of their God more than the dozens or so other Gods that could be invoked. A person's preferred God depends not on observations but largely their culture and parenting. The whole idea of God doing something is not more likely on the basis of evidence than the idea that we're in the matrix, that aliens are controlling everything, or that we're dreaming. To seriously entertain the idea that God is throwing lightning means, if we're being fair and true to the evidence, to consider aliens throwing lighting and morpheus throwing lightning and wiccan spirits being involved. There's no way to consider all the possible explanations separately, so really what we're asking is whether we should wonder if something is supernatural in origin. Given our history to date, in which we learned that much illness wasn't an individualized judgment from above, or spread by mysterious ethers, but rather due to tiny organisms, or which we learned that religion sponsored theories on the nature of the cosmos didn't line up with the facts, it seems wise to keep looking for a mundane, quantifiable, natural explanation for observations for a long long time before invoking the supernatural.
Meanwhile, we haven't been saddled with a particularly large number of instances in which natural laws are getting broken to suggest the intervention of a thinking being like the God we usually think of. Maybe that will start happening. Personally, I don't see a reason to say that scientists who are impressed by Gods ability to produce 10 foot diamonds out of the air on demand are being unscientific. That's just your choice of the definition. To me, the scientific thing to do would be to confirm that this diamond exists and that it didn't come from anywhere else and to link the appearances of the diamond with the promises of the glowing bearded deity wandering around making them. Accepting stuff that is confirmed as its gonna be doesn't mean you stop being a scientist. Scientists have changed their practice a lot over time and corrected many of their own mistakes. They can adapt to plausible evidence of a supernatural being, too, had we any. Right now I'm not aware of any phenomena which we should suspect, on the basis of something other than traditional lore, is due to the presence of "God" rather than to natural explanation. Enlighten me?
So in sum: scientists aren't really considering God as a possibility. True. But that's because there's no reason to do so. And if we're to say that it can't be scientific to believe in God even in the face of an avalanche of evidence, because that's not science, we're dealing with definitions / tautology rather than concepts. One could rationally favor the God hypothesis after careful testing showed clear violations of natural laws and no other good explanation and some reason to suspect a certain type of supernatural being (the God we usually envision). If that's not science by definition, cool, but I'd still hire a scientist to run the investigation.
--Ian
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s
The concept espoused by Jesus applies well outside the simple dichotomy of church/state. I'm with Mike here. The scientific method is used in science. Religion is what we use for spiritual matters - with or without a belief in god(s).
It's kind of like the mindless principles vs. literalism arguments I get into with some unmentioned non-Uechi proselytizers. If you step out of the obvious surface interpretation, you expand the concept in a way that simplifies life. Jesus spoke in parables. It was up to the individual to expand the concept. Jesus would have known not to pose as a scientist.
Speaking of which... Al Gore should have paid attention in Baptist Sunday school.
- Bill
The concept espoused by Jesus applies well outside the simple dichotomy of church/state. I'm with Mike here. The scientific method is used in science. Religion is what we use for spiritual matters - with or without a belief in god(s).
It's kind of like the mindless principles vs. literalism arguments I get into with some unmentioned non-Uechi proselytizers. If you step out of the obvious surface interpretation, you expand the concept in a way that simplifies life. Jesus spoke in parables. It was up to the individual to expand the concept. Jesus would have known not to pose as a scientist.
Speaking of which... Al Gore should have paid attention in Baptist Sunday school.
- Bill
-
f.Channell
- Posts: 3541
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Valhalla
We have no clue what Jesus said.
Gospels were written 50-60 years after his death as best guessed by historians.
Writings of Saint Paul were written 20 years after but he never met him.
To believe a parable is essence requires the same faith as believing in God or Ki.
F.
Gospels were written 50-60 years after his death as best guessed by historians.
Writings of Saint Paul were written 20 years after but he never met him.
To believe a parable is essence requires the same faith as believing in God or Ki.
F.
Sans Peur Ne Obliviscaris
www.hinghamkarate.com
www.hinghamkarate.com
I think your irritation with antics of fundamentalists is the source of your confusion. What they want is to address hypotheses that do not involve God but which are simply motivated by their belief system. You cannot address "God created the earth." with science, but they're not asking for that. What they want is for us to address "The earth is less than 10,000 years old." or something like that. Now that can be investigated with science, and I agree with you there, no reason to address those hypotheses. Point is that none of the hypotheses which actually can be investigated involve God, so not much can be inferred about God by noting that scientists don't attribute phenomena to him. Saying that scientists don't consider God as a possibility because they have no reason to is like saying the reason I don't fly my car to the Venus is because I have no reason to. OK, so it's true that I have no reason to, but even if I did, I have no hope of traveling there in my car. It's not parochial thinking or a failure of imagination. It's just a fact. My car is not a suitable vehicle for that purpose. It won't work, so I'd be a fool to try. All I can infer from the fact that scientists aren't really considering God as a possibility is that in this matter, at least, they're not fools.IJ wrote: So in sum: scientists aren't really considering God as a possibility. True. But that's because there's no reason to do so.
Mike
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
You're really going out on a limb here.f.Channell wrote:
To believe a parable is essence requires the same faith as believing in God or Ki.
I'm not going to argue the semantics and details of New Testament sources. Parsing what I wrote serves no purpose if my point still holds. Call it The Book of Fred if you wish. If someone says something spiritually relevant (e.g. Schit Happens!) well then it's worth repeating. It has nothing to do with ki.
- Matthew 22:21Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ
Works for me, Fred!
- Bill
