Science Abandoned Its True Believers!

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by PoliticalChic, Nov 18, 2012.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,963
    Thanks Received:
    15,724
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +25,095
    Life is strange.
    Almost three centuries ago, the Enlightenment held out the promise that man, equipped with 'Reason,' and with 'Science,' could know, and control all that is and will be.
    Now...science has advanced to the point where, like theology....it relies on faith and conjecture rather than experiments and final truth.

    Some iriony, huh?




    1. Once upon a time, and even now, the most common argument presented is that somehow, science represents a higher level than religion because it is based on fixed, testable laws rather than faith and/or belief. This argument fails once proceeds beyond junior high school level science.

    a. Newton's laws of motion are three physical laws that form the basis for classical mechanics. They describe the relationship between the forces acting on a body and its motion due to those forces.
    Newton's laws of motion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    2. Classical, or Newtonian physics, assumed that an objective world exists, and that we can observe and measure without essentially changing same. But, at the subatomic level, the laws of Newtonian physics do not apply: it is impossible to observe reality without changing it.

    3. For example, the centerpiece of classical physics was the theory of motion: if we know where an object is, and we know its velocity (speed and direction), we can plot its course. By extension, if the same could be known for every particle in the universe, and the forces acting on them, we could predict the entire future of the universe! The implication is that every event is completely determined.





    4. But, on the quantum level, we cannot know position and velocity at the same time: the very process of observing particles changes their position. Therefore, complete determinism is impossible. Unless…we form a theory that states that every possible permutation of laws exists at once!

    a. In a search for epistemological truth, some physicists have actually suggested that all things, all laws, are possible at the same time. The Everett many-worlds interpretation, formulated in 1956, holds that all the possibilities described by quantum theory simultaneously occur in a multiversecomposed of mostly independent parallel universes. Everett's Relative-State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

    5. No better indication of the lack of certainty in science can be testified to than this: “Whenever the physicist penetrates to the atomic or electric level in his analysis, he finds things acting in a way for which he can assign no cause…this means nothing more or less than that the law of cause and effect must be given up.”
    Percy Bridgman, “Reflections of a Physicist,” p. 93. (Bridgman won the Nobel Prize in Physics)





    6. So, at this level of science, one finds that the attempts of the Enlightenment, and the French Revolution, to direct the world via reason, and science, fall short. Perhaps such attempts to replace religion were too hasty. Rationality was not the hallowed path to truth as the Enlightenment had claimed!

    a. Again? Science now admits it doesn’t have answers…and must proceed based on faith. Guess what else proceeds based on faith?





    7. In classical physics, the world was ordered, not by the faithfulness of a personal God but by inexorable natural laws. Nothing was outside of nature’s fixed order.

    a. The protest by theologians had been dismissed as merely anti-scientific. Gone is the image of the universe as a machine determined by mathematical laws.

    8. As Arthur Koestler said, “Since the Renaissance, the Ultimate Cause had gradually shifted from the heavens to the atomic nucleus.” Now, physics could no longer be used to rule out biblical accounts, or a belief in God.

    And, if science proceeds, by the intuitive rather than the rational, how is it different from theology?



    And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
    There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
    Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
    William Shakespeare
     
  2. Sallow
    Offline

    Sallow The Big Bad Wolf. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    56,535
    Thanks Received:
    6,132
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    New York City
    Ratings:
    +7,394
    There's no irony.

    You folks ascribe science to a "faith".

    It isn't.

    And your whole argument is done.
     
  3. HUGGY
    Offline

    HUGGY I Post Because I Care Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    33,727
    Thanks Received:
    3,805
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Seattle, in a run down motel
    Ratings:
    +6,285
    Your investigation of the above information is flawed. You make leaps to places that do not exist. Such as.. "we could predict the entire future of the universe! The implication is that every event is completely determined." That statement is your religious bias leaking out onto the hypothisis contaminating it. The word "determned" is an error. You have taken the word "predictable" and replaced it with one that does not apply to science but to you is an equivelant and fudges towards "a designer". There are several other similar substitutions in your comments.

    Science has nothing to do with "faith" yet you inject it frequently. Again you show your bias towards your desired outcome which in itself is abhorant to the scientific method.

    Apparently the subject matter is over your head. I commend you for a "sort" of an investigation because that is the nature of science. The failure is that you confuse curiosity with critical thinking. A typical 5 year old has curiosity. A 5 year old does not typically have the wider more objective view of an adult. A 5 year old has "curiosity" about the tooth fairy. An adult does not get side tracted by foolish thoughts like the tooth fairy.

    At least you seem have access to some good learning material. Now you need to put your big girl pants on to make use of it.
     
  4. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,963
    Thanks Received:
    15,724
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +25,095
    Don't you think you'd be better prepared if you had read the entire OP, rather than simply gotten an impression?

    Then, you would have seen this:

    "No better indication of the lack of certainty in science can be testified to than this: “Whenever the physicist penetrates to the atomic or electric level in his analysis, he finds things acting in a way for which he can assign no cause…this means nothing more or less than that the law of cause and effect must be given up.”
    Percy Bridgman, “Reflections of a Physicist,” p. 93. (Bridgman won the Nobel Prize in Physics)


    Then you wouldn't have looked so silly claiming that a Nobel Prize winning physicist is "You folks ascribe science to a "faith".


    Just tryin' to be helpful.
     
  5. Greenbeard
    Offline

    Greenbeard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,809
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +1,323
    Sounds like somebody's been watching "What the Bleep Do We Know!?"

    Quantum physics does not replace "fixed, testable laws" with "faith and/or belief," nor does it suggest the universe is not ordered by natural laws.
     
  6. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,963
    Thanks Received:
    15,724
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +25,095
    Picked this out just for you, Red:

    Quantum Physics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
    In quantum physics, you encounter the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which says that the better you know the position of a particle, the less you know the momentum, and vice versa. In the x direction, for example, that looks like this:


    where Dx is the measurement uncertainty in the particle’s x position, Dpx is its measurement uncertainty in its momentum in the x direction, and


    This relation holds for all three dimensions:
    Quantum Physics For Dummies Cheat Sheet - For Dummies



    Some aspects of quantum mechanics can seem counter-intuitive or even paradoxical, because they describe behavior quite different than that seen at larger length scales, where classical physics is an excellent approximation. In the words of Richard Feynman, quantum mechanics deals with "nature as She is — absurd."
    Feynman, Richard P. (1988). QED : the strange theory of light and matter (1st Princeton pbk., seventh printing with corrections. ed.). Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. pp. 10.


    BTW....do you work for the government?
     
  7. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,963
    Thanks Received:
    15,724
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +25,095

    Ya' know what.....that was an interesting post, Hugs.


    But....
    "Science has nothing to do with "faith" yet you inject it frequently. Again you show your bias towards your desired outcome which in itself is abhorant (sic) to the scientific method."



    1. Some scientists will admit that they see science, in some sense, as their religion:

    “I believe a material explanation will be found, but that confidence comes from my faith that science is up to the task of explaining, in purely material or naturalistic terms, the whole history of life. My faith is well founded, but it is still faith.”
    What neo-creationists get right | The Scientist Magazine®

    Still think "Science has nothing to do with "faith"??



    2. “Scientists committed to philosophical naturalism do not claim to have found the precise answer to every problem, but they characteristically insist that they have the important problems sufficiently well in hand that they can narrow the field of possibilities to a set of naturalistic alternatives. Absent that insistence, they would have to concede that their commitment to naturalism is based upon faith rather than proof. Such a concession could be exploited by promoters of rival sources of knowledge, such as philosophy and religion, who would be quick to point out that faith in naturalism is no more "scientific" (i.e. empirically based) than any other kind of faith.” Philip Johnson, Professor of Law, Berkeley, Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. Johnson, Phillip

    So....wadda ya' think, now?



    3. . Even scientists, confronting questions of the universe, have asked how is it possible that the parameters that exist in the world just happen to fit the survivability of humans?

    “…the great question, of course, is why these fundamental parameters happen to lie within the range needed for life. Does the universe care about life? Intelligent design is one answer. Indeed, a fair number of theologians, philosophers, and even some scientists have used fine-tuning and the anthropic principle as evidence of the existence of God. For example, at the 2011 Christian Scholars’ Conference at Pepperdine University, Francis Collins, a leading geneticist and director of the National Institutes of Health, said, “To get our universe, with all of its potential for complexities or any kind of potential for any kind of life-form, everything has to be precisely defined on this knife edge of improbability…. [Y]ou have to see the hands of a creator who set the parameters to be just so because the creator was interested in something a little more complicated than random particles.” http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720

    Check out the Lightman article...see what you think.


    a. The author, Alan Paige Lightman (born November 28, 1948) is an American physicist, writer, and social entrepreneur. He is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the author of the international bestsellerEinstein's Dreams. Alan Lightman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Greenbeard
    Offline

    Greenbeard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,809
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +1,323
    This has something to do with your bizarre supposition that modern physics has disproved the notion that rational inquiry, not superstition, best reveals the structure of the universe?
     
  9. HUGGY
    Offline

    HUGGY I Post Because I Care Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    33,727
    Thanks Received:
    3,805
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Seattle, in a run down motel
    Ratings:
    +6,285
    Bottom line I guess is that my mind works perfectly well so I don't look to others for my opinions. I would rather look at what evidense is available and draw my own conclusions. I have concluded that god does not exist for thousand and one reasons against the possibility and have seen nothing on the side of a god being that stands on it's own merit alone in support of it's existance.
     

Share This Page