Slashdot Mirror
Talking Science and God With the Pope's New Chief Astronomer
sciencehabit writes: On 18 September, Pope Francis appointed Jesuit brother Guy Consolmagno as the new director of the Vatican Observatory, which employs a dozen astronomers to study asteroids, meteorites, extrasolar planets, stellar evolution, and cosmology. The observatory is based at the pope's summer residence south of Rome and operates a 1.8-meter telescope in Arizona, where the skies are clearer. Science Magazine chatted with Consolmagno about a variety of topics, including whether God gets in the way of doing good astronomy. Consolmagno said, "First of all, I want to provide space for other astronomers to do their work. And I also want to show the world that religion supports astronomy. It is often religious people who most need to see that; they need to know that astronomy is wonderful and that they shouldn't be afraid of it. I often quote John Paul II, when he said [of evolution] that "truth cannot contradict truth." If you think you already know everything about the world, you are not a good scientist, and if you think you know all there is to know about God, then your religious faith is at fault."
No scientist thinks they know everything. But that doesn't mean that scientists aren't extremely confident about certain things.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Sure you can; I hate your wit.
Here come all the Angry Atheists.
Remember...you can't hate what doesn't exist.
Hate can't exist if an infinite God of love exists.
Hate can't exist if an infinite God of love exists.
Well, the Abrahamic God (of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) is a hands-off kind of God, giving the human race free will and all that. So, we're free to hate even though He discourages it.
I'm not trying to be churchy, just informative. You have every right to conceive of God's existence or lack thereof in your own way. I'm just saying that the Abrahamic God (as described in the Old Testament) gives the human race free will.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
As a person of faith I'm bound by a different covenant than Doctor Arroway. But our goal is one and the same: the pursuit of Truth. I for one believe her.
-- Reverend Palmer Joss, last line from the movie Contact
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
An omniscient God precludes the possibility of human free will. So you're saying that old testament God is not omniscient, and that's something you need to back up.
No, it doesn't. If there is actually free will, the future is literally indeterminate. Then there is no "the future", that would be merely a linguistic construct.
"Omniscient" would mean knowing all actual things. Possible things are not things, and an "omniscient" entity need not know them to be "omniscient".
At first, I though that spelled "the Pope's New Chief Astrologer".
science tells you how the world works. religion tells you how to live in the world
of course there will be people who will insist religion and science do conflict. such people do not understand science and/ or religion. if they point to something a scientist or religious figure said, then they are fools who don't understand the topics arguing against other fools who don't understand the topics. they are removing themselves form the realm of people who need to be taken seriously
science and religion simply do not conflict. they examine entirely different realms that do not interact. if you think the realms do interact, you are simply announcing you don't understand what you are talking about
science tells you how the world works. religion tells you how to live in the world of course there will be people who will insist religion and science do not conflict. such people do not understand science and/ or religion. if they point to something a scientist or religious figure said, then they are fools who don't understand the topics arguing against other fools who don't understand the topics. they are removing themselves form the realm of people who need to be taken seriously science and religion simply do conflict. they examine entirely different realms that do interact. if you think the realms do not interact, you are simply announcing you don't understand what you are talking about You're right back where you started.
"I'm just saying that the Abrahamic God (as described in the Old Testament) gives the human race free will."
And cats do what?
Bert
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--"
Why do you think you're a member of "people"?
Very specifically. Clear, non-arbitrary, scientific DNA-based justifications for what biological structures are in the realm of "ethics" and which are not, will be fine.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
In addition to now being the director of the Vatican Observatory, he's a scifi fan and a regular speaker at scifi cons on astronomy. Very enjoyable and very informative.
He's a serious scientist who also is a Jesuit Brother. That's not a conflict for him.
Here's more info at Wikipedia: Guy_Consolmagno
The Vatican Observatory also runs the Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope on Mount Graham near Tuscon. Vatican_Advanced_Technology_Telescope
It's optimized for photometry so it's a good fit with Brother Guy's research on asteroids and other small objects in the solar system.
He can also, apparently, choose to never exist.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this yet. Great book.
Also, Fr Consolmagno taught Astronomy & Physics. Dude's nerdy as it gets. He's one of us, guys.
about the world, you are not a good scientist," except when talking about global warming, because that science is settled.
I'll feed the Troll. Not knowing everything is not the same as not knowing anything.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
Optimal double-down theistic exchange:
"Don't you know the bible accepts slavery?"
"Yes. And you should probably give that some more thought."
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
What led you to presume that you were not allowed to think? Perhaps you shouldn't bother asking anything if you already have your mind made up.
Because the liberals agree with global warming. When the issue is something conservatives believe in, like anti-abortion, despite it being scientifically proven that babies can, after about 4 months, move, have a heartbeat and brain, sense pain, and react to stimuli, the science is ignored and remains unsettled (if not directly ignored in favor of whatever the liberals are pushing at the moment).
You wish.
"You have every right to conceive of God's existence or lack thereof in your own way." -That would be the statement I was jokingly taking out of context. It's less of my mind being made up as it is your inability to change it.
James Blish's After Such Knowledge series.
The first volume, A Case Of Conscience, won not just one, but two Hugo awards.
I recently discovered that these are once again in print. Awesome.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
No, the basis of "nature", quantum behavior, is non-deterministic.
Deterministic behavior at a macro scale is inferred, though there are currently several companies quite comfortable with investing millions of dollars in the notion that quantum behavior can indeed result in large-scale "macro" effects.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
I do not have an agenda about changing your mind, but I doubt you were joking.
So can a chick fetus, just after a few days, even.
But neither case resolves the question of whether the fetus has a right to life. And even if it did, it wouldn't answer the question of whether that right trumps that of the person carrying it. And even of it did, it doesn't answer the question of whether the person carrying the fetus has the power to make a decision to terminate, for example in the case of severe malformations.
But, hey, conservatives live in a world that is much more black & white than the rest of us. So I can't expect you to recognize the legitimacy of those questions. Nor even the legitimacy of whether society has a right to settle those questions instead of deferring to the woman, given how they relate to bodily integrity, how complex the issues are, and how entirely inconsequential (in real terms, not moral) the decision to abort is to society.
Strawman. You can speak all you want. Don't complain when it is pointed out that you are not speaking the truth. This is what science strives for.
No. Catholic theology has always been tolerant and accepting of science. Largely because of the Greek philosophical methods it adopted, which allows for postulating and expressing alternative views, and has a sophisticated view of epistemology. The church, however, has persecuted scientists many times, and surpressed scientific inquiry.
Just ask the Jesuits. Nobody could ever seriously question their faith. But their penchant for intense study and examination of the world has caused many to doubt their faith, leading the church to attempt to extinguish the order many times. Most recent example I read about was Buddhism, where in the late 1600s a handful of Jesuits had studied Buddhism in Asia for decades. Some other orders thought the knowledge they brought back (despite no Jesuit converting or otherwise waivering) was too threatening, and arrnaged for the pope to recall all the Jesuits in the far east. Some scholars have posited that some of the ideas the Jesuits brought back re Buddhism helped kindle the Enlightenment.
http://healthland.time.com/201... Go see a doctor, Jim, it may not be too late.
Today, there's a lot of choice for someone shopping for a moral compass. A tolerant person will agree: Slavery is cool.
It's unfortunate that we don't teach the fundamentals of ethics in the US.
Admittedly there are nuanced and corner cases, schools of thought and arguable principles, but a handful of things are clear cut and we don't teach those.
We should teach that slavery is immoral, and that many religions get this wrong. It's OK to worship what you want in way that you want, but that part is settled *regardless* of what your religion says.
Another one: You can't force other people to conform to your religious views. No killing of infidels, stoning of witches, or swatting of Branch Davidians. Again, it's OK to worship what you want in way that you want, but that part is also settled.
Maybe someone should collect these "morality best practices" and write them down somewhere. In a permanent form, so that they can't be easily erased.
http://scottberkun.com/essays/...
No way that omniscience precludes free will. Everything at the neural level is governed by classical mechanics, so you could, with enough information, predict the next step that all elements in a brain will take. Just because you CAN discover that, or just because some external entity could theoretically press pause for long enough to calculate ahead of time, doesn't take YOUR free will away.
"Well, the Abrahamic God (of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) is a hands-off kind of God, giving the human race free will and all that. So, we're free to hate even though He discourages it." - thats called "spin", its to excuse the non-appearance of this so called god, you know the one that "saves" you when you get lucky in an awful situation but does not get the blame when he doesn't
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Don't flatter yourself, we don't think that highly of your god.
Of course your primary example is one where the Jesuits are having problems because of their study of another religion, not science.
Regarded the most "persecuted" scientist. That had more to do with his mocking of the pope in his book on the heliocentrism. Matter of fact the pope asked him to write this book, and had previously defended him with respect to his advocacy of heliocentrism and advocated tolerance to others. Politics screws up science, as much then as it does now.
Keep that one handy, Jim. I have a feeling that you're going to be using it quite a bit.
Is there a real stance on aliens from the Catholic Church other than "we don't know". How does the end of the world work out when there are other life forms? Does all of the universe end at once? What lies beyond the universe and does it escape this fate? It doesn't seem plausible that humans and ET live together on a bed of clouds and the more that we discover it seems that animals that we share this Earth with have more feelings and awareness than has been credited them. How is it then that humans hold dominion over them? The tenants just don't seem to match up with current knowledge and appear to be written from a mindset of ignorance. I truly don't mean this in a negative way. It just seems as though the more we learn the harder it is to accept the Bible. Everything seems to indicate that "God" thrives on logic. Jesus refutes the temptations of Satan through logical discourse, ancient Hebrew practices of draining the blood of animals and cooking off bacteria is sound advice, and loving each other brings forth a prosperous existence. Why then are there so many falsifications or errors in the Bible? If the scriptures are written from the word of God then he seems to be in the dark or at least enjoying leaving the rest of us in it while warning us of our eternal dam nation if we guess wrong. That doesn't seem like a God of logic.
" religion tells you how to live in the world" - yeah , they do and they kill you if you don't follow their way (thats if you really truly follow all the instructions in your book of choice). - great way to live.
Its amazing how, through science and clear thinking philosophy, knowledge has expanded to the point that some religions have hidden/dropped a lot of the nasty rules like apostasy, not eating pork, shellfish etc
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
... but that part is settled *regardless* of what your religion says.
Curious, given that it is "settled", you can't come up with a single objective basis for this or any other ethical conclusion you have, from your worldview.
Settled? You haven't even gotten started. Refer to the last 2500 years on complete non-consensus in secular philosophy for that. Or to a naturalism notion of evolution--what wins, works. Period. Nothing more to say.
No justification whatsoever other than ones stolen from theism itself = "settled". Hmm...
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
This is a view called open theism and it is gaining traction in the church. It's major opponent is Molinism. A lot of people have problems with the orthodoxy of open theism, and consider it at very least shaky ground. Most fundamentalists have no idea that this conversation is going on, but then I guess they have no idea about much beyond what is in front of them anyway.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
A lot of people object that compatibilist free will is an oxymoron. These are philosophical positions though, and difficult to prove or disprove.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
"Hands-off" is difficult to defend. Remember, the ancient Jews considered God to be involved in every aspect of creation. There was no "natural" and "supernatural" in the thought. This does no remove the possibility of free will, but will can only be free in so far as it is permitted by God. When we try to impose modern philosophy on the ancient text, the meaning will distort.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
Interestingly, three sects around the time of Jesus debated this topic - the Essenes (Determinism), the Pharisees(somewhere in the middle) and the Sadducees(free will). The evidence was debated even within the ancient context. Paul was a Pharisee, and Pharasaical thought deeply influenced early Christianity, until people removed from that context (Augustine, Calvin,etc) brought in the philosophy of determinism.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
"Well, the Abrahamic God (of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) is a hands-off kind of God,"
Do you mean the same good which people believe flooded the world, killing untold number of human ? Which smote Sodom and Gomorrah under the pretense there was absolutely nobody, not even a child, which was innocent ? Which ordered various Israeli tribe to kill all adult , including children, but keep nubile women for themselves ? Killing children by mauling them with bear ? The one which ordered a father to kill its kids as a test of faith ? Or as a result of a bet ruined the life of another ?
The god of the new testament is somewhat kinder if only by its absence. But the god of the old testament is as far as "hand off" as you can be.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
yeah because flooding the whole of the globe and then putting in contradicting evidence in the earth is totally hands off.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
So we have free will, just not control over our thoughts or actions. Thanks for clearing that up.
And the Dems only give two shits about global warming because they are in bed with green companies that benefit from the scaremongering. They are just as bad anti-science on other issues, like GMO and nuclear power.
As a work, reading the bible offers some really hard challenges to absorb it. When you read the books of the bible as a piece of literature, as opposed to a 'rulebook', you find that it describes human nature pretty well and helps you develop good empathy (and street smarts) for people. I hope you won't judge me as I try to share some things I learned here. I have zero problem with people believing whatever they want.
The most interesting thing I found from reading the bible is just how often it is misquoted or twisted into manipulating people from a point of moral superiority, usually by politicians or rich people. Classic example is 'An eye for an eye', the rest says ' a tooth for a tooth, vengeance is mine says the Lord', so revenge is not an option for people according to the bible only for God, but the saying is twisted so it comes out the opposite way. There are many other examples and most often it is used to divide people or unite opinion against some other people.
I'm a monkey when it comes to being holy and I'm not religious but it's easy to see some people do evil things in Gods name. Conversely I see a lot of Gods work being done by Atheists about which the Bible *specifically* says (in Mathew) not to judge anyone, any more than you should force a belief system down anyone's throat. However that's the freedom we have being human, at least according to the bible.
This sort of work looks at what we don't know about and attempts to describe it. As opposed to 'Intelligent Design' which attempts to describe what it does not know about and say that is how it is, in ignorance of any facts. The concept is called 'limiting the glory of God' in the bible, which is a blasphemous act. Science has been used as a tool to describe the works of God, but it certainly can't be used to prove or disprove the existence of a consciousness that creates universes like bubbles in a champagne glass and can change the laws of nature at any time at will.
How would you prove or disprove something that can at any point in time change the behavior of the laws of nature that you are using to evaluate it's existence?
That's the point, you aren't supposed to know if God exists because that would be tyranny as opposed to freedom. Specifically the point being, you are free to choose for yourself and, according to the bible I read, to decide and make up you mind - for yourself in absence of any proof either way.
And that doesn't mean you're going to Hell either because there is no such thing as Hell so don't feel threatened by that. Armageddon is another one, it doesn't mean the end of the world, it means 'really big change', at least in the context of the bible and Satan, is deception which manifests through human hands to create human misery. If the message divides people, then it is not a work of God at all.
Spirituality is about peoples own journeys, even if it is strictly a human one.
The woman has 4 to 5 months to decide if she wants the baby. If she doesn't want it, she should abort it early (but not on taxpayer dollars, as the feminists and liberals wish). Anything after that is murder, plain and simple.
A life is a life, born or unborn.
I'm deeply amused by the recent leftist backlash against anti-Islamism among atheists. I mean it's been lumbering over the horizon for a while now but the question was which ideology would better serve the requirements of the left, and of course Islam wins hands down. Schisms ahoy!
You are correct. Libertarian free will would requires that there is a component of a person that is not measurable by scientific inquiry, and yet not random internally. In this libertarian free will requires belief in some form of "supernatural". If you reject the possibility of the supernatural, you must either embrace compatibilist free will or conclude that the idea of free will is nonsensical from your point of view.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
what if all attributes of object world.person(n="anonymous coward") are simply reassigned to a newly created object nirvana.person(n="anonymous coward")? or in your case samsara.person(n="anonymous coward")
class world is still left with unused object (to be garbage collected) and a new object gets created in class heaven. your supremo is the software itself.
does the different nomenclature make it more believable?
" Arizona, where the skies are clearer."
Also, the meth is cheaper, to stay awake at night.
I'm not sure why you think pointing to religious observances in a religious organisation might somehow be damaging. There are many different viewpoints one could take, from potential psychological benefits that (usually religious) people who believe themselves to be possessed might gain to aspects of the universe that science doesn't yet understand. The latter in particular would emphasise the limits of our own current knowledge and that science isn't a closed book, which is more pro-science than otherwise.
Likewise in religions like Buddhism, the various planes of existence have been interpreted by some as representative of mental states which can be improved by meditation and chanting, it's a nuanced picture.
As for the historical record, again it's a complex issue. On the whole the Church has generally been one of the few groups that regularly gave consideration to those less fortunate given the context of the times, and keep in mind that the times were savage almost beyond modern comprehension. Galileo was less punished for his views than for calling an absolute medieval monarch a dickhead. The crusades followed and were a response to centuries of Islamic expansionism, including the invasion and conquest of Spain, which also contributed to the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition. It's very far from a clean record, but the history of Europe throughout the existence of the church is a whole lot dirtier.
As it is on tons of other things you're not mentioning: classical mechanics, gravity, optics, thermodynamics --> flamebait.
bickerdyke
While we're at it, why not prove that black equals white and get killed on a zebra crossing?
bickerdyke
"always" is a bit too absolute. Support varied quite a lot depending on historical period and research subject.
bickerdyke
Someone should probably tell Servetus, Copernicus, Galileo, and Bruno that.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Being able to see everything is not the same as tight control of everything.
Taking a cynical view of religion I can see the message of omniscience as "don't do evil because God can always see you and will punish you later".
So omniscience has nothing at all to do with free will. It just implies an observer at all times.
That sums up all human societies ever quite well, apart from lesser punishments in some of the more enlightened ones. If you really don't fit in with the people around you, and you can't hide it, then shit generally happens.
Never underestimate the power of motivated reasoning. I wonder if your demands of other 'theories' are quite so exacting. I suspect no.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
science and religion simply do not conflict. they examine entirely different realms that do not interact. if you think the realms do interact, you are simply announcing you don't understand what you are talking about
Well, up to a point. Science has no opinion to offer about whether there is a god or God, but science can and must offer input on any testable claims made by any religion. So far all statements saying that God does something real have tested false. Now, as a very open minded scientist, you still have to say "we don't know if God exists", but I think it is a very reasonable position to take, as a scientist, that since all positive statements about God's reality have been disproven, then he probably doesn't exist in any real sense.
The other part of your claim is also dubious, I think. You seem to claim that morality comes from God: "religion tells you how to live in the world". It is the other way around, actually: we have evolved certain moral behavious, because it gave us better chances of surviving as a social species, and our ideas of God are likely to spring from that as the ultimate 'because'. In a sense, God didn't create us, we created Him.
But we as humans have the ability to go past our natural instinct and will fight them for will or for woe.
4:30 am the alarm wakes me up. I sense no danger, I am not starving, I do not have to go to the bathroom, I am still tired and could sleep. But I don't I get out of bed put on garments that will not keep me warm or cool or protect me from harm, heck that top button is sometimes a little uncomfortable.
I will then eat eat even though I am not starving. Then I will go to a place where I lift heavy weights and run until I am physically exhausted, making me more vulnerable to predators. Then I go to a place where I tinker with a bunch of other objects that don't appear in nature and make them do unnatural things. Without directly looking for food.
Unlike the cat who will sleep as long as it is tired and feels safe, then do actions that it feels as hunting.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Thank you for giving us permission to think. Now that I finally have that freedom I have to ask; is there a hands-on kind of god?
Yes, their names are available in the Fortune list of global banks and corporations. You are free to worship in any of their churches and tithe all of your earnings there. These gods are very interested in every single little detail of your life and will stop at nothing to get involved with you as much as possible. They're happy to influence your destiny, they just don't want you to know that they do.
You're free to "think" you are free whether you believe in God or not.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
does the different nomenclature make it more believable?
It's an interesting thought. I would be passing a DAO between world and nirvana though. Imagine the constructor for person.consciousness.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Nicely said cts. It seems critical thinking is discouraged here these days.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
The Christian god loves you so, so, so much, that he died for your sins!
Now, in the of chance you might, maybe, not love him just as much, over there's the place he prepared for you. You know, just in case.
[/sarcasm]
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
You kind of proved the GP's point with your black and white reasoning, and it's about as far from the truth as possible.
The pope was literally Galileo's old college buddy and the Pope actually was the one to tell him he should publish.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
I wasn't originally planning on going into detail about bad behavior by the Church, but you had to go and wave the red flag. So suck this up.
The number of people executed by the Spanish Inquisition is estimated to be between 3000 and 5000.
Was that supposed to rock me back on my heels or something? Have you any idea about the period under discussion? Genghis Khan put 40 million people to the sword by one means or another not long beforehand, double Stalin's total. The Black Death put between a quarter and a third of the population of Europe in the ground. It was a very nasty period with very nasty people doing very nasty things. Which brings us neatly to the next point.
Your argument that it's OK because of other good works is completely morally corrupt.
Good thing that's not the argument I was making then, isn't it. I said in the context of the times, the Church while no shining beacon of light was probably better than most, not that the crimes of the Church are perfectly okay.
Because that's your position translated to a more obnoxious context.
Amp it up, amp it up, make sure any disagreement with your hate gets classified as hate.
Even the slightest examination of history shows that religious authority over peoples live inevitably results in revolting behavior.
Funnily enough you could say the same about most Marxist regimes, except with more mass murder.
The final insult is your hypocrisy.
Maybe if you read what was actually written you'd have fewer windmills to tilt at.
And don't worry, I have plenty more insults.
Nice. There's hope then you're one of the pots that will be thrown to the ground and tread upon. What is it you say? That you thought you were one of the glorified ones? My, oh, my, isn't that rich? Having the broken pots believe themselves the ones that'll get into the glory is precisely where all the fun is!
Oh? What? You think that's unfair? Here's some mind rape. Now, now, don't be like that. You're now convinced you deserve eternal torture, don't you? Yes, nod, exactly like that, yes. Good boy! I'll leave now. Please keep screaming as high as you can, okay? The sound is quite pleasant, and we wouldn't want me non-pleased, right? Good, good! That's how I like it!
Now, to fix those saved over there. They seem to be getting some horrified expressions in their faces. Breaking their minds so that they feel joy in watching my Hell and sing non-stop praising my torture of their former loved ones is a full time job. Sigh. Oh, well, no infinite sadistic megalomania is complete without a chorus of non-stop screams and hosannas from billions of voices at full lungs, and some god has to make things work around here...
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
Struck a nerve, did we? :D I'm good, I've got my popcorn a'popping and my feet on the coffee table to watch the show, so carry on.
It's not as though you have any choice in the matter.
Once and for all!
They need to be asked 'which god' more often. Humanity has invented many. Fans of the abrahamic faiths like to pretend there has only ever been one on the table. Don't let them.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
yup, thank you
i have 8 replies to an obviously nontroll comment. so my comment provokes thought, but the 0 rating reflects the lack of intellectual honesty
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Just because you CAN discover that, or just because some external entity could theoretically press pause for long enough to calculate ahead of time, doesn't take YOUR free will away.
I disagree. If you CAN discover that without changing it then it most certainly does take your free will away. Without something like quantum uncertainty, the ability to observe a thing locks it down for all future eternity.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Scientific truth is not the same thing as religious truth. There can be true statements in each system which contradict each other. Whether or not it is meaningful to compare truths arrived at by different methods is debatable.
Science is rooted in empiricism; truth is determined by observation. It's well suited to producing truths about things which can be isolated in an experiment. Things like economies, law/morality, and mathematics are more or less intractable for science, and it cannot make many statements about supernatural beliefs. There is a branch of philosophy which regards the unproven or unprovable as false, but it's a minority viewpoint.
Religion is (perhaps surprisingly) fairly rational, as in rationalism. However, fundamentally its truth is rooted in received wisdom and not subject to test by observation (and to some degree not to reason either). Where religion makes statements about the observable world, it can and often does conflict with empirical truth. Sometimes these things are called miracles.
It is not true that the realms of science, religion, and logic do not overlap. Religion does not always confine itself to the intangible. Scientific theories are always dancing on the limits of observation. Personally, I don't think it's useful to try to reconcile different ways of determining truth, and I think you and John Paul II are with me on this one. I'm not aware of any sensible way to establish a value relation among them; each is necessary in its own domain.
That said, while in my moments of intellectual honesty I am agnostic, believing strongly in something contradicted by empirical truth is not usually something I can take very seriously.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
God doesn't exist. That's about it.
Now, back to science so I can learn more about the world.
Hate can't exist if an infinite God of love exists.
So basically you are claiming that hate cannot exist if infinite love exists, right? Isn't that a bit like saying negative numbers cannot exist because there are infinite positive numbers?
(Disclaimer, I am an atheist)
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
Catholic theology has always been tolerant and accepting of science. ... The church, however, has persecuted scientists many times, and surpressed scientific inquiry.
That is a distinction without a difference. Theology is not independent of the church, particularly in a hierarchical organization like the catholic church. Some may wander into other forms of theology but that is a different issue. And no, they have demonstrably not always been tolerant of science. Even today the catholic church has an uneasy relationship with science despite their occasional claims to the contrary. Church doctrine routinely contradicts scientific evidence and interferes with scientific inquiry, particularly when it comes to reproductive science and genetics in recent years.
Check your facts -- Galileo didn't get into trouble for his heliocentric theories, he got into trouble for calling the pope an idiot for asking for the evidence -- who was on the side of science there? Galileo had been told to stop teaching heliocentrism in Church schools unless he had some evidence to support it, and Galileo threw a hissy fit and refused to stop. Even the inquisition said that if he had evidence to support the theory he'd be in the clear. (Unfortunately, the only evidence he had was from telescopes, which were unproven and many scientists at the time regarded in much the same way as scientists regard E-meters nowadays.)
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
science tells you how the world works. religion tells you how to live in the world
I don't follow a religion and don't need one to tell me how to live in the world. Billions of people around the world do not utilize or require religion to tell them how to conduct their lives. QED your argument is bogus.
of course there will be people who will insist religion and science do conflict.
They frequently do because the religious zealots continue to try to push their unsubstantiated beliefs into science. They keep trying to push creationism into science classrooms. They keep trying to interfere with genetic research and reproductive science. They try to deny the evidence of evolution and push their theology into textbooks. It happens constantly.
science and religion simply do not conflict. they examine entirely different realms that do not interact.
Demonstrably false. The conflict regularly and interact frequently. Mostly of the conflict is from religious people trying to force their beliefs on others and scientific people defending society from their lunacy.
Well, an omnipotent God definitely allows the possibility of human free will. And omnipotence trumps omniscience hands down - someone who cannot decide what he wants to know, and what he doesn't want to know, or only wants to know later, definitely isn't omnipotent. It's kind of like root being able to read your email, but he can decide not to.
Also, things get a bit fuzzy when you consider the timelessness that is implied by omnipotence. You might be able to distinguish between "now" and "not now", but you can't really put things in a sequence of past, present and future.
So we have free will so long as it's socialist? Mmmm-kay...
In this context, the word libertarian simply means that the free will is truly free - i.e. no external factors forced the will to do what it did. Nothing to do with socialism, just a bog standard philosophy term. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
Orthodoxy is not determined by these concepts. Which council determined this? Orange?
Perhaps if you read in the context of the 1st century AD, you would not be so confused.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
He forgets that all the pots spoken of in Jeremiah were elect (i.e. part of the Jewish nation). Even his 'election' would not mean that he is not an object of wrath...
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
Things like economies, law/morality, and mathematics are more or less intractable for science, and it cannot make many statements about supernatural beliefs.
Economics is very amenable to scientific inquiry. Don't know where you got the idea that it isn't. Economics is studied using the scientific method very effectively. It is a difficult field of study because of its complexity but that is no different from any number of other scientific fields such as meteorology, ecology, geology and others.
Science frequently informs and underpins laws and morals. It also can study their effects.
Mathematics is really a language used by scientists to describe the world. It describes the world around us with uncanny precision. It's not a science but virtually every scientific inquiry utilizes math.
Religion is (perhaps surprisingly) fairly rational, as in rationalism.
Religion is by definition NOT rational. It is faith in an unfalsifiable concept. What rationality it does have is largely argued from false or unprovable premises. Furthermore religions do not restrict themselves to purely logical conclusions from their premises. They frequently cherry pick arguments to support whatever view they wish to hold at the time. No, I disagree that religion is a form of rationalism.
Where religion makes statements about the observable world, it can and often does conflict with empirical truth. Sometimes these things are called miracles.
Those of us who are not beholden to religions call them fictional stories or sometimes unexplained phenomena instead of miracles.
about the world, you are not a good scientist," except when talking about global warming, because that science is settled.
No scientist thinks they know everything. But that doesn't mean that scientists aren't extremely confident about certain things.
If the science is all settled then it's just dogma. Might as well move over to religion, as everything is completely planned and all under control.
----
(At least they have better songs. And vehicles -- when was the last time you saw someone in the official Scientist-mobile?)
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
Now that I finally have that freedom I have to ask; is there a hands-on kind of god?
You should ask the ancient Greeks and Romans that question. They had gods putting body parts in young women all the time.
An omniscient God precludes the possibility of human free will. So you're saying that old testament God is not omniscient, and that's something you need to back up.
Where in the Old Testament does it say that God is omniscient regarding future human actions?
Alternatively, one explanation is that God knows humans so well that God can predict their actions with a very high degree of accuracy. Humans also have this ability, since a lot of people know how their spouse or children will react to certain situations.
yup, thank you
i have 8 replies to an obviously nontroll comment. so my comment provokes thought, but the 0 rating reflects the lack of intellectual honesty
Indeed. Two separate bodies of knowledge, an idea too big for such small minds.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
As opposed to Science which is amoral by definition !?!?
148 comments, and no "almost fanatical devotion to the Pope"? This place is really going downhill...
But neither case resolves the question of whether the fetus has a right to life. And even if it did, it wouldn't answer the question of whether that right trumps that of the person carrying it. And even of it did, it doesn't answer the question of whether the person carrying the fetus has the power to make a decision to terminate, for example in the case of severe malformations.
The rights of a person end when they start to impair the rights of others. The legal status of an embryo or fetus is inconsistent. If the mother is murdered, the suspect is charged with double murder. However, the mother can choose to terminate the pregnancy (at least through the first trimester) without any legal ramifications. The moral question has always been when does that embryo or fetus become human enough to enjoy human rights.
I think you would find that many conservatives are against elective abortions (especially if funded with tax money). OTOH, extremely few conservatives would judge a woman for aborting a pregnancy which resulted from rape, or if the woman's life was in undue peril, or if the fetus has a severe defect. There is debate and personal opinion over what constitutes a severe defect. Some feel that Down's Syndrome is reason enough to abort, while others feel something even more severe (malformed heart, for example) is the only reason to abort. Ultimately, only perspective parents facing such a situation can fully understand the choice they face.
But, hey, conservatives live in a world that is much more black & white than the rest of us. So I can't expect you to recognize the legitimacy of those questions. Nor even the legitimacy of whether society has a right to settle those questions instead of deferring to the woman, given how they relate to bodily integrity, how complex the issues are, and how entirely inconsequential (in real terms, not moral) the decision to abort is to society.
It's determined more by being religious than being conservative. I'm religious, spiritual, and conservative. I personally feel that individuals should have the freedom to make their own choices, but I don't want my money to fund things I'm morally opposed to. I am also in favor of protecting unborn children at the point where they could survive outside the womb (no late term abortions except in extraordinary circumstances). As to real terms vs morality, some say that morals are what separate humans from lesser animals.
Don't confuse amoral with immoral.
And evolution is what has given us moral. Individuals who do not commit murder, torture and other disruptive actions have a greater chance of survival and their offspring surviving. With the exceptionally long time period from birth until the offspring can survive on their own, cooperation and herd rules have been selected for.
We don't need any religion to tell us what's moral and not.
Science doesn't tell us, but it sure explains it.
No worries, I think the debate got supplanted with one about climate change.
Also, that certain scientist was persecuted by his academic peers who helped push for the Church to punish him.
Considering that priests defined what modern science is I'd say you're incredibly wrong.
Servetus was burned as a heretic by Protestants. Someone else already touched on Galileo.
Bruno was not persecuted for his scientific research either.
From http://www.theguardian.com/sci... :
The answer, it seems, is yes (a bit) and (mostly) no. In the first episode, a rather hefty portion of airtime (11 out of 43 minutes) is devoted to an animation on the life of Giordano Bruno. Burnt at the stake by the Roman Inquisition in 1600, he was there to play the role of scientific hero and martyr. It is an ill-fitting part for this idiosyncratic Dominican monk.
Laudably avoiding any temptation to snark, Meg Rosenburg took the sudden interest in this reasonably obscure figure as an opportunity to help those who might Want to Know More About Giordano Bruno. While Bruno’s cosmological poetry and mystical thought included heliocentrism, he was not, of course, a scientist, nor was he sentenced to death for “scientific” ideas or anything like “the nice-mannered, doe-eyed dissenter” that appears on the screen.
From http://motherboard.vice.com/bl... :
But the truth is that Bruno's scientific theories weren't what got him killed. Sure, his refusal to recant his belief in a plurality of worlds contributed to his sentence. But it's important to note that the Catholic Church didn't even have an official position on the heliocentric universe in 1600, and support for it was not considered heresy during Bruno's trial.
On top of that, his support for Copernican cosmology was the least heretical position he propagated. His opinions on theology were far more pyrotechnic. For example, Bruno had the balls to suggest that Satan was destined to be saved and redeemed by God. He didn't think Jesus was the son of God, but rather “an unusually skilled magician.” He even publicly disputed Mary's virginity. The Church could let astronomical theories slide, but calling the Mother of God out on her sex life? There's no doubt that these were the ideas that landed Bruno on the stake.
Even though it does seem that the cat has much more free will then a human, even a cat can be conditioned to take a bunch of actions for an imaginary (actually remembered) reward, it's just harder then with a human or dog.
The difference is that a human can be conditioned over years to take very complex series of actions as you show in your post. I do like how you reference Pavlov by using a bell/alarm to trigger your complex set of conditioned actions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
"Omniscient" would mean knowing all actual things. Possible things are not things, and an "omniscient" entity need not know them to be "omniscient".
... or even knowing all possible things. Consensus among many monotheist theologians is the concept of God existing outside of time entirely. So theoretically (umm... conceptually?) an omniscient God would have knowledge of all possible freely-made choices and all possible outcomes of each.
Blows your mind if you think about it that way. But religions often deal in paradoxes, and blowing your mind with them is useful, because once your logical mind is blown away, your heart is open to the concept of a higher power.
Large doses of LSD can work too.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Also see number four in this: http://thefederalist.com/2014/...
> No. Catholic theology has always been tolerant and accepting of science.
Galileo would like to have a word with you.
So God is Hari Seldon?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Well, plenty of other characters basically thought that Hari Seldon was God, so sure, why not.
As I was writing it, though, it did occur to me that all of the predictions made in the books of prophets were pretty much just an imprecise version of psychohistory.
I'd take a mosey through the Greek pantheon. You'll probably find a couple that meddled in the affairs of mortals.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
It's not scaremongering if the risk is real and not exaggerated. And if the Democrats are doing the right thing for the wrong reasons (which is not proven) who cares?
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
If God is outside of time then him knowing everything would no more contradict free will than me knowing what someone choose to do in the past does. Just knowing the result of a choice doesn't mean the choice was never made.
That said free will doesn't exist, so it's a pointless argument.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Guy also wrote a wonderful book for observational astronomers called "Turn Left at Orion" He speaks well with lay people.
There's more to it than this.
Sure, and it's entirely possible that in a controlled situation quantum behavior could have observable effects at larger scales. The evidence would indicate that the brain is not the sort of controlled environment where this could be true.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Georges Lemaitre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre) explored the expansion solution of Einsteins General Relativity Field Equation which Einstein initially resisted. Georges called it the "cosmic egg" (until detractor Fred Hoyle named it after British slang for ejaculation). Note both Guy and Georges studied at MIT.
Who held the candle between the Greeks and the Renaissance.
On taxpayer dollars? The US has universal healthcare now?
That's fine, but here's another bit of science: abortion rates are the same whether or not they're illegal. So while people can debate the point of viability, the nature of life, etc, until the cows come home, the reality on the ground is that abortions are going to happen, and it's a question of whether they're going to happen safely, or at a great danger to women. Just like liberals need to accept that fundamentalists aren't going away any time soon, so too do conservatives need to accept the same about abortions.
Galileo != science.
It's a good thing the Spanish Inquisition wasn't an official inquisition of the Catholic Church.
Where do we get that one side of the debate claims the science is settled and, therefore, the debate is over? A person would have to be extremely dishonest to claim that the pro-AGW side has not been making that claim for the past few years now.
Which church is "the Church"? Catholics that follow the pope? Catholics that don't. Lutherans? Methodists? Moromons? Presbyterians? Greek Orthodox? Russion Orthodox? Baptists? Unitarians? Which of the Muslims sects?
Regarding Bruno and the plurality of worlds thing... A hundred years or so earlier, Nicholas of Cusa was also talking about the possibility of a plurality of worlds. You know what the Catholic Church did to him?
They made him a Cardinal.
I don't understand where you're coming from. As I understand it, Galileo was excommunicated because his findings about the solar system weren't in line with church doctrine at the time and he refused to recant them. Am I wrong?
There are things that no one can explain. Science doesn't have all the answers.
The link you give points to an advert for one of the many collections of miracle anecdotes that evangelical Christians like to read (and the Muslims, Jews, etc have their own versions, of course). The problem with such stories, nice as they are, is that they are not consistently reproducible. Every attempt at reproducing them fails - so, science has to conclude that the reasoning behind the story was wrong. There's no shame in that - scientists are proven wrong all the time, and usually don't mind too much. That is the thing about science and the scientific method: it can't prove that something is absolutely true, but it can definitely prove that something is false with absolute certainty. If your predictions based on your hypothesis fail, then your hypothesis is wrong in the absolute sense.
And of course there are lots of things nobody can ever explain - why did a lightning follow one rather than another of many equally possible paths? Science doesn't know, and nobody thinks they have all the answers - except the religious. It isn't desperately important for us to have absolute certainty about anything, except perhaps the scientific method; and even that one we only accept because there is no alternative. Scientists are doubters through and through, who positively revel in asking probing questions.
This very closely aligns with what I was taught about an omniscient God and agency (pretty much the same concept as free will but it carries the connotation that your choices do have consequences). Basically, as an omniscient being operating on a higher plane, God knows us and how will will react and respond, so he knows the choices we will make. However, we operate on a lower plane and don't all that until after we have been in situations and see for ourselves (and prove to ourselves) how we react and respond. It is very similar to how parents who pay attention to their children can generally predict quite well what a kid will do in a certain situation and will let the kid make the choices and learn.
Probably because Nicholas wasn't saying that Hermetism was the one true religion or because he worshipped the Egyptian god Thoth.
Well the original intention was to point out that not tolerating Galileo doesn't mean not tolerating science. Galileo was person not a concept.
As for church doctrine. There was no church doctrine about or against the heliocentric theory. He was excommunicated for attempting to preach alterations to the understanding of scripture based on his research. Research that at the time lacked enough evidence too. While doing this he was also offending all those that lodged valid criticisms to his hypothesis. He not only had the Church against him for the above, but also his fellow academics who actually helped push the Church to act against him. I'm simplifying here, but ironically it wasn't simply over his scientific theories.
The church which remains in orthodoxy.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
If you mean actual reasoning debate about whether AGW is happening, yes, that's pretty well over. If you mean how it's going to proceed, what the costs to humanity will be, or what to do about it, there's plenty of debate. If you mean debate as in one side talking science and the other arguing with nitpicks and ad hominems, it's still going on.
The Earth's surface is warming up. That's based on observations, and is not open to question. There's no halfway reasonable way to interpret the data as anything other than not-particularly-steady warming. There's also observations like what's happening with polar ice (it's diminishing) and unusual weather patterns (although it has to stay unusual for a long time to constitute good evidence).
Since the Nineteenth Century, we've known that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and that increasing its concentration in the atmosphere would warm the place up. Since 1850, the concentration has gone from about 280 parts per million to about 400, also not open to question. The change in the isotopic distribution of the carbon in the carbon dioxide (specifically, the amount of carbon-14) strongly suggests that the change is due to the release of old carbon, such as our burning of fossil fuels, and in fact we are burning sequestered carbon in amounts more than large enough to account for this change (suggesting that some of the carbon dioxide is being absorbed somewhere). There's no other obvious reason for the warming (climate scientists measure the sun).
Given this, we have the rough outline of a theory that we're burning fossil fuels (also not open to question), which increases the carbon dioxide in the air, which warms up the Earth's surface. This is Anthropogenic Global Warming. There are no competing theories that match the observations. Such a theory would have to say that the carbon dioxide doesn't have its expected effect because of X, and the observed warming is due to Y. I'm not saying that couldn't happen, but I've seen no indication of what X and Y might be. Until someone comes up with such a theory, the science is pretty well settled. That doesn't mean it can't be unsettled if somebody has a bright idea, but at this stage that seems very unlikely.
The next question is where it's going from here, and that's hardly settled, although the projections all indicate rising temperatures for some time if we don't do anything differently. Other questions include how much harm that's going to do, how much it'll be helpful, what happens if we vary the amount of sequestered carbon we burn, and what other means we have to change the global climate. Again, there's a lot of debate, although there's a general consensus that it will be be very expensive if we don't do something.
The question of what we should do about it is political and economical, not scientific. It would be nice if the politicians involved would pay attention to the science, though.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
There's no argument about the science involved in abortion. We can determine all that.
The question is moral, and there's no way to settle that scientifically. There is no scientific way to determine who has what moral rights, or how to reconcile conflicting rights.
My position is that a woman has the right to not endanger herself for another's benefit. If my brother needed a kidney donation, and I was the only match, there's no law that says that I have to give him one. If I agree, I can back out at any time. I believe that in bone marrow transplants they kill the patient's bone marrow first, to prepare for the transplant. In a case like that, I have the legal right to agree to donate, wait until the recipient's marrow is destroyed so the recipient is going to die pretty fast without a transplant, and back out. Similarly, I don't believe a woman should be legally forced to support a fetus with her own tissue. This is why I believe that a woman should have the legal right to get an abortion. (This is not entirely a moral argument, and I strongly support some laws that make it possible for people to do things I consider immoral - free speech, for example.)
We know how fetuses develop in the womb. We all know that they develop a heart, a brain (which starts having recognizably human activity after a while), and can move on their own at certain stages. There is no scientific controversy. What people seem to disagree about is at what point human rights come in, and that isn't a scientific question. Personally, I'm of the opinion that it isn't a human, for all moral purposes, until human-like brain activity starts. Other people disagree.
I will point out that Roe vs. Wade didn't say that any pregnant woman could get an abortion at any time. It rejected legal limits on abortion in the first trimester. After Roe vs. Wade came out, I was expecting lots of states to pass laws that went up to the edge of what the Supreme Court said they could do, and it didn't happen. In fact, a law that forbade abortions past about four months (the time you mentioned) except for medical reasons wouldn't affect things much, as most abortions are well before that.
The science of prenatal development is pretty well settled, and I haven't noticed anyone arguing about it. The ethics, and what the law should say, are not scientific questions and are subjects of debate.
(By the way, I'm not aware of legal systems that treated abortions like murders. This means that those people who argue that abortion is murder do not have general acceptance or tradition on their side. I'm not saying they're necessarily wrong, although I am saying they're wrong, but it's up to them to argue for a reclassification.)
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Silly nonsense. You need not embrace the supernatural to accept libertarian free will nor does such a thing require something "not measurable by scientific inquiry". Further, rejecting the supernatural does not force you to either embrace compatibilism or reject free will entirely.
Basically, everything you wrote is absurd.
Required reading for internet skeptics
I'll support you on that as soon as you try to get me a refund for my tax money spent on the Iraq war and occupation, as well as CIA and NSA activities. The Federal government has been spending money on things I consider immoral for as long as I had the moral understanding to figure that out. Frankly, I don't see why other people should get to not have to pay for something they think is immoral if I don't get the same right.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Planned Parenthood has not sold fetal tissue. They donate it. There are costs involved with the donation, and I would presume that those costs are grounds for negotiation. It's illegal for them to make a profit, and I don't think they do. Therefore, they're probably losing money with the donations, and they aren't benefiting from the transaction.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You're deeply confused. Galileo was persecuted for making fun of the Pope, not for his scientific views. The scientific controversy was inevitable, though he's the one who pushed the theological issues. The church treated him incredibly well, and he even had supporters in the church on his side. Had he not pushed the theological issues and made fun of the Pope.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Am I wrong?
Yes. Heliocentrism wasn't even a new idea. Had he not pushed the theological issues, and made fun of the new Pope, nothing would have happened. He was never excommunicated.
Required reading for internet skeptics
You're not going to get anywhere. See, you actually believe that an awful lot of science has been done on the various topics you hint at. In reality, very little has been done. Certainly not enough to draw any sort of conclusion or even form a reasonable position.
Let's start here:
Every attempt at reproducing them fails - so, science has to conclude that the reasoning behind the story was wrong.
What I'd like you to do is try to find an example or two written up in a proper peer-reviewed journal. You'll find it incredibly difficult.
You'll find a lot of modern "scientific" beliefs have absolutely no actual science behind them.
It isn't desperately important for us to have absolute certainty about anything, except perhaps the scientific method; and even that one we only accept because there is no alternative.
Science, as it happens, is not the end of epistemology. Neither is it some static and unchanging thing necessarily beyond question. It also has its share of well-established issues; it's not perfect. (Note: I'm talking about science as a method of inquiry here, not sciences as a body of knowledge. ) These are not controversial statements among those with a formal background in science. It's simply reality.
I'm concerned that you've elevated science the same way a religious zealot would elevate some sacred texts. (This is not uncommon among the lay science fans.) When you treat science like a religion, you tend to ascribe to science things which you believe for reasons unrelated to science and make bold pronouncements like the ones you've made here. When someone checks up on those and finds out that there is no science behind those scientific claims, what will they conclude? How will that color their impression of science and scientists? You may end up doing far more harm than good.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Well, you could ridicule me or provide a contrary argument. One of these paths supports your point. The other does not. Perhaps the issue is you do not understand libertarian free will? What differentiates your understanding from compatabilist or just randomness? Basically, all you have done is use words like "silly" and "absurd." kind of makes you look like a troll.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
It's not worth the effort. I've been down this road before. (You're parroting silly nonsense, not your own insites, after all. This is nothing new.) You're not going to catch-up after a few forum posts, and I'm certainly not patient enough today to even try. In this case, ridicule is simpler. Take it for what it is: a hint that you probably need to learn a bit more about the subject before repeating what you read in the comment's section of some kid's blog.
What you're really saying, to anyone who's actually familiar with the subject, is something on the order of "I can think of nothing else, so this must be true". It's not terribly convincing, or terribly interesting. Why you thought this was profound enough to post I'll leave for you to puzzle out.
What differentiates your understanding from compatabilist or just randomness?
If I had to guess, I'd go with an actual education. (Damn, that's egotistical! Even I cringed.) Anyhow, let me take a guess as to where "you" might have gone wrong. I'm going to assume "your" reasoning is identical to every other layperson parroting this same nonsense. Typically, people get confused when they ask the question "how is free will possible?" They spend a lot of time looking for a strict causal chain that can lead ultimately to a free decision, and discover (to their shock and amazement) that a deterministic account of free will isn't possible and reject free will on that basis. Essentially, begging the question. Let's put that a bit more suscinctly: They reject free will on the basis that a plausible deterministic account for it cannot be given! You really couldn't offer a less convincing argument than that. It's silly, yet you see it in blog comments all the time. Is "your" reasoning any different? I suspect it isn't.
As for the supernatural bit, that's a mystery. It's certainly not a necessary assumption, or even a plausible one. Changing the nature of the agent makes absolutely no difference. Ask yourself, "what is the essential difference between your supernatural agent and your meat robot agent?" Why do you allow free will for one and not for the other? (Note that you haven't considered this before now.) See how silly, it seems? What applies to one ought to apply to the other. It's completly pointless. Why bring that in to the discussion at all? It makes absolutely no sense. Now, I have seen this ridiculous nonsense appear along side silliness like the faulty reasoning above on forums and blog comments. Given how ridiculous it is, I can only guess you got it from some source like that and just didn't think about it before repeating it.
As I said before, I can only assume that you're reasoning is no more complicated than "I can think of nothing else, so this must be true". Which, again, isn't terribly convincing. It is incredibly silly, however, as you say it with such conviction, despite the obvious lack of thought. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seriously doubt I am. The inexplicable supernatual bit is pretty damning.
Well, you could ridicule me or provide a contrary argument.
Sadly, lacking free will, I had no choice in the matter. Ridicule it must be. I suppose if I had free will I could offer something contrary, but there isn't really anything to argue about here. You haven't offered anything substative. I think "I" at least made that clear.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Firstly, congratulations on your condescension.
Secondly, how is your appeal to mystery different from my appeal to supernatural? I just put words to what you dance around. How is it different from a system that is subject to investigation? Well, since you appeal to mystery, why can't I?
Never the less, you haven't actually said anything again. You seem more interested in saying why you can't say anything than in demonstrating your point. "You wouldn't understand " is the cry of all emo kids.
poor misunderstood slashdotter. It is far easier to attack a person then to address their point. See I can do condescension too!
By the way, I don't suggest you have no free will. On the contrary, I hold you morally responsible for your atrocious post.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
Secondly, how is your appeal to mystery different from my appeal to supernatural?
I've made no such appeal. All I've done is explain, briefly, why your post was silly nonsense. You're trying to make some inference to my personal views, which I have not offered as they're not relevant to why your post was ridiculous.
you haven't actually said anything again.
You mean my personal viewpoint? Again, it's not relevant. Your post was nothing more than silly nonsense, my personal beliefs don't alter that fact in any way. What I have said, is why the absurdities that you parroted without thinking are so silly.
It is far easier to attack a person then to address their point.
I believe I did address your "points". Though, as I pointed out, you didn't actually offer anything substantive. You made no argument, just a few unsubstantiated and inexplicable assertions. As such, I could only infer your reasoning as to one. As to the other, I did what I could to help you understand why one of your stranger points was total nonsense.
Now, I did ask you to consider some questions. Perhaps if you tried to answer them here, you'll better be able to understand why unsubstantiated assertions are so completely ridiculous. Give it a go. I won't blame if you don't bother posting the results after writing them out. I'd feel pretty silly if I tried to defend such a ridiculous position.
Required reading for internet skeptics
You're not going to get anywhere.
I knew already when I replied, that I wouldn't be able to convince you - but I think even a futile discussion can have a wider impact. If your well-meaning, but false ideas are not countered, some might think you have a point, which you don't.
What I'd like you to do is try to find an example or two written up in a proper peer-reviewed journal. You'll find it incredibly difficult.
Nope - it doesn't work like that. If you want you hypotheses to be taken serious, you work out the logic, design experiments, predict the outcome etc. No religious thinker has, as far as I know, ever done that and got a reliable result. Don't expect scientists to go and do your work for you; we have our own projects - that we are getting paid for doing.
Science, as it happens, is not the end of epistemology. Neither is it some static and unchanging thing necessarily beyond question.
Well, that is rather the point of science, isn't it? Scientific method is a tool by which we can improve our knowledge, false as it inevitably is, by cipping away the falsehoods and hopefully getting closer to some form of truth, that can actually be relied upon independently of whether any given individual actually believes in it or not. It is search for reality, if you will - as real as a brickwall.
I'm concerned that you've elevated science the same way a religious zealot would elevate some sacred texts.
I don't think you sincerely feel any concern about that, if I'm honest. You just trying to see if you can find a crack in my conviction, that you can pry open. But why don't you propose a better way of testing a hypothesis than the process known as the scientific method? Scientists are practical people - the Method is a tool, and we would all welcome one that is better.
They reject free will on the basis that a plausible deterministic account for it cannot be given!
This is known as compatiblism. I.e. free will and determinism can be compatible. I am sure your education as taught you this? And the tension in this view?
Is "your" reasoning any different?
My reasoning is free will is either compatible with determinism or it isn't. Choose from column A or B.
"what is the essential difference between your supernatural agent and your meat robot agent?" (Note that you haven't considered this before now.)
Different rules may apply in a different system that may not be comprehensible to us. Seems reasonable to me. Yeah, it is a bit of an appeal to mystery, and this is one possible solution(not necessarily the solution). I have considered this before, possibly even more than you.
Why do you allow free will for one and not for the other?
I don't necessarily, but I do assert that if free will is libertarian, a robot is unlikely to have it.
Why bring that in to the discussion at all?
It provides a mechanism by which free will can exist. In a libertarian sense.
Your other questions boil down to "Isn't this silly?" I can find no others in your previous post. Admittedly I did stop looking.
Your assumptions that those who disagree with you are uneducated, or don't understand anything are, to be blunt a little stupid. Your arrogance is astounding. Rather than engage in debate, you immediately default to ridicule. I don't doubt your education, but I do doubt your reasoning capability. Sure you may be jaded by the large masses of armchair philosophers who have never considered these footnotes or thought about sentience or any of these other concepts, but don't be an asshole about it. At very least, refer people to a good textbook on the concepts, so you don't have to explain yourself. If you are that lazy, it will make you look a bit better.
Are these insights new or unique to me? No. never claimed they were. Never claimed to have solved all mysteries and reasoned every path, but that does not mean I have not read widely, or that I have not been educated in some of these things.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
There are very good reasons to be suspicious of both GMO and nuclear power, but they are politico-economic rather than scientific (or anti-scientific).
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Richard Dawkins and the hardcore atheist sect seem to know there is no god, despite this being just as unfalsifiable as proving there is one.
Bullshit, you religious people could prove that gods(s) exist quite easily. Just one piece of solid evidence would do. And "it says in the bible" is not evidence.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I knew already when I replied, that I wouldn't be able to convince you
I'm not the guy to which you replied. This may explain why your reply seems so confused.
Nope - it doesn't work like that.
My point was that many of the "scientific" claims you were making were not backed by any actual science. You believe that some research had been done which had not been done. That's why I suggested you go looking for it. What do you call someone who tries to attribute scientific credibility to a claim not backed by actual science? Do you want to fall within that camp?
But why don't you propose a better way of testing a hypothesis than the process known as the scientific method? Scientists are practical people
First, there isn't some monolithic thing called "the scientific method", rigid and unchangeable. It, along with our understanding of science, changes over time and with the area of inquiry. This is an important point, often missed by laypersons without a formal background in science. (It seems to reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of science on your part.) There is an awful lot of misinformation about the nature of science, it's scope, and it's accomplishments spread by misguided science fans. That does surprising amount of harm to the public understanding of science. Far more harm, I suspect, than the nastiest creationist could ever hope to accomplish.
As for something better, I'll remind you that science is not the end of epistemology. I'll add to that the simple fact that the scope of scientific inquiry is bounded. This has been understood for centuries. To deny this is to deny science. What purpose could that serve? So that more lay people can "believe" in some odd parody of science? What good will that do?
Bringing back an earlier objection: To credit to science things which are not science is the hallmark of pseudoscience. Be it scientific claims not backed by actual science or to expand the scope of science beyond its reach. I would assume that you'd rather not align yourself with pseudoscience. If that is the case, please, make sure that you're not spreading it in your quest to defend science. It is, presumably, counter to your goals.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Well, the Abrahamic God (of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) is a hands-off kind of God, giving the human race free will and all that. So, we're free to hate even though He discourages it.
How about The Flood, to take an obvious example? That seems pretty hands-on to me, wiping out all of humanity except for Noah and his family.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
No, it doesn't. If there is actually free will, the future is literally indeterminate. Then there is no "the future", that would be merely a linguistic construct.
"Omniscient" would mean knowing all actual things. Possible things are not things, and an "omniscient" entity need not know them to be "omniscient".
So all the Revelations stuff can be ignored as it hasn't happened yet and is therefore nothing to do with God?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
This is known as compatiblism.
Nope. Not even close. Go do a tiny bit of reading. You'll quickly discover that compatibilism is not what you think it is! You'd think you'd have looked something up after I ridiculed your post, so as not to look so damn foolish.
It provides a mechanism by which free will can exist. In a libertarian sense.
No, it does not, as I (briefly) explained to you already. But I'll play. Go ahead, let's hear your explanation. How is it that some supernatural thing can have free will? Why does that justification not apply to some natural thing?
Your assumptions that those who disagree with you are uneducated
No, no. This has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement. This is all based on what you've written. The compatibilist bit above makes it pretty clear you don't know much about the subject. It's broad and complicated, so it's not an indictment of your ability, just that it's not as simple as you seem to think it is.
Your arrogance is astounding. Rather than engage in debate, you immediately default to ridicule.
Sometimes, but not always. In your case, you didn't offer anything to deconstruct, just a lot of ridiculous assertions. Like I mentioned earlier, I've see this before, and it's not really worth the effort as most people either don't care or have the necessary background to dig in to the subject. It's not exactly an easy topic for a layperson tackle. Where the hell do you start? Is it even possible with a few quick exchanges? It's simpler just to point in a direction and say, 'look over there' or pose a question that makes them consider their position more fully. With any luck, they'll figure it out on their own.
I posed a question above. Please, give it a go.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Nope. Not even close. Go do a tiny bit of reading. You'll quickly discover that compatibilism is not what you think it is! You'd think you'd have looked something up after I ridiculed your post, so as not to look so damn foolish.
Nope, looks right to me. Yes, it is more complicated, and there are variations, but I would argue that that falls under compatabilism. You have brought up both determinism and free will, and supposed that your reasoning from determinism supports free will. Unless I misunderstand you? Most of the books I have read on the subject seem to agree that this is a view that determinism and free will are compatible.
No, it does not, as I (briefly) explained to you already. But I'll play. Go ahead, let's hear your explanation. How is it that some supernatural thing can have free will? Why does that justification not apply to some natural thing?
A would natural thing is subject to some extent to determinism - if even on a statistical level. I am going to use "non-natural" rather than supernatural, as the second term is a bit loaded. Suppose, however that an "non-natural" thing does not inhabit the same rules or even perhaps logic as the natural thing. The reason to bring up the non-natural is that it can perhaps have some independence from it's circumstance(natural or unnatural). If we are to suppose that only the natural exists, then we could extrapolate that all that occurs is a result of what came before. In other words, the will is not "free" to do other than what it must by either statistical probability or perhaps linear causation. The entire reason to suppose the non-natural is to provide a mechanism by which some independence of choice can exist. If it were contained within the natural, this could not be so.
The assumption is, that the natural and non-natural are not alike, otherwise we may as well, as you argue, just use "natural". The other assumption is, of course, that there can be no independence from circumstance in the natural (without being random). That seems a reasonable assumption based on observation, but it still is one.
No, no. This has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement. This is all based on what you've written. The compatibilist bit above makes it pretty clear you don't know much about the subject. It's broad and complicated, so it's not an indictment of your ability, just that it's not as simple as you seem to think it is.
As I see it, there are two broad categories, and, yes you can be an incompatibilist and reject or accept free will. I don't see the deficiency in my understanding here. Yes, this is a generalization, and yes, I am well aware that there are sub-categories here, but I have never read of any further categories? Do you have a reference I could look at?
Sometimes, but not always. In your case, you didn't offer anything to deconstruct, just a lot of ridiculous assertions. Like I mentioned earlier, I've see this before, and it's not really worth the effort as most people either don't care or have the necessary background to dig in to the subject. It's not exactly an easy topic for a layperson tackle. Where the hell do you start? Is it even possible with a few quick exchanges? It's simpler just to point in a direction and say, 'look over there' or pose a question that makes them consider their position more fully. With any luck, they'll figure it out on their own.
It is possible to be polite about these things, yes, this is slashdot, and I must be new around here. It is also possible to actually do some pointing. I don't claim to be infallible here either, but while you say you have nothing to address with my "ridiculous" assertions, calling them "ridiculous" does not give me anything to address either.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
Just because you CAN discover that, or just because some external entity could theoretically press pause for long enough to calculate ahead of time, doesn't take YOUR free will away.
I disagree. If you CAN discover that without changing it then it most certainly does take your free will away. Without something like quantum uncertainty, the ability to observe a thing locks it down for all future eternity.
Chaotic systems are deterministic but not predictable. That seems like a more plausible description of a human being than some clockwork automaton.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
That said free will doesn't exist, so it's a pointless argument.
If there really is no such thing as free will, then everything's pointless and you might as well kill yourself to avoid the inevitable pain of existence. It is only the knowledge that we can do something to affect what happens to us that makes it worth bothering at all.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
No, the basis of "nature", quantum behavior, is non-deterministic.
But that still doesn't get you free will: just because you don't know the outcome of a coin flip, it doesn't mean that the coin has free will.
Human beings have consciousness. Coins do not.
You can argue that consciousness doesn't exist, of course. You can also argue that the whole physical world doesn't exist outside of your mind, or that we're living in some computer generated world. Neither are plausible, even if they are unproveable.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Chaotic systems are deterministic but not predictable. That seems like a more plausible description of a human being than some clockwork automaton.
It doesn't matter how predictable you are, if you're hard-core deterministic, then you're just a fancy clockwork automaton. You can still take solace from your lack of predictability... if fate permits it.
Obviously I prefer to believe in free will, even if I can't come up with a good way for it to make sense. It's still comforting.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'm not the guy to which you replied. This may explain why your reply seems so confused.
Whatever - the same observation holds. After comparing this reply to your previous one, I can see that you are simply repeating the same statis arguments combined with the same attempts at spinning mine as ill-conceived. In short, you argue like a Jehovah's Witness and it seems disingenious. I'm willing to discuss subjects in both science and religion, but a discussion is not what we are having, and there is no point in continuing.
I thought the first rule of Troll Club was not to make it quite so fucking obvious that you're a Troll?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
science tells you how the world works. religion tells you how to live in the world
If religion was happy to limit itself to being a branch of ethics, which in itself is a branch of philosophy, then we could all have nice academic discussions if we were philosophy students and let everyone else get on with our lives.
Unfortunately, religion is a lot more tangled up in the real world and politics than that.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Parent's, especially mothers, have an innate ability to love their offspring. This has *nothing* to do with evolution although you can keep trying to pretend it does.
I'd have thought it was pretty obvious that parents who love their offspring and therefore don't neglect them give their kids a better chance of reaching maturity, having children of their own, and passing on their genes.
This doesn't minimise the depth of love involved.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Unless I misunderstand you?
Undoubtedly.
Most of the books I have read on the subject seem to agree that this is a view that determinism and free will are compatible.
Compatibilist's views of 'free will' aren't what we're "discussing". Go spend a few minutes reading -- you'll figure it out. They're about as far from the topic at hand as you can get. Here's a hint: To your post, and everything that followed, compatibilist views are indistinguishable from hard determinism.
The entire reason to suppose the non-natural is to provide a mechanism by which some independence of choice can exist. If it were contained within the natural, this could not be so.
So you don't have a justification for asserting the supernatural is necessary for free will. I'm not surprised. What is this mysterious mechanism? If you could posit such a thing, then you'd need to reject its possibility in the natural on grounds other than hard determinism as, with this mechanism established, you could reject hard determinism on that basis. To suggest such a mechanism is to undermine your own assumption. It simply doesn't make any sense to bring in the supernatural -- let alone insist that it's necessary.
while you say you have nothing to address with my "ridiculous" assertions, calling them "ridiculous" does not give me anything to address either.
You could address the deficiency in your understanding?
. I don't see the deficiency in my understanding here.
Damn. Well, I gave it a go.
Required reading for internet skeptics
I was simply pointing out that there are things which science has so far been unable to explain. The specific examples were likely bad as most were hearsay, but here is a pretty good one that has been examined by science:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You can try to attribute that I am somehow blinded by religion, but I can only say that I personally don't believe in miracles, though I am Catholic.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
So, if you think he is so wrong, why don't you point to the scholarly articles disputing such miracles as:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you are right, it should be a simple thing to find the published scientific article that explains how the woman regained her hearing, and how the statue produced tears; which was incidentally filmed happening. It should be rather easy to do.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Can you explain this mysterious spin? I've done two things. I've pointed out that you're attributing to science finding that have no science behind them. I've also explained why this is bad.
I can't stop you from engaging in pseudoscience, but I can at least point it out.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Maybe you're right, but it's irrelevant since I don't have a say in the matter.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
I have run out of time for this. You may consider this a victory as you will, but I do not agree that you have any clue what you are talking about. You are just a bit too smug to be genuine, so I will say well trolled. I am out of town, so by the time this thread is locked, I might see your reply. Do what you will with your last word.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
I was simply pointing out that there are things which science has so far been unable to explain.
- and you were implying that this somehow has a bearing on the veracity of your faith. That's OK with me - each individual has the responsibility for their own conscience and therefore the freedom to choose their own reasons. To me, the fact that science doesn't know everything is comforting - the joy of science lies in the discovery, not in the knowing.
I have studied the article about 'Our Lady of Akita'; but again, it does not offer anything for a scientist to work on. There is no coherent, logical hypothesis that leads to predictions which can be tested. Why would God or any other supernatural entity choose to make a statue produce tears? Why would he choose to cure one person om disease and not somebody else? It is not difficult to think of many, natural explanations - the church or monastry that own a weeping statue can make loads of money from the increased number of visitors, for example, and it is not difficult to make a statuse produce 'tears' by fitting thin tubes in the right place, and as the many revelations about child sex abuse by Catholic priests all over the world show, the Catholic church is not above such things.
You can try to attribute that I am somehow blinded by religion,...
Not necessarily - mabye you see something that I can't. But if you start to talk about science to a scientist, then you will be met with the arguments of a scientist.
Bitter much? I see a diatribe coming from your keyboard, but nothing refuting any of the points made.
There's nothing to be refuted proper. This is all based on speculation, in turn based on these and those metaphysical assumptions, in turn based on what certain religious seers said they perceived. It can be right, it can be wrong, it can be neither.
The situation is strictly similar to that famous episode regarding Galileo in which someone, after looking through his telescope and seeing mountains in the Moon, and noticing it went against his belief that the planets were perfect spheres -- a belief sustained upon the best, most well argued for ideas from the best Philosophers of the previous 2000 years and upon the same religious seers --, argued that all the valleys were filled by a perfectly transparent substance that guaranteed the Moon remained a perfect sphere. Galileo quipped that yes, this invisible substance was certainly there, except it was all accumulated on top of the lunar mountains, making them even taller than they seem to be, and therefore the Moon even less spherical than the other guy thought.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
The Earth warming is not AGW. AGW means that the Earth is warming because of the actions of humans and discounts all other causes.
There have been many other warming and cooling trends. There will be more.