My Boundary Challenge

[quatona]

How can you tell where science ends and the Bible picks up?

Pretty much at the same point where science ends and the Quran, astrology and superstition pick up.
Main criteria that science isn´t at work: Truth-claimants do not care for the falsifiability of their claims, and they refuse to acknowledge the importance of evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's been...over 10 years since I was really active in this community.

I just want to point out that AV1611VET was trolling even back then.

Thank you for coming back to tell us this, Grengor.

I feel speshull.

 

[AirPo]

It's been...over 10 years since I was really active in this community.

I just want to point out that AV1611VET was trolling even back then.

Thank you for coming back to tell us this, Grengor.

I feel speshull.

That might be another CF record for you.

 

[AV1611VET]

That might be another CF record for you.

KTS makes me feel special, just as Space Cog* used to -- even after he put me on IGNORE.

Very few posts per day, six I think, most of them aimed at moi.

* Not his real name.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Depends how accurate you would like to be, regarding the projectile's path.

That's true, but the non-linear dynamics of the solar system have no significant effect on human projectiles over human timescales. The probes we've sent out across the solar system have used Newtonian dynamics with amazing accuracy.

 

[AirPo]

That's true, but the non-linear dynamics of the solar system have no significant effect on human projectiles over human timescales. The probes we've sent out across the solar system have used Newtonian dynamics with amazing accuracy.

The error in a 4 million year extrapolation means nothng when the cannonball that landed on your head was off by a nanometer.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

"Is there life after death?"

If you mean can consciousness survive after irrevocable physical death, science tells us the answer is 'no' beyond reasonable doubt, based on independent lines of evidence in biology and physics. For this to be incorrect, the fundamental scientific models we have would need to be not just incomplete, but completely wrong. We know they are incomplete, but we also know they are not completely wrong because they have been so successful at accurately predicting the results of experiment.

I realise this is not a popular conclusion, particularly for the religious, but it is the answer science gives.

 

[[serious]]

How can you tell where science ends and the Bible picks up?

check it against reality.

 

[durangodawood]

If you mean can consciousness survive after irrevocable physical death, science tells us the answer is 'no' beyond reasonable doubt, based on independent lines of evidence in biology and physics. For this to be incorrect, the fundamental scientific models we have would need to be not just incomplete, but completely wrong. We know they are incomplete, but we also know they are not completely wrong because they have been so successful at accurately predicting the results of experiment.

I realise this is not a popular conclusion, particularly for the religious, but it is the answer science gives.

We can always propose some component of the self thats inaccessible to empirical inquiry. I dont know how science totally shuts the door on that possibility.

Instead, we have to use other methods to judge the likelihood of 'souls': anthropological evidence about the stories we are likely to invent, and so on. Or compelling personal testimonies.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Scientific field-lab procedures:
(v. 35) That same day he removed all the male goats that were streaked or spotted, and all the speckled or spotted female goats (all that had white on them) and all the dark-colored lambs, and he placed them in the care of his sons.

Actually God had made the rams to appear to be one color, when they actually were speckled, etc.

Genesis 31
10 "And it came to pass at the time that the cattle conceived, that I lifted up mine eyes, and saw in a dream, and, behold, the rams which leaped upon the cattle were ringstraked, speckled, and grisled.

11 And the angel of God spake unto me in a dream, saying, Jacob: And I said, Here am I.

12 And he said, Lift up now thine eyes (wake up), and see, all the rams which leap upon the cattle are ringstraked, speckled, and grisled: for I have seen all that Laban doeth unto thee."

The ruse was really the peeled saplings. Also the rams may have had a patch of white that was not easily seen but which would have identified them as being the more valued color.

The "peeled" saplings would have looked like the "rub" or "shine" of a buck deer in the fall. It is a visual stimulus that helps bring the does into heat. Sheep and goats are related to deer so perhaps the peeled rods had a similar effect of them.

Jacob may actually have learned this from Esau, who was a hunter and would have known this.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How can you tell where science ends and the Bible picks up?

Science is already very close to that point; the point at which the material becomes energy, and energy becomes (gasp) spirit!. Hebrews 11:3

 

[LionL]

ted)

If you mean can consciousness survive after irrevocable physical death, science tells us the answer is 'no' beyond reasonable doubt, based on independent lines of evidence in biology and physics. For this to be incorrect, the fundamental scientific models we have would need to be not just incomplete, but completely wrong. We know they are incomplete, but we also know they are not completely wrong because they have been so successful at accurately predicting the results of experiment.

I realise this is not a popular conclusion, particularly for the religious, but it is the answer science gives.

I can see what you are saying. Personally I think that there are things science cannot hope to investigate as they are just not physical. Because science can't even detect them then they are not accepted as real (rightly so, as leprechauns, and spaghetti monsters also cannot be detected).
A matter of faith, I know, but I feel there is more to it than just what we can detect.
Poorly explained but I hope you can see my point.

 

[HitchSlap]

"Is there a God?"
"Is there life after death?"
Two questions science can't answer.

I think science has done a fine job of answering both of those questions.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I think science has done a fine job of answering both of those questions.

I think both are still open questions (besides, I don't like the scientific answers).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

We can always propose some component of the self thats inaccessible to empirical inquiry. I dont know how science totally shuts the door on that possibility.

Sure, you could postulate some entirely independent, unconnected something, that continues after a physical death - but if it is at any time and in any way connected to, or interacting with, the physical body (e.g. brain), then - no; if it interacts, it's accessible to empirical enquiry, if it doesn't, then by definition, it's not part of 'you', the owner of the body that dies.

It's the 'interaction problem'. We know what the brain is made of - protons, neutrons, & electrons, and we know how they interact with each other and other particles, and we know what forces they are affected by and at what range (at biological scales, electromagnetism and gravity). Anything that can affect, or is affected by, the brain and its functioning, is detectable by that very interaction, and so is accessible to empirical enquiry. If it isn't accessible to empirical enquiry, it has no detectable effects on the physical world, which means it has no significant interactions with the physical world (at human scales). Sean Carroll explains more clearly here: 'The Higgs Boson and the Nature of Reality'.

Instead, we have to use other methods to judge the likelihood of 'souls': anthropological evidence about the stories we are likely to invent, and so on. Or compelling personal testimonies.

All of which have plausible and parsimonious explanations that don't invoke mysterious and undetectable ethereal essences.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

All of which have plausible and parsimonious explanations that don't invoke mysterious and undetectable ethereal essences.

Quite the opposite. The more complexity is observed the less likely a purely physical explanation is possible. At some point science must begin to say...."Nowaitaminute".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Personally I think that there are things science cannot hope to investigate as they are just not physical. Because science can't even detect them then they are not accepted as real (rightly so, as leprechauns, and spaghetti monsters also cannot be detected).

If they have any effect on the world, they are, in principle, detectable by those effects. If not, they are speculative, but irrelevant - like non-interacting parallel dimensions, or multiverses, they might exist, in some sense, but they're not real to us FAPP (For All Practical Purposes).

A matter of faith, I know, but I feel there is more to it than just what we can detect.
Poorly explained but I hope you can see my point.

I do see your point, but it's worth bearing in mind that feelings are an unreliable guide to reality - particularly when apparently contradictory (e.g. non-physical, yet has physical effect, but is undetectable).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Quite the opposite. The more complexity is observed the less likely a purely physical explanation is possible. At some point science must begin to say...."Nowaitaminute".

I don't know what you have in mind - can you give an example of 'anthropological evidence about the stories we are likely to invent, and so on, or compelling personal testimonies' that you feel are difficult to explain as physical?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't know what you have in mind - can you give an example of 'anthropological evidence about the stories we are likely to invent, and so on, or compelling personal testimonies' that you feel are difficult to explain as physical?

I think dreams would qualify. If they make no sense to the dreamer what chance would science have to explain them?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Pretty much at the same point where science ends and the Quran, astrology and superstition pick up.
Main criteria that science isn´t at work: Truth-claimants do not care for the falsifiability of their claims, and they refuse to acknowledge the importance of evidence.

I was recently the intended victim of an internet scam. Upon careful review I found that the scammer did nothing illegal, but intended to enrich himself at my expense. According to the 'evidence' no harm could be done as everything was legal, and would simply have been a 'fee for service'. However, in my mind great harm might have been done in the form of fear, anxiety, and financial loss. How does science square this?