Ask a physicist anything. (6)

[razeontherock]

Isn't that the Bible's definition of faith though?
Heb 11:1 (KJV) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

That does not = "belief in the absence of evidence." It is not an easy concept though

 

[razeontherock]

What do you mean "go with that definition"? This is what people mean by the word in relation to the pursuit of truth!

No, it is merely your strawman. Glad you personally reject it. Please don't slap such a label on others.

Seems a pretty darned popular position to me.

Christians wanting science to proclaim their Faith? I wonder what the actual % is. WAY less than 50% ...

I said nothing whatsoever about materialism. Only being able to check your answers. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. If you can't check your answers, then you're guaranteed to get it wrong. Period.

As an atheist, what non-material means do you have at your disposal to check answers? I would suspect the question itself would make no sense to you, so you'll understand my curiosity why you would make such a comment.

 

[Chalnoth]

I should interject this comment I just stumbled upon in another thread, to see what you might make of it:

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." - Max Planck

Obviously I will point out some similarity with at least 2 notable passages of Scripture, but do you discredit Planck?

Two points I would make:
a) There are a lot of scientists, even extremely good ones, who held some really absurd beliefs. It is entirely possible for one to do extremely good work in one area, while at the same time being an absolute crackpot in another. It is the work that is important, not the person. The statements of any one person are not held as special within science.
b) I have encountered such a tremendous number of out-of-context quotes of scientists purportedly in support of theism that I am exceedingly skeptical of new ones that I see.

So yeah, Max Planck did a lot of really great work. That doesn't mean he wasn't also wrong on a number of things. And even then, I'm not sure this quote is enough to demonstrate that he really believed what he seems to be saying here. I'd need to see the full context (though I'm not sure it's worth it because of the first point, except, perhaps, in terms of Planck's reputation).

 

[Chalnoth]

No, it is merely your strawman. Glad you personally reject it. Please don't slap such a label on others.

Then what is your definition? I mean, if it's such a straw man, you should be able to come up with a definition for the word that is concrete and matches what people mean when they use it, right?

And by the way, I absolutely stand by the statement that this is the way in which Christians overwhelmingly use the word. For instance, in a situation where a Christian is having doubts, another Christian may say, "You just have to have faith!" meaning that they should just believe all the more strongly and not have those doubts.

And then there's the whole story of doubting Thomas, the only one who had the nerve to ask for evidence, who is traditionally and still routinely vilified in many Christian circles.

As an atheist, what non-material means do you have at your disposal to check answers? I would suspect the question itself would make no sense to you, so you'll understand my curiosity why you would make such a comment.

That's why non-material is nonsense in the first place. Non-material is meaningless word salad that is used in an attempt to avoid anybody looking behind the curtain.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Deep Blue, because it's the first step towards robot domination.

What about Turings original chess programme (written before there was a machine to implement it).

Or MANIAC1 chess computer (1956 according to www) which beat a female beginner?

Or more jokingly "the Turk" which had a chess master hidden inside.

BTW Kasparov says that he has his doubts as to whether Deep Blue actually had no human assistance.

 

[Naraoia]

What about Turings original chess programme (written before there was a machine to implement it).

Or MANIAC1 chess computer (1956 according to www) which beat a female beginner?

Or more jokingly "the Turk" which had a chess master hidden inside.

BTW Kasparov says that he has his doubts as to whether Deep Blue actually had no human assistance.

I wonder why he'd say that

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes! Our species is the only example I know of for sure though.

What part of humans is the spiritual part? If something in the world can be both physical and spiritual, and science can study the physical world, does that mean science can study spiritual things as well? After all, if humans are spiritual, and science can study humans, then science can study at least part of the spiritual, no?

I keep trying to return this thread to it's purpose. I hope you see that?

Well, it's my thread (courtesy of Maxwell), and 'Ask a physicist anything' means that the topic is anything.

Anyway, maybe some of this is in some small way at least tangentially related. The context here is you showed the attitude that if G-d exists, science will find Him. I find this to be admirable, and rare! I said science has been finding Him via His works, with said works being ... anything with physical existence, apparently. If He is creator of all that is, seen and unseen, that includes laws of physics.

True, but the problem is that if God doesn't exist, then we would still be able to study the physical universe. There's nothing we observe that is contingent on the existence of a deity. So God may have created the universe and its physical laws, and so studying physics is studying God's works - but there's nothing about physics that really tells us that we are, in fact, studying God's works.

I should interject this comment I just stumbled upon in another thread, to see what you might make of it:

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." - Max Planck

Obviously I will point out some similarity with at least 2 notable passages of Scripture, but do you discredit Planck?

He was a brilliant scientist, but that alone doesn't make him right in all things. Even Einstein been proven wrong. However, Planck's religious views are as subject to change as anyone else's: shortly before his death, in response to rumours that he had converted to Catholicism, he said he did not believe "in a personal God, let alone a Christian God". So what to make of his above comment? Perhaps he was being poetic, like Einstein when he said "God does not play dice". Perhaps he was once genuinely religious, and had change his beliefs in his later years. Perhaps the 'concious and intelligent mind' refers to sum total of human minds, along the lines of the observer effect, rather than the individual mind of God.

So, not only did Plank not believe in God at the end of his life, neither is it clear he believed in God when he made this claim. And even if he did believe in God, well, great men have been wrong before.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I wonder why he'd say that

Yeah he admits he's a sore loser otr thet he doesn't like to lose, but adds that computers today play at grandmaster level but not world beater, yet they have a lot more ability than DB had 10 or 15 years ago. Also he says that in the first game the play was unimaginative as would be expected of a computer, but in the second game (the one which DB won) the play was on another level which had not been seen in the first game. He asks would a corporation with all that kudos to gain be tempted to cheat, and also says that the game would have stricter monitoring in todays world.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yeah he admits he's a sore loser otr thet he doesn't like to lose, but adds that computers today play at grandmaster level but not world beater, yet they have a lot more ability than DB had 10 or 15 years ago. Also he says that in the first game the play was unimaginative as would be expected of a computer, but in the second game (the one which DB won) the play was on another level which had not been seen in the first game. He asks would a corporation with all that kudos to gain be tempted to cheat, and also says that the game would have stricter monitoring in todays world.

So... yeah, he's a sore loser IBM published DB's logs, and openly stated that there was human intervention between the two games. Kasparov may simply not have expected such creative play from a machine, compared with its first performance.

 

[Hespera]

human[/I] minds, along the lines of the observer effect, rather than the individual mind of God.

So, not only did Plank not believe in God at the end of his life, neither is it clear he believed in God when he made this claim. And even if he did believe in God, well, great men have been wrong before.

We note of course that brilliant scientists are right, admirable and good if they happen to appear to support some Christian idea. They are a source of authority on such things.

Now, when brilliant scientists dont do that, in fact say things that contradict someone's faith in special creation, noahs ark and so on well then that is another matter.

Then they are dupes of satan and his minions.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

We note of course that brilliant scientists are right, admirable and good if they happen to appear to support some Christian idea. They are a source of authority on such things.

Now, when brilliant scientists dont do that, in fact say things that contradict someone's faith in special creation, noahs ark and so on well then that is another matter.

Then they are dupes of satan and his minions.

Wait, are you saying Creationists lie and use double-standards?!

In all seriousness though, you make a good point: you hear no end of scientists who happened to believe in God, but any scientists who doesn't believe in God is either ignored or deemed a moron.

 

[Cabal]

Wait, are you saying Creationists lie and use double-standards?!

In all seriousness though, you make a good point: you hear no end of scientists who happened to believe in God, but any scientists who doesn't believe in God is either ignored or deemed a moron.

It's obviously not done on a sensible basis though, the problem is that because creationist dogma up to and including the Bible is an argument from (alleged) authority, many assume that everyone else's point of view is based on the same method.

It is not the case, of course, and their lack of imagination does not change that.

 

[Hespera]

Wait, are you saying Creationists lie and use double-standards?!

In all seriousness though, you make a good point: you hear no end of scientists who happened to believe in God, but any scientists who doesn't believe in God is either ignored or deemed a moron.

In all seriousness, not all creationists...surely...lie and apply double standards surely not as a deliberate and conscious thing.

A better descriptor would be to say that all I ever encountered, maybe every lat one of them has failed very badly to do their due diligence as far as actually putting in time and effort on the subject of creation vs evolution.

i say that because i have never ever once seen an argument against evolution that was not based partly or entirely on falsehoods in the form of misinformation, ignorance, distortions, misrepresentation, or plain old fabrication.

Whether its 'how come there are still monkeys" or
any of the other moldy pratts, they just wont learn to talk about something real.

And with the rarest of exceptions they will never accept it that they are using bad information and got something wrong.

 

[razeontherock]

Then what is your definition? I mean, if it's such a straw man, you should be able to come up with a definition for the word that is concrete

Nope. You're talking about things that surpass human language, and wanting a nice simple answer. Even a complex one can't possibly convey the truth here, which is likely why you're drawn to the hard sciences?

And by the way, I absolutely stand by the statement that this is the way in which Christians overwhelmingly use the word. For instance, in a situation where a Christian is having doubts, another Christian may say, "You just have to have faith!"

Ok. And I stand by my statement that this is a weak (or non) answer to someone who is weak at the moment. And perhaps the Church is overwhelmingly weak; that has no bearing on the truth of this issue.

And then there's the whole story of doubting Thomas, the only one who had the nerve to ask for evidence, who is traditionally and still routinely vilified in many Christian circles.

Here you show you entirely miss the point of Thomas' story, which is the "evidence" he got was no different than Peter got, which is that Jesus is indeed the Christ. Something that can only be known via revelation directly from the Father. And Thomas is the only one to go alone into a completely foreign land and successfully establish Churches that survive to this day, so any C villifying him has equally missed the point.

None of which has anything to do w/ physics

That's why non-material is nonsense in the first place. Non-material is meaningless word salad that is used in an attempt to avoid anybody looking behind the curtain.

No, it's just direction as to which curtain to look behind.

 

[razeontherock]

What part of humans is the spiritual part? If something in the world can be both physical and spiritual, and science can study the physical world, does that mean science can study spiritual things as well?

It is refreshing to see such curiosity. At least you entertain the possibility! I would be wise not to comment on this, other than to say as we learn of the workings of the human mind I don't think we study spirit directly, but see a medium that interacts with both. (Physical and spiritual)

Well, it's my thread (courtesy of Maxwell), and 'Ask a physicist anything' means that the topic is anything.

Glad you don't see these sidebars as a detraction. I'd hate to deter interest; there have been some really interesting scientific things discussed here so far ...

True, but the problem is that if God doesn't exist, then we would still be able to study the physical universe. There's nothing we observe that is contingent on the existence of a deity. So God may have created the universe and its physical laws, and so studying physics is studying God's works - but there's nothing about physics that really tells us that we are, in fact, studying God's works.

I agree w/ this completely. Makes it an equal opportunity field (Which also makes one have to wonder about claims of exclusivity among C's, or any of the religious)

Thanks for your thoughts re: Planck. Obviously, I was surprised to come across the statement. (Posted by fellow believer Lucaspa)

 

[Chalnoth]

Nope. You're talking about things that surpass human language, and wanting a nice simple answer. Even a complex one can't possibly convey the truth here, which is likely why you're drawn to the hard sciences?

That's ridiculous! The word "faith" is part of human language. But what's more, I'm pretty sure you've entirely abdicated the argument right there. You've essentially said, "I can't say what it means, but it certainly doesn't mean what you say it means!"

Well, I'll be a little bit more explicit. Faith in god, to a believer, is very much like trust in a person. This is in the sense of faith that this god is capable, trustworthy, and morally virtuous, i.e. somebody you can trust implicitly for anything and everything. This faith gets transposed to any people or books that are believed to speak for this god, whether we're talking about a pastor or a priest or a nun or a prophet, or the Bible itself.

Where it differs from trust in a person, however, is that this faith is trust in a person for which there is no evidence that he even exists. And that is where the whole thing comes crashing down in a heap of circular reasoning: faith in this god itself is used as justification for this god's existence. The whole thing becomes:
I believe in God.
-> How do you know this god even exists, and isn't a figment of your imagination?
Because I trust that God wouldn't lie to me.

And so the whole thing collapses. Religious faith simply becomes belief not based upon evidence, and sometimes even very much contrary to the evidence.

Ok. And I stand by my statement that this is a weak (or non) answer to someone who is weak at the moment. And perhaps the Church is overwhelmingly weak; that has no bearing on the truth of this issue.

And yet it is an extremely common one.

No, it's just direction as to which curtain to look behind.

And how would you look behind the "non-material" curtain at all? That's my entire point: you can't. It's fundamentally impossible.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It's obviously not done on a sensible basis though, the problem is that because creationist dogma up to and including the Bible is an argument from (alleged) authority, many assume that everyone else's point of view is based on the same method.

It is not the case, of course, and their lack of imagination does not change that.

I never thought of it like that. They're so used to accepting things because they're spoken by an authority.

In all seriousness, not all creationists...surely...lie and apply double standards surely not as a deliberate and conscious thing.

A better descriptor would be to say that all I ever encountered, maybe every lat one of them has failed very badly to do their due diligence as far as actually putting in time and effort on the subject of creation vs evolution.

i say that because i have never ever once seen an argument against evolution that was not based partly or entirely on falsehoods in the form of misinformation, ignorance, distortions, misrepresentation, or plain old fabrication.

Whether its 'how come there are still monkeys" or
any of the other moldy pratts, they just wont learn to talk about something real.

And with the rarest of exceptions they will never accept it that they are using bad information and got something wrong.

I often wonder if what Creationists say about us - that we're blinded, close-minded, ignorant, willfully deluding ourselves - is true. And then I remember that we have the evidence. I remember that for every criticism of evolution ever put forth, we have good answers. Criticisms that say evolution cannot happen even in theory, are easily refutable. Criticisms that say evolution simply didn't happen, are easily refutable. Criticisms that evolution leads to atheism, or Marxism, or genocide, or abortion, or homosexuality, are easily refutable.

Once I've remembered that, my doubts vanish

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It is refreshing to see such curiosity. At least you entertain the possibility!

Well, it may well be true, and I'd be a poor scientist if I closed myself off from the truth

I would be wise not to comment on this, other than to say as we learn of the workings of the human mind I don't think we study spirit directly, but see a medium that interacts with both. (Physical and spiritual)

So the mind operates as a bridge between the physical body and the spiritual 'spirit' or 'soul'?

I agree w/ this completely. Makes it an equal opportunity field (Which also makes one have to wonder about claims of exclusivity among C's, or any of the religious)

Indeed. I've often wondered why some Christians favour the Bible over Creation - if our interpretation of the Bible conflicts with the very reality God himself created, surely it's our interpretation that's wrong, not reality?7

Thanks for your thoughts re: Planck. Obviously, I was surprised to come across the statement. (Posted by fellow believer Lucaspa)

Not at all. For every famous scientist there's usually quotes floating about that attest to their belief in God, regardless of whether they did or not.

 

[Naraoia]

I often wonder if what Creationists say about us - that we're blinded, close-minded, ignorant, willfully deluding ourselves - is true. And then I remember that we have the evidence. I remember that for every criticism of evolution ever put forth, we have good answers. Criticisms that say evolution cannot happen even in theory, are easily refutable. Criticisms that say evolution simply didn't happen, are easily refutable. Criticisms that evolution leads to atheism, or Marxism, or genocide, or abortion, or homosexuality, are easily refutable.

Once I've remembered that, my doubts vanish

And then you don't understand how someone on the other side could think the same

 

[Cabal]

I often wonder if what Creationists say about us - that we're blinded, close-minded, ignorant, willfully deluding ourselves - is true. And then I remember that we have the evidence. I remember that for every criticism of evolution ever put forth, we have good answers.

Simply put, some Christians can't handle someone with confidence in their position that is actually merited - it's a bit out of the ordinary for them.