Science Fiction

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I believed in Santa for a long time and was saddened to learn he was not real. My children believed for a long time, and they too were saddened when I admitted he was not real. They were not saddened that I had lied to them for so long, but because I quit lying to them. Christmas was a lot more fun for me when either I believed or my children believed. I think these are common beliefs and reactions to change. Also, as you suggest, there are lessons here that go deeper than the fact that we can be easily fooled.

Indeed. I have seen theists on this very forum admit that they lie in order to defend and spread their religion. I’m sure there are some religious leaders that think they are protecting their flock by lying to them. I mean, what kind of person would make someone believe that atheists would eat babies without any moral compunction? I figure someone is simply trying to keep their flock away from atheists for fear they might learn the truth.

None of the scientists types on this site have given me any argument when I referred to "random mutations." That suggests to me that scientists do not understand why particular mutations occur and the mutations seem to happen randomly and without a known physical cause.

No offense Sam, but Google is a click away man. [url="http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/units/disorders/sloozeworm/mutationbg.cfm"]http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/units/disorders/sloozeworm/mutationbg.cfm[/url]

There are lots of reasons DNA mutates. And the mutation part is pretty random. The important thing to understand is that once a mutation happens, natural select acts on it in a non-random fashion and causes it to disappear or become fixed in a population. For example, say you are born with a mutation that gives you an underdeveloped leg. How long do you think you would have survived before society was here to protect you? Now say you were born with a mutation that made you immune to a common disease. Wouldn’t this increase your chance of survival?

Is there any harm in acknowledging in the science classroom that most scientists merely assume there is a physical cause that they have not yet discovered?

It has been discovered. Just most evolution opponents are never exposed to the evidence for some strange reason. I wonder why that is.

I think you are right. Scientists see their system being attacked by IDists. They respond largely by attacking IDists' belief in the bearded Dude who puts the gifts under the tree.

That’s the thing Sam… I don’t see any scientist types attacking religion. All I see are the scientist types fighting to keep religious dogma out of the science classroom. There is a big difference.

People do not like to have their beliefs in bearded dudes attacked. It threatens removal of their comfortable answers, where no better answer exists. Gaps make people uncomfortable. Change is hard for people.

Very true. You should read up on cognitive dissonance some time to help put it in focus.

So long as they do not attempt to inhibit scientists from searching for a physical cause, your struggle against them may not be worth your effort and may backfire because of their superior numbers.

This is why it’s so important to fight against the ignorance that’s being perpetuated against science. I can not stand by and watch our society head toward a theocracy. If people like me just stand by, the religious fanatics will have their own brand of Taliban in power in no time.

Why not simply fight them if necessary with facts and argument in the classroom? I think you athiests have won that argument here, and you should not worry about it in the classroom. Franky, I do not believe there would be much time wasted on the subject.

If religious dogma is taught in public school with my tax dollars I will feel that we have already lost and mankind will have taken a big step backwards.

Einstein made and extraordinary claim, E=mc^2, with no testable evidence to support it. I have heard that he initially belived it could never be tested. Should it have been banned from the science classrooms before the A-bomb proved it to be correct? String theory is non-falsifiable as I understand. Should it be banned until we develop some means of proving it? What is the difference between 7 unexperienceable dimensions of string theory and a belief in spiritualism? I might be mistaken, but I think Copernicus used only logic to develop his heliocentric theory, and it was not proven until Galileo used his telescope to study it better.

Science works like this. A person develops hypotheses based on existing theories, laws, and evidence. Then these hypotheses are eventually tested and more evidence is collected to either support or disprove the hypotheses. If the hypotheses is shown to be true by experimentation and collecting of evidence then it becomes a theory. How solid a theory is directly relates to how much experiment and evidence support it. At one point the theory of relativity was just a hypothesis. Once we conducted experiment with atomic clocks to see time change and once the bomb went off, it became a well supported theory. Even now however, there is evidence being collected to show that this theory is lacking. This is why there are people working on a unified field theory (or sting theory). We are still missing the total picture. Instead of throwing our hand up in the air, giving up, and deciding there is a supernatural cause scientists are working hard to try and figure it out.

I certainly would fight as hard as anyone against the suppression of searches for a physical cause to everything just because there is a possibility there is a spiritual cause. Perhaps you and other scientists and athiests worry too much. I suspect that most Christians would be satisfied with an acknowledgment by scientists that they have not proven that the First Cause is purely a myth any more than than they have proven that nothing can exceed the speed of light; they simply have not found either yet and they are not even looking for either.

This goes back to the god of the gaps argument. Just because we don’t yet understand something scientifically doesn’t mean there has to be a supernatural reason. Every time man tries to plug the supernatural into the equation to explain how and why things work in our universe, they are eventually proven wrong. (geocentric universe, creation of man, etc.) Then they take this new scientific knowledge as an insult to their beliefs and play the persecuted theist while railing against science. It’s all crap Sam. I’m sorry knowing there is no Santa makes your kids sad and I’m sorry that the Theory of Evolution makes a lot of theists sad but it’s the truth. I’d rather people be told the truth than be deceived their whole life.

 

[Loudmouth]

Loudmouth: How do we search for a spiritual cause?

Sam: Meditation? It worked for Einstein.
The Bible? Some recommend it even for non-believers.
Nature? A lot of people on this site say God is evident there.

Meditation is still intraspective and subjective. Secondly, Einstein did not believe in a personal God. In fact, he said on many occasions that God = Natural Laws. When he said (paraphrasing) "God does not play dice" he was saying that the natural laws were not random. Does the Bible give us a way to test for a spiritual cause through experimentation and verification?

I think I might be best described as a fuzzy minded conservative.

You have taken the bait. Being a conservative is a political position, not a religious one.

 

[SamCJ]

I said: Is there any harm in acknowledging in the science classroom that most scientists merely assume there is a physical cause that they have not yet discovered?

Your response:

It has been discovered. Just most evolution opponents are never exposed to the evidence for some strange reason. I wonder why that is.

To put it in your vernacular: This is crap.

Despite the tremendous discoveries of science, there remain more gaps than fillers. If I recall correctly, it was you who called our level of knowledge "infantile."

I went to your link. It was interesting, but it did not refute "randomness" to my satisfaction. It acknowledges that a mutation mistake only occurs about one in 1,000,000,000 bases. Then it went on to point out that many of the mistakes are repaired by the repair protiens. It did not remotely suggest that we know when in the 100 million bases the mistake will occur, that we know the physical cause of the mistake, that we know which of the genes will be affected, that we know how the gene will be affected, that we know whether the mistake will improve or decrease survival chances, that we know how a repair protien recognizes a mistake, that we know how the mistake slips by the repair protien, that we know how a protien makes the repairs, and if you need I could probably think of many more gaps that probably will not be filled by scientists within the next 1000 years.

I have not recommended that theists be allowed to preach dogma as you have suggested I have.

My point simply is that you athiests are merely assuming, that because of a few well-targeted past successes in knocking the props from certain religious dogmas, most notably, the geocentric theory, you will continue to be successful given enough time. Frankly, I am close to believing that assumption is true. But I do not think it will ever be proven absolutely, because I assume there will always be gaps.

So I will ask the question once again in hopes for a straight answer: Is there any harm in acknowledging in the science classroom that most scientists merely assume there is a physical cause that they have not yet discovered?

I do not believe your fear that this acknowledgment would result in a theocracy. If theist attempt to argue their dogma in the science classroom, I believe scientists will be every bit as successful as you and others have been here. Indeed, I think you may find many more converts to the scientific method than you have gained by attempting to avoid the argument in the classroom.

 

[SamCJ]

Meditation is still intraspective and subjective. Secondly, Einstein did not believe in a personal God. In fact, he said on many occasions that God = Natural Laws. When he said (paraphrasing) "God does not play dice" he was saying that the natural laws were not random. Does the Bible give us a way to test for a spiritual cause through experimentation and verification?

Just in case someone might be fooled by your distraction, I repeat: Meditation worked for Einstien, intraspective and subjective, or not.

Einstein spent the first third of his life being very productive. He spent the next two-thirds of his life trying to prove that "God does not play dice" and he failed. Many others have picked up the noble cause and persued it vigorously and they have all failed. I am presently reading a book called "Does God Play Dice?", I am half through and have not found that there is a negative answer to the question. Does that prove that God does play dice or that, as you would prefer, nature plays dice? Not to me, but it is possible.

 

[cwolf20]

other than the fact that some of things that exist now, existed in science fiction stories years before they came into existence?

Why in the hell do people mix science fiction/fact with philosophy?

Science is a matter of fact.
Philosophy is a matter of opinion.

How do you not get it?

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Despite the tremendous discoveries of science, there remain more gaps than fillers. If I recall correctly, it was you who called our level of knowledge "infantile."

In this there is no doubt. It’s what we do with the gaps that make us different. There very well may be certain gaps, like first cause, that we may not be able to fill. The problem is that whenever a theist thinks he may have a gap that science can’t fill the theist points to it as if it were evidence for their god when in fact it’s simply a lack of evidence. What I maintain is that we try and solve these gaps in our knowledge by collecting actual evidence and conducting experiments. Increasing our understanding of the universe is something only science can do. Positing god ends the search just to make the theist feel better about the gap.

I went to your link. It was interesting, but it did not refute "randomness" to my satisfaction.

It wasn’t meant to refute the randomness of mutation, it was to show that there is a reason and a mechanism by which mutations happen. It is natural selection that is not random. Natural selection is what makes the whole evolution thing work.

It acknowledges that a mutation mistake only occurs about one in 1,000,000,000 bases. Then it went on to point out that many of the mistakes are repaired by the repair protiens. It did not remotely suggest that we know when in the 100 million bases the mistake will occur, that we know the physical cause of the mistake, that we know which of the genes will be affected, that we know how the gene will be affected, that we know whether the mistake will improve or decrease survival chances, that we know how a repair protien recognizes a mistake, that we know how the mistake slips by the repair protien, that we know how a protien makes the repairs, and if you need I could probably think of many more gaps that probably will not be filled by scientists within the next 1000 years.

No need, it’s not how, why, or what actual mutation happens. It’s about how, why, and what mutation gets selected to fix itself in a population.

I have not recommended that theists be allowed to preach dogma as you have suggested I have.

It was a general statement about ID (which I think you are advocating)

My point simply is that you athiests are merely assuming, that because of a few well-targeted past successes in knocking the props from certain religious dogmas, most notably, the geocentric theory, you will continue to be successful given enough time.

That seems to be the track record. The resistance to the Theory of Evolution is akin to the initial resistance to a heliocentric solar system. Why would a philosophical / theistic guess be superior to a scientific theory supported by actual evidence?

Frankly, I am close to believing that assumption is true. But I do not think it will ever be proven absolutely, because I assume there will always be gaps.

Hence the term “God of the gaps”. If all you are doing is filling gaps in your knowledge with your god then he is nothing more than a place holder at the end of our scientific understanding and will be doomed to be pushed into other gaps as science marches forward.

So I will ask the question once again in hopes for a straight answer: Is there any harm in acknowledging in the science classroom that most scientists merely assume there is a physical cause that they have not yet discovered?

Once the science has hit the classroom it is supported by evidence not assumption. Science In general searches for natural causes because there is no evidence there is any other kind of cause. Saying that it is an assumption suggests there is a viable alternative.

I do not believe your fear that this acknowledgment would result in a theocracy. If thiest attempt to argue their dogma in the science classroom, I believe scientists will be every bit as successful as you and others have been here. Indeed, I think you may find many more converts to the scientific method than you have gained by attempting to avoid the argument in the classroom.

Theists can argue all they want in the proper venue. Science class is for science not religion.

 

[SamCJ]

In this there is no doubt. It’s what we do with the gaps that make us different. There very well may be certain gaps, like first cause, that we may not be able to fill. The problem is that whenever a theist thinks he may have a gap that science can’t fill the theist points to it as if it were evidence for their god when in fact it’s simply a lack of evidence. What I maintain is that we try and solve these gaps in our knowledge by collecting actual evidence and conducting experiments. Increasing our understanding of the universe is something only science can do. Positing god ends the search just to make the theist feel better about the gap.

It wasn’t meant to refute the randomness of mutation, it was to show that there is a reason and a mechanism by which mutations happen. It is natural selection that is not random. Natural selection is what makes the whole evolution thing work.

No need, it’s not how, why, or what actual mutation happens. It’s about how, why, and what mutation gets selected to fix itself in a population.

It was a general statement about ID (which I think you are advocating)

That seems to be the track record. The resistance to the Theory of Evolution is akin to the initial resistance to a heliocentric solar system. Why would a philosophical / theistic guess be superior to a scientific theory supported by actual evidence?

Hence the term “God of the gaps”. If all you are doing is filling gaps in your knowledge with your god then he is nothing more than a place holder at the end of our scientific understanding and will be doomed to be pushed into other gaps as science marches forward.

[/i]Once the science has hit the classroom it is supported by evidence not assumption. Science In general searches for natural causes because there is no evidence there is any other kind of cause. Saying that it is an assumption suggests there is a viable alternative.

Theists can argue all they want in the proper venue. Science class is for science not religion.

This is just another hard-headed, non-responsive, unpersuasive, facts-is-facts repitition. Thanks for yout time.

 

[Loudmouth]

Just in case someone might be fooled by your distraction, I repeat: Meditation worked for Einstien, intraspective and subjective, or not.

Intraspection and subjectivity did not demonstrate whether or not his theories were right. Scientific testing did that. Without empiricism, hypothesis testing, and the scientific method Einstein's ideas would still be just that, ideas. His General Theory of Relativity was supported by observing gravitation lensing during an eclips. His Special Theory of Relativity was supported by high altitude jet experiments using atomic clocks to measure time contraction. His equation for mass and energy is demonstrated every day in particle accelerators. The Photoelectric Effect (which showed that light acts like a particle), for which he won the Nobel, was an experiment and support all in one package. Those are the biggies for Einstein, each one supported by hypothesis testing through empiricism and experimentation. How do we do the same thing for spiritual causes?

Einstein spent the first third of his life being very productive.

I think most of his important work came out in a span of a year. He spent the rest of his life defending those theories, mostly through experimental results, not meditation.

Does that prove that God does play dice or that, as you would prefer, nature plays dice? Not to me, but it is possible.

How do we tell the difference?

 

[SamCJ]

How do we tell the difference?

I guess you mean how do we tell the difference whether it is God playing dice or nature playing dice?

I don't know. I would like your answer to that question. This book on the subject suggests that what appears to be random, may not be nearly as random as it appears. However, I am afraid to represent to you what it says, because it is a whole new language for me. As far as I can discern, there has been no suggestion that we will ever calculate which side of the die is face up after the roll, but maybe we will be able to determine mathmatical patterns after enough iterations.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

This is just another hard-headed, non-responsive, unpersuasive, facts-is-facts repitition.

Ah yes. Darn us science types and our relentless facts and logic.

Thanks for yout time.

No problem. Whenever you’re ready for another dose of reality feel free to look me up.

 

[Loudmouth]

I guess you mean how do we tell the difference whether it is God playing dice or nature playing dice?

I don't know. I would like your answer to that question.

We can't. That's my answer. This is why "searching for a spiritual cause" is not worth pursuing.

This book on the subject suggests that what appears to be random, may not be nearly as random as it appears. However, I am afraid to represent to you what it says, because it is a whole new language for me. As far as I can discern, there has been no suggestion that we will ever calculate which side of the die is face up after the roll, but maybe we will be able to determine mathmatical patterns after enough iterations.

You could build a robotic arm that always throws a 4. It wouldn't be that hard to do, given the advances in robotic technology. This is why people often insert the phrase "with a fair dice" when they discuss statistics and randomness. What they are saying is that "with a fair dice" the outcome is not known before the roll and that the roll is not influenced by the "needs" of the roller. The process is unpredictable. This is analogous to DNA replication. A majority of the time a perfect copy is made. However, mutations do occur at unpredictable times without reference to whether or not that mutation is needed. You can also see the same randomness in radioactive decay. Schroedinger's Cat is a good thought experiment for this, if you ever start reading up on Quantum Physics.

 

[SamCJ]

We can't. .

Follow me carefully. You say you cannot tell the difference between God playing dice and nature playing dice. Then...

That's my answer. This is why "searching for a spiritual cause" is not worth pursuing..

If your first statement is correct, and "searching for a spiritual cause" is not worth pursuing, then it necessarily follows that searching for a natural cause is not worth pursuing either.

Trying to anticipate your response: Okay, I was wrong. There is a difference between God playing dice and nature playing dice. We have frequently found natural causes to what we originally thought was nature playing dice, but we have never found a supernatural cause to playing dice, whether the player was thought to be God or nature.

Very good. Now you are getting smart.

But my response is: Nevertheless, why not let the people who believe in a supernatural cause continue to look, rather than continually trying to beat them down as "stupid." Maybe they are stupid, but your rants seem like religious bigotry that is afraid you might be proven wrong. I think you would have more converts to your faith based belief that there is a physical cause for everything if you draw the theists into the science classroom and share your knowledge with them, and challenge their "evidence."

You could build a robotic arm that always throws a 4. It wouldn't be that hard to do, given the advances in robotic technology. This is why people often insert the phrase "with a fair dice" when they discuss statistics and randomness. What they are saying is that "with a fair dice" the outcome is not known before the roll and that the roll is not influenced by the "needs" of the roller. The process is unpredictable. This is analogous to DNA replication. A majority of the time a perfect copy is made. However, mutations do occur at unpredictable times without reference to whether or not that mutation is needed. You can also see the same randomness in radioactive decay. Schroedinger's Cat is a good thought experiment for this, if you ever start reading up on Quantum Physics.

I am familiar with Schroedinger's Cat. These are examples of the "dice playing" we are talking about. I have even seen printed on scientific websites that this kind of thing demonstrates that, in the quantum world, the theory of cause and effect does not apply. I find that hard to accept. Einstein could not accept it. I suspect no natural scientist can accept it. If our knowledge continues to expand at same geometrical rate for the next 100,000 years that it has or the last 100 years and we still are not able to find why an element gives off an atom as energy in decay at a particualar time and we are still unable to determine why 1 in 100 million genes mutated at the particular time it did, then would you conclude that there was no cause or would you conclude that the cause might be supernatural?

 

[Loudmouth]

Follow me carefully. You say you cannot tell the difference between God playing dice and nature playing dice. Then...

That's my answer. This is why "searching for a spiritual cause" is not worth pursuing..

If your first statement is correct, and "searching for a spiritual cause" is not worth pursuing, then it necessarily follows that searching for a natural cause is not worth pursuing either.

Let's use the lottery as an example. I have heard some lottery winners claim that they have been blessed by God, that their success was ordained or caused by a spritual mechanism. How is this any different than just being lucky? What tests can we run to test whether or not the spiritual realm participated in the process?

Next, we have radioactive decay. If you have a collection of C14 atoms there is no way of knowing which of those atoms will decay next. However, we do know that the strong atomic force is what causes C14 to decay.

But my response is: Nevertheless, why not let the people who believe in a supernatural cause continue to look, rather than continually trying to beat them down as "stupid." Maybe they are stupid, but your rants seem like religious bigotry that is afraid you might be proven wrong. I think you would have more converts to your faith based belief that there is a physical cause for everything if you draw the theists into the science classroom and share your knowledge with them, and challenge their "evidence."

I am not saying they are stupid. What I am saying is that what they are doing is not science. What I am calling "stupid" is the insistence that spiritual causes can be called upon when creationists want to ignore factual data. For instance, mutations are random with respect to fitness. However, creationists (not you in particular) claim that the only way those mutations could have come about was by the hand of God, and then proceed to call what they are doing "science" in the guise of Intelligent Design. Theistic evolutionists take another approach, one similar to what I spoke of before. TE's contend that we will never be able to tell the difference between random, naturally caused mutations and God ordained mutations. They make no bones about the fact that they hold a philosophical position, not a scientific one. They also don't allow their philsophoical position to swipe away mound of actual data, like creationists do.

I am familiar with Schroedinger's Cat. These are examples of the "dice playing" we are talking about. I have even seen printed on scientific websites that this kind of thing demonstrates that, in the quantum world, the theory of cause and effect does not apply. I find that hard to accept. Einstein could not accept it. I suspect no natural scientist can accept it.

Einstein is allowed to be wrong. Many natural scientists accept it, but hope to find a unifying theory that explains it better. There are several interpretations of quantum mechanics that deal with this aspect of reality, including the Multiverse interpretation.

If our knowledge continues to expand at same geometrical rate for the next 100,000 years that it has or the last 100 years and we still are not able to find why an element gives off an atom as energy in decay at a particualar time and we are still unable to determine why 1 in 100 million genes mutated at the particular time it did, then would you conclude that there was no cause or would you conclude that the cause might be supernatural?

I would conclude that there is no known verifiable, testable mechanism in play. There is nothing wrong with not knowing. However, it is wrong to proclaiim "God Did It" and give up looking for an answer, IMHO.