The Pope says we're obsessed with scientific reality!

Myksyk

I see in the Irish Times Today a report from Munich about the Pope's visit there during which he said, amongst other things, that people have become obsessed with scientific reality. Terrible thing you know ... trying to actually touch base with reality. Anyone have any thoughts on our assumed obsession?

robindch

A bit more on Ratzinger's thoughts are here. Turns out that he thinks that "spreading the word of Jesus Christ was more important than all the emergency and development aid that rich churches like those in Germany gave to poor countries." One can't help but wonder if his philosophical detachment would be so great on an empty stomach.

BTW, this gem turned up in last night's newsmail from RTE:

5. Pilgrims welcome Pope to Al Totting shrine

---

Pope Benedict XVI has been welcomed by tens of thousands of pilgrims to Al Totting, Bavaria's most important Catholic shrine.

It should, of course, be Altötting.

pH

To whom are his comments addressed, and what effect is he hoping for with them? His words are spoken with the anticipation of causing some action.

He (by all accounts) is an intelligent and rational man, so I don't suppose he believes that many of these practising scientists will put down their microscopes on the say-so of the Pope. I presume he's talking to catholics, and wants them to somehow disengage in science?

Is this the second salvo in the retreat from the current position on evolution?

Owen

Yes, because believing that an invisible man in the sky who no one's heard from in 2000 years built the world in 7 days, and the planet is only 6000 years old is much more of a grounded theory than the big big, evolution, growth and destruction of civilisations ... :rolleyes:

pH

I doubt they're planning a retreat back to that position (A literal interpretation of Genesis).

I think they're more like to take the Intelligent Design position - "Yes things evolved, but God directed it all, gave it purpose and intervened a few times to do the really hard bits that evolution couldn't manage - Cos he loves us - praise be - amen".

robindch

> To whom are his comments addressed, and what effect is he hoping for with
> them? His words are spoken with the anticipation of causing some action.

Sounds to me like he's just playing to the gallery in typically religious manner -- no specifics addressed, just general fingerwaves in the direction of nasty, cold science rather than warm, cuddly religion.

> He (by all accounts) is an intelligent and rational man,

Having read some of what he's written, I disagree completely and I find him neither intelligent nor perceptive and certainly deeply irrational. Though I will say that he's one of the finest producers of pseudo-intellectual text that I've seen and writes to the clear enjoyment of many extremely conservative catholics. Have you read any of his stuff?

> Is this the second salvo in the retreat from the current position on evolution?

It may not be -- according to something which I can't find on pandasthumb, apparently the chap who was fired is now undergoing treatment for cancer, so he may have retired for health reasons, and with the vatican's traditional tendency towards secrecy, the story might just have been excitably misinterpreted. We'll see in the fullness of time how this one pans out...!

ISAW

robindch wrote:

> To whom are his comments addressed, and what effect is he hoping for with
> them? His words are spoken with the anticipation of causing some action.

Sounds to me like he's just playing to the gallery in typically religious manner -- no specifics addressed, just general fingerwaves in the direction of nasty, cold science rather than warm, cuddly religion.

As to "playing to the gallery"
His comments were addressed to his old university. You can find them on the vatican website but the notes havent been added yet so it is provisional.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060913_alte-kapelle-regensburg_en.html

> He (by all accounts) is an intelligent and rational man,

Having read some of what he's written, I disagree completely and I find him neither intelligent nor perceptive and certainly deeply irrational. Though I will say that he's one of the finest producers of pseudo-intellectual text that I've seen and writes to the clear enjoyment of many extremely conservative catholics. Have you read any of his stuff?

Have you?
What about the above address do you find irrational. In fact the thesis was all about rationality in christianity.

> Is this the second salvo in the retreat from the current position on evolution?

No it isnt! And the Vatican took a rational position on evolution decades ago!
Indeed the Church have taken on the rational basis of the Greeks since Thomas Acquinas. the very same rationality on which science is based! That is actually in the above address if you think about it.

the story might just have been excitably misinterpreted. We'll see in the fullness of time how this one pans out...!

and you are adding to the misinterpretation. Please read the source material and show where it supports your claim that the pope was playing to the gallery or attacking science. You have reacted as some muslims have. But in the case of science it IS like Christianity rooted in western rationality unlike other religions.

pH

ISAW wrote:

As to "playing to the gallery"
His comments were addressed to his old university. You can find them on the vatican website but the notes havent been added yet so it is provisional.

I think you're confusing 2 speeches, the one being discussed here isn't the latest one.

No it isnt! And the Vatican took a rational position on evolution decades ago!

Well they did, however there was this article in the NYT
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F6081FFB35550C748CDDAE0894DD404482

To be fair what the pope is currently saying about evolution is as obscure as most of his pronouncements, but seems to be summed up by:

Speaking to a 300,000-strong crowd in this German city, the former theological watchdog said that, according to such theories derived from Charles Darwin's work, the universe is "the random result of evolution and therefore, at bottom, something unreasonable"
http://ansa.it/main/notizie/awnplus/english/news/2006-09-12_1128196.html

It's hardly our fault that the man seems to make it exceedingly hard just to figure out what he's actually saying.

robindch

> What about the above address do you find irrational. In fact the thesis
> was all about rationality in christianity. [...] Indeed the Church have taken
> on the rational basis of the Greeks since Thomas Acquinas. the very same
> rationality on which science is based!

I think the pope may disagree with you, according to this article, italics mine:

People in Africa and Asia [...] are frightened by a form of rationality [...] as if this were the highest form of reason

Do remember that what the church says and what the church does are almost invariably unconnected, if not actually entirely at odds with each other.

ISAW

pH wrote:

I think you're confusing 2 speeches, the one being discussed here isn't the latest one.

My mistake. I didnt know where in the Irish Times it was.

Well they did, however there was this article in the NYT
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F6081FFB35550C748CDDAE0894DD404482

Cant get it there. Is this it?

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/catholic/schonborn-NYTimes.html

To be fair what the pope is currently saying about evolution is as obscure as most of his pronouncements, but seems to be summed up by:

Speaking to a 300,000-strong crowd in this German city, the former theological watchdog said that, according to such theories derived from Charles Darwin's work, the universe is "the random result of evolution and therefore, at bottom, something unreasonable"
http://ansa.it/main/notizie/awnplus/english/news/2006-09-12_1128196.html

It's hardly our fault that the man seems to make it exceedingly hard just to figure out what he's actually saying.

But above you have a cardinal and JPII here you have Benedict. to whom are you referring?

ISAW

robindch wrote:

> What about the above address do you find irrational. In fact the thesis
> was all about rationality in christianity. [...] Indeed the Church have taken
> on the rational basis of the Greeks since Thomas Acquinas. the very same
> rationality on which science is based!

I think the pope may disagree with you, according to this article, italics mine:Do remember that what the church says and what the church does are almost invariably unconnected, if not actually entirely at odds with each other.

The reference you provide is not first hand. the vatican carries nothing of this from sept 10th. the only meeting with scientists was below:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060913_alte-kapelle-regensburg_en.html

and "do as I say dont do as I do" isnt an argument. it is an accusation of hypocracy! that is totally aside from what is said. what was stated supports rationality. Rooted in Greek rationality and NOT in other forms of so called "rationality".

pH

ISAW wrote:

But above you have a cardinal and JPII here you have Benedict. to whom are you referring?

I'm not sure I'm referring to any one individual, merely saying that there have been recent moves by the Pope(s) and his closest theologians/advisers to move away from the "we accept evolution" position.

Schönborn, while publishing his NYT article while the last pope was at the helm, is known to be well connected with the current one.

robindch

> The reference you provide is not first hand.

I trust the respectable newfeed I quoted to quote accurately a public statement by a public figure. However, a google search for the sentence nonetheless produces his full speech from the "Catholic News Agency":

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/bavaria06/message3.htm

...whose authority I trust you respect. Actually, it was worth locating this speech, since it heaves into view Ratzinger's level of irrationality, "Greek" and otherwise:

Yet the experience of those Bishops is that evangelization itself should be foremost, that the God of Jesus Christ must be known, believed in and loved, and that hearts must be converted if progress is to be made on social issues and reconciliation is to begin, and if - for example - AIDS is to be combated by realistically facing its deeper causes and the sick are to be given the loving care they need. Social issues and the Gospel are inseparable. When we bring people only knowledge, ability, technical competence and tools, we bring them too little.

What complete and utter bollocks -- reconcilation can only begin with more people converted to his religion; and religion is more important than knowledge in dealing with social issues? The man ought to be ashamed of himself.

ISAW

robindch wrote:

> The reference you provide is not first hand.

I trust the respectable newfeed I quoted to quote accurately a public statement by a public figure. However, a google search for the sentence nonetheless produces his full speech from the "Catholic News Agency":

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/bavaria06/message3.htm

The point I was making was two fold.
1 The original text isnt there.
2. The article is an opinion based on it (but the whole article isnt there either without a subscription).

Actually, it was worth locating this speech, since it heaves into view Ratzinger's level of irrationality, "Greek" and otherwise:What complete and utter bollocks -- reconcilation can only begin with more people converted to his religion; and religion is more important than knowledge in dealing with social issues? The man ought to be ashamed of himself.

To which I supply the same as above. The original words you quote refer to converting peoples hearts i.e. doing the right thing because it is the right thing and not because it is economic efficient or fiots into a plan. And he did not say it is more important but that the other elements such as knowledge and technoloogy are insufficient. This is related to an age old doctrine of "faith and good works" much has been written on it. But the theology is that good works alone do not suffice without faith. all the other things may be necessary but are not sufficient is a valid point of view. It is not irrational.

ISAW

pH wrote:

I'm not sure I'm referring to any one individual, merely saying that there have been recent moves by the Pope(s) and his closest theologians/advisers to move away from the "we accept evolution" position.

Schönborn, while publishing his NYT article while the last pope was at the helm, is known to be well connected with the current one.

So what? the official position is that evolution is accepted by the Church. End of argument. You cant argue that the church is changing its positionmmn when the position is that evolution is accepted as more than a theory. The Church also believes Gopd has ongoing interaction with his creation.

pH

ISAW wrote:

So what? the official position is that evolution is accepted by the Church. End of argument.
<snip>
The Church also believes Gopd has ongoing interaction with his creation.

Hardly end of argument, when you contradict yourself in the same paragraph. You can't really hold these 2 contradictory beliefs, without some mental fallout.

To the 'educated' they don't want to look ignorant and reject evolution, yet to the less educated they still need to promote a 'God made us in his image' message.

If you want to claim that can both believe something and its opposite, and that switching between these 2 beliefs is not 'changing their position' because both beliefs are held to be true at the same time, then by all means - knock yourself out, I don't buy it.

robindch

> 1 The original text isnt there.

The quotation is accurate and the original text is there.

> 2. The article is an opinion based on it (but the whole article isnt there either without a subscription).

I wasn't quoting the article, I was quoting Ratzinger. Hence the quotation marks and the direct attribution to Ratzinger. I really don't see why you are bothering to argue about this beyond a desire to be disputational.

> But the theology is that good works alone do not suffice without faith.

And this is what I was referring to when I said "bollocks". It might make good theology, and may even make an old man feel wanted or at least, listened to, but it's still irrational bollocks, no matter how much he thinks is isn't.

ISAW

pH wrote:

Hardly end of argument, when you contradict yourself in the same paragraph. You can't really hold these 2 contradictory beliefs, without some mental fallout.

Actually one can but one must eventually win out. Even kuhn accepted that "cognative conflict" or "cognitive dissonance as the Americans call it may exist.

To the 'educated' they don't want to look ignorant and reject evolution, yet to the less educated they still need to promote a 'God made us in his image' message.

No. I am trying to get two points accross. first that the belief is that god made the Universe and the laws of physice (That is if indeed the so called "laws" of physics exist. One could also ask why should they any more than why should God.)

Second is the idea of the "watchmaker God" who created the universe and the laws of nature and then walked away. Christians for example would believe that God continually intervenes.

If you want to claim that can both believe something and its opposite, and that switching between these 2 beliefs is not 'changing their position' because both beliefs are held to be true at the same time, then by all means - knock yourself out, I don't buy it.

One can believe evolution and also in Creation. It is an acceptable valid and logically consistant position.

pH

ISAW wrote:

One can believe evolution and also in Creation. It is an acceptable valid and logically consistant position.

Nonsense, (but not for this thread start another one)

This thread is all about how the Pope would like us all to close our science books and go to mass more often, and listen to him - damn it!

The real reasons to hate the pope
(And it's got nothing to with Islam)
http://richarddawkins.net/mainPage.php?bodyPage=article_body.php&id=172

And from the Slate ...

Most of all, throughout his address to the audience at Regensburg, the man who modestly considers himself the vicar of Christ on Earth maintained a steady attack on the idea that reason and the individual conscience can be preferred to faith. He pretends that the word Logos can mean either "the word" or "reason," which it can in Greek but never does in the Bible, where it is presented as heavenly truth. He mentions Kant and Descartes in passing, leaves out Spinoza and Hume entirely, and dishonestly tries to make it seem as if religion and the Enlightenment and science are ultimately compatible, when the whole effort of free inquiry always had to be asserted, at great risk, against the fantastic illusion of "revealed" truth and its all-too-earthly human potentates. It is often said—and was said by Ratzinger when he was an underling of the last Roman prelate—that Islam is not capable of a Reformation. We would not even have this word in our language if the Roman Catholic Church had been able to have its own way. Now its new reactionary leader has really "offended" the Muslim world, while simultaneously asking us to distrust the only reliable weapon—reason—that we possess in these dark times. A fine day's work, and one that we could well have done without.
Christopher Hitchens (Slate)
http://www.slate.com/id/2149863/nav/tap1/

ISAW

robindch wrote:

> 1 The original text isnt there.

The quotation is accurate and the original text is there.

I was referring to this:

Well they did, however there was this article in the NYT
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...AE0894DD404482

Can you show me where the NYT article is?

> 2. The article is an opinion based on it (but the whole article isnt there either without a subscription).

I wasn't quoting the article, I was quoting Ratzinger. Hence the quotation marks and the direct attribution to Ratzinger. I really don't see why you are bothering to argue about this beyond a desire to be disputational.

Because of you refer to the NYT article we should be able to see where the original is. Thats only reasonable isnt it? and a citation is only certain if one can go and see the original work. Most of the time we can take peoples word but
1. the ability to check should be there.
2. there has been frequent mis reporting of what the Pope said with respect to Islam.

> But the theology is that good works alone do not suffice without faith.

And this is what I was referring to when I said "bollocks". It might make good theology, and may even make an old man feel wanted or at least, listened to, but it's still irrational bollocks, no matter how much he thinks is isn't.

Christian theology is not irrational! One point the pPope was making is that Theology is rooted in reason. Another is that reason alone is not enough.

ISAW

pH wrote:

Nonsense, (but not for this thread start another one)

I didnt bring up the point about cognative conflict.
But

Kuhn wrote:

A scientific theory is usually felt to be better than its predecessors not only in the sense that it is a better instrument for discovering and solving puzzles but also because it is somehow a better representation of what nature is really like. One often hears that successive theories grow ever closer to, or approximate more and more closely to, the truth. Apparently generalisations like that refer not to the puzzle-solutions and the concrete predictions derived from a theory but rather to its ontology, to the match, that is, between the entities with which the theory populates nature and what is “really there.”
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm

Isnt there so assumption of "progress"?

This thread is all about how the Pope would like us all to close our science books and go to mass more often, and listen to him - damn it!

Nope. It is about whether science can replace religion!

The real reasons to hate the pope
(And it's got nothing to with Islam)
http://richarddawkins.net/mainPage.php?bodyPage=article_body.php&id=172

Dawkings is a thinker I admire buit he is fervently anti religion. When asked about child abuse in schools and religious institutiuons inthe past I remember him (from memory) saying " Far worse than the abuse is the fact that religious people were involved in education at all"

No doubt his expressed opinion is biased against religion.

Most of all, throughout his address to the audience at Regensburg, the man who modestly considers himself the vicar of Christ on Earth maintained a steady attack on the idea that reason and the individual conscience can be preferred to faith. ...
Christopher Hitchens (Slate)
http://www.slate.com/id/2149863/nav/tap1/

[/quote]

Again I would think he said blind faith without reason is not sufficient but nor is reason alone without belief.

We cant just arrive at ethical positions. The robot races or insect aliens of science fiction show us how one can be scientifically and technologically "developed" but devoid of humanity. History shows us the same lesson the NAZI s being the most remembered example form the last century.

there is more to llike than perfecting science. A technocratic world run by scientists that "know better" than is not any closer to a Utopia than the one you paint of theocrats.

pH

Can you show me where the NYT article is?

It generated lots of comment at the time, and even though the full text is 'subscriber' on the NYT it's been pasted all round the net. A quick google will find it
Oh heck here it is : http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/catholic/schonborn-NYTimes.html
But now that's probably not a correct 'cite' for you.

Nope. It is about whether science can replace religion!

Clearly it's not. It's about the Pope's recent comments/speeches and our ( and others ) opinion that they represent an assault (in some manner) on scientific reason.

... but nor is reason alone without belief.

And it's that bit of theological twaddle we're laughing at.

there is more to llike than perfecting science. A technocratic world run by scientists that "know better" than is not any closer to a Utopia than the one you paint of theocrats.

I'm not even considering responding to that.

Pope Benedict XVI: science is the real target
Ehsan Masood (19 - 9 - 2006)
A deeper reading of Pope Benedict's Regensburg speech suggests a message that Catholics and Muslims can share, says Ehsan Masood: that modern science must make room for theology.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization/pope_science_3918.jsp#

EDITED TO ADD:
and this ...
http://www.mercatornet.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=369

ISAW

pH wrote:

It generated lots of comment at the time, and even though the full text is 'subscriber' on the NYT it's been pasted all round the net. A quick google will find it
Oh heck here it is : http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/catholic/schonborn-NYTimes.html
But now that's probably not a correct 'cite' for you.

As long as I can read the whole thing im happy. It is open for someone else to question whether it is the original but I doubt someone would put on a copy and then change parts of it. all I wanted was the source.

Clearly it's not. It's about the Pope's recent comments/speeches and our ( and others ) opinion that they represent an assault (in some manner) on scientific reason.

christian Theological "reason" and scientific "reason" are the same thing!

And it's that bit of theological twaddle we're laughing at.

If you think it is a joke that scientists should not have to look outside science for guidance as to how science and technology is used than it isnt a laughing matter. the creation of the atomic bomb was sound science. do you really believe that the ability to use such a bomb can be determined by scientific principle alone? Do you believe conscience ethics and judgement can be explained by elements only internal to science? do you accept it isnt a joke if others do not believe this it is actaully a valid position.

Pope Benedict XVI: science is the real target
Ehsan Masood (19 - 9 - 2006)
A deeper reading of Pope Benedict's Regensburg speech suggests a message that Catholics and Muslims can share, says Ehsan Masood: that modern science must make room for theology.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization/pope_science_3918.jsp#

Yes very much so. I would agree it probably says that. In what way is this an "attack" on science? Science should have room for ethics , morals, etc. and these can not necessarily be determined by science. But in the same speech he also said that blind faith isnt enough either. and this can also happen in scientism. for example one may believe that ther are "laws of physics" which explain how everything the universe works. It is just as scientifically valid to disbelieve that there are fundamental laws of the Universe. and this is valid whether or not the subject is a religious believer or not.

Son Goku

ISAW wrote:

Yes very much so. I would agree it probably says that. In what way is this an "attack" on science? Science should have room for ethics , morals, etc. and these can not necessarily be determined by science.

Of course science should make room for ethics and morality, but should it make room for theology, that is the bigger question.
Nobody would argue that science should be subservient to morality and ethics, but I would certainly argue that it shouldn't be concerned at all with theology.

ISAW

Son Goku wrote:

Of course science should make room for ethics and morality, but should it make room for theology, that is the bigger question.
Nobody would argue that science should be subservient to morality and ethics, but I would certainly argue that it shouldn't be concerned at all with theology.

But that leaves us in a meta argument of type distinction. Let us for a moment accept you position that science, morality and theology are different things. How is it valid to say that someting outside of science "morality" should be considered and yet something else "theology" not be considered.

Secondly, one can claim that morality and theology are connected and the two are NOT distinct entities. If morality can be viewed as coming from a source external to any scientific explaination based on the "laws" of physics and the random movement of molocules or interaction of chemicals in the brain, then what is the origin of this external source? Isnt that a subject for theology just as "what caused the Big Bang" is?

So isnt it just as valid to suggest that moral principles which guide scientists and society be influenced by believers in God as by non believers in God?

Son Goku

Isnt that a subject for theology just as "what caused the Big Bang" is?

I disagree that that is a subject for theology, but that isn't the main issue.

If morality can be viewed as coming from a source external to any scientific explaination based on the "laws" of physics and the random movement of molocules or interaction of chemicals in the brain, then what is the origin of this external source?

I take issue with your use of the word random, but again not the main issue.

So isnt it just as valid to suggest that moral principles which guide scientists and society be influenced by believers in God as by non believers in God?

Yes. Science should be guided by general principles relating to human good. Even if these are theologically inspired in certain people, arguments about how we should use science should stand independent of any theological source (such as the Bible).

Again it should be moral arguments (even if your personal adoption of those arguments comes from theological reasoning) that are used.

Science making room for theology, would be accepting that the arguments don't have to be formulated in a manner which is independent to some scripture.
I am not suggesting that science should just ignore religious people.

pH

ISAW wrote:

But that leaves us in a meta argument of type distinction. Let us for a moment accept you position that science, morality and theology are different things. How is it valid to say that someting outside of science "morality" should be considered and yet something else "theology" not be considered.

I'm not sure I even understand what Theology is, and a quick read of wikipedia suggests that I'm not alone in that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology

If a group of people want to sit around and discuss non-existent Sky Gods and impress each other with their profound thinking then fine, just don't pretend that it gives you any insight into reality, morality or ethics.

It may be hard for you to understand, but a religious education is worse than no education when it comes to both understanding nature as we encounter it *and* in formulating rules of "right and wrong".

Obni

ISAW wrote:

If morality can be viewed as coming from a source external to any scientific explaination based on the "laws" of physics and the random movement of molocules or interaction of chemicals in the brain, then what is the origin of this external source?

Forgive my crude summary of your post.

1. Morality seems not to be just a chemical reaction in my brain
2. So it must have an external origin
3. So the external origin falls within the realms of theological discourse

Bit of a jump from 2 to 3 there.

Morality is a product of the interaction of individual organisms (each of which is subject to chemicals in the brain).
Over countless generations certain behaviours are noted as being beneficial or detrimental to the group as a whole, or at least to the dominant sub-group within the larger group. The lessons learned are distilled into moral codes. The moral code then has the authority that the group as a whole allows the dominant group. If the dominant group claims a divine source for its authority, then the moral codes can also be attributable to the same divine source.
So, as so often happens, a phenomonon explicable in natural terms can be declared as deriving from a supernatural source.

ISAW wrote:

So isnt it just as valid to suggest that moral principles which guide scientists and society be influenced by believers in God as by non believers in God?

Unfortunately, not only do you accurately describe the state of things as they are; the reality is that all too often the religious within society have a far greater influence on the moral principles and ethical guidelines for scientists, than those using a scientific worldview as a basis for there moral and ethical guidelines.

ISAW

[QUOTE=Son Goku
Yes. Science should be guided by general principles relating to human good. Even if these are theologically inspired in certain people, arguments about how we should use science should stand independent of any theological source (such as the Bible).
[/quote]

But isnt that exactly what the Pope was saying?

Again it should be moral arguments (even if your personal adoption of those arguments comes from theological reasoning) that are used.

ditto!

Science making room for theology, would be accepting that the arguments don't have to be formulated in a manner which is independent to some scripture.
I am not suggesting that science should just ignore religious people.

Actually it would seem to me the Pope was saying the opposite i.e. that arguments DO have to be formulated with reason independent of scripture. i.e. that you may look to the Bible but you dont accept it verbatum but apply reason to it.

ISAW

pH wrote:

If a group of people want to sit around and discuss non-existent Sky Gods and impress each other with their profound thinking then fine, just don't pretend that it gives you any insight into reality, morality or ethics.

But if a group of philosophers who have no religious belief sit around and discuss the philosophy of science and nature of "reality" , a science from which they can derive no morality or ethics then that is somehow "better"?

It may be hard for you to understand, but a religious education is worse than no education when it comes to both understanding nature as we encounter it *and* in formulating rules of "right and wrong".

Please illuminate my understanding by explaining how the "reason" involved in the work of Thomas Acuqinas for example is so alien to the "reason" of scientists.

ISAW

Obni wrote:

Forgive my crude summary of your post.

1. Morality seems not to be just a chemical reaction in my brain
2. So it must have an external origin
3. So the external origin falls within the realms of theological discourse

Bit of a jump from 2 to 3 there.

Nope! I suggested that if yo can explain morality by science (I suggested brain chemistry and laws of physics ) then please do so. i.e. 2 It has an external origin (to science)

the external origin is NOT science. You can call it eithic morality but can not discount theology as a valid study of that external field.

Morality is a product of the interaction of individual organisms (each of which is subject to chemicals in the brain).
Over countless generations certain behaviours are noted as being beneficial or detrimental to the group as a whole, or at least to the dominant sub-group within the larger group. The lessons learned are distilled into moral codes. The moral code then has the authority that the group as a whole allows the dominant group. If the dominant group claims a divine source for its authority, then the moral codes can also be attributable to the same divine source.

This is just "meme theory" . there is a whole jump from biological evolution of a species to social "evolution" of a society. They are not the same thing and do not merit the same word "evolution". To suggest social systems are explainable using the same mechanisms and concepts as genetic theory is not dealing with the same type of phenomena!

So, as so often happens, a phenomonon explicable in natural terms can be declared as deriving from a supernatural source.

But you havent explained it as such. How species change over time can be explained by genetics. How societies do is a completly different field!

Unfortunately, not only do you accurately describe the state of things as they are; the reality is that all too often the religious within society have a far greater influence on the moral principles and ethical guidelines for scientists, than those using a scientific worldview as a basis for there moral and ethical guidelines.

and more people have been killed by non religious despots than by religious pogroms! But you present a false dichotomy i.e. you claim that a "scientific worldview" is opposed to "religious influence" . They are not of necessity opposing. It is not necessary for a scientist to be atheist no more than for a believer to be a scientist. The difference is that while a scientist may accept elements external to the whole of science a believer cant accept there is anything external to God.

pH

ISAW wrote:

But if a group of philosophers who have no religious belief sit around and discuss the philosophy of science and nature of "reality" , a science from which they can derive no morality or ethics then that is somehow "better"?

Nope, those 'philosophers of science' could waste each others time, and impress themselves no end, I'm not the slightest bit interested in that they have to say.

Please illuminate my understanding by explaining how the "reason" involved in the work of Thomas Acuqinas for example is so alien to the "reason" of scientists.

Simply there's no reason whatsoever involved in Aquinas' work. It, like all theology is the study of and pontification about made up Sky Gods. Done for the sole purpose of making himself look big and clever.

At best it's pseudo-intellectual drivel, here a few quotes from wiki:

"Aquinas believed in two types of revelation from God: general revelation and special revelation"

Aquinas believed "that for the knowledge of any truth whatsoever man needs Divine help, that the intellect may be moved by God to its act."

Aquinas defined the four cardinal virtues as prudence, temperance, justice, and fortitude.

Come off it, it's bordering on the ravings of a lunatic, bereft of any reason whatsoever, you'd get a better education studying Star Trek than this rubbish.

wes

ISAW wrote:

. You have reacted as some muslims have. But in the case of science it IS like Christianity rooted in western rationality unlike other religions.

Christianity originated in the Middle East last I checked......

As for Religion in general its based on Faith rather than rationality. Religion is hardly rational to be fair. A great man in the sky gave us a book etc. I am not saying this man doesn't exist, but its hardly reasonable, when the proof we have is 2nd, 3rd or 4th hand as best. I do believe in a God, but I don't consider it to be really reasonable and hell I may be deluding myself, but its a comforting one if thats the case.

Obni

ISAW wrote:

the external origin is NOT science. You can call it eithic morality but can not discount theology as a valid study of that external field.

The external origin is not science. I would suggest that it is something that can be explained without reference to theology.

ISAW wrote:

This is just "meme theory" .

I never cited memetics. I did suggest that morality in a society develops over time. If not then the implication is that morals are fixed and immutable. They would therefore be defined and fixed by theo, or defined and fixed by the physical laws of this universe. In either case one would expect greater consistency, or indeed complete consistency, in the moral codes of societies around the world.

ISAW wrote:

a false dichotomy i.e. you claim that a "scientific worldview" is opposed to "religious influence" . They are not of necessity opposing.

I was referring to the formation of moral principles and ethical guidelines for scientists. With respect to the ethical codes drawn up by a society for scientific work carried out within that society, I don't believe that there is any value in drawing authority for a moral stance from a divine source, revealed or not.

You posted earlier

ISAW wrote:

So isnt it just as valid to suggest that moral principles which guide scientists and society be influenced by believers in God as by non believers in God?

Absolutely. Their membership of a society allows them to influence those principles. I just happen to think that when the main or sole argument for a moral principle is divine authority, then it devalues the principle that it seeks to support.

Obni

ISAW wrote:

and more people have been killed by non religious despots than by religious pogroms!

Where the f*** did that come from?

Son Goku

ISAW wrote:

But isnt that exactly what the Pope was saying?

Yes, it was. I was actually just arguing about the general statement of science giving over to theology.

ISAW

wes wrote:

Christianity originated in the Middle East last I checked......

LOL! Touché!

The point is that it was offered to the Jews but spread quickly (by Paul a roman citizen) into Greece. The classical Greko Roman culture was subsumed by christianity in about two or three centuries.

As for Religion in general its based on Faith rather than rationality.

Of course belief is based on faith. But rejecting blind faith without reason is really where the theology would sit.

Religion is hardly rational to be fair.

Actually to be fair Thomism is rational and is a basis for empiricism and a host of philosophic developments underpinning modern science.

A great man in the sky gave us a book etc.

But one can just as replace the "Great man in the sky" with "cause of the laws of physics" and have scientism instead of religiousity.

I am not saying this man doesn't exist, but its hardly reasonable, when the proof we have is 2nd, 3rd or 4th hand as best.

But it is impossible to travel to other universes. Even if we could get evidence for them e.g. worm holes it might still be impossible for instruments to travel through them. But "multiple universes theory" is one way to tackle explainations about breaches in causality. As are superstrings. But any evidence is "2nd 3rd or 4th hand at best". Yet some scientists (whether religious ones or not) swear by them.

I do believe in a God, but I don't consider it to be really reasonable and hell I may be deluding myself, but its a comforting one if thats the case.

It is rational and acceptable. Where religions should be held up to scrutiny is where their ethical and moral dictats come into conflict with what we find out. But this ALSO applies to science.

ISAW

Obni wrote:

The external origin is not science. I would suggest that it is something that can be explained without reference to theology.

A valid suggestion. Just as valid as the suggestion that theology IS significant.

I never cited memetics. I did suggest that morality in a society develops over time. If not then the implication is that morals are fixed and immutable. They would therefore be defined and fixed by theo, or defined and fixed by the physical laws of this universe. In either case one would expect greater consistency, or indeed complete consistency, in the moral codes of societies around the world.

What you stated:

Over countless generations certain behaviours are noted as being beneficial or detrimental to the group as a whole, or at least to the dominant sub-group within the larger group. The lessons learned are distilled into moral codes. The moral code then has the authority that the group as a whole allows the dominant group. If the dominant group claims a divine source for its authority, then the moral codes can also be attributable to the same divine source.

Now genetics would suggest that over generations physical manifestations of DNA in particular circumstances give certain members of a species an advantage and so other members would be likely to decline.

But when you mention that behaviours "are distilled into moreal codes" you are turning to genetics as a causal basis for social development. You also like "dominant" genes with "dominant" group. But the grouping here is a social grouping and not a species.
This is what I was saying about mixing up biological evolution with "social evolution". It is basically memetics.

I was referring to the formation of moral principles and ethical guidelines for scientists. With respect to the ethical codes drawn up by a society for scientific work carried out within that society, I don't believe that there is any value in drawing authority for a moral stance from a divine source, revealed or not.

so you dont believe there is a "natural law" ? Natural law can also be secular.

I just happen to think that when the main or sole argument for a moral principle is divine authority, then it devalues the principle that it seeks to support.

But ANY line of questioning asking continulaay "why" will end up with religion or philosophy i.e. all first principles are philosophical in nature.

ISAW

Obni wrote:

Where the f*** did that come from?

My comment that secular regimes killed more people? from your comments about "moral authority" and ethics and why appeals to God are not you cup of tea. The alternative to religous codes killed more people than the religious did is all I was saying.

Unfortunately, not only do you accurately describe the state of things as they are; the reality is that all too often the religious within society have a far greater influence on the moral principles and ethical guidelines for scientists, than those using a scientific worldview as a basis for there moral and ethical guidelines.

i.e. I was saying what is the problem with religious people (or ethical) influencing society when the alternative (non religious people) caused more death?

Also as I pointed out science has to go outside itself for ethical or moral guidelines. Science cant just develop moral and ethical guidelines from basic scientific principles. This argument applies whether one has faith in God or not. It is a secular humanist argument as well.

Son Goku

But one can just as replace the "Great man in the sky" with "cause of the laws of physics" and have scientism instead of religiousity.

I don't understand how there is an anology. How would thinking "cause the laws of physics" work in the same way as thinking there is a supreme being. You couldn't base your life around the laws of physics or derive moral lessons from them which effect your everyday life.

ISAW wrote:

But it is impossible to travel to other universes. Even if we could get evidence for them e.g. worm holes it might still be impossible for instruments to travel through them. But "multiple universes theory" is one way to tackle explainations about breaches in causality. As are superstrings. But any evidence is "2nd 3rd or 4th hand at best". Yet some scientists (whether religious ones or not) swear by them.

ISAW, no scientists swear by those things. The things they swear by have first hand evidence.

ISAW

Son Goku wrote:

ISAW, no scientists swear by those things. The things they swear by have first hand evidence.

Really? have you seen an atom first hand? Isnt an atom a theoretical construct? have you seen he 70 per cent of the universe we cant detect dark matter or dark energy. No you havent but cosmologists swear that it must be there!

http://www.mkaku.org/Sub-critical_Closed_String_Field_Theory_in_D_(Less_Than_26).pdf

Do the Tachyons mentioned exist? Is there any first hand evidence?

I happen to believe in Dark Matter. Is it as mysterious as believing in God or should I present you with some theoretical mathematical construct? How about a miracle? But there are those who see miracles and still may not believe them.

My point is that some religion at least has the same rationality underpinning it as science has.

there are a number of ways to look at it.

1. the nature of the universe is discoverable and underpinned by laws.
2. the laws can be discovered
3. the laws CANt be discovered.
4. there are no such laws.

all the above fit with philosophies of western science.

5. God had a hand in creating the universe and in humanity.
6. Human beings are not definable by science alone and need to be left to make their own rules about how they should behave.

These are compatable with religions or humanism. they do not have to contradict 1 through 4. If they do contradict them then that is where a skeptic ( or the rationalist) can step in and show the errors in reason.

another element is that we do not exist only to reason. We are no better than the cave man we have only progressed technology andf knowledge but people are not better then they were thousands of years ago. we are just cave men with guns and computers. This fits with both rational religion and science quite well.

Son Goku

Really? have you seen an atom first hand? Isnt an atom a theoretical construct? have you seen he 70 per cent of the universe we cant detect dark matter or dark energy. No you havent but cosmologists swear that it must be there!

http://www.mkaku.org/Sub-critical_Cl...s_Than_26).pdf

Do the Tachyons mentioned exist? Is there any first hand evidence?

That paper is in String Theory, that's the point I'm making. Just because something is in a scientific paper and is being researched at the moment doesn't mean we swear by it, it literally means we don't because the fundamentals are still being explored.
A perfect example would be tachyons, nobody swears by them as there is no evidence for them. They're currently a useful idea in Quantum Gravity.

The evidence for the atom is first hand scientific evidence. I can't see them because electromagnetic radiation that I can detect with my optics passes right through them, but the evidence is still concrete and first hand in experimental terms.

Everything in your previous posts aren't things physicists support because they have no experimental evidence, like the atom does.

Also we can detect Dark Matter, I don't know where that comes from.

We swear by the things which have strong first hand-empirical evidence.

Is it as mysterious as believing in God or should I present you with some theoretical mathematical construct? How about a miracle? But there are those who see miracles and still may not believe them.

What are you talking about? Define clearly what you're saying.

(I dislike dragging threads off topic like this, but these discussions often contain somebody who misuses physics to prove a point.)

ISAW

Son Goku wrote:

That paper is in String Theory, that's the point I'm making. Just because something is in a scientific paper and is being researched at the moment doesn't mean we swear by it, it literally means we don't because the fundamentals are still being explored.

But Kaku believes in strings:

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/99
Not Michio Kaku. One of the world's best-known theoretical physicists, and one of the key players in string theory, he is a professor at the City University of New York. Not only is Kaku 'sold' on string theory - and one of the earliest players in its development - he is also a passionate proselytiser
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/spacechat/livechat/michio_kaku.shtml

The direct proof of superstring theory may lie far in the future,

... We believe that a multiverse of universes exist like bubbles floating in Nothing.

i.e. he believes in something for which theer is no direct proof.

A perfect example would be tachyons, nobody swears by them as there is no evidence for them. They're currently a useful idea in Quantum Gravity.

some people indeed some great scientists DO believe in that sort of thing! And they are not necessarily religious.

The evidence for the atom is first hand scientific evidence. I can't see them because electromagnetic radiation that I can detect with my optics passes right through them, but the evidence is still concrete and first hand in experimental terms.

No it isnt. You see the Effect which is explained by theoretical constructs. Indeed most peoples (including scientists) model of the atom is not the generally accepted one of scientists actually working in that field.

Everything in your previous posts aren't things physicists support because they have no experimental evidence, like the atom does.

Atoms have no first hand evidence. we see secondary effects. we dont see the atoms themselves.

Also we can detect Dark Matter, I don't know where that comes from.

Really? where has dark matter been detected? I would suggest we can see effects which could be caused by dark matter. Every time cosmology has wiped out dark matter it raises it head somewhere else. But as it stands it is suggested because we only detect so much matter and there isnt enough. But what about dark energy? where is that when it is at home?

We swear by the things which have strong first hand-empirical evidence.

Atoms havent first hand empirical evidence. dark matter and dark energy based on the conjecture that cosmological expansion is at such a rate that more matter is needed to fit the theory.

What are you talking about? Define clearly what you're saying.

see the clearly numbered points 1 through 6 above

(I dislike dragging threads off topic like this, but these discussions often contain somebody who misuses physics to prove a point.)

If you are saying I am misusing physics to prove a point then please indicate.

A. where i am misusing physics? do you assert this "misuse" is deliberate?
B. what point you think I am proving?.
Above you stated you didnt know what my point was. now you are claiming that I am proving something by deception or with logical fallacy.

this might help. In browsing around on the subject (egged on thanks to your resopnses) I came accross this:
http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/~massimo/rationallyspeaking/files/science&religion.pdf
I disagree with slide 13 and 17 and I think things are complicated as slide 16 shows.

I would think of Science and religion as neither being disjoint sets nor an identity.

Son Goku

ISAW wrote:

Kaku

A man is confident in his research. String Theorists form a vanishingly small fraction of theoretical physicists.
And Theoretical Physicists are a minority of Physicists. This doesn't say anything about the physics community swearing by String Theory.

some people indeed some great scientists DO believe in that sort of thing! And they are not necessarily religious.

Who? And not just who has done research on it, or some extreme outlier like Kaku, who has been criticised by other physicists, that you found on google. I mean your average Doctor in a department.

No it isnt. You see the Effect which is explained by theoretical constructs. Indeed most peoples (including scientists) model of the atom is not the generally accepted one of scientists actually working in that field.

Yes, and? Everything in science is just a theoretical concept which matches evidence. Traces on calibrated devices are considered first hand. For example a mirage/hologram is something your eyes can detect/see, but has no material presence as percieved. What can be detected with our eyes is not first hand in science.
(Also, I have "seen" one through an electron microscope)

Besides what's your point?
Evidence for atoms and other things physicists "swear by" is far more immediate and several order of magnitudes more solid than evidence for the New Testament, which is what this started with.

Really? where has dark matter been detected? I would suggest we can see effects which could be caused by dark matter. Every time cosmology has wiped out dark matter it raises it head somewhere else. But as it stands it is suggested because we only detect so much matter and there isnt enough. But what about dark energy? where is that when it is at home?

This arguement is 20 years old and no longer relevant

Atoms havent first hand empirical evidence. dark matter and dark energy based on the conjecture that cosmological expansion is at such a rate that more matter is needed to fit the theory.

Fit what theory? General Relativity already predicts it. The Cosmological expansion has been measured it is emphatically not a conjecture. You have this backwards.

see the clearly numbered points 1 through 6 above

I want to know what this means:

Is it as mysterious as believing in God or should I present you with some theoretical mathematical construct?

A. where i am misusing physics? do you assert this "misuse" is deliberate?

Making it appear as if New Testament historicity is comparable to fringe theoretical ideas in physics(specifically ideas that 99.99% of physicists don't swear by) in this text:

ISAW wrote:

I am not saying this man[Jesus] doesn't exist, but its hardly reasonable, when the proof we have is 2nd, 3rd or 4th hand as best.

But it is impossible to travel to other universes. Even if we could get evidence for them e.g. worm holes it might still be impossible for instruments to travel through them. But "multiple universes theory" is one way to tackle explainations about breaches in causality. As are superstrings. But any evidence is "2nd 3rd or 4th hand at best". Yet some scientists (whether religious ones or not) swear by them.

what point you think I am proving?

Something vague about religion being as rational as science/science being as "faithy" as religion, through the use of poor examples and begging the question.

Above you stated you didnt know what my point was. now you are claiming that I am proving something by deception or with logical fallacy.

I said I didn't understand one single line, don't play the super-literal game.

ISAW

Son Goku wrote:

A man is confident in his research. String Theorists form a vanishingly small fraction of theoretical physicists.
And Theoretical Physicists are a minority of Physicists. This doesn't say anything about the physics community swearing by String Theory.

I claimed that world renowned scientists, respectable scientists believe in things they cant prove. It is not necessary to prove that most scientists or even some scientists do so! I showed that there was at least one. I am sure it is no bother to find many more but the point is that not all scientists follow the idea that something is only true when shown by direct evidence.

In fact one case springs to mind from history. eddingtons? solar eclipse expiriment (1905?) where apparently he "proved" General relativity by the apparent position of a star being "bent" by the Suns gravity. Scintists world wide leapt to say it "proved" Einstein. But it didnt! The measurements were not accurate enough. It was only in the 1950 that gravatational lensing by radio scopes confirmed the result of this technique. But because of the mathematical "beauty " of Einsteing theory people believed it WITHOUT evidence!

Who? And not just who has done research on it, or some extreme outlier like Kaku, who has been criticised by other physicists, that you found on google. I mean your average Doctor in a department.

I dont see what you are getting at here. You seem to be asserting that I found someone on google. I knew of Kaku for many years, indeed I think he gave a lecture in Trinity college even before Google was set up. But what is the significance of using the phrase "that you found on Google"? Why did you put that in?

It is fairly much accepted that breakthroughs in science are made by "extreme outliers" causing "paradigm shifts". But because you claim an "extreme outlier" does not represent what MOST scientists do you assert that

1. Whatever "truth" science deals with is only discovered by the rump of scientists

2. What science is is to be judged by the criterion of the "averrage academic scientist" . Really? do scientists award the Nobel prize to such people? What are such prizes for if outstanding achievment in science isnt to be applauded?

Yes, and? Everything in science is just a theoretical concept which matches evidence.

no it isnt! I have shown you that some theoretical concepts have no evidence at all! Indeed take the field of exo biology which has absolutley no data Aof direct evidence to work on! Yet is IS a SCIENCE.

Traces on calibrated devices are considered first hand. For example a mirage/hologram is something your eyes can detect/see, but has no material presence as percieved. What can be detected with our eyes is not first hand in science.

But a machine that does the same job as they eye IS first hand evidence? And our eyes detect the readings of such a machine? Hmmm...

So you now claim for example that the traces left in a cloud chamber are EVIDENCE of atoms. But the point I made was that you dont really know what atoms photons etc. actually ARE. you have constructs which describe how they should behave and what can be observed as a by product of that behaviour. But like the shodows on socrates cave one might move to a greater level of perception. Quantum theiry quarky theory M strings. But no one knows if these are an ultimate "truth". And they are at a level where we can actaully "see" them.

(Also, I have "seen" one through an electron microscope)

this is a good point. so have I! But what I saw was a representation that was left behind on my retina after the act of me observing a phenomon.

Besides what's your point?
Evidence for atoms and other things physicists "swear by" is far more immediate and several order of magnitudes more solid than evidence for the New Testament, which is what this started with.

Maybe. But as regards spiritual faith it isnt quantised! One believes ofr doesent. Logic and reason can only progress you so far. After that it may be a little step or a "great leap" of faith but it is Boolean at that level i.e. you believe or you dont!

As regards the NT people believe in somethings Christ said e.g. "blessed are those who do not see yet still believe". Was Christ referring to Kaku? the point is that some scientists believe in things without evidence for them. Indeed we all do. we dont check every time we sit down that the chair is not going to collapse.

Anyway it seems you claim that christians for example should not believe in things they have no direct empirical evidence for. why not make the same claim for scientists? How is it SOME scientists CAN believe in things they have no evidence for?

This arguement is 20 years old and no longer relevant

as you are so up to date and I am so out of date please elucidate. what is the evidence for dark matter and dark energy and where before 1986 where that known?

Fit what theory? General Relativity already predicts it. The Cosmological expansion has been measured it is emphatically not a conjecture. You have this backwards.

The expansion is measured. But the matter needed to fit with that rate of expansion isnt observed. We dont see it. there is not direct evidence! thats my point. the existance of it is based on conjecture i.e. because the model says there should be Omega and because we only can detect 20 per cent of Omega we say that 70 percent is "stuff we cant detect". You are claiming that a mathematical theory with various possibilities is predicting something for which we have NO DIRECT EVIDENCE other than it musty be there to fit the theory. Isnt this a bit like eddington?

I want to know what this means:

QED

Making it appear as if New Testament historicity is comparable to fringe theoretical ideas in physics(specifically ideas that 99.99% of physicists don't swear by) in this text:

So was Einstein misusing physics when most physicists believed in Newtonian Mechanics and Maxwells equations were sufficient to explain the universe?

You are now claiming that science is what 99,9% of scientists believe. I thought you asserted that science was an objective study and NOt what most scientists believed?


I only picked out Kaku. the point is that scientists believe in things they have no evidence for as part of their science and they are STILL accepted as scientists! You cant have an axiom that ALL science is provable by direct empirical evidence. It isnt! maybe a skeptic sub group of scientists believe this but not all scientists do! that is not to say pseudo science is science. It is to say that religious people may be scientists and believe in things without empirical evidence and scientists can also believe in things without empirical evidence. they may both be rational.

Something vague about religion being as rational as science/science being as "faithy" as religion, ...

You fairly much have the idea there. so why ask me what i am trying to say. Chriatianity is rooted in the rational and some scientists believe in things they cant prove.

I said I didn't understand one single line, don't play the super-literal game.

Youy claimed I was misusing physics by:
Making it appear as if New Testament historicity is comparable to fringe theoretical ideas in physics

You try to label Kaku as a fringe looney and not a real scientist. He IS a scientist. and I just picked him from the top of my head. What about the doctor who had alternative views on ulsers and was castigated by the medical establishemnt for decades?

How is it "misusing physics" to show that physicists believe in things they do not see? So if a scientist can believe in things he does not see which are part of his science then what is so wrong with someone believing in things they did not see which are not parts of science?

Where is the misuse or dishonesty in that?

ISAW

Son Goku wrote:

That paper is in String Theory, that's the point I'm making. Just because something is in a scientific paper and is being researched at the moment doesn't mean we swear by it, it literally means we don't because the fundamentals are still being explored.

this is a weakening of you case. Earlier you stated NO SCIENTIST believe in superstrings spacewarps and other things which cant be shown by empirical evidence.

above you are claiming that MOST (i.e. "we" the accepted authority) scientists do not accept fringe theories.

But

1. By definition a fringe theory is what only a small number have theorised.

2. Your claim that NO scientist believes in somthing which has no empirical evidence has been dropped.

So do you now accept that scientists may believe in things which are part of science and for which no empirical evidence exists?

ISAW

Son Goku wrote:

This doesn't say anything about the physics community swearing by String Theory.

Where did I calim that it does?
I claimed someone can be a scientist and as part of that science believe in things for which there is no empirical evidence. You claimed that there were no such scientists i.e. you definition of science only entertains that for which there is direct empirical evidence.

So is Kaku and others like him NOT a scientist?

Son Goku

Look ISAW, even if your thesis is correct how does it back up evidence for the New Testament?

You know what I mean, there is a difference between being confident in your research and the kind of belief to be found in religion.
You can write prose upon prose, but they are not even remotely the same thing. You're just replacing the word confident with belief, due to the inherent ambiguity of the word belief and then announcing this as some gross feature of science.

Kaku is confident in his research and yes other scientists have called him into question, this is not the same as him being a loon, but he is an extremist in certain ways. However Kaku is an extreme outlier in the way he presents science, not in the way you suggest. He is working on a very mainstream area, Einstein wasn't. He is an extreme outlier in how much he publicizes conjecture, which is not the same kind of outlier Einstein was.

You're using the ambiguity of English to turn everything I say on its head and you can do it faster than I can correct it, so I’m not going to go through your whole post.
However that doesn't change the fact that the rationality in science is bolstered by the fact that there is empirical evidence for what has occurred. This makes it completely different to religion.

That famous lack of "complete metaphysical spring-cleaning" which all human endeavours suffer from isn't enough to make science and religion comparable.

Son Goku

ISAW wrote:

Where did I calim that it does?
I claimed someone can be a scientist and as part of that science believe in things for which there is no empirical evidence. You claimed that there were no such scientists i.e. you definition of science only entertains that for which there is direct empirical evidence.

So is Kaku and others like him NOT a scientist?

ISAW, seriously you know what I'm saying.
Even though researches may be confident in their work, doesn't mean it is something that the community swears by. It is only sworn by when it has significant evidence.

So was Einstein misusing physics when most physicists believed in Newtonian Mechanics and Maxwells equations were sufficient to explain the universe?

I said you were misusing physics. I don't understand where this sentence comes from. Einstein's relativity wasn't trusted until long after it was empirically confirmed and rightly so.
You're confusing something being researched with it being accepted.

this is a weakening of you case. Earlier you stated NO SCIENTIST believe in superstrings spacewarps and other things which cant be shown by empirical evidence.

above you are claiming that MOST (i.e. "we" the accepted authority) scientists do not accept fringe theories.

This I don't understand, also:

QED

What do you mean by just stating "QED".

ISAW

Son Goku wrote:

Look ISAW, even if your thesis is correct how does it back up evidence for the New Testament?

You know what I mean, there is a difference between being confident in your research and the kind of belief to be found in religion.
You can write prose upon prose, but they are not even remotely the same thing. You're just replacing the word confident with belief, due to the inherent ambiguity of the word belief and then announcing this as some gross feature of science.

i am QUOTING a scientists actual words "WE believe..." referring to himself and other scientists.

where doe sit relate to the current issue? Ill tell you. Scientists can be rational people and yet believe in things for which they have no empirical evidence. [I keep stating "empirical" because i want to stay with the strict skeptics definition of scientific evidence. of course theologists and humanists would claim ther are other forms of evidence but let us leave that aside for the moment]. Now if scientists can be scientists and be rational even when their science has no direct empirical evidence why is it so hard to accept that religious people CANT be rational? My second point is that science is not only the skeptic element of "only that which is empirically measureable" but is other things as well. and that life and civilisation and society goes beyond these things.

It seems we have got to accept my first point . the second point progresses the debate to the thread title about the Pope being obsessed with rationality or "scientific reality". you may well claim "what other reality is there?" in which case we can then introduce the concept of non empirical "evidence" which we left aside earlier.

Kaku is confident in his research and yes other scientists have called him into question, this is not the same as him being a loon, but he is an extremist in certain ways.

and nor are theologians or Biblical scholars loons!

However Kaku is an extreme outlier in the way he presents science, not in the way you suggest. He is working on a very mainstream area, Einstein wasn't. He is an extreme outlier in how much he publicizes conjecture, which is not the same kind of outlier Einstein was.

You are cvlaiming that it is not his science but his presentation of it which makes Kaku "fringe". but i already addressed this. Fringe or not he is a scientist and he believes in thisgs he cant see. So you claim that no scientist believes in anything he cant see is false!

You're using the ambiguity of English to turn everything I say on its head and you can do it faster than I can correct it, so I’m not going to go through your whole post.

I was quite clear about what I said and used mathematics ( a branch of logic and not a science)

I posited that they are neither disjoint nor unity as a set theory would define it.

Please explain how you think I am purposfully distorting you meaning. It seems to me you suggested I was not clear and I clarified things. It isnt much use claiming a clarification is a purposfull distortion. I am only trying to be honest.
If you think scientists should write like robots and not use suggestive language then you are much mistaken for it is in the use of suggestive language and not in strict definition that science progresses. Boyles references to the "springness of the air" is a case in point.

And if you cant type fast enough dont blame me.

However that doesn't change the fact that the rationality in science is bolstered by the fact that there is empirical evidence for what has occurred.

Indeed it doesnt. And that is part of the empirical basis for science (to which rational church people and religious philosophers contributed). But it is not the only part of science. And YOU CLAIM was about scientists not believing in things they cant see. But as I pointed out some of they do.

This makes it completely different to religion.

But it doesent. christianity ALSO has that rational basis. Indeed the SAME rational basis developed by the SAME philosophers. The areas they differ on are seperate to this.

That famous lack of "complete metaphysical spring-cleaning" which all human endeavours suffer from isn't enough to make science and religion comparable.

But I have given you several references (including the presentations from someone who is "anti" religion and wrote for Skeptic Magasine where even he shows the commonality and common history. and I dont mean like pseudo science astrology has a comon history with astronomy. I mean where the rationalle is exactly the same!

ISAW

Son Goku wrote:

ISAW, seriously you know what I'm saying.
Even though researches may be confident in their work, doesn't mean it is something that the community swears by. It is only sworn by when it has significant evidence.

Youo stated NO SCIENTIST could believe in something for which there is no empirical evidence. did you not?

I said you were misusing physics. I don't understand where this sentence comes from. Einstein's relativity wasn't trusted until long after it was empirically confirmed and rightly so.
You're confusing something being researched with it being accepted.

Not true! the eclipse experiment went world wide and scientists accepted it as true. It wasnt till decades later (indeed after WWII) that empirical confirmation of gravitational lensing was made!

What do you mean by just stating "QED".

I mean "as already demonstrated" .Look at the paragraph directly above where QED is! The answer is there.