🚀 go-pugleaf

This thread is just to good to stay out of...

(1)  Some people have a belief that the universe can be described
by physical laws that we can discover, approximate, etc...otherwise
they wouldn't put so much time and effort into an extremely subtle game
of pattern recognition and completion - which is what science
boils down to...).  This process can proceed nicely without borrowing
any concepts from religion.   It is not necessary to invoke the concept
of "God" in order figure out whether or not CP conservation is ever
violated.  However, there is no "proof" that patterns that the universe
presents to us will continue to work in the same way; or that as we
continue to probe the details of the patterns around us, that they can
really be "compressed" into a simple and elegant pattern generating
algorhithm requiring less information than the pattern itself.  Perhaps
the masses of the fundamental particals of nature (or some other
perplexing pattern) will never have anything other than that tautalogical
explanation "they are what they are".  Maybe not. Science involves a certain
faith that we *can* compress the patterns (i.e. describe complex phenomena
in simpler terms...)

(2)	Other people either have no such belief, or they consider
"common sense" pattern recognition and completion (i.e. "objects
tend to fall") to be sufficient for their everyday purposes.  This
is their choice to make.  They "get by" just fine without using
formal logic or the scientific method.  Sure they may think that
the moon is made of cheese, and there may be "logical inconsistencies",
but so what?  People have been getting by for a long time without
science or technology as we know them today.  Of course, many people
will witness that S&T makes their lives more comfortable/convenient/efficient
- after all, if we are better able to recognize/complete the patterns
around us, our possibilities for exploiting these patterns multiply.

(3)	Some people have a belief that there exists a "God", and that this
has prescriptive implications for how we should act.  This process of
deciding should/shouln't proceeds nicely without borrowing any concepts
from science.  It is not necessary to invoke the scientific method to
figure out whether or not it is "OK" to murder.

(4) Other people either have no such belief, or they consider their
"common sense"  or societal prescriptive morals to be sufficient for their
everyday purposes. This is their choice to make.  They "get by" just fine.
They might believe that there is no metaphysical purpose to our existence and
that "life's a bitch and then you die".  There may be inconsistencies
to their situational ethics, but so what?  People have been taking
this approach for a long time.  Or course, many people will witness that
religion makes their lives more meaningful and fills in what would
otherwise be a huge void.  However, there is no "proof" that "God" exists -
this is taken on faith.

(5)	Some people believe both (1) and (3), and that these are not
conflicting beliefs, but rather complement eachother in our everyday lives
just as syntax and semantics do.  Science need not compete with the prescriptions of Religion, and Religion need not compete with the
descriptions (pattern recognition and completion scheme) of Science.
Science is not in the position to decide upon the existence of a metaphysical
"God" or to tell us how to behave morally any more than religion is in a
position to decide upon the existence of quarks or CP conservation. For
these people it is possible to find beauty and meaning in both realms.

(6) Some people believe that the our powerful pattern recognition and
completion scheme that we call science (the ability to predict the outcomes of
future experiments based on the results of previous experiments) precludes
the existence of God. However, it is not clear how one can rule out the
existence of a God-like entity by simply observing and compressing patterns.
At best, one can only say that the concept of God is unnecessary in order to
do science - but this is akin to saying that the concept of seeing is
unnecessary in order to do hearing - hardly an argument against the existence
of sight, even if you are blind.

(7)  Other people ("Joe six pack") believe neither (1) nor (3), but instead
are perfectly happy taking the positions (2) and (4).

(8)  Nothing can be "proved" - people engaged in real science
must have some kind of faith at a fundamental level (i.e. "There are laws of
physics and they were the same yesterday and will be the same tommorrow"),
just as people engaged in real religion must have a fundamental faith.

(9)  Sure, Science and Religion can step on eachother's toes, but only
after stepping outside of their respective scopes.  Certain Nazi
experimental protocols (using live human subjects against their will)
can make for *excellent* science! We would probably move a lot faster
in medicine (neuroscience, drug research) if we could *control* the
environment of humans while making selective lesions. There is nothing
about the scientific method that suggests that we shouldn't do such
experiments. This should/should't question is undecidable within the
limited scope of science. However such a question can be unambiguously
answered within the scope of a religion.  On the other hand, certain
religious people may come to some conclusion that parity is always
conserved because they think that "God" would want things to be "harmonious".
Their faith in God makes for excellent religion, but there is nothing
in the tenets of their religion (at least of any that I'm aware of)
that can be used to attack this problem - it is undecidable within the
limited scope of religion.  However, this question is decidable within
the scope of science.

(10)	Of course, both science and religion benifit from hindsight.  Just
as many scientists now realizes that Newton's laws are relatively crude
applications of science that are not altogether correct when one examines
the patterns more carefully, many Christians believe that the ideas of the
inquisition were a crude application of Christianity that are not altogether
correct if one examines the religious ideas of Christianity more carefully.
As we probe deeper into the complexities of the patterns around us,
interpretive diputes arise in Science (Bohr-Einstein disputes) just as they do
when we continue to explore the ideas of a religion (Catholic-Protestant 
disputes).

(11) Both are guilty of stretching analogies too far.  Does religion turn you
off because people seem to be describing "God" in anthropomorphic terms, as if
"he" were an old wise white-bearded man with omnipotentence and
omniscience thrown in for good measure?   Does this strike you as just too
strange to be true?  Most Christians realize that this is a simplification
which might be "useful" in some way - but is always kept in mind that is an
incomplete or inaccurate description. Does physics turn you off because people
seem to be describing electrons as if they were both ping-pong balls and waves
and yet neither? Does this strike you as just too strange to be true?
Physicists realize that this is a simplification which is useful but
incomplete. Since people understand intangible things best when they are
presented in terms of everyday objects that are tangible to the senses, it is
no surprise that the "working visualizations" of both "God" and "electrons"
must be taken with a grain of salt - they are both intangible to the senses.

-Jeff
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jsorenso@thesis1.med.uth.tmc.edu | "No matter where you go, there you are"
				 |				-BB
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------