Can you mix science with god?

[tar]

Iggy,<br /><br />I did not know the guy well. Heard a few of his videos and a book title, and was not pleased with his approach. Too full of himself. Me, being full of myself also, felt embarrassed for my kin and felt a need to turn my back on him, disasscociate myself with his approach. Wish he would have been more careful and considerate, and not act so self-sufficient and holier-than-thou. Sorry about adding the g, I know a Hitchings, and I never spoke the word Hitchins. It was an honest typo and not indicative of any hidden agenda, or association to any army.<br /><br />I think you know me well enough to know that I think a little differently than normal, that I am a little eccentric, not likely to be on purpose uttering any group's talking points.<br /><br />If we are to look for whose agenda I am after supporting, we probably have to look all accross the board,(no pun intended). A piece here, and a piece there, is all I can come up with. The biggest group I identify with is the U.S. and its history. Next, Western Philosophy. Then Christians, Buddists, Scientists and such, in no particular order. I read Discover magazine, (though not the last couple issues). I watch TV but ignore the reality shows and watch mostly action/adventure/fantasy movies, NCIS, a little news, and sports when its the Yankees or the Giants. Spend a lot of time here in the Religion and Philosophy section, mostly lately the Religion section, because I have opinions and theories based on emotions and muses and personal takes on the goings on in the world, and few Journal backed studies to bring to the table. I do not easily distinguish ideas, one from the other, enough to know if I got them from Hawkins or Dawkins, or Hawkings.<br /><br />You already know my agenda. My Mom was an eccentric Mathematician follower of Jesus, my Father is a respected, rational, former head of the Psychology dept. at a now defunct college, who does not believe in God. I look for the answers that explain the thinking of both. That mix the two.<br /><br />With the thought that the real world belonged to my Mom, as much as it does to my Dad, and they were both full participants in it. And I loved my Mom, and disagreed superficially, and love my Dad, and don't know that I disagree with him on any level but politically, he and his wife being democrats and me being registered republican, but having had campaigned for McGovern in my youth, and been a "hippy", and served in the Army in Germany...<br /><br />Point being, I have associations that I hold dear. Very many of them, that associate me with a little of this and a little of that, and science and god are all mixed up in the world around me, already.<br /><br />If they are hard to sort out, it might mean that they have already mixed.<br /><br />If they are easy to sort out, it might mean that they do not mix, and are separate considerations.<br /><br />Looking at the history of man, and the current role that religion and wish thinking play in the lives of man and the men and women around me, and in the news, it seems to me that they have mixed and are still mixing. I am looking for the reasons that put the two together, not the reasons that would make them polar opposites. Science and God.<br /><br />You say that Hitchens won't mind. Being dead and all. Not completely true. There are many who still care if Hitchens is considered good or bad. His consciousness is still considered. It has not been removed from ours. He has nothing more to say, but still has listeners. He can not hear what we say about him, but we still talk.<br /><br />Regards, TAR2

[Iggy]

Iggy,<br /><br />I did not know the guy well. Heard a few of his videos and a book title, and was not pleased with his approach. Too full of himself. Me, being full of myself also, felt embarrassed for my kin and felt a need to turn my back on him, disasscociate myself with his approach. Wish he would have been more careful and considerate, and not act so self-sufficient and holier-than-thou. Sorry about adding the g, I know a Hitchings, and I never spoke the word Hitchins. It was an honest typo and not indicative of any hidden agenda, or association to any army.<br /><br />I think you know me well enough to know that I think a little differently than normal, that I am a little eccentric, not likely to be on purpose uttering any group's talking points.<br /><br />If we are to look for whose agenda I am after supporting, we probably have to look all accross the board,(no pun intended). A piece here, and a piece there, is all I can come up with. The biggest group I identify with is the U.S. and its history. Next, Western Philosophy. Then Christians, Buddists, Scientists and such, in no particular order. I read Discover magazine, (though not the last couple issues). I watch TV but ignore the reality shows and watch mostly action/adventure/fantasy movies, NCIS, a little news, and sports when its the Yankees or the Giants. Spend a lot of time here in the Religion and Philosophy section, mostly lately the Religion section, because I have opinions and theories based on emotions and muses and personal takes on the goings on in the world, and few Journal backed studies to bring to the table. I do not easily distinguish ideas, one from the other, enough to know if I got them from Hawkins or Dawkins, or Hawkings.<br /><br />You already know my agenda. My Mom was an eccentric Mathematician follower of Jesus, my Father is a respected, rational, former head of the Psychology dept. at a now defunct college, who does not believe in God. I look for the answers that explain the thinking of both. That mix the two.<br /><br />With the thought that the real world belonged to my Mom, as much as it does to my Dad, and they were both full participants in it. And I loved my Mom, and disagreed superficially, and love my Dad, and don't know that I disagree with him on any level but politically, he and his wife being democrats and me being registered republican, but having had campaigned for McGovern in my youth, and been a "hippy", and served in the Army in Germany...<br /><br />Point being, I have associations that I hold dear. Very many of them, that associate me with a little of this and a little of that, and science and god are all mixed up in the world around me, already.<br /><br />If they are hard to sort out, it might mean that they have already mixed.<br /><br />If they are easy to sort out, it might mean that they do not mix, and are separate considerations.<br /><br />Looking at the history of man, and the current role that religion and wish thinking play in the lives of man and the men and women around me, and in the news, it seems to me that they have mixed and are still mixing. I am looking for the reasons that put the two together, not the reasons that would make them polar opposites. Science and God.<br /><br />You say that Hitchens won't mind. Being dead and all. Not completely true. There are many who still care if Hitchens is considered good or bad. His consciousness is still considered. It has not been removed from ours. He has nothing more to say, but still has listeners. He can not hear what we say about him, but we still talk.<br /><br />Regards, TAR2

 

It seems like you do a lot of equivocating. For example, you say that a dead person does indeed care about what people are posthumously saying about him, because people are speaking and he cannot hear. That doesn't make sense to me, but I think you're equivocating "we" and "he".

 

"We" might care about the dead person. "We" might remember him well and wish him well and want to protect his reputation. But, "we" are not "he". He is dead and no longer cares.

 

You do the same thing with God when you say 'maybe God is love and love exists' or 'maybe god is the laughter of children' or however it is you put it. That is just equivocating.

 

If you want to mix science and God then find a scientific law, theory, or formula that relies on, or contains, God. Otherwise, find a divine source of revelation that predicts the charge of an electron, and the orbit of mars, and other empirical matters the way that scientific laws, theories, and formula do.

 

As it is, the sort of mixing I see between god and science is just to mistake one for the other. In general that is what I see people doing.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Iggy

[PeterJ]

If God is not required for our current scientific theories then this is hardly surprising. We define physics expressly to exclude divine beings and deities. The existence or non-existence of God is by definition of no concern to physics. This is the reason why which it is would make no difference to physics,.

 

God existence or non-existence only makes a difference in physics if we define God in a way that would make Him testable in physics under controlled and repeatable conditions. If we do not do this, and I doubt that many people do, then the best we can do is test Him in metaphysics, beyond physics.

 

Here we find two seemingly contradictory facts. First, any plausible metaphysical theory would need an absolute or ultimate phenomenon. Second, all attempts to define God so that He would meet the job spec for this phenenomon do not work.

 

This suggest to me that 'God', the God we have in our heads when we use this word, does not exist. But this is only what most religions say, if we delve into them. It is probably a minority of religious people who hold a view of God by which He would be ridiculous in physics. Obviously most physicists do, but this is not relevant to anything. What is relevant is that many religious people say that any idea we may have of God is not even an approximation. Even the early Christians taught that it would be incorrect to say 'God exists'. or 'God does not exist',

 

Not really arguing, just saying that it would be unfair to adopt a naive or superficial concept of God and then ridicule that, and also pointless.

 

If you examine the 'God' of Plotinus, the pseudo-Dionysius, Meister Eckhart, the Sufis, the Kabbalists, the non-canonical Christian gospels and such like, then the plot thickens.

Edited March 22, 2013 by PeterJ

[Ringer]

What all of these pages seem to boil down to is defining what god is. Since there can't seem to be an agreed upon definition any talk of god in a scientific context is meaningless. Even by the definition used here it would be meaningless. God is supernatural, by definition is not scientific. God is nature, so since the nature is studied by science god is always studied. But the definition is redundant, so it's unnecessary and unhelpful.

[John Cuthber]

"If God is not required for our current scientific theories then this is hardly surprising. "

 

Peter, you seem not to have noticed, but God also isn't required for anything else at all; ever.

If He were, then that would prove His existence.

 

For example, if you show that God is required for the existence of biscuits, then the presence of those biscuits demonstrates the existence of God.

Feel free to try putting other things into that sentence in place of the biscuits.

 

Since 8 pages of arguments have yet to define what God actually is, it's probably impossible to say whether or not you can mix Him with science.

Certainly, nobody has come up with any convincing evidence that the two can be mixed.

Edited March 22, 2013 by John Cuthber

[PeterJ]

Hmm. I'm not sure it's this simple, but I can roughly agree. The thing is, it is no use saying that science does not need God. It means nothing. Science is not concerned with fundamental theories so we would not expect it to need God, or any other fundamental phenomenon come to that. It's like saying that psychology does not need electrons.

 

It might depend on our definitions not only of God but also of science. If we call metaphysics a science (which I would, but not many do) then science would need something rather like God.

 

In the end I don't think it's helpful to judge the plausibility of God by whether he is useful or necessary in physics. It would have some bearing on the issue but will never be a clincher. Or not until physics has a fundamental theory that does not require Him.

 

But everything would depend on how we define Him. Also, there is the possibility that there is a God that is not fundamental but emergent, as He would be for Kabbalism and Gnosticism. A sort of intermediate power and a strictly natural phenomenon.

 

If I had to argue for God's existence, (which I never will), then I would ask why science cannot find a fundamental theory, and why in consciousness studies some researchers have concluded that we need an extra ingredient in our theories to make then successful. Maybe 'God' is a poor idea, but we need something to play the role that He is often assigned.

[Ringer]

Hmm. I'm not sure it's this simple, but I can roughly agree. The thing is, it is no use saying that science does not need God. It means nothing. Science is not concerned with fundamental theories so we would not expect it to need God, or any other fundamental phenomenon come to that. It's like saying that psychology does not need electrons.

 

It might depend on our definitions not only of God but also of science. If we call metaphysics a science (which I would, but not many do) then science would need something rather like God.

 

In the end I don't think it's helpful to judge the plausibility of God by whether he is useful or necessary in physics. It would have some bearing on the issue but will never be a clincher. Or not until physics has a fundamental theory that does not require Him.

 

This isn't about the plausibility of God, but whether the concept of god and science can be mixed. The point of god not being useful is that it doesn't explain anything, and is not observable. Therefore, with the common definition of science, god doesn't matter to science and a mixture is pointless.

But everything would depend on how we define Him. Also, there is the possibility that there is a God that is not fundamental but emergent, as He would be for Kabbalism and Gnosticism. A sort of intermediate power and a strictly natural phenomenon.

But god would then have to be somehow reliably observable and measurable.

If I had to argue for God's existence, (which I never will), then I would ask why science cannot find a fundamental theory, and why in consciousness studies some researchers have concluded that we need an extra ingredient in our theories to make then successful. Maybe 'God' is a poor idea, but we need something to play the role that He is often assigned.

The answer to those questions is simply technology, and that we don't have all the pieces. The analogy doesn't work because your comparing observable/measurable phenomena were evidence is used in attempting to an unobserved/non-measurable concept that is supposed to explain everything.

[John Cuthber]

Hmm. I'm not sure it's this simple, but I can roughly agree. The thing is, it is no use saying that science does not need God. It means nothing. Science is not concerned with fundamental theories so we would not expect it to need God, or any other fundamental phenomenon come to that. It's like saying that psychology does not need electrons.

You seem to have missed my point.

Nothing needs God.

[PeterJ]

Yes, I agree that nothing needs god. But you missed mine, which is that we do need something very like him.

 

Ringer - It is no use saying 'The answer to those questions is simply technology, and that we don't have all the pieces.'. The natural sciences cannot have all the pieces. Of course they don;t need God. A million years worth of new data is not going to change this.

 

You say - "The analogy doesn't work because your comparing observable/measurable phenomena were evidence is used in attempting to an unobserved/non-measurable concept that is supposed to explain everything."

 

This is a difficult sentence to untangle. But you seem to be agreeing with me. It is no use expecting to decide God's existence in physics. Physics has nothing to say on the matter. Only if we give God observable and measurable properties is he of any interest to physics.

 

The fact remains. Physics is nonreductive, and this leaves room for speculation about God whether physicists like it or not. Hence some physicists are theists. To refute God it would be necessary to use logic, not telescopes.

 

, .

Edited March 22, 2013 by PeterJ

[ydoaPs]

We define physics expressly to exclude divine beings and deities.

Not assuming any deities exist is not the same as assuming no deities exist. Physics makes no such assumption.

 

why in consciousness studies some researchers have concluded that we need an extra ingredient in our theories to make then successful.

This needs a giant "[citation needed]" superscript.

[PeterJ]

Not assuming any deities exist is not the same as assuming no deities exist. Physics makes no such assumption.

Quite so. I was talking about definitions, not assumptions.

 

 

 

 

This needs a giant "[citation needed]" superscript.

 

Chalmers, David, - 'Facing up to the problem of consciousness' and 'Moving on from the problem of consciousness'.

 

Journal of Consciousness Studies 2(3):200-19 & 4(1):3-46 (1995)

 

Also Mcginn, but can't remember where. But besides the citations it's pretty obvious that such a solution is required.

Edited March 22, 2013 by PeterJ

[John Cuthber]

Yes, I agree that nothing needs god. But you missed mine, which is that we do need something very like him.

What for?

I seem to get by just fine without Him.

[ydoaPs]

Quite so. I was talking about definitions, not assumptions.

Definitions are assumptions.

Chalmers, David, - 'Facing up to the problem of consciousness' and 'Moving on from the problem of consciousness'.

 

Journal of Consciousness Studies 2(3):200-19 & 4(1):3-46 (1995)

 

Also Mcginn, but can't remember where. But besides the citations it's pretty obvious that such a solution is required.

Anything specific you want me to look at in those texts? As someone who works in both philosophy of mind and philosophy of science, I can tell you that it most certainly is not "pretty obvious that such a solution is required". I'm not the only one who thinks this, btw, as almost 60% of philosophers are physicalists and another 12% or so answer "other" given the question.

[tar]

What for?

I seem to get by just fine without Him.

 

 

John Cuthber,

 

But in fairness to PeterJ's point, do you get by fine without something "like" God?

 

And remember to also in the answer adhere to the sensible possibility that another of PeterJ's points may well be valid. The one where he says that is it likely that many who refer to God are not talking about one of your choice, that can not exist without breaking physical laws, but may well be considering something that must be, or could be, taking physical laws fully into consideration.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Besides, in my equivocations, I am not trying to prove the existence of a God that we would both agree cannot exist. I am trying to prove that people have a need for something like god. A source, a reason, and a destination. A conscience and an ultimate principle or judge. Something that trumps anybody's take. To come from, to exist in and belong to, and to return to, at death.

 

An ultimate thing. Something like God.

 

Hichens does not care anymore. He is no longer alive. It is us, who are alive, that still care about Hitchens' consciousness and thoughts. It is our life that I am speaking about when I say there is life after Hitchens's death, and the memory of Hitchens is part of the life that continues to exist, after his death. His memory is alive, in us. We were formerly, while he was alive, objective reality to him, and he still lives in us and we still judge him. Something "like" what role God is supposed to play in our personal afterlife. (Minus the impossible heaven and hell thing, where Hitchens' himself is supposed to be experiencing the virgins and angels or the boiling oil). Us actual living judges can provide the honors and the chides for him posthumunously. And the fact that we are still alive, and he is dead proves that there is life, after death. Just not for the dier. His/her life is over. Gone, but not forgotten.

[John Cuthber]

"But in fairness to PeterJ's point, do you get by fine without something "like" God?"

Yes, thanks for asking.

The stuff about God is a whole lot of nonsense and I get by just fine without it.

 

What did you think you meant?

As far as I know, there is no meaningful definition of the word "God" which corresponds with something I need.

Let me know if you think I'm missing something

[tar]

John Cuthber,

 

No, I don't think you are missing something in particular. And I think religious thinking is a mixture of real considerations and nonsensical considerations.

 

But in musing on my own considerations, of what is real and valuable and what is nonsense, I find a gentle blending between that which we together mean by objective reality, and that which we each individually experience as objective reality.

 

For you and me to talk, or for you and me to think about the same thing, we have to know what the other means when they talk. Some of the exchange is overt and unmistakable, and other parts are veiled or implied or assumed. When considering such a question as whether God and Science can mix it is a nonstarter if the question is whether nonsense and logic can mix. The question has an easy negatory answer, unless you are asking whether intuition and rationality can mix, in which case you might find an affirmative answer in metaphysics.

 

On the other hand, if we are asking if nature and rational man can mix, we again have a non-starter. The answer is obvious, that we already have.

 

If on the third hand, we are asking whether theists and atheists can mix, we again have a non-starter. The answer is in the definition, the two can mix in societies that allow it, and not in ones that don't, on a person to person basis. And definite argument and non-compatibility issues will arise when discussing what should be the proper way to think. The two ways of thinking do not mix, by definition.

 

So my arguments are toward the way my own thinking as an atheist, correspond to the thinking of a theist, and toward the areas where Science and God mix. There may well be areas where there is misunderstanding of what is meant by science, and what is meant by God.

 

For instance, my thought of the day yesterday was how we have faith in our bodies to heal our wounds. Even medical personal, who do not believe in God will pull a sheath out of a vein and apply pressure on the area, allowing blood to continue to ooze from the rupture, and flow into surrounding tissue and around neighboring organs, knowing that clotting will stop the flow, and the vessel will heal, and the body will reabsorb the black and blue and heal.

 

We have "built in" capability, that does not require our rationality. We do not have to know how to metabolize to metabolize. We do not have to know how to reproduce, to reproduce. We do not have to know how to grow, to grow. Life in general must know how to be an organism, to be what it is and do what it does, without requiring science, without requiring logic and rationality.

 

You say that science can do very well, without requiring God.

Equally it could be said, that God does very well, without requiring science.

 

Somewhere, there must be some areas where we are not listening, or not understanding, what the other means.

Because it seems that science and God already mix.

 

Regards, TAR2

[John Cuthber]

"Equally it could be said, that God does very well, without requiring science."

God might, but religion certainly doesn't.

It kills too many people to be said to be doing well.

[PeterJ]

Definitions are assumptions.

 

Anything specific you want me to look at in those texts? As someone who works in both philosophy of mind and philosophy of science, I can tell you that it most certainly is not "pretty obvious that such a solution is required". I'm not the only one who thinks this, btw, as almost 60% of philosophers are physicalists and another 12% or so answer "other" given the question.

That such a solution is required is almost completely obvious. The problem goes back to the dawn of philosophy and I expect the statistics were simlar on day one, and just as useful. Professional philosophy has lost its way and a survey of its members will reveal only confusion. If you asked these same philosophers what the soution for consciousness is, they would all say they they haven't got a clue. My advice is to note that they cannot solve the problem and go your own way.

Edited March 24, 2013 by PeterJ

[tar]

John Cuthber,

 

You are quite right. Perhaps I should drop my self appointed apologist role, and argue as Iggy suggests, from the atheist position I hold.

 

It really isn't right to hand the reigns over to a "person" that does not exist.

 

It is, by all evidence, up to us.

 

Regards, TAR2

[PeterJ]

What for?

I seem to get by just fine without Him.

 

This is is fine. If you need no godlike phenomenon then do without him. But don't become a philosopher, for then the gap in your theories may start to make you wonder.

 

In physics you'll be okay, because physics is not fundamental. But some of us would want to dig deeper.

 

It is not that I think you should believe in God. It is that I think you should concede that your lack of interest is not a deciding factor in whether there might be a way of making God useful in science. It is possible, if you are not careful, to let scepticism become dogmaticism, the very thing you want to oppose. .

Edited March 24, 2013 by PeterJ

[tar]

PeterJ,

 

However, I would not surrender the position that we can figure out, scientifically, what it is, that language is, and what the deep meanings are, that we commonly understand. Even if they are simple things we have complicated and refined to extend our capability and chances of survival and the passing on of our genes. Part individual thought and emotion and creativity, mixed with institutionalization of our highest ideals.

 

I am not ready to throw in the philosophical towel. Kant's metaphysics built up the modal categories, and our "understanding" from our pure intuition of space, and that of time. When we understand why we know time, and we know space, we may understand why we are conscious of these things. From a neurological perspective. I think it may additionally require that we be alive, so an understanding of abiogenisis should be required. But whatever transpired, that wound up with life and conscious life, must be real, made of real entities and the exchanges and interplays between.

 

I do not think a final answer is likely, but a "better" understanding is always within our reach. Better to fabricate the understanding from facts, then from dreams. The solutions are then more likely to fit the facts.

 

Regards, TAR2

[John Cuthber]

This is is fine. If you need no godlike phenomenon then do without him. But don't become a philosopher, for then the gap in your theories may start to make you wonder.

 

In physics you'll be okay, because physics is not fundamental. But some of us would want to dig deeper.

 

It is not that I think you should believe in God. It is that I think you should concede that your lack of interest is not a deciding factor in whether there might be a way of making God useful in science. It is possible, if you are not careful, to let scepticism become dogmaticism, the very thing you want to oppose. .

If I were being dogmatic or disinterested then you couldn't cite a quote from me that starts with a question; specifically "what for"

On the other hand, I note that, rather than answering, you seem to have written me off as closed minded.

Seems ironic to me.

 

BTW, "physics is not fundamental." is an unevinced assertion.

[PeterJ]

John - I'm, not writing you off as closed mind, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. But when you said you can get by without God this suggested that your objection to Him is a bit casual, since philosophy and physics cannot be shown (as yet) to get by without Him. Indeed, something like Him would be required.

 

To say that physics is not fundamental is not a bold statement. Physics is not fundamental because this is how it is defined. For a fundamental theory we'd have to do metaphysics. Personally I see little value in the distinction between the two except for organising students and uni departments, but while it is maintained then physics must remain nonreductive. This is why it is possible to do without God, or something like God, in physics. I was pointing out that this is what allows you to do without HIm, not the success of physics in explaining the world. Physics can never do away with the need for God because doing away with Him would be a job for metaphysics.(or, if you like, common sense and reason as applied to the problem.).Physics cannot explain the world because to be plausible the explanation would have to solve metaphysical problems. .

 

Tar - I certainly was not suggesting throwing in the philosophical towel. This is the usual practice, but I believe the fight can be won. I believe all philosophical problems can be solved.

 

But not by way of your approach. You want to understand 'why we know time, and we know space' before trying to understand 'why we are conscious of these things'. To me this approach is bound to fail and would be back to front. My view is that we would have to understand consciousness before being able to understand spacetime. This is why God comes into the picture, since on this view to understand spacetime would require understanding what is prior to spacetime. I would say that this is not God, but it is certainly not anything that physics could establish. The question of what is prior to spacetime is a metaphysical one and need not concern physics.

 

But then, I've slightly lost track of what we're discussing.

 

 

 

.

[john5746]

Physics cannot explain the world because to be plausible the explanation would have to solve metaphysical problems. .

Would be interesting for you to expand on this. What questions do you think that science offers no insight? Perhaps provide an example.

[PeterJ]

I do not mean to be controversial here. The natural sciences offer no insight into metaphysical questions and this is why they are called metaphysical questions. This seems to be the usual view in physics. But the implications for the limtations on physics are usually glossed over or forgotten. .

 

Actually I think that the sciences do offer an insight into metaphysical questions, especially QM, but only if we explore the reason why it cannot finally answer them, and this would mean doing metaphysics. So I see theoretical physics and metaphysics as being a single topic. If they are not then theoretical physics is nonreductive.and can never explain the world. To me this seems an orthodox scientific view. Actually I see it as little more than common sense. Once the study of absolutes is excluded from physics then it must remain forever nonreductive. No?