Can you mix science with god?

[Iggy]

I still believe in the spirit. You say I must believe in a diety to believe in a spirit, but it is not true.

 

No, Tar.

 

What I said is that you can't use "school Spirit" to inform the topic "can you mix science with God".

 

It is called an equivocation fallacy... using one definition of a word or phrase to imply support for a different definition of the same word or phrase.

 

I'm sorry to say, but your writing style (at least on the topic of religion) is so filled with equivocation that it's obvious you're doing it purposefully, like maybe you think it's clever. If you took debate in the school you mentioned then you'll remember the teacher, the moderator, your opponent, and even your own teammates would all simultaneously stop you each time you started to sound like you might be thinking about planning to equivocate. It doesn't elevate -- it degrades -- a discussion.

 

Allow me to give you an example. Here is the issue:

 

Equivocation is the type of ambiguity which occurs when a single word or phrase is ambiguous, and this ambiguity is not grammatical but lexical. So, when a phrase equivocates, it is not due to grammar, but to the phrase as a whole having two distinct meanings.

 

-- Equivocation

 

now... a random sentence from your post,

 

Spirit, it does not have a particular weight, or size or location, or measurable objective existence.

 

We are trying to answer the question "Can science mix with God?" If you look "spirit" up at wiktionary and fill in the different definitions of the word you first get:

 

[A supernatural being], it does not have a particular weight, or size or location, or measurable objective existence.

 

That means the answer to "Can science mix with god?" is no.

 

Next definition...

 

[Enthusiasm], it does not have a particular weight, or size or location, or measurable objective existence.

 

So now we've implied absolutely nothing to the question "Can science mix with god?"

 

The equivocation has given two different answers to the thread's title. Not terribly useful unless one works in politics and is constantly trying to please two groups of people. The only result of intentionally equivocating is to muddy the waters and make questions impossible to answer... as you see yourself:

 

Does that mean I believe in God?

 

It means that if you equivocate, dissemble, and obfuscate enough then you could speak on exactly that topic indefinitely and nobody would be able to answer the question.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Iggy

[tar]

Iggy,

 

Actually I had trouble arguing both sides of a debate, I always looked for the true parts of both arguments.

 

I still see a reason to equate the various meanings behind a word or a phrase. I have noticed I often transfer things inappropriately, from the conscious object I am considering, and the "other" things I am worrying about.

 

There is for instance a relationship between the position and function of the head that is on our shoulders and the head of a corporation. The analogy or metaphor is something that we consciously use, as well as subconsiously consider. Its one of the important manuvuers we use, its one of the important manuvuers we HAVE to use, if we are going to fit every grain size between a quark and a universe in the three pounds of grey matter between our ears. Its the manuvuer behind mapping and ratios and transfers and why we can consider the similarities between a hurricane and a galaxy, or build an atom and a solar system out of the same styrofoam balls.

 

One thing stands for another in our understanding. We internally model the entire universe within the three pounds of grey matter we have. We have to be doing some equivocation, to manage the feat.

 

And yet, and still, we know the difference between the thinking about the thing, and the thing itself. We know how to project, and add back. "it is as if" or "it is like" are phrases and manuvuers we understand often when speaking to each other, about the same "thing". When aspects of reality, that deists ascribe to their god, correspond to aspects of reality that correspond to a scientists thinking there is plenty of "difference" between the understanding of the one, and the understanding of the other, but my main argument is that the same thing is being modeled in both cases. The words each use are attempting to accurately "model" EVERYTHING, at once. That the model of a theist is false in your opinion as a scientist, is evident. That the model of a scientist, is not complete, is true in the opinion of Vedic master.

 

I look for the mingling of magic and fact in both the minds of theists and the minds of atheists. I think both parties have somewhat of a grasp of both. It is a hypothesis, based on our similiar senses and wiring, and way of being informed of reality. And it seems reasonable to me that there MUST be some ways that we are thinking stuff, and saying stuff, about the same reality. That our "meanings" are similar on some levels, and that figurative and literal, have a required overlap, just because we HAVE to be taking the literal world figuratively, inorder to fit it between our ears. And we HAVE to be figuring that what we sense is literally true, and we are in and of a "greater" reality.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

"Allegory

A symbolic narrative in which the surface details imply a secondary meaning. Allegory often takes the form of a story in which the characters represent moral qualities. The most famous example in English is John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, in which the name of the central character, Pilgrim, epitomizes the book's allegorical nature. Kay Boyle's story "Astronomer's Wife" and Christina Rossetti's poem "Up-Hill" both contain allegorical elements."

 

Ballads, stories, myths, heroes and villians, humor and tradgedy, good and evil, patterns and growth, vibrations, timing, finishing and starting, living and dying, object and subject,...things with meaning, symbols and ideas that we are informed of, and have and project back on the world.

 

Science can not do without math. Language can not do without symbols. Man cannot dream without poetry.

 

Another's God is not the one you know does not exist. Its the one that is actually informing us all, that none of us can find the proper words to describe.

 

The president has launched an initiative to study and map and better understand the most complicated three pounds in the universe. That stuff between our ears. In this endevour I am sure that science will mix with God. We can not find out much, if we look for magic numbers that will add up to consciousness. My prediction is that the stuff I am talking about, is true stuff, scientifically knowable stuff, that will not be understood, unless we discover that nature is imprinted in the structures and connections that we find. That there is an analogous thing, a timing or a pattern, or a relationship between signals and storage, that mimicks the things we know are outside, on our inside. That left and right, up and down, left and right, in and out, long and short, fast and slow, good and bad are the things we will should find. Patterns and relations, that are "like" the objects and forces we are subject to. That our relationship to the world, to the thing we are in and of, is as intimate and true as a believer in God, would have us think.

Edited April 3, 2013 by tar

[Sirtuin3]

The results are known. That we are made of universe material, is unquestioned by science. By definition, this means that universe material can and does think and feel, and know things, and is able to make judgements, at least in our case. We are no better than the universe, nor worse, nor "other than" the universe, by all evidence.

 

If I should "believe in us", us very particular jumbles of quarks, as well as the jumble of quarks we are standing on, as well as the energy streaming down upon us from above, and that would seem a little like what people that believe in God believe in, and you would say, why call it God, when you are really talking about reality...I would say...duh...thats my point.

 

I share the same sentiments, and when reading this, I feel a faint reminiscence of Biocentrism.. or perhaps your ideas struck the same chord as Biocentrism, but opposite? Biocentrism asserts that the objective universe bound by the laws of physics, and life being bound by the laws of chemistry- are relative to and are direct products of biological phenomena from organisms, such as ourselves, namely our neural processes. Basically, biology before chemistry and physics.

 

"We are no better than the universe, nor worse, nor 'other than' the universe, by all evidence".. with the assumption that the universe indeed functions as a --conscious entity-as we as organic beings do-- it's like an upgraded Biocentrism where the actual matter within the universe, not necessarily biological in nature, possesses some form of consciousness/spirit. And it is sort of opposite in the sense that while Biocentrism asserts that our perceivable universe is a direct construct of our organic conscience, the script is flipped when you say that the universe itself, has it's own conscience and that we are merely a part of that conscience, or even a mere product of it.

 

Thanks for sharing your view. I also agree with the idea that what laypersons call "God", experts who probe around the edges of our objective understanding, attempting to define scientifically "life and spirit", may call it "reality" or what have you, BUT--> I'd venture to say that it is unlikely that they wouldn't be struck with the same sense of "Awe" and wonder that those who believe in a God experience.

 

When all is said and done, sometimes I wonder: Are we ultimately just arguing about names? What to call this reality, based upon our level of technical understanding?

 

 

EDIT: @ Iggy - I believe the topic of Biocentrism, at some level, addresses the inquiry of "can you mix science with God"?

Edited April 4, 2013 by Sirtuin3

[tar]

Just not in a magical way, but in the true way that it is.

[Iggy]

tar, on 03 Apr 2013 - 20:23, said:

I still see a reason to equate the various meanings behind a word or a phrase.

 

Sorry, I was delayed getting back here.

 

The meanings can be related, but not "equated". If the various meanings of a spelling are equal then they aren't various, are they.

 

The name for the type of homonym whose definitions are related is a polyseme.

 

tar, on 03 Apr 2013 - 20:23, said:

There is for instance a relationship between the position and function of the head that is on our shoulders and the head of a corporation.

 

Right, that's a polyseme. An example of a normal homonym without related meanings is "bark" (as in the dog and the tree).

 

All beside the point, I'm sure.

 

tar, on 03 Apr 2013 - 20:23, said:

When aspects of reality, that deists ascribe to their god, correspond to aspects of reality that correspond to a scientists thinking there is plenty of "difference" between the understanding of the one, and the understanding of the other, but my main argument is that the same thing is being modeled in both cases.

 

The Deist position is that God does not intervene in natural affairs. Their ontology is 100% atheist. That is to say, the only model they have of the natural world is the natural model. They don't mix science and God so... not the best example for the topic's question.

 

tar, on 03 Apr 2013 - 20:23, said:

I look for the mingling of magic and fact in both the minds of theists and the minds of atheists. I think both parties have somewhat of a grasp of both. It is a hypothesis, based on our similiar senses and wiring, and way of being informed of reality. And it seems reasonable to me that there MUST be some ways that we are thinking stuff, and saying stuff, about the same reality. That our "meanings" are similar on some levels, and that figurative and literal, have a required overlap, just because we HAVE to be taking the literal world figuratively, inorder to fit it between our ears. And we HAVE to be figuring that what we sense is literally true, and we are in and of a "greater" reality.

 

You can assume that an illusion has merit, but it doesn't make it so.

 

tar, on 03 Apr 2013 - 20:23, said:

Another's God is not the one you know does not exist. Its the one that is actually informing us all, that none of us can find the proper words to describe.

 

The bible perfectly describes God. Hashem (if not perfectly pronounced) is perfectly described in the Torah. Allah is so completely described in the Quran that you better not draw a picture of him. No postscripts allowed.

 

The reason theism is unscientific is because there is an assumed foundation of truth. The truth is already known (and written down as well). That doesn't mix with science because science is always open to revision.

 

If you want to assume that there is truth out there that we don't yet know and don't have the language to describe, that's fine. That is scientific. It is *not* theism. Hence, all your equivocating.

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: @ Iggy - I believe the topic of Biocentrism, at some level, addresses the inquiry of "can you mix science with God"?

 

Does Biocentrism make a new testable prediction about God?

 

I probably should have asked first, does it make any new testable predictions?

Edited April 5, 2013 by Iggy

[tar]

Iggy,

 

"You can assume that an illusion has merit, but it doesn't make it so."

 

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. That's why we ask each other.

 

Might not seem to fit here, to you, but consider the Fed buying 850 billion in debt every month to stabilize the bond market and keep the economy liquid. Buying it with what? Just marks on a balance sheet. Its not the same as an old lady buying a bond with money that represents a lifetime of work and effort and the adding of value to society. Its not representative of anyones risk or effort. Its money made up of thin air, with no backing but a nod and a wink and "faith" in the country.

 

It would seem, at least in this case, that an illusion has merit, simply because it is commonly held.

 

Sort of the same reason you will sit at a red light at 3 o'clock in the morning with no one else in sight, and wait for it to turn green.

 

It is one of my issues with certain "scientists" who imply that human illusions have no merit, as if they are in possession of an illusion that is of a different type than human, or as if they consider reality taken from a godlike view to be of more merit, than a human view. Such a stance is of as little merit, as I can imagine. Why let someone or something else you have no understanding of, or relationship to, be your judge of merit?

 

Regards, TAR2

It is exactly my issue with Krauss, who claims to be the first to know how the universe will end. First of all, he does not know that, second of all, its not going to matter to him, or anyone he tells, and basically it is an illusion that has zero merit. But he is allowed to have the illusion only because he showed somebody an equation, and that was enough proof to the other, to join him, in the illusion.

It is not as if Krauss has now gotten ready for that eventuality.

Or gotten "us" ready.

Much of science is naming things, and finding the patterns and rules and laws and principles that make things work. But we only discover and name things that are already in place, already exist and find new ways to put such things together as tools to aid our survival, and enjoyment of being alive. To try and take some pain and suffering out, and put some pleasure and enjoyment back in.

 

It would be sort of counter productive to imagine we have no business being alive, and no great stake in it. It would be sort of counter productive to reduce life to its particles and imagine you have acheived anything other than finding out how amazing and precious and totally deep and meaningful and rewarding being a conscious entity in this reality is.

 

If science helps us get to the bottom of existence, to pick it apart, to name and understand its workings, then its the arts that help us apply our knowledge in a pleasing way, put it all together and show us how to live, and religion that gets us ready to die.

 

Perhaps sleeping and dreaming is practice for both living, and dying. Evolutionarily built-in way we have of taking death in stride.

[Iggy]

Iggy,

 

"You can assume that an illusion has merit, but it doesn't make it so."

 

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. That's why we ask each other.

 

No, Mr. Tar. Reality isn't a democracy. Majority opinions do not Gods make.

 

Might not seem to fit here, to you...

 

Yeah, I really don't think so.

 

but consider the Fed buying 850 billion in debt every month to stabilize...

 

It's 85 billion

 

It is exactly my issue with Krauss, who claims to be the first to know how the universe will end....

 

That's a very aggravating thing to say. Like a quadriplegic calling a Jedi a wimp.

 

1) Krauss doesn't claim that the universe will ever end (the standard model predicts it will expand indefinitely)

 

2) He isn't the only cosmologist to support the standard model. The vast majority of cosmologist do.

 

3) Krauss wasn't the first to solve it. He was just somebody who happened to be trying to explain it to you.

 

4) Relativistic cosmology is one of the greatest purely scientific achievements of the 20th century. It has a purely theoretical foundation from which it makes a fantastic number of subsequently confirmed predictions about density, redshift, brightness, element abundance, age of stars, angular size, surface brightness, etc. You have no business calling it an illusion.

 

5)...

 

First of all, he does not know that, second of all, its not going to matter to him, or anyone he tells, and basically it is an illusion that has zero merit. But he is allowed to have the illusion only because he showed somebody an equation, and that was enough proof to the other, to join him, in the illusion.

 

He showed somebody an equation?

 

Alexander Friedmann discovered the equation in the 1920's. 3 other cosmologists (not Krauss) measured the last parameter needed to numerically run the model in 1998 (for which, of course, they won a Nobel prize).

 

 

 

I was in your thread on this subject. You misunderstood a 30 second snippet of an hour long popularization of science talk that Krauss gave and you couldn't give it up. There were 20 people (all more educated on the topic than you) telling you every which way that you had made an error -- that your perspective was mistaken.

 

You bend over backwards with a mind so open your brains might fall out at the mere mention of God -- forgiving the religious of *anything* -- excusing them of *everything*. But, there is Krauss on youtube -- a real scientist who has done good work as a scientist -- and he is doing his best to explain the current state of cosmology to people who might not be familiar with it (in a very friendly and self-effacing manner I might add), and the very sight of it has apparently offended you beyond telling. You're still talking about it, carrying it around with you into other threads.

 

What is that, Tar? How can you explain that?

Edited April 6, 2013 by Iggy

[tar]

Iggy,

 

Complicated answer.

 

One aspect is that of perspective. The cosomogical standard model is a model of the cosmos, taken from our perspective. As a model, it has to fit in our brains. To be applied to reality, to match it up and make predictions, the thing we are modeling has to already be the case, already be true, and already have been the case, inorder for the stuff about it, that is forming our reality here and now, to be doing such. There and then have to exist, inorder for here and now to. But it all does not happen at once, in one place. It thusly cannot be modeled correctly and completely in one place, at one time.

 

Which brings me to the second complicating aspect of my answer, and that is the issue of intelligence, and that of insight and knowledge. I am not as smart as many, and I do not have the knowledge and insight that everybody else has. I just have a little of it. If I were to have a little more, it would improve my map, extend the scope of my map, but not make any big changes to the territory, unless I applied such knowledge to it.

 

I have faith in other peoples map only to the extent that I have the intelligence and knowledge to match up my map, with their map. I still retain 100 percent faith in the territory that is informing me. The territory is better than the most perfect map, we can all together come up with. It already is true.

 

So I rebel and take issue with your insinuation that I am too stupid and ill informed to understand the standard model, and therefore have no access to the truth. It is only the map that is obscure to me. The territory is in plain view.

 

Regards, TAR2

If I have to be an insignificant point in space and time on somebodies map, I would rather it was my map, than the map that somebody, other than me, dreamed up. No matter how smart or knowledgeable the other fellow or gal happens to be.

I admit to jealousy and ignorance and inferiority and bias and such. But I am rather sure that others are subject to the same human conditions, even if they would pretend otherwise. Science does not eliminate these things, it just shifts the goal posts a bit. And knowing that there is another perspective does not actually put one in the position of having that actual perspective.

 

Can you take a godlike perspective and not believe in god? Krauss and the scientific community seem to be saying yes, you can.

I am challenging that stance, in my arguments.

Believing in the existence of things, and adjusting your own model to include those things, based on ones faith in somebody elses experience and intellect, requires a certain release of control, or subjegation to a higher power, or outside consciousness. The activity is the same type of activity and only differs in scale whether you are speaking about believing your wife, or your boss, or the TV or the newspaper, or the scientific journal, or the university professor, or believing in the sense that a writer from a hundred years ago is expressing. Scientists already believe in many things, based on the combination of what is true in their own eyes, and true in the eyes of the people that they trust. And scientist already have faith in there being an even greater truth, than that which we have experienced with our own collective eyes and intellects. A truth that will reveal itself, as we look out farther, and longer, and peer in deeper and closer. An already true thing, that is already the case, we just have not quite gotten a complete handle on it yet. We have not named its every aspect, we have not measured it every movement. But there it sits, true, everlasting, intricate and wonderful, what we are made of, what we are in, and the greater thing that we all have faith in being the case. That the universe is a participitory one is quite evident to the scientist. That the universe is a participitory one is quite evident to the theist. I highly doubt the two camps are talking about a different thing.

[Iggy]

It is only the map that is obscure to me. The territory is in plain view.

 

The essence of the map / territory relationship is that you can't view the territory. It is impossible. That is rule #1 of the whole idea. Korzybski. General Semantics. Google.

 

 

So I rebel and take issue with your insinuation that I am too stupid and ill informed to understand the standard model, and therefore have no access to the truth.

 

Oh, no, you aren't passive aggressively going to put this on me. I said nothing to insinuate that you are too stupid to understand anything. The fact remains, you just said "Krauss claims to be the first to know how the universe will end" which positively means you don't know at all what Krauss claims nor what standard cosmology entails. I'm not responsible for that fact.

 

Science is reproducible, falsifiable, and subject to peer review. If you want to acquaint yourself with the field of cosmology then do it. If you want to acquaint yourself with the scientific work of Lawrence Krauss then do it.

 

Until then maybe consider not spreading misinformation about him and trying to trash him on the basis of that misinformation.

 

I'll leave the question of your motivation unanswered and say nothing more on the topic.

 

[tar]

Iggy,

 

Well, you are saying two different things. I do not know whether you are challeging my understanding of the map, or my understanding of the territory.

 

Just read an article on Dark Energy in Discover. I know, I know, I can't say anything sensible based on that, because its some laymen expression of the real science behind it which I am incapable of understanding because I can't do calculus, but it seemed to say to me, that the map is currently rather unsure.

A couple of the reasons I say this.

 

The nobel prize winning scientist expressed surprise when the graph of his type 1a supernova took a bend down rather than continuing in a straight line. (sort of like following the map, expecting to come over the hill and see the lake, and finding instead a different landscape)

 

There have been an average of 1 theorecticl paper a day over the last number of years since the discover, floating theories that would explain the descrepency.

 

We STILL don't know the fate of the universe.

 

Some "think" that "one day" the universe will be torn apart in a "big rip".

 

To me, the idea that our universe is capable of doing anything, in unison, in one day, is quite a sign of "impossible" thinking, and leads me to guess that each of the many maps being suggested, might have a rip or two of their own, to consider patching up.

 

I do not mind learning facts about the territory, or adjusting my map to fit the facts, but I reject the notion that I cannot view the territory. I was looking at the stars, just the other night.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

And I have complete faith that I will see them up there on the next clear night, I am out. I fear no eventuality that could possibly change that fact.

 

Even if I was blinded, or dust would obscure the sky, I would know they are up there.

[Iggy]

Iggy,

 

Well, you are saying two different things. I do not know whether you are challeging my understanding of the map, or my understanding of the territory.

 

The only means by which you can understand the territory is with a map. That is *literally* the whole point of the map / territory relationship.

 

No person ever has any access to the territory except via a map. Some maps work. Some don't. Some are more useful than others. Etc.

 

You can't say that you "view the territory" or that you "understand the territory". Literally, the whole point, the one and only rule, is that such a thing is not possible.

 

Just google the map territory relationship

 

 

edit... let me quote a couple things to help...

 

 

The expression "the map is not the territory" first appeared in print in a paper that Alfred Korzybski gave at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in New Orleans, Louisiana in 1931:^[3] In Science and Sanity, Korzybski acknowledges his debt to mathematician Eric Temple Bell, whose epigram "the map is not the thing mapped" was published in Numerology.^[4]

• A) A map may have a structure similar or dissimilar to the structure of the territory...
• B) A map is not the territory.

Korzybski's dictum "the map is not the territory" is also cited as an underlying principle used in neuro-linguistic programming, where it is used to signify that individual people in fact do not in general have access to absolute knowledge of reality, but in fact only have access to a set of beliefs they have built up over time, about reality. So it is considered important to be aware that people's beliefs about reality and their awareness of things (the "map") are not reality itself or everything they could be aware of ("the territory"). The originators of NLP have been explicit that they owe this insight to general semantics.

 

wikipedia -- map / territory relation

 

 

 

The theory of knowledge

held by general semantics

 

 

1. All knowledge is in the form of maps - including non-verbal as well as verbal maps. This includes "maps" that are "inside the skin". "Map" is a very general term. Maps are to be distinguished from "territories", an equally general term. It can be said that the only thing that all maps have in common is "structure", hence the statement, "Structure is the only content of knowledge" is often quoted. While all maps are structures, not all structures are maps.
2. Maps are produced by the process of abstracting, whether in the nervous system or at verbal levels. Maps are the result of abstracting from territories. It is viewed that "good" knowledge consists of maps which have "similarity of structure" with their represented territories.
3. The basic principles of consciousness of abstracting are the caveats (often called the ABC's of general semantics):
   1. The map is not the territory.
   2. The map doesn't cover all the territory.
   3. The map reflects the map maker. (see The "C" of general semantics.)
4. Although not stated, the purpose of maps is to permit successful navigation of the appropriate territories, whether it is finding one's way around in a grocery store or solving complex engineering problems, etc..
5. Maps must be tested "empirically". One must constantly strive to corroborate and update the maps one uses, to the extent of developing an extensional orientation and using extensional devices to reduce the likelihood of error. Popper's Philosophy of Science best illustrates the methodological view espoused by General Semantics as a discipline.
6. It is not possible to find out when a map is "correct", but it is possible to find out when a map is "wrong". Maps that survive many attempts to prove them wrong are presumed to have a greater degree of similarity of structure with their territories.

 

General Semantics

 

The three bolded sentences above should be enough

Edited April 7, 2013 by Iggy

[tar]

Iggy,

 

I have come to the same conclusions, as depicted in those excerpts. I am not arguing against those findings, I am quite arguing from them. Although I have not read all of Kant, I have read a little, and thought about it a lot.

 

As I may have mentioned, I am on a quest to understand the meaning behind human language. We do not have definitions for things, for no reason. We do not have a common grammar for no reason. Kant's categories are the basis of a metaphysical study of human thought and reason, which in turn, in my estimation can be directly applied to the understanding of human language and the meaning behind it. And this in turn can be tried against human beliefs and a certain understanding of why and how we come to have faith in things, that as you point out, we cannot know directly, but only by the form that we have internalized.

 

This understanding of the way things are for us, and what the rest of the universe means to us, is the basis of our use of the scientific method, to establish facts about the world around us, that "fit" with the thing, and are not wrong. We test the idea, the representation, the map, against the thing, and when it works, we can say "we are good on that". We can keep that internal form, as a useful analog representation of what actually is the case.

 

But this operation is not limited to the study of inanimate impersonal things, not limited to the study of things of static and simple nature, it is properly applied as well to the living, breathing, changing world, outside our body/brain/heart group. By all accounts, (except Immortal's) this objective world exists, regardless of our subjectively held view of it.

 

We as humans have found a way to internalize the world around us, in such an instanteous and complete manner, as to be able to keep a car, going 65 miles an hour, inbetween the lines, and apply the brakes when obstructions present themselves.

We are good at this scientific method thing, this learning about what is outside us and what internal representations of it work, and what do not. It only gets better, when we trust other peoples information as well. When we learn that others have run the same experiment and gotten the same confirmation.

 

Such is the basis of the faith that I have, that I am viewing the same territory that another is viewing, when we each say something about what we are viewing, and the meanings coincide. The correspondence of the thing to my model, linked with the correspondence of the thing to your model, in more than one way or manner, gives the thing position and characteristics and duration of its own, in both of our estimations. The thing is on the map. It is a true characteristic of the territory that the map is of.

 

When I look at the stars, and you look at the stars, you can point out a characteristic that I have not noticed before and I would instantly add the thing to my model. Because its true of the territory already, and now its reflected in both our models.

 

It is the territory itself, that thing we describe to each other in common terms, that exists for us both. It is the thing we are informed of in similar fashion, it is the territory that we map, it is the place and time in which we are positioned. Its form is our form, we are participants and members of the territory already. We can navigate through it, with our eyes closed, we know it so well. We can imagine it, even when we are not looking at it. The territory is a possesion of ours in kind and symbol, and we are a possesion of it, by circumstance.

 

Mixing the territiory and the map is what we do. Because they are already mixed. The territory is vast and unknown and exactly Godlike in character, and personality, and capability and perfect nature. We know the territory already fits together, already works, already exists, we have faith in this being the case. And we know our maps are limited and imperfect, and our models adjust to the territory as new information occurs and the map is NEVER as complete and intricate and wonderful as the thing that is being mapped.

 

So from what perspective, from what line of argument, from what stance, other than a human stance, can we be asking the question of whether or not, science and God can mix?

 

Regards, TAR2

We are allowed to, it is correct to, represent the world as a true thing, because that is the way the world has presented itself to us.

[Iggy]

Such is the basis of the faith that I have, that I am viewing the same territory that another is viewing, when we each say something about what we are viewing, and the meanings coincide... The thing is on the map. It is a true characteristic of the territory that the map is of.

 

You can't say "I am viewing the same territory" because perception always intercedes between reality and you. You don't view the territory. Ever. In any way.

 

If you describe a useful element of your map with the same language someone else describes an element of their map then at best you can conclude:

 

Bateson has pointed out that the usefulness of a map (a representation of reality) is not necessarily a matter of its literal truthfulness, but its having a structure analogous, for the purpose at hand, to the territory.

 

map territory relationship

 

Your maps have structure analogous to the territory. Everyone on earth can have the same element on their map, but we are still all bound by the principle that I quoted in my last post:

 

It is not possible to find out when a map is "correct", but it is possible to find out when a map is "wrong". Maps that survive many attempts to prove them wrong are presumed to have a greater degree of similarity of structure with their territories.

 

An element that everyone on earth has in their worldview, that is very useful, is at best presumed to have a good degree of similarity with (or to be a good analogy of) the territory.

 

When I look at the stars, and you look at the stars, you can point out a characteristic that I have not noticed before and I would instantly add the thing to my model. Because its true of the territory already, and now its reflected in both our models.

 

You can't say "it is true of the territory". Like I just quoted "It is not possible to find out when a map is correct"

 

You don't view the territory and nothing you can accomplish allows you, or any group of people, to conclude that you know the territory. It is that cut and dry. That is the whole point of the map / territory relationship.

 

EDIT:

 

Besides that small caveat, the rest of your post is quite agreeable and I'm sure we can put this behind us.

 

By the way, I think you're right, Kant had a lot of good things to say on this topic.

Edited April 7, 2013 by Iggy

[chris logan]

maybe science and god can mix.......in yoga it is believed that everything gives off a specific viberation, quantum theory states that energy comes off in quanta or photons and is atomic in nature. Both theories have their differences but at the same time they have their similarities. Science and religion will always overlap because both have the same basic function: uncovering truth and explaining how our world works. The difference is that the facts are treated differently- religion uses the facts to support a theory based on a 'higher power', science is more 'open', science is looking for answers and new discoveries in any form.

[Moontanman]

maybe science and god can mix.......in yoga it is believed that everything gives off a specific viberation, quantum theory states that energy comes off in quanta or photons and is atomic in nature. Both theories have their differences but at the same time they have their similarities. Science and religion will always overlap because both have the same basic function: uncovering truth and explaining how our world works. The difference is that the facts are treated differently- religion uses the facts to support a theory based on a 'higher power', science is more 'open', science is looking for answers and new discoveries in any form.

 

 

Exactly what facts does religion have? What truth does religion uncover? How does religion explain anything about how our world works? yoga and quantum theory... seriously?

[chris logan]

hey before you get snappy, remember i said that religion uses the facts to advance their point of view. I apologize for the comparison between yoga and quantum theory, i admit that it was a bit far fetched. why i think they will overlap is because both hope to uncover some sort of truth. People want answers and they turn to different sources. when I say people want answers i mean to questions like "how was the world created" and "what happens after death". religion offers 'answers' like "souls go to heaven" and the like. those are your 'answers'. Whether those answers are logical or not...... that is a whole other story.

Science is logical ...

[Moontanman]

hey before you get snappy, remember i said that religion uses the facts to advance their point of view. I apologize for the comparison between yoga and quantum theory, i admit that it was a bit far fetched. why i think they will overlap is because both hope to uncover some sort of truth. People want answers and they turn to different sources. when I say people want answers i mean to questions like "how was the world created" and "what happens after death". religion offers 'answers' like "souls go to heaven" and the like. those are your 'answers'. Whether those answers are logical or not...... that is a whole other story.

Science is logical ...

 

 

What facts does religion use to advance their point of view?

[chris logan]

the whole evolution vs. creation debate would never even exist if both sides didn't have facts to support their point of view. ( i read such a debate once....i forgot everything i read....oops! )

[pwagen]

the whole evolution vs. creation debate would never even exist if both sides didn't have facts to support their point of view.

You're absolutely right. That's why there is no debate. The scientific consensus is quite clear.

 

And if there is a debate, it's not scientific in nature.

Edited April 12, 2013 by pwagen

[chris logan]

Why should anyone even care if God and science mix....If someone believes in God, that is their choice, if they live by science, good for them. The facts won't change, the world will keep spinning.... life goes on does it not?

[Moontanman]

the whole evolution vs. creation debate would never even exist if both sides didn't have facts to support their point of view. ( i read such a debate once....i forgot everything i read....oops! )

 

 

No debate dude, none, no facts support creationism what so ever...

[chris logan]

Oh no...... there are 'debates' (alot of bickering and annoying). If you ever look one up, have fun, don't remind me.

[pwagen]

life goes on does it not?

For some, it doesn't.

 

http://i.imgur.com/mpQA0.jpg

[Moontanman]

Oh no...... there are 'debates' (alot of bickering and annoying). If you ever look one up, have fun, don't remind me.

 

 

It's not a debate, it's science supported by empirical evidence and creationism supported by lies and deceit... oh and yeah "belief"... no contest, and yes i have been in a few debates about this... in fact if you care to look you'll find several right here on SFN...

[chris logan]

did i mention 'bickering' and 'annoying'....

Thanks for telling me about the other debates (it might take a while to find them though).