Oops, I meant to write that "The FORMER is a statement of subjective, personal philosophical position."

"I've always said beliefs, whether you choose to believe in God or not, is a private thing. He seems to do well in keeping it a personal thing. "

It's private when one believes that one's gods have plans for one's self. It's not private when one believes that those gods created the universe and everything in it, or created the human moral sense. The latter is a statement of subjective, personal philosophical position. The latter is a statement of purported objective fact. By "objective" I mean that the origins of the universe and the moral sense have a cause, and any claim about that cause is either factual or not factual.

Part Two...

Also, even using the word "progress" is making a value judgment. One could make the opposite value judgment, that global climate change and the increasing extinctions of species may suggest that humanity was a step backward from the apes. I'm not arguing for either value judgment. I'm saying that seeing humanity emerging from apes as progress is almost like believing that the universe has bestowed inherent importance on humanity. Humans want to believe that we are better or more important than animals, and wanting something to be true doesn't make it true.

"it seems to me you are not even willing to recognize that man has risen from the apes to now and that over all human history there has been development, that the universe seems loaded with 'secrets' that can be discovered and put to use by man."

Again, "risen" implies a value judgment. I would state it more neutrally that humanity emerged from the apes. Why do you equate "secrets" with positivity? Even if there is a path, we can't assume that it's inherently positive. For argument's sake, what if the universe designed such a path to lead deliberately to humanity's extinction?

"The universe for all evidence of being indifferent also shows evidence of some sort of path which can be opened up to benefit man, and what that means is that the case is not conclusively closed that the universe is indifferent to man."

Of course the case is not closed. I never said it was. I've acknowledged several times the possibility of the universe being sentient. I said the burden of proof is on any claim that the universe has sentience. It's not just possible but likely that we see a path because we're hard-wired to see patterns. We cannot assume that the path you describe has to have been deliberately created. That's merely a version of the old claim that the fact that the universe exists is in itself evidence for the existence of gods.

"The evidence of some sort of path by which man has risen from ape to being a creature which can easily imagine the universe capable of being understood and put to the use of man"

That falsely implies that the human power of reasoning was deliberately created, or that it could not have come into being without a creating intelligence. Again, while both are possible, both are extremely unlikely because those are unfalsifiable hypotheses.

Part One:

Daniel12,

"your leaning in general (although you insist you are not making a value judgement) is toward the universe being cruel rather than beneficial to man."

Not quite. I'm saying that cruel and beneficial are the value labels for experiences of the universe. I'm not necessarily arguing that there are more experiences we label as cruel than ones we label as beneficial. I suppose I'm arguing that we should be aware of our labeling, and that's something I strive for personally. I don't claim to be free of subjectivity.

"you clearly have a subjective antipathy toward any notion of the universe having a God behind it or being sentient, and the second your constant search for evidence to back up your subjective antipathy--to make it seem there is no subjectivity on your part and that you are being objective only."

Again, not quite. (I'm curious as to why you use "God" as if the only two positions were either one god or no god at all, as if there were no polytheistic religions.)

As a matter of principle, the universe-sentience idea has no more scientific validity than astrology or channeling or reincarnation, and all deserve scrutiny. My personal antipathy is really not about the sentience idea, but about the implications that different religions and different believers assert from the idea. Many of those assert objective meanings for other people's lives. That's not just scientifically baseless, it's also humanly offensive. I have no problem with "My gods have a plan for me" as long as the believers don't act on such a plan in ways that hurt others, and most believers don't. But when a believer says, "My gods have a plan for YOU," then that should be challenged on the grounds of both scientific integrity and personal boundaries. The message is effectively, "You can't challenge this because it comes from a transcendent authority that can never be challenged." In other words, it attempts to exempt the claim from scientific scrutiny. Some aspects of astrology are defining of people, but generally believers in astrology make no claims of absolute objective truth.

"In a word, there is clear evidence of progress. And this progress whether you like it or not is a direct question toward your notion of indifference."

The question only arises because of the assumption that progress or order requires a guiding intelligence. That's the central assumption behind intelligent design. I'm not arguing that the progress you describe came about without an intelligence. I'm arguing for not making an assumption either way...

I personally approve of Collins. He has very impressive credentials and has accomplished much. The fact that he doesn't allow religion to impede his scientific pursuits, but use them as a compliment is interesting. I think he's a great choice.

I've always said beliefs, whether you choose to believe in God or not, is a private thing. He seems to do well in keeping it a personal thing.

Let it be.

Its amazing that such a smart guy (Collins) could believe in such ludicrous garbage.

The fact he believes in such nonsense should disqualify him from any office, including town-garbageman.

Daniel 12,

Your debate with one "Carstonio" might be a waste of time since said person exists only as a probabilty wave. "Muckenfuss" is another said wave.

An appointee who holds opinions and makes public statements that are completely at odds with the responsibilities of the position they have been nominated for is fundamentally unqualified for that position. At least that's what the right-wing rage over Justice Sotomayor's appointment has taught this country...or is this a problem only when ideologies are not personally aligned?

Part one.

Carstonio, I have difficulty understanding why you cannot understand what I am saying. To put it as clearly as possible, in one of your posts you clearly stated that your arrival at the concept of the universe being indifferent to man is based on factual observation. You clearly stated there is of course (you were most careful about stating this) no evidence of sentience, and your leaning in general (although you insist you are not making a value judgement) is toward the universe being cruel rather than beneficial to man. And of course in saying the universe is often cruel you insist again the universe does not deliberately do such a thing because it is not alive. And I suppose in discussions of whether the universe is beneficial you would be most careful to say beneficiality also is no evidence of sentience.

So it seems you have two impulses within yourself that reinforce each other--the first being that you clearly have a subjective antipathy toward any notion of the universe having a God behind it or being sentient, and the second your constant search for evidence to back up your subjective antipathy--to make it seem there is no subjectivity on your part and that you are being objective only.

Now what I am saying is that there does not seem to be any evidence for sentience in the universe--certainly no direct evidence--but apparently I am not so hostile to sentience as you are because I do not back up a subjective hostility by "forcing the evidence" if you will, as you do. I believe I am being more objective than you are. First, I agree with you there is much evidence that the universe does not care at all about man. But on the other hand--and which you deliberately seem to ignore--there is clear evidence that for all the indifference of the universe there does seem a path, a positive path, toward indefinite human growth and development.

We can, first, see this in biology what with man have risen from primitive, rather ape than man, status. And we see this growth over all human history. In a word, there is clear evidence of progress. And this progress whether you like it or not is a direct question toward your notion of indifference. By secrets in the universe I am not necessarily saying the universe is alive and cares for man, is deliberately witholding such secrets, but it seems to me you are not even willing to recognize that man has risen from the apes to now and that over all human history there has been development, that the universe seems loaded with "secrets" that can be discovered and put to use by man. I am merely contrasting this overwhelming evidence of a positivity of the universe to your notion of indifference--and this is why I said from the beginning that you seem unduly pessimistic.

Part two.

You seem to want to dwell on anything which proves there is no sentience to the universe--and I hold that you do so from a quite obvious subjective antipathy toward religions which hold the concept of God, although you insist you are being factual, operating according to science. I am bringing up exactly the factual evidence that for some reason you do not want to see which questions whether the universe is really indifferent to man.

I am bringing up the overwhelming evidence that so far as humans can tell, there is no end to the self-development humans can embark on--for, again, we have risen from the apes and all of human history has demonstrated an increasing sophistication and mastery of man within the universe. The universe for all evidence of being indifferent also shows evidence of some sort of path which can be opened up to benefit man, and what that means is that the case is not conclusively closed that the universe is indifferent to man.

In fact the case is not closed on whether the universe is sentient. But you it seems want to be as dogmatic as the religious and say the complete opposite of them that there is no evidence of any sentience or evidence of some path toward unlimited human improvement. I am just asking exactly how it is you can know that when at the same time you are saying the religious have no evidence of God. How exactly is that you are so certain your position is right? By what method have you divined that the universe has no God, is indifferent? Oh, wait, you say you have the evident scientific evidence--and have not demonstrated even a step toward the contrast toward your evidence, which, to say it again, is the evidence of some sort of path by which man has risen from ape to being a creature which can easily imagine the universe capable of being understood and put to the use of man--in other words, for all indifference of the universe there is also overwhelming evidence that it is amenable to man. I hope that is clear enough for you to understand, but we can discuss this further if you like.

Daniel12,

I'm amused that you would try to compare my stance to any school of philosophy - my knowledge of the those schools doesn't go much further than Monty Python sketches.

I don't see you as intending to defend religion. I was suggesting that your arguments may unintentionally endorse "magical thinking" which is not limited to religion.

I wouldn't necessarily argue that humans shouldn't be swayed by either pleasure or pain. I suppose my personal stance is more Taoist, where one refuses to apply value judgments to either.

I don't understand your point about secrets, and why your posts contrast that with indifference. Are you saying that the universe is deliberately keeping knowledge from humanity? I would agree that there may be (or may not be) knowledge about the universe that humans have not yet discovered. But using the word "secrets" here implies that the universe has deliberately created a mystery for humans to solve.

"I am just asking you to respect that there seems often to be more to the universe than merely indifference toward man"

I cannot respect it when it's phrased so vaguely. Would you provide specifics or examples?

" we both can agree the universe is paradoxical, on one hand being indifferent--in fact often seeming outright cruel (but that would be another way of anthropomorphizing the universe)-"

I would clarify that the universe seems paradoxical only when we apply value judgments to it. We're on the receiving end of the cruelty, and we have a right to object to the cruelty, but we have no basis for believing that the cruelty is intentional.

"-and on the other hand seeming to be loaded with secrets that can immeasurably improve the life of man."

I agree with that. I don't understand why that would seem paradoxical when contrasted with the cruel effects of the universe. Those two things don't seem to be opposites.

Part one.

Carstonio, before I read your latest reply I was reflecting on the history of both your position (as it seems to me) and mine. And obviously our views are not so far apart as they seem because we both are concerned with the proper stance of science toward the universe--even though we both seem to have read other motives into each others thoughts. You seem to have read into my thoughts that I am defending religion and I have read into yours that you are being pessimistic, nihilistic, etc.

So I have tried to be fair as possible and in doing so seem to have found a common foundation between us which demonstrates we each have been emphasizing different aspects of the same philosophy. And that philosophy is stoicism.

You seem to be emphasizing the part of stoicism which asks that man not be swayed by either pleasure or pain, to be indifferent toward such because the universe can cause both pleasure and pain (without being sentient of course) and cannot be correctly, neutrally approached when one is swayed by one's emotions. The result of course is that the universe is indifferent to man but that man stands strong, in control of himself, with mastery and logic.

This stoic philosophy of course was most popular among the Romans who were to an unappreciated extent quite the scientists--it was just that the bulk of their reasoning went toward determining the best military strategy, tactics and weaponry. See Machiavelli's book on war which makes it quite clear that the Romans had tremendous science if we examine what they meant by military organization. But then again we do not have to refer to Machiavelli. It is clear that the Romans for centuries upon centuries were ahead of their neighbors in the art of war--which it seems really should not be so stressed as an art but that should fairly be known as a science as well.

Part two.

So we can say that the Romans were so powerful because they were ahead of their neighbors in what perhaps can be called the initial or foundational state of science--of course the art of war. Now how I am related to this position is in the Stoic conception of "reason" behind the universe. The Stoics on one hand took the universe to be indifferent, as causing pleasure and pain man should not be swayed by, but on the other hand they spoke of getting in touch with "nature", "reason", the "right way", as if there is a path which can be located through the maze of the universe. In other words, in my terms they were optimistic for all their guardedness against the universe. They believed within the universe there is some sort of reason with which man can make contact--and admittedly they often spoke as if there is some sort of sentience behind things.

But I am taken by their concept of reason, what seems to have been their hopefulness that behind things there are secrets to be discovered, that for all the indifference of the universe on the other hand there are secrets and there does seem to be a path whereby man can indefinitely improve his existence. So really it seems to me--and to be fair to both of us--that I am just asking you to respect that there seems often to be more to the universe than merely indifference toward man, and in turn I respect your observation that no doubt for all human attempts to place hope in the universe, to try to see the universe as being concerned with the desires of man, that the universe has been indifferent. I think in the final analysis we both can agree the universe is paradoxical, on one hand being indifferent--in fact often seeming outright cruel (but that would be another way of anthropomorphizing the universe)--and on the other hand seeming to be loaded with secrets that can immeasurably improve the life of man. So it seems that we just have to be really careful in our approach to the universe, respect this paradox--and this seems the most intelligent way a scientist should proceed. A scientist in essence must a Roman for the modern day--just applying his reason to other things than war, although of course scientists these day are as occupied with war as anything else (unfortunately). But as they say, we must have hope in science and man.

Part Two...

"because you have just put a value (values of course which you are suspicious of) on science, in fact placed science at odds with the universe"

Incorrect, because the universe appears to take no value position at all. Your statement implies that the universe has a value position that disagrees with humanity's.

"Suspicious" is the wrong word. I'm saying that a fact about the universe, whatever that fact is, exists outside of humans' feelings or opinions about it. Even when humans believed that the sun orbited the earth, the earth still orbited the sun. I said earlier that values are important to humanity - my point is about keeping values in perspective.

And that relates to the universe's indifference this way - either the universe cares about us or it doesn't, and wanting or believing that wouldn't change that fact.

"In fact so far as I can tell if anyone were to object to your view you would relegate the objection to being that of a religious person or an ignorant one. "

I gave the wrong impression. It would be more accurate to say that I regard any arguments from ignorance or incredulity as enabling wishful thinking. The idea of the universe having sentience or emotions about humanity is indistinguishable from a religious idea. I suspect the idea derives from the unfortunate human tendency to anthropomorphicize inanimate objects - even I've caught myself a few times talking to devices that aren't working properly.

Part One...

"You cannot possibly know the universe is indifferent--just as the religious cannot possibly know what lies behind the universe. "

Of course I cannot know that absolutely. I'm saying that we have no evidence that the universe cares about us - it appears to have no emotions toward us. The burden of proof is on any claim that the universe has sentience.

"Tell me, how is a scientist prepared for going to work every day when in his mind the universe is indifferent, does not give a damn about his concerns? How is he to be in a good frame of mind for making a discovery?"

I'm saying that the scientists shouldn't care whether the universe cares about him, and simply pursue knowledge for its own sake. You're assuming that such caring about his concerns would be a good thing. It's possible that the universe would be hostile toward scientists trying to uncover its secrets.

"the universe rather than being indifferent contains secrets if only man rises to the challenge."

That concept of secrets is still indifference because it doesn't involve a universe's emotions toward humanity. You seem to be using a strange definition of indifference - I'm using the word to indicate that the universe appeasr to lack emotions or sentience.

"But what you do Carstonio is in your contempt of religion take the complete opposite view to the religious and confuse that with scientific reasoning. "

My condemnation is not of religion but of unfalfisiable hypotheses and intellectual sloppiness, and I have probably engaged in those myself from time to time.

"You eliminate God and arrive at the universe being indifferent, not giving a damn for man"

Incorrect. I see part of the human mission as discovering as much as possible about the universe. I don't reject the possibility of gods, I just point out that we have no evidence that they exist. I care deeply for the human species, and I can do that while pointing out that the universe appears to have no emotions or opinions at all toward humanity.

"And if you are right that it is the view of scientists, well then that is the end of science--because science with that view held will be for all progression an arrival at the universe being indifferent."

Why would that be the case? Why should scientists or anyone else care what the universe feels about us? We can still say that knowledge is important to us. Why should we want or crave validation from the universe for our value positions.?

CARSTONIO,

You wrote: “True peace between religion and science would mean religion making no claims about objective existence at all, or at least no unfalsifiable ones such as gods or miracles.”

Religious leaders will never stop making claims about objective existence of god or gods. The continuous collision of religion and science will continue unabated for many years to come. Many nominations or sects even try to prove that religious is a fact, is the truth, while they deem science as a faith group full of outrageous claims.

They are masters of ambiguity. Some Christian groups will tell you that first you have to believe in God, then God will reveal to you. But if a person start believing in God and has faith, why is necessary the revelation.

On the other hand, the individual practitioner of a religion rarely is confronted by atheists. Most humans practice some kind of religion and very few are true non believers in any god. Because of this most confrontations at practitioner level are “my religion or my god is the true one, yours is false“ type of discussion. This reinforce their belief in the immaterial objects, only that by geography or family heritage they already chose one.

Oh, Carstonio, one more thing: going over your reply to me it is evident that you think my reply was a defense of religion against your view. In fact so far as I can tell if anyone were to object to your view you would relegate the objection to being that of a religious person or an ignorant one. But I am neither religious nor ignorant. In fact at the moment I am reading James Clerk Maxwell's Matter and Motion. Whether you like it or not I am presenting the view most common to scientists since the scientific revolution.

Part one.

Carstonio, your reply was quite nonsensical and hairsplitting. The view you hold is not science but metaphysics. You cannot possibly know the universe is indifferent--just as the religious cannot possibly know what lies behind the universe. You have an opinion and nothing more--except that it is worse than religion because it is pessimistic. According to you no matter the success of humanity in arriving at knowledge which benefits man the universe is indifferent. In fact you say we SHOULD strive for such "neutrality".

Tell me, how is a scientist prepared for going to work every day when in his mind the universe is indifferent, does not give a damn about his concerns? How is he to be in a good frame of mind for making a discovery? Answer: he is not in a good frame of mind. Any scientist worth his salt goes to work thinking he might make a discovery, that the universe rather than being indifferent contains secrets if only man rises to the challenge.

The scientific enterprise is a continuation of the religious enterprise except a more rigorous hope. The religious of course believe in God and that if one is more or less good there is an afterlife, etc. The scientist continues with this hope, this faith, except the scientist thinks it can be answered by a discovery. The religious have a faith in God. The scientist has faith in discovery. But what you do Carstonio is in your contempt of religion take the complete opposite view to the religious and confuse that with scientific reasoning. You eliminate God and arrive at the universe being indifferent, not giving a damn for man. Meanwhile the better minds in leaving God behind do not dogmatically say the universe is indifferent but rather believe discovery upon discovery can be made if only one rises to the challenge--because all of human history has demonstrated such discoveries can be made.

Part two.

But of course you reject that last point and say all evidence points to the universe being indifferent. Well keep your viewpoint--just do not say that it is the view of scientists. And if you are right that it is the view of scientists, well then that is the end of science--because science with that view held will be for all progression an arrival at the universe being indifferent. And if that nihilistic view holds then we can hardly expect people to leave religion behind. On the contrary, they will return to religion in droves. For the sake of science, for the sake of man beyond God the scientist must be positive and feel the universe will continue giving up secrets to benefit man. The scientist must not get caught in the ridiculous contradiction of your view Carstonio and say that he loves knowledge but then holds that no matter the knowledge the universe is indifferent--and that man should not care whether the universe is indifferent or not. How can you not see how ridiculous your position is? I suspect you cannot see it because your view does seem to be fashionable among some biologists and astronomers. You have not applied your own brain to the problem but have simply and quite slavishly followed the metaphysics of certain scientists which they have slathered over all the universe.

But if we were to use science and present this problem in the form of an essay question for all scientists to answer--which is to say email our discussion worldwide and let them answer as they see fit--I am certain the majority will agree with my position. For if they agree with yours they have no basis for convincing society to place much faith in science. Why finance science if the universe is indifferent? What is to be expected from science in an indifferent universe? Answer: science in an indifferent universe is indifferent science. And I hope Carstonio you are not going to say now science is not necessarily indifferent if the universe is indifferent because you have just put a value (values of course which you are suspicious of) on science, in fact placed science at odds with the universe. But of course if you make that defense for yourself you have actually taken a step toward understanding science: science is never indifferent, it is man's quest for knowledge,--a positive value placed against both the more fundamental forms of religion and nihilistic views such as the universe not caring for man.

Hmmm, is "Carstonio" related to "Muckenfuss"? Their names appear in the world of probability wave registry columns of possible relatives so one might get that impression.

JustaComment,

You make a good point, although I regard compartmentalization as an act of intellectual sloppiness.

Part of the problem is that any claim of objective immaterial existence intrudes onto the realm of science. (By "objective" I mean that the immaterial objects would exist if humans didn't exist.) The idea that such claims are outside the realm of science has the effect of exempting those claims from scrutiny. Even the assumption of a material/immaterial divide should be questioned. The premise of immaterial existence seems logically inconsistent - if such objects cannot be detected with the senses, according to the definition, then humans would have no way of knowing if they exist. That's not a rejection of the possibility of immaterial existence, it's a questioning of the assumptions inherent in the definition.

True peace between religion and science would mean religion making no claims about objective existence at all, or at least no unfalsifiable ones such as gods or miracles. It would mean religion making no claims about objective meaning. So what would be left for religion? The human experience. Matters of ethics and interpersonal relations. Ways of accepting with serenity our suffering and our mortality.

CARSTONIO, UKBA AND DANIEL,

I’m going to recycle something that I wrote earlier in this thread that applies to the interchange you are having:

**********************************************
There are individual scientists working in a narrow field of science that can compartmentalize: they leave the critical reasoning in the church’s door and do not let the dogmas permeate their narrow field of investigation.

But the top scientist of the top country in the world, dealing with all kind of issues that contradict or clash with his faith, cannot be impartial to faith or science.
**********************************************

The topic you have is a good example of discussing science from a broad and theoretical perspective, where you cannot forget that if you don’t want to leave the frontiers of the science and objective world, you cannot interject the notion of gods or immaterial entities.

It appears that Daniel has certain beliefs that do not wish to let out of his objective reasoning, which is his inalienable prerogative in a free world, but puts a lot of noise for topics handled from a pure objective point of view about the existence or not of material multiverses.

This simile may help illustrate my point...wanting the universe to bestow inherent or objective value on humanity is like craving external validation from other people. Individual self-esteem means validating one's self, and the same would be true of humanity as a species. The issue is not believing that inherent value exists, the issue is believing in ourselves.

Part 2:

"capable of being put to use for constant human self-creation. "

Would you explain?

"A scientist trying to make a discovery feeling that it should not only have no relationship to human values but that humans must be in a clearly diminished position with respect to the discovery?"

Again, you miss my point. A rock or a planet has no inherent value position on anything, including humanity. Both would still exist if humans didn't exist. The fact that we create value doesn't diminish those values. Your post seems to imply that value can only matter if it's inherent and absolute, created by something other than humanity.

"so many scientists have not only spoken of the scientific quest as a quest for something of God (all the laws capable of being known) but have been actively religious."

Most scientists today are not believers. The idea of a god as those laws is far from a universal one, and conflicts with most of the major religions. As a matter of linguistic discipline, it's deceptive to use the word "God" to describe that concept of physical laws, since that word to the vast majority of believers means a sentient being. I would agree that it's amazing to discover the workings of the universe, and it can seem like a religious experience in some cases, but that doesn't mean that there's anything inherently divine about the universe or its workings.

My position doesn't qualify as nihilism since I say that values are important. The issue is that they wouldn't exist if humanity didn't exist. The opposite view would be that values exist like a rock or a planet, that they're somehow inherent in the universe, and we have no basis for believing that.

Part 1:

Daniel12,

"Impossible because humans cannot arrive at a conception of the universe without reference to themselves."

That may be fully impossible, but we should still try for that neutrality.

"The very words you wrote place little value on man in the universe. You see the universe from the perspective of man having little value with reference to it."

Incorrect. What I'm saying is that everything we perceive about the universe indicates that it is indifferent to humanity's existence. The universe doesn't assign value to humanity. That indifference doesn't equate to valuelessness - the universe essentially doesn't have an opinion on humanity's value. We can still assign value to our species while recognizing the universe's indifference.

"the attitude taken above is nihilist, defeatist, a diminishing of man, no positive perspective which in fact is responsible for the bulk of science."

That's going too far. My position does not diminish humanity in the absolute sense. I'm saying that gathering knowledge about the universe is important to us and to the value we assign to ourselves, but neither are important to the universe. Put another way, it shouldn't matter to us what the universe thinks or doesn't think about us. I find your post astounding because I have a deep love for knowledge and for the expansion of the frontiers of human knowledge, and I find incuriosity in some people to be confusing and frustrating.

Still, I ask for the sake of clarity why you would deem that diminishing to be bad, and the reason I ask is I refuse to assume the answers to such questions. I want to uncover the assumptions behind the questions...

"My larger point is that it's a mistake to approach the scientific study of the universe in terms of humanity's value to the universe or our place in it. "Value" is a human creation."

Sorry Carstonio, but that is not only a silly statement, it is an impossible one. Impossible because humans cannot arrive at a conception of the universe without reference to themselves. The very words you wrote place little value on man in the universe. You see the universe from the perspective of man having little value with reference to it. And why your words are silly is obvious: the attitude taken above is nihilist, defeatist, a diminishing of man, no positive perspective which in fact is responsible for the bulk of science. Copernicus seeing into the order of the Solar system. Harvey fascinated by the circulation of blood in the human body. Galileo...Newton and the laws of motion. It really goes on and on. A perception that the universe is not only capable of being understood, but capable of being put to use for constant human self-creation. Just look where we are today with communication. Just look where we are today with medicine. In fact I wonder if it is possible to be a truly great scientist with your conception of the scientific endeavor. A scientist trying to make a discovery feeling that it should not only have no relationship to human values but that humans must be in a clearly diminished position with respect to the discovery? Is this not, to put it in religious terms, an attempt to find Satan, the worst in life? It especially seems glaring when so many scientists have not only spoken of the scientific quest as a quest for something of God (all the laws capable of being known) but have been actively religious. I would hope that to remove religion from science does not lead to your nihilistic view. I would hope that no matter the scientific rigor we would keep searching for something of God. Certainly keep searching for things like the positive things we have found so far. This is my conception of the scientific quest.

Ukba,

Since theoretical physics is outside of my base of knowledge, I would ask what observable phenomena the landscape approach is intended to explain. You're probably right that the field's approaches often yield ideas that are later proved by experiment. My concern is when some proposed solutions are unfalsifiable and don't allow for prediction. Those are worse than having no solutions at all - they're indistinguishable from speculation. It's like the brain-in-a-jar argument, a fascinating concept that ultimately explains nothing since what we perceive wouldn't change whether the argument was true or false.

"Consequently what we see as order in the universe is an illusion because what we perceive as order is actually a product of chance."

"Chance" and "random" are the wrong word because they imply causelessness - an event can appear to be random when we cannot trace all the preceding events. Our interest here is in explaining what we perceive. What perceptions suggest the idea of multiple universes? Even if the order we perceive is the product of "chance," why would that matter? That wouldn't change the fact that we perceive order. Anyone can make any sort of claim about things that we allegedly cannot perceive.

Carstonio,

By the way, 10^500(10 followed by 500 zeros) is a big number. To give you an idea how large the number is, there are about 10^80 protons in the observable universe; that’s all the protons in planet earth, the sun, the rest of the Milky Way galaxy and all the other galaxies combined. The problem with this idea is it cannot be falsified. There is no way of knowing there are other universes besides our own. And in order to explain this universe now we have to explain the existence of an even bigger number of other universes. These scientists just moved the goal post a little further up. And I think that’s why Paul Davies was lashing out at them. In a Salon interview, Davies was asked:

Q: Do you think one reason the ultiverse theory has become so popular in recent years is to keep the whole idea of God at bay?"

A: Yes.

Q: Because a lot of physicists seem to be at a loss for how to explain this cosmic fine-tuning. But with the multiverse, you can say there are an infinite number of universes and we just happen to be lucky to live in one that supports life.

A; There's no doubt that the popularity of the multiverse is due to the fact that it superficially gives a ready explanation for why the universe is bio-friendly. Twenty years ago, people didn't want to talk about this fine-tuning because they were embarrassed. It looked like the hand of a creator. Then along came the possibility of a multiverse, and suddenly they're happy to talk about it because it looks like there's a ready explanation. Only those universes in which there can be life get observed, and all the rest go unobserved. Notice, however, that it's far from a complete explanation of existence. You still have to make a huge number of assumptions. You need a universe-generating mechanism to give you all these universes. You need a set of laws that can be scattered across these universes, distributed in some way, according to some algorithm. You're no better off than saying there is an unexplained God.

Even the scientific explanations for the universe are rooted in a particular type of theological thinking. They're trying to explain the world by appealing to something outside of it. And I think the time has come to move beyond that. We can -- if we try hard enough -- come up with a complete explanation of existence from within the universe, without appealing to something mystical or magical lying beyond it. I think the scientists who are anti-God but appeal to unexplained sets of laws or an unexplained multiverse are just as much at fault as a naive theist who says there's a mysterious, unexplained God."

C: I think his idea of explaining the universe from within is also ludicrous; but that's his opinion.

"according to the landscape point of view there are as many as 10 to the power 500 possible universes." Would you explain?

This is the multiverse idea or the cosmic landscape theory some scientist are pushing these days. You can read about it in this article or you can Google the name and find out more about it: http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_487.html

You can also watch this nice video by David Gross. The Search for a Theory of Fundamental Reality: III. The Coming Revolutions. He talks about the cosmic landscape and its origin. If you don’t have time, just drag the video pointer to about 30 minute mark; there he discusses the idea in detail.

http://www.lectureshare.com/main.php?course=147

“Are you using "coincidence" the way that many theists use "random," to suggest causelessness?”

According to the landscape approach, there are many possible universes. Anything you can think of can happen. Consequently what we see as order in the universe is an illusion because what we perceive as order is actually a product of chance. It is like having a bunch of monkeys striking the keys of many typewriters and producing a Shakespeare play. It is possible but the play was not really what the monkeys intended to do. That was not their purpose.

“Davies seems to use "reason" and "rationality" as if we should value them over empiricism as in the Aristotelian tradition.”

Using reason and rational approach to solving problems is sometimes the only thing we can do. All one needs is a pencil and lots of paper. In the field of physics theoretical physicists usually are in the lead. They are the ones who work on new ideas and get involved in cutting edge research fields. Some of them don’t even work in labs let alone do experiments. Theoretical scientists are sometimes decades ahead of others who work on the experiments and observations to prove or to disprove their findings. And that of course depends on level of advancement of the available technology. Einstein’s work for instance was not proved to be right until years later after the publications of his papers. Fred Hoyle went through great deal of trouble to convince Fowler to do the experiment that could show that carbon had an energy level different from what the atom was thought to have at the time. This energy level makes carbon nucleosynthesis possible in stars and of course it is the reason we have life here on this planet. Hoyle was right of course but Fowler ended up winning the Nobel Prize for that same experiment. Einstein also was not rewarded for his work on general relativity. It seems theoretical scientists never get respect.

Parallel universes - fact, fiction, or pure speculation?

An interesting website dedicated to the idea of living in a multiverse and proving it, just below:

http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/multiverse.html

Ukba,

Perhaps I didn't express my point quite right. If mathematics is a tool that we use to describe physical laws, then physical laws themselves are tools that we use to describe the order that we observed. Another analogy would be physical laws as a type of language, a reference system for the results of experimental analyses. If humans didn't exist, the order in the universe would still exist, but they wouldn't be labeled as laws. The word "laws" is really the problem, because it seems to anthromorphicize the universe.

"Some theoretical physicists view these laws as having real existence but transcending physical reality."

Fascinating speculation, but since that idea is unfalsifiable it cannot be anything more than speculation.

"The amazing thing is that we can grasp these abstract mathematical equations using brains that are supposed to have evolved to deal mainly with gathering food and procreating. It is indeed a mystery"

Amazing, yes, but why deem it a mystery? Unless you're making the unfounded claim that everything has a meaning and purpose. Even stating the issue that way seems too human-centered, as if it endorses the old, old idea that the universe exists just for us. Further, it appears to endorse the theistic idea that the human intellect was created for the purpose of comprehending the nature of the universe.

Addressing your quotes from Davies,

"If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality — the laws of physics — only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science."

No, it would simply represent another gap in human knowledge to be addressed. Throughout history the universe has often seemed illogical to humans because we didn't know the causes of events. Davies seems to use "reason" and "rationality" as if we should value them over empiricism as in the Aristotelian tradition. It's unclear whether Davies is saying that the workings of the universe could really be a matter of causelessness, or whether it would simply appear so by the limits of our understanding. Either way, neither possibility is worth worrying about - what matters is that we attempt to understand as much as possible.

"according to the landscape point of view there are as many as 10 to the power 500 possible universes."

Would you explain?

"Physical laws, therefore, vary depending on where you are. The order of the universe as a concept all of a sudden has no meaning. "

The former doesn't automatically lead to the latter. If each universe has a different set of physical laws, then there would be a cause for this.

And if our existence really is a matter of coincidence, so what? Are you using "coincidence" the way that many theists use "random," to suggest causelessness? My larger point is that it's a mistake to approach the scientific study of the universe in terms of humanity's value to the universe or our place in it. "Value" is a human creation.

Carstonio,
You wrote, “But what he doesn't seem to recognize is that the concept is a human creation. In his writings, Davies mischaracterizes science as asserting that physical laws exist reasonlessly, and then he attacks that straw man as being deeply anti-rational.”

I think you are referring to Davies statement: “Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from "that's not a scientific question" to "nobody knows." The favorite reply is, "There is no reason they are what they are — they just are." The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality — the laws of physics — only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science.

“Can the mighty edifice of physical order we perceive in the world about us ultimately be rooted in reasonless absurdity? If so, then nature is a fiendishly clever bit of trickery: meaninglessness and absurdity somehow masquerading as ingenious order and rationality.” End of quote.

It seems that he has a point. After all, according to the landscape point of view there are as many as 10 to the power 500 possible universes. And some scientists view the universe as the product of coincidence and that our existence is merely winning the lottery in a cosmic jackpot. Physical laws, therefore, vary depending on where you are. The order of the universe as a concept all of a sudden has no meaning. Coincidences and probabilities are everything; they play the ultimate role of deciding what exists.

Carstonio,
You stated, “We have no evidence that physical laws are inherent in the universe like computer code. Humans observed order in the universe and created the concept of physical laws to codify that order.”

The laws of Physics and the mathematical equations that describe them are not merely human constructs and exist only in our brains. They are proven by experimental analyses. For instance, the inverse square law of gravity, the inverse cube law of magnetism and many other physical laws are not just mathematical formulas. They have been proven to work many times over. Granted mathematics is a tool that we use to describe physical laws but that does not explain the "unreasonable effectiveness" of mathematics in our endeavor to understand how the universe works. In other words, why does mathematics work?

Physical laws are real but that does not mean they need to have physical form; they exist nonetheless whether or not we discover them. Some theoretical physicists view these laws as having real existence but transcending physical reality. Accordingly, I believe it is more appropriate to say that we discover the laws of physics using mathematics instead of inventing them. There is no reason for example why some other advanced civilization is not using these same formulas we have today.

The structure of the universe is written in mathematical code. The code that the universe obeys may be hidden from us and not too obvious but is still in our reach. And as we advance in our scientific knowledge we gain more access to that code. The amazing thing is that we can grasp these abstract mathematical equations using brains that are supposed to have evolved to deal mainly with gathering food and procreating. It is indeed a mystery; grasping thermodynamics concepts and big bang physics for instance did not really come about so we can have survival advantage by natural selection.

Ultimately, however, the big question that needs to be addressed maybe the one posed by Stephen Hawking, "What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"

Ukba,

Davies may be right that the concept of physical laws has roots in monotheism. But what he doesn't seem to recognize is that the concept is a human creation. In his writings, Davies mischaracterizes science as asserting that physical laws exist reasonlessly, and then he attacks that straw man as being deeply anti-rational.

We have no evidence that physical laws are inherent in the universe like computer code. Humans observed order in the universe and created the concept of physical laws to codify that order. They allow scientists to predict the behavior of the universe, and the laws undergo revision when scientists observe behavior that contradicts those laws.

Obviously that brings up the question of what causes the universe to have the order that we observe. We can attempt to answer that question empirically, and if that method doesn't produce an answer, the only responsible position is to admit that we don't know why that order exists.

I suspect that most modern scientists don't see physical laws as having inherent existence, but I don't know that for sure. I usually hear that idea from deists and some theists who claim that scientific principles can be used to justify beliefs that gods exist. Those arguments are basically "god of the gaps," involving the assumption that the order in the universe could only have been deliberately created by a sentient entity.

“The very foundation of science as we know it was largely established by men of faith...”

Paul Davies who is a theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and author argues that scientific inquiry owes its existence to the uniquely monotheistic world view that viewed the universe to be governed by fixed laws that transcend it. And consequently scientists could discover these rules and laws that guide the order of the universe through experiments and mathematical equations. In an article titled "taking science on faith" Davies writes:

“The most common trap my critics have fallen into is in conflating the explanation of natural phenomena using the laws of physics, with an explanation of the laws themselves. I am not suggesting that the application of science is a matter of faith. Doing science involves employing testable hypotheses, refining theories and conducting experiments — in stark contrast to the practice of religion. The scientific method is the most reliable path to truth we know, and there is no more committed or passionate a scientist than I. Yes, "science works" as John Horgan points out. It is tested again and again as a description of nature. We are all agreed on that point.

But it isn't the point I was trying to make. My argument refers, not to the scientific method, but to the underlying lawfulness of the universe itself, which raises questions such as where the laws come from, why they have the form that they do, and whether there is anything peculiar about the actual laws of the universe (such as being "fine-tuned" for life), as opposed to other possible laws.

Part II:
The orthodox position (and the one I set out to challenge in my book) is that the universe is governed by a fixed set of laws in the form of infinitely precise mathematical relationships imprinted on the universe from its birth. In addition, it is assumed that the physical world is affected by the laws, but the laws are completely impervious to what happens in the universe — they are immutable. It is not hard to see where this picture comes from: it is inherited from monotheism, which asserts that a rational being designed the universe according to a set of perfect laws. And the asymmetry between immutable laws and contingent states mirrors the asymmetry between God and nature: the universe depends utterly on God for its existence whereas God's existence does not depend on the universe.

Historians of science are well aware that Newton and his contemporaries believed that in doing science they were uncovering the divine plan for the universe in the form of its underlying mathematical order. I am depressed that reminding scientists of this well-known historical fact should elicit such a shock-horror response. As Scott Atran points out, the argument that science is based on faith is not new. Evidently Western society is so steeped in monotheism that the monotheistic world view, which was appropriated by science, is now regarded as "obvious" and "natural." As a result, many scientists are unaware of its theological origin. Nor do they stop to think about the sweeping hidden assumptions they adopt when they subscribe to that scientific/theological world view, assumptions that are in fact are not shared by most other cultures.”
You can view the full article and relevant counterarguments here: http://www.edge.org/discourse/science_faith.html

Mr Hirschfield:

What I find troubling with Mr Collins' appointment is that there has been an unofficial religious means test applied to his appointment. We have heard both Mr Obama and Mr Collins go on and on about their religious "faith". Religious faith is irrelevant, both for political office and for scientific leadership. Yet if either of these two men came out and said he was an atheist like, say, Brad Pitt or Billy Joel can do, he would be automatically barred in the US from either of these important positions.

For neither of these posiitons should religious fervour be something the candidate or the incumbant should have to constantly reiterate. The same Americans who criticise such statements when made by Muslim dictators all clap like trained monkeys when American presidents or scientists use the word "Jesus" or "my faith".

And that's the problem.

A mature democracy does not require religious means tests. And despite it's crowing and strutting, the US is juvenile compared to dozens of more advanced democracies which it would be well advised to learn from.

To CORNBREAD_R2, JUSTACOMMENT and PSOLUS;

Whether it was "superstition" or whether "they believed in many gods," they exercised faith.

Whetner "they leave the critical reasoning in the church’s door and do not let the dogmas permeate their narrow field of investigation" does not take away the fact
that they were men of faith.

And whether "When faith deals with material things, the most critical things are frozen in the past. They are not supposed to change," they have not. It is critical to our point that faith led those early scientists enquire and discover. THAT is frozen and has not changed.

Now look at what we have: some have faith faith only in religion, some have faith only in science, and some, like Dr Collins, have faith in both religion and science.

And faith in both, my friends, was what led the patriarchs of science to open the whole new world of knowledge and wonder we now enjoy (and debate).

Therefore, the argument that a man of faith cannot be the country's top scientist has no basis in historical or scientific fact.

..................................................................................................
.............................................................................
.......………………………,/////////////……………........,/
.......………,……..__,---///////////////////,…..............,/././
.......…………,-'.. ). ). ). ). ). ).''///////_\…........../././././
.......……_,-' ))`.. ) .) .). ) .) .) .). ). ).)..`-......././././././
.......…/..()_).).).).).\. ) .). ) .). ). ). ) .). )__././././././././
.......…\____ ).).).).).). ).). ). ). ) .). ). ).__.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\
TRUTH.............).).)./. ). ). ) .) .) .). ).)_/,-`...\.\.\.\.\.\.\
.......…..___,').),'). ). ). ). )_),,--'……………...\.\.\.\.\.\
.......….(_______............\.\)_),--'"……………...`\.\.\.\
.......……………….-.........\.\.\……………………...`\.\.\
.......……,…………...........\.\.\……………….............`\
................................................................................................
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm .............................................................................

"Show me the "Science" that denies faith in God, and I'll show you the science that denies its purpose and its meaning."

This is a silly argument. There is no science that denies faith in a god any more than there is a science that denies faith in unicorns.

"Before there was "Science," there was faith--faith that there was some thing or some one greater; some thing or some one that bears responsibility for all there is."

Before science there was ignorance, superstition, and fear.

"Science and faith are not mutually exclusive."

Actually, they are.

"Faith leads to inquiry."

Actually, it doesn't.

"How that inquiry is conducted is called science. The very foundation of science as we know it was largely established by men of faith; men who believe in the existence of God."

Some of them believed in many gods, and some of them believed in even stranger things. They didn't know any better; we do.

"Therefore, a man of faith is well equipped to be scientist, even if his quest is to prove the existence of God."

The quest to prove the existence of a god is not a scientific quest—it is a futile quest.

"The argument that a man of faith cannot be the country's top scientist has no basis in historical or scientific fact."

A person who believes in superstition cannot qualify as a scientist.

MGT2: “The very foundation of science as we know it was largely established by men of faith...”

There are individual scientists working in a narrow field of science that can compartmentalize: they leave the critical reasoning in the church’s door and do not let the dogmas permeate their narrow field of investigation.

But the top scientist of the top country in the world, dealing with all kind of issues that contradict or clash with his faith, cannot be impartial to faith or science.

MGT2: “Faith leads to inquiry. How that inquiry is conducted is called science.”

The type of inquiry on faith topics are related to the immaterial world, which is out of the scope of science. When faith deals with material things, the most critical things are frozen in the past. They are not supposed to change (read cornbread_r2 post on this).

MGT2: “Therefore, a man of faith is well equipped to be scientist, even if his quest is to prove the existence of God”

You appear to be a person of faith. Do you have a proof that your God exists? I would like to believe that a god exists, but I have not seen a tangible and conclusive proof, could you please tell me your best tangible proof of your God?

MGT2: "Faith leads to inquiry."

Choosing between any number of Christian religious institutions and a purely scientific one, which one(s):

- Teaches "dogma"?

- Compiled and maintained an "Index of Forbidden Books", including works by Galileo?

- Teaches that anything which causes us to question our faith is the work of the Devil?

Many religions teach that there are immutable, eternal truths which have already been revealed. If that's true -- and Dr. Collins not only apparently believes it is, but also believes that everyone else should too -- then what's the point of inquiry?

Show me the "Science" that denies faith in God, and I'll show you the science that denies its purpose and its meaning.

Before there was "Science," there was faith--faith that there was some thing or some one greater; some thing or some one that bears responsibility for all there is.

Science and faith are not mutually exclusive. Faith leads to inquiry. How that inquiry is conducted is called science. The very foundation of science as we know it was largely established by men of faith; men who believe in the existence of God. Therefore, a man of faith is well equipped to be scientist, even if his quest is to prove the existence of God.

The argument that a man of faith cannot be the country's top scientist has no basis in historical or scientific fact.

By saying that an evangelist and one with an agenda on proving god exists scientifically, is fit to run the NIH, is like saying that a catholic priest is more than qualified to lead a jewish organization. After all, if the catholic priest is well versed in jewish tradition, why not then allow him or her to lead jewish services and be in charge of the budget of a large jewish temple? It is clear that the author knows little about science, as he admits and is only gauging the merits of Collins based on his critics. If judged good science based solely on its critics, then you can rest assured there would be no scientific progress. Science has no room for religion, especially for an evangelist with a political and religious agenda. Will he appropriate funds to research he deems ungodly? stem cells? abortion? etc???? NO Collins is absolutely wrong... by placing him in a political position where he can use his evangelism to stall science is absolutely wrong. The author seesm to fail in recognizing the importance of this position. There is no middle ground here..this is science.

Part one.

Atheism. All the challenges atheists make to the conception of God. Among these challenges we have 1) that the term "God" has no explanatory value, that we should discard the concept because it is no worthwhile concept at all, and delve deeper into the mystery of existence.

Perfectly logical this criticism by atheists. The problem is the concept of God does have great explanatory value. It explains the beginning and ending of things with respect to man no matter how incorrect many of the physical descriptions of nature by the God fearing have been. That the concept "God" has no explanatory value is a completely relative statement--"God" perhaps of no value to the scientist, but of great value to those called religious.

2) That all the attributes of God such as omniscience, omnipotence, absolute goodness are next to impossible (according to mathematical calculation, chance) individually, and taken together and compressed into one being which is divine for such utterly impossible. Again, perfectly logical. The problem is if the above is correct the human race must abandon the pursuit of perfection in any one of these qualities let alone the pursuit of all of them as if they can be compressed, synthesized into one being. In short, this perfectly logical argument by atheists strikes accurately against the concept of God, but at the price of working toward human futility.

Part two.

3) That if God truly existed and were truly good then the existence humans now live would not only be free of evil but be the best possible existence--and of course common sense tells us we are not living the best possible existence. Perfectly logical, but this argument leads to the same result of argument #2 in that it is a declaration of the futility of existence. In fact this argument depends on existence remaining futile, demands that atheists work toward making life worse and not better, because if atheists work toward making life better and continually succeed they ironically work toward demonstrating that a being of ultimate goodness lies behind existence. Every movement toward a better life is a movement toward proving the existence of God. Every movement toward a worse, more painful life, supports the atheists' position that there is no God.

4) That God, having such immense and incredible qualities, cannot be understood by the puny human mind--in fact, over all history we see demonstrated not only the most various conceptions of God (and his demands) but a clear difficulty in determining the direction to God,--which is to say attempts toward God have just as often resulted in what humans call the demonic as the good. Again, perfectly logical. The problem is if the above is the case, then how do we know whether we are using reason as the prefered path over religion or not? In other words, if an examination of religion over all of human history reveals conflicting interpretations of God's demands, then how can we not arrive in abolishing religion and moving toward reason at conflicting interpretations of reason?--especially because in discounting God by reason, discounting an ultimate good, we discount an absolute, perfect reason? Reason as the price of its success against God becomes perfectly relative...therefore how can we keep from arriving at a world which demonstrates more relativity in reason than it ever did as to God and religion?

Part three.

5) That God cannot exist because he cannot know for certain he is God--which is to say everything in the universe is uncertain about its own existence, cannot achieve certainty, perfect knowledge with respect to anything outside itself let alone itself. Again, perfectly logical, but at a terrible price: that humans are ultimately doomed to futility, uncertainty. We cannot become certain so why pursue certainty of knowledge at all? Furthermore, this gives the lie to argument #1, that God possesses no explanatory value. In comparison to argument #5, atheists' assertion that humans are doomed to uncertainty, of course God has explanatory value: our belief in him gives certainty to our existence. All may be uncertain but God, but the certainty of God is certainty in our existence.

6) That some of God's defining qualities such as being the purpose provider of existence cannot exist because, for example, we can find no purpose to existence. Do I first have to state that this is a perfectly relative argument, that for all evidence of no purpose to existence millions over the centuries (and no doubt over the centuries to come) have found purpose in God? Furthermore, if the atheists are correct here, that no purpose to existence can be found...well then what purpose do we have? Why not do anything we wish in the attempt to find purpose (such as murder, rape, etc.)? In fact if there truly is no purpose, then everything is allowed. How can a court prosecute someone when it is universally acknowledged there is no purpose to existence?

Conclusion: the argument of atheists against believers proceeds virtually in every instance in an either/or fashion as if, obviously (to most of us and especially the religious), the religious have a perfectly unassailable position, and less obviously (to most of us) as if the atheists can just trot out some arguments, demolish religion, and proceed with perfect equanimity, as if there are no tradeoffs, let alone clearly disturbing ones. It is this writer's contention that the evidence for and against God and the arguments pro and con reveal the argument will probably never end, which is to say there will always in human existence be atheists and believers. Which will win out in the end only God or nothing knows. But if nothing knows why give up a belief in God?

If Prof. Gates doen't Fess-up to his "GUILTY-MIND" and plead "Guilty" to [conspiring, not almost] Inciting a International Uproar anda "National-Riot" (something our real enemies thrive-on; or condone? by proxy AGENTS?) , so he Must really go to jail; Because

Behold: Thou Shall not (Situationally) LIE!

The "RACE-CARD" in Sweet Sweet U.S. of A.'s must END and that must start with Black-Foke likes of Mzr. Gates! It's getting to Dry in this non-Slavery Epoch, especially when today AMERICA, not AFRICA, has a half/White and half/Black/Brown "Elected" President For 2009+.

Repercussions (not Riots)?:
---

DOWN with OBAMA & CO., comes 2012 and beyond!!!

DOWN with OBAMA & CO., comes 2012 and beyond!!!

DOWN with OBAMA & CO., comes 2012 and beyond!!!

---

Prof. GATES Must GO To Jail For almost (Conspiring) insighting a National (RACE BASED)RIOT! The TERRORISTS & CO., are LOVE-in THIS!

---
......___________________......
...........||.......||........||.......||
...........||.......||.., , ,.||.......||
...........||......(||../|/(\.||/......||
...........||.......||.._'_ .,||......||
...........||.......||..o o..||.......||
...........||......(||...m...||)......||
...........||.......||...=....||.......||
...........||.......||.\___/||.......||
...........||.___||..).,.(..||___.||
......... /||..--...||.-\_/-.||..---,.||\
........./.||.--,_,||____.||.._--||..\
..........(||)RACE-GATES(.||)
.......|"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""|.
.......|ACTS AGAINST HUMANITY|
.........|A-CRYIN-LYING-SHAME|.

-- W O W! The "mistake" (election) is leaching Through like "A FREUDIAN SLIP OF GENUINE PROPHECY"! Soo,

"A White Crackers ain't gota Chance
against a Black Cracker" anymore?

What happened to the "Planet of The Apes"?

Brad Hirschfield: "What bothers Collins' critics is precisely what makes his appointment so interesting and so appropriate. He is willing to live with limits as to the claims which can be made either by religion or science, and with full awareness of each, remains committed to both."

Since when do religious claims necessarily have limits? Isn't the whole point of believing in the supernatural also believing that, literally, anything is possible? Scientific claims are limited by the rigorous application of the scientific method. Religious claims are limited only by the imaginations of their holders.

Taking comfort in the fact that an evangelical Christian doesn't believe that the earth is 6,000 years old while still believing in virgin birth, self-resurrecting dead people and a triune entity that somehow transcends time and space is like praising someone for not believing the earth is flat because he believes it's actually a cube.

EDBRYONADAMS, let's see if you are honest enough to answer two questions. If you dodge, well, it will be a clear signal that you are only interested in pontificating. In which case I bid you adieu.

----

Which of the following is the most compelling evidence for the existence of an intelligent and loving Designer?

1. The little girl born in Egypt with two functioning heads
2. The screams of a baby seal as it is torn apart by a shark
3. The superiority of the octopus eyeball to the human
4. A Caribbean sunset
==

What is the number of children born without arms or legs that have been miraculously restored by a visit to the shrine at Lourdes, France?

1. Too many to count
2. Over 1,000
3. Several dozen
4. Zero, but only because their faith was not strong enough

Simpleton: "Abiogenesis DID happen."

EBRYONADAMS:
"That may be but the evidence for it is ridiculously thin.
It mostly consists of contrived experiments in which some biological molecules have been produced from simpler organic molecules. Abiogeneisis is the equivalent of producing three gears throwing them on the table and saying, "See, I can make a watch."
==
Only if your reading skills are ridiculously poor.

At least pretend to read what I wrote.

There was NO life on Earth 3.5 billion years ago, there is life today.

That is iron-clad evidence of abiogenesis. If you had the intellectual honesty at least you'd be focusing on "how did abiogenesis occur?"

EBRYONADAMS:

"There are other explanations. Panspermia is one. I find the analogy argument between the heavier elements in our body getting formed in supernova explosions and the idea that biology in stasis getting sent that way around the cosmos appealing. That isn't science either. Just speculation. It doesn't belong in science texts."
==
Only if it is being presented as fact in texts.

Please produce the name of the textbook that is in use in the USA which contains this.

EDBYRONADAMS:
The only reason that abiogenisis gets in is because scientific faith statements are politically feasible. It makes the scientific faithful look bad when they say, "I dunno". Unfortunately for them, that is the true answer they must give to the basic questions about existence.
==

That is wrong on many counts.

1. There is NO established scientific theory that claims to have determined *how* abiogenesis took place

2. Not knowing how something happened is not unusual. In fact there are MANY more things that we do not know how they happened than we do know.

3. None of that changes the fact that not knowing something is not a license for the creationists to asserts myths as if they were facts.

4. No one *has* to give an answer about existence, but if one does, it needs to be backed with evidence. You have done nothing of this sort

5. The myth of creationists that God created all living beings in their current form has been debunked with solid evidence.

6. When you have evidence (I am not looking for proof) that God exists, to the same level as say, George W Bush exists, you can resubmit your myth, and I'll stop calling it so.

And no, claiming that since the universe exists, there must be a God is not evidence. Any more than saying that since the universe exists, I had to have done it by going back in time.

EDBYRONADAMS wrote: “In regression the uncaused cause exists. Some call him God, way too anthropomorphic for me. In my faith we call it the Mystic Law.”

If this is the irrefutable proof that your brand of God exists and you are willing to take extraordinary paths in your life based on that proof, this is your inalienable prerogative.

This is what I found in Wikipedia about your non anthropomorphic God: “Myoho literally means the Mystic Law, and expresses the relationship between the life inherent in the universe and the many different ways this life expresses itself. Myo refers to the very essence of life, which is "invisible" and beyond intellectual understanding. This essence always expresses itself in a tangible form (ho) that can be apprehended by the senses. Phenomena (ho) are changeable, but pervading all such phenomena is a constant reality known as myo.”

If this phenomena makes you behave with others like you would like they behave with you, it’s enriching.

To lead in our society is another ball game. There are things that require critical thinking, knowledge of technology and even science studies to take sound decisions. I don’t see how your God called the Mystic Law, which as per Wikipedia is “invisible and beyond intellectual understanding” can communicate in a meaningful way with the leaders of the society to inform or mandate decisions.

You trust more a “bonafide Christian” and “men of spiritual faith” over a secular person capable of critical thinking not influenced by fixed dogmas.

"Abiogenesis DID happen."

That may be but the evidence for it is ridiculously thin. It mostly consists of contrived experiments in which some biological molecules have been produced from simpler organic molecules. Abiogeneisis is the equivalent of producing three gears throwing them on the table and saying, "See, I can make a watch."

There are other explanations. Panspermia is one. I find the analogy argument between the heavier elements in our body getting formed in supernova explosions and the idea that biology in stasis getting sent that way around the cosmos appealing. That isn't science either. Just speculation. It doesn't belong in science texts.

The only reason that abiogenisis gets in is because scientific faith statements are politically feasible. It makes the scientific faithful look bad when they say, "I dunno". Unfortunately for them, that is the true answer they must give to the basic questions about existence.

EBRYONADMS demures:

"the travesty of science called abiogenisis might get removed from high school biology texts. It certainly ain't science."

That is the clearest indication that you are a high school drop out.

But I have news for you. Abiogenesis DID happen. Whether you believe Goddit or not, there was no life on Earth at one point some 3.5 billion years ago, and there is now.

At least understand the position you are ridiculing.

JUSTACOMMENT,

Here are an undeniable way.

Pick any child that was born without arms and legs.

Call a press conference. Ensure that cameras from at least five different countries (one of which is India, and another Australia) are present.

Place the child in a rocker.

Next pray/beg/yodel to God or Gods to have the child grow limbs.

Pick up the child. If he has limbs, well, good enough for me.

I bet this NEVER happens.

Probably because of one of the following:

a. "God can't be tested that way -- it says so in the Bible"

b. "It would happen if only the child had enough faith"

c. "God does need to do that, he wants you to have faith, otherwise he won't be God." (of course that means he did not want any of the apostles to have faith)

d.

"By demonstrating the existence of God."

We exist. The universe exists. Those manifestations require a cause.

In regression the uncaused cause exists. Some call him God, way too anthropomorphic for me. In my faith we call it the Mystic Law.

POSTED BY: EDBYRONADAMS
==

Sorry that is a lame argument, and certainly not a demonstration. There is nothing that shows those manifestations require a cause, and even if they did, it certainly does not show that a God exists any more than saying unicorns exist.

Please try again, and come up with something less than speculation. Also, it'd help if you think.

"By demonstrating the existence of God."

We exist. The universe exists. Those manifestations require a cause.

In regression the uncaused cause exists. Some call him God, way too anthropomorphic for me. In my faith we call it the Mystic Law.

HUMANSIMPLETON,

Thanks for your comments.

What I tried to establish at the beginning of my post was that being God a non material entity, that is, something outside of the material world, it was out of the scope of the science. And that this is true for affirming or denying his/her existence.

It never occurred to me that God could be studied by measuring his/her material impact on this side of the universe. Sounds intriguing. My first thought at this point is that in this case the big challenge will be how to link God as an undeniable cause of certain impacts on this world. In this scenario God as a non material entity should have the power to affect the matter. Anyway, this approach is something to ponder.

To prove that Bush exists is just a matter of talking to people in Iraq and Afghanistan. They will tell you that he was kicking until recently.

I just hope that EDBYRONADAMS or any other sincere believer have a solid proof of God, commensurate to the extraordinary claim of his/her existence.

From the NYT article piece by Harris:

"Francis Collins is an accomplished scientist and a man who is sincere in his beliefs. And that is precisely what makes me so uncomfortable about his nomination. Must we really entrust the future of biomedical research in the United States to a man who sincerely believes that a scientific understanding of human nature is impossible?"

I find this highly amusing. Did Harris object when all funding for any research into the distribution of intelligence among the human population absolutely dried up because it is politically incorrect to study the issue and conclusions might cause political difficulty? Despite the fact that such easily obtained scientific knowledge has direct effect on public policy, the liberal establishment wants to play the "three wise monkeys" with it.

Furthermore, a good part of Harris' piece tells us that Collins thinks scientific fact is in perfect accordance with God's will and is a manifestation of it. How can that position badly affect funding priorities?

As to understanding the scientific nature of mankind, the largest impediment to that over the years has be the great faith put into the Rousseauean notion of the noble savage, something that has twisted anthropology and sociology until recently. It wasn't Christian faith that did it.

Politics has always affected science. The absence of a bonafide Christian in charge of NIH is just another possible factor. Maybe if we had enough men of spiritual faith in positions of power in science, the travesty of science called abiogenisis might get removed from high school biology texts. It certainly ain't science.

JustAComment says

"Who ever tells you an statement that cannot be falsified is telling something that is not science. It doesn’t matter if the person telling you the statement is atheist or believer. The statements “God does not exist” and “God exists” cannot be proved wrong scientifically, thus those are not scientific statements."

"God does not exist" *can* be proven wrong scientifically.

How?

By demonstrating the existence of God.

For example "George W Bush does not exist" can be proven wrong by simply showing that George W Bush is alive and kicking.

And God *can* be studied by science if he exists.

How?

By measuring the impact of God even if he is not part of this world on this world.

You are correct if you say that it is illogical to claim that if one cannot prove that something exists, then that something does not exist.

Yet that is of dubious value.

I can say that unicorns do not exist.

Likewise, I can say that the God of the Bible does not exist.

Of course you will need to listen to my justification for each of those claims, but we can definitely make such claims.

If you are familiar with Bell's theorem, it is clear that you can say something does not exist. And it is scientific.

The common trick the creationist use in this is argue that nothing can really be known with 100% certainty.

That is flawed on two levels.

1. How do you know that, given that you'd need to define what constitutes 100% certainty.

2. That things which are not 100% certain are all the same level of certainty.

For example, I know that New York exists, with 100% certainty.

OK, if you want to take the approach that no, you cannot say that because New York might have stopped existing, then you are conveniently allowing for anything that is not certain to be of the same level of uncertainty.

That is unicorns do not exist has the same level of uncertainty as New York not existing.

EDBYRONADAMS,

You said “Atheism is not scientific either since the statement, "God does not exist", cannot be falsified. It is beyond science“.

You are absolutely right. Who ever tells you an statement that cannot be falsified is telling something that is not science. It doesn’t matter if the person telling you the statement is atheist or believer. The statements “God does not exist” and “God exists” cannot be proved wrong scientifically, thus those are not scientific statements.

There are a lot of non religious people like me that never say “God does not exist”. Instead we say I would like to believe that there is a God and since you claim that exists, please give me a real proof of that extraordinary claim.

The kind of proof I expect from you is similar to the one you will demand of a stranger that tells you that he had a long conversation with a semi transparent gosh called The King of the Universe, who while talking was levitating and was surrounded by small flying figures with wings and talking snakes. The King said that all existing religions were false, and from now on every human has to give all possessions to this stranger as the only representative of The King in this world. The stranger also tells you that The King described how horrendous was the Hell 2.0, a new and improved version that no religion before could imagine. And the stranger said that H-2.0 was already open for business, so watch out humanity, renounce to all your possessions.

Hey, any sane person will demand concrete evidence that all that crap is true before giving away all his/her assets to this stranger.

I’m sure that you got the idea about the kind proof that I would like to receive from you as a sincere believer. Books supposedly written by God that prove that God exists are no proof . This is circular thinking. Logical proof will not make it. It’s a good thinking exercise but not enough a proof that something is real, specially for something that can be a life changer.

But you are right again when you said that “Making a faith statement and standing up for it does not currently have to be in conflict with science.” For me this will be a personal matter or a civilized discourse if shared with people of different thoughts…until the person that makes the faith statements wants to force everybody to live up to those statements or else. Sometimes to the extreme of death as punishment. I’m not referring to you EDBYRONADAMS in particular, but historically fanatic believers has done that to non believers.

Peace to you and all.

As a couple of commenters have noted, Mr. Hirschfield criticizes Sam Harris without addressing any of his arguments. If Mr. Hirschfield really wants to lend any credence to his point of view, I suggest he read and respond directly to the objections raised by Mr. Harris in his New York Times article regarding Francis Collins' appointment. http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/science-is-in-the-details/.

If Mr. Harris' article is too detailed or intellectual for Mr. Hirschfield, I'll settle for a direct response to a briefer article from Micah J. Stone: http://www.examiner.com/x-10853-Portland-Humanist-Examiner~y2009m7d27-Sam-Harris-on-Francis-Collins-at-the-NIH.

"Making a faith statement and standing up for it does not currently have to be in conflict with science."

Faith is for those who are unable to do the math.

"After years of investigation, the beginnings of the universe, the beginning of life and the theory of everything remain murky as well."

42

EDBYRONADAMS says
"Apparently a good track record as a productive scientist is not enough for some. They require ideological purity as well."

That is a straw man. Please produce the statements of those "some"

EDBYRONADAMS says
"Atheism is not scientific either since the statement, "God does not exist", cannot be falsified. It is beyond science."

That is only partly correct. Atheism is a lack of belief in Gods.

"God does not exist" is only the position of some atheists. Other atheists simply state that since God is not proven to exist in the manner that New York is proven to exist or Bush is proven to exist, and God allegedly is someone living, there is no reason to act as if God exists.

In fact, if you simply think about that statement of yours regarding falsification, you may benefit in that you'll understand what the issue is.

Unicorns, for example, do not exist.

But we can say that. And no one will start questioning "It is beyond science".

Why?

EDBYRONADAMS says

"After years of investigation, the beginnings of the universe, the beginning of life and the theory of everything remain murky as well."

True. But we also know that the years of investigation prove that

1. The Earth was not created some 6000 years ago.

2. That mankind did not arise from the survivors of Noah's ark.

That we do not know everything is not license for the religious to make up stuff on the fly and assume it, and worse, require that others respect it just because it is your belief.

EDBYRONADAMS says
"Making a faith statement and standing up for it does not currently have to be in conflict with science."

Absolutely.

But when it IS in conflict with science, it needs to be thrown out for the superstition that it is.

For example. Faith for many tells you that God created all life in exactly the same form as you see them today some 6000 years ago.

Science has long shown that this is false, so anyone making the faith statement is obviously in conflict with reality.

And this gets to the bottom of the issue: what happens when Collins stops, for example, research using embryonic stem cells, because his faith tells him that it is not the thing to do?

And THAT is the problem with Collins. He has shown that he is exactly such a person.

To understand that it is not just him being Christian, take the case of Kenneth Miller.

I'd say that such an individual is just fine.

See if you can think past the straw man arguments creationists force feed you, and understand why Kenneth Miller is OK, but not Collins, even though both are religious men.

Apparently a good track record as a productive scientist is not enough for some. They require ideological purity as well. Atheism is not scientific either since the statement, "God does not exist", cannot be falsified. It is beyond science.

After years of investigation, the beginnings of the universe, the beginning of life and the theory of everything remain murky as well. Making a faith statement and standing up for it does not currently have to be in conflict with science.

Hey Brad,

Three streams of a waterfall arriving at a confluence is not evidence of The Holy Trinity.

Anyone who believes that it is, and Francis Collins is one of them is a scary individual.

Such superstitious individuals are best left in the Church where they cannot do more harm to the already brain-dead flock.

MARIANOAPOLOGETICUS,

It is clear that you do not understand what atheism is.

Atheism is a- (without) theism (belief in God(s)).

Atheism is the lack of belief in Gods. Some people believe that there is no God, and others see no reason to believe in a God.

Sam Harris is an atheist.

There is NOTHING he or anyone can do to "evidence atheism".

At least understand what it is that you hurl feces at!

"Can I make a reasonable conclusion about the implications of his appointment over the nation's largest science-related budget? Of course not! But neither can most of the people getting their undies in a twist over the President's choice -- people like professional secularist Sam Harris or creationist blogger David Klinghoffer, and that hasn't stopped them."

Sam Harris studying for a PhD in neuroscience. He has professional credentials to challenge unscientific approaches to human brain activity.

Thanks for the vague generalizations, Rabbi. It makes perfect sense that you should take Collins' detractors to task without addressing their specific arguments.
Sam Harris writes, "If we must look to religion to explain our moral sense, what should we make of the deficits of moral reasoning associated with conditions like frontal lobe syndrome and psychopathy? Are these disorders best addressed by theology?"
You act as if Harris never posed such questions when you state, "[Collins] is willing to live with limits as to the claims which can be made either by religion or science." Are you implying that there are limits to how insightful brain science can be? And does "willing to live" with such limits as Mr. Collins' may impose on himself include refusing to authorize research into how our nervous system influences our emotions, our conscious states and our morality?
Should he use explicity superstitious criteria in making his judgements as a medical administrator?
Alas, you avoid such issues, Rabbi. I guess that was the best argument you had -- avoiding an actual exchange of ideas. Nice sloganeering, though. You religious people are good at that.

Sam Harris has a one word answer to all of the world’s ills: religion.

Thus, anyone who is religious is, a priori, part of the problem.

Moreover, as evidenced at the following link, Harris himself is becoming a scientist not in order to conduct unbiased research but in order to attempt to evidence atheism.

http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/05/atheism-new-emergent-atheists-part-2-of.html

Also, FYI: interesting info on Collins is found here:
http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/04/john-horgan-and-francis-collins.html

http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/05/new-atheists-on-francis-collins.html

"Natural selection" which the idiots always use as their defense for human existence, has not thought about the algorithm of man's walking ability. There are millions of algorithms out there that's present in nature but as usual the atheist idiots have not come to the realization that these things don't come naturally. These things happen by DESIGN.

It's a flawed idea that dumb objects like the earth can evolve into intelligent things like plants and animals without a higher intelligence involved. It's simply NOT scientific. In any case, the idiots won't understand it.

Mr. Hirschfield,

You wrote:

"Collins has spent a life contributing to the advancement of science, while publicly acknowledging evangelical religious beliefs..."

Can you guarantee that Mr. Collins won't be making public health policy decisions based on what he believes that his personal supreme being has commanded him to do?

One doesn't have to be a scientist to observe that Collins's reasoning about gods doesn't hold up under scientific scrutiny. To explain why life exists and why humans have moral choice, Collins postulates an all-powerful being beyond space and time. That hypothesis is invalid because it's unfalsifiable and doesn't allow for prediction of new data. It's so broad that any possible data is compatible with the hypothesis, which essentially means that the hypothesis explains nothing. That doesn't mean that the hypothesis is false, but it does mean that it's scientifically useless.

Considering Collins's enormous contributions to genetic knowledge, this represents a sad and disappointing lack of scientific discipline. Collins rightly criticizes intelligent design as unscientific, but his arguments rely on the same "gods of the gaps" idea that drives ID. While I still agree that he's eminently qualified to lead NIH, we need to question why such an intelligent man would insist on exceptions to science when it comes to the origins of life and morality.

This is an odd statement "While the most influential scientist in America need not be religious, he better possess a measure of modesty. "

I would venture to say that modesty in respect to knowledge is a defining characteristic all scientists possess in great quantity. It is out of their respect for how little we actually know that drives their curiosity, and which leads them down the path to discovery. Conversely, it is the height of arrogance to claim that we can't know, won't know, and shouldn't know what many religious groups claim to be fact. As the saying goes, faith means believing what you know isn't true. It is intellectually dishonest for a scientist to rely upon faith to form their worldview.

Live with limits or live with Liberty which is unlimited. We lived well for several years with no established form of government and society acts through its own means. Government has become less than civil, carrying out a program of destruction it can't afford. The numbers prove this beyond any doubt. California is a leading example and the water pressure is low in Washington DC. The WPO numbers looked well. Business is great and business should not be limited to the failures of a rotten corrupt government. Making excuses does not alter the fact. It makes people feel better even though they are being oppressed, being thrown into poverty and discontent. Riots are caused for want of happiness and evil like poison has uses. Where should we go if where we are going is not a path worthy of the sacrifices of our heritage?