On Faith And Science: An Idealized Dialogue

[cbayer]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/10/10/162560131/on-faith-and-science-an-idealized-dialogue

08:42 am

October 10, 2012

by MARCELO GLEISER


Hulton Archive/Getty Images
In this Gustave Dore engraving from Milton's Paradise Lost, Satan, the Fallen Angel, is flung from Heaven and nears the confines of the Earth on his way to Hell.



Within the perennial debate between science and religion, something that tends to irritate scientists — especially those who declare themselves atheists or agnostics — is the insistence in the existence of a parallel reality, inaccessible to reason. To explore this clash of world views, playing itself out in countless debates, conversations and confrontations, here is a fictitious dialogue between an atheist scientist and a religious person well-versed in the current state of science.

Scientist: "A supernatural cause doesn't make sense: if it's supernatural, that is, beyond the limits of space and time, beyond the laws of Nature, beyond the material, how can we know of its existence? After all, we can only know if something exists if we detect it, if we can demonstrate its reality, even if indirectly, like with electrons and other things too small for us to see. Otherwise, this existence is a fabrication, a fantasy. Even worse, if this cause actually manifests itself, say, through a 'vision' or some bizarre occurrence, it becomes a natural phenomenon, amenable to be studied by scientific methods. In other words, if some kind of god exists, it's impossible to know that it does. And to my mind, there is no other way of knowing. And don't give that 'love is here and you don't explain it' argument. Love is a concrete emotion, marked by clear physiological and psychological effects."


Religious Person: "You may quantify these feelings but you don't understand them. Not everything is about measuring, you know? Things aren't so simple, black and white, exists or doesn't. I understand that, according to the scientific method, something needs to be detected to be real. But consider this: no one knew about Uranus until it was discovered in 1781 by William Herschel. So, did Uranus exist before it was observed? I'd say yes, even if we didn't know about it. Science can't determine what doesn't exist, only what does."

Scientist: "But you can't, or shouldn't, compare God to a celestial object. From what I understand, His existence doesn't follow the laws of Nature. If it did, God would be a natural phenomenon, and wouldn't have this transcendent nature that you like so much and that is the cornerstone of your faith. If God "hides" in a parallel reality, He will never be part of science."

more at link

[immoderate]

1. Bullshit and god have much in common.

--imm

[cbayer]

2. Really? Like what exactly?

[immoderate]

5. They come from imagination.

--imm

[cbayer]

6. Bullshit comes from imagination? I always thought is came from bulls.

[immoderate]

9. Imagination is powerful.

When you encounter bullshit, it is dangerous to assume there must be a bull around. Granted, bulls can be dangerous too.

--imm

[cbayer]

10. Lol, might be best to assume there is a bull around then.

[immoderate]

11. Necessary, but not sufficient!

Reminds me of the story of the hunters, who came upon a set of tracks.

"These are deer tracks" said one.

"No, these are bear tracks" said the other.

They continued to argue vociferously, when suddenly they were run over by a train.

--imm

[cbayer]

12. Very funny and very apt.

[Speck Tater]

3. Now let's have a similar debate, but in a different venue.

Imagine you are dreaming.
Imagine that in this dream you meet a philosopher who tells you of another realm that exists outside of your dream.
Imagine that you scoff, and ask the philosopher where that realm could possibly be.
Imagine he says "that realm is outside your brain, but this realm is inside your brain, and thus the two can never meet. This smaller reality is within that larger reality, but that larger reality cannot be within this smaller reality."
You say "Nonsense. Such a realm must be a fantasy because it doesn't lie in this reality, and you can't point to the direction where it is located. If it's not part of reality then it cannot exist."
But the philosopher replies "Just wait until you awaken, my son. Then you shall see the reality of the waking world."
You are about to counter with yet another devastating bit of cold logic when you suddenly wake up.
"OMG!" you say to yourself. "The philosopher was right all along."

No matter how you try to argue the existence of a place that is other than physical reality, you can never present a convincing case that it exists. You have to wait until you awaken, after which you won't need proof. You will have experience.

I'm not saying this is true, and I'm not saying I believe it. I'm just saying that while neither proof nor evidence can exist in the situation I've outlined, there can be a coherent argument for the existence of a realm which is either discontinuous with "reality" or which is larger, in some sense, and which either contains "reality" as a subset, or causes "reality" without being a part of reality, much as a television set causes the latest episode of CSI to appear without being a part of CSI.

[cbayer]

4. Interesting argument.

There will never be proof nor evidence, as we currently understand those concepts, for the presence or non-presence of another level of existence. That's why arguments about it are fruitless.

And whether it is or isn't doesn't really matter in the long run. As long as you use your belief or lack of belief to promote good and not evil.

[Speck Tater]

7. That's why I'm an atheist.

All argument on the subject is pointless.
If there is an afterlife, I will find out for myself someday, as will we all. In the mean time, I have better things to do with my time.

[cbayer]

8. Makes sense to me. For some, their beliefs play a role in their life at this time.

For others, this is wholly unnecessary.

Whatever floats your boats and doesn't ram into any others.

[cleanhippie]

14. "Whatever floats your boats and doesn't ram into any others." If only religion allowed that.

I agree with you 100%. But it's organized religion that refuses to play by that rule.

[cleanhippie]

13. Ahh, but what is good and what is evil? Who decides?

That all depends on what the measuring stick is, right? In reality, it would seem that we use that which causes the least amount of harm or that which best improves the human condition a a measure of good, no? That is something that is observable and measurable.

The problem lies when the measuring stick is an ancient decree from a deity.

If we use reality instead of mythology to determine good from evil, we can really do more good.