Re: religion and the brain

From: Paul Bramscher (brams006_nospam_at_tc.umn.edu)
Date: 10/12/04 

Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:12:57 -0500

Phil Sherrod wrote:

> On 12-Oct-2004, Paul Bramscher <brams006_nospam@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm not sure it's all that dogmatic. To believe that things are
>>predestined, but that only a portion of their mechanics are available
>>with the most modern scientific techniques and perhaps that most may
>>never be known, seems consistent with empirical evidence.
>
>
> That's a point on which we have a fundamental disagreement. My belief and
> understanding of modern physics (I have a degree in physics) is that there
> are at some levels inherent uncertainties that can never be determined.
> It's not a matter of not having accurate enough equipment and methods; the
> uncertainty is a fundamental property of nature. In addition, there are
> truly random events -- not like a pseudo-random number sequence from a
> computer -- but unpredictably random in a profound and fundamental nature.
> The exact period between decaying radioactive isotopes is an example of
> this. While you can measure and compute the average rate of decay, there is
> no way to predict exactly when the next decay will occur. (This would be
> the time between the pops you hear from a Geiger counter.)
>
>
>>As science progresses and casts more light on
>>procedures/mechanics/phenomena which were once shrouded in ignorance,
>>the "free-" person is left holding a bag with a leak. As we learn more
>>about the workings of nature, your bag of "free" things is increasingly
>>emptied. Readings in the history of science will illustrate this point
>>time after time.
>
>
> My view is exactly the opposite. Classical physics postulated that
> everything ran like clockwork. But as science has progressed it is becoming
> clear that there is inherent unpredictability -- and even paradoxes -- in
> nature. The universe is more than a wind-up machine. Science is showing us
> that the universe is much more complex than our ancestors believed.
>
>
>>And so, we should immediately dispense with the word free -- by your own
>>reasoning (as well as mine). Partially free is not the same as free.
>>In fact, "partially free" is the complete opposite of free.
>
>
> I believe you were the person who introduced total freedom. I see a
> framework with constraints in which free actions can take place. But freedom
> with constraints it very different from predestined existence.
>
>
>>In any case, I personally have a hard time coming to grips with a
>>completely unintelligible theory to me, one that I cannot (remotely)
>>confirm myself, and one which produces experts in great disagreement
>>with one another and some extremely counter-intuitive conclusions.
>
>
> OK, that's an honest admission that I respect. But aren't there experts who
> defend and deny free will? I believe with some effort we could come up with
> some on both sides. Since you have somewhat of an open mind about QM, why
> are you so adamant about free will? And, yes, I agree that some of the
> conclusions and consequences of QM are counter-intuitive; the same is true
> about Relativity, but that doesn't mean that they are wrong.
>
>
>>In many ways, I hold QM to be little more believable than
>>mythology/religion.
>
>
> Does that mean that you also have an open mind about religion or that you
> have a closed mind toward QM?

I prefer empirical verifiability, and reject mathematical proof and
religion alike as sufficient grounds in themselves for the existence of
physical objects or phenomena.

You might call it close-minded, I prefer to call it open-eyed and
open-eared.

>
>
>>I don't have this problem in other sciences. I understand evolution,
>
>
> If you really understand evolution you need to explain it to the rest of the
> world. I'm not talking about natural selection and survival of the fittest,
> I want to hear your explanation for spontaneous generation of
> self-replicating life from minerals.
>
> Have you ever studied the incredible complexity of the simplest living and
> self-replicating organisms? In order for evolution to work, you have to have
> a mechanism for passing on genetic information -- DNA/RNA. Do you know
> anything about the complexity of how DNA/RNA divide and work? It is not
> simple. In fact, when you really study it you find that there is a complex
> factory inside every cell where DNA is selectively split apart, RNA is
> matched up and sent to ribosomes which assemble proteins, then the protein
> strands have to go into machines that fold them into the right shape, then
> the pieces of protein have to be transported to the correct assembly point
> where they are joined in the right order. It is literally as complex as a
> modern factory. And this takes place in even the simplest living organism.
>
> If you take away any of the components -- DNA, the machines that split it,
> the RNA, the ribosones or the transport agents, then none of it works, you
> don't have replication that passes on genetic information, and the whole
> process of evolution breaks down.
>
> So my question to you is how this complex factory got started from
> free-floating minerals. You need all of the pieces for it to work as well
> as all of the supporting components for nutrition of the cell, elimination,
> protection, etc. How do you go from a mixture of minerals to a full factory
> with complex interdependent parts? And remember, until the factory is
> working evolution can't kick in because you don't have genetic information
> being replicated and passed on. So you can't use evolution to explain how
> the factory got built.

I won't answer this on grounds that I don't think you *want* any answer
to it whatsoever.

There are numerous theories, most of them fairly easily understood
though not yet experimentally confirmed, and available on the internet.
  For example, here's about 2,000 sources from NASA:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22origin+of+life%22+site%3A.nasa.gov&btnG=Search

Relevant Pages

  • Re: AC fails to turn the non sequitur, "anti-darwin skepticism necessitates
    ... Stalin rejected genetics, but accepted subatomic physics. ... Please back up this claim by citing a single atheist who claims that skepticism about neoDarwinism requires the rejection of science. ... But if you want an analogy to the way physicists view general relativity, it wouldn't be rejection of evolution, but an idea that our current theories don't explain everything. ... darwinism is false based upon discordant facts is on much firmer ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Opinions on Carvin basses?
    ... Natural selection is virtually a certainty. ... only people who disagree are those who know nothing about science. ... NOT support the "Theory of Evolution", ... Mine's in physics. ...
    (alt.guitar.bass)
  • Re: ID Kidding Whom?
    ... Berlinski quite explicitly denied ... > evolution were called useless by him, ... > remains against science. ... > So if we stick with physics, we're wrong, and if it isn't high ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: religion and the brain
    ... understanding of modern physics is that there ... If you really understand evolution you need to explain it to the rest of the ... factory inside every cell where DNA is selectively split apart, ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Evolution and Observation Gap
    ... science like Evolution by equating it with a hard science like physics. ... The events we observe in ASTROphysics ...
    (talk.origins)