Re: On Religion, confessions of a deist

From: pseudonymicus (who_at_what.where)
Date: 12/05/04 

Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 06:31:41 -0000

On 2004-12-04, Mike Helland <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Religion

In a physics news group? What is your purpose here?
 
> 1. God

<snip>

Common and institutionalized misrepresentation of science, offered for
reasons only known to the poster. Central argument seems to be that
there are some things mankind was never meant to know.

For what its worth, here is a possible scientific scenario:

A science group is funded to investigate religion. After some amount of
time and effort to get a handle on the matter in terms of the work of
others, it is decided that religion can be initially divided into a
couple common issues: 1) The existence of deities. 2) The existence
of a non physical realm open to human experience (under certain
conditions).

This roughly reflects the OP's presentation.

1) What is the evidence for the existence of deities? The answer is
obvious: written records purporting to chronicle and describe them and
their presence, though of what nature they are is difficult to
determine. So far as I know, no other evidence is known to exist, so
let us address these writings.

What is described is the existence of what can only be regarded as human
beings with unknown technology and an indeterminate life span. It
appears that they have some common background, some common progenitor
and/or place of origin. Their historical presence appears to have ended
at some point in the first millennium BC; their origin or arrival is
said to have predated the rise of humanity as a "civilized" primate.

An important aspect of their technology was the ability to observe from
some unknown distance, thus presumably acquiring real time knowledge of
affairs and events without being observably present. Also strongly
implied is a capability to act at a distance, to participate
non-locally. No coherent explanation of this technology is offered, so
far as we can now discern.

More can be said, but this is enough for the moment.

The question is now how to proceed. We cannot establish the validity of
these records, though we can establish their antiquity. To some extent
we can validate some of the specifics of these writings archaeologically,
and so far as I know, little of these writings have been positively
invalidated, shown to be in error in those matters we can can check,
though discrepencies in details abound. While we cannot authenticate
any particular writing, chronicle, and/or account, we can apply some
first level checks.

We can discern that, with regard matters we can understand, very little
evidence exists to support the rejection of these writings as being
necessarily fanciful. The authors appear to be quite as intelligent and
perceptive of the reality of themselves and their environment as any
given common man in today's street. What they don't understand, they
describe as best they can. Therefore the assumption that these writings
are the work of primitive and unintelligent people has little basis.

So if we apply the usual principles, we are led to posit our first
protohypotheses on the basis that we're looking at factual accounts,
probably reliable in general if not in specifics. No other approach is
possible without assumptions that must require their own foundation and
validation.

As we regard this evidence, we are struck by the fact that we are indeed
looking at nothing we cannot even comprehend: a small remnant of a
human society possessing unknown technology. We can even imagine a
post-apocalyptic future that leaves our descendents severely diminished
but still in possession of a technology that cannot be sustained by
those who do not understand same. The part about the indeterminate
lifespan is probably trivial, given what we already know about the
mechanics of these matters.

So, our group of scientists, having inspected the primary evidence and
ignored the subsequent flood of commentary, analysis and interpretation,
arrive at their first tentative take on the matter of the deities. They
are arguably human, and are in no way beyond the possibility of human
comprehension.

What our group of scientists has not done is to take up as relevant any
material not of primary nature, and has thus avoided involvement with
the humungous mass of supposition and assumption that forms the basis of
modern religions. Accordingly, our group has established that the first
of the two relevant matters lies well within the scope of investigation.

> 2. Afterlife

This approximates the second fundamental matter of religion: the
existence of a non-physical reality that is open to human experience.
Our group of scientists can dispose of this matter with dispatch.

One of the traditional articles of faith that scientists have held, and
have carried forth as a matter of first test in any new realm of
investigation, is that matter as we know it is present everywhere. And
so far, this has proven to be the case. In fact, it would appear that
much about our universe is consistent with Physics as we now know it.

That said, it is not the continuing validation of this article of faith
that occupies current science at the bleeding edge. It is where our
current model of Physics as it explains that article of faith breaks
down. Thus, the most dramatic modern science addresses the unknown with
but a single assumption: what we don't know must be consistent with
what we do know, though how so is a matter to be determined. It is an
assumption that underlies all science, because it is on that basis that
we further our comprehension and understanding of ourselves and our
environment.

Where our understanding breaks down, we patch and adjust until our
notion, our "standard model", crumbles, having lost any hope of
consistency and integrity. When that happens, we strive to discover
from the evidence of what is real what the nature and essence of that
reality actually is. And we fiddle with it until our preceeding
understanding is subsumed in a new model that continues to satisfy the
two fundamental requirements, sufficiency and necessity.

Traditionally, it has been the experimentalists who have led us into
unknown areas. But now, the work of the experimentalists has become so
expensive that they are constrained to looking where the theorists have
come to agree is most worth the resources and effort. So the theorists
have now come to guide our efforts. This has had profound results.

Now we contemplate the nature of "reality" that does not fundamentally
comprise traditional atom based physicality. For nearly a century, we
have had both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, neither of which are
intuitively recognizable. Both are "models" from which accurate and
precise predictions of experimental investigations have been produced,
but they do not appear to emerge from a common meta-reality. So now we
contemplate the existence of such "realities" that a) do not necessarily
support the atomic model, but b) can be described as consistent in some
manner with those that do.

Enter the multiple universe notions. Colliding "branes", and "worm
holes", etc, are products of this new direction of work. In short, the
old idea that the atomic universe must be universal has now been
accepted as at least potentially invalid. All that is asked is that
whatever else exists is somehow either co-existent with our atomic
reality, or that it enables us to perceive that reality as embracing
more than we currently recognize.

So "non-physical realities" that are open to human experience are no
longer thought to be proscribed. There is a school of thought in
science that has it that what is not forbidden, must somehow exist. At
the moment, such a "reality" is not known to be forbidden, and we can
draw what conclusions we like.

One of those is that a "non-physical" reality probably does exist,
whether or not we have a clue as to what it might be. And that is
enough to satisfy the first (of many) stages of an investigation into
the second attribute of religion. At least we can suppose that it does
not comprise that which "mankind was never meant to know".

Note that nothing other than the attribute of non-physicality has been
included here. Egyptian antiquity is probably the most coherent source
of written evidence for this attribute, though no particular of that is
used. We can include Egyptian antiquity here because of the compelling
evidence that it is the source of our modern western religions: Mosaic
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Nothing further is accomplished here, except to determine that these
matters may well emerge within the purview of science at some point.

> 3. The Soul

<snip>

Well, this is probably a corollary concern of non-physical reality in
these investigations: how is all this immediately relevant to humanity?
Is it possible that this matter emerges as well within the purview of
science?

The answer, I think, may well be yes.

We are now in the process of investigating the human brain at a level
that reveals to us the mechanisms involved, and we are discovering that
much of "traditional" psychology comprises what must be acknowledge as
astute and perceptive observations about the human psyche. But there is
more.

In the last decade of the 20th century, Roger Penrose was involved in an
investigation into what has been called Quantum Neurodynamics. Penrose
is not one to put effort where it must be fruitless, even though there
are those that speak of Penrose's "toilings". Suffice it to say that as
far as we now know, the existence of a human "quantum" reality is not
forbidden, or so I'm given to understand.

I would venture the opinion, however, that Tipler's efforts to
popularize his Omega Theory constitute the basis of a likely premise for
a science fiction thema, and does not serve it's evidently intended
purpose.

> 4. Conclusion
>
> Some would argue that this discourse On Religion is incomplete; I have not
> mentioned morality or the purpose and meaning of our lives. However I do not
> agree that these important discussions fall exclusively in the domain of
> religion and thus are covered elsewhere.

I would argue that this discourse is not only incomplete, but without
any perceivable foundation open to scientific investigation. Thus this
entire post is without value in this venue.

> I think the topics I have discussed are primarily of interest to religion
> and that my arguments give an adequate defense of my chosen world-view of
> deism.

Well, they probably do. That is, however, of no arguable interest to
science itself.

> * http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm

On the basis of what is posted here, I doubt this site is worth a look
in any case. But then I guess I've my own notions about these things.

This has been a speculative response. I've no intention of pursuing a
discussion here, and probably will not post here again. Nevertheless,
it seemed to me that something other than the "drivel/idiot" thread that
inevitably follows this sort of thing might be possible.

If there is any response to this at all, it's most likely to be from the
"idiot" contingent, denigrating my "scientific conclusions". To that
contingent, no response has value. Nevertheless, some closing comments.

No conclusions are drawn here, only a determination of the possibility
of some first steps in a legitimate investigation of the material upon
which western religion is based. Note that these religions themselves
are not the subject of discussion, for they are well understood to be
political constructs for the achievement of political agenda. Science
is not concerned with human mythology, but with the nature and essence
of the objective universe.

Physics and the hard sciences address the physical universe. Science
itself is a methodology by which we strive to avoid fooling ourselves
about matters of interest. It can be used in any investigation, and I
have supposed that it's use is valid here. In view of the traditional
hooraw between "science" and "religion", perhaps this response is
appropriate. 

-- 
Usenet anonymity: HazMat suit!