Re: On Religion, confessions of a deist

From: Hypatia Kosh (Phillips.66.berliv2_at_spamgourmet.com)
Date: 12/05/04 

Date: 5 Dec 2004 13:31:27 -0800

pseudonymicus <who@what.where> wrote in message news:<10r5aqdf9oap0f9@corp.supernews.com>...
> For what its worth, here is a possible scientific scenario:
<<blah blah blah>>

> A science group is funded to investigate religion.
> 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.

Um ... apparently you failed World Civilizations in high school.

> 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.

Yup, all very interesting. The only problem is that all we have to go
on is a fantastical, hodge-podge text, written long after the alleged
time of the alleged events it recounts.

Historians run across such texts all the time. A historian does not
consider the Bible's fantastic claims any more credible than Pliny's,
or the Vedas'.
 
> More can be said, but this is enough for the moment.

You could say less, too. Worth a try.
 
> The question is now how to proceed. We cannot establish the validity of
> these records, though we can establish their antiquity.

To the extent that they make FACTUAL CLAIMS, yes we CAN.

The Bible is littered with references to other groups and rulers in
Mesopotamia. Good archeology has shown that the majority of these
references are erroneous, and claims of the Hebrew's conquest of
neighbors and "exile" in Egypt cannot be substatiated.

Incidently, when "establish[ing] their antiquity," Biblical scholars
found out that they seem to appear around 700BCE, MUCH later than
Egyptian texts.

> To some extent
> we can validate some of the specifics of these writings archaeologically,
> and so far as I know,

So far as you know, yes ...

> 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.

Unfortunately, discrepencies DO abound. At this point you lose all
credibility in my book. A quick trip to the university library will
disabuse you of these notions.

It's pointless to theorize on false premises. YOUR DATA IS FAULTY.

<<blah blah blah, speculating on bad data, sounds like a journalist
talking about cold fusion>>

> 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.

That's a howler--you go on for 10 non-commital paragraphs, spinning
confused tales about string theory and "non-physical reality".

Let's start with basics. The "solid" atom is an illusion created by
forcefields. What we perceive to be solid matter is simply that which
is held together by chemical bonds. 99.99% of a solid oak table is
empty space. You can't pass through it because you're made up of
protons and electrons too. Neutrinos, which have no electrical charge
and virtually no mass, pass quite easily through not only the table,
but the center of the Earth. This is not a problem for modern Physics!
 
> 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.

Bull***.

> That said, it is not the continuing validation of this article of faith
> that occupies current science at the bleeding edge.

You sound like one of those people who think that violations of parity
mean that Star Trek is real.

> It is where our
> current model of Physics as it explains that article of faith breaks
> down.

Balderdash.

> 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.

True.

> Where our understanding breaks down, we patch and adjust until our
> notion, our "standard model", crumbles, having lost any hope of
> consistency and integrity.

Yep, violation of parity really DOES have your knickers in a bunch.

> When that happens, we strive to discover
> from the evidence of what is real what the nature and essence of that
> reality actually is.

A fool's errand.

> 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.

Again, true.
 
> 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.

Hm. Now there's an interesting assertion. I went to a talk given by Ed
Witten, the major brain trust behind string theory, about five years
ago. He claimed at the time that string theory had yet to make ONE
prediction that experimentalists could test. AFAIK that has not
changed.

In my experience, experimentalists have PLENTY of avenues of
exploration and are advancing new data and hypotheses for theorists to
chew on all the time. On the other hand, experimentalists generally
IGNORE string theorists because, while the model is conceptually
pretty, it's computationally horrendous and it has no predictive
power, except in domains which are out of our reach.

> 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,

Yes.

> but they do not appear to emerge from a common meta-reality.

Now you've gone and confused mathematical models with the observed
behavior of tiny beasties again. *Sigh*

> Enter the multiple universe notions.

Um, that's the Copenhagen interpretation. Has to do with quantum
uncertainty and predates string theory by, oh, 40 years.

> In short, the
> old idea that the atomic universe must be universal has now been
> accepted as at least potentially invalid.

Erg, as best I understand it, string theory is completely monist, in
fact *more so than current models*.

After all, the modern physics says that electrons and photons and
bosons are all "stuff" but they're somewhat different species of
"stuff". Whereas string theory claims that they're all
interchangeable.

> 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.

String theory says that an electron is a loop vibrating at a specific
energy level (I take it that this is a superposition of orthonormal
"frequencies", but I'm kind of guessing off what I was told). How is
this "beyond" "atomic reality"? Oh wait, you never quite figured out
that "atomic reality" is an illusion of the classical domain. Right.
 
> So "non-physical realities" that are open to human experience are no
> longer thought to be proscribed.

What sort of exotic substance is within the human body that allows a
human being to perceive that which other instruments cannot?

Please provide some evidence for this extraordinary claim.

> One of those is that a "non-physical" reality probably does exist,

In your mind.

> whether or not we have a clue as to what it might be.

So what?

> And that is
> enough to satisfy the first (of many) stages of an investigation into
> the second attribute of religion.

A "non-physical" reality, which we cannot be investigated through
physical means, but can be strangely "perceived" by the human being as
a sort of cosmic receptor, has deep importance for religion ... oh, I
give up.

> At least we can suppose that it does
> not comprise that which "mankind was never meant to know".

You know, you didn't even do a good job of knocking down your own
strawman. Minus points there, buddy.
 
> 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.

Spells written by Egyptian priests thousands of years ago are evidence
that human beings have an "extra-physical" perception?!

By the way, if you can show that humans have extra-physical
perception, you're eligible for James Randi's Million Dollar prize.
http://www.randi.org/

> Nothing further is accomplished here,

Now there's an understatement.

> > 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.

It does. It is roughly dismissed. Next!
 
> 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.

Yep. Flush the "soul" concept down the toilet.

> But there is
> more.

No, really? You wouldn't disappoint me by stopping there. Of course
not.
 
<<snip useless references to other people's silly ideas>>

> > 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.

Pathetic and far-too-late superioristic posturing noted.

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

"Of interest to science" includes things which do not exist. Before
you soar to the heights of theory, filter out the crap! Duh!
 
> On the basis of what is posted here, I doubt this site is worth a look
> in any case.

Neither is anything you've said.

> This has been a speculative response. I've no intention of pursuing a
> discussion here, and probably will not post here again.

Of course not; you have nothing to say (and say it badly).

> Nevertheless,
> it seemed to me that something other than the "drivel/idiot" thread that
> inevitably follows this sort of thing might be possible.

I see; you must have had prior experience posting utter nonsense.
 
> 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.

No response is possible for you, because what you say is useless at
best and laughably incorrect at worst.

> 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.

If you knew more about archeology and history, it might have been
worth the effort.

> Science
> is not concerned with human mythology, but with the nature and essence
> of the objective universe.

Fantasy novels don't usually suggest much in the way of useful avenues
for scientific investigation, but you never know.
 
> 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.

But as the saying goes, Garbage In, Garbage Out.

> 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.

*Yawn*

-Hypatia Kosh 

--
"Hail Hypatia, Queen of Supercilliousness." -- Kapitan Quirk
Quantcast