Re: The scientist as idiot

On 2 Mar, 01:08, John Polasek <jpola...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 12:44:22 -0800 (PST), juandiego





<sttscitr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 1 Mar, 20:04, John Polasek <jpola...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 11:22:19 -0800 (PST), juandiego

<sttscitr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 1 Mar, 17:59, John Polasek <jpola...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 04:32:53 -0800 (PST), juandiego

<sttscitr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 27 Feb, 06:13, WxWizard <WxWiza...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 27, 5:52 am, WxWizard <WxWiza...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 27, 2:07 am, RLW <rlwatk...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 05:20:21 -0800, lal_al wrote:
I recently read Freeman Dyson's The scientist as rebel.  This is a
collection of book reviews.  I found some of the reviews to be
interesting, but what caught my attention was two things.  Mr. Dyson is
pro-religion, and he believes in ESP.  While the first thing may be
excused as lots of otherwise intelligent people also fall into this
trap, I was very suprised, to say the least, that he believes in ESP.

Science is the search for truth, and I believe that there is no place in
science for gods and people with special powers.  What is your opinion?

Al Lal

What is wrong with religion?  As long as it serves as a means of coming
to terms with things one can't otherwise grasp, and as long as it is not
used to justify cruelty or stupidity, what harm comes from the comfort
that it provides to some people?

What is wrong with ESP?  Once the "extra-sensory" is either understood or
disproved, it ceases to be extra-sensory and moves into the purview
either of physiology or fiction.  Recall how alchemy, a form of magic,
evolved into chemistry.

Intelligence and imagination can lead to rampant mental-model-building,
which sometimes ventures into the realm of fanciful.  Mr. Dyson's record
of accomplishment proves that he can keep the fanciful separate from the
factual.  So he's entitled.

Never posted here before, but it looks like a nice place..

For the most part I concur. Although I make a distinction between
religion and spirituality. Religion can sometimes lead to a spiritual
experience, but more often that not it is too burdened with 'issues'
to be really helpful.

An entertaining concept to consider the possible linkage between
science and spirituality. If you decide for yourself that there is a
God of the Universe, then it would be a natural interest for a person
of science to want to understand God in a deeper and broader sense
than what we can discern from religion and scriptures. Einstein made
it no secret that one of his strongest motivations was 'to understand
the mind of God'. As I've gotten a bit old and have slightly more time
to think, I too find myself gravitating toward the same curiosity.

Replying to myself..

Have you ever wondered about how fundamental matter could have lead to
the existence of the universe. The more we learn about particle
physics and cosmology the more we find out that matter and the
interactions that it creates are unbelievably complex. And the fact
that all this matter can organize itself into everything from bacteria
to planets, stars and galaxies is simply too incredible to explained
away as a random coincidence. No, I believe the universe was create by
a being of profound intellect. For lack of a better analogy, I see the
fundamental physics of the universe as kind of a computer program.
Somehow God was able to program the 'physics' such that the universe
naturally grew to become what it is. Kind of like 'making' a first
seed and having it blossom into a flower.- Hide quoted text -

If the complexity of the universe is so great that it
needs the agency of a creator to explain it, why doesn't
the existence of a similarly complex entity like a creator not
need a similar explanation ?

What kind of a nonsequitur is that? Where is it written that you are
owed an explanation of anything?
Suffice it to say if you're not astounded by what you see, especially
in DNA biology, then you haven't looked about you, and you're only
qualified to ask superficial questions.

I'll restore what you have clipped:
"Take a look athttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/science/24chromatin.html?_r=2&pagew...
where they describe that the billion-digit DNA code in each cell is
wound around protein spools so as not to get tangled, and where the
spools can loosen and tighten to allow or disallow access to the
code".

I've no idea what you mean by "owed" an explanation.
The nonsequitirs are all yours.
How does a particular level of astonishment determine
the profundity of one's questions ?
I'm astonished by your incoherence. My questions
are therefore appropriately profound.

To confront your gripe:
" that it needs the agency
of a creator" to CREATE it, as evidenced by the DNA story that you
expunged and not diminished in the least by your failure to grasp.  
And whose obligation is it to explain it to you? and what are you
going to do when you find out?
Why not simply state what is clearly your guiding principle that all
this just happened by chance and see if you can make it stick?

You are writing English, but I have no idea what you are talking
about.
I wasn't aware I had a "gripe"
You seem to have some "idee fixe" about being obliged to
explain something or another.
I never asked you to explain anything in the first place.
I gather that the complexity of the natural word and DNA
in particular has you in a state of wonder and astonishment,
but what conclusions are you drawing from your ineffable rapture ?
I'm also not sure what it is precisely I am supposed to be failing to
grasp.

That there had to be a Creator of course.

I see now. You have completely misunderstood what I was saying.
I was simply repeating the religionists "from his works ye shall know
Him"
argument and pointing out that it is insufficient. Others pointed out
the infinite regress and obviously, even if you accept the implicit
premises of the argument, it certainly does not demonstate the
existence of a single creator or even that this single creator still
exits.
I suppose that's where the angels come in.

Stranegly enough, the Dr. Reverend Polkinghorne was on
BBC radio 4 this morning touting his new book, whose title I have
forgotten.
Supposedly, he is big in quantum mechanics and was using the argument
that quantum mechanics is counter-intuitive and yet true as an
argument that makes the "God hypothesis" more likely
He also uses the argument that "God's works" are evidence of God's
existence.
But as no-one has ever seen god creating anything, how does
anyone know what a creation of god looks like ?


The complexity of the
universe IS so great as evidenced for one by a DNA code of several
billion digits. Since you don't seem impressed with the complexity,
why would the "agency of a creator" help convince you?

It doesn't. Awe and wonder don't impress me as an argument either.
Natural phenomena like storms, thunder and lightening awed
the Romans, but I presume that thunder does not impress you as much as
DNA etc. Why not ? What point are you making ?

And suppose you were thus persuaded, and gave it your benediction,
would that be our signal that the universe can now proceed?
This is too sophomoric.

I don't know about sophomoric, as the only argument you are
having is with yourself "solipsistic" seems more appropriate.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The logic of atheism
    ... ``real'' and /does/ directly interact with the universe is beyond ... If you'd care to take a whack at it, try this one: ``All but God ... theistic argument for a supreme creator and see where it leads. ... But Grand-God's own existence ...
    (talk.atheism)
  • Re: Universes, was Re: Venus- why not a good planet to view?
    ... >If you want to invoke some kind of creator to "explain" how the ... >universe came to be, you're really replacing a hard problem - the ... Did SuperGod create God. ... And religions stock answer to everything "Because God made it so" has ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Methodological Materialism and Philosophical Materialism
    ... scientific explanation for the origin of the laws of nature and the ... the concept of a creator of the universe. ... or the creator is actually the Invisible Pink ... You have not demonstrated that emotional preference for a belief in God ...
    (talk.origins)
  • God: The Failed Hypothesis
    ... Physicist Victor Stenger has just served up a second course of delectable arguments for the non-existence of God. ... The Failed Hypothesis, Stenger runs through the standard rational and biological arguments against any sort of meaningful deity, but he does much more. ... In plain, easily understood language, Stenger lays out the evidence from cosmology, particle physics and quantum mechanics showing that the universe appears exactly as it should if there is no creator. ...
    (soc.culture.indonesia)
  • Re: The scientist as idiot
    ... collection of book reviews. ... God of the Universe, then it would be a natural interest for a person ... where they describe that the billion-digit DNA code in each cell is ...
    (sci.physics)