Science vs.? Intelligent Design?

[K89]

I'm among the people who thing "religiosity," at least as far as spirituality is concerned, is not mutually exclusive of scientific thought, and I feel I ought to preface my commentary with Einstein's eloquent reflection:

"[....] it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research. But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe — spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive [....]"

The organization and, dare I say, perfection of some of the patterns of nature as discovered (and frequently upended by) science inspire awe, and to some they inspire belief. I personally cannot study physiology without feeling some wonder at how amazing it is that we even function. Perhaps this is why the likes of Darwin, Einstein, and in some ways, Newton, were deists.

That being said, faith is just that--FAITH. Something you follow blindly. We don't follow history, science, math, language, or any other primary school subjects blindly, so why should "Intelligent Design" even be considered a challenge to evolution? It simply doesn't fit in with the curriculum.

 

[Sukerkin]

Excellent sequences of posts, Arnisador and EH, tho' perhaps we could do without the BS flags (unless intended humorously). I do understand the exasperation that draws them forth but they don't help particularly when structuring an argument.

For myself, I've been on the fence for a long time about this issue, neither 'side' having had a convincing argument for me when it comes to how the whole process got started.

However, in recent months, I've been exposed to the experimental evidence for the formation of self-replicating molecules and how there is an observable drive towards increasing complexity over time. Also, the oft quoted "odds against" such things are meaningless as they are posited upon the chance of something happening at any given instant and place. When globally you have trillions of reactions per second happening over millions of years then astronomical 'odds' suddenly don't seem so unlikely. Especially when you allow for the facts that the Earth might not be the only place with the right conditions and that what we have long thought of as 'life' can take many more forms than we gave it credit for.

That is enough to tweak my investigative nose to learn more about the subject, which is vaster than I imagined, as it's become clear that my indecision has largely been caused by my own misconceptions about the science viz I thought I knew enough to reject a non-theistic causation for life beginning but I truly did not .

 

[morph4me]

We perceive matter and energy and a material universe. We do not perceive a Creator-God. Why would it be more rational to postulate something we cannot perceive for something we can? At least without very convincing evidence.

Apparently there are people who do percieve a Creator-God, it's a matter of interpretation. You can argue facts all you want, but you're wasting you're time arguing beliefs.

 

[jkembry]

Apparently there are people who do percieve a Creator-God, it's a matter of interpretation. You can argue facts all you want, but you're wasting you're time arguing beliefs.

Absolutely True! Although, I must say that over time...beliefs do change - mine included.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

This argument or debate is always fascinating.

However there are some interesting dynamics here. On one side you have a scientific theory that while having flaws has been shown to viable. So viable that creationists are now using it in conjunction with creationism. :ergif you can't beat them then join them) On the other side you have faith. No proof, simply faith. Who is right and who is wrong? Well we know that evolution as a scientific theory is not going away until it is disproved. (good luck with that) We also know that faith is not going away either. That is what makes this debate entertaining in that neither side can ever satisfy the other. So in the end it is and will be a stale mate. Not that one side is better than the other though I fall with the evolutionary theory. Just that neither side can really win because well both sides are entrenched. One with Science and the other with Faith!

So have at it but do so in a friendly manner!

 

[FearlessFreep]

Couplea notes in here because there's lotsa interesting things to respond to and I don't want to go crazy.

First off, I'm a Christian.

"Theistic Evolutionist" - I don't think the term is that important. No more so then saying "Theistic Aerodynamics" or "Theistic Gravity". The two are really talking about two things. "Evolutionist" just means you believe that evolution happens, which should not be any more interesting than believing gravity happens but, there you go. "Theistic" just means that you believe in a theistic variation of a god (ok, granted we are usually talking about the judeo-christian concept of God, but, it's a term...) Most Theists believe that the world is what it is because of the way God setup the rules from the beginning and they run without interruption or interference. To be logically consistent, that should apply to evolution as well as gravity.

Now here's the part I have a problem with Creationists and Intelligent Designer proponents. Basically, what you are saying is God screwed up. One of the positions that made a lot of modern scientific thought possible early on in it's development was the idea that God is not capricious. The world runs on it's own, God is not messing around in aerodynamics minute to minute to keep some planes up and make others fall... he's not fussing around with gravity so that some things fall faster than others, etc...From a theist point of view, scientific discovery is possible *because* God doesn't get involved with the process. When scientists were still theists, that was understood, and I think theists today should remember that, because the same God who was clever enough to set up aerodynamics to work should be clever enough to set up evolution to work, without interference. So when you start peeking in biology to try to find the 'holes' in evolution to say "ah ha, God was here", your are essentially looking to say "Ah, ha...God was here, because I found where he screwed up originally and had to fix it" You are looking for evidence of God in God's mistakes.. People don't spend time looking for such evidence of God's screw-ups in studying weather or the mechanics of the stars and planets or such, why do they spend so much time looking for it in cell structures and bird wings and such? If you believe in God, you should know that the same God that made Bernoulli possible also made Darwin possible and get on with it.

So... back to the tale The term ""theistic evolutionist" is really a term that rationally shouldn't exist, but because of all the supposed heat between 'science' and 'religion' I guess it must.

"Faith" - Faith is an interesting concept and I think it means a lot more then most people bother to consider. To start with, to take a religious view of faith, or more precisely a Christian view of faith, when faith is mentioned in the bible, it is not about "blind belief" but based on evidence and experience. The way faith is used has the connotation of "I have faith in what God will do in the future based on what I have seen God do in the past" The New Testament especially is written from the point of view of people who were there and saw the events. YOu may think the writers were wrong n what they thought they saw, you may even think they didn't even really right it, but the overarching message there is that the New Testament talks of faith in a way that the Christian thought of 'faith' should be "because of what you have seen and experienced in the past, you have faith in what will happen in the future"

This is nothing special, my belief in my wife's integrity and character is based on my experience with her, and my faith in how she will act in the future is based on that faith in her personality. That 'faith' is not a 'blind belief' but is based on the evidence and experience of my wife in my life.

Most Christians, most religious people do not come to a religious belief based on sort 'blind hopeful obedience' but rather a reflection on experiences in their own life which they feel provides adequate personal evidence in the existence of... something else (God, Jesus, etc..., whatever...). They may be wrong, they may be reading their own desires or fears into their interpretations of the events in their lives or in others, but that belief is at least based on perceived evidence.

This is not really any different then how we conduct our lives on a day to day basis, in our trust in our friends and instructors and our confidence that are car will not break down on the way to work.

Which is actually not far from the scientific method, just less rigorous. Observe, observe, predict, observe, conclude, correct. Mechanical laws are predictable, repeatable, and transferable, social interactions are not nearly so to the same level of exactness. Most religious belief is very akin to a social interaction in that vein.

I think the supposed conflict between 'science' and 'faith' is much more a fabrication by those (on both sides) who try to make each 'side' say more than it is. One will say "I have a formula that describes gravity ina totally mechanical way which means gravity can be explained without resorting to the supernatural which means the supernatural is not needed which means God doesn't exist", to which I say "well, duhh!!!!" for most of it (that the supernatural is not needed to explain gravity). Now the theist/believer takes offense at this and says "well I still have faith that God exists" and forgets what that faith is based on. So the scientist tries to get a mechanical law to say more than it can and the believer goes searching for holes in the science and there becomes animosity and conflict where none really is.

 

[punisher73]

A couple of points I thought I would bring up. My first day in philosophy class the professor said, "I am going to prove that God does not exist" because that is what everyone says philosophy and science does. He then stated to exist you must occupy space and time. God does neither of those things, so God does not exist. You can not measure God, or if God does or does not exist.

So trying to apply science to something that can't be measured is just a waste of time as we understand the scientific method. We all understand the concept of love and know that it exists but how does science measure that? How does science replicate that?

The second point I would like to bring up and it is a peeve of mine is when Christians create and believe in the "God of the gaps". That is, "well science can't explain X, so it proves there is a God." What happens when science explains X, does that prove there is no God, or does your God shrink a little bit?

I think it is a better view that the creation story was a story to help people understand that God put things in motion and the part he plays in our lives and not a LITERAL play by play of what happened. To me science and creation/intelligent design are not mutually exclusive.

The last thing is even before evolution took place, where did the energy come from that existed for the big bang to occur? God said "Let there be light...and there was."

 

[Andrew Green]

The theory of macro evolution, that one species transformed into a completely different species, is unsupported by ANY scientific evidence. Creationists explain it with a biblical God. Intelligent Design proponents explain it with an unknown, intelligent, powerful being. Darwinists exaggerate changes within a species to suggest that an actual change of species is possible.

No, there is a butt load of supporting evidence and predictions which where later confirmed to be accurate. That's why evolution gets to be called a "theory".

Here is a starting point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

The "there is no evidence" claim is made by creationists because macro-evolution (the micro / macro divide isn't really seen by scientists) cannot be observed in a lab, the time required is too great. But it ignores all sorts of other evidence across different branches of science that leads to the same conclusion.

No amount of scientific study will result in any conclusive proof. The fossil record is used by both sides to support their theory.

There is no dispute in the scientific community, evolution is confirmed through observation, experimentation and prediction. No amount of scientific study will ever convince those that have faith in a holy book that claims otherwise though.

Anyway, I did not wanted to be grouped in with that generalization. I would be interested in seeing someone to take a new look at the scientific evidence without referencing any established theories...maybe they would come up with a new alternative.

Who knows?

I don't think you really understand how much evidence there is for evolution, the only reason any other explanation exists is coming from a 2000+ year old old text. At this point saying evolution is not occurring is like claiming radio waves don't exist, at least when looking at the issue from a scientific POV.

Now, I will admit that religion will always find a way around such evidence if it needs to. I've even seen it claimed that all of the evidence was put there by the devil to confuse us. But the evidence is very much in support of evolution, not creationism. Whether or not some creator started the process, or whether the evidence was placed by a malicious being to trick us, well, people can decide that for themself.


I'm sorry but when I punch in "Evidence creationism" into google, the top result has stuff like this:

However, the very best evidence for creationism is the claim by God Himself that He created light, the universe, the Earth and all life. You might question whether that argument holds up under scientific scrutiny? We all know the creation story in Genesis, but how can we know directly through scientific rationale that it is true. We can show that it was written in the Old Testament, but how can we show direct evidence that it is true? We only need to accept the most thoroughly documented history in existence and examine the evidence for who Jesus was. Our calendar is based upon the birth of Jesus. How historical is that? In Mark 13:19 (NKJV) Jesus stated, “For in those days there will be tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of creation which God created until this time, nor ever shall be.” Could Jesus have been anything other than what He claimed to be, the God of creation?

~ http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidence-for-creationism-faq.htm

There is no science there at all. All of the proof seems to come down to a simple formula, Darwin was wrong here, therefore the entire idea is wrong and the bible proves it.

That's not a theory, that is religious ideals.

 

[elder999]

I'll get to almost everyone else later, but.....

you're so cute when you get on one of your "must post more" frenzies!

Was it good for you too? I didn't hurt you, did I? :lol:

 

[arnisador]

For myself, I've been on the fence for a long time about this issue, neither 'side' having had a convincing argument for me when it comes to how the whole process got started.

I think this is bothersome to everyone: The fundamental philosophical question of why anything exists, and what it would be like if nothing did. I also think the comments by K89 are on-target: Some days you look at the world and feel it must have been intelligently designed, and some days you look at the world and say "If someone was in charge of making this mess, fire him!" Science is just one approach to the world. But it is a whole approach, and what disturbs me is seeing people take its benefits while rejecting its methods. If you take modern pharmaceuticals, you've pretty much bought into evolution.

there is an observable drive towards increasing complexity over time.

The field of Complex Adaptive Systems is fascinating. I feel it'll be the Next Big Thing in interdisciplinary science. Have you seen the boids fly?

 

[Sukerkin]

Thanks for those links, Arni, I'll be following up on them.

The Boids study on rules based emergent behaviour is something I am familiar with from my time in programming and systems analysis and is one of the stepping stones I've utilised in widening my understanding of how seemingly incomprehensibly complicated systems can come about from some simple starting conditions and some rules {the universe for one thing :lol:}.

 

[elder999]

Certainly. However, I would submit to you that your theistic evolutionist friends are not applying the same scientific rigor to the theistic part as they are to the evolutionist part. You already know what evidence justifies the theory of evolution. What evidence justifies theistic evolution? Applying Occam's Razor, why should we add an unnecessary explanation of theism on top of the perfectly adequate evolutionary explanation?

Why do we apply Occam’s Razor? It’s ironic to me that this heuristic tool is named for a man who utilized it to “prove” the existence of God is used in such a manner-in fact, I laugh every time it gets trotted out. Remember, it’s not a tool that establishes proof or disproof of anything, it is merely one for laying groundwork for a theory-reaching the “simplest” explanation, but not necessarily discounting more complex ones.The fact that one explanation is simpler doesn’t necessarily mean it’s correct-it just makes the problem easier to address when viewed that way. Without the simple evidence of their obvious existence, and-applying Occam’s Razor- there is no place in evolution for a fur bearing, young-suckling, egg-laying venomous mammal, yet we know that the duck-billed platypus is all of these, as well as, improbably, duck-billed. I’ll apply Occam’s razor to human evolution in a bit, using it to demonstrate that there must be a creator/god.

Indeed, although you are going to have a lot of trouble with the "irreligious" part. Despite how you personally feel about how religion and science should relate, much of religion requires an adherence to anti-scientific principles. This conflict has only grown more pronounced with time as more and more evidence has come to light showing that the details of revealed religion are wrong.

Now, there are and have been many responses to this. One historical one, of which the intelligent design brouhaha is part of the tradition, is simply to deny the evidence. Evilutionists worship Satan. Fossils are a trick planted by Satan and/or God to fool us/test our faith. And so on.

Don’t confuse “religion” with “faith” or”belief.” The institutions that call themselves “religions” have a vested interest in maintaining their control over people. If one looks at the roots of the word, “religion,” one finds the latin, relagare-to regulate. This can mean a regulation of oneself and one’s own life, or the regulation of people and their lives by others.

Another more sane response is to attempt to harmonize the two, as your friends have done. However, this is also getting harder and harder with time. The knowledge gaps where God can live are getting smaller. Also, at the end of the day, you are attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable. Science is an ever changing, self-correcting process based on empiricism. Religion is a fundamentally subjective process based heavily on faith without evidence and a body of revealed dogma. These processes haven't and never will mesh well, and as science advances, that split will only become more obvious.

Again, not necessarily-some gaps get smaller, others get larger-depending upon the science. As far as reconciliation goes, how’s this, for now, briefly, science cannot prove or disprove God, nor is it its place to. Faith and belief are, well, mostly unscientific-while they may be based upon “evidence” such evidence is usually of a personal nature, and cannot be shared, duplicated, proven or disproven-sort of like the guy who has seen the Loch Ness monster, or other such odd phenomena-he saw it, he knows what he saw and that he saw it, but he can’t exactly prove it, or make it come back for everyone else to see.

Science with time has become more and more materialist, it hasn't drifted at all towards mysticism. Religion on the other hand has given up quite a bit of ground. Treating the two like two equivalent poles who will one day meet in the middle is a fantasy. As it is, how do you construct a middle ground between empiricism and mysticism? They have entirely different systems of epistemology, entirely different premises, and entirely different conclusions.

Don’t hang out with many theoretical physicists, do ya? Some of the directions the field has taken, and their inherent oddness, has pushed more than a couple of physicists into the realm of mysticism, in hope of broadening their understanding-or, at least keeping their bearings….

What evidence? The only way that evolution is possible is for it to have been caused/directed by a creator. Statistically, macro evolution is impossible. The "odds" against even the simplest amount of evolution defies mathematical possibilities. So it is not "theistic evolution" that needs evidence, it is non-theistic evolution that lacks evidence.

What 'anti-scientific principles' are required by religion? Quite the opposite... scientific research continues to validate the Bible as an accurate, historical document.

and the debate continues...

The Bible is hardly an accurate, historical document. Parts of it have some basis in real history, and parts of it have none at all-parts of it are purely allegorical, and the creation myth of Genesis is one of them. We all knew this, up until the Middle Ages-most writing of the time from 400 AD- about 1000 AD, Jewish and Christian, makes this clear. It is only during the Dark Ages that we have a fundamentalist, literal interpretation of Genesis come to the fore-thus, to think that Genesis is the “real story” of creation is to, quite literally, live in the Dark Ages. :lol:

We perceive matter and energy and a material universe. We do not perceive a Creator-God. Why would it be more rational to postulate something we cannot perceive for something we can? At least without very convincing evidence.

Again, evidence of God is personal-and easily dismissed as delusions, mass-hysteria, hypnosis, optical-illusion, etc.-especially by those who have not witnessed them. They can’t be duplicated or reproduced, usually, and thus they cannot be proven or disproven.



So, for the time being, “Intelligent Design,” is not even a theory.

Unfortunately, it’s touted as such, and I think that’s too bad-it’s lent impetus to all sorts of crazy stuff like “museums’ that espouse the idea of a “young earth” and depict man coexisting with dinosaurs by way of explanation. :lol:

What it is-or could be-and here I am explaining things in the same way that I do for my mom the shrink-is a postulate. A postulate, for those of you who don’t know, is an assumed truth, or a claim-in mathematics and science, it’s an initial basis for a theory, not the theory itself-which must, after all, be disprovable.

The word I like to use to define a postulate, when speaking to my mom, or most of you, is suggestion.

At any rate, somehow the idea has come up-just as said in my initial post-that there is an inherent contradiction between faith and science-that the religious are not scientific, and that scientists are not religious. Both, of course, are simply not true. Many religious people know that the theory of evolution is probably true and trust science in general, and, as I also pointed out in my initial post, many scientists are religious.

The contradiction is when, as in the case of how ID is used-you try to mix the two.

It is not, and, for the time being cannot be the place of any science to prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being, god, Creator, giant foot from another dimension, or even little pink bunnies on the moon.-Such a being is, b y definition, outside of his creation.

There was, of course, once a time when there was no DNA testing, and we didn’t even know what DNA was-and, just as those things came to be, there may come a time when science can prove or disprove, once and for all, the existence of such a being.

For the time being, however all anyone-scientist, person of faith, or Bible-thumping whack-job-can do is suggest the notion-it’s not disprovable (or, for that matter, in any way provable), so it’s not a theory.

So what’s it good for?

Well, that’s sort of like asking why the sky is blue. Really.

Now, the short, “religious” answer is “because God wants it that way.”

And the scientific answer is Rayleigh scattering- look it up, I’m not going to bother explaining;trust me, or look here ; it’s Rayleigh scattering.

If Rayleigh had left it, as people of his time were wont to do, at “because God ..whatever,” well, it would be called something or other else scattering, because someone would have figured it out, but that’s not the point. The point is that for the religious person, evolution, Rayleigh scattering, X-rays, gravity ad infinitum, ad nauseum can be thought of (suggested to be, postulated) the mechanisms by which the (equally postulated) creator/God/giant foot/supreme being fostered and fosters the creation-part of his grand design.

Grand design, some of you say-what about the end of life of the sun, what about the human bodies faults, what about sex-what (and this one is one of my favorite pet peeves) about goddamn knees?

(As a side note, at times I’m certain that knees were an afterthought-or a cruel joke on His part.) :lol:

As an engineer, I have to say that all of those things are often part of a good design-design life, inherent instabilities for various purposes, etc.
And many of us, myself included, are living a bit past our functional design life, which, for a mammal is the time it takes to rear offspring to reproductive age-for humans, maybe 40 years.

Which brings us Occam’s razor, God, and human evolution.

It’s an accepted part of neuroscience, now, that the human brain appears to be hardwired for belief in God, and/or, for lack of a better word, religious experience. The archaeological record indicates that we’ve been that way for most of our existence. Humans, throughout history-and I say that as a generality, not meaning “all humans”-have believed in a Creator, god or gods. We’ve believed a lot of other stuff as well, but getting to this hard-wired trait for belief in God-what good is it? We’ve had it all this time, and it serves and has never served, as far as anyone can tell, any purpose as an evolved or adaptive survival trait.So, applying Occam’s razor, humans belief in “God” is the best (simplest, least complex) proof there is that “God” exists.:lol:

If the sun burning out bugs you, or your knees bug you-let it go, or blame god-or evolution, I don’t care, and it doesn't prove or disprove the Master Architect to be competent or incompetent-if there is such a being, we only can begin to comprehend his thoughts when we completely comprehend his creation-and we've got a loong way to go, as far as “completely comprehending his creation..

If there was a plan to all of this-it’s beyond our pea brains, and we have to make our own plans and trust-on faith-that they’re part of the design.

At any rate-these are things that make an excellent metaphysical conversation, or theological debate, but they do nothing to serve science, and for the time being science cannot serve them.

Incidentally, some serious scientists are making up amino soup combinations and exposing them to various stimuli right now-they'll create life (that everyone can agree is life) sooner or later-doesn't make them god, and doesn't prove there isn't one-just will prove that god isn't necessarily necessary-and, misuse of Ockham's Razor notwithstanding, that doesn't mean he/she/it doesn't exist.

As far as statistics go-I’m no statistician, and don’t really care-having had to take the same damn courses in statistics nearly a half-dozen times (what is up with that? Had to take it for the baccalaureates, had to take it for the masters, had to take it for the Ph.D. and it’s the same damn stuff every time-sometimes (twice) even the same damn book. Screw statistics.) I can say that they’re a useful tool, and, like any tool, completely manipulable. And, while statistics is a tool it is also a science, and, as I’ve said before-and elsewhere-it is not, and cannot be (for the time being) the place of science to prove or disprove the existence of-well, you get the picture.

For the record, while raised and somewhat educated as a Christian-I'm not one in any mainstream sense of the word. While I do believe in a Creator, and love and respect the teachings of the Rabbi Yeshua, I don't have much use for what most people have done with those teachings-especially when it comes to nonsense like the "Creation Museum." As a scientist, and a man of faith-whose faith is based on personal evidence, of a real and concrete, empirical nature, though it can neither be duplicated, reproduced, proven or disproven-I've come to the conclusion that while there is no inherent contradiction in believing in a Creator and being a scientist, they must, for the time being and forseeable future be kept separate.

 

[Empty Hands]

Excellent sequences of posts, Arnisador and EH, tho' perhaps we could do without the BS flags (unless intended humorously).

The points made were egregiously wrong, and have a history of being used in a very dishonest way by the proponents of creationism. That justified the flags in my mind. If they are too incendiary, I can remove them.

Good post BTW. The stuff about self-replicating reactions is very interesting, I have seen some of that. Also good points about statistics which I should have brought up.

 

[Empty Hands]

We all understand the concept of love and know that it exists but how does science measure that? How does science replicate that?

Quite easily, actually. We even know some of the brain circuits and hormones responsible.

 

[Empty Hands]

The fact that one explanation is simpler doesn’t necessarily mean it’s correct-it just makes the problem easier to address when viewed that way.

No, it doesn't make it correct. However, it is clear that if a simpler explanation suffices, there is absolutely no reason to postulate a more complex one.

Without the simple evidence of their obvious existence, and-applying Occam’s Razor- there is no place in evolution for a fur bearing, young-suckling, egg-laying venomous mammal, yet we know that the duck-billed platypus is all of these, as well as, improbably, duck-billed.

No, you cannot use the razor to disprove facts-in-evidence. That would be a misuse of the tool. The platypus obviously exists, so any explanation that does not account for it should be made more complex. Remember, the razor is "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." The razor does not say that entities should never be multiplied.

Don’t confuse “religion” with “faith” or”belief.” The institutions that call themselves “religions” have a vested interest in maintaining their control over people.

Sure, but they are inextricably bound together. Communities of faith have their own complex emergent behavior which favors the formation of religions.

Many religious people know that the theory of evolution is probably true and trust science in general, and, as I also pointed out in my initial post, many scientists are religious.

Of course, the human brain is highly malleable. That is why both the religious and the scientists can apply different standards of rigor to fundamentally incompatible beliefs. Each way of thought says something about the universe that is generally contradictory and also that relies on completely different standards of epistemology. The conflict is more acute for the scientist, which is why you see a lot less highly religious scientists than in the general population. We have a harder time not applying our scientific standards to our beliefs. Not so difficult for the general population, since they are by and large unfamiliar with scientific epistemology.

It’s an accepted part of neuroscience, now, that the human brain appears to be hardwired for belief in God, and/or, for lack of a better word, religious experience.

Indeed. Feelings of religiosity/numinosity/religious awe can be replicated in a laboratory setting by stimulating the right areas of the brain.

Humans, throughout history-and I say that as a generality, not meaning “all humans”-have believed in a Creator, god or gods.

Somewhat ironically, given the conversation, God-belief has evolved quite a bit too. In earlier times, there was no conception of a Creator god. The supernatural consisted of nature spirits, ancestor worship, and the like. The belief in an omniscient and omnipotent creator is a very recent development, historically speaking.

We’ve had it all this time, and it serves and has never served, as far as anyone can tell, any purpose as an evolved or adaptive survival trait.So, applying Occam’s razor, humans belief in “God” is the best (simplest, least complex) proof there is that “God” exists.:lol:

I think you are misusing the razor. Evolutionarily "useless" beliefs do not prove much of anything. Plenty of "useless" bits stick around simply because evolution is a stochastic process, and there is not enough pressure exerted on the traits to make them go away. Understanding that evolution (and all biology) is a fundamentally random process is critical to this understanding. There is no perfection or direction to a stochastic process, and highly unlikely events can take place or persist simply due to random chance.

Besides, I do not accept your argument that supernatural beliefs have no evolutionary benefit. As we have seen, belief and the attendant susceptibility to religiosity has been a powerful organizing force among humanity. Such a force could easily have survival benefit since humanity has flourished as it has organized in larger and larger groups. Who knows, maybe religiosity made this possible?

I can say that they’re a useful tool, and, like any tool, completely manipulable. And, while statistics is a tool it is also a science, and, as I’ve said before-and elsewhere-it is not, and cannot be (for the time being) the place of science to prove or disprove the existence of-well, you get the picture.

Well, you're a physicist, so they aren't all that useful to you. I can assure you though that when you get into the guts of chemistry and biology, everything is based on statistical reasoning. This is one of the critical insights into understanding how life truly functions.

I've come to the conclusion that while there is no inherent contradiction in believing in a Creator and being a scientist, they must, for the time being and forseeable future be kept separate.

Well, I agree that they are separate. I do believe that they are contradictory processes however. How can two processes which say different things about the same universe not be? Especially when completely different systems of epistemology are involved.

Which isn't to say that humans can't do and believe both. We are very good at compartmentalizing our mental beliefs. Just look at the political discussions here for some pertinent examples!

 

[thardey]

What we must remember is that there are many ways to "find truth" and I'm not talking about the "many paths and we can't really discuss them" nonsense. I'm talking philosophy.

There is a study of things called Methodologies. These are simply ways in which we determine what we believe, and how, and when, and what circumstances to either accept or reject truth. (Not fact - that's a different game.)

One of the basic questions facing all of us, and philosophy in general, is, how does one choose which methodology to follow, if one even really chooses one in the first place?

The "Scientific Method" is one form of methodology. It is a method to interpret raw data. It is unique in that it was designed for a specific field of study, and that method has been almost universally accepted for that specific field.

However, as elder pointed out above, the scientific methodology was not designed to answer spiritual questions. In fact, the method was specifically designed to rule out spiritual answers to problems. Even in the issue of being able to reproduce an experiment there is a removal of a personal spiritual influence. In martial arts, we know that the same attack on the same person will not always provoke the same defense - that is because we are dealing with a personality. However, if we are dealing with an inanimate object, then we can expect the same results from the same stimulus.

As was also pointed out, above, if God meddled in science, then it would be impossible to learn anything by scientific method, since God could change the "laws" of physics depending on what he wanted. Gravity, density, etc would be arbitrary. It would depend on God's mood, with is impossible to predict.

Therefore, by providing that an experiment has to be reproducible, you have removed the individual element, both of the bias of the scientist, and the "whims" of God.

Science can not teach anything about spirituality, whether positive or negative. Science can neither prove, or disprove God. This is why some people throw around the attack of "Reductionistic." Which is unfair, because the Scientific Method is very good at doing what it was intended to do.

There are other forms of Methodology, however, many more. Some commonly defined ones include Rationalism, Agnosticism, Empiricism, Fideism (Don't discount it quickly - it was taught by the likes of Pascal, Hamann, Kierkegaard, and Wittgenstein), Evidentialism, Experientialism, Pragmatism, and Combinationalism. Science is just one method of many.

The problem is that none of these other methods can take the place of the Scientific Method, for the pursuit of pure science, but that outside of pure science, the have very powerful uses. In this thread we've already alluded to experientialism, rationalism, fideism, and empiricsm.

The fact that spiritual questions have sought answers by the application of many different methods is not a weakness, nor is it new. Faith can be questioned by methods other than Fideism, without losing it's status as faith. However, once the scientist applies methods other than the scientific method, he is no longer practicing science, but philosophy.

So, if you define faith solely as Fideism (faith in faith), then no, you can't combine it with the Scientific Method and expect something that will be accepted as science. Won't happen, because the rules we put in place (for both Fideism and the Scientific method) are specifically designed to prevent that.

However, it also is not fair to denounce as "ignorant" any methodology other than the scientific method, for there are many questions that will never be answered by science, nor were they meant to. Things like beauty, art, taste, etc. cannot be pigeon-holed into a purely scientific method without killing the very thing they are studying.

The trick is to recognize the uses and limitations for each methodology. Eventually, the hope of Philosophy (at least mine) is that some method will be used and accepted that can be universally applied. But we're not there yet. No one method has been universally accepted, because each one has it's limitations.

 

[punisher73]

Quite easily, actually. We even know some of the brain circuits and hormones responsible.

No, you can explain the after affects of it and the print it leaves behind but you can't explain "why" we have it or "where" it actually comes from. Science can tell you what chemicals it illicits in the brain and what parts of the brain are activated, but you still haven't reached the core of "love". Science even knows that the chemical cocktail for attraction starts to fade after a year. Now, which kind of "love" are you talking about? Are you talking about a mother for her child? Because that is different than a husband/wife which is what most of the research concentrates on. The greeks had 5 different words for the different types of "love".

So, if it is so easy, "prove" that your mother loved you...
What is your proof? You will be left with your own personal experiences and interpretations of her actions.

Again, this doesn't mean that because science can't prove love, that God MUST exist. It only goes to show that even science accepts concepts outside of it's realm of explanation in some cases. If you are really inclined try reading the science behind thought.

 

[Empty Hands]

No, you can explain the after affects of it and the print it leaves behind but you can't explain "why" we have it or "where" it actually comes from.

Yes, we can. We know the purpose of pair-bonding. We have a reasonable evolutionary hypothesis for it. We know some of the chemicals that cause it (oxytocin for one). We know what parts of the brain are responsible for it. We don't have a complete mechanism yet, but it is wrong to say that "love is outside of science."

If you are really inclined try reading the science behind thought.

I have, I did my Master's work in neuroendocrinology. That literature demonstrates my point for me that science is hard at work explaining these "mysteries" of the brain. Even religion. As I have posted elsewhere, some of the regions in the brain responsible for religious feeling have been identified. They can be stimulated in order to elicit feelings of religious awe in a laboratory setting.

 

[punisher73]

Yes, we can. We know the purpose of pair-bonding. We have a reasonable evolutionary hypothesis for it. We know some of the chemicals that cause it (oxytocin for one). We know what parts of the brain are responsible for it. We don't have a complete mechanism yet, but it is wrong to say that "love is outside of science."



I have, I did my Master's work in neuroendocrinology. That literature demonstrates my point for me that science is hard at work explaining these "mysteries" of the brain. Even religion. As I have posted elsewhere, some of the regions in the brain responsible for religious feeling have been identified. They can be stimulated in order to elicit feelings of religious awe in a laboratory setting.

I never said that "love is outside of science", I said that science can't prove love. Again, you talk about the science of attraction and pair bonding. You completely ignored all other types of love. You again, talked about the chemicals which I also readily admitted and talked about. Yet ignored the other aspects of it. You have only shown the footprint in the sand, but not the person who made it so to speak.

Since your masters is on neuroendocrinology where does thought actually come from? I'm not talking about the processes, such as the firing of the brain in certain areas or what chemicals are released etc. I mean your ACTUAL thought itself.

 

[Andrew Green]

where does thought actually come from? I'm not talking about the processes, such as the firing of the brain in certain areas or what chemicals are released etc. I mean your ACTUAL thought itself.

Same as a computer, just a lot more complicated (so far )

And before we get into a computers can't evolve a thought process, have a quick look into evolutionary algorithms, which is a really neat branch of Computer science that uses the ideas of evolutionary theory in programming and has gotten some really amazing results.