Science vs. Faith

[_mfbukowski]

Many anti-realists hold to the view that all there is to talk about is talk itself, and that we cannot "get down" to any "reality" outside of descriptions of our experience, not what is "real" in any other sense.

Well, there is probably some point to that. Yet people have arguably useful conversations all the time about things. I can do some very useful things with math despite the fact that Russell and whats-his-name spent over 400 pages and didn't quite prove that 1+1=2.

I can't actually prove that anyone but myself exists, and some would say that I cannot even really prove that I exist, yet I still get by OK assuming, for the sake of argument, that I and others really do exist. And I doubt you'd choose to stop assuming you and others exist in your daily life activities either.

Yet it seems no one here can view religion also as a "useful fiction" as much as science or any other discipline is.

Why is that?

Because I can accept that science is a useful fiction, but most religious believers cannot accept that their religious worldview is one. To Mormons, Elohim, Jehova, Michael, Moroni, Nephi, etc. really did exist, in the literal sense. And once they stop really existing, as in the Gadianton Turn, Mormonism essentially stops existing, or at least commanding as much obedience from its members as it currently does.

Please don't criticize this for being overly simplistic- I know that already. That is the point of the post. You want a wall of text, I can give it to you complete with references.

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you arguing that the concept of Elohim, Jehova, Nephi, Moroni, etc. are a useful fiction? Are you arguing that priesthood authority and power is a useful fiction? If so, you'll have little argument from me.

Do you know that Zeus Apollo and Aphrodite did NOT exist? And what precisely do you mean by "exist"? Do species which science has not yet discovered "exist"?

What do they look like? How much do they weigh? Can you observe them?

Which "Mother Theresa" exists? The one who might be (is? I lost track) a Catholic Saint or the one who doubted the existence of God? Did Jesus literally exist or not? Or was he a legend confused with Mithras? Why does it matter?

I believe of course he DID not only exist, but was the savior of mankind. But no one can "prove" that. It is a belief, a hypothesis that makes my life richer and is unbelievably "useful" for me developing my own world view

Would a rose by any other name smell as sweet?

[_mfbukowski]

MFBukowski, science is perfectly capable of describing, understanding, and analyzing music. It's called music theory.

Will it tell me if Mozart or Beethoven or Dizzy Gillespie are better than the others?

Will it tell me why hearing Jimi Hendrix is almost orgasmic?

Almost...... ;)

[_Runtu]

I understand how some can see religion as useful fiction. I used to know a believing Mormon who said that for him, the gospel was just stories and principles by which he structured his life; whether they were true in any sense was irrelevant.

I think I could do useful fiction, but I don't find Mormonism particularly useful. But if others find it useful, more power to them.

[_Tarski]

Do species which science has not yet discovered "exist"?

they might not "exist" but they surely exist.

1) to be


2) to be known

see the semantic gap there?? No, I guess you don't.

Anyway, it is funny to think of some kid in some jungle being eaten by a species of large animal not yet known to science. His mother would not be consoled by your assurance that this animal doesn't exist.

[_Sethbag]

Do you know that Zeus Apollo and Aphrodite did NOT exist?

No. I've never seen any good reason to suspect that they do though.

And what precisely do you mean by "exist"?

You'll have to take my word for it, but there's a New England Patriots mug on my desk from their 2003 AFC Championship. That mug exists. There may be some philosophy somewhere that argues I can't know that, but I don't really give a crap.

Do species which science has not yet discovered "exist"?

Animals probably exist, which have not yet been identified with or as a given species by taxonomers. The animals exist, regardless whether human beings have seen or classified them. I guess this to be true based on the past experience of scientists discovering animals which they categorized as new species, and the likelihood that all such discoveries have not already been made.

What do they look like?

screwed if I know. But this is in principle knowable - we merely have to see them and we'll know. Same with the other questions you asked.

Which "Mother Theresa" exists? The one who might be (is? I lost track) a Catholic Saint or the one who doubted the existence of God? Did Jesus literally exist or not? Or was he a legend confused with Mithras? Why does it matter?

So in other words, you're going with the "baffle them with BS" argument. Ok.

I believe of course he DID not only exist, but was the savior of mankind. But no one can "prove" that.

Jesus could settle the argument once and for all if he wanted to. He just doesn't want to, apparently. Oh well.

It is a belief, a hypothesis that makes my life richer and is unbelievably "useful" for me developing my own world view

Would a rose by any other name smell as sweet?

Well you're certainly free to believe whatever you want. I think the record of religion, including the religion of Jesus, has an extremely poor track record of getting things right, and quite a long history of getting things demonstrably wrong. It is an hypothesis whose likelihood has sunk down, in my estimation, to levels similar to my estimation of how likely Zeus and Athena are to exist (sorry Zeezrom). Apparently you disagree.

[_mfbukowski]

[
hmm. What would someone like you mean by "objectively observable"?

Objectively observable would be an observation that we all would agree on- that is replicable.

We can all agree that a given car is "red"- we might argue though about whether or not it is more of a "burgandy" red or a "maroon" etc.

If we described the same car as the "color of sunset" or the "color of blood" we are evoking very specific imagery which is more poetic- and clearly our intentions in that kind of a description would be different than a scientific one.

On the other hand, a scientific analysis of the same color might sound something like "it is reflecting light at precisely x wavelength".

We could all walk over to the light wavelength thingy and read it and agree- "Yep- it is definitely x wavelength!"

Meanwhile someone faints because the color of blood makes them faint. That color has a specific "meaning" for that person- for their subjective experience. That experience of perhaps horror at seeing that color is a "subjective reaction" - it doesn't have the same effect on us as it does on him.

We can all look at the thermometer in Salt Lake City on a "hot" day and agree it is 95 degrees objectively- but the guy from Vegas may decide it is subjectively "cool" to him but the guy from Alaska will be "roasting" subjectively.

The way the two people react - one running for cover in the A/C, and the other going out for a tennis match will be totally different. The same objective conditions will have totally different "significance" or "meaning" for each individual.

You can't tell the guy from Alaska that it is not "hot" because it is 95- for him it is absolutely "hot" but that is not an objective measure.

The objective measure- what it says on the thermometer - really does not have much human significance. The way we react to the same temperature illustrates the "significance" or "meaning" for us as individuals.

Yes, it involves preferences but it is not ONLY preference- it is about character, core values and many other incredibly complex human issues

[_mfbukowski]

I understand how some can see religion as useful fiction. I used to know a believing Mormon who said that for him, the gospel was just stories and principles by which he structured his life; whether they were true in any sense was irrelevant.

I think I could do useful fiction, but I don't find Mormonism particularly useful. But if others find it useful, more power to them.

You missed the point completely.
But if you also put science on the same footing in its sphere as a "useful fiction" you will understand it

They are in different spheres

[_Runtu]

You missed the point completely.
But if you also put science on the same footing in its sphere as a "useful fiction" you will understand it

They are in different spheres

No, I got it. You're trying to put science and religion on an equal footing, which is of course a common apologetic tactic.

[_keithb]

We can all agree that a given car is "red"- we might argue though about whether or not it is more of a "burgandy" red or a "maroon" etc.

Actually, a scientist might be much more comfortable saying that the color reflected from a monochromatic object is \lambda_o +/- \delta \lambda where \lambda_o is the central frequency that the object reflects the most and \delta \lambda is the standard deviation of the frequency range reflected by the object. Under that definition, color would be an objectively decidable (i.e. quantifiable) question.

But, point taken nonetheless.

If we described the same car as the "color of sunset" or the "color of blood" we are evoking very specific imagery which is more poetic- and clearly our intentions in that kind of a description would be different than a scientific one.

That kind of language, as you say, would really have no place in science because "color of blood" is not quantifiable. However, if a precise numerical definition could be attached to it, then I am sure that science could find a way to describe it.

On the other hand, a scientific analysis of the same color might sound something like "it is reflecting light at precisely x wavelength".

No. \lambda_o +/- \delta \lambda

We could all walk over to the light wavelength thingy and read it and agree- "Yep- it is definitely x wavelength!"

As the central frequency ... yes.

Meanwhile someone faints because the color of blood makes them faint. That color has a specific "meaning" for that person- for their subjective experience. That experience of perhaps horror at seeing that color is a "subjective reaction" - it doesn't have the same effect on us as it does on him.

But, the fainting reaction is just a particular neurological output from the "seeing blood" input. Scientist can measure this reaction through, for example, FMRI scans of a person prone to fainting. So, this too becomes an objectively measurable response.

We can all look at the thermometer in Salt Lake City on a "hot" day and agree it is 95 degrees objectively- but the guy from Vegas may decide it is subjectively "cool" to him but the guy from Alaska will be "roasting" subjectively.

Again, physiological and psychological responses to stimuli are increasingly becoming quantifiable in nature. We can use FMRI scans of the brain, measure the skin temperature of the patient, measure the level of blood perfusion of the patient to the skin (which is the way that the human body normally regulates temperature), etc. in an effort to quantify these stimuli.

The way the two people react - one running for cover in the A/C, and the other going out for a tennis match will be totally different. The same objective conditions will have totally different "significance" or "meaning" for each individual.

Again, I am not sure what you're trying to get at through the use of the ambiguous word "meaning" here. The input and output stimuli from people experiencing environmental temperatures are becoming increasingly quantifiable. I am not aware of an reason why this trend towards quantification can't continue indefinitely.

You can't tell the guy from Alaska that it is not "hot" because it is 95- for him it is absolutely "hot" but that is not an objective measure.

But you can measure his skin temperature, blood perfusion, brain waves, blood perfusion to the brain via FMRI, etc.

The objective measure- what it says on the thermometer - really does not have much human significance. The way we react to the same temperature illustrates the "significance" or "meaning" for us as individuals.

That's ... wrong, I think. I believe that, to a high statistical probability, all humans would consider the inside of an industrial oven too hot and Antarctica without winter gear too cold. Also, we could make much more precise definitions of those two ideas: too hot and too cold.

Yes, it involves preferences but it is not ONLY preference- it is about character, core values and many other incredibly complex human issues

Here is a link that might be of interest on the subject. It's about how scientists are increasingly able to reconstruct mental images via FMRI data from the brain. There are several other sources available via Google on the same sorts of ideas as well.

http://youtu.be/QjHASyFP7Eo

[/quote]

Imagine what this technology will look like in 100 years.

So, I am still not sure what you mean by an experience that isn't "objectively real".

[_Samantabhadra]

keithb, you can quantify the physiological response to color-stimuli, and you can quantify the physical characteristics of the color stimulus, but the phenomenological experience of color is not material and thus not quantifiable.