ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

[_Tarski]

Let us say that God made matter and told it that it was to have certain properties.

Ummm, he "told it"? OK then--Did matter already have at least one property? The property of being able to listen? That's quite a property for an atom to have before it even knows it is suppose to have mass and size. LOL

Matter doesn't exist and then obtain properties as some after thought.


...
God made space and then told it to be roomy. God made rocks and then told them to occupy space and have size. God made light and then told it to move fast and to carry energy. God made the earth and then told it to be big, opaque and round (the earth didn't obey at first; for a while it was small, transparent and doughnut shaped).
...

Franktalk, your brain is full of silly magical thinking. No wonder your are off in fringey la la land.

[_Franktalk]

Tarski,

I know it all sounds so silly. So why don't you shed some light on a few things so I can move from darkness to the light of truth.

Please tell me why the strong nuclear force holds the center of an atom together? Please stay away from descriptions like "it does" or "we observe it" I am looking for why it does, not a description.

Please tell me why an electron has the mass it does? There must be some kind of mechanism which determines these quantities in nature. Tell me why the universe has these exact amounts for the various parts?

I of course believe in some things you may not. That is fine. This is your opportunity to demonstrate that science is not founded on magic pixie dust. So your superior knowledge of the universe will push aside my silly notions and replace them with the solid knowledge of man. If however you fail to tell me why we have a strong nuclear force or why electrons have the mass they do then I guess we stand on equal ground of faith.

[_Chap]

Please tell me why the strong nuclear force holds the center of an atom together? Please stay away from descriptions like "it does" or "we observe it" I am looking for why it does, not a description.

Please tell me why an electron has the mass it does? There must be some kind of mechanism which determines these quantities in nature. Tell me why the universe has these exact amounts for the various parts?

..... This is your opportunity to demonstrate that science is not founded on magic pixie dust.

Well, if you had Googled 'strong nuclear force', for instance, you would have found this on Wikipedia:

The strong interaction is thought to be mediated by gluons, acting upon quarks, antiquarks, and other gluons. Gluons, in turn, are thought to interact with quarks and gluons because all carry a type of charge called "color charge." Color charge is analogous to electromagnetic charge, but it comes in three types not two, and it results in a different type of force, with different rules of behavior. These rules are detailed in the theory of quantum chromodynamics (QCD), which is the theory of quark-gluon interactions.

Is that the kind of answer you have in mind? Or will you say it is not an explanation because you want to know why quantum chromodynamics works the way it does? And so on ...

If you resort to that tactic, be aware that it is evident that you are making demands of an explanation that are never made in the normal use of the word.

If you ask me how an old-fashioned clock works, any normal person, you included when you are not on duty as Defender of the Faith, I would guess, would say I have given you a good and full explanation when I have opened the back and shown you how the cogs and springs work together to turn the hands.

If you than said to me, for instance "your explanation is not complete until you have given me a complete solid-state physics explanation of why the metal of which the mechanism is made is hard", normal people would say you were making an unreasonable demand, since my explanation is quite sufficient to reduce the clock from a mysterious 'black box' to something that functions by exploiting already familiar properties of the physical world.

And (unlike religion) science as you well know only promises a way to discover more reliable knowledge and understanding step by step. There is no claim to provide some kind of imaginary final knowledge that brings all further need for explanation to an end.

That is why I find science so much more interesing than religion. But tastes may differ.

[_Franktalk]

Chap,

So the rules of argument are such that I can't ask why?

But your answer of "we think", "it might be" and so on is perfectly fine as long as it comes from the people on the approved list. Even you must see that what you wish me to accept is just as faith based as what I have my faith in. Where you stand on faith and call it something else I stand on faith and call it faith.

[_Tarski]

Tarski,

I know it all sounds so silly. So why don't you shed some light on a few things so I can move from darkness to the light of truth.

Please tell me why the strong nuclear force holds the center of an atom together? Please stay away from descriptions like "it does" or "we observe it" I am looking for why it does, not a description.

Please tell me why an electron has the mass it does? There must be some kind of mechanism which determines these quantities in nature. Tell me why the universe has these exact amounts for the various parts?

I of course believe in some things you may not. That is fine. This is your opportunity to demonstrate that science is not founded on magic pixie dust. So your superior knowledge of the universe will push aside my silly notions and replace them with the solid knowledge of man. If however you fail to tell me why we have a strong nuclear force or why electrons have the mass they do then I guess we stand on equal ground of faith.

Why does my having a spirit help me stay alive and conscious? Please don't tell me that it just does. There must be some mechanism.



Now seriously, your questions betray the usual foolishness. Unlike pseudo-explanations that invoke empty supernatural concepts like "spirit", we have quite a few details about the way things work.
Hypocritically, you seem to be implying that it is all pixie dust until the very last ultimate "why question" is answered. But this can never be and no religious answer helps at all. Physical science progressively attempts to explain complex properties in terms of simpler ones. For example, a relativistic quantum treatment of the gold atom reveals why gold has the yellowish color that it does when non-relativistic QM predicts the usual silverish color we see with other metals. This counts as great progress because we understand something new in detail. But, a fool could reject this complaining that in this treatment of the gold atom we take on board standard facts about the mass and charge of the electron as well as the usual facts about the coulomb potential.




Now let us look at some of your questions:

Please tell me why the strong nuclear force holds the center of an atom together? Please stay away from descriptions like "it does" or "we observe it" I am looking for why it does, not a description.

At the level of nucleons the strong force remains partially mysterious. Much of that mystery is alleviated from QCD (ever heard of quarks?). To say more would require that you understand something about what a force is from the point of view of quantum theory (we normally talk in terms of potentials).

Please tell me why an electron has the mass it does?

This is explained in various ways depending on whether one is invoking string theory or not. One theory has to do with a so called Higgs field. In any case, we can say something about this question.

Now Frank, I am sure your realize that any explanation must be in terms of something and so there will always be a bottom level to our explanations. But unlike the case with religion, we are able to explain complex things in terms of simpler things. So our bottom level looks more and more like acceptable axioms or intuitions. For example, a good deal of the properties of particles follow from symmetry principles which are in turn extremely natural and easy to both believe and understand.
So it is the opposite of pixie dust. We are actually able to progressively reduce the complex to the simple and show explicitly the detailed mechanisms that make the connections from part to whole.

Think of it this way:

Science is like when you explain how a car moves by appealing to its parts their connections and the laws of combustion.

Religion is like explaining how a car moves by appealing to a mysterious power or ghostly substance it possesses --call it "movility".

Like the word "spirit", the word "movility" just doesn't explain anything.

[_Chap]

Chap,

So the rules of argument are such that I can't ask why?

Nah. It's just that the rules of explanation in the world you and I operate in every day are that you are not entitled to complain if an explanation can itself be the occasion for a further search for explanations.

But your answer of "we think", "it might be" and so on is perfectly fine as long as it comes from the people on the approved list.

I don't think the phrases "we think" or "it might be" occur in my answer. You are making things up to suit the answer you have ready.

Even you must see that what you wish me to accept is just as faith based as what I have my faith in. Where you stand on faith and call it something else I stand on faith and call it faith.

Nope. I just want you to play by the normal rules of the 'asking for explanations' game.

Like, you ask me to explain how a car engine provides power. I tell you how an internal combustion piston engine works in terms of the burning of a gasoline vapor and the way that makes the pistons move and turn the crankshaft, and the job is done. You have had your explanation. Where's the 'faith' there?

If you want you can then ask for an explanation of how the burning of gasoline can be an energy source - but the fact that this further question is possible does not show that my first explanation was not a good and reasonable reply.

[_richardMdBorn]

No, I'm claiming that you can't choose a definition that excludes the supernatural and have it be evidence that the supernatural doesn't exist. This is similar to what Sagan did when he asserted that "The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." This may be the atheist equivalent of the ontological argument for the existence of God.

Okay. Let 's start again. If you agree that the world, or this universe, or the entire cosmos (even if it contains multiple universes), operates according to natural laws, then anything that exists or happens in the world, universe or cosmos is, by definition "natural".

If you believe in a demon haunted world, a universe with a creator God and a destroying devil, and a cosmos that is liable to contain all kinds of supernatural entities that do not obey the laws of nature, then one could say that you believe in the supernatural.

So long as we can explain reproducible observations and experimental outcomes without resorting to magic, and especially when our explanations and theories about how things work have predictive power, one can safely and economically assume that we are living in a natural world, universe and cosmos.

Not only do we not need the supernatural to explain how the universe works, assuming the supernatural is of no utility or value whatsoever. In fact, as Buffalo points out, the supernatural would only screw things up.

Again, you are trying to win the argument by use of an unproven definition. What would happen in your laboratory if God intervened with a miracle. You would repeat the experiment, and if God did not produce a second miracle, conclude that something was wrong with your first experiment.
Your comments and conclusions are philosophical and are not scientific.

[_DrW]

Again, you are trying to win the argument by use of an unproven definition. What would happen in your laboratory if God intervened with a miracle. You would repeat the experiment, and if God did not produce a second miracle, conclude that something was wrong with your first experiment.
Your comments and conclusions are philosophical and are not scientific.

As anyone with sufficient laboratory experience knows, experiments go wrong all of the time with no help whatsoever from the supernatural.

Aside from this observation relative to your comment, I am not sure how to respond. Are you asking how (or whether) one could detect the supernatural in a laboratory setting?

If so, then the clear reproducible and verified violation of a basic law of nature, preferably one related to physics, would be a good place to start. Demonstration of superluminal transfer of matter or information (after invoking the assistance of God in making this happen through prayer) would be a place to start.

Since this has not happened over the hundreds of years that religionists have been denying science, while no doubt praying that their god will strike down evil evolutionists, or prove that prayers can be answered from Kolob in days or weeks, or curse those who claim that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, or provide scientific evidence that the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old, I would not hold my breath.

[_Drifting]

DrW,

Having read through the thread I think it might be worth you entering the next 'world's most patient man' competition. You are attempting and reattempting to converse rationally with people who would believe the Earth to be still flat if their religion so prescribed. Good luck.

[_DrW]

DrW,

Having read through the thread I think it might be worth you entering the next 'world's most patient man' competition. You are attempting and reattempting to converse rationally with people who would believe the Earth to be still flat if their religion so prescribed. Good luck.

Drifting,

An astute observation. Some of us are just don't know when to quit, I guess ;-)

The aspect of all this that disturbs me the most is that individuals like Jeffrey Holland, who really should know better (and I am fairly certain do know better), believe that it is necessary to lie to their followers again and again so as to maintain their trust and loyalty.

Of what value is trust and loyalty when it is based on a foundation of lies?

For what possible reason would wealthy businessmen lie to their shareholders, other than to keep the business going while claiming that it was for the good of the shareholders, who after all, really needed to continue to put their money into the business in order to maintain their own sense of worth (and worthiness)?

Would it not be great if someday a General Authority simply said enough is enough, and told the truth from the pulpit?