Science vs. Faith

[_Nightlion]

It is the oft quoted maxim you call Occam's (Ockham's) razor, no? We observe that intelligence naturally exist one greater than another. Therefore the existence of God is predicted by the data. And hence God is the most simple solution to creation.
And besides all that, he has told us as much, so come on now, get real, stop the lies.

In order to prove your point, you need this propositions to be true:

"If we observe N entities (1,2,3 .. N) with some property X, and X1<X2< ... <XN, then there will always exist an entity (N+1), such that X(N+1)>XN".

That is not Occam's Razor, but is instead a creation of Joseph Smith in the Book of Abraham. What is more, it is easy to show that the proposition on which you rely is false.

For suppose that the entities (1, 2, 3 ...) are the novels of Jane Austen, which can be arranged in order of length if we want to (instead of order of date of writing). Then leaving aside juvenilia, there are just six novels in the sequence, with the second longer than the first ... and eventually the sixth longer than the fifth.

But (alas) there is no seventh novel longer than the sixth. She just didn't write one. So your principle is not generally true, and there is no reason to think that it applies to 'intelligences' any more than it does to novels.

I can see now how it is you are dazzled by their intelligence and fully baffled by the bull crap of science. The proposition only needs to apply to the observable singularity that intelligence exist one above another in greatness and then another greater than those to predict that there could be an intelligence greater than them ALL. Not the greatest of all but greater than the sum of all others. Infinite intelligence. And as fantastic as that is it is also possible that there could be more than one entity whose intelligence is greater than the sum of all lesser intelligence, perhaps three of them, the stability of which could form the foundation upon which all things consist. The stability of all things prove that it must be so. AMEN. And besides they say so about themselves and we know it.

[_Chap]

It is the oft quoted maxim you call Occam's (Ockham's) razor, no? We observe that intelligence naturally exist one greater than another. Therefore the existence of God is predicted by the data. And hence God is the most simple solution to creation.
And besides all that, he has told us as much, so come on now, get real, stop the lies.

In order to prove your point, you need this propositions to be true:

"If we observe N entities (1,2,3 .. N) with some property X, and X1<X2< ... <XN, then there will always exist an entity (N+1), such that X(N+1)>XN".

That is not Occam's Razor, but is instead a creation of Joseph Smith in the Book of Abraham. What is more, it is easy to show that the proposition on which you rely is false.

For suppose that the entities (1, 2, 3 ...) are the novels of Jane Austen, which can be arranged in order of length if we want to (instead of order of date of writing). Then leaving aside juvenilia, there are just six novels in the sequence, with the second longer than the first ... and eventually the sixth longer than the fifth.

But (alas) there is no seventh novel longer than the sixth. She just didn't write one. So your principle is not generally true, and there is no reason to think that it applies to 'intelligences' any more than it does to novels.

I can see now how it is you are dazzled by their intelligence and fully baffled by the bull crap of science. The proposition only needs to apply to the observable singularity that intelligence exist one above another in greatness and then another greater than those to predict that there could be an intelligence greater than them ALL. Not the greatest of all but greater than the sum of all others. Infinite intelligence. And as fantastic as that is it is also possible that there could be more than one entity whose intelligence is greater than the sum of all lesser intelligence, perhaps three of them, the stability of which could form the foundation upon which all things consist. The stability of all things prove that it must be so. AMEN. And besides they say so about themselves and we know it.

Let's go to the source in Abraham 3:

16 If two things exist, and there be one above the other, there shall be greater things above them; therefore Kolob is the greatest of all the Kokaubeam that thou hast seen, because it is nearest unto me.

17 Now, if there be two things, one above the other, and the moon be above the earth, then it may be that a planet or a star may exist above it; [...]

[...]

19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.

Verses 16-17 and 19 both make statements of the same form - if A is 'above' B, then there will be something 'above' B. This is applied to celestial bodies in 16-17 and to spirits in 19. No evidence is offered to persuade us that this is true - but of course someone who believes that God is the speaker here will take his word for it.

Unfortunately, 19 is in effect being used as a proof that God has to exist. But wait a minute - we are supposed to believe in the proposition "if A is 'above' B, then there will be something 'above' B" on the grounds that God said so. So the argument is completely circular - the proof of God's existence only works if you believe that God exists.

And I'm the one who is supposed to be 'baffled by bull crap'?

[_beefcalf]

How did you decide science was important to you?

For me, reliable, repeatable results, accessible to anyone.

Interesting.

Why are repeatable results important to you?

Sorry mfbukowski, got busy and didn't notice this 'til just now...

Repeatable results are important because they are a form of verification. When Joseph Smith looked into his peep stone and was told that he could sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon in Canada, there was no method available to anyone else to check on this claim. If Oliver Cowdery had pulled out his own peep-stone and had said, 'Uh, wait, Brother Joseph, that's not exactly what I see..." Joseph Smith would have promptly (and correctly, in the view of the believer) told him to stand down. When this plan didn't pan out, Smith appeared to be baffled, even admitting aloud that his peep-stone method sometimes produces results which make answers from God, Satan and his own desires indistinguishable.

If I hand 100 geneticists each a vial of an organic substance and ask them to sequence the genetic material therein, I have every confidence that an overwhelming majority of them will return identical results as to the identity of the organism from whence the material was gathered. For those geneticists who return contrary results, I am confident that an audit of their methods would reveal an procedural error which would fully explain the anomaly.

If I ask 100 members of my ward to fast and pray to gain knowledge of any tangible thing, such as the location of a lost little two-year-old, or where Sister McHenry might have misplaced her insulin pills, or even to ascertain the location of key to the library, which had recently disappeared from the bishop's desk drawer after the priest quorum had used his office as an overflow classroom, I will find that there will be no statistically significant agreement in the answers they give, nor would I expect that any of their answers would be correct at a rate appreciably greater than chance might predict.

If I go to scientists in Salt Lake City, Rome, Tehran, Medina, Mumbai and Tokyo and ask them to analyze a sample of a radioactive element and report their results, I expect to get a identical or nearly identical results.

If I go to clergy in Salt Lake City, Rome, Tehran, Medina, Mumbai and Tokyo and ask them how best to worship God and gain his favor and report their results, I will undoubtedly see a wide spectrum of answers with virtually no agreement.

So you have a problem with ambiguity? I suppose you are not an artist. Do you like poetry? How do you evaluate it?

I am an artist. I see no conflict between being creative and artistic, and having the desire to use reliable methods of obtaining truth. I can appreciate the beauty, artistry and majesty of a poem, hymn or fresco, without the necessity of deciding that what is beautiful must also be true. My great appreciation for Handel's Messiah has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it describes an historically accurate event.

And you get repeatable results in deciding what is important in your life through observation?

Absolutely. I know that the brain, our senses, our memories, are very malleable. Repeatablity provides a measure of reassurance that what we remember to have happened was actually real. If I once thought I saw a leprechaun, years ago, that's one thing. But if I can go into my back yard and keep seeing them, that is something else entirely. On the flip side, if I thought I saw one once, but have never again seen one, even after spending much effort in trying, that is a valuable piece of information.

If I see 100 priesthood blessings given to the sick, and there appears to be a low correlation between what is promised in the blessing and what actually happens to the recipient of that blessing, I think it is valid to draw the conclusion that priesthood blessings do not 'work' (other than to induce a placebo effect of varying significance).

How do you observe yourself?

My usual method is with a mirror. In times of heightened mania, I might turn on the facetime camera on my iPhone and stare at myself for hours...

How does one make observations to decide if abortion is wrong or not? How do you observe that it is wrong to discriminate against other races?

Good questions. I have my views on abortion and racism. They generally stem from the golden rule. But having spent very little time on the epistemology, I cannot give you a very good answer on the method.

I hope this answers your questions.

[Guest]

I am an artist. I see no conflict between being creative and artistic, and having the desire to use reliable methods of obtaining truth. I can appreciate the beauty, artistry and majesty of a poem, hymn or fresco, without the necessity of deciding that what is beautiful must also be true. My great appreciation for Handel's Messiah has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it describes an historically accurate event.

Great!

Then you understand that the total experience of a great work of art cannot be reduced to a scientific description then right?

That there are important things in life which give your life meaning which cannot be seen as scientifically "true" or "false"?

And you understand that all descriptions are metaphors? Is light a wave or a particle? It is neither and both- depending on one's purposes in the model one is using.

Leonard Susskind: The Bad Boy of Physics

Leonard Susskind rebelled as a teen and never stopped. Today he insists that reality may forever be beyond reach of our understanding
Big Picture
We may never be able to grasp that reality. The universe and its ingredients may be impossible to describe unambiguously.

Stanford University physicist Leonard Susskind revels in discovering ideas that transform the status quo in physics. Forty years ago he co-founded string theory, which was initially derided but eventually became the leading candidate for a unified theory of nature. For years he disputed Stephen Hawking’s conjecture that black holes do not merely swallow objects but grind them up beyond recovery, in violation of quantum mechanics. Hawking eventually conceded. And he helped to develop the modern conception of parallel universes, based on what he dubbed the “landscape” of string theory. It spoiled physicists’ dream to explain the universe as the unique outcome of basic principles.

Physicists seeking to understand the deepest levels of reality now work within a framework largely of Susskind’s making. But a funny thing has happened along the way. Susskind now wonders whether physicists can understand reality.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... of-physics

All of science involves classification and interpretation- I mean is Pluto a planet or not? It depends on how one classifies it.

William James talked about the reductionism of science as the difference between sitting down to a steak dinner and reading about it on a menu.

Wittgenstein analogized scientific reductionism to cremating one of his argumentative students and then holding up what was left and saying- "Here is Smith!"- all the richness of a human being reduced to a pile of ashes.

Religion like music and poetry are among those things which gives richness and meaning to our lives.

Sorry to ask all these questions- I am just trying to figure out where you're coming from so we can have an intelligent discussion instead of just throwing out replies as I have sometimes in the past.

[_mfbukowski]

Good questions. I have my views on abortion and racism. They generally stem from the golden rule. But having spent very little time on the epistemology, I cannot give you a very good answer on the method.

Well this isn't really epistemology, it's about ethical judgements and how we decide if they can be "true" or "false" or whether or not it is important that we use those words.

The point is, that these are important issues to everyone which cannot be decided scientifically.

How do you know the golden rule is "good"? Scientifically?

[_MrStakhanovite]

Good questions. I have my views on abortion and racism. They generally stem from the golden rule. But having spent very little time on the epistemology, I cannot give you a very good answer on the method.

Well this isn't really epistemology, it's about ethical judgements and how we decide if they can be "true" or "false" or whether or not it is important that we use those words.

The point is, that these are important issues to everyone which cannot be decided scientifically.
How do you know the golden rule is "good"? Scientifically?

I gotta go with Bukowski on this (emphasis mine).

[_beefcalf]

Good questions. I have my views on abortion and racism. They generally stem from the golden rule. But having spent very little time on the epistemology, I cannot give you a very good answer on the method.

Well this isn't really epistemology, it's about ethical judgements and how we decide if they can be "true" or "false" or whether or not it is important that we use those words.

The point is, that these are important issues to everyone which cannot be decided scientifically.

How do you know the golden rule is "good"? Scientifically?

I am currently about 1/3 of the way through Harris' The Moral Landscape in which he argues that there is in fact a basis for objectively measuring morality. He has thus far made the following argument: If I ask you whether your happiness would increase or decrease in response to various changes in your environment, and I trust you to answer honestly, then we have the beginnings of a moral code, sans deity. It would provide us with a means to differentiate between those things which maximize human happiness and those things which tend to decrease human happiness. He concedes that there may be various 'peaks' on this moral landscape, upon which human happiness is maximized in different ways, but this does not appear to invalidate this method as a means for determining what is and is not moral.

As humans, if we adopt measures in our society which generally raise the happiness of people, can this be immoral? If we take a path which, in general, tends to decrease human happiness, who, other than a madman, would argue that this is moral?

I think his argument has great merit, and it answers your 'Golden Rule' question nicely.

I'll have to buckle under and finish the book, but life has a way of keeping one occupied with other things...

[_MrStakhanovite]

happiness = morality?

[_beefcalf]

Well this isn't really epistemology, it's about ethical judgements and how we decide if they can be "true" or "false" or whether or not it is important that we use those words.

The point is, that these are important issues to everyone which cannot be decided scientifically.
How do you know the golden rule is "good"? Scientifically?

I gotta go with Bukowski on this (emphasis mine).

I won't argue against him on this point, except to say I think it would be necessary to take it on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps either of you, Stak or mfbukowski, can provide an example of an important issue which you feel is beyond the purview of science?

[_mfbukowski]

happiness = morality?

Chopping up people and eating them brings me great happiness! Yum!