OT: Huckabee, Ughh

[Tim Daneliuk]

And I've never said I "knew" the answers to these questions, merely that: a) They were important questions that needed investigation and b) Science is inadequate to cope with them.

You have NOT seen me "defend" Christianity. I have defended the Judeo-Christian roots of our legal system as a matter of historical fact. I am scrupulous to not inject my personal faith into any of this. I am not selling anything here, nor am I trying to make converts. I simply will not sit still when ill-educated atheists try to dismiss people of faith as if we were idiots.

Not even close to true. In the two main university settings I was primarily educated (one Evangelical Christian, the other Roman Catholic) I came away agreeing with *neither* on many significant and foundational points. You haven't lived until you get hauled into the Dean Of Faculty's office a month before graduation to 'splain to the head of the Theology Department why "literal inerancy" is a broken doctrine and why saying so doesn't make you a heretic. Then go hang out with the secular rationalists for a while a try to 'splain to them that - as a consequence of Godel - Reason itself is an inherently limited method of knowing things. Just for fun, follow that up in the Philosophy department and point out that ever since Hegel and Kant, philosophy has been busy destroying knowledge not finding it. Oh yeah, I really "meshed" with the cool kidz on campus...

My "worldview" such as it is, is that we should use science when it applies. We should admit that there are deep and important questions that science cannot in-and-of-itself "prove" (Oh, how I hate that word - for "proof" does not truly exist outside the narrow confines of mathematics.) And - most importantly - every thinking person should make an internal discussion of those questions an important part of their lives *even if we never get complete answers*. It is in the asking of these questions that much value can be found.

Some other cold month when I can't get in the shop, perhaps we can chat about why *no* system of knowledge ever can actually "prove" anything at all. In the end, what you "know" *always* depends on what you assume in the first place.

[J. Clarke]

Or they're all right. Different deities, different rules, different consequences. Some don't even _have_ deities.

It's my understanding that Buddhism does not require nor does it forbid the existence of a deity. Are any of the Buddha's teachings incompatible with Christianity?

[dpb]

Which constraints are you speaking of? The only constraint is it has to be able to explain how things are observably working. Some concepts in modern physics at the moment are so removed from what was considered mainline as recently as forty years ago as to be totally unrecognizable, yet they seem to be what may resolve areas that previous theory failed on. If it continues to pan out, that's great; if it doesn't, something else will have to be teased out to make a little more progress. There's no constraint on the direction something will head other than, as noted also below, it is consonant w/ observable experiment.

Of course on it's own it's poor; it's a nontechnical characterization of the way the mathematics seem to be leading...we're finding there are only a very few possible solutions to the systems as the best describing how things work and it appears that the farther we go, the more constraints we find.

Again, yes, it's yet incomplete, but that seems at least at the moment to be the way things are heading.

You'll have to actually study quite a bit to get a grasp for it but Brian Greene has written some of the most accessible works with very little mathematics actually required to at least grasp the gist of things.

It's an unfortunate problem that science has become so esoteric that it is very difficult to translate to the average joe who doesn't have the mathematical background. It would be great if something would happen that would allow for a great simplification back to something approaching Newton's laws that could be shown "how it works" in pretty simple terms, but it just doesn't appear to be going to happen. It's that dichotomy that causes the non-technical to try to retain even harder to their metaphysical world imo.

[GarageWoodworks]

Some can not be answered by science TODAY. But I think it is silly to accept metaphysical (supernatural) answers to YET unanswered questions.

You mentioned 'theology' several times. And that theology trumps science. I don't think I really went out on a limb when I used the word 'religion', but let me rephrase. I'm glad that your theology is capable of filling in the "Gaps" for you.

Is that better?

This really does not address 'first cause'. What caused the illusion that I am perceiving?

This really does not address 'first cause'. What 'caused' the universe?

Unlikely ok, lets ignore this one.

If that something/someone is eternal then did they not require a 'cause'?

1) If the answer is 'no' then the 'first cause' argument becomes ad hoc and prejudicially applied (logically impermissible). And we are right back where we started, with no more understanding of 'causation'. 2) If the answer is "yes" they required a 'cause', then what was it? And what 'caused' that something/someone?

Furthermore which something/someone does 'first cause' entail? Zheus? Jehovah? etc.

Did the ultimate creator require a 'cause'? See (1) and (2) above.

Why can't the answer be that we just don't know? Why does there have to be an "ultimate creator"? Maybe the universe in one form or another, always existed. See 'conservation of mass energy'.

No they are not tongue tied. You choose to be deaf to the possibilities they offer.

These 'rules' of physics might not even be "as they are". Physics, or physical laws are human descriptions of how the universe behaves and are subject to future 'human' revision.

Strawman.

No, I will consider the question and explore possibilities that are founded in science (non-metaphysical). If science can not answer the question, I will not resort to supernatural answers to appease myself. I will state that the question is presently unanswerable.

"I do not have the answers so I will resort to the metaphysical (supernatural) to appease myself."

No. You stated that science couldn't answer "why is it here", with no reference to the metaphysical, and I gave an example to the contrary (unlike you, I do not comprehend sentences with a metaphysical mind-set).

Not really. Come on, MATH?? Not impressed.

Nope. Although my Ph.D. doesn't make me any more qualified to discuss theology than yours, mine is at least scientific (medicinal chemistry).

Why? Because I don't look for metaphysical (i.e. supernatural) answers to questions we have YET to answer? Geesh. Guess I'm "intellectually dishonest".

Why can't you accept that maybe we just don't know things. Why so quick to accept metaphysical doctrine?

Hey Sparky, hate to break it to you, will NEVER have the answer to every important question in YOUR life. ;^)

The same applies to YOU.

No. No bricks scathed. I will never resort to the metaphysical as a last ditch effort (when all else fails) to answer questions regarding any topic.

At the very least, I hope you walk away from this accepting the fact that your 'first cause' argument is not valid.

[GarageWoodworks]

I intended to address your Turtle theory, but forgot to come back. It is an ridiculous theory, one that most people would have trouble swallowing.

This is what I call a 'QUICK FIX" to the blunder that is the "first cause" argument.

It is more plausible to me that mass-energy always existed. Matter in some form or another, always existed (needed no supernatural creator).

[Greg G]

Usually get shot at...

But seriously, FWIW, I use Forte Agent and it has never been a problem; including Robatoy's posts.

Greg G.

[J. Clarke]

The bottom line on this is that sooner or later either science will be backed into a corner where some phenomenon is observed that requires the existence of a deity, or it won't ever be backed into such a corner.

In science the null hypothesis is that there is no deity. So a scientist won't accept such existence as proven until there is evidence that allows no other explanation. This makes many religious types angry--they don't seem to understand that the result of this approach may some day be incontrovertible proof that their deity exists.

Further, they don't seem to grasp that a method that one uses in one's work may have little to do with one's personal beliefs. One can be quite convinced that there is a deity without accepting any particular piece of evidence as proof of the existence of that deity.

If there is an all knowing and all powerful deity who created the universe and that deity wants us to find proof of his existence, we'll find it. If there is and it doesn't, then maybe we should just leave it the Hell alone lest we piss it off. And if there is no such deity then why worry about it?

[dpb]

Tim Daneliuk wrote: ...

And most of them are simply unanswerable unless indeed it turns out we can finally grasp a unified theory and it turns out to be, as I suspect it will be and hinted at before, inherently contained within itself.

...

I seriously doubt they were any "smarter" or if they were it was a very biased sampling. "Different" scope of interest and learning undoubtedly; "smarter"? -- I doubt it.

...

The thing is that these "deep" questions may actually turn out to not be questions at all in the end. And, while interesting philosophical discussions can and do occur, what is underpinning any of their conclusions other than some belief system? OTOH, at least w/ a scientific field, there is the ultimate question of "does it explain what we observe?" that provides an ultimate basis of comparison.

--

[Charlie Self]

True enough, but it does NOT imply Christians, as hard as that is for many Christians to understand.

[Tim Daneliuk]

You insist in maintaining a religious-like faith in the ability of science - in principle - to answer every quetion that matters in the future. It's absurd on its face. Science is consciously and by intent limited to discussions of the empirically observable physical universe.

that better?

Why do you insist on dragging this back to a discussion of a particular religious tradition? I haven't done so precisely because you'd like to erect a strawman argument that hinges on human foibles. I'd rather have the conceptual dicussion untainted by religious auto mechanics.

You evidently did not read the previous paragraph.

There doesn't *have* to be one. But neither is it intellectually consistent to insist that there *isn't* one. One has to be open to this possibility.

So you acknowledge that - in principle - *something* can be "eternal"? You're moving in the right direction.

The "possibilities" - all told - still cannot embrace the notion of ultimate first cause UNLESS science declares the universe, time, space, matter, energy, and so forth to be eternal in its own right. Not only does this seem unlikely, it is doubtful that science - in principle - could ever demonstrate this.

And thereby ignore some of life's most important/interesting questions all because *you can't get to answers using your favorite system of inquiry*. This is what is know as a "fundamentalist" religious position.

No. I do not have all the answers, so I will continue to explore them even if I cannot use science as a mechanism to do so because discovering True Things is more important to me than clinging to my present methods alone.

No, what is "dishonest" is dimissing questions that cannot be addresses by science as being prima facia unimportant. You're putting the defense of your system ahead of your desire to discover True Things. This is the *exact* same criticism I have of the vast majority of organized religions: They put their system ahead of the Truth (whatever it may be).

I would kindly suggest that metaphysics is not a "doctrine" nor is it "supernatural" (necessarily) nor is it anti-rational. These are all accusations that have been minted in the Rationalist/ Empiricist camp bent on defending science as the *sole* source of knowledge. Metaphysics is way more interesting than you're giving it credit. And yes, "I don't know yet" is a perfectly valid answer no matter what one's way of discovering things might be.

Yeah, I get that. I also get that much of the joy of discovery is in the asking of the question. That's true in any discipline - discovering the right question is half the batter. So - just because metaphysics gets a little gooey now and then - doesn't mean the questions at hand aren't important and interesting.

Oh, I've already stipulated that science brings us knowledge. I don't find science worrisome, I find it inspiring. So no, I'm not even slightly worried there is validity to science.

Then you will never find meaning in your life beyond its mechanical details ... which is your privilege.

Nope. It is entirely valid, just not under the rules of science.

[Tim Daneliuk]

OK, I said that badly. The theologians I studied were

*far more broadly educated* than the mathematicians and scientists. The theologians had background than embraced science (archaeology, in particular is a cornerstone of theology), linguistics, history, philosophy, and, in some cases, mathematics.

At the end of the day *everything* may be moot. Science - like all systems of knowledge - hinges upon at least one unprovable starting axiom. In the case of science that axiom is that we can reliably observe our universe and draw general conclusions about its operations based on those observations. While I happen to agree with that starting point, it is not inherently True and could turn out to be entirely wrong. Similarly, a quest for information outside of science has to acknowledge that there are limitations to other, non-scientific ways of discovery. My point in this whole subthread was: a) People exploring non-scientific avenues of knowledge are not necessarily or inherently anti-intellectual morons. b) Science is not some kind of "better" way to know things. It has great utility value where it applies, but it also has significant gaps in what it can even address. It is possible to be schooled in science, and affirm its value, while at the same time having a life of faith. I know of a good many practicing scientists who fit into this exact category.

[Robert Allison]

Or perhaps they are not even pertinent questions. When someone asks why are we here, my thought is that due to a miraculous combination of cosmic, planetary, evolutionary and physical occurences, we are here at this point in time and space. That is amazing and wondrous to me. How did it happen? I leave science to answer that.

Being a Bhuddist, science meshes perfectly with my world view. After all, it is based on observation, as is my philosophy. Others have said (and I agree) that the Bhuddist god is so powerful that he does not even have to exist. If he is there, he is there, if he is not, he is not.

And does it help us to predict results. I love the philosophical arguments, but they are outside the realm of science and I look on them as amusements rather than serious search for knowledge.

After all, one cannot know the unknowable. What would be the purpose of trying? Aggravation?

[Fly-by-Night CC]

Thank you dpb -- now I've more to consider regarding the two documents.

Given the seemingly clear inclusion/exclusion I'm leaning to my own understanding that the framers of the Constitution wanted no reference to any faith belief in the primary document of the country. While the majority of the citizenry held religious beliefs (as it still does today), the framers purposefully withheld all such references.

Why would they so blatantly do this if they were using, as has been argued, Judeo-Christian beliefs to draw upon?

Was the Declaration merely a play to the faithful to stir the majority to action? In other words, use the argument most likely to appeal to the listener regardless of your own beliefs as long as the end result moves toward your goal?

Would a Deist be considered a conservative or a liberal by today's definition?

[dpb]

And, since you have a small sampling of such you claim all scientists and mathematicians are intellectually inferior or lacking in training in other areas of knowledge?

I would repeat it is simply a product of the rapid expansion of learning, particularly in the scientific arena. It is simply impossible today for any one person to be fully cognizant at any level of expertise in all areas of human knowledge. The days of the "natural philosopher" are long gone. That may be regrettable, but it is simply a fact of life and as I noted before, that science now is so nearly unknowable to the broader community is, imo, a leading cause for the impasse (not to leave out, of course, the simply abysmal current education system).

As I have noted in another location, I've just finished Grant's and Sherman's memoirs. Apropos to this subject, I was struck by the fact that simply 150 years ago or so, when Sherman was the first head of the Louisiana Seminary (now LSU), he was the professor of "natural philosophy". Now, of course, that field of study is what we would call "physics", but as recently as the Civil War (he was in this position, resigning when the secession of Louisiana became fact and returning at that time to St Louis as he told the committee of oversight he could not continue to serve in a location not loyal to the Union) the level of knowledge in the field was such that it was still considered "philosophy", not "science".

I believe it is that recent development of science as it is now known and practiced is _so_ recent as compared to the long history of philosophy going back to the beginning of civilization that makes the former unfamiliar while the latter is so ingrained as to have become inate over the ages. Compounded with the level of sophistication it now requires to even comprehend the basics of science as it now exists and the philosophical arguments are relatively simple to at least comprehend. Everybody has an opinion or belief, hardly anyone understands even the rudiments of string theory.

...

Well, so far it has worked remarkably well. If we ever find a point in time or in space where it doesn't work, then the axiom will have to be modified. That would be one evidence of the outside influence someone else mentioned, perhaps.

I'll note one "pet thought" of mine regarding your earlier question of root cause and "where did it come from originally" is that the existence of quantum fluctuation just _might_ be that external force, or in another way, that little bit of "wriggle room" in the Heisenburg principle is the man behind the curtain we're not supposed to be paying attention to.

--

[GarageWoodworks]

You mean, many CONVENIENT snips right? Concessions maybe?

This is your strawman whipping boy. I do not view science as a religion, this is your contention.

What you FAIL to understand is that what we can not OBSERVE today, we may be observing TOMORROW. Some said years ago that we would never completely understand how proteins fold because we will never be able to witness the act. Recently (months ago), advances have been made in the field of electron imaging that enable us to OBSERVE today what we couldn't yesterday, like protein folding.

is not OBSERVABLE today might be TOMORROW! I can not emphasize this enough.

All of theology hinges on human foibles Timmy.

In case you missed my other post, I will paste it below:

I intended to address your Turtle theory, but forgot to come back. It is an ridiculous theory, one that most people would have trouble swallowing.

This is what I call a 'QUICK FIX" to the blunder that is the "first cause" argument.

It is more plausible to me that mass-energy always existed. Matter in some form or another, always existed (needed no supernatural creator).

See Russell's Tea Pot.

Yes. Mass-Energy. No deity.

Bingo! You are making progress. Only science will not make that declaration TODAY, nor TOMORROW.

This is a GAP. You can choose to fill it with THEOLOGY.

Naive. See above example regarding 'protein folding'.

Another strawman whipping boy for you. I am not ignoring the questions. I choose not to fill the GAPS with theology. I leave the question, not ignored, but acknowledged and unanswered.

Strawman. I never wrote that I dismissed any questions and regarded any as unimportant. See above.

You are leaving behind logic and reasoning in order to appease yourself.

Thin ice Timmy. I would kindly suggest that it is exactly that.

The questions are interesting and important. agreed. I still will not accept an answer based purely on theology and/or metaphysics.

No, I do not find "meaning" by filling in the Gaps with metaphysics.

Let's try it again:

Does your creator/something/someone/deity not require a 'cause'?

1) If the answer is 'no' then the 'first cause' argument becomes ad hoc and prejudicially applied (logically impermissible). And we are right back where we started, with no more understanding of 'causation'. 2) If the answer is "yes" they required a 'cause', then what was it? And what 'caused' that something/someone?

If you truly accept the Turtle Theory, then it shouldn't be too huge a leap for you to accept that maybe mass-energy always existed.

[GarageWoodworks]

You mean, many CONVENIENT snips right? Concessions maybe?

This is your strawman whipping boy. I do not view science as a religion, this is your contention.

What you FAIL to understand is that what we can not OBSERVE today, we may be observing TOMORROW. Some said years ago that we would never completely understand how proteins fold because we will never be able to witness the act. Recently (months ago), advances have been made in the field of electron imaging that enable us to OBSERVE today what we couldn't yesterday, like protein folding.

is not OBSERVABLE today might be TOMORROW! I can not emphasize this enough.

All of theology hinges on human foibles Timmy.

In case you missed my other post, I will paste it below:

I intended to address your Turtle theory, but forgot to come back. It is an ridiculous theory, one that most people would have trouble swallowing.

This is what I call a 'QUICK FIX" to the blunder that is the "first cause" argument.

It is more plausible to me that mass-energy always existed. Matter in some form or another, always existed (needed no supernatural creator).

See Russell's Tea Pot.

Yes. Mass-Energy. No deity.

Bingo! You are making progress. Only science will not make that declaration TODAY, nor TOMORROW.

This is a GAP. You can choose to fill it with THEOLOGY.

Naive. See above example regarding 'protein folding'.

Another strawman whipping boy for you. I am not ignoring the questions. I choose not to fill the GAPS with theology. I leave the question, not ignored, but acknowledged and unanswered.

Strawman. I never wrote that I dismissed any questions and regarded any as unimportant. See above.

You are leaving behind logic and reasoning in order to appease yourself.

Thin ice Timmy. I would kindly suggest that it is exactly that.

The questions are interesting and important. agreed. I still will not accept an answer based purely on theology and/or metaphysics.

No, I do not find "meaning" by filling in the Gaps with metaphysics.

Let's try it again:

Does your creator/something/someone/deity not require a 'cause'?

1) If the answer is 'no' then the 'first cause' argument becomes ad hoc and prejudicially applied (logically impermissible). And we are right back where we started, with no more understanding of 'causation'. 2) If the answer is "yes" they required a 'cause', then what was it? And what 'caused' that something/someone?

If you truly accept the Turtle Theory, then it shouldn't be too huge a leap for you to accept that maybe mass-energy always existed.

[dpb]

Tim Daneliuk wrote: ...

But if it isn't empirically observable, what is it and on what basis is there to judge whether an answer is or is not "right"?

It simply is one argument as opposed to another at that point with no inherent way to determine which is "better" in some sense.

...

...

You really should read more in modern physics and cosmology. :)

That is actually the direction in which things seem to be progressing -- that the universe in essence "created itself". I repeat, read Greene for a rudimentary introduction.

If the hints in this direction bear fruit (and while it's quite likely there are many wondrous side paths and detours yet to be traveled on the way, I think it quite likely that the end result will be so although not likely in my lifetime so I'll have to count on the "glass darkly" route if I'm ever going to actually know), the answer will be that the universe simply sprang into being, evolved to an end and may or may not do so repetitively--right now that is a big question.

--

[J. Clarke]

Huh? I've never heard a Christian assert that Deists were Christians. The incorrect assertion that I see is that the Founders were Deists. Three of over two hundred Founders were Deists.

[dpb]

Fly-by-Night CC wrote: ...

I think you're taking it out of context of both time and purpose. To infer the first one would have to ignore all the supporting debate, letters, other writings and prior and post history of the individuals involved.

Overall, considering the scope of the document and the issues, religion was a very small fraction, indeed, so it is not surprising it doesn't contain references thereunto. It is, after all, _not_ a religious document. One cannot, of course, separate the writing of a Constitution for a budding nation having recently succeeded in pulling of a revolution from the Declaration of Independence which was the instigating document of that revolution so I would answer the questions as

1. It is not "blatantly" ignored, the pertinent question was directly addressed in the establishment doctrine.
2. No, the beliefs expressed are completely self-consistent w/ those of the primary author as well as the overwhelming majority of the signers (actually, I'd venture 100%, but I've not researched every individual signer in detail).
3. Religious belief is irrelevant to political belief overall. I strongly suspect would be hard to find any of the original members of the constitutional convention that would be considered anything but conservative (probably radically so) politically these days regardless of how "enlightened" their social views of the time might have been. In those ways as well, they would all undoubtedly be "male chauvinist pigs".

So, overall, I personally disagree quite strongly w/ your interpretation and think if you were to read seriously of the era you'd find great difficulty in substantiating the hypotheses outlined.

--

[Lew Hodgett]

This guy has more lives than a cat.

Put him in the kill file, you guys keep dragging him back.

Give me a break.

As long as you keep playing with crap, you're going to get some on you.

Lew