Question 8 for Christians

[Federal Farmer]

You're an odd duck, Fed Farm, you sometimes posts like an intelligent, educated, rational person and then you flip out and get totally pissy.

You assume I get "pissy".

My reference to your spelling was in response to your cheap shot about room temperature IQ.

It wasn't a "cheap shot", it was in response to your strawman of "Excusing religious wars because other people have wars is hardly valid" when nobody has said anything about excusing any religious wars, at all, except for you. You make all kinds of fallacious arguments, and then try to play the wounded party when you get smacked for it.

The spelling of my name in English is correct, few of us use Latin spellings except in special cases--not on discussion boards. It is also true in English that a person my spell and pronounce their own proper name in any way they wish: Smith may be pronounced "Jones" if the owner so desires.

Equivocating again I see. So now you're going to claim that anybody can spell anything anyway they want to? Sorry, doesn't work that way. Oh sure, there are people who do what you suggest, what happens though is that most people look at them and think to themselves "that guy's an idiot". I'm a bit different though, I'll look them in the eye and call them an idiot to their face (it's a Southern thing, you wouldn't understand). Also, the pronunciation of a name has nothing to do with the spelling of it, so are you trying to tell us that your name is "Tranquillity" (2 "l"s), and that your parents didn't know how to spell "Tranquility", or are you going to admit you simply mis-spelled it?

If I misunderstand your position you don't need to flip **** at me, you completely missed the point I was making about using evolution as an excuse for one's behavior--oh well...

I hardly "flip ***" at anyone (whatever the *** is supposed to mean), and if I missed your point, it's because you haven't made one. All you've done is flung wildly exaggerated accusations, with no merit in fact, and attempted to use them as an excuse for atheism. If you're going to make a point, make it, and at least try to use facts to do so.

The distorted mess that we call the practice of Christianity today has little or nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, but instead has devolved into the theocractic police force trying to make everybody follow their rules. They make no apologies for their incessant attacks on me and I make none for my mine upon them. Don't like? Don't read my posts, there is an ignore feature on your control panel.

Again with the intellectually bankrupt strawman argument. As to your argument about the "theocratic police", I have no idea what you're talking about, but I'll take a stab at it anyway. The foundation of the rules of conduct for western civilization come to us directly from the Judeo-Christian tradition, and in fact the vast majority of our laws are based, even if loosely, on the Bible. Don't murder, don't steal, don't lie, don't covet (as this leads to stealing, rape, etc.), honor your parents (they'll teach you the proper way to lead your life), and the rest of the Mosaic Law IS the foundation for western civilization, so either you have a problem living your life in accordance to the rules that everyone else does (which is an extremely childish attitude), or you don't like the fact that these rules come down from a concept you have rejected, which is totally illogical. It doesn't matter where the rules come from, it only matters that you follow them, just like everyone else.

You're also cherry-picking a very small number of incidents and attempting to apply that as the standard "modus operandi" of all Christians. Using your logic, it would be equally valid for me to use Stalin as the "standard model" for all Atheists and demand that they all be rounded up and imprisoned before they can rise to any position of authority and start killing millions of people. No, the vast majority of Christians make every effort to live their lives in accordance with the scriptural teachings, you just want to use the failings of a few (mostly those who barely give lip service to being "Christians"), and try to paint everyone else with the same brush. What happened to the concept of judging people on their OWN actions, or are you suggesting that holding an entire society responsible for the actions of one, or even a few, is somehow correct?

As far as anyone "attacking" you, that's merely a figment of your own imagination. Have I "attacked" you? Hardly. In fact, it's been my experience in the short time that I've been conversing on forums that the only time someone starts using the "I've been attacked" card is when they themselves have written something really stupid, and been called on it, and not being willing to admit that they may have erred (pride goeth before the fall). From what I've read of yours thus far, the only one doing the "attacking" is you, in your incessant and illogical attacks on Christianity, so, if I may be so bold as to suggest, why not try making a cogent argument, based solely on contemporary fact instead of resorting to flinging strawmen and red herrings everywhere you go, and you might be surprised at how people response.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Hi Lib,

I've always had a problem with Heisenberg, but then I deal with wood, concrete and steel, so I don't really need to understand what's happening at the Quantum level (and frankly Hawking gives me a screaming headache ), I just take it on faith, and hundreds of years of testing and application. The whole thing smacks of "it is what it is because I say what it is" (not unlike the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland). If we are to accept that p=mv, then even particles must abide by the same principles unless they are acted upon by another force (Newton). BTW, are you familiar with Karl Poppers falsification of Heisenberg?

String theory is wayyyyyyy out there in the realm of speculation - by contrast the behavior of semi-conductors is inexplicable except by quantum mechanics, and I read somewhere that semiconductors are involved in producing 1/3 of the country's GDP - QM is firmly grounded in practical reality.

True, but we don't need to understand how something works in order to use it, and incorrectly calling something a "theory" in their attempt to explain it, at least to me, is highly deceptive. For (a bad) example, most hunters have no idea how a bullet really works, but all they need to know is that when they put the ammunition into a weapon and pull the trigger, it goes "bang". Again, maybe it's just me, but I'd be much more comfortable having a scientist say that he had a really good hypothesis, but the technology simply didn't exist right now to advance it to the state of "theory", than to have them incorrectly apply the word theory to a really good hypothesis.

 

[9sublime]

Mare and Fed Farmer, lets keep it civil

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Equivocating again I see. So now you're going to claim that anybody can spell anything anyway they want to? Sorry, doesn't work that way. Oh sure, there are people who do what you suggest, what happens though is that most people look at them and think to themselves "that guy's an idiot". I'm a bit different though, I'll look them in the eye and call them an idiot to their face (it's a Southern thing, you wouldn't understand). Also, the pronunciation of a name has nothing to do with the spelling of it, so are you trying to tell us that your name is "Tranquillity" (2 "l"s), and that your parents didn't know how to spell "Tranquility", or are you going to admit you simply mis-spelled it?

What I said was that "proper names" can be spelled anyway the owner wishes, you extrapolated that to "anybody can spell anything the way they want to?"

When I first started using my name I looked it up and discovered that either spelling was correct--one "L" or two.

As far as the rest of your diatribe... well, what's the point? You don't read what I write accurately--deliberate or not I don't know--so re-explaining what I write over and over again is hardly worth the trouble.

As an aside (and very politely, Sublime) I would point out that Judeo-Christian values are taken from earlier works and peoples, just as are most of stories and the exploits described in the Bible. We owe more to the Greeks than most people are willing to admit.

 

[Libsmasher]

Hi Lib,

I've always had a problem with Heisenberg, but then I deal with wood, concrete and steel, so I don't really need to understand what's happening at the Quantum level (and frankly Hawking gives me a screaming headache ), I just take it on faith, and hundreds of years of testing and application. The whole thing smacks of "it is what it is because I say what it is" (not unlike the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland). If we are to accept that p=mv, then even particles must abide by the same principles unless they are acted upon by another force (Newton). BTW, are you familiar with Karl Poppers falsification of Heisenberg?

No - I know he had a problem with induction being a part of the scientific method. He did commentaries on the philosphy of sceince, I believe, and I have had little interest in that, since when I was in it I was only interested in the "wood, concrete and steel", as it were, of science.

Let me say something about momentum since you bring it up. The relativistic formula is:

p = (gamma)m0*v

gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v**2/c**2)

Here m0 is the rest mass of a particle, and v is its velocity wrt an observer. You can see that the observed mass increases as the particle's velocity approaches the speed of light, but for low velocities (the ones you are familiar with in everyday life) the mass appears invariant, and the formula for momentum reduces to p= m0v. Do you see the problem with intuition gained only from everyday experience? It misleads us into believing the particular is the general. We don't encounter particles going at a speed of 0.8c, so we think momentum is only mv. People in ancient times had no satellites to see the earth was spherical, so most believed it to be flat because of their everyday experience. When we study enough of these examples, we stop holding up everyday experience as the measure of the "reality" of things, but become deeply suspicious of it as something that is likely to mislead us, at least when we are concerned with fundamental questions about matter and energy.

True, but we don't need to understand how something works in order to use it, and incorrectly calling something a "theory" in their attempt to explain it, at least to me, is highly deceptive. For (a bad) example, most hunters have no idea how a bullet really works, but all they need to know is that when they put the ammunition into a weapon and pull the trigger, it goes "bang". Again, maybe it's just me, but I'd be much more comfortable having a scientist say that he had a really good hypothesis, but the technology simply didn't exist right now to advance it to the state of "theory", than to have them incorrectly apply the word theory to a really good hypothesis.

However, when an idea is backed by a huge amount of observational evidence, eg evolution OR quantum theory, and does account for all or nearly all relevent phenomena, it does graduate to theory. When I was involved in this stuff, I could eg show you spectral photographs of short-lived energy transitions where the corresponding lines on the spectrum were fuzzy - a clear, no-nonsense, broad daylight verification of the Uncertainty principle.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Thanks for the response Lib.

Getting back to the original point, we all take things on "faith", including some aspects of science. Like your Quantum Mechanics (which STILL gives me a screeching headache), I have to accept that they do know what they're talking about since it's not my field, and I don't really understand a lot of the more advanced concepts. It's no different than religion. In religion we "believe" and have "faith" in God, as the creator of the universe, where he said "let there be, and BANG, there it was". Now, as scientists, being the inquisitive people they are, choose to spend their careers trying to explain the specific mechanisms of what happened when God said "let there be", GREAT! I'm all for it, but even if they are able to do so, it does not disprove God, or in any way legitimately cause doubt as it relates to the question of if there really is a God or not.

Frankly I couldn't care less if someone chooses to believe there is no God, as that's their choice, and I don't try to foist my beliefs on anyone else, but where I do draw the line is when those who choose not to believe attempt to impede on my right to believe, and to practice the tenets of my faith as I see fit. The Constitution specifically guarantees our Rights to not have any faith imposed on us, just as it guarantees the Right of those who do believe to practice their religion as they see fit, and as I took an Oath to "...support and defend the Constitution...", I consider it my Duty to continue to defend the Constitution, including against those of my own countrymen who would interfere with the Rights of others.

 

[Libsmasher]

Thanks for the response Lib.

Getting back to the original point, we all take things on "faith", including some aspects of science. Like your Quantum Mechanics (which STILL gives me a screeching headache), I have to accept that they do know what they're talking about since it's not my field, and I don't really understand a lot of the more advanced concepts. It's no different than religion. In religion we "believe" and have "faith" in God, as the creator of the universe, where he said "let there be, and BANG, there it was". Now, as scientists, being the inquisitive people they are, choose to spend their careers trying to explain the specific mechanisms of what happened when God said "let there be", GREAT! I'm all for it, but even if they are able to do so, it does not disprove God, or in any way legitimately cause doubt as it relates to the question of if there really is a God or not.

Frankly I couldn't care less if someone chooses to believe there is no God, as that's their choice, and I don't try to foist my beliefs on anyone else, but where I do draw the line is when those who choose not to believe attempt to impede on my right to believe, and to practice the tenets of my faith as I see fit. The Constitution specifically guarantees our Rights to not have any faith imposed on us, just as it guarantees the Right of those who do believe to practice their religion as they see fit, and as I took an Oath to "...support and defend the Constitution...", I consider it my Duty to continue to defend the Constitution, including against those of my own countrymen who would interfere with the Rights of others.

Religion and science are two different spheres. When someone comes up with a scientific theory, it's usually easy to conceive of valid TESTS, which if the theory is valid, will be passed. Eg, Einstein, when asked for tests of his general theory of relativity, suggested three - all involving astronomical observations - he had no background or experience in astronomy per se. They were:

1. A gravitational red-shift in light from massive stars
2. The bending of starlight during an eclipse
3. An effect in the rotation of line of apsides of mercury's orbit inexplicable by classical mechanics.

Needless to say, the theory passed all tests. When theories pass test after test for decades, I don't think it's correct to say scientists merely have faith in the theory, rather they've become convinced by solid evidence.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Religion and science are two different spheres. When someone comes up with a scientific theory, it's usually easy to conceive of valid TESTS, which if the theory is valid, will be passed. Eg, Einstein, when asked for tests of his general theory of relativity, suggested three - all involving astronomical observations - he had no background or experience in astronomy per se. They were:

1. A gravitational red-shift in light from massive stars
2. The bending of starlight during an eclipse
3. An effect in the rotation of line of apsides of mercury's orbit inexplicable by classical mechanics.

Needless to say, the theory passed all tests. When theories pass test after test for decades, I don't think it's correct to say scientists merely have faith in the theory, rather they've become convinced by solid evidence.

While the limited set of circumstances does support your argument, would a Botanist KNOW that each of the things you mention were correct, or would he be "taking their word for it"? More than likely, he would be, since orbital mechanics and Astrophysics aren't his field of expertise. What do you think the chances are that Dr. Neil Tyson DeGrasse is familiar enough with the latest breakthroughs in genetic splicing to be able to authoritatively comment on it? Or is he simply "taking their word for it"? Again, in both of the examples I've cited, even scientists are accepting something on "faith".

Another example, albeit a simplistic one; Can you accept that the sun is going to rise in the East in the morning, without understanding the mechanisms behind it, or is the lack of that knowledge going to somehow prevent the sun from coming up? There are things that we all accept on "faith", whether or not we have a great deal of understanding behind it, so whether or not science can test something makes no difference, it either is, or it isn't. The problem with science testing "faith" is that, for the most part, faith isn't based on anything that is quantifiable. The other problem is that the stories in the Bible, the ones that Atheists commonly attempt to use as a cudgel to try to beat believers over the head with, were originated by completely uneducated people who were trying to explain the world around them. Today, most anyone understands this fact, and keeps it in that context, but it in no way effects their faith, since whether or not the world was created in 6 standard Earth days, or 6 'days' that are roughly equal to a billion standard Earth years in length makes no difference.

The main purpose of the Bible, the point that most Atheists fail to grasp, is not that it's a science text, but rather it's a behavioral text, and it's purpose is to instruct us in how to treat each other, and what happens when we don't. As my Sunday School teacher said when I was younger, "the word Bible is actually an acronym which stands for Basic Instruction Before Leaving Earth". If you will, it's the "Owners Manual" for the human race, and like all owners manuals, you may choose to read it, or not, but the odds are that if you do read it, and abide by the instructions contained therein, that there's a better chance of not "breaking" anything important that's going to cost you a bundle to repair. It's not unlike a car, if you don't read the owners manual, and don't change the oil every 3000 miles, and you hotrod the hell out of it, it'll still work, for a while, but you're going to do some serious damage to the engine and have to replace it long before you should have to. If you DO read it, and you DO change the oil, and you DON'T hotrod it, it'll last a lot longer, possibly for the rest of your life.

 

[Libsmasher]

While the limited set of circumstances does support your argument, would a Botanist KNOW that each of the things you mention were correct, or would he be "taking their word for it"? More than likely, he would be, since orbital mechanics and Astrophysics aren't his field of expertise. What do you think the chances are that Dr. Neil Tyson DeGrasse is familiar enough with the latest breakthroughs in genetic splicing to be able to authoritatively comment on it? Or is he simply "taking their word for it"? Again, in both of the examples I've cited, even scientists are accepting something on "faith".

I don't think it reduces to taking their word for it - most people can get some degree of insight into what is claimed and the evidence offered to support it. As far as, eg, orbital mechanics is concerned, one must either believe that it is true, or that thousands of scientists for hundreds of years have created a gigantic conspiracy to believe something is false. A little thought and simply observing the night sky would be evidence that even the most simple person could obtain. Sorry, it's not "faith". As for religion, I haven't made any comments about it - I am an agnostic and as I said, think of it as a separate sphere - trying to interinvolve the two is comparing apples and oranges, and is fruitless. Hey! Was that a contradicting pun?

 

[Federal Farmer]

I don't think it reduces to taking their word for it - most people can get some degree of insight into what is claimed and the evidence offered to support it. As far as, eg, orbital mechanics is concerned, one must either believe that it is true, or that thousands of scientists for hundreds of years have created a gigantic conspiracy to believe something is false. A little thought and simply observing the night sky would be evidence that even the most simple person could obtain. Sorry, it's not "faith". As for religion, I haven't made any comments about it - I am an agnostic and as I said, think of it as a separate sphere - trying to interinvolve the two is comparing apples and oranges, and is fruitless. Hey! Was that a contradicting pun?

Hi Lib,

I fear you're beginning to, as we say in the South, "pick gnat sh1t out of pepper". We were talking about scientific certainty, ala` the "Theory", and while the concepts of Orbital Mechanics are well understood today, during the time of Newton, they were not, ergo his Laws and Theories were in fact taken on faith by those who were not in his field. The same applies today. A Botanist may accept as an article of faith that the Laws of orbital mechanics are in fact correct, but unless he can himself perform the observations and calculations to prove it, he is, even today, taking someone else's word for it, because he has "faith" that they are in fact correct. Take the orbit of Mars for instance, and it's apparent "regression". If someone who was not familiar with orbital mechanics were to apply "a little thought and simply observe" the night sky, they would likely come to the same erroneous conclusions that everyone before Johannes Kepler did. It is the knowledge of orbital mechanics, from the work of Kepler and later Newton which give us the confidence to understand that the planets of our Solar System orbit the sun in ellipses rather than circles, yet when one travels to the Mid East, it is still quite common to encounter peoples who still to this very day believe that the moon "dissolves", or is "eaten" every month, and is "reborn" again, which is how they explain the waning and waxing of the moons phases.

As for myself, I readily admit that my knowledge and understanding of Quantum Mechanics is woefully inadequate to be able to reasonably and intelligently discuss it, therefore I must take it as an article of faith that what we are being told is in fact correct, as far as we currently understand it, but I still reserve the right to be skeptical until such time as it has been proven out through the crucible of time.

And yes, that was a nice pun indeed!

 

[Libsmasher]

Hi Lib,

I fear you're beginning to, as we say in the South, "pick gnat sh1t out of pepper". We were talking about scientific certainty, ala` the "Theory", and while the concepts of Orbital Mechanics are well understood today, during the time of Newton, they were not, ergo his Laws and Theories were in fact taken on faith by those who were not in his field. The same applies today. A Botanist may accept as an article of faith that the Laws of orbital mechanics are in fact correct, but unless he can himself perform the observations and calculations to prove it, he is, even today, taking someone else's word for it, because he has "faith" that they are in fact correct. Take the orbit of Mars for instance, and it's apparent "regression". If someone who was not familiar with orbital mechanics were to apply "a little thought and simply observe" the night sky, they would likely come to the same erroneous conclusions that everyone before Johannes Kepler did. It is the knowledge of orbital mechanics, from the work of Kepler and later Newton which give us the confidence to understand that the planets of our Solar System orbit the sun in ellipses rather than circles, yet when one travels to the Mid East, it is still quite common to encounter peoples who still to this very day believe that the moon "dissolves", or is "eaten" every month, and is "reborn" again, which is how they explain the waning and waxing of the moons phases.

As for myself, I readily admit that my knowledge and understanding of Quantum Mechanics is woefully inadequate to be able to reasonably and intelligently discuss it, therefore I must take it as an article of faith that what we are being told is in fact correct, as far as we currently understand it, but I still reserve the right to be skeptical until such time as it has been proven out through the crucible of time.

And yes, that was a nice pun indeed!

Thank you.

I insist that anyone with an IQ over say 90 can big insights into the theory and evidence for celestial mechanics. I'd say at least 110 for quantum mechanics. Therefore, they needn't take it on faith - they can attend classes and it will be explained to them. Taking things on faith then is a choice, not a necessity.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Thank you.

I insist that anyone with an IQ over say 90 can big insights into the theory and evidence for celestial mechanics. I'd say at least 110 for quantum mechanics. Therefore, they needn't take it on faith - they can attend classes and it will be explained to them. Taking things on faith then is a choice, not a necessity.

Hi Lib,

I cannot dispute your observation about the inherent ability of people to comprehend the subjects (if they even have a serious enough interest in them), my point being that for the vast majority, there either isn't time (my day starts at 05:00, and usually doesn't end much before 23:00, 6 days a week), or they simply don't have the inclination to, as their time is better spent on other pursuits (raising a family, etc., etc.), so they do simply take it on faith.

On the point of being able to, one of the things I'm looking forward to when I retire in a couple of years is going back to school and possibly starting my 3rd career in a totally unrelated field, Constitutional Law. Even if I decide not to pursue it as a career, I do intend to go before the Bar so that I can annoy the Courts by filing Amicus Curiae briefs any and every chance I get.

 

[Libsmasher]

Hi Lib,

I cannot dispute your observation about the inherent ability of people to comprehend the subjects (if they even have a serious enough interest in them), my point being that for the vast majority, there either isn't time (my day starts at 05:00, and usually doesn't end much before 23:00, 6 days a week), or they simply don't have the inclination to, as their time is better spent on other pursuits (raising a family, etc., etc.), so they do simply take it on faith.

Yes, but this started (if I remember ) that people must take their quantum mechanics the same way they take their religion - on faith. But the latter is accepted on faith by necessity and the former through being too busy, lack of interest, etc. Clearly, the two are different.

On the point of being able to, one of the things I'm looking forward to when I retire in a couple of years is going back to school and possibly starting my 3rd career in a totally unrelated field, Constitutional Law. Even if I decide not to pursue it as a career, I do intend to go before the Bar so that I can annoy the Courts by filing Amicus Curiae briefs any and every chance I get.

Annoy them too much and you'll become inimicus curiae.

 

[Dr.Who]

I think it is supposed to be a metaphor for the absence of God.

Very true. In the absence of material matter all that is left is the spiritual. God is spirit. We will be spirit. Heaven and hell are spiritual descriptions of our relationship with God.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Yes, but this started (if I remember ) that people must take their quantum mechanics the same way they take their religion - on faith. But the latter is accepted on faith by necessity and the former through being too busy, lack of interest, etc. Clearly, the two are different.

But only if one has the ability and opportunity to learn. Do the bushmen of Australia, or any of the people of the other 3rd world backwaters, have the ablility of learning about quantum mechanics? Hardly, their societies lack the ability to provide the educational opportunities that we have. What of the people in our own society who are unable to attend college for whatever reason? Is it really their "choice"? No, while the facts of physics, or for that matter any discipline, are there for any who have the opportunity to avail themselves of an education in them, they cannot be learned by everyone, for if they were, there would be no reason for everyone not to know everything about everything, so by default, we all take things as a matter of faith.

Annoy them too much and you'll become inimicus curiae.

If the pursuit of truth annoys them, that's their problem!