Sam Harris - Science must destroy religion article

[ThinkingSapien]

Originally Posted by DCNBILL

nice try but not the same conditions.

Was worth a try

At any rate, many aspects of mathematics are derived from and are metaphors for physical phenomenon and grouping. Some aspects are arbitrary. Some areas in math have no relationship to physical reality at all. The example that you gave of simple addition is a metaphor for grouping sets. As long as your addition is mapped to that and the objects being added are (at least for our purposes) immutable one would expect a result consistent with the conservation of energy and mass. As you saw from the earlier responses the same mathematical expression can be used as a metaphor for a different phenomenon.

There's a nice cognitive science book that goes into a lot of detail on this, Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being.

[Candide West]

Originally Posted by DCNBILL

Well then think of it this way, in this example I will be using the Character "!" to represent one pencil.

If i place one pencil "!" on a surface (or any other object really) I will have this.

* * ! *

Which we understand to be one pencil.

If I place another pencil next to the first, I get this.

* * ! !

Which we understand is 2 pencils or 10 pencils in binary which is actually the same amount of pencils.

Can you demonstrate a reasonable circumstance where any other amount of pencils would occur under these conditions?

No I can't, but that's not what I'm saying. The general case of the problem is that I cannot think of any statement which is not dependent on something else being accepted as true.*

So any statement where you start out with something like "if X then..." (ie "if I place two pencils on a surface...") what you've got is a conditional statement. Therefore by its very nature it is not necessarily true.*

So if you are using a description of a theoretical physical state you end up with conditional statements (as above).*

If you are making a statement about a physical reality (real pencils) then the statement is conditional and generally time and location limited too.*

If you are working within an axiomatic system (like pure maths) then the statement is dependent on the axioms of that system so it's still conditional.*

I'm not saying that it's impossible to meet all your conditions, but I can't think of any statement which does thus far.

In the interest of furthering the discussion, might it be helpful to explain the context in which you are raising this? I'm just thinking terms of to relating this back to your original statement regarding morality.

[DCNBILL]

Originally Posted by Candide West

No I can't, but that's not what I'm saying. The general case of the problem is that I cannot think of any statement which is not dependent on something else being accepted as true.*

So any statement where you start out with something like "if X then..." (ie "if I place two pencils on a surface...") what you've got is a conditional statement. Therefore by its very nature it is not necessarily true.*

So if you are using a description of a theoretical physical state you end up with conditional statements (as above).*

If you are making a statement about a physical reality (real pencils) then the statement is conditional and generally time and location limited too.*

If you are working within an axiomatic system (like pure maths) then the statement is dependent on the axioms of that system so it's still conditional.*

I'm not saying that it's impossible to meet all your conditions, but I can't think of any statement which does thus far.

In the interest of furthering the discussion, might it be helpful to explain the context in which you are raising this? I'm just thinking terms of to relating this back to your original statement regarding morality.

So when you read my post you actually got out some pencils and did the process or did you do it in your mind, which is where I propose, these truths actually reside.

OK so there is no such thing as an "absolute truth" in your world view, fair enough. So any "truth" would be completely dependent on the arbitrary preferences of the individual along with communicated agreements with others.

Would this be closer to mean what you mean by truth?

As for the purpose of the question, I was assessing the way that you view the concepts of knowledge and fact. After I have pinned that down I can wrap up so to speak.

[Candide West]

Originally Posted by LogisticsBranch

Well, your response was only to one thing I said. *Here is the rest from msg. #72 that you failed to respond to:

Indeed, I didn't really feel I had anything to say about the remainder of your post, but since you've followed up I'll offer some brief thoughts.

He (Jesus Christ) exists within the global mindful and heartfelt individuals that are Christian Catholics that number over 1 million people. This is only one example since there are many other Christians that aren’t Catholic. *This is a physical reality that can't be disputed. It implies as a fact that religion not only exists but survives all attacks by ill-mannered non-religious individuals.

Indeed it does imply that. The christian religion is a very well adapted to survive in human society.*

I presented this before and will again:

The University of Science Berkeley has an online document entitled*
"Misunderstandings of the limits of science": http://undsciberkely.ed/article/science_religion
Here are three snippets from that online document:

1. “Science contradicts the existence of God. Because of some vocal individuals (both inside and outside of science) stridently declaring their beliefs, it's easy to get the impression that science and religion are at war. In fact, people of many different faiths and levels of scientific expertise see no contradiction at all between science and religion. Because science deals only with natural phenomena and explanations, it cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities — like God."

Fair enough, this is true, science doesn't contradict the existence of god. Just like it doesn't contradict the existence of Russels teapot, or the flying spaghetti monster, or Thor etc. These are all propositions for which there is no evidence either way.

2. "A 2005 survey of scientists at top research universities found that more than 48% had a religious affiliation and more than 75% believe that religions convey important truths.2 Some scientists — like Francis Collins, former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, and George Coyne, astronomer and priest — have been outspoken about the satisfaction they find in viewing the world through both a scientific lens and one of personal faith."[/quote]

Fair enough. Out of interest does it mention where the survey was undertaken?*

3. "Though such clashes may garner print, airwave, and bandwidth headlines, it's important to remember that, behind the scenes and out of the spotlight, many cases exist in which religious and scientific perspectives present no conflict at all. Thousands of scientists busily carry out their research while maintaining personal spiritual beliefs, and an even larger number of everyday folks fruitfully view the natural world through an evidence-based, scientific lens and the supernatural world through a spiritual lens. Accepting a scientific worldview needn't require giving up religious faith."

Indeed, while there are some significant clashes these don't cover the totality of either area.*

I'd like to invite Sam Harris to Catholic Answers *so we could have a little chat. Apparently, he isn't brave enough to come. *

Did you actually invite him? Somehow I doubt that the reason he isn't on here is fear (assuming for the moment he isn't on here using a pseudonym which of course he could be).

Anyone who says Faith is FICTION is crossing over the line of reality. *I recall an Australian newspaper interview this year with Lawrence Krauss (atheist) that mentioned he said, “Science will destroy religion.” *HA! HA! HA! Dr. Lawrence Krauss perhaps you too should join us here. *I have a bone to throw your way as noted above.

Fair enough, but if Dr. Krauss isn't on the forum then I'm not sure how he would know you wrote a post on here inviting him to join...

[Candide West]

Originally Posted by LogisticsBranch

Dear, oh dear me. *Candide, scientifically speaking, we are from the animal kingdom.*

Er, yes I know. From the context of Tonys comments it was clear he was making a distinction between humans and other animals. So I thought I'd just work with him rather than correcting that minor point (I'm quite sure he also knows humans are part of the animal kingdom).

*I'm a rational individual and my puppy is fine-tuned to eat two meals a day, likes her dog bed and my couch. She does know about morality in respect to being trained by me. When I say "NO", "Go lay down", "Sit", "Stay", "Let's Play", etc. *she knows what I mean since I've taught her what those words mean by teaching her. * She has excellent manners and she isn't even 2 years old. *Basically, she has learned faster than a child of two. *She is not only bright but a sensitive creature that enjoys her life and mine. *She's extremely smart and loveable.

Righto, glad to hear you have such a nice pet. Not sure of the relevance to the subject matter though? Are you intending this to be evidence that your dog is a rational creature?*

[Candide West]

Originally Posted by DCNBILL

So when you read my post you actually got out some pencils and did the process or did you do it in your mind, which is where I propose, these truths actually reside.

Well no, I did it in my mind, but my point is that it doesn't matter which way you do it. Either way it fails to meet your stated criteria.*

OK so there is no such thing as an "absolute truth" in your world view, fair enough. *So any "truth" would be completely dependent on the arbitrary preferences of the individual along with communicated agreements with others.

Would this be closer to mean what you mean by truth?

No, not at all. As I said to me a truth is a statement which accurately corresponds to reality. This is nothing to do with arbitrary preferences.*

For example the statement "I am writing a post to put onto the CAF website right now" is true in that it corresponds to reality. It is a fact, and I'm quite certain of it because I am right here doing it (it also has the advantage that you can be certain that it accurately corresponds to reality, because otherwise you wouldn't be able to read it). So I would say it is a truth. But it fails to meet the additional criteria that you put forwards. This certainly doesn't make it arbitrary but it does (presumably) mean you wouldn't consider it to be a truth.

Just for clarity, what would you call a statement which accurately corresponds to reality but doesn't meet the other three criteria you presented?

As for the purpose of the question, I was assessing *the way that you view the concepts of knowledge and fact. *After I have pinned that down I can wrap up so to speak.

Understood. Thanks for clarifying.*

[Candide West]

DCNBill,

Any more thoughts on this topic? Not a massive rush for this if you are busy at the moment but I thought the conversation was probably approaching it's conclusion so was interested to see where you were heading.


TonyRey,

Any further questions you'd like to ask on this thread or are you happy you understand how this all works now?


Either way hope you are both well and everything.

[DCNBILL]

Originally Posted by Candide West

Well no, I did it in my mind, but my point is that it doesn't matter which way you do it. Either way it fails to meet your stated criteria.*

I would say it fits nicely to all of the criteria, anywhere anytime anyone thinks of one object and then another object then that being ins thinking of the same number of objects which we identify as 2, and it can not result in anything else.

Originally Posted by Candide West

No, not at all. As I said to me a truth is a statement which accurately corresponds to reality. This is nothing to do with arbitrary preferences.*

For example the statement "I am writing a post to put onto the CAF website right now" is true in that it corresponds to reality. It is a fact, and I'm quite certain of it because I am right here doing it (it also has the advantage that you can be certain that it accurately corresponds to reality, because otherwise you wouldn't be able to read it). So I would say it is a truth. But it fails to meet the additional criteria that you put forwards. This certainly doesn't make it arbitrary but it does (presumably) mean you wouldn't consider it to be a truth.

Just for clarity, what would you call a statement which accurately corresponds to reality but doesn't meet the other three criteria you presented?

I would call what is described above as a current fact.

Originally Posted by Candide West

Understood. Thanks for clarifying.*

I will sum up presently you may have to give me some time due to my current situation.

Thanks

[Candide West]

Originally Posted by DCNBILL

I would say it fits nicely to all of the criteria, anywhere anytime anyone thinks of one object and then another object then that being ins thinking of the same number of objects which we identify as 2, and it can not result in anything else.

Ahh, in that case it sounds as if you meant something different to what I thought you meant. I thought you meant "necessary" as something more like "non-contingent". From the above it sounds as if you're including conditional statements. In that case many statements can comply, including many in mathematics.

I would call what is described above as a current fact. *

Fair enough.*

I will sum up presently you may have to give me some time due to my current situation.

Thanks

Ok, I shall look forwards to it.

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by Candide West

DCNBill,

Any more thoughts on this topic? Not a massive rush for this if you are busy at the moment but I thought the conversation was probably approaching it's conclusion so was interested to see where you were heading.


TonyRey,

Any further questions you'd like to ask on this thread or are you happy you understand how this all works now?


Either way hope you are both well and everything.

small observation from the trenches

Don't know about the "science must" business since I have not followed this thread. However, from the view point of religion in the trenches, some natural science disciplines have already destroyed for some, not all, people some time honored beliefs such as God's existence and origin of human nature.

[LogisticsBranch]

Originally Posted by grannymh

small observation from the trenches

Don't know about the "science must" business since I have not followed this thread. However, from the view point of religion in the trenches, some natural science disciplines have already destroyed for some, not all, people some time honored beliefs such as God's existence and origin of human nature.

Grannymh, let's see if I can help you by showing to you how wonderful science can be and if you like to think that human nature is philosophically and religiously linked to your belief then I don't mind. Science isn't out to destroy God. However, I wish you would move forward and find the beauty found in science too.
MedlinePlus has an article, Toddlers Are Happier to Give Than Receive:Study dated June 29, 2012 by Robert Preidt:

- Giving treats to others makes toddlers happier than receiving treats, researchers report.

They also found that toddlers younger than 2 were happier when giving treats that belonged to them, rather than identical treats that didn't.

The team of three psychologists at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, gave toddlers some treats and a few minutes later asked the toddlers to give one of their treats to a puppet. The children were also given an extra treat and asked to give this to the puppet too.

The toddlers' reactions to these requests were videotaped and then rated for happiness. The researchers concluded that the toddlers showed greater happiness when they shared their own treat than when they shared the extra treat. This suggests that this behavior is emotionally rewarding for the children.

"People tend to assume that toddlers are naturally selfish," study lead author Lara Aknin said in a university news release. "These findings show that children are actually happier giving than receiving."

The study was published June 14 in the online journal PLoS One.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/n...ry_126798.html

Candide West, I'll have to return to you later. Does my dog have morals as I earlier said. Yep! Darwin’s Dogs://www.thebark.com/content/darwin%E2%80%99s-dogs-0// I'll have to get back to you later. It even talks about the supernatural in that article. Enjoy the read. I enjoy science because it is informative and more fun than I can begin to express.

I'd like to wish all young people I personally know that are heading to the University of Notre Dame in a few weeks the very best life has to offer and please remember to stay in contact with your mom. Mothers in my area are starting to miss there kids already even though they haven't left home quite yet! Many blessings to those young minds.

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by LogisticsBranch

Grannymh, let's see if I can help you by showing to you how wonderful science can be and if you like to think that human nature is philosophically and religiously linked to your belief then I don't mind. Science isn't out to destroy God. However, I wish you would move forward and find the beauty found in science too.

Before I move on to reading the rest of this post, would you kindly review what I said in post 100. -- "However, from the view point of religion in the trenches, some natural science disciplines have already destroyed for some, not all, people some time honored beliefs such as God's existence and origin of human nature."

Note the careful nuance which avoided the idea of all science destroying God Himself and left open a large door to the beauty of science. One needs to be careful of assuming that I need to "move forward and find the beauty found in science too." just because the beauty of
God-given natural science was not mentioned. However, since you mentioned what I should be doing, I will take that as a kindly reminder.

Thank you for your good thoughts.

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by Candide West

The previous thread on this article seems to have closed. I'm guessing there is some time limit or post limit on these threads?

In any case there were a few interesting discussions in progress at the time so here's a new thread to continue them.

Thanks

Would it be possible to repost the link to Sam Harris' article? I would like to read it for its philosophical position.
Thank you.

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by LogisticsBranch

I presented this before and will again:

The University of Science Berkeley has an online document entitled
"Misunderstandings of the limits of science": http://undsciberkely.ed/article/science_religion
Here are three snippets from that online document:

1. “Science contradicts the existence of God. Because of some vocal individuals (both inside and outside of science) stridently declaring their beliefs, it's easy to get the impression that science and religion are at war. In fact, people of many different faiths and levels of scientific expertise see no contradiction at all between science and religion. Because science deals only with natural phenomena and explanations, it cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities — like God."

If this philosophical concept is correct, and I assume it is, than those "mountains of evidence" regarding human origin cannot universally exclude the possibility of two, sole founders of the human species.

In my humble opinion, this quote from above: "Because science deals only with natural phenomena and explanations, it cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities — like God." is a philosophical statement as to the purpose of natural science and its domain location. As such, it is proper for natural science to exclude the study of a supernatural entity.

For Catholics, there is the difficulty, according to the philosophy of natural science, of studying human nature itself. Once human nature is limited to the realm of natural science, then there will be the loss of purpose for a human being.

I am not quite sure what is meant by destroying religion; however, distorting belief in the whole human nature will have serious effects.

Please note:
Presenting the above observations does not automatically imply that I am automatically against natural science which is a gift from God.

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by LogisticsBranch

I presented this before and will again:

The University of Science Berkeley has an online document entitled
"Misunderstandings of the limits of science": http://undsciberkely.ed/article/science_religion
Here are three snippets from that online document:

Please see post 104 for discussion of point 1.

2. "A 2005 survey of scientists at top research universities found that more than 48% had a religious affiliation and more than 75% believe that religions convey important truths.2 Some scientists — like Francis Collins, former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, and George Coyne, astronomer and priest — have been outspoken about the satisfaction they find in viewing the world through both a scientific lens and one of personal faith."

This is a hard paragraph to deal with since religions, of any and all kinds, convey important truths. And yes, there is a lot of satisfaction from viewing the world through both a scientific lens and one of personal faith.

I wonder what percentage of people realize that the "satisfaction" is based on the Catholic doctrine that human nature, itself, is an unique unification of both the material and spiritual worlds. In essence, this doctrine separates the human species from all other living organisms. This separation, when one really understands the basic purposes of both science and faith, is so dramatic that it calls for humanity to descend from one human couple.