Evolution and the Pope

Quote: Face

Like the above. You say it is "obvious" that science is helpless to know about the pre-beginning. My own reasoning says it is possible that science may never be able to crack it. But "obviously helpless"?

Well, it's a hard thing to do, you understand.

There are three possible ways, that I know, to figure out conditions in the first instants of the Big Bang. One is to actually observe them through a telescope or some other such means. A second one is to deduce them theoretically and predict how the universe should look like if these deductions are correct. the third is to recreate the likely conditions in the lab, obviously on a tiny scale, through instruments like the CERN's Large Hadron Collider.

The first one is almost impossible because the instants of creation, so to speak, happened a long time ago and are very far away in space. Meaning there is no reasonable hope of looking at it.

The second one has actually been used, with great success, but runs into a wall some short, short, short time after the Big Bang.

The third has also been used and some discoveries have been made (as well as advances in particle physics). But there is only so much energy that can be crammed in at CERN, so much the detectors can detect, so much money to spend, etc, etc. However, advances in "atom smashers" and detectors can always be made. They have, in fact, been made. In the future we'll have better tools.

And then there's a fourth way, which is not impossible but we cannot say how likely it could be: find a more advanced species who's already figured it out and ask them. If they happen to be dead, or gone, then you'd have to decipher their records and hope they wrote down everything.

I need to make it clear that I love science as I do philosophy and theology. They are all ways of discovering truth. Science through the observable senses, philosophy through reason, and theology through revelation. It is obvious, opps there I go again,... according to philosophy there can only be one truth - if we both say opposite things are true we cannot both be right. Therefore if these three paths lead us to truth they cannot contradict one another. In fact to discover TRUTH they all need each other.

If I could modify Face's interesting analogy I would say there are three guys, all searching in their own way for the truth. I wouldn't listen to any one guy alone but I would get them together in a room and find out where they all agree. That is what I would trust with my life and afterlife.

Quote: Nareed

Philosophical ideas can be tested by applying them. Depending on the idea, the application can be easy or hard, large or small. Such things as equality did require a shift in world view, which is not easy (and which religion obstructed, BTW). In part this came from scientific advances, either directly or indirectly. Industrialization, a scientific by-product of sorts, gave the common people power. This let the elites revise their world view.

I might differ with the fruits of industrialization which in some ways dehumanized and quatinfied the common people as profitable machines. Again science is a bad philosopher and an awful theologian.

Quote:

That's an unwarranted assumption. we know the matter and energy (they're the same thing) in the universe existed in the primeval atom. We don't know how, or even whether, it was created.

How could we not know if it was created? Does it exist or not? Does the universe exist or not? Again, for some of these questions we need to put away our telescopes and put on our thinking caps.

Quote:

Anyway, "We don't know," actually and truly means we don't know. It doesn't mean "We can make stuff up and pass it as true," nor does it mean "anything goes." This means that any "explanation" which involves no evidence can and should be dismissed out of hand. it may be true, but without evidence there is no way to know it's true.

So, sure, maybe it was God.

Let's see the evidence.

No one is apparently calling for space alien bats and no one (besides maybe Evenbob) is just saying let's make stuff up and pass it as true. Please remember that evidence is NOT limited to the physical tangible stuff our senses or scientific instruments can observe. There are truths such as the scientific theory itself, the law of non-contradiction, etc. that cannot be proved by science itself. It is evident that things that have begun to exist have a creator so if the universe began to exist (which there is plenty of evidence for besides common sense) than it must have a creator. So maybe it was God but maybe it wasn't. However the need for a creator remains. We might have better luck following the via negativa and naming what possibly could not be the creator of the universe and as I've mentioned philosophy gives us a few critera that need to be fulfilled: non-contingent, spiritual, and all-powerful. Notice this does NOT lead us immediately to a personal or Judeo-Christian God, so be at peace.

Quote: FrGamble

Science through the observable senses, philosophy through reason, and theology through revelation. .

Revelation is completely useless. If it was at all
valid there would not be all these amazingly
different religions we have, each depending
almost totally on revelation. Science can do
nothing to prove revelation, so we're back
to faith. Nope, padre, you're stuck with the
almost invisible tightrope of walking with
revelation. If you're right, look at you're
rewards. If wrong, no harm no foul. You
have to do something with your life, if you
enjoy tinkering with concepts more power
to you..

Quote: FrGamble

I might differ with the fruits of industrialization which in some ways dehumanized and quatinfied the common people as profitable machines. Again science is a bad philosopher and an awful theologian.

Yes, there were terrible consequences like the ability to accumulate wealth, choosing a job or even a career, the abolition of social orders, literacy, the ability to get an education, etc.

Of course this also went a long way towards reducing the power of the clergy.

Quote:

How could we not know if it was created?

How else? By lacking even an indication that points towards it being created.

Quote:

Does it exist or not? Does the universe exist or not? Again, for some of these questions we need to put away our telescopes and put on our thinking caps.

If everything that exists requires it be created, then the creator requires it be created, and the creator's creator, and the creator's creator's creator, and so on ad infinitum.

I thought you were trying to avoid infinite regress.

Quote:

It is evident that things that have begun to exist have a creator[..]

No, it isn't. It is evident they have a cause.

Quote:

[..]so if the universe began to exist (which there is plenty of evidence for besides common sense) than it must have a creator.

1) The universe may have begun at the Big Bang, yes, but we don't know whether it existed "before" then.

2) Even if it did, that only means it had a cause, not a creator.

3) We can't tell one way or the other as yet.

Quote:

We might have better luck following the via negativa and naming what possibly could not be the creator of the universe and as I've mentioned philosophy gives us a few critera that need to be fulfilled: non-contingent, spiritual, and all-powerful.

And that's not making stuff up?

Quote:

Notice this does NOT lead us immediately to a personal or Judeo-Christian God, so be at peace.

It leads nowhere. But you must believe it leads to the Christian god, as otherwise all I know about you would make no sense.

Quote: FrGamble

They are all ways of discovering truth. Science through the observable senses, philosophy through reason, and theology through revelation.

Philosophy is indeed practical and useful (my favorite podcast is called Philosophy in Action, and is run by a Ph.D. in philosophy), and it even has a role to play in science. But it cannot substitute for science in areas where science can make quantifiable measurements and formulate theories and testable hypotheses. In such areas where science cannot do so, philosophy may have an application, but then too it may not.

When one talks about rights, society, morality, art, culture and so on, one perforce is using philosophy to do so. A good, integrated philosophical theory helps a great deal in understanding such issues. Things like a world view, a sense of life, etc. are all philosophical artifacts.

But it would be wrong to say "science cannot measure the inside of a black hole, so let's apply philosophy to the problem," for example. Or, and this may be more obvious, "science cannot cure cancer effectively, so let's form a philosophical task force to tackle the problem."

In a way the advance of science can be measured by how much terrain it has taken over from philosophy. But only in a way.

About theology I have absolutely nothing good to say. So I'll say nothing.

Quote: Nareed

Yes, there were terrible consequences like the ability to accumulate wealth, choosing a job or even a career, the abolition of social orders, literacy, the ability to get an education, etc.

Of course this also went a long way towards reducing the power of the clergy.

I'm sorry if you took my comments to mean that there was nothing good about industrialization. However, I continue to think you might be looking through rose colored glasses about such things as the abolition of social orders (everyone can get rich now but the gap between the rich and poor continues to grow) and the transformation of an education system from the liberal arts to a profitable model of creating good workers, not thinkers. This might be part of the reason so many people are not thinking clearly enough about the relationship between science and philosophy.

Quote: Nareed

If everything that exists requires it be created, then the creator requires it be created, and the creator's creator, and the creator's creator's creator, and so on ad infinitum.

I thought you were trying to avoid infinite regress.

While I appreciate your realization that an infinite regress is impossible and illogical I am shocked that you think a creator creates this problem not solving it. This is the definition of a non-contigent being or someone or thing that has existence in itself independent of anyone or anything else. I don't know how to say it any simpler - for anything to exist there has to be something, be it a cause or a force or a being, that uniquely did not need to be created. A spiritual, all-powerful, unmoved mover or first cause.

Quote:

No, it isn't. It is evident they have a cause.

cause, creator, tomato, tomatato, let's just call the whole thing God.

Quote:

It leads nowhere. But you must believe it leads to the Christian god, as otherwise all I know about you would make no sense.

To get to the Christian God my friend I'm afraid will take a trust in revelation, which with everything I know about you makes no sense for me to pursue. I would just like us to come towards some consensus that a spiritual all powerful force or cause began our universe out of nothing.

Quote: Nareed

Philosophy is indeed practical and useful (my favorite podcast is called Philosophy in Action, and is run by a Ph.D. in philosophy), and it even has a role to play in science. But it cannot substitute for science in areas where science can make quantifiable measurements and formulate theories and testable hypotheses. In such areas where science cannot do so, philosophy may have an application, but then too it may not.

When one talks about rights, society, morality, art, culture and so on, one perforce is using philosophy to do so. A good, integrated philosophical theory helps a great deal in understanding such issues. Things like a world view, a sense of life, etc. are all philosophical artifacts.

But it would be wrong to say "science cannot measure the inside of a black hole, so let's apply philosophy to the problem," for example. Or, and this may be more obvious, "science cannot cure cancer effectively, so let's form a philosophical task force to tackle the problem."

In a way the advance of science can be measured by how much terrain it has taken over from philosophy. But only in a way.

About theology I have absolutely nothing good to say. So I'll say nothing.

Aha, there is the Nareed I know and love!!!

I agree with almost everything in the above post, except of course for the comments about theology. Would you go one step further with me in saying that not only can philosophy not be used to measure a black hole or cure cancer, but science cannot be used to determine the morality of some action or the beauty of a work of art? Just because science can do something, for example clone a human being, does not mean it should. Philosophy can and must trump science when it comes to the ethics of certain experiments and applications.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/04/parallel-universes-quantum-mechanics-theory_n_6091438.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Quote: FrGamble

However, I continue to think you might be looking through rose colored glasses about such things as the abolition of social orders (everyone can get rich now but the gap between the rich and poor continues to grow) and the transformation of an education system from the liberal arts to a profitable model of creating good workers, not thinkers.

A simple comparison as things were before industrialization, during industrialization, and after industrialization.

Social orders go beyond simply rich and poor. It means deferring to the "higher" classes everywhere and at all times. That's gone. We even joke about it. You wouldn't expect, today, for a "common" man to give up his seat in a plane to a someone of "higher" birth, would you? Things like that.

As to education, any education beats no education. Today paying through the nose for a liberal arts education seems wasteful, because it doesn't lead to much in the way of job prospects. And that's true (and a whole different problem when discussing the costs of higher education). What's rather terrible is that career tracks in business, engineering, science and math eschew all the liberal arts, save perhaps a token course or two no one takes seriously.

Quote:

While I appreciate your realization that an infinite regress is impossible and illogical I am shocked that you think a creator creates this problem not solving it. This is the definition of a non-contigent being or someone or thing that has existence in itself independent of anyone or anything else.

I refer you to Sagan's popular work on the universe, to Aristotle's law of identity and to Occam's Razor. If something, or someone, can have existence independent of anything or anyone else, then this applies to the universe, Big Bang or not.

Quote:

I don't know how to say it any simpler - for anything to exist there has to be something, be it a cause or a force or a being, that uniquely did not need to be created. A spiritual, all-powerful, unmoved mover or first cause.

Ok. Let's grant this premise and ask "why can't the universe always have existed?" To be sure until 13.some billion years ago it existed as an infinitely small primordial atom, or cosmic egg to use Lemaitre's term, but it may have existed in that state for a longer time, or in an even earlier state. Eternally. Without the need for a cause or a creator.

Supposing a creator merely pushes the problem back one step and multiplies entities in an unnecessary manner.

Quote:

cause, creator, tomato, tomatato, let's just call the whole thing God.

Let's not ;)

Quote:

To get to the Christian God my friend I'm afraid will take a trust in revelation, which with everything I know about you makes no sense for me to pursue.

I think this means I win ;)

Quote:

I would just like us to come towards some consensus that a spiritual all powerful force or cause began our universe out of nothing.

Not without evidence.

Look, it's like the panspermia hypothesis. In brief: life originated elsewhere in the universe (another planet, some comet, in clouds of dust, wherever) and hitched a ride to Earth on-board a meteorite, comet, cloud of dust, or some other means.

All it does is push the problem of life's origins back one step. In CSI terms, Earth is the secondary crime scene and we haven't found the primary yet. Mind, there are indications for it. Organic compounds are routinely found in meteorites. Amino acids have been seen in deep space among interstellar clouds of dust and gas.

If we can account for the origins of life on Earth, well and good. if not, then we look at notions like panspermia, though proving it would be next to impossible without knowing where in the vast universe, or even our immediate stellar neighborhood, life originated.

Likewise until I see some evidence pointing towards an eternal creator, or until we find reason to believe the universe required a creator, there's no reason to believe in one.