Ten Commandments

[leo9]

Scientific contradictions: the cat in the box is both alive and dead ...

So, what's this about biblical contradictions?

A perfect example of the difference between religion (the orthodox kind, anyway) and science. The contradictions in the Bible (which are as many as you would expect in a book written by at least - IIRC - ten authors at widely separated places and times, four of whom thought they were making a complete break with the previous ones) are a constant embarrassment to theologians, who devote books to explaining them away.

Contrariwise, Shroedinger was delighted to have found an apparent contradiction (to be strictly accurate, an apparent absurd corollary) in quantum theory, and physicists have been enjoying it ever since. Every living scientific theory is being constantly questioned and revised, that's what makes it science. And religious fundamentalists see this as weakness, and cannot understand why anyone wants to follow such impermanent creeds when they could have one that hasn't changed in thousands of years.

[MMI]

A perfect example of the difference between religion (the orthodox kind, anyway) and science. The contradictions in the Bible (which are as many as you would expect in a book written by at least - IIRC - ten authors at widely separated places and times, four of whom thought they were making a complete break with the previous ones) are a constant embarrassment to theologians, who devote books to explaining them away.

Contrariwise, Shroedinger was delighted to have found an apparent contradiction (to be strictly accurate, an apparent absurd corollary) in quantum theory, and physicists have been enjoying it ever since. Every living scientific theory is being constantly questioned and revised, that's what makes it science. And religious fundamentalists see this as weakness, and cannot understand why anyone wants to follow such impermanent creeds when they could have one that hasn't changed in thousands of years.

I refute the charge that the religious are unthinking, obstinate old fogies who haven't had an original thought in generations and who are afraid to question their most basic tenets. If they were, there'd have been no Jesus and no Mohammed ... and no Aquinus, no Luther or Calvin, and so it can be said, without fear of contradiction, that every living religion's dogmas and beliefs are also constantly being questioned and revised or perfected.

I guess you can compare the religious fundamentalists you deride with the scientists who denied Copernicus's theories, for example, because they preferred the idea that Earth was the centre of the Universe, which they had held, not for a few thousand years, but since time out of mind, or with the bigots who claimed "God does not play dice" when rejecting the idea of quantum mechanics.

[Thorne]

I refute the charge that the religious are unthinking, obstinate old fogies who haven't had an original thought in generations and who are afraid to question their most basic tenets. If they were, there'd have been no Jesus and no Mohammed ... and no Aquinus, no Luther or Calvin, and so it can be said, without fear of contradiction, that every living religion's dogmas and beliefs are also constantly being questioned and revised or perfected.

I will join you in refuting those charges. (Try not to faint.) There have been many great philosophers in many different religions throughout the history of mankind. But ultimately the entire foundation foundation of any religion is built upon little more than speculation and wishful thinking. And when someone comes along and states, "I don't like your interpretations of dogma, so I'm going to create my own interpretations," that new religion has no more firm foundation than the previous one.

I guess you can compare the religious fundamentalists you deride with the scientists who denied Copernicus's theories, for example, because they preferred the idea that Earth was the centre of the Universe, which they had held, not for a few thousand years, but since time out of mind

Yes, the comparison is quite appropriate. (You're getting woozy again, aren't you?) There were (and are) scientific fundamentalists who scoffed at Copernicus. After all, simple naked-eye observation says that the sky revolves around the Earth. There is also the problem of the Church declaring scientific "truth" based upon revelation rather than facts. And those who disagreed with the Church risked excommunication or even execution. But the real question is, how many scientists still believe that the Earth is the center of the Universe? In science the truth eventually wins out. In religion the truth is whatever the priests say it is.

or with the bigots who claimed "God does not play dice" when rejecting the idea of quantum mechanics.

"Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'old one'. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice."

Einstein was commenting on the "new" idea of quantum mechanics, which he felt was not yet shown to be valid. There have been changes in the theory since then, of course, as new data emerged. I have little doubt that, were he alive today, he would be among the first to laugh at his own quote. Probably on a computer which relies on quantum theory to operate.

But being a scientist does not require someone to be an atheist. There have been, and are, many scientists who are believers. But they choose to separate their beliefs from their science. And there's nothing wrong with that
as long as they don't allow their religious beliefs to dictate their scientific work.