Ten Commandments

[MMI]

I wasn't criticizing, just asking for some kind of rationale for your statement. While it is possible that you are not here, and are only in my imagination, there is little doubt in my mind that I exist, here and now. Cogito ergo sum.

I am by no means competent to criticise Descartes's Cogito, however it does puzzle me why it is felt to be so conclusive. I cannot think things into existence: that would be magic, or a divine act of creation. How, then can I think myself into existence? Surely, Descates should have said, I am, therefore I can think. Existence is, as can be seen a pre-requisite - and existence as a human to boot (or other thinking entity, such as a god, for example).

Existence is itself indicative of some kind of origin, and the scientific explanation we currently have is far more able to reconcile our current understandings of those origins. The religious explanation is not.

What's hard to reconcile about, "God made all that there is"? If something exists, that indicates it has a divine origin. Sure, there are contradictions - fossils don't sit well with a creation date of 23/10/4004 BC (Usher), but there are sientific anaomalies too: if you know where a subatomic particle is, you cannot know how it is moving;particles and waves are neither one thing nor the other, but have properties of both of them ... and, of course, every effect must have a cause: there is no uncaused effect. Or can science prove otherwise?

But you could say, you have to believe it happened that way, because that's what my theory holds to be true.

[Thorne]

Existence is, as can be seen a pre-requisite - and existence as a human to boot (or other thinking entity, such as a god, for example).

I think it is simpler than that. The act of thinking is itself a proof of existence.

If something exists, that indicates it has a divine origin.

Only if you postulate a divine being in the first place. But then it comes down to evidence. Is there any evidence that the universe began through some sort of divine intervention? Not a possibility, not a belief, but real evidence. Science can back-track the universe, using the laws and processes that they have learned, to a point a fraction of a fraction of a second after the big bang. Before that point the laws of the universe as we understand them break down. So yes, it is possible that god exists within that tiny piece of unknown time. But possibility is not evidence. There are an infinite number of possible explanations of what happened at that time. And there is evidence for none. Yet.

Sure, there are contradictions - fossils don't sit well with a creation date of 23/10/4004 BC (Usher), but there are sientific anaomalies too:

A contradiction and an anomaly are two different things. The proverbial irresistible force meeting the equally proverbial immovable object is a contradiction: both cannot exist. An all knowing god who becomes angry because his creation does not perform as he wants it to is a contradiction.

An anomaly is something outside the norm, something which means your hypothesis is incomplete, that you must gather more data and, possibly, revise your hypothesis. Science advances through anomalies, because they lead to more questions which will refine our understanding.

if you know where a subatomic particle is, you cannot know how it is moving;particles and waves are neither one thing nor the other, but have properties of both of them ...

These aren't anomalies. There are perfectly valid reasons for these findings, which fit into our understanding of the universe. But their discovery did cause modifications to that understanding.

and, of course, every effect must have a cause: there is no uncaused effect. Or can science prove otherwise?

I don't have the knowledge to deal with this except to say that, under the accepted laws of physics as we understand them there can be no uncaused effect. However, there are places where these laws of physics no longer apply, such as within the event horizon of a black hole, or at the precise moment of the Big Bang. So who knows? Maybe there can be uncaused effects in those areas.

But you could say, you have to believe it happened that way, because that's what my theory holds to be true.

An incomplete phrase. You should believe it probably happened that way because that's what my hypothesis holds to be true, and here is the evidence to support the hypothesis!

[MMI]

I think it is simpler than that. The act of thinking is itself a proof of existence.

OK - I think I can concede that. But with that argument, Descartes only proved that he existed because he was a thinker. Ergo, only thinking things can prove they exist that way. But, fortunateley, it's not just thinking that proves existence, being red proves the existence of red objects, being dead proves the existence of dead things, being a scold proves the existence of my wife, and so on ad infinitum.

But we aren't actually concerned with existence, are we? We've sidetracked ourselves: what we want to find out is how things came to be in the first place.

Religions hold that there was a Prime Mover and He was the uncaused cause. He was also the creator of all things, so if a thing exists - which plainly, many things do - He created them. Cogito has nothing to say about this (so far as I am aware). Religions believe this to be so, and hope one day their beliefs will be demonstrated to be true

Your scientific hypothesis says that there must be a natural law of physiscs that says something can spontaneously come into existence, but we don't know what it is yet. But there is hope that we will know one day.

Where's the difference?

Only if you postulate a divine being in the first place. But then it comes down to evidence. Is there any evidence that the universe began through some sort of divine intervention? Not a possibility, not a belief, but real evidence. Science can back-track the universe, using the laws and processes that they have learned, to a point a fraction of a fraction of a second after the big bang. Before that point the laws of the universe as we understand them break down. So yes, it is possible that god exists within that tiny piece of unknown time. But possibility is not evidence. There are an infinite number of possible explanations of what happened at that time. And there is evidence for none. Yet.

Who cares what happened at any time after the Big Bang? God was there before it. Every one of your scientific laws can easily co-exist with the Supernatural Being who created them, along with everything else. It is hard to see how they can exist at all without a Supernatural Being.

A contradiction and an anomaly are two different things. The proverbial irresistible force meeting the equally proverbial immovable object is a contradiction: both cannot exist. An all knowing god who becomes angry because his creation does not perform as he wants it to is a contradiction.

An anomaly is something outside the norm, something which means your hypothesis is incomplete, that you must gather more data and, possibly, revise your hypothesis. Science advances through anomalies, because they lead to more questions which will refine our understanding.

I won't dispute your distinctions.

It is religious dogma that Yaweh(for example) is perfect, and that leads to inconsistencies that make faith look ridiculous. Why are you assuming God is bound to perfection? Why does He have to be? Why can't He learn like the rest of us, and make mistakes in the process?

And I would also submit that our understanding of religion and what we believe in has advanced, just as scientific theory has: from fear of thunderclaps to more sophistcated understandings of who we are and why we are here. Out of Zoroastrianism grew Judaism, then Christianity and then Islam; before Zoroastrianism, pagan beliefs, myths and superstition, perhaps, but all leading to the Ultimate Truth.

These aren't anomalies. There are perfectly valid reasons for these findings, which fit into our understanding of the universe. But their discovery did cause modifications to that understanding.

I believe they are theories which give (partial) explantions for our current hypotheses. I agree that these theories are constantly being refined in the hope that we will eventually have a Unifed Theory that explains everything ... or at least, as Hawkins put it, enables us to know the mind of God.

[Thorne]

Religions hold that there was a Prime Mover and He was the uncaused cause. He was also the creator of all things, so if a thing exists - which plainly, many things do - He created them. Religions believe this to be so, and hope one day their beliefs will be demonstrated to be true

Your scientific hypothesis says that there must be a natural law of physiscs that says something can spontaneously come into existence, but we don't know what it is yet. But there is hope that we will know one day.

Where's the difference?

The difference is shown in your own words: Religions hope that their beliefs will be demonstrated to be true. But through science we hope that we will know one day. Religion deals with revealed truths, while science deals with learned truths.

But there is also the mistaken notion that "there must be a natural law of physiscs that says something can spontaneously come into existence" to be dealt with. I stated that we basically understand what happened in the universe from a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang until now. We don't yet know what happened before that point in time, which may include before the big bang! We do not have to assume that all the matter in the universe was "created" at one moment in time. Only that it was released at that moment.

Who cares what happened at any time after the Big Bang? God was there before it.

How can you know that God was there before it? You make that assumption, but you cannot know. And even then you run into the same problem science has with the universe. If something had to come before the universe, what came before that? Who created your god? And who created the being that created your god?

Every one of your scientific laws can easily co-exist with the Supernatural Being who created them, along with everything else.

That's perfectly true. But they don't require the existence of any supernatural beings.

It is hard to see how they can exist at all without a Supernatural Being.

I don't find it hard at all. I find it harder the see how the existence of supernatural beings can be so widely believed without evidence. But just because we find something hard to believe does not mean it cannot be so.

Why are you assuming God is bound to perfection? Why does He have to be? Why can't He learn like the rest of us, and make mistakes in the process?

I'm not the one making those assumptions! I don't even believe in God. It's the believers who make those claims, and I'm merely pointing out the contradictions those claims engender. But if God can make mistakes and (hopefully) learn from them, just like the rest of us, how does that make him supernatural? That tells me that he would more likely be a being of advanced technology, not a god as humanity has defined the term.

And I would also submit that our understanding of religion and what we believe in has advanced, just as scientific theory has: from fear of thunderclaps to more sophistcated understandings of who we are and why we are here. Out of Zoroastrianism grew Judaism, then Christianity and then Islam; before Zoroastrianism, pagan beliefs, myths and superstition, perhaps, but all leading to the Ultimate Truth.

Again, I have to agree with you, in part. Religion has changed, certainly, but it has done so because science has usurped those areas which were once the sole province of the priests, bringing a better understanding of the forces of nature than religion could provide. So religion has been forced, kicking and screaming all the way I might add, into the realm of the "inner being", the intangible. But here, too, science is making inroads. Advances in medicine and psychology and other sciences are making inroads into our inner selves, learning how the mind functions, and how the brain works. And the more we learn, the less need we have of gods to explain things such as morality and faith. More superstitions fall by the wayside, and religion will be forced to find other explanations for its existence.

I believe they are theories which give (partial) explantions for our current hypotheses. I agree that these theories are constantly being refined in the hope that we will eventually have a Unifed Theory that explains everything ... or at least, as Hawkins put it, enables us to know the mind of God.

And it's my belief that, when we finally are able to look into the mind of God, we will find the mind of man looking back at us.

[MMI]

The difference is shown in your own words: Religions hope that their beliefs will be demonstrated to be true. But through science we hope that we will know one day. Religion deals with revealed truths, while science deals with learned truths.

I think you are making a false distinction: what is the difference between a truth if I am told it and the same truth if I discover it for myself?

But there is also the mistaken notion that "there must be a natural law of physiscs that says something can spontaneously come into existence" to be dealt with. I stated that we basically understand what happened in the universe from a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang until now. We don't yet know what happened before that point in time, which may include before the big bang! We do not have to assume that all the matter in the universe was "created" at one moment in time. Only that it was released at that moment.

That is true, I suppose, but I'm not sure how it advances your argument. If it is your suggestion that before the Big Bang there was a period (I will use the term even though there weas probably no such thing as time) when all that would be was caused pending release then your assertion is no less unfounded, ludicrous and insupportable as is the eternal existence of a deity.

How can you know that God was there before it? You make that assumption, but you cannot know. And even then you run into the same problem science has with the universe. If something had to come before the universe, what came before that? Who created your god? And who created the being that created your god?

I cannot know in the sense you demand it: it is a statement of faith. Religions happily admit that their beliefs do not rest upon proven fact, but upon some other basis instead, such as revelation, perhaps. I agree that, if God has to be created, there is a problem over who or what created Him, but the causa causae problem actually does not exist for religions, only for science. God is not constrained by time. He is eternal. He precedes the Big Bang and everything that went before it.

But just because we find something hard to believe does not mean it cannot be so.

This can be said of religious faith, too

I'm not the one making those assumptions! I don't even believe in God. It's the believers who make those claims, and I'm merely pointing out the contradictions those claims engender. But if God can make mistakes and (hopefully) learn from them, just like the rest of us, how does that make him supernatural? That tells me that he would more likely be a being of advanced technology, not a god as humanity has defined the term.

You are making assumptions too, equally unfounded, based on your belief that there is a scientific answer to everything, and faith that it can be found.

God can be supernatural without being perfect. In fact, He could even be supernatural and thoroughly imperfect. I am thinking of supernatural beings such as Satan, the Daevas, Paantu, and so on.

Again, I have to agree with you, in part. Religion has changed, certainly, but it has done so because science has usurped those areas which were once the sole province of the priests, bringing a better understanding of the forces of nature than religion could provide. So religion has been forced, kicking and screaming all the way I might add, into the realm of the "inner being", the intangible. But here, too, science is making inroads. Advances in medicine and psychology and other sciences are making inroads into our inner selves, learning how the mind functions, and how the brain works. And the more we learn, the less need we have of gods to explain things such as morality and faith. More superstitions fall by the wayside, and religion will be forced to find other explanations for its existence.

Science was once a poor discipline, founded on thoroughly shaky principles that, for millenia, held back its own development. Religion supplied answers science could not. As scientific knowledge grew, religion was able to withdraw to its proper spheres of influence, which was to explain why we are here rather than what we are made of and how we work. Science can continue to grow and religion, though perhaps more focused on particular answers than before, can continue to develop in its search for Truth.

And it's my belief that, when we finally are able to look into the mind of God, we will find the mind of man looking back at us.

I cannot rule out the possibility that after Armageddon, or in whatever new order your preferred religion proposes, the people living in their new Eden will have transitioned from mere mortals to supernatural beings who are no longer bound by laws of nature.

[Thorne]

I think you are making a false distinction: what is the difference between a truth if I am told it and the same truth if I discover it for myself?

It's the difference between a truth that you have sought out evidence for, studied and deduced for yourself, versus "truth" which springs into being at the whim of superstition. If you were an investigator and found substantial and compelling evidence that a criminal had murdered someone, only to have someone proclaim that they learned in a dream that your suspect was innocent, which "truth" would you believe?

That is true, I suppose, but I'm not sure how it advances your argument. If it is your suggestion that before the Big Bang there was a period (I will use the term even though there weas probably no such thing as time) when all that would be was caused pending release then your assertion is no less unfounded, ludicrous and insupportable as is the eternal existence of a deity.

That's my whole point! One can dream up all kinds of possibilities about what came before. None of them have any more validity than the others.

I cannot know in the sense you demand it: it is a statement of faith. Religions happily admit that their beliefs do not rest upon proven fact, but upon some other basis instead, such as revelation, perhaps.

That depends on the religion. There are fundamentalist Christians here in the US, and elsewhere around the world, who proudly proclaim that their beliefs are based upon the reality of the Bible, which they proclaim to be the divine word of God. Anything which contradicts their Bible is therefore untrue. Evidence means nothing to them.

I agree that, if God has to be created, there is a problem over who or what created Him, but the causa causae problem actually does not exist for religions, only for science. God is not constrained by time. He is eternal. He precedes the Big Bang and everything that went before it.

As an article of faith I have no quarrel with that statement. The problem I have is that, should science some day be able to peer through the veil of the big bang and find out exactly what came before, the religious will change their image of God, redefining his existence, rather than giving up. It's basically the same battle that religion and science always have.

You are making assumptions too, equally unfounded, based on your belief that there is a scientific answer to everything, and faith that it can be found.

I suppose there's some merit in this statement. Because I certainly do think that science can eventually learn just about anything. And I also know that science does not know everything yet. But if we are ever going to find the gods, it will be science which does it, not superstition.

God can be supernatural without being perfect. In fact, He could even be supernatural and thoroughly imperfect. I am thinking of supernatural beings such as Satan, the Daevas, Paantu, and so on.

And how do we know that these beings are imperfect? How do we know that Satan is not the True God and Yahweh is his imbecilic brother? Yeah, that's right. Faith. We just know. Because God tells us so.

Science was once a poor discipline, founded on thoroughly shaky principles that, for millenia, held back its own development.

Quite true. But you neglect to point out that one of the biggest blocks to science was in trying to rationalize the physical with the supernatural. It's only with the gradual development of the scientific method that we've managed to throw out the supernatural and advance the world's knowledge of the natural. And we went from the first powered heavier-than-air flight to putting a man on the moon within a person's lifetime, less than 60 years.

Religion supplied answers science could not.

What answers did religion provide, other than "god did it"?

As scientific knowledge grew, religion was able to withdraw to its proper spheres of influence, which was to explain why we are here rather than what we are made of and how we work.

Religion was able to withdraw? Rather they were forced to withdraw, and they are going down fighting. And what makes you think there is a reason we are here? Just asking the question, "Why are we here?" assumes a creator with a purpose. If you remove the concept of a designed universe, the question is meaningless. We are here. Period. There is no why.

Science can continue to grow and religion, though perhaps more focused on particular answers than before, can continue to develop in its search for Truth.

And again you make the assumption that there is some ephemeral "Truth" which transcends the natural world based upon nothing but your need for such a truth to exist.

I cannot rule out the possibility that after Armageddon, or in whatever new order your preferred religion proposes, the people living in their new Eden will have transitioned from mere mortals to supernatural beings who are no longer bound by laws of nature.

And I cannot rule out the possibility that there is a jolly old elf living at the North Pole who delivers toys to good children every Christmas. And I have evidence for mine! NORAD tracks his sleigh on radar!
I wouldn't lie to you.

[MMI]

It's the difference between a truth that you have sought out evidence for, studied and deduced for yourself, versus "truth" which springs into being at the whim of superstition. If you were an investigator and found substantial and compelling evidence that a criminal had murdered someone, only to have someone proclaim that they learned in a dream that your suspect was innocent, which "truth" would you believe?

In answer to your question, I don't know: clearly either the "evidence" or the "dream" is wrong. Who is to say which?

What I asked was, what's the difference between a truth you discover through research and the very same truth if you are told about it?

That's my whole point! One can dream up all kinds of possibilities about what came before. None of them have any more validity than the others.

Then you agree that both science and religion rest on similar, if not the same, foundations, and therefore deserve each other's respect?

That depends on the religion. There are fundamentalist Christians here in the US, and elsewhere around the world, who proudly proclaim that their beliefs are based upon the reality of the Bible, which they proclaim to be the divine word of God. Anything which contradicts their Bible is therefore untrue. Evidence means nothing to them.

While I sympathise with your assertion wholeheartedly, doesn't that mean that science has so far failed to make its case in the Southern States. Take evolution, for example. It is a scientific theory, not an absolute fact. Intelligent Design is an equivalent theory which finds support among those fundamentalists and which does take account of the evidence.

As one fundamentalist says, if you cleared a space in your garage, how long would you have to wait until a Mercedes materialised out of nothing in that place? A day? A year? A thousand or a billion? What about "googol" years (not sure if I have used that correctly). Surely there's a chance that something, even if not a Mercedes, will materialise out of nothing in that time, isn't there?

Or is it more likely that, if, at any time a Mercedes does appear in your garage, someone with the powers to do so put it there?

As an article of faith I have no quarrel with that statement. The problem I have is that, should science some day be able to peer through the veil of the big bang and find out exactly what came before, the religious will change their image of God, redefining his existence, rather than giving up. It's basically the same battle that religion and science always have.

And why should that be a problem for you? You clearly expect religions to accept scientific proofs when they are discovered - as do I - but if that still leaves areas where science has no answer, and religion does, then it remains possible that the answer is right.

Likewise if one day, science peels back the veil between the Big Bang and the Before, and find a little old man with a long beard and sparks coming out of his fingers, while over in the corner hangs a red suit he only wears once a year, then I expect the atheists and agnostics who base their denials and doubts on the absence of proof to immediately recant, and crawl on their hands and knees to the Vatican City where they can confess the error of their ways and surrender themselves into the loving arms of Mother Church (or if it's a Hindu, Farsi, Norse or other god, to do whatever is appropriate in that case).

I suppose there's some merit in this statement. Because I certainly do think that science can eventually learn just about anything. And I also know that science does not know everything yet. But if we are ever going to find the gods, it will be science which does it, not superstition.

Let's at least recognise that religions are not superstitions. We all know that black cats don't bring good luck (or bad luck, depending on where you live), and we also know there aren't pots of gold at the end of the rainbow. Religions offer an explanation about life that superstitions don't even consider. Science may not like those explanations, but they are not to be contemned as trivial fairy stories that have no meaning at all.

And how do we know that these beings are imperfect? How do we know that Satan is not the True God and Yahweh is his imbecilic brother? Yeah, that's right. Faith. We just know. Because God tells us so.[/i]

<sigh> Quite so. But the point is the same: just read Satan for God and God for Satan.

Quite true. But you neglect to point out that one of the biggest blocks to science was in trying to rationalize the physical with the supernatural. It's only with the gradual development of the scientific method that we've managed to throw out the supernatural and advance the world's knowledge of the natural. And we went from the first powered heavier-than-air flight to putting a man on the moon within a person's lifetime, less than 60 years.

I see no reason why religion should welcome a scientific proposition that contradicts a religious belief until it has thoroughly demonstrated itself to be true - I'm thinking of evolution here as an example. Likewise, I see no reason for relgions to deny a scientific truth once it has been conclusively demonstrated - choose your own example.

What answers did religion provide, other than "god did it"?

What more do you need? Apart from, What is the purpose ... Which, of course, science doesn't address at all.

Religion was able to withdraw? Rather they were forced to withdraw, and they are going down fighting. And what makes you think there is a reason we are here? Just asking the question, "Why are we here?" assumes a creator with a purpose. If you remove the concept of a designed universe, the question is meaningless. We are here. Period. There is no why.

That is an absolute statement of faith, Thorne, without a shred of scientific evidence to support it. From a religious perspective, it is also wrong.

And again you make the assumption that there is some ephemeral "Truth" which transcends the natural world based upon nothing but your need for such a truth to exist.

Just as science "assumes" factual evidence provides a true explanation of how the physical universe works. It has to assume that its goal is to discover the truth, that it is completely unbiased and wholly objective, and that the march of science is resolutely forward and unrelenting, but in real life it promotes truths that are convenient (often for the sponsor - like tobacco firms or oil companies) - such as, there is/is no significant human cause to global warming, and in any case we will/will not enter an ice age before too long (look at the debates we've had here, both sides spouting scientific data to support our views). Why can we not find a way to create cold fusion? We've been trying long enough, but we're getting nowhere fast. And who will suggest that science searches for the truth? what about eugenics ...

Or is it the case that we actually can improve humankind by selective breeding? In which case, the orthodox scientific position is covering up the truth.

And I cannot rule out the possibility that there is a jolly old elf living at the North Pole who delivers toys to good children every Christmas. And I have evidence for mine! NORAD tracks his sleigh on radar!
I wouldn't lie to you.

I can beat that ... he left me toys when I was young.