Science without religion is lame,

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24068
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 2 times

Science without religion is lame,

Post #1

Post by McCulloch »

JP Cusick wrote:What I said and what I meant was attached to this saying: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

So if we take that saying literally as I did, then without religion one is handicapped as "lame" and without science those are handicapped by being "blind".
Does science benefit from the inclusion of religion? Which religion? How? Be specific. Do the benefits outweigh the difficulties?
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
Sherlock Holmes
Under Suspension
Posts: 1559
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:42 am
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 81 times

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #191

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 11:57 am [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #188]
This is why some have said that reality doesn't exist until we observe it, we - the observer - our consciousness - is inextricably entwined. Physical "reality" requires consciousness.
Are you claiming that physical reality did not exist on our planet before consciousness existed (ie. before brains evolved)? What about the first 3 billion or so years when microorganisms dominated life on Earth, which had no brains and therefore no consciousness? Or can you provide an example of a living thing that possesses consciousness but which has no working brain? What is your definition of consciousness?
You cannot talk of physical reality without some reference to consciousness, that's what I'm saying.

You cannot speak of science (which rests upon observation) if there is no observer, each observer has their own reality, read about this here.
When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1902
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 347 times
Been thanked: 804 times

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #192

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #191]
You cannot speak of science (which rests upon observation) if there is no observer, each observer has their own reality, read about this here.
That article is about subtle quantum effects and we all know that strange and nonintuitive things happen in the quantum world compared to the macroscopic world we experience as humans normally, and most of these things do not translate to the macroscopic world in any noticeable or visible way. Qubits for a quantum computer and their superposition cannot be made from macroscopic objects, or experienced by human senses. People often extrapolate things unreasonably from the quantum world to a human senses world, such as a human traveling through a wormhole like a subatomic particle might theoretically do. Objective reality for humans is what we can experience through our senses, and the "observer" in the article you linked is not a human.

These comments are also in the article (underline mine):

"Another important question is whether single photons can be considered to be observers. In Brukner's theory proposal, observers do not need to be conscious, they must merely be able to establish facts in the form of a measurement outcome. An inanimate detector would therefore be a valid observer."

"Clearly these are all deeply philosophical questions about the fundamental nature of reality. Whatever the answer, an interesting future awaits."

The experiments do not equate to anything that can be experienced by a human, or relate to how we consciously interpret the world around us. Such subtle quantum effects (which they admit took a long time just to reach any level of statistical interpretation) apply to the quantum world, and like most quantum effects vanish at macroscopic scales.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10483
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 1129 times
Contact:

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #193

Post by William »

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #192]
That article is about subtle quantum effects and we all know that strange and nonintuitive things happen in the quantum world compared to the macroscopic world we experience as humans normally, and most of these things do not translate to the macroscopic world in any noticeable or visible way.
Correct. Nor should we necessarily expect that they would do so - yet nor should we expect that therefore, there is no translation to be found from the quantum to the macroscopic world.
Indeed, since we know that the one [quantum] is materially responsible for the other, we should expect to see the one in the other, and since mind is in the one, [material] then we are legitimate to assume it is also in the other - even if as the effect which makes shape and substance of the other is produced by mind.

I myself have and do subjectively experience strange and nonintuitive things happen in the macroscopic world and I tend/lean towards accepting these derive from the quantum world.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1902
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 347 times
Been thanked: 804 times

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #194

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to William in post #193]
Nor should we necessarily expect that they would do so - yet nor should we expect that therefore, there is no translation to be found from the quantum to the macroscopic world.
The De Broglie wavelength concept is useful to desribe what I was referring to. For physical things moving much less than the speed of light, the De Broglie wavelength is:

Lambda = h / mv

(I don't know how to make Greek letters here)

where h is Plank's constant, m is mass, and v is velocity. This gives the scale for wave-like quantum behavior in an item with mass. For tiny masses in the quantum world, Lamba can be significant compared to the physical dimensions of the item. But as mass increases even to tiny things humans can't see without microscopes, Lamba becomes so small that the quantum effects are not noticeable. For an electron in a metal, Lambda is of the order of 10 nm, which is enough to be significant for that case and quantum effects are easily manifest. For a car doing down the road at 60 MPH, Lambda is about 10^-38. Still there, but so many orders of magnitude below anything we could sense via our human senses that it isn't noticeable.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10483
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 1129 times
Contact:

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #195

Post by William »

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #194]

My statement still stands re Mind + Quantum , even given that was not what you were referring to.

User avatar
Difflugia
Guru
Posts: 2294
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1839 times
Been thanked: 1362 times

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #196

Post by Difflugia »

DrNoGods wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 5:39 pm Lambda = h / mv

(I don't know how to make Greek letters here)
If you can generate the letters somewhere else, copy-paste works. I most often do them in two ways. For single characters, I keep a local HTML document with the Greek alphabet as HTML entities. If I'm doing a longer phrase or one that requires accents, I use the TypeGreek online entry.

If you're so inclined, copy-paste this into an HTML document ("Greek.html" or whatever) and leave it on the desktop:

Code: Select all

<html>
<p>&Alpha;
&Beta;
&Gamma;
&Delta;
&Epsilon;
&Zeta;
&Eta;
&Theta;
&Iota;
&Kappa;
&Lambda;
&Mu;
&Nu;
&Xi;
&Omicron;
&Pi;
&Rho;
&Sigma;
&Tau;
&Upsilon;
&Phi;
&Chi;
&Psi;
&Omega;
</p>

<p>&alpha;
&beta;
&gamma;
&delta;
&epsilon;
&zeta;
&eta;
&theta;
&iota;
&kappa;
&lambda;
&mu;
&nu;
&xi;
&omicron;
&pi;
&rho;
&sigma;&sigmaf;
&tau;
&upsilon;
&phi;
&chi;
&psi;
&omega;
</p>
</html>
I keep another document with foreign accents and such, like &ouml; for ö and &ecirc; for ê. I open the page in a browser tab and copy-paste the character I want. If I need a new one, I add it to the end of my document.

You could also skip the HTML nonsense and either create a Unicode document in something like WordPad or use WordPad's "insert character" each time you need it. Here's the browser output from the above HTML if you want to paste it into a Unicode document for future reference:

Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ Ν Ξ Ο Π Ρ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π ρ σς τ υ φ χ ψ ω
My preferred pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1902
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 347 times
Been thanked: 804 times

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #197

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Difflugia in post #196]
If you can generate the letters somewhere else, copy-paste works.
Thanks! I hadn't tried just pasting in from another source (I never use an external editor and just type these responses on the fly at DCR).

λ = h / p

Much better.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Swami
Scholar
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 1:07 am
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #198

Post by Swami »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 9:08 am This is why some have said that reality doesn't exist until we observe it, we - the observer - our consciousness - is inextricably entwined. Physical "reality" requires consciousness.
I have been sharing this message since I joined this forum. The skeptics do not understand it but the thousands of readers who don't comment understand it well.
DrNoGods wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 11:57 am Are you claiming that physical reality did not exist on our planet before consciousness existed (ie. before brains evolved)? What about the first 3 billion or so years when microorganisms dominated life on Earth, which had no brains and therefore no consciousness? Or can you provide an example of a living thing that possesses consciousness but which has no working brain? What is your definition of consciousness?
John 3 vss 3-12
3 Jesus responded and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus *said to Him, “How can a person be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born, can he?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which has been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which has been born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born [d]again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it is coming from and where it is going; so is everyone who has been born of the Spirit.”

9 Nicodemus responded and said to Him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered and said to him, “You are the teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you people do not accept our testimony. 12 If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
...

Although the subject is different, but your type of thinking is not much different than Nicodemus. This is obvious.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1902
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 347 times
Been thanked: 804 times

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #199

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Swami in post #198]
Although the subject is different, but your type of thinking is not much different than Nicodemus. This is obvious.
I'll take that as a compliment. "How can these things be?" is probably exactly what I would have also asked given the statements by Jesus. Although I would have challenged him on the wind comments because in modern times we can measure atmospheric pressure and temperature differentials and know where the wind is coming from, and where it is going, and how fast it will blow.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 3930
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 2999 times
Been thanked: 1633 times

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #200

Post by brunumb »

Swami wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 7:47 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 9:08 am This is why some have said that reality doesn't exist until we observe it, we - the observer - our consciousness - is inextricably entwined. Physical "reality" requires consciousness.
I have been sharing this message since I joined this forum. The skeptics do not understand it but the thousands of readers who don't comment understand it well.
There you go again. According to my analysis the thousands of readers who don't comment find it to be complete and utter nonsense. But then, perhaps you have better mind reading equipment than me.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

Post Reply