Battle of the Split-up Paragraphs #1!

I'm going to be one of those guys and do one of those things where I break this down paragraph by paragraph. It will help me address each point better. And after all if I'm not being efficient what's the point? Jesus, I should move to Japan. Anyway...here we go.

P.S. I'm taking the gloves off Nathan.

The God of the Overlap
Posted by Nathan on Wednesday, October 03, 2007

I have a great Statistics teacher. He is well educated, and open to many ideas. I walked with him after class and had a small, but very good discussion about science and faith, and the overlap and differences between the two. He is a self-proclaimed "non-religious" man, and believe it or not he was very accepting of my views, and when we departed with a hand shake i did not explode.

Glad to hear you made it through that encounter okay. Most of the times these "non-religious" types go right for the soul. It's usually through the eyes, but I'm sure you know that seeing as you survived to talk about it.

This conversation did get me thiking about things. Just to begin, non of these are the thoughts of my professor, these are mine alone. We were discussing the basics of science, the idea that in any experiment you test the null hypothesis. That is if you think something (like reading more) affects something else (less anxiety levels) you do not test that idea. Instead you test that there is no relation (or null relation). This makes the whole conversation about faith very different. Scientifically for one to prove that god does exist then one must disprove that god does not exist. This could work the other way around too, but the fact remains that there is no way to do that. god is something outside science, I'm not saying that there can't be things in science that may point to something bigger, but inherently this is a philosophical question not a scientific one.

Well first I want to address the latter part of the paragraph before I go back and look up what the hell a null hypothesis is. You say that science must prove that there is no God. I've read a lot on the subject and the general feeling among atheist is that we do not need to prove this because that is like asking you to prove that you don't have cancer. Well you might say, I'll just go to the doctor and get a check up and I'll show you my clean bill of health! Ha, foiled you Jeph! Well in essence that's what we've done with the universe, we've given it a check up and found no evidence for God, just like hopefully the doctor will find no evidence of cancer in your body. Now I know, we don't know nearly as much about the universe as we do about the body and some might claim that God could still be out there but until that happens its like you getting that clean bill and parading around telling everyone you have cancer soliciting money and sympathy from them for something that doesn't exist, but based on the fact that your doctor didn't quite know everything about your body so he could be wrong therefore you have cancer. What it really boils down to is that atheist and non-religious people are not making any extraordinary claims as Christians are. The idea that my proving to you that nothing exist is somehow more important than you proving to me that a God exist in another dimension called heaven outside the known realm of our knowledge is absurd. If anything its a variation of the old PeeWee Herman gag, "I know you are. But what am I?" You can't shift the responsibility of prove to the side that requires none.

Okay, after wikipedianing Null Hypothesis this is my take.

I don't believe you can apply this to the God debate. It seems that it requires two sets of data sets. Well, there is no data for the hypothesis that God is true. You can assume that both, there is no God and there is a God, are true and then claim that one must be proven wrong in order for the other to be true but how do you prove "there is a God" wrong when you have no data available to do that? I think what this is is just another attempt by Christians to take established science and convientitly ignore parts of it to fit their opinions. Kind of like the second law of thermodynamics debate. Okay onward....

What does not work is the God of the Gaps idea. Science can't be certain, so it works off of what is highly unlikely to be. If something is deemed highely unlikely to be true then science works as if it is not true, until it is shown wrong. Like minott has pointed out, a large game of sudoku. So if god is a philosophical question, then there shouldn't be a God of the Gaps idea. This is putting in the philosophy where it should be science.

First off, the sudoku game idea was mine, so take it back. Second, saying that science works from the assumption that something is true, is not correct. A hypothesis in its simplest form makes no assumption about itself. It does however provide outcomes that are both true and false. The latter being falsifiability, which is a very important part of science. If something cannot have a possible false outcome than it is not scientifically testable. For example "all men are mortal" Well, there is no way to test this because you would have to live forever to test it and even then you wouldn't know when to stop testing. By contrast "all men are immortal" is falsifiable by the presence of one dead person. Wikipedia it for more info, but its important and even has been used as an argument against God, because there is no way of testing it. And I will agree, a lot of times philosophy of God is charaded as science.

But the real debate comes where there is an overlap. Science has its own form of faith( I will call it trust for distiniction's sake). The esssence of science trusts, many things: the other scienctist are telling the truth, that facts will be checked, that what is highly unlikely is truely falst. They are more like assumptions. I'm not science is untrue, do not think that, but there is a trust inherent in it. This can then bridge the gap to faith(in the philosophical sense) as we try to think either back in time, or in universal workings. The string theory for example is appealing, because if you but your trust in it, ther appears these constants that make mathmatical formulas work. This is incredably appealing, and beautiful in the full sense of the word. The things is there is an idea of another demension that leads to these beautiful working of numbers. The presence of this demension is what the trust of the string theory is in. That demension can not be proven or disproven(at least as of yet).

Well here we are again, the whole faith game. I thought I put that baby to rest. But I will stress my points again. The difference between faith in God and trust in science are the reasons you expressed. "Other scientist are telling the truth, the facts are checked". And yes they are assumptions but they are well supported assumptions. Something belief in God cannot claim to have. String theory is an interesting topic to bring up, I've actually noticed you doing it before. Yes it is highly theoretical and impossible to test, in fact that is one large reason most scientist have abandoned it like they've abandoned the idea of God, but it was and is based on sound scientific principals. Through experimentation and calculation we are lead down a path that leads us to many possibilities, one being string theory. That is not faith that is deduction my dear Watson. And really string theory will only remain a vague idea until we gain the ability to test it. I must saying something about this debate though that is kind of insulting. Scientist invest their lives to pursue these answers. Investing so many hours and years to make sure they are finding the truth. And there is a trust between scientist, but there is also a well laid system that all but eliminates most of the trust that is even necessary. If a scientist presents an idea it must be duplicated by other scientist before it is considered fact. So if someone is just making stuff up it will be very obvious. So it is insulting to say that these are just assumptions as if some loaf was sitting around making things up off the top of his head. In fact the people leveling these insults are usually those very people.

So, I guess my point is (after a long winded thought, sorry you had to read this). Is that in the essence of faith and science there is a disconnect, they are different. One can not come at questions of faith in the same manner as science. But there there is this larger sense of science that has a trust(faith) built in that gives an overlap. If anyone says faith is illogical, and that they believe in science, then they don't understand what they are saying. There is a faith in science, and this overlap cause speculative dispute (and this blog).

Okay, well last one I better make it good. The idea that faith and science are different ascribes some kind of category to science. And I don't believe science can be put in a category. It is the tool that allows us to understand categories in the first place. What else on Earth besides "faith" is immune to science? Nothing! It is how we explain things. To say that faith is disconnected from science is just like saying it doesn't exist. And after all how can they be disconnected if they overlap? And if science has a trust/faith thing going on isn't it then just the same trust/faith that is given to belief? No one is saying "faith" is illogical they are saying that it is illogical to have faith without science. This blog after all is a crude scientific attempt to get to the root of the questions of faith. There very idea of this blog is to put faith/belief/god in a scientific point of view. I do believe there is something to the spirit of faith but I don't believe it is completely separate, if it was how would I experience it? How would I know it was even real? I'll stress again, if you say that faith is untestable and unfalsifiable then you are just saying that it isn't true. Or for all intensive purposes might as well not be because we will never know. (Now don't say 'well that's it exactly Jeph, we won't ever know you have to have faith'. Because I will say that if we can't know God by our methods how will he ever reveal himself to us? And remember Christian's claim he does all the time.)

UPDATE: Just so happens that right when I post this over at Tiny Frog they posted a similar argument. All though it is more of a critique of what others have said and he takes a less hardline approach to it. It's interesting however.

The God of the Overlap

I have a great Statistics teacher. He is well educated, and open to many ideas. I walked with him after class and had a small, but very good discussion about science and faith, and the overlap and differences between the two. He is a self-proclaimed "non-religious" man, and beleive it or not he was very accepting of my views, and when we departed with a hand shake i did not explode.

This conversation did get me thiking about things. Just to begin, non of these are the thoughts of my professor, these are mine alone. We were discussing the basics of science, the idea that in any experiment you test the null hypothesis. That is if you think something (like reading more) affects something else (less anxiety levels) you do not test that idea. Instead you test that there is no relation (or null relation). This makes the whole conversation about faith very different. Scientifically for one to prove that god does exist then one must disprove that god does not exist. This could work the other way around too, but the fact remains that there is no way to do that. god is something outside science, I'm not saying that there can't be things in science that may point to something bigger, but inherently this is a philosophical question not a scientific one.

What does not work is the God of the Gaps idea. Science can't be certain, so it works off of what is highly unlikely to be. If something is deemed highely unlikely to be true then science works as if it is not true, until it is shown wrong. Like minott has pointed out, a large game of sudoku. So if god is a philosophical question, then there shouldn't be a God of the Gaps idea. This is putting in the philosophy where it should be science.

But the real debate comes where there is an overlap. Science has its own form of faith( I will call it trust for distiniction's sake). The esssence of science trusts, many things: the other scienctist are telling the truth, that facts will be checked, that what is highly unlikely is truely falst. They are more like assumptions. I'm not science is untrue, do not think that, but there is a trust inherent in it. This can then bridge the gap to faith(in the philosophical sense) as we try to think either back in time, or in universal workings. The string theory for example is appealing, because if you but your trust in it, ther appears these constants that make mathmatical formulas work. This is incredably appealing, and beautiful in the full sense of the word. The things is there is an idea of another demension that leads to these beautiful working of numbers. The presence of this demension is what the trust of the string theory is in. That demension can not be proven or disproven(at least as of yet).

So, I guess my point is (after a long winded thought, sorry you had to read this). Is that in the essence of faith and science there is a disconnect, they are different. One can not come at questions of faith in the same manner as science. But there there is this larger sense of science that has a trust(faith) built in that gives an overlap. If anyone says faith is illogical, and that they beleive in science, then they don't understand what they are saying. There is a faith in science, and this overlap cause speculative dispute (and this blog).

The Potential Man

A couple of weeks ago Nathan and I had lunch at Small Bar on Division. It was a warm Sunday afternoon and we met for a fellowship. The purpose was not to discuss religion or God, but being that this was the first time we had seen each other since the start of this blog it was an inevitable topic.

I don’t remember the specifics of a lot of our conversation because most of it was a slow dance down to the point of contention in our belief systems. I believe it sprang from a discussion about Nathan’s post on science and my response. Which was more or less defining the aims of science verses the aims of religion. And it is my flaw to unfairly associate belief in a higher power (God) with religion. I don’t know if I see it as a flaw though, because in my point of view the two are inseparable, a veritable chicken and the egg. But other’s will tell you, Nathan perhaps, that they can be taken apart. And that point of contention eventually lead us down an interesting path, at least from my point of view.

As you do when talking abstract philosophy you tend to walk on stilts that look ridiculous to anyone not in the conversation so I hope that by diving into this you can follow.

We where talking about what the idea of God does for humankind. And I’m going to obviously rely on my impressions and ideas mostly because I honestly can’t remember much of Nathan’s. Sorry buddy but I’m more important to me then you are. Anyway, he can fill in the gaps in the comments. Okay, enough wasted time here I go.

In my opinion the purpose of God (one of perhaps, I have a lot longer to live so this list might grow) is to provide an example of good for humans to live up to. An almighty Father, both vengeful and just who practices unconditional love but simultaneously holds a hard line for the rules is the general picture of God I was taught to believe in. Of course this is the “character of God”, as Nathan calls it and not the God of the Bible, which in that case this description is sugar coated, and can be contradicted by actually reading the Bible, but then again that’s by opinion. So the character of God is the perfect example we should all strive for.

And I agree, depending on your definition of the character of God. I was telling Nathan, as I’ve told other people, and alluded to in previous comments, that I can have a conversation with a believer such as Nathan and understand their concepts as long as I view the word god as the power within me that allows me to experience the character of god. (Note the lower case) And that is a lot of reasons why this blog exist. I recognize similar feelings and experience without God that many ascribe to God. Thus leading me to think there is something else at work there.

And that’s where my head was as I sat over a pizza that that stupid ignorant Christian Nathan so kindly bought and shared with me in a time when I was broke and hungry. And it made me think, what is it that I am living for? I’ve long given up on the idea of a meaning to life, but should I rethink that?

The meaning of life is a term that expects and answer from an outside point of view I think. It almost demands a deity to hand us a card as in Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life, and read the answer like a talk show host would. I would argue it is the desire to transfer responsibility that springs this way of thinking. But science and reason has told us that every experience is derived from the mind, so why not the meaning of life? So it dawned on me that the meaning of life is for us to choose. That’s why there can be no one answer, and why the giant computer in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy chose 42. Isn’t it just like a machine to chose a number? And on that note, the question is probably up to us as well, but I’ll let the philosophical implications of that go for now.

But moving even beyond that we talked further about God as the ultimate good example. And the crux of our difference in opinion was exposed. See Nathan accepts that a Father God created us and watches us with love and awe. And we as his children are to be like him and to serve him. In a nutshell anyway, sorry if the mushy language mucks it up. And I believe that that ultimate good example is our own potential as individuals and as a species. I argued that by having the examples of history we can project our potential into the future and thus live our present lives to bring about the best possible version of that. Nathan however argues that it is necessary to have a separate God and thus a solid definition of good, and as a result evil. But I would go further and say that our definition of good has never been solid. In fact if you take the Ten Commandments I’m sure you can find examples in cultures around the world where each one is consider the antonym of the stated law in the Bible. (Wouldn’t that be a fun challenge?)

And even if it can be shown to be universally accepted as wrong to covet your neighbors donkey it still doesn’t diminish the fact that morality is created by community. How many times have we seen small groups commit strange acts that seem perfectly normal to them?

Now in theory the idea of an unfixed good is a good idea (is it? Ha!). But this goes back to the basics, no evidence for a God has been shown. I, and others like me, cannot rely on lack of evidence. But can a Christian really even claim an unfixed God? Hasn’t the morality of God changed over time? Even by rejecting the dogma of religion and forming your own individual view of God aren’t you shifting the morality of God? The same God that the majority would claim to this day was sending all homosexuals to hell? It is very clear that the morality of God is changing with our times. That’s why women can wear pants!

So overall, my point is the potential of humankind being our beacon in the distance. And at various times in history the ship we have sailed towards the beacon is the ship of God and religion. But as we get closer to the point in the distance we need to realize that that ship is ours and the point of light is not the kingdom of God, but our own kingdom here on Earth.

Did you follow that analogy? Well I want to say it again anyway. I think it can be shown that everyone strives for the potential of humankind even if they claim that they are striving to be like God. The harm comes in when people sacrifice what’s best for a fictional God over what’s best for humankind. It leads to stagnation and back peddling. The power of the mind to create, explore, love and express ideas is not the product of God but the product of our minds.

Okay, I’m going to stop being preachy, but I can’t help getting excited about my own personal potential and how it contributes to our race. And conversely getting frustrated by snags along the way.

So let me know what you think. Do you agree? Am I way off base? Am I standing on stilts still? Is this just a form of humanist dogma? I don’t know, let me know.

This Made Me Giggle.

Kurt Vonnegut --

I am honorary president of the American Humanist Association, having succeeded the late, great, spectacularly prolific writer and scientist, Dr. Isaac Asimov in that essentially functionless capacity. At an A.H.A. memorial service for my predecessor I said, "Isaac is up in Heaven now." That was the funniest thing I could have said to an audience of humanists. It rolled them in the aisles. Mirth! Several minutes had to pass before something resembling solemnity could be restored.
I made that joke, of course, before my first near-death experience -- the accidental one.
So when my own time comes to join the choir invisible or whatever, God forbid, I hope someone will say, "He's up in Heaven now." Who really knows? I could have dreamed all this.
My epitaph in any case? "Everything was beautiful. Nothing hurt." I will have gotten off so light, whatever the heck it is that was going on.

Sam Harris: OnFaith

I guess this is a series of articles he's been publishing. This one is interesting, all though it seems kind of obvious, considering what we've been discussing here already. But it does include this gem. (I just love list)

How to Believe in God
Six Easy Steps

1. First, you must want to believe in God.
2. Next, understand that believing in God in the absence of evidence is especially noble.
3. Then, realize that the human ability to believe in God in the absence of evidence might itself constitute evidence for the existence of God.
4. Now consider any need for further evidence (both in yourself and in others) to be a form of temptation, spiritually unhealthy, or a corruption of the intellect.
5. Refer to steps 2-4 as acts of “faith.”
6. Return to 2.

One thing I'm starting to notice and get a bit annoyed by with these guys (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc.) is the fact that they have to say the same stuff over and over again. I'm pretty sure it annoys them as well but sometimes I just wish we could move on and talk about stuff that matters. But then again maybe this is the stuff that matters?

Doubts are natural

I think doubting your faith is natural, stagnation allows no view point to thrive. I don't know how compleately I agree with Rev. Honey, but he has some great, well put points. This is from the TED coference a while ago. There are newer videos on tons of subjects, and I'm sure Jeph will direct you to the Richard Dawkins stuff. Enjoy.


http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/112

Also...

This subject seems real interesting to me. The Singularity. A culmination of technology and science to some kind of new stage of living? I'm going to look into it some more and make a comment.