Five Myths About Christmas (answered?)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Beavah writes:

But da current topic with packsaddle and Merlyn is whether science is just one branch of human rational thought, with characteristics very much the same as all other branches of human rational thought, or whether science is privileged, or to borrow a term, "sacred".

 

It's not privileged, it just isn't arbitrary like you keep trying to say it is. If civilization collapses and all scientific knowledge is lost, building it back up would not result in e.g. F = MA^2 instead of F = MA. Scientists will still (eventually) realize that planets orbit the sun in elliptical orbits with the sun at one focus, even if there are idiot non-scientists who think the world is flat and the center of the universe. Again, using your absurd distortion of how science works, they could arrive at such nonsense conclusions, since your version of science is just a group vote by various people, and you might end up with a group of flat-earthers. But they won't come up with reproducible results that are consistent with a flat, unmoving earth because reality disagrees with that model. But reproducibility isn't even a factor in your absurd fantasy world.

[BartHumphries 10]

Well, miles/kilometers and how those are defined would probably change, but basic formulas wouldn't really change. Well, they might be described "wonkily" until people rediscovered that disregarding air resistance things fall at the same rate, etc., but eventually they'd look basically the same.

 

That's one of the things I loved about physics with calculus. Up to that point, math was just about moving numbers around. Interesting, something that I was decent at, but I didn't really see a point to it. Basic physics was amazing and a lot of fun as we went into how the world worked and worked on deriving simple formulas from experimental evidence produced during the lab sessions. Then I got into physics with calculus and we started really deriving the formulas -- starting with thought experiments to create diagrams and such as to how we thought things worked, then going out and experimenting and seeing whether our results backed up our theories.

 

That was the most amazing class as I suddenly discovered that there's a point to math, that it's not just pushing numbers around or doing quaint little tricks with numbers, you really can basically describe the world with math.

 

I still haven't seen anything in math, physics, or any of the "hard" sciences that contradicts my religion (my religion says that the evolution/creation argument is unimportant, that the central aspect of religion is Jesus Christ and that the church isn't going to bother dictating exactly where Adam came from -- ex nihilo, evolution guided by God, the church doesn't care).

 

Now, sociology, psychology, those "soft" sciences, there's a lot I disagree with there. I'm not saying that "hard" science has all the answers -- there's still gobs and gobs that we can't quite figure out and that we disagree with, but basically I think "hard" science is pretty solid (if you'll pardon the pun).

[Beavah 205]

If civilization collapses and all scientific knowledge is lost, building it back up would not result in e.g. F = MA^2 instead of F = MA.

 

Maybe. Or maybe instead we'd have developed a notion of 4-dimensional universe much earlier, and have skipped da somewhat awkward Newtonian formulation in favor of field theory or conservation of energy/momentum much earlier. If for some random historical reason we started thinkin' of things more in terms of waves than particles, we would have built up a more robust wave mechanics understandin' of the world much earlier, and our interpretations of quantum mechanics and da progress of the discipline would be much different. Maybe we wouldn't be stuck in da Standard Model . Science in da most part is driven by technology and da extant philosophy of the folks pursuin' it. If we stayed polytheistic nature-worshipers, odds are science wouldn't emerge at all.

 

Similarly, if civilization collapses and all religious knowledge is lost, building it back up would still result in da equivalent of the 10 commandments and the Golden Rule and the notion of a monotheistic, personal God. Same with our understandings of psychology or law or philosophy. But they'd emerge differently and in different order, and perhaps with new insights. Maybe this time around God would send Her Daughter, and Aquinas would emerge earlier. Maybe we'd skip some awkward steps and wrong turns. Maybe we'd make new ones.

 

God and the universe don't change, but both are big enough that we can only take in pieces. When we talk science or theology, we're talkin' about the development of human understandin' of the world. Science and theology are human endeavors, and when we talk about humans, our understandin' can change or be different, as we see from da cultures that grew up separated by distance.

 

Beavah

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Similarly, if civilization collapses and all religious knowledge is lost, building it back up would still result in da equivalent of the 10 commandments and the Golden Rule and the notion of a monotheistic, personal God.

 

I disagree. If you compare religions today from various parts of the world, they are still vastly different. Physics, not so much. That's the point.

 

Do you really think a new civilization MUST come up with the same ten commandments? No graven images, really? Nothing about slavery? Exactly ten, even if they don't use base 10 for counting? For that matter, Jews, Catholics, and Protestants don't even agree on what the 10 commandments are today.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, but Merlyn, if yeh compare "science" from various parts of the world (defining science as how people describe and interpret natural phenomena), then it is also vastly different. What you call "science" is a western cultural approach that is now practiced in many places throughout the world.

 

Just as Christianity is a western cultural phenomenon that is now practiced in many places throughout the world. In fact, more places than science is practiced. And da creed of Christianity? Not so different anywhere in da world. Just like physics.

 

Do yeh really think that in a reconstituted world we'd have 3 Laws of Motion? Exactly three, if it isn't considered a magical number? Nuthin' in there about energy?

 

Of course not. But all of the underlyin' truths would slowly be rediscovered. Written down in different ways, conceptualized differently. Still present, but perhaps with different emphases.

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Yah, but Merlyn, if yeh compare "science" from various parts of the world (defining science as how people describe and interpret natural phenomena), then it is also vastly different.

 

That isn't what the term means. If, by "science", I define it as various kinds of bread, I'll find it varies greatly around the world, too.

 

But using your definition, belief in a flat earth is "science", since some people think so. That kind of science, and that kind of definition of science, is useless.

 

Beavah, are you really prepared to state that believing the earth is flat is a scientific belief?

[SSScout 1616]

My turn.

 

I view "science" as the explanation of our world by observation and experiment.

If I look out of my window and see the horizon is further away than I can reach, then I might conclude that the world is flat, just very very big.

If I later discover that on a particular day, the sun makes a measurable shadow from a vertical pole of a certain hieght and in a different location many miles away the sun makes NO shadow (in other words, it is directly overhead) from an identical pole, I MIGHT conclude (from my observation) that the world has a curve to it.

In both instances, I would be doing science: applying my senses and logic to explain how things work. However, in the second example, my conclusion is different because it has stemmed from new observations and information.

It is when new information is denied outright that "science" is not done.

Same often with religion and faith. If new information is denied as not meeting preconceived or accepted information (or dogma), then arguments (and wars?) begin. See Martin Luther and Pope Leo.

Science , as usually accepted, requires observation and experimentation: If a condition is changed, will a different result occur? This can be as simple as putting two different objects in a vacuum rather than regular air, and seeing if they drop at the same rate, or even convincing your little brother to try smiling more to see if his big sister would "be nice" to him more often. B.F.Skinner, call your office.

The problem in the Faith vs Athiest debate is that rarely (if ever) can a condition be changed to affect a measurable outcome to "prove" or "disprove" the other fellow's premise. Faith requires INWARD proof of the outward action, Atheism accepts only outward proof of the inward result. Hard to reconcile the two.

Us Quakers often look back to our revelatory founder, George Fox, for explanation and justification, even for todays problems (why re-invent the wheel?). He often said ... "And this I knew experimentally", in writing about his sure knowledge of God and Christ. We usually take this to mean that we can do the same, and know something by trying it out, internally, to see what may happen externally. That's what often happens in our Meetings, someone will join us in worship and later say that here is where they were meant to be all along, here is where they felt God's presence. Our athiest friends don't see it that way. They seem to want the outward experience to justify the inward faith.

Yep, faith can use logic, but ultimately it is not logical.

 

All this from a Jesuit's answer to Christmas myths? Neat.

[packsaddle 753]

Happy New Year, everyone.

I'd like to apologize to Beavah for the personal comments. It was over the line and I owe him and the forums an apology. For my New Year's resolution I promise to try to do better than that.

 

SSScout, as Oliver might have said to Stan if Stan was that Jesuit, "This is a fine mess you've gotten us into."

[acco40 95]

Some would say, since man created both "science" and "religion", if knowledge of both were wiped out, they would both be created or reformulated to much like what we have today.

 

The fact that we have ten fingers and toes helps to explain the Ten Commandments and the fact that we use base ten!

[Eamonn 61]

"since man created both "science" and "religion", if knowledge of both were wiped out, they would both be created or reformulated to much like what we have today."

Wow!

This makes my problem of repacking and finding a home for all the Christmas decorations seem kinda silly.

Only thing is that I think I have the know how to repack and find homes for this stuff. Reformulating science and religion? Might take a little longer.

Ea.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Some would say, since man created both "science" and "religion", if knowledge of both were wiped out, they would both be created or reformulated to much like what we have today.

 

Science would, eventually, come to the same conclusions. Religion would not.

[Beavah 205]

Science would, eventually, come to the same conclusions. Religion would not.

 

An interestin' hypothesis.

 

Or should I say, an untestable, unscientific myth that just describes da Faith of the poster.

 

---

 

No worries, packsaddle. Apology unnecessary, but appreciated and accepted.

 

B

 

[packsaddle 753]

So I guess it comes down to what different people think IS 'faith', itself. There's obviously a difference of opinion on this. That difference could be relevant to BSA policy.

 

As for that four-letter word starting with 'M', I guess I'll look forward to listening to Edith Hamilton complaining to herself while we're burning in hell, "What was I thinking? What was I thinking?"

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Science would, eventually, come to the same conclusions. Religion would not.

 

An interestin' hypothesis.

 

That's only because of your bizarre definition of "science," which means nothing more than some people agree on something, including that the earth is flat.

 

One of the requirements is reproducibility. This holds even if civilization collapses and is rebuilt -- scientific results will still be reproducible. The earth is round and if you use a scientific methodology, you'll find it IS round, because observations will be consistent with a round earth and inconsistent with a flat earth. You won't sometimes find out it's flat. But if you just look for people agreeing on something, the earth is flat, sometimes.

[Beavah 205]

Or it depends only on your bizarre definition of "religion", which means only that some people agree on something, including that there are multiple gods and they live in trees and crystals.

 

One of the requirements is deity that acts in lives and in da universe. This holds even if civilization collapses and is rebuilt - God will still care and act. And if yeh have enough time and enough experience with Deity as a culture and people, yeh will come to the same conclusion that there is One God.

 

Yah, yah, if yeh only have limited experience or data, some people may believe in multiple gods, just as with limited data, science might well conclude that the Earth is flat. That's not a problem with da methodology, it's just a human problem of not having enough data, or being stuck in our old beliefs, or having aspects of human culture that get in the way of thinking correctly.

 

So my belief is that religion will be rediscovered in just da same way science will be rediscovered. Because the underlying reality is there, even if it takes us humans a long time to build our ideas and understandings as we try to describe that reality.

 

And that is just as much an untestable statement of Faith as yours is. Only difference is that I don't believe that mine is uniquely privileged. I believe both monotheistic religion and science will be restored.

 

In fact, I maintain that without monotheistic religion, science is not possible. If yeh believe that trees and fire and such are independent intelligences that are free to act on their own, or are driven by multiple gods that act independently and capriciously, then there's no intellectual or cultural reason to ever assume that there are Universal Laws which govern the behavior of matter. That's why science only emerged in monotheistic cultures in our present world.

 

You, Merlyn, are in fact a cultural Monotheist. Not only do yeh maintain the existence of Universal Laws, but yeh maintain that people should be governed by universal laws of behavior in how they treat each other, even in voluntary hobby and educational organizations. In fact, your belief is so strong, that yeh are evangelical about it, and go out among us heathen to preach and try to make converts.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)