Yes. Evolution.

[etudiant]

I share your exuberance regarding the explanatory abilities of science as it relates to mechanical processes of selected species. It's a celebration of sorts.

There are many materialists like yourself that tenaciously attempt to replace the reverent worship of a divine intellegence who's existence is by no means at odds with the natural world, with celebration of a grand story of evolutionary mechanisms.

First off, I'd like to suggest that Johnson is not a materialist, or if I am being too presumptuous here, he is at least not presenting a materialist perspective in this thread. There is nothing necessarily materialistic in science; it is a reverential examination of the awe and mystery of the universe. Is it material? May be. Is it something else? May be, but you are not going to ever know, without logical enquiry. A defintion for logical enquiry: science. What is your method? Read the sacred scriptures? Go by intution? Accept what the Imams are telling you? You may think you know for sure, but without a through analysis of self and enviornment beforehand, you are really just guessing.

You wish to exalt the natural world in a way that replaces religion.
I'm sorry my friend, but that will never come to pass.

It already has ant, if you were up on your reading, many events that surpass biblical events have already happened.

At the very heart of the matter is the fact that at the core of theism is a reverence for something beyond the material world. Something who's reality is inexplicable by scientific methodology. Beyond demand of empiracle evidence and scientific testability. Metaphysical "realities" are themselves untestable. And yet science, not fully satisfied with mechanistic explanations, often dives head first into metaphysics empty handed.

It does. And when it does, it makes the all important distinction between reality and theory. Does your mythology do the same thing?

Your error is simply this: you mix science with natural philosophy.
Your objective? - to give meaning to the meaninglessness of the evolution of the universe and the "gambling casino" you refer to as "the origin of the species by means of natural selection."

Is it meangless? Or is it not meaningless? What is your method of finding out? Thinking about it over your morning coffee?

When you say "gambling casino", I suspect you mean you feel some anxiety or displeasure at the idea that our human existence does not occupy a more central place in the affairs of the universe, whatever those might be. But are you actually prepared to do the legwork, as scientists have done, and find some sense of reality, or to hide in your mystical beliefs, ones that are far more comfortable, but ones that do not hold up to too much scrutiney?

The "Human Experience" demands more than what science has to offer.
Scientists are not even close to unanimous agreement when they attempt to turn "an is to an ought."
An answer of "everything exists because it just does" is unsatisfactory for the human experience.

Your opiate is "promissory materialism - partial explanatory success extrapolated into a grand and final conclusion"

I think you have edged closest to the truth in your last few lines. Things exist. It is a conundrum. What is the real story? We are all leaning forward in our seats. But here is where we diverge. Scientists will do the work. You can't wait. Scientists write texts. You are content with novels.

[johnson1010]

At the very heart of the matter is the fact that at the core of theism is a reverence for something beyond the material world. Something who's reality is inexplicable by scientific methodology. Beyond demand of empiracle evidence and scientific testability. Metaphysical "realities" are themselves untestable. And yet science, not fully satisfied with mechanistic explanations, often dives head first into metaphysics empty handed.

What do you mean by “beyond the material world.” What do you know of this thing which exists outside of all ability to be detected? How can you assert a reality which you admit you have no way of knowing about, yet make claims to what would exist there?

You are asserting a priority for unsubstantiated wishful guess-work over what can be readily observed and verified.

“Beyond demand of empiracle evidence and scientific testability.”
Means you have no way of actually proving what you say has any resemblance to the state of the world, and no evidence that could ever be offered, because of your willful dismissal, will ever be able to change your belief in this thing that you have arbitrarily chosen to believe.

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Is this what I miss out on by my stubborn insistence that my belief should be dictated by good evidence? And when my expectations can be proven to be wrong, I should CHANGE them?

What believers credit as a miraculous connection is really the stupefied glaze of misunderstanding.

Something just happened which amazed me! Seemingly out of nowhere an event occurred and it inspired me with its beauty/power/timing/excitement.

Believers seem to fear that knowing these things didn’t happen JUST because they are special, and ONLY because a supernatural entity was paying special attention to them, will rob these amazing experiences of all their power to enthrall.

It doesn’t.

[Interbane]

What do you mean by “beyond the material world.” What do you know of this thing which exists outside of all ability to be detected? How can you assert a reality which you admit you have no way of knowing about, yet make claims to what would exist there?

I was going to reply, but johnson did it for me.

There is nothing wrong with celebrating the world around us. It is fantastic. Even if you can't see how you would ever celebrate nature as you do your god, don't hate on others for celebrating it. For some people, it does replace religion, as long as we understand we're talking about the epistemic portion of religion and not the ritualistic portion.

[ant]

"There is nothing wrong with celebrating the world around us."

You're accusing me of something. I didn't even come close to saying nor is it something I object to in the slightest.
Seriously? Is that what it's come to? Just make something up and chide from that point forward?

[ant]

Deleted

I had already read your thoughtful reply.

[Interbane]

You're accusing me of something. I didn't even come close to saying nor is it something I object to in the slightest.
Seriously? Is that what it's come to? Just make something up and chide from that point forward?

You're right, you're saying that reverence for nature is insufficient, rather than 'wrong'. Sorry. What we're saying is that insufficient or not, it is the best we can do. We could do as you do and have "faith", but that is insufficient to us. Because such complex faith is not something that should be the cornerstone of a worldview. Let's revere things we 'know' are real, rather than things we simply believe are real. That realness more than compensates for any divine meaning within the story created to satiate your "human experience".

[ant]

"What do you mean by “beyond the material world.” What do you know of this thing which exists outside of all ability to be detected? How can you assert a reality which you admit you have no way of knowing about, yet make claims to what would exist there?

You and your logic driven, empirically affirmed brain no doubt would have a similar gripe with the Scientists
Duf,f Green, Greene,Gross, Maldacena. Mandelstam, Polchinski, Polyakov,Ramond,Scherk,Schwarz, Sen Susskind, Townsend, Vafa, Veneziano, Witten, AND Hawking for their positing of 11 separate dimensions of String Theory.

Hawking, I might add has stated that he realizes theories like these are not scientific but metaphysical.
But, it becomes necessary to "push beyond" the limits of scientific methodology when you've reached boundaries that can not be breached due to human limitations of the present.

Lets see how dishonest you can get about this. It won't surprise me though because of what you claimed in another post about science and evil.
Yes, there is no such person as the mad scientist Dr Evil, therefor there is no such thing as science being used for evil purposes (paraphrased, of course. But that's what you meant in a sense)

This is great! Here's the logic to come:
Science certainly can't prove there's other dimensions, or worm holes, or P-branes, but based on the evidence (don't ask me what evidence that is!!) it certainly is possible!
Come to think of it, there might even be a tea pot in orbit around Mars if it helps out String Theory!

I love it!! (giggle)

[ant]

You're accusing me of something. I didn't even come close to saying nor is it something I object to in the slightest.
Seriously? Is that what it's come to? Just make something up and chide from that point forward?

You're right, you're saying that reverence for nature is insufficient, rather than 'wrong'. Sorry. What we're saying is that insufficient or not, it is the best we can do. We could do as you do and have "faith", but that is insufficient to us. Because such complex faith is not something that should be the cornerstone of a worldview. Let's revere things we 'know' are real, rather than things we simply believe are real. That realness more than compensates for any divine meaning within the story created to satiate your "human experience".

What is so complex about faith?

Note: I'm no expert on faith but I've never heard it referred to as being complex.
Also, I can't say I agree with your interpretation of my post - that a reverence for nature is insuficent.
I'd say that it's a good thing to look at the natural world as wonderous,and respect and help care for it.
But deeper spiritual needs that many many people experience in a lifetime, I'd say its not enough.

[Interbane]

What is so complex about faith?

Note: I'm no expert on faith but I've never heard it referred to as being complex.

It was to differentiate between simple faith. It depends on how you disambiguate the concepts. We all have faith in our senses. We all have faith in a few basic axioms as well. That is basic faith(or confidence, or trust), required to be functional in life. Everyone has such faith/trust.

Belief in a god involves a lot more content than sense datum. It's a component of a worldview, and requires an epistemic framework to justify. That is complex faith. Even if you don't like my terminology, they are necessary distinctions within the conceptual definition of faith.

Also, I can't say I agree with your interpretation of my post - that a reverence for nature is insuficent.
I'd say that it's a good thing to look at the natural world as wonderous,and respect and help care for it.
But deeper spiritual needs that many many people experience in a lifetime, I'd say its not enough.

I take your first sentence to be contrary to your last sentence. You're saying reverence for nature is insufficient to satisfy deeper spiritual needs. But how do you know? Have you ever replaced your reverence for the divine for a reverence for nature? Must the object of your reverence be sentient(omniscient in this case)?

[johnson1010]

Are you talking about his quote, Ant?

There is such a thing as an evil scientist.

There is no such thing as evil science.

I think you'd better re-read that post.
You didn't get it.

Honestly, i haven't done any real reading on string theory (although i've got some books on my to-do list), so i couldn't speak to much of the in-depth explanations offered by string theory.

All the same there is a difference when you talk about theorists who are trying to piece together the facts of Quantum and relativity theory into one cohesive theory of everything. They are imagining how it might all link together, trying to figure out the right equations and what those equations say about reality. When those ideas and equations stand in stark contradiction with the way the world has been observed to behave those ideas are reworked or disgarded.

They may be wrong, we don't know that yet, but they are starting from fact building toward theory. Rather than starting from preferred myth to ignoring everything that disagrees with that myth.

They are trying on string theory to see what it implies, and trying to test to see if string theory predicts our world.

So far, to my knowledge, they haven't been able to put it to the test. and until Until string theory and alternate dimensions can be empirically confirmed, they remain speculation.

I don't think i've ever gone to bat for string theory on this site, so i'm not sure what you are getting so ventilated about.