Burden of Proof - Part 2

[Aloysium]

He did?
I thought that before Einstein, radioactive explosions had already been suspected to release huge amounts of energy. For example in the excavations of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro and Rajasthan evidence shows atomic blasts dating back thousands of years? The knowledge of radioactive explosions, together with the possibility of a chain reaction, was all that was needed to develop the atomic bomb. I thought that Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard was awarded a British patent in 1936 for the atomic bomb, not Einstein. The Einstein equation E = mc^2 tells us that huge energy release results in a small mass decrease in the fissioning atoms, but I don’t see where this equation was ever used in the design of the atomic bomb?

The formula was one of Einstein’s claims to fame. It has something to say about the forces that bind the particles of the nucleus and may have played some role in the development of the bomb. What had more impact was Einstein’s letter of warning about Nazi plans to the President which was influential in forming the Manhatten Project. You must have understood what Charlie was getting at in his post. Your reply is tangential to his point that there is not progress, but a fairly clear retrogression in humanity since the middle of the war that was to end all wars. BTW - not sure why you are presenting junk science. The Mahabharata is an epic tale, speaking of eternal rather than truths in time.

 

[Tomdstone]

The formula was one of Einstein’s claims to fame. It has something to say about the forces that bind the particles of the nucleus and may have played some role in the development of the bomb. .

I don’t see how Einstein’s equation was used in the design of the atomic bomb?

 

[Tomdstone]

Einstein… did not and could not give us the wisdom not to use that knowledge in the form of nuclear weapons…

I don’t think that is true. Here is what he wrote:
"I was well aware of the dreadful danger for all mankind, if these experiments would succeed. But the probability that the Germans might work on that very problem with good chance of success prompted me to take that step. I did not see any other way out, although I always was a convinced pacifist. To kill in war time, it seems to me, is in no ways better than common murder.

As long however, as nations are ready to abolish war by common action and to solve their conflicts in a peaceful way on a legal basis. they feel compelled to prepare for war. They feel moreover compelled to prepare the most abominable means, in order not to be left behind in the general armaments race. Such procedure leads inevitable to war, which, in turn, under todays conditions, spells universal destruction.

Under such circumstances there is no hope in combating the production of specific weapons or means of destruction. Only radical abolition of war and of danger of war can help. Toward this goal one should strive; in fact nobody should allow himself to be forced into actions contrary to this goal. This is a harsh demand for anyone who is aware of his social inter-relatedness; but it can be followed.

Gandhi, the greatest political genius of our time has shown the way, and has demonstrated the sacrifices man is willing to bring if only he has found the right way. His work for the liberation of India is a living example that man’s will, sustained by an indomitable conviction is stronger than apparently invincible material power."

It was the Americans who used the atomic bomb, murdering hundreds of innocent civilians in Japan.
See:
catholic.com/magazine/articles/dropping-the-atomic-bomb-was-wrong-period

 

[inocente]

If the empiricists do not fear the supernatural, why do they so fiercely fight it?

I am reminded here of Herman Merlville’s trenchant insight in Clarel.:

“Who’s gained by all the sacrifices of Europe’s revolutions? Who? The Protestant? The Liberal? I do not think it, not at all. Rome and the atheist have gained: these two shall fight it out – these two; Protestantism being retained for base of operations sly by Atheism.”

They don’t fear astral projection, they fear superstition.

There’s nothing of God in superstition. Melville’s character confuses superstition with faith. I doubt he’d find many Catholics who would agree with him that faith is opposed to reason, for as Thomas said, truth cannot contradict truth.

 

[inocente]

In the past 100 years, say, what new knowledge has philosophy given us? Has philosophy made any progress?

Existentialism made some waves.

Out of the five branches of philosophy (epistemology, metaphysics, politics, esthetics and ethics), I think skeptics like Krauss largely satirize the first, the study of knowledge itself, as a pointless exercise in how-do-we-know-that-we-know-what-we-know.

 

[Mort_Alz]

A regular supernatural event.

Something obvious. Not a one off that could be a trick or a mental abberation on the part of the observer.

So no ‘near death’ experiences. No radios spontaneously playing. No miraculous cures. No visions of bright lights on a roof.

How about you bring inanimate objects to life. A Toy Story for every household.

If you saw a Toy Story in every household, how would you know you weren’t insane? Schitzophrenic? You say it would have to be something that is “not a one off that could be a trick or a mental aberration on the part of the observer.” But, schizophrenics experience long term faulty perception. Just because you see it as regularly as nature wouldn’t mean it wasn’t a product of your own faulty perception.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Seems very sensible - before accepting something inexplicable, a good witness should rule out whether he’s delusional, hallucinating or mistaken.

I too reject lots of the supernatural, including astral projection, clairvoyance, ectoplasm, elves, ESP, fairies, Father Christmas, ghosts, poltergeists, precognition, psychokinesis, reincarnation, remote viewing, telepathy and UFOs.

Only unbalanced people accept absolutely every supernatural thing which others tell us is real.

I’m curious what among the supernatural you DO accept and on what basis. Granted, I’ve had limited interaction with you to date, but you regularly play the devil’s advocate to supernatural perspectives on this forum despite listing your religion as “Baptist.” This is not a bad thing, of course. In fact, I regularly play the devil’s advocate to religious people who I think say stupid stuff.

 

[Mort_Alz]

This sounds so commonsensical, doesn’t it? But in fact it is demonstrably false. Probability theorists studying what sort of evidence it would take to establish a highly improbable event came to realize that if you just weigh the improbability of the event against the reliability of the testimony, we’d have to be skeptical of many commonly accepted claims. Rather, what’s crucial is the probability that we should have the evidence we do if the extraordinary event had not occurred. This can easily offset any improbability of the event itself. reasonablefaith.org/steph…us-of-nazareth

That… is a well put point.

 

[Mort_Alz]

So you need something other than evidence to distinguish supernatural from fiction, assuming of course you want to make that distinction…

What would you suggest? Do YOU want to make that distinction? If not, then do you think we’ll eventually be able to sense God or angels with scientific instruments?

 

[Mort_Alz]

Empiricists don’t make such a claim. They claim that “sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge”. No one can prove the Sun will still exist tomorrow. All our experience says it will, but it cannot be proved 100% because no one knows the future. Sense experience and therefore empiricism is about likelihood, not proof.

On the other hand, rationalists claim that “there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience” but they cannot prove that.

Atheism is “Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods” and theism “Belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe” (OED). Neither is defined as needing or being able to prove their belief.

Yes. I think most people fail to realize this.

One point of disagreement, though. I have never been able to get a “rationalist” to admit that they are just as guilty of making philosophical assumptions as their (non-rationalist? Is that even possible?) counterparts.

Which, that leads me to another thing? What the heck is a “rationalist?”

 

[Mort_Alz]

If the empiricists do not fear the supernatural, why do they so fiercely fight it?

I am reminded here of Herman Merlville’s trenchant insight in Clarel.:

“Who’s gained by all the sacrifices of Europe’s revolutions? Who? The Protestant? The Liberal? I do not think it, not at all. Rome and the atheist have gained: these two shall fight it out – these two; Protestantism being retained for base of operations sly by Atheism.”

They DO fear the supernatural, as an idea, because it has caused many people to commit many atrocious acts. (9/11, for example, would not have occurred if the attackers did not believe in the supernatural Allah.)

 

[Aloysium]

I don’t see how Einstein’s equation was used in the design of the atomic bomb?

First hit on Google search gets you EinsteinOnline:
“. . . E=mc2 had a supporting role in the story of nuclear fission research. Not as the mechanism behind nuclear power, but as a tool: Because energy and mass are equivalent, highly sensitive measurements of the masses of different atomic nuclei gave the researchers important clues about the strength of the nuclear bond. Einstein’s formula does not tell us why the nuclear binding energies are as large as they are, but it opens up one way (among several) to measure these binding energies.”

If you don’t look you don’t see, applies to everything, not just religion.

I didn’t say it was a big deal. Again as the article supports, it is Einstein stature, derived from his work that included the iconic formula, that gave weight to warnings leading to the development of the atomic bomb. Science is a social phenomenon, not just a fount of ideas for nerds and denizens of Internet forums.

 

[Aloysium]

They DO fear the supernatural, as an idea, because it has caused many people to commit many atrocious acts. (9/11, for example, would not have occurred if the attackers did not believe in the supernatural Allah.)

I would add that it gets more personal. The fear of the supernatural is a fear of the mind, of the dreams, the nightmares and anxieties to which we are prone. Death as simple nonbeing, like deep sleep should not evoke horror. But, it does by rendering everything meaningless, except for that which is eternal. YOLO, the shout of joy that should emerge from wrenching all that life can offer, is ultimately a cry of despair. Without God, we are at the mercy of fickle forces that provide us with the capacity to enjoy as we participate in life. They are normally taken for granted, their existence unrecognized. Give them a personality, and we are playthings in their palm. For those clinging to this world in which death appears to rule, God is replaced by Satan. Better not to think about it.

Plunge into the abyss, coaxes the Man on the cross, you are saved.

 

[inocente]

What would you suggest? Do YOU want to make that distinction? If not, then do you think we’ll eventually be able to sense God or angels with scientific instruments?

Some on this thread seem to be following Descartes by talking of material (natural) substance and immaterial (supernatural) substance. In which case supernatural is a synonym for paranormal, and it’s hard to separate it from fiction.

But I think Christianity traditionally sees it differently, for instance here’s two definitions of the supernatural order:

*The sum total of heavenly destiny and all the divinely established means of reaching that destiny, which surpass the mere powers and capacities of human nature. - Modern Catholic Dictionary

The ensemble of effects exceeding the powers of the created universe and gratuitously produced by God for the purpose of raising the rational creature above its native sphere to a God-like life and destiny. The meaning of the phrase fluctuates with that of its antithesis, the natural order. Those who conceive the latter as the world of material beings to the exclusion of immaterial entities, or as the necessary mechanism of cause and effect to the exclusion of the free agency of the will, or again as the inherent forces of the universe to the exclusion of the extrinsic concurrence of God, quite consistently call supernatural all spiritual facts or voluntary determinations or Divine operations. - Catholic Encyclopedia*

I see it along those lines, so to me God always works through nature and there’s no conflict.

 

[inocente]

Yes. I think most people fail to realize this.

One point of disagreement, though. I have never been able to get a “rationalist” to admit that they are just as guilty of making philosophical assumptions as their (non-rationalist? Is that even possible?) counterparts.

Which, that leads me to another thing? What the heck is a “rationalist?”

From plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/:

“The dispute between rationalism and empiricism concerns the extent to which we are dependent upon sense experience in our effort to gain knowledge. Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.”

 

[Mort_Alz]

I would add that it gets more personal. The fear of the supernatural is a fear of the mind, of the dreams, the nightmares and anxieties to which we are prone. Death as simple nonbeing, like deep sleep should not evoke horror. But, it does by rendering everything meaningless, except for that which is eternal. YOLO, the shout of joy that should emerge from wrenching all that life can offer, is ultimately a cry of despair. Without God, we are at the mercy of fickle forces that provide us with the capacity to enjoy as we participate in life. They are normally taken for granted, their existence unrecognized. Give them a personality, and we are playthings in their palm. For those clinging to this world in which death appears to rule, God is replaced by Satan. Better not to think about it.

Plunge into the abyss, coaxes the Man on the cross, you are saved.

I think many are just unconvinced by the evidence for the supernatural. Don’t you think it’s kind of disrespectful to try to psychoanalyze non-believers? I know I don’t like it when they do it to us.

 

[Mort_Alz]

From plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/:

“The dispute between rationalism and empiricism concerns the extent to which we are dependent upon sense experience in our effort to gain knowledge. Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.”

Oh. Fair enough. I guess I’m a rationalist, then. Learn something new every day.

 

[Mort_Alz]

The ensemble of effects exceeding the powers of the created universe

How could these effects come from anything but an “immaterial substance?” If they come from a material cause, then they are definitely within the powers of the created universe.

I see it along those lines, so to me God always works through nature and there’s no conflict.

I’ve never heard any philosopher of Christian thought suggest that the existence of immaterial substances conflicts with nature. Even if God can work independently of nature, there is no conflict, either.

But, let me ask: if God ALWAYS works through nature is he himself also “part” of nature? Can we observe him directly or can we only observe his effects?

 

[Aloysium]

I think many are just unconvinced by the evidence for the supernatural. Don’t you think it’s kind of disrespectful to try to psychoanalyze non-believers? I know I don’t like it when they do it to us.

I hardly think my comments would be considered psychoanalysis by any means, but I get what you are saying. It’s a sort of ad hominem to go for the motivations rather than stick with the argument. I don’t want to aggravate you, but you are the one who opened up the area of fear and the supernatural, attributing it to fears of what others do under the influence of their belief systems. I just brought it closer to home. I thought I was making a point about human nature, not specifically atheists. With respect to the supernatural, there are psychological aspects and apparently spiritual ones involving demons as well. I don’t think it is disrespectful to address our fears and how we respond to them. I welcome any insight into the workings of myself, actually. And truly, part of my involvement here is to shake the foundations of my worldview to enable a glimpse of what is real, beyond what can remain an illusory realm of ideas.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

He did?
I thought that before Einstein, radioactive explosions had already been suspected to release huge amounts of energy. For example in the excavations of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro and Rajasthan evidence shows atomic blasts dating back thousands of years? The knowledge of radioactive explosions, together with the possibility of a chain reaction, was all that was needed to develop the atomic bomb. I thought that Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard was awarded a British patent in 1936 for the atomic bomb, not Einstein. The Einstein equation E = mc^2 tells us that huge energy release results in a small mass decrease in the fissioning atoms, but I don’t see where this equation was ever used in the design of the atomic bomb?

You conveniently ignore my point about the difference between “new knowledge” of science and the “old wisdom” of philosophy, as if you think the new knowledge of science must be superior to the old wisdom of philosophy.

Einstein’s wisdom came too late. He surely opposed the advancement of nuclear weapons, but was himself one of their essential promoters with FDR. We may fairly surmise that his letters to FDR sealed the deal.