Why do scientists want to prove we are an accident?

[inocente]

One thing is certain- the Old Testament is clear on the wrongness of homosexuality and devout Catholics accept the Old Testament as conjoined with the New Testament in relating the word of God.

Not sure the OT says homosexuality is wrong, doesn’t it just have a bee in its bonnet about the act itself?

Whatever, do we really take the OT seriously? Men must not have sexual relations with a man as with a woman (Lev 18:22). Then we ignore that those who do must be put to death (Lev 20:13). We should also execute everyone who blasphemes (Lev 24:10-16) or who works on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2), and we can sell our daughters into slavery (Exodus 21:7) and buy slaves from neighboring nations (Lev 25:44). Etc.

When it comes to OT morality, we Christians are sure consistent.

 

[Faithdancer]

Not sure the OT says homosexuality is wrong, doesn’t it just have a bee in its bonnet about the act itself?

Whatever, do we really take the OT seriously? Men must not have sexual relations with a man as with a woman (Lev 18:22). Then we ignore that those who do must be put to death (Lev 20:13). We should also execute everyone who blasphemes (Lev 24:10-16) or who works on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2), and we can sell our daughters into slavery (Exodus 21:7) and buy slaves from neighboring nations (Lev 25:44). Etc.

When it comes to OT morality, we Christians are sure consistent.

Well, I don’t think that most people here would agree with some of the extreme punishments demanded in the OT for certain sins, punishments such as stoning.

As far as what Jesus might have thought about homosexuality, we’ll never know, since if he did express his judgment about it, no one recorded it. Of course that doesn’t mean he didn’t say anything about the subject, since not everything Jesus ever did or said is in the Gospels: “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” John 21:25 (New American Bible).

 

[John_of_Woking]

It seems to me that scientists wants to prove we came from the dust of the stars and we evolved through many forms and became human.In otherwords we are accidents not guided by anything but keep on evolving.Lets just assume this to be true.How would it change their lives or ours?

Moral guilt. That is all.

 

[Faithdancer]

Moral guilt. That is all.

Yes, agree. However if we include increased justice, compassion, mercy, tolerance, sharing, love, caring for the less fortunate, etc. as markers of human evolution, are we truly evolving? I wonder if any astrophysicist or cosmologist with an atheist agenda would even find the question relevant.

 

[lao_tzu]

Yes, agree. However if we include increased justice, compassion, mercy, tolerance, sharing, love, caring for the less fortunate, etc. as markers of human evolution, are we truly evolving? I wonder if any astrophysicist or cosmologist with an atheist agenda would even find the question relevant.

Evolution doesn’t imply a direction.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Yes, agree. However if we include increased justice, compassion, mercy, tolerance, sharing, love, caring for the less fortunate, etc. as markers of human evolution, are we truly evolving?

If the allele frequency within a population is changing then “yes” otherwise “no.”

 

[lao_tzu]

Moral guilt. That is all.

Atheists don’t feel guilt? We don’t have morals? What exactly are you trying to say?

 

[Faithdancer]

I’m learning that I have to be ultra-specific about every word on these forums, or some folks will pretend they don’t understand my meaning, just to pick an argument…

So, let me clarify- when I use the term evolution above, in regard to qualities such as compassion, mercy, etc, etc, I am talking about an increase in these qualities among the general population, what some have called spiritual evolution. I thought that would be obvious, since this is a Roman Catholic forum and obviously the primary concern here is spiritual matters.

And though I’ve taken many biological science courses, including graduate evolution, this isn’t the forum (see above) for a debate whether or not evolution is non-directional, or partly directional, or nearly always directional, etc. There are plenty of Biological Science PhD’s debating this and they don’t have consensus, so it’s not going to get resolved here…

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So, let me clarify- when I use the term evolution above, in regard to qualities such as compassion, mercy, etc, etc, I am talking about an increase in these qualities among the general population, what some have called spiritual evolution. …And though I’ve taken many biological science courses, including graduate evolution, this isn’t the forum (see above) for a debate whether or not evolution is non-directional, or partly directional, or nearly always directional, etc.

Even outside of a biological context as Lao Tzu said “evolution” doesn’t imply a direction (for direction one might use a word like “progressing”, “decaying” or “digressing”. Looking back at the question:

However if we include increased justice, compassion, mercy, tolerance, sharing, love, caring for the less fortunate, etc. as markers of human evolution, are we truly evolving?

The question answers itself. If you have some way to show that people are changing with respect to these attributes then you could say they are evolving.

I wonder if any astrophysicist or cosmologist with an atheist agenda would even find the question relevant.

When ever I see a phrase like this I can’t help but see it as a cue to trigger in-group/out-group bias.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

It is ironic, isn’t it, that just about everything a scientist does he does for a purpose, yet he might well believe the entire universe is without purpose?

 

[Planty_Business]

God likes being an accident? Huh? You lost me there!

That was a tongue-in-cheek way of asking, “If we humans require a designer to have meaningful lives, why is it that God supposedly has no designer, yet his life has meaning?”

 

[Planty_Business]

The Roman Catholic Catechism does not deny that the Holy Bible was physically written by multiple hands; in fact, this is accepted and in no way is seen as contrary to the de fide acceptance that Holy Scripture was transcribed by human beings, howsoever many, but divinely inspired. It is also quite acceptable to Catholics educated in the Catechism that religions preceding Christianity contained elements, glimpses as it were, of the truth that was fully revealed in Jesus Christ. Why? Because God is eternal, and can reveal truth whenever and to whomever He wants to- before or after the birth of Jesus Christ, on this planet or any other that is populated by sentient beings, or even to sentient beings inhabiting some parallel multiverse, if it turns out that these exists All of this is acceptable within the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The fact that different humans, in different ages, have had remarkably similar religious stories and beliefs only further strengthens the idea of a deeply human, intuitive recognition of essential truth.

So you believe that God purposely chose to reveal himself to people in a form the he would later condemn as idolatry?

If Jesus is the only way to heaven, then it seems that revealing to people the existence of gods without any explanation of this exclusivist Christian belief to those people would be completely counterproductive.

Let’s say I want people to know that at

 

[Planty_Business]

The Roman Catholic Catechism does not deny that the Holy Bible was physically written by multiple hands; in fact, this is accepted and in no way is seen as contrary to the de fide acceptance that Holy Scripture was transcribed by human beings, howsoever many, but divinely inspired. It is also quite acceptable to Catholics educated in the Catechism that religions preceding Christianity contained elements, glimpses as it were, of the truth that was fully revealed in Jesus Christ. Why? Because God is eternal, and can reveal truth whenever and to whomever He wants to- before or after the birth of Jesus Christ, on this planet or any other that is populated by sentient beings, or even to sentient beings inhabiting some parallel multiverse, if it turns out that these exists All of this is acceptable within the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The fact that different humans, in different ages, have had remarkably similar religious stories and beliefs only further strengthens the idea of a deeply human, intuitive recognition of essential truth.

So you believe that God purposely chose to reveal himself to people in a form that he would later condemn as idolatry?

If Jesus is the only way to heaven, then it seems that revealing to people the existence of gods without any explanation of this exclusivist Christian belief to those people would be completely counterproductive.

Let’s say I want a group of scientifically uneducated people to know that atoms exist. Would it be prudent for me to demonstrate this to them by presenting to them a model of atoms that is not accurate - and, thus, leads to misunderstandings about other scientific truths? For example, would there be any use in telling people that all matter is composed of extremely minuscule spheres? That was the original conception of atoms, but in reality, atoms look nothing like spheres. An atom is composed of a nucleus of protons and neutrons orbited by several, much smaller electrons. An understanding of this scientific fact about atoms is necessary to understand other scientific subjects, such as nuclear fusion and the periodic table of elements.

God’s revelation of himself in a polytheistic form is rather like my hypothetical revelation of atoms as spheres; both are, presupposing Catholicism, inaccurate and misleading.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

It seems to me that scientists wants to prove we came from the dust of the stars and we evolved through many forms and became human.In otherwords we are accidents not guided by anything but keep on evolving.Lets just assume this to be true.How would it change their lives or ours?

Part 1: The reasons Science works best with God out of the equation is because God, as the ultimate free will, is beyond equating. Anything that cannot be calculated is beyond science - and many scientists don’t like to accept that possibility :dts:

And part 2 - anything that cannot be calculated according to our ability to calculate is vigourously to be shaved off with Occams razor - or pummeled from our ken with Dawkins bludgeon, as I’d suspect it has become. This is because of an amendment to the rules of scientific investigation that came into effect half way throuh the 19thC that rules out Science taking into account anything beyond that which can be verified by the scientific method. This makes the assumption that anything beyond our ability to physically calculate must not exist, or be in fact a misunderstanding/illusory result of something we can physically calculate.

A tautological fundamental of modern science

 

[Mystic_Banana]

So you believe that God purposely chose to reveal himself to people in a form that he would later condemn as idolatry?

If Jesus is the only way to heaven, then it seems that revealing to people the existence of gods without any explanation of this exclusivist Christian belief to those people would be completely counterproductive.

Let’s say I want a group of scientifically uneducated people to know that atoms exist. Would it be prudent for me to demonstrate this to them by presenting to them a model of atoms that is not accurate - and, thus, leads to misunderstandings about other scientific truths? For example, would there be any use in telling people that all matter is composed of extremely minuscule spheres? That was the original conception of atoms, but in reality, atoms look nothing like spheres. An atom is composed of a nucleus of protons and neutrons orbited by several, much smaller electrons. An understanding of this scientific fact about atoms is necessary to understand other scientific subjects, such as nuclear fusion and the periodic table of elements.

God’s revelation of himself in a polytheistic form is rather like my hypothetical revelation of atoms as spheres; both are, presupposing Catholicism, inaccurate and misleading.

An interesting issue regarding the scientific ‘fact’ you refer to.

We do not know for a fact that anything smaller than atoms exist, because we cannot directly detect them in any way. We can only infer their existence from the movements of the atoms themselves. So, to talk about them as fact, is delusory…

…and yet, whether they exist or not, the calculations that, for all we know, may be but handy conceptualisations of math that refer to entirely different actual phenomena is nonetheless handy for other scientific subjects, such as nuclear fusion and the periodic table of elements…

in a similar way, a misunderstanding of God in a polytheistic form would nonetheless be better than a failure to recognise God at all. Although, on the whole, many polytheistic belief systems could easily be interpreted as not being many miles away from monotheism. They usually have creator/ruler Gods, don’t they? It’s not far off worshipping angels as if they were Gods, while nonetheless recognising the ‘high God’ as ruler… all simplification, and resulting in all sorts of misunderstanding, but then surely many things are, yet still work as bases for guiding to better models for accurate depictions of truth, surely?

 

[hecd2]

An interesting issue regarding the scientific ‘fact’ you refer to.

We do not know for a fact that anything smaller than atoms exist, because we cannot directly detect them in any way. We can only infer their existence from the movements of the atoms themselves.

That, of course, is absolutely and absurdly wrong. What do you think a CRT is other than an electron detection system? You can measure the charge and the mass of an electron or proton and you think that we don’t know they exist? The LHC makes and manages vast numbers of protons and controls them almost unbelievably precisely and we don’t know they exist? I think you must using a different definition of “know” from the rest of the world.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Mystic_Banana]

That, of course, is absolutely and absurdly wrong. What do you think a CRT is other than an electron detection system? You can measure the charge and the mass of an electron or proton and you think that we don’t know they exist? The LHC makes and manages vast numbers of protons and controls them almost unbelievably precisely and we don’t know they exist? I think you must using a different definition of “know” from the rest of the world.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

You can measure what you can conclude represents the charge and mass of an electron, but without detecting it directly you are therefore are only inferring from the results of reactions that what are actually there are actually genuinely those particles we conceive of as protons or electrons.

“The detectors in colliders like the Large Hadron Collider and Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider work by looking at some of the items that come rocketing out of the collisions, producing the sort of traces shown here. Given that data, it’s possible for physicists to work their way backwards in order to figure out what went on in the collision itself.”

Over the decades, the “unbelievably precise” measurements are regularly found to be impossible based on contemporarily conceived subatomic particles, requiring the invention of newer, smaller particles to act as corrective conceptions to match the math.

It is, in the end, a bit like an extremely complicated version of the medicine of the 4 humors. That the body was kept in balance by balancing the 4 humors was based on a medicine restricted by taboo. A system of treatment based on the knowledge of the 4 humours needing to be balanced was devised, and to some degree seemed to work enough to satisfy practitiioners that teh theory was true. That the hefty swarms of subatomic particles calculated to exist actually do, is similarly not genuinely known, only inferred: The understanding of them may be slightly different, or the whole system, like that of the 4 humors, may be a misunderstanding of an actuality which is actually substantially different.

Knowledge: acquaintance with facts, truths. Of which, to an absolute level, we have barely any

 

[hecd2]

You can measure what you can conclude represents the charge and mass of an electron, but without detecting it directly you are therefore are only inferring from the results of reactions that what are actually there are actually genuinely those particles we conceive of as protons or electrons.

Can you give me an example of something we can detect directly according to your definition? And tell me just how a CRT does not directly detect electrons according to that definition? And how something can represent the charge and mass of the electron but not be the charge and mass of the electron? Is it the charge and mass of something else, and what would you call the something else? Or are you saying that charge and mass is meaningless? And how according to your definition of “observe” can atoms can be observed but protons, neutrons and electrons cannot?

Over the decades, the “unbelievably precise” measurements are regularly found to be impossible based on contemporarily conceived subatomic particles, requiring the invention of newer, smaller particles to act as corrective conceptions to match the math.

Measurements of electron properties have not been found to be “impossible”.The unbelievably precise measurements remain precise. And there is no need to conceive of constituent particles of electrons and no-one does. Protons and neutrons do have constituent particles called quarks but they were originally postulated there to explain observed processes - the maths of the standard model follows the observations, not vice versa. All six flavours of quark have since been detected and their properties measured to a high degree of accuracy.

You are quite wrong in your assertions here, but that seems to be because your knowledge of physics is very limited.

Knowledge: acquaintance with facts, truths. Of which, to an absolute level, we have barely any

Well acording to this hardcore definition the only thing one can absolutely know exists is oneself - which is not a very useful definition is it? But according to a sensible definition by which we can say elephants exist, we can, with equal certainty, say that protons, neutrons and electrons exist. Truths are propositions that accord with reality. The propositiosn that electrons exist and have a mass of 9.1x10938^-31kg and a charge of −1.602176^-19 coulombs and spin = 1/2 correspond to reality and are true.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Can you give me an example of something we can detect directly according to your definition? And tell me just how a CRT does not directly detect electrons according to that definition? And how something can represent the charge and mass of the electron but not be the charge and mass of the electron? Is it the charge and mass of something else, and what would you call the something else? Or are you saying that charge and mass is meaningless? And how according to your definition of “observe” can atoms can be observed but protons, neutrons and electrons cannot?

I suppose I’d say detecting directly would involve experience of the thing itself, rather than the reactions around the thing itself. I think I know where you’re going, and it will probably be the best point you’ve made in years!

Well what we consider to represent the charge and mass of an electron would of course be an electron, but at that point I suppose you’re already assuming that electrons are definitely there… so a more honest question would be - how can something equate with the charge and mass of what we conclude is an electron, and not be an electron? To which I reply, in the same way something can have the shape and sound of of a wasp, yet be a bluebottle

True! I suppose it would be truer to say we can’t really even detect atoms directly!

Measurements of electron properties have not been found to be “impossible”.The unbelievably precise measurements remain precise. And there is no need to conceive of constituent particles of electrons and no-one does. Protons and neutrons do have constituent particles called quarks but they were originally postulated there to explain observed processes - the maths of the standard model follows the observations, not vice versa. All six flavours of quark have since been detected and their properties measured to a high degree of accuracy.

You are quite wrong in your assertions here, but that seems to be because your knowledge of physics is very limited.

Nothing you are saying here quite invalidates what I have said – it is simply that you are representing things in an extremely positivist fashion, which I don’t feel the need to. Protons and neutrons were originally conceived of to balance the math when atoms and electrons were not found to sufficiently fulfil the necessary calculations themselves. Prior to that, the subatomic particles previously found to fit the math alone constitute the subatomic universe were found to be, by themselves, explaining all the action.

Well acording to this hardcore definition the only thing one can absolutely know exists is oneself - which is not a very useful definition is it? But according to a sensible definition by which we can say elephants exist, we can, with equal certainty, say that protons, neutrons and electrons exist. Truths are propositions that accord with reality. The propositiosn that electrons exist and have a mass of 9.1x10938^-31kg and a charge of −1.602176^-19 coulombs and spin = 1/2 correspond to reality and are true.

Yes. What is ‘sensible’, however, can be very subjective, and the scientific establishment seems pretty generous, as far as I’m concerned, as to when to attribute the term to discoveries using it’s own method

According to a sensible definition, we can say elephants are pretty bloody likely to exist - enough, I’d say to make it practical to talk as if with genuine knowledge. They look the same, smell the same, sound the same, are the same shape, and probably taste pretty similar. We cannot say with equal certainty that protons, neutrons and electrons exist - the evidence, when it comes down to it, is too indirect, and singular in its methodical source to boot. We can say that there are reactions which certainly would suggest somesuch arrangement exists, but reactionary vibrations are just not sufficient to constitute genuine proof of existence…

…as to my knowledge of physics being limited, you know it to be true! Nonetheless, there have been more than a few threads where you’ve quoted all sorts of evidences of arguments against me, which end up doing little such at all, once they’ve been checked through. As to this argument, I established it pretty readily while reading a book about it many years ago… I’m beginning to wonder if that was so long ago that my memory isn’t distorting the technicalities, so I think I may check out a few of these details with a physicism chum, next time I meet up with one, which may well be up to 3 weeks away, unfortunately for this argument… hell, I may try and dig up the original book, for that matter… actually maybe I should make a proper effort to hassle someone to re-explain them to me over the weekend

 

[hecd2]

I suppose I’d say detecting directly would involve experience of the thing itself, rather than the reactions around the thing itself.

How do you experience a thing “directly” in a way that is categorically different from detecting an electron? Say you have an elephant in front of you - well, photons in light arising from the sun are incident on the surface of the elephant. Many of the photons are absorbed and turned into heat in the elephant’s skin, but some, of particular wavelengths, are reflected (this, by the way, is a very complex process that I am glossing over disgracefully). Since the elephant’s skin is a deep scatterer, the direction of reflection of each photon is randomised. Some reach the pupil of your eyes and are refracted at the cornea and again at the crystalline lens. Photons scattered at the same point on the elephant that traverse different paths converge approximately on the same point on the retina (assuming good visual acuity). Since this is true of all points on the elephant, an inverted representation of the elephant is formed on the retina - this is not the elephant itself, but a pattern of photons whose flux density corresponds in some geometric way with the reflectivity and other optical features of the elephant. The photons are absorbed by the receptors in the retina, and the energy of the photons causes the 11-cis-retinal in the cones to switch to trans. This in turn allows opsin to change its configuration, an effect which is amplified by transducin. This, in turn, activates phosphodiesterase which opens the phosphate ring in cGMP. This in turn blocks sodium, calcium and magnesium channels across the membrane, which creates an electrical potential (owing to the unequal ion concentrattions). This signal, from each cone is then transmitted via a glutamate blocking pathway to multiple synapses. At the first level of processing in the retina, bipolar and horizontal cells detect on-off and edge transitions by equally complex biochemical and bioelectrical processes. Other ganglion cells fire when there is movement - a high and complex level of processing takes place in the retina. This happens before any signal is transmitted to the visual cortex where a much more complex degree of electro-chemical processing takes place. So far, we haven’t even reached the stage where any signals are transmitted to regions in the brain that fire in patterns corresponding to recognition of the light falling on the retina as having arisen from an elephant. So that’s the ‘direct’ detection of elephants, hugely simplified and glossed over.

What about electrons? Well, the story is pretty similar, except at the front end where electrons fall on a scintillator screen and release photons that can be detected in the eye - that’s the equivalent of photons being scattered from the elephant. The back end processing in the retina and visual cortex is simpler for electrons than elephants - all we need to see in the case of electrons is a flash.

So, given this rather indirect sensing of all entities in the external world, how do you detect a thing “directly”, and how is that categorically different from detecting an electron?

By the way, the fallacy you are falling into here is a common one amongst non-scientists - ie to privilege phenomena that can be detected by the human senses unaided above those that require instruments such as microscopes, telescopes, electrometers, scintillation screens, oscilloscopes, cloud chambers, bolometers, radar, thermal sensors, SEMs, strain gauges, microphones, interferometers etc etc etc. In all cases we sense things indirectly and in all cases we can only detect reactions and processes around the thing itself, whether its an electron or an elephant.

I’ll reply to the rest of your post shortly.

Alec
evolutionpages.com