Science and Religion

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

I don't know. What is your point?

That there is even a need to make a metaphor for God. That notion doesn't come from nothing.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by AEON

That there is even a need to make a metaphor for God. That notion doesn't come from nothing.

The notion comes from the fact that for the past..5/6000 years? (for sure more, but I'm talking what we have evidence for)... humanity, for the most part, believed that a god existed. We're not going to suddenly forget about that. You realize that quote was the last sentence in A Brief History of Time, right? By ending book that way, he harkens back to the millennia of human existence in which the laws that that govern the universe were a complete mystery to us. It's meant to be awe inspiring at the progress of human civilization. If he just ended the book with "for then we would know why the Universe works as it does" - apart from being a fucking boring sentence - it's completely void of any hint at our past. It's metaphor. He doesn't need to make a metaphor for god; he does it because then what he's implying becomes all more powerful; after all this time, we've almost figured it out. Nothing about it suggests that anyone uses a metaphor for god because it's a bit of proof of his existence or because we can't think of anything better. In fact, it almost belittles the idea of a god. "Oh, you're all powerful? We've pretty much figured out how your mind works". What would that make us?

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

The notion comes from the fact that for the past..5/6000 years? (for sure more, but I'm talking what we have evidence for)... humanity, for the most part, believed that a god existed. We're not going to suddenly forget about that. You realize that quote was the last sentence in A Brief History of Time, right? By ending book that way, he harkens back to the millennia of human existence in which the laws that that govern the universe were a complete mystery to us. It's meant to be awe inspiring at the progress of human civilization. If he just ended the book with "for then we would know why the Universe works as it does" - apart from being a fucking boring sentence - it's completely void of any hint at our past. It's metaphor. He doesn't need to make a metaphor for god; he does it because then what he's implying becomes all more powerful; after all this time, we've almost figured it out. Nothing about it suggests that anyone uses a metaphor for god because it's a bit of proof of his existence or because we can't think of anything better. In fact, it almost belittles the idea of a god. "Oh, you're all powerful? We've pretty much figured out how your mind works". What would that make us?

To be honest - I'm in my early 40's now, the kids are in bed, the wife is falling asleep, I'm listening to The National, I was thinking about that show I watched earlier in the evening and I thought I would bait you - you've been quiet. And I got a bite!

[Jive Turkey]

hahaha jerk

Well, you got me to think about my response to that in a way I hadn't before, so win win I guess

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

The notion comes from the fact that for the past..5/6000 years? (for sure more, but I'm talking what we have evidence for)... humanity, for the most part, believed that a god existed. We're not going to suddenly forget about that. You realize that quote was the last sentence in A Brief History of Time, right? By ending book that way, he harkens back to the millennia of human existence in which the laws that that govern the universe were a complete mystery to us. It's meant to be awe inspiring at the progress of human civilization. If he just ended the book with "for then we would know why the Universe works as it does" - apart from being a fucking boring sentence - it's completely void of any hint at our past. It's metaphor. He doesn't need to make a metaphor for god; he does it because then what he's implying becomes all more powerful; after all this time, we've almost figured it out. Nothing about it suggests that anyone uses a metaphor for god because it's a bit of proof of his existence or because we can't think of anything better. In fact, it almost belittles the idea of a god. "Oh, you're all powerful? We've pretty much figured out how your mind works". What would that make us?

This is actually a VERY good response. I love it. I'll have to google it and see if you stole it

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

after all this time, we've almost figured it out.

Well - that doesn't seem too likely. But I think that's a good thing. It just means we have MUCH MORE to figure out and have fun with.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by AEON

This is actually a VERY good response. I love it. I'll have to google it and see if you stole it

haha Thanks man.

Originally Posted by AEON

Well - that doesn't seem too likely. But I think that's a good thing. It just means we have MUCH MORE to figure out and have fun with.

Ya, you're right on here. But even still, the progress is mind bending

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Ya, you're right on here. But even still, the progress is mind bending

And just imagine what quantum computing will give us in the next 10-20 years. These computers will essentially be able to calculate just about every possible path of existence for every atom - at once. We will essentially have the "mind of God" in a search box.

[Jive Turkey]

Perhaps my understanding of what a quantum computer is might be wrong, but is it not essentially the same as a modern computer, only each bit is able to store more probable information than just the binary off or on? In that way, they have exponentially more memory than a classic computer per bit and can access a given amount much quicker? Also, theoretically, two identical entangled quantum computers could share information instantly at faster than light speed.

[cobl04]

Saw the Krauss vs William Craig debate tonight, the topic was 'is it reasonable to believe there is a God?'

JT warned me about Craig when I first bought it up, but honestly I thought he did pretty well - I'm an atheist so there were plenty of things he said that didn't click with me (in particular the 'historical facts' of Jesus' resurrection and his thoughts on the veracity of scripture) but I thought he debated pretty well.

Obviously I agree with Krauss and a lot of what he said (though there was plenty that went over my head). There was one quite interesting debate between the two about morality... once they took God out of the equation it seemed that they agreed on a lot of the subtleties and smaller things, though ultimately Craig believes it's a god-driven thing where as Krauss does not ("if Dr Craig suddenly stopped believing in God I don't think he'd go and kill his neighbour all of a sudden").

Dr Craig seemed reasonable to me, and personally I think it is 'reasonable' (in a more loose, less scientific sense of the word) to believe in God, many good people I know do. But I really couldn't connect at all with the two things I mentioned above - the "historical facts" about Jesus' resurrection in particular was just absolutely ridiculous, as were the stuff about scripture... when Krauss rightly said scripture is falsifiable because it is based on writings that may have been mistranslated after being passed on by word, and they were written after the fact... and Dr Craig's only argument in return was that the scholars at the time had a good record and wouldn't lie.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by cobl04

Saw the Krauss vs William Craig debate tonight, the topic was 'is it reasonable to believe there is a God?'

JT warned me about Craig when I first bought it up, but honestly I thought he did pretty well - I'm an atheist so there were plenty of things he said that didn't click with me (in particular the 'historical facts' of Jesus' resurrection and his thoughts on the veracity of scripture) but I thought he debated pretty well.

Obviously I agree with Krauss and a lot of what he said (though there was plenty that went over my head). There was one quite interesting debate between the two about morality... once they took God out of the equation it seemed that they agreed on a lot of the subtleties and smaller things, though ultimately Craig believes it's a god-driven thing where as Krauss does not ("if Dr Craig suddenly stopped believing in God I don't think he'd go and kill his neighbour all of a sudden").

Dr Craig seemed reasonable to me, and personally I think it is 'reasonable' (in a more loose, less scientific sense of the word) to believe in God, many good people I know do. But I really couldn't connect at all with the two things I mentioned above - the "historical facts" about Jesus' resurrection in particular was just absolutely ridiculous, as were the stuff about scripture... when Krauss rightly said scripture is falsifiable because it is based on writings that may have been mistranslated after being passed on by word, and they were written after the fact... and Dr Craig's only argument in return was that the scholars at the time had a good record and wouldn't lie.

Thanks for the assessment. I agree that the morality argument is more fascinating and possibly holds more weight than the historicity of Scripture (although I do have "faith" that it has been fairly well preserved, but I know I can't reasonably prove that with artifacts).

I do like Dr. Craig and I think he holds his own in these debates. If anything, his ability to debate at least demonstrates that not every Christian is an idiot.

I still think Chris Hitchens is probably the best debater in this arena. I obviously don't come to all of his conclusions, but I just LOVE watching him.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Perhaps my understanding of what a quantum computer is might be wrong, but is it not essentially the same as a modern computer, only each bit is able to store more probable information than just the binary off or on? In that way, they have exponentially more memory than a classic computer per bit and can access a given amount much quicker? Also, theoretically, two identical entangled quantum computers could share information instantly at faster than light speed.

Today's computers, like a Turing machine, work by manipulating bits that exist in one of two states: a 0 or a 1. Quantum computers aren't limited to two states; they encode information as quantum bits, or qubits, which can exist in superposition. Qubits represent atoms, ions, photons or electrons and their respective control devices that are working together to act as computer memory and a processor. Because a quantum computer can contain these multiple states simultaneously, it has the potential to be millions of times more powerful than today's most powerful supercomputers.

Source:

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by cobl04

Saw the Krauss vs William Craig debate tonight, the topic was 'is it reasonable to believe there is a God?'

JT warned me about Craig when I first bought it up, but honestly I thought he did pretty well - I'm an atheist so there were plenty of things he said that didn't click with me (in particular the 'historical facts' of Jesus' resurrection and his thoughts on the veracity of scripture) but I thought he debated pretty well.

Obviously I agree with Krauss and a lot of what he said (though there was plenty that went over my head). There was one quite interesting debate between the two about morality... once they took God out of the equation it seemed that they agreed on a lot of the subtleties and smaller things, though ultimately Craig believes it's a god-driven thing where as Krauss does not ("if Dr Craig suddenly stopped believing in God I don't think he'd go and kill his neighbour all of a sudden").

Dr Craig seemed reasonable to me, and personally I think it is 'reasonable' (in a more loose, less scientific sense of the word) to believe in God, many good people I know do. But I really couldn't connect at all with the two things I mentioned above - the "historical facts" about Jesus' resurrection in particular was just absolutely ridiculous, as were the stuff about scripture... when Krauss rightly said scripture is falsifiable because it is based on writings that may have been mistranslated after being passed on by word, and they were written after the fact... and Dr Craig's only argument in return was that the scholars at the time had a good record and wouldn't lie.

Lucky for you Cobbo. I saw Kraus tweet that he was going to that, but forgot it was the one you were seeing. Glad you enjoyed it. I think I just find Craig's style to be smarmy. And the way he cock-suredly tries to shoot down science with... well nothing of substance, really, rubs me the wrong way. In a sense, I know he must know that he's being intellectually dishonest and I really don't like that. But anywho

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by AEON

Source:

So I more or less had it right. I think I just misread what you were trying to say, but I see now

[cobl04]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Lucky for you Cobbo. I saw Kraus tweet that he was going to that, but forgot it was the one you were seeing. Glad you enjoyed it. I think I just find Craig's style to be smarmy. And the way he cock-suredly tries to shoot down science with... well nothing of substance, really, rubs me the wrong way. In a sense, I know he must know that he's being intellectually dishonest and I really don't like that. But anywho

Krauss himself said how frustrated he was that Craig kept bringing up the same points in their debates despite being proven wrong.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

So I more or less had it right. I think I just misread what you were trying to say, but I see now

Yeah - you had it right. I think the "processing" power of these beasts will allow us to run million or billions of scenarios for everything - from small things like baseball lineups to global supply chains. And of course, quantum mechanics...

[AEON]

Originally Posted by cobl04

Krauss himself said how frustrated he was that Craig kept bringing up the same points in their debates despite being proven wrong.

Yeah - that can be annoying. But I don't ever see anyone in these debates openly concede and say, "well - you got me there!" It would be cool if someone did. I would probably declare them the winner just for saying that.

Krauss does have one major flaw (IMHO) in his assumption that something can come from nothing. He refers to the creation moment, the Big Bang, as a quantum fluctuation of pre-existent energy. Well - how is it that the energy is not in existence? Why does he not count that as "something"? I wish I could ask him...

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Lucky for you Cobbo.

That's right - you were actually there. Good for you.

How was the environment? What was the crowd like?

[Jive Turkey]

New study relevant to our previous discussion.
Meta analysis of intelligence vs religiosity

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/...nce-and-faith/

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

New study relevant to our previous discussion.
Meta analysis of intelligence vs religiosity

New meta-analysis checks the correlation between intelligence and faith | Ars Technica

I think the problem here is that "belief in some sort of God" attracts people from the whole spectrum of intelligence, and atheist (which a small fraction of the total population) does attract brighter minds.

The same is also probably true within the Church - the most fundamentalist and dogmatic followers probably have the lower IQs, while those that "buck the trend" and bring new "insights" probably have the higher IQs.

However - I've known dim witted atheists (usually those that are just in simple rebellion of all things) and brilliant Church-going professionals and clergy.

All-in-all, I would concede that the average IQ of the atheist is probably higher than the average IQ of a "believer". But that doesn't seem to really prove much. The same could probably said of serial killers or dictators and computer hackers (that they have a higher IQ than most church goers).