How will Religion cope???

There are lots of people out there who think that science really can offer definitive answers and certain knowledge and then there are others who think science is just another religion complete with a priestly class with just a pretense to knowledge. Of course neither perspective is accurate. I find it useful sometimes to reflect on the lay of the land in between and put into words all the different ways some "understandings" can be warranted and at the same time only provisional. Writing often helps me crystallize my own thoughts and this is a topic I'm generally happy to think about and discuss. That's why some of the posts are a bit loquacious. I do prefer talking to sane people like hippiefried, muhmuh, circ and yodajazz (just to name a few of the many sane posters here). But when I'm in the mood to think about an issue, anybody's post might be a springboard. Also, it gets my goat when someone deliberately misrepresents me in a public forum. So thanks for the moral support guys.

Well there you have it. You're popular.

Of course she is. Smart tends to draw positive attention. Stupid just draws more stupid. But of course you would already know this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

Of course she is. Smart tends to draw positive attention. Stupid just draws more stupid. But of course you would already know this.

---

Smart is a matter of opinion, unless it's your kind of smart...... then it's vanity.

Ignorance is lack of knowlege.

Intelligence is the willingness & ability to rectify one's ignorance.

Stupidity is a misguided egoistic refusal to show intelligence.

Smart is smart. Vanity is opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

Ignorance is lack of knowlege.

Intelligence is the willingness & ability to rectify one's ignorance.

Stupidity is a misguided egoistic refusal to show intelligence.

Smart is smart. Vanity is opinion.

---

Knowledge is also subject to opinion. Be careful what you consider knowledge, be more careful when you take pride in this alleged knowledge because then it's empty vanity.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Of course opinion enters into every sort of judgment human beings make. When I measure the width of a room I have an opinion about what sort of accuracy will suffice for my purposes. If all I want to do is estimate how roomy it will look if I buy that leather sofa I have an eye for, then in my opinion I don’t need a measurement that’s accurate to the nearest micrometer. I’ll just use a tape measurer. I bought my tape at True Value. It’s my opinion that it’s reasonably accurate for my purposes. Suppose I find the room is 20’6” wide plus or minus a couple of inches. That’s my opinion based on a single measurement. It’s also the width of the room. Am I proud of that knowledge? Naw. Would I have more pride if I measured it using a laser-echo device and getting an answer in angstrom units? Of course not. Pride just doesn’t enter into it. (Besides, the distance between the two walls varies by more than a angstrom depending on where the measurements are made and the temperature of the room when the measurement is made. In any case, it’s my opinion that the extra decimals are irrelevant to my purpose.)

Okay but that’s a rather mundane example. What about the theory that allows us to build those lasers that can be used to measure distances with nanometer accuracy? Does opinion enter into the theory behind light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation? Yes, it does. First, any physical theory starts by making simplifying assumptions based on the investigator’s opinion that for the purposes of understanding the simplifications are warranted. Second, experimental tests of the theory are subject to various opinions and judgments, just like those that enter into measuring the width of a living room. That’s why it’s always nice to have teams that want to verify the theory and teams that want to disprove the theory test it independently. In the end we have several models of light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation. Each model suited to different domains and scales of accuracy. Each has been tested and is based on reams of evidence. Human opinion and judgments have had a hand in the process from the very start. Should anyone be proud of this knowledge. I’m not, I didn’t have anything to do with it, even though I did study a few of the models in school and ran a test or two as a learning experience. I think the teams who did the real testing can be proud of their work. But that’s somewhat different from being proud of the knowledge, because there is no absolute knowledge here...just some mathematical models that capture our current understanding and some physical models (i.e actual lasers) that seem to verify that understanding at the moment. I think Einstein and the other founders of the theory could have rightfully been proud of their work as well, but I also think Einstein might be the first to point out (were he alive today) that he can’t be proud of his knowledge because he has none in any absolute sense of the word.

Here are some related questions. Does opinion enter into faith? Should one be proud of one’s faith? Should one be proud to be a Christian, or is that empty vanity? If you have faith that a god exists does that mean you’re certain she or he exists? Is that certain knowledge?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Of course opinion enters into every sort of judgment human beings make. When I measure the width of a room I have an opinion about what sort of accuracy will suffice for my purposes. If all I want to do is estimate how roomy it will look if I buy that leather sofa I have an eye for, then in my opinion I don’t need a measurement that’s accurate to the nearest micrometer. I’ll just use a tape measurer. I bought my tape at True Value. It’s my opinion that it’s reasonably accurate for my purposes. Suppose I find the room is 20’6” wide plus or minus a couple of inches. That’s my opinion based on a single measurement. It’s also the width of the room. Am I proud of that knowledge? Naw. Would I have more pride if I measured it using a laser-echo device and getting an answer in angstrom units? Of course not. Pride just doesn’t enter into it. (Besides, the distance between the two walls varies by more than a angstrom depending on where the measurements are made and the temperature of the room when the measurement is made. In any case, it’s my opinion that the extra decimals are irrelevant to my purpose.)

Okay but that’s a rather mundane example. What about the theory that allows us to build those lasers that can be used to measure distances with nanometer accuracy? Does opinion enter into the theory behind light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation? Yes, it does. First, any physical theory starts by making simplifying assumptions based on the investigator’s opinion that for the purposes of understanding the simplifications are warranted. Second, experimental tests of the theory are subject to various opinions and judgments, just like those that enter into measuring the width of a living room. That’s why it’s always nice to have teams that want to verify the theory and teams that want to disprove the theory test it independently. In the end we have several models of light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation. Each model suited to different domains and scales of accuracy. Each has been tested and is based on reams of evidence. Human opinion and judgments have had a hand in the process from the very start. Should anyone be proud of this knowledge. I’m not, I didn’t have anything to do with it, even though I did study a few of the models in school and ran a test or two as a learning experience. I think the teams who did the real testing can be proud of their work. But that’s somewhat different from being proud of the knowledge, because there is no absolute knowledge here...just some mathematical models that capture our current understanding and some physical models (i.e actual lasers) that seem to verify that understanding at the moment. I think Einstein and the other founders of the theory could have rightfully been proud of their work as well, but I also think Einstein might be the first to point out (were he alive today) that he can’t be proud of his knowledge because he has none in any absolute sense of the word.

Here are some related questions. Does opinion enter into faith? Should one be proud of one’s faith? Should one be proud to be a Christian, or is that empty vanity? If you have faith that a god exists does that mean you’re certain she or he exists? Is that certain knowledge?

---

You're rambling again. If you have a point, say what it is.

Most people who believe in God, see some form of evidence that 'it' exists. You may not believe that the evidence warrants the belief. However you could easily have doubts about a popular scientific theory that is very popular. Many people see that the universe is governed by physical laws. But more importantly many people, seeing that human behaviors, have consequences, see these consequences that there are laws. That law would be called God. Some people believe that a person could kill someone and get away with it. A person who believes in God would feel that there would be consequence, even if the person avoided being caught and charged for the crime.

I think the issue is that too many people have an overly simple view of what God should be. They may feel that a loving God, would not let a good person suffer, or a child to die in a hurricane. So they don't believe that a God exists for this reason. But nature is a system that was 'designed' to balance.

@Trish. It is interesting that you used light as an example, because spiritual things are often described as 'light'. Somewhere in tlhe Bible, I believe it says, "Let your light shine, among men", or something like that. But just like you admit that some new properties could be discovered, I believe the understanding of God could be, and has been expanded beyond the words of the ancient Holy Book. I think too many people who believe in God, don't understand that God, defined as the creator, should be, and does create new words beyond the Bible. Most people would see God as truth. So as scientific knowledge expands human awareness, it should not contradict, truth but exapand truth. Many stories in the Bible can be used as allegory. So the 'seven days of creation', does not have to mean seven actual earth days, for example. Why would a god who is credited with creating the universe, limit his time frame to earth days?

So that is to say that for many people, the problem is not so much with God as it is the application what is God's meaning to specific life situations. It's the same as someone who starts off with sound scientifc theory, but comes to a wrong conclusion based upon faulty reasoning.