RE: Science, faith, and theists
September 5, 2014 at 1:26 am
(This post was last modified: September 5, 2014 at 2:52 am by Michael.)
Well, I have given you something to work with Diablo. But no-one so far can say how it might be tested in a lab.
But I'm happy to give you another, to see where we might go with it. It was actually key in my conversion. It is the sense of the numinous that I, and others, have. If I see a tree parsimony, and plain common sense, suggests that I believe a tree exists until there is good reason to believe otherwise. Likewise I trust the sense of the numen until I have good reason to believe otherwise. I accept I can't be sure; I take some risk, but it seems a reasonable risk (especially considering how it would appear to have led to good positive decisions and changes in my life).
So the challenge is 'how would I test in the lab whether the sense of the numinous reflects a numen, or whether it is delusional?'.
So there's a second bite of the cherry for you. I'm happy to respond to any specific ideas on experiments. To recap, Brian's suggestion to me was to take my faith in to the lab, so the question is how do we do that?
Happy lab planning :-)
Sure,
Number 1 is our universal experience (even quantum effects require a quantum vacuum with fluctuating energy, and Pauli's exclusion principle shows us how even quantum events are interconnected in mysterious ways). The simple basic fact is that I don't see large amounts of matter spontaneously appear in my kitchen or lounge, though admittedly I did wake up once with a parking cone mysteriously on my head. Ex nihilo appearance of universes, or even stars or planets, or just rocks or stones, is not something we see in our everyday lives, so premise premise 1 has face validity (parking cones excepted). Number 2 is evidenced by an expanding universe (so projecting back, the usual view is that the universe, including time itself, is about 15 billion years old). A physical evidence of this is the increasing red shift of more distant stars.
So these are not unreasonable premises for a prima facie case. They appear, at face value at least, to be supported by our view of science and give us sufficient interest to want to go further. I see syllogisms like this not as proof, but as showing faith in a creator (or, using this syllogism alone, a creative cause) is not unreasonable. So one attribute we assign to 'God' is the creative cause of the universe. So again the question comes back to how do we, in the lab, test between these and any other alternative plausible hypotheses (such as an infinite regress of universes)?
But I'm happy to give you another, to see where we might go with it. It was actually key in my conversion. It is the sense of the numinous that I, and others, have. If I see a tree parsimony, and plain common sense, suggests that I believe a tree exists until there is good reason to believe otherwise. Likewise I trust the sense of the numen until I have good reason to believe otherwise. I accept I can't be sure; I take some risk, but it seems a reasonable risk (especially considering how it would appear to have led to good positive decisions and changes in my life).
So the challenge is 'how would I test in the lab whether the sense of the numinous reflects a numen, or whether it is delusional?'.
So there's a second bite of the cherry for you. I'm happy to respond to any specific ideas on experiments. To recap, Brian's suggestion to me was to take my faith in to the lab, so the question is how do we do that?
Happy lab planning :-)
(September 4, 2014 at 3:29 pm)Dawsonite Wrote:(September 4, 2014 at 10:42 am)Michael Wrote: At first sight we might observe:
1) Everything that has a beginning has a cause
2) The universe has a beginning
ergo
The universe has a cause.
This is a valid syllogism, except for the evidence for the two premises. Or do you have such evidence?
Sure,
Number 1 is our universal experience (even quantum effects require a quantum vacuum with fluctuating energy, and Pauli's exclusion principle shows us how even quantum events are interconnected in mysterious ways). The simple basic fact is that I don't see large amounts of matter spontaneously appear in my kitchen or lounge, though admittedly I did wake up once with a parking cone mysteriously on my head. Ex nihilo appearance of universes, or even stars or planets, or just rocks or stones, is not something we see in our everyday lives, so premise premise 1 has face validity (parking cones excepted). Number 2 is evidenced by an expanding universe (so projecting back, the usual view is that the universe, including time itself, is about 15 billion years old). A physical evidence of this is the increasing red shift of more distant stars.
So these are not unreasonable premises for a prima facie case. They appear, at face value at least, to be supported by our view of science and give us sufficient interest to want to go further. I see syllogisms like this not as proof, but as showing faith in a creator (or, using this syllogism alone, a creative cause) is not unreasonable. So one attribute we assign to 'God' is the creative cause of the universe. So again the question comes back to how do we, in the lab, test between these and any other alternative plausible hypotheses (such as an infinite regress of universes)?
