All I know is that any true scientist should be open to the idea that god could possibly exist, I do. I am not saying that there is a system of intelligent creation, only that we will never be able to say there isn't, though one day we may prove there is. Such is the nature of the philosophical argument?
What are the conflicts between atheism and science?
- Thread starter Mind Over Matter
- Start date
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
I have struggled with this same thing. Just do a "scientific experiment" in which you choose to believe (I suggest believing Catholicism, since over many years of such experiments this is what I have found yields results).
Then observe the results.
It has often been said that one cannot understand faith until one has faith. Just try it. (But when you do, look for the way the rules and traditions point to the sentiment of transforming union in Christ and do not look at the value of the rules and traditions in their own right.
Ok, let's be as specific as we possibly can be. I located the original article here (it's a pdf so you'll need a viewer). It states that they used a Quantum point contact as the which-path detector. To be honest I really don't know anything about Quantum point contacts but for our purposes here all we need to know is that when an electron passes by the quantum point contact it (the QPC) experiences a fluctuation in it's conductance (which is measured). The important thing to understand here however is how this interaction takes place. The answer is virtual particle exchange. In this context virtual particles are essentially force carriers.
Have you ever wondered how magnets work for example? How two objects can affect each other at a distance? Well, that's virtual particle exchange (virtual photons to be exact). It's not magic, it's a real physical interaction. Virtual particles mediate all of the forces in nature. But don't make the mistake of thinking that virtual particles aren't real. They have physical properties just like regular particles. They are called virtual because they typically only exist for a limited amount time.
Sure. But we can never see an electron directly. We can only detect it's presence by doing something to it, which is what all devices that can "see" electrons for us actually do.
The truth is that you just don't understand the interaction. But I've provided plenty of links to additional resources now so can learn more about it. Or you can just decide to trust that I'm not trying to lead you astray. And really, I'm not.
Saying that the QPC had no effect on the current is not the same as saying that it had no effect on individual electrons.
By the way, a "quantum observer" is not a human observer. A "quantum observer" is the detector. You'll find that all the more technical articles avoid implying that it is anything else. We have so many people running around thinking that our thoughts affect the quantum world these days and it's all because of what can only be seen as deliberate sensationalism on the part of some of the people who write for science magazines.
Last edited:
Good one. God is energy. Energy is physical. God is physical. Right?
One cannot do a proper scientific experiment with a religious view.
In a proper scientific experiment, one has reservations about the results until they come in.
The basic requirement for taking on a religious view is to dismiss all such reservations right at the beginning.
You cannot sincerely take on a religious view while having a Plan B ready.
And without the Plan B ready, it's not an experiment.
It doesn't make me feel better. I'm just trying to get you to consider some things that maybe you haven't considered before. If God isn't physical it presents us with the problem of impossible links in the chain of cause and effect. If he is physical then as has already been pointed out by others such physical complexity can't be first because physics teaches us that the opposite is true. As we probe deeper into the structure of reality things become more basic and fundamental rather than more complex. The same is true the closer we get to the Big Bang when we are examining the evolution of our universe.
Having said that however, you will no doubt continue to believe what you believe anyway. And that's fine. But it's interesting discussion in any case (at least I hope it is).
Richard Dawkins once remarked:
"The most extreme case is the geologist Kurt Wise, who has a PhD in Geology from Harvard, and said 'If all the evidence in the universe pointed towards an old earth I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a young earth creationist because that is what holy scripture teaches me.' You cannot argue with a mind like that."
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
You are right. Asssuming that when you say "uncertainty" you are referring to the existence of God and the whole supernatural realm. For people who require "proof", i.e., scientific evidence, there will never be evidence. The whole premise of evidence is that you are dealing with the 5 senses. When the topic is the supernatural, then by definition you are outside the 5 senses. You can't prove the supernatural with natural means. However, we know by our faith.
With faith, we have a relationship with Christ and that relationship transforms us. We become more like Him. And our decisions and actions will reflect that. We think, say, and do as we believe. That is the role that religious beliefs should have in one's life.
Then why bother?
Like radio signals? Radar?
FYI we have considerably more than 5 senses.
In other words you can't prove it at all.
No. Faith is not knowledge.
"Should" have? WTF?
For the same reason people marry, go to college, or get out of bed in the morning.
Perhaps proving it is not the point.
I am seriously considering a completely different approach to religion.
The whole business with seeking proof is a dead end, that much is sure.
"Knowing by faith" means that you act on faith (eg. study for an exam and take it) and then you get knowledge (you find out whether you passed it or not).
I went to college to get qualifications, so I could get a good job, to make getting out of bed in the morning financially rewarding, so I can spend the money on tangibles, like food.
When Churches manage to dodge taxes, and adherents of religion get to bypass laws that apply to others, sure you have to 'prove it'. The tide is turning, people are _less_ tolerant of people copping out through religious excuses. Unless you start making coherent cases, backed up with reason, it's game over.
You still need to take a test, and a testable hypothesis is all science asks for.
As far as taxes and other secular matters are concerned, there is no requirement to prove a religious doctrine.
I don't know, perhaps the US is different in this regard, and claiming "God told me so" actually entitles one to a day off work or something like that.
In European countries, religion is quite separate from the state.
Why? Why would scientists want to test religious claims?
Rav,
So why close your mind to other possibilities;
Thank you very much, but I have considered that before.
The first thing is, God cannot be physical, unless you are creating in a new definition of God that rivals the actual definition.
The second thing is, physical reality is essentially nothing but particles. So while we see tables and chairs, and solid walls and stuff, they are just particles vibrating at various frequencies.
The third thing is, they are what they are because we observe them. They have no intrinsic value outside of our direct relationship with them.
It is consciousness that brings everything together, otherwise there is no value in anything. It is consciousness that extends beyonds the limitations of the body.
The concept of God cannot be physical, because it wouldn't be God.
Trying consider God as a physical being is the work of tricksters.
And?
The discussion has been a little one-sides, I would like to hear your belief.
So far you have asserted that God does not exist because physical reality is all there is. And consciousness is part of the brain.
Why do assert these ideas?
Why do you not agree with my understanding of consciousness, and God? (not saying you should, just haven't heard a good explanation)
jan.
So why close your mind to other possibilities;
Thank you very much, but I have considered that before.
The first thing is, God cannot be physical, unless you are creating in a new definition of God that rivals the actual definition.
The second thing is, physical reality is essentially nothing but particles. So while we see tables and chairs, and solid walls and stuff, they are just particles vibrating at various frequencies.
The third thing is, they are what they are because we observe them. They have no intrinsic value outside of our direct relationship with them.
It is consciousness that brings everything together, otherwise there is no value in anything. It is consciousness that extends beyonds the limitations of the body.
The concept of God cannot be physical, because it wouldn't be God.
Trying consider God as a physical being is the work of tricksters.
And?
The discussion has been a little one-sides, I would like to hear your belief.
So far you have asserted that God does not exist because physical reality is all there is. And consciousness is part of the brain.
Why do assert these ideas?
Why do you not agree with my understanding of consciousness, and God? (not saying you should, just haven't heard a good explanation)
jan.
Jan, wider learning makes for more knowledge and wider choices. If one has become immune to this in some area, such as a form belief in the supernatural, one may even often respond with “What, huh?” or “And?” instead of getting into what is being said and continuing on with it. This shows a resistance or at least a gloss-over of neglect, for it is hard to overcome the emotion of belief. That is how wishes, love or hate can get in the way, for they alone can’t produce truth, but rather sway and stack the ‘results’ to just what one so badly wants.
It’s OK that there is no instant purpose to be found. It’s freedom, but, again, too, that was not the aim, but the unbiased result that came out.
It’s OK that there is no instant purpose to be found. It’s freedom, but, again, too, that was not the aim, but the unbiased result that came out.
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
I totally agree. I'd like to clarify what I mean by "scientific experiment" in my previous reply. It's not a proper scientific experiment in the same sense as scientists do it, but it is an analogy that I have found to be helpful.
Try placing faith in religion as completely as religion recommends. Contrast your ability to do good (and any other factors that matter to you) against the way you were when you lived your life without having this faith.
You already have your plan A- I'm sure there are times in your life when you have acted without faith- the plan B is to act with faith, even if you have reservations.
Last edited:
Religion may help some who can't just perform good for the sake of good alone, doing it for God, or to avoid burning, then just getting used to it as normal, as long as they don't start wars in the defense of their specific beliefs versus others that ever seem to lessen their own credibility.
Kind of the same with the discipline of children.
There's also philosophically noting what to do which is best for all, even though that may not be one's first choice of action that comes to mind.
All good, just as any positive system is, and there is some "live and let live" on the outside, but none of this addresses the truth or not of God, the figuring out of which is what we do on SciForum.
Anyone ready for the total bomb of 'nothing' to fully drop, at least those interested in getting at the root of all?
Kind of the same with the discipline of children.
There's also philosophically noting what to do which is best for all, even though that may not be one's first choice of action that comes to mind.
All good, just as any positive system is, and there is some "live and let live" on the outside, but none of this addresses the truth or not of God, the figuring out of which is what we do on SciForum.
Anyone ready for the total bomb of 'nothing' to fully drop, at least those interested in getting at the root of all?
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
My mind is not "closed" to any possibility. I entertain all manner of ideas about many things all the time, including ideas about God. How could I legitimately say that I do not believe in something if I haven't considered it at length?
I've probably studied more about Christian theology than most Christians. In fact if you dig though my post history (not that I expect you to) you'll find occasions where I defend the rational integrity of certain Christian theological concepts, including the existence of God himself. Sometimes I'm playing devil's advocate and other times I just get sick of the ridiculous arguments that religious people often make and decide to inject some betters ones for people to do with whatever they want. But being open minded doesn't mean that you shouldn't draw any conclusions about anything. Being open-minded is about being open to revising your beliefs when circumstances warrant it.
In my life I've gone from atheist to theist to atheist. That all happened in the space of a few years when I was much younger. Since then I've acquired a wealth of scientific and philosophical knowledge and at this point I can find no compelling rational reason to accept the existence of a supernatural personal creator. Perhaps if we always encountered some kind of gaping hole that couldn't be filled with a logical metaphysical extrapolation built upon the foundation of physics then I might consider it to be a real possibility. But it is perfectly possible to formulate a consistent view of reality without invoking magical ideas.
Tried this, doesn't work.
But why this fixation on Christianity? Why not try with Islam or Hinduism?
If nothing else, you'll get a better picture of what theism can be like, and then you really will be closer to having considered theism at length, given that considering things at length is one of your principles.