Poppycock. Absolute poppycock. How does a math equation prove God's existence? Wouldnt it rather prove that someone during the Biblical era either stumbled across the equation (coincidence) or was smart even to come upto it and cipher it in the text? Wouldnt it rather show that the birth of physics occurred a millenia or two before what we currently think - and that physics was tragically lost in time?
P.S. I have recently, and pleasantly, re-initiated my formal study of math for my career advancement, and there isnt a form of equation I have heard or seen, either before or now, that looks divine in any shape or form. Even if a caveman drawing came up with an equation of singularity - how would it prove anything beyond forgery or beyond the lost science of physics among cavemen?
P.S.2: That man is not a skeptic. He is in denial. A skeptic's skepticism is founded upon reason and/or evidence to the contrary - not a priori rejection of something that seems incredible to him in a dogmatic fashion. If he does not have a way in which his beliefs (against theism) can be evaluated one way or another - if there is no evidence that he can think of that can persuade him for the said proposition, and the only thing that dissuades him from that proposition is an inherent bias - and he is confident about his conclusion - that simply is evidence of his commitment to atheism apriori - no matter the hogwash of him saying it is not that. There is nothing in science that works with such apriori confidence without theoretical or empirical reason. So no clue where this person is coming from.
What Atkins says is likewise reminiscent of Lewontin's candid admission:
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
I agree with much of what you wrote, unsurprisingly. I just have this comment to add to it:
>>>We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
I actually disagree with that person. By we, if he means ignorant people or hardlined atheists - that would perhaps be an accurate description, but there are others (including you and I) in religious and non-religious camps who dont really believe any scientific hypothesis without discernment. I think that is an important distinction to be made as it would greatly help the ignorant to contradict wrong claims in the scientific garb without feeling stupid about it. If the ignorant know that the scientific method is rigorous and demands evidence over, and over and over again not really caring about personal convictions of those employing it to take a stance for or against the personal whims of some propagandists - we as a society will be better off.
What science is - and what science is "thought of to be" in pop culture are two different things. The New Atheists drum in the propaganda that science supports their position whereas those who have studied science academically, and thoughtfully, know that is patently false. But your regular Joe does not know this, and thereby falls victim to that propaganda. That is the issue here - the poisoning of the well by changing the image of what science is and is not in pop-culture in a way that aids atheistic arguments.
The most recent victim of the atheistic propaganda on this blog is that doctor we debated. I think that medical doctor is a good case study of how propaganda can infect an otherwise normal mind. It immediately remind me of qualified physicists in 1920s German who, despite the rigors of mathematics, thought Relativity was a Jewish "propaganda". Fancy that - folks formally trained in mathematics thought that a math-supported theory was propaganda - I mean here is where psychology trumphs mathematical acuity - that brilliant people did not think their own views as being influenced by German propaganda, but an indifferent discipline. Its incredible on so many levels, that as a physics and math student I cannot even fully understand.
This also reminds me of Dr. Lawrence Krauss said - he said that just because someone is a (medical) doctor does not mean he is a scientist. Of course he meant to demean the Republican candidate, but there is truth in what he said in terms that that principle holds. Degrees dont make you a scientist. Scientific thinking does - with or without explicit degrees.
Poppycock. Absolute poppycock. How does a math equation prove God's existence? Wouldnt it rather prove that someone during the Biblical era either stumbled across the equation (coincidence) or was smart even to come upto it and cipher it in the text? Wouldnt it rather show that the birth of physics occurred a millenia or two before what we currently think - and that physics was tragically lost in time?
ReplyDeleteP.S. I have recently, and pleasantly, re-initiated my formal study of math for my career advancement, and there isnt a form of equation I have heard or seen, either before or now, that looks divine in any shape or form. Even if a caveman drawing came up with an equation of singularity - how would it prove anything beyond forgery or beyond the lost science of physics among cavemen?
P.S.2: That man is not a skeptic. He is in denial. A skeptic's skepticism is founded upon reason and/or evidence to the contrary - not a priori rejection of something that seems incredible to him in a dogmatic fashion. If he does not have a way in which his beliefs (against theism) can be evaluated one way or another - if there is no evidence that he can think of that can persuade him for the said proposition, and the only thing that dissuades him from that proposition is an inherent bias - and he is confident about his conclusion - that simply is evidence of his commitment to atheism apriori - no matter the hogwash of him saying it is not that. There is nothing in science that works with such apriori confidence without theoretical or empirical reason. So no clue where this person is coming from.
Good point, he's definitely in denial!
DeleteWhat Atkins says is likewise reminiscent of Lewontin's candid admission:
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
I wrote a post here.
DeleteI agree with much of what you wrote, unsurprisingly. I just have this comment to add to it:
Delete>>>We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
I actually disagree with that person. By we, if he means ignorant people or hardlined atheists - that would perhaps be an accurate description, but there are others (including you and I) in religious and non-religious camps who dont really believe any scientific hypothesis without discernment. I think that is an important distinction to be made as it would greatly help the ignorant to contradict wrong claims in the scientific garb without feeling stupid about it. If the ignorant know that the scientific method is rigorous and demands evidence over, and over and over again not really caring about personal convictions of those employing it to take a stance for or against the personal whims of some propagandists - we as a society will be better off.
What science is - and what science is "thought of to be" in pop culture are two different things. The New Atheists drum in the propaganda that science supports their position whereas those who have studied science academically, and thoughtfully, know that is patently false. But your regular Joe does not know this, and thereby falls victim to that propaganda. That is the issue here - the poisoning of the well by changing the image of what science is and is not in pop-culture in a way that aids atheistic arguments.
Thanks, James! I agree with what you've said here too (unsurprisingly as well, lol)! Good thoughts. :)
Delete:)
DeleteThe most recent victim of the atheistic propaganda on this blog is that doctor we debated. I think that medical doctor is a good case study of how propaganda can infect an otherwise normal mind. It immediately remind me of qualified physicists in 1920s German who, despite the rigors of mathematics, thought Relativity was a Jewish "propaganda". Fancy that - folks formally trained in mathematics thought that a math-supported theory was propaganda - I mean here is where psychology trumphs mathematical acuity - that brilliant people did not think their own views as being influenced by German propaganda, but an indifferent discipline. Its incredible on so many levels, that as a physics and math student I cannot even fully understand.
This also reminds me of Dr. Lawrence Krauss said - he said that just because someone is a (medical) doctor does not mean he is a scientist. Of course he meant to demean the Republican candidate, but there is truth in what he said in terms that that principle holds. Degrees dont make you a scientist. Scientific thinking does - with or without explicit degrees.
Very true! :) That would have been Gary M., the family physician from California.
DeleteAnd I can't "amen" this enough: "Degrees dont make you a scientist. Scientific thinking does - with or without explicit degrees." :)