Originally posted by Conrau KWhen a scientific theory is universally accepted in the scientific theory, it is in fact a virtuous act of humility to give one's assent. To refuse assent would be quite audacious.
[b]Skepticism is good. Whether we're talking claims made by Stephen Hawking or Paul the Apostle.
I disagree. I think that the credibility of the person propounding the claim may also be important. When a scientific theory is universally accepted in the scientific theory, it is in fact a virtuous act of humility to give one's assent. To refuse assent ...[text shortened]... should be able to calculate wave length; they should be familiar with Planck's constant, etc.[/b]
This is besides the point. That said, in the scientific community being skeptical of accepted theories is not audacious. Progress would be nullified otherwise. Scientific theories are intellectual models that serve to explain the behavior of physical reality. They are fact in so far as they accurately predict outcomes. But models are limited, so it is tantamount that they are never accepted unquestioningly. A certain amount of skepticism is always the norm.
Personally, I do not think quantum mechanics is so counter-intuitive.
So, an object existing in two place simultaneously isn't counter-intuitive for you? Really?
In Australia, physics students are taught basic quantum mechanics in their final year of high school.
I have no doubt that quantum theory is teachable.
Originally posted by Conrau KWhen, however, a religious doctrine is heavily contested and there are multiple dissenting voices, then skepticism is mere prudence.
[b]Skepticism is good. Whether we're talking claims made by Stephen Hawking or Paul the Apostle.
I disagree. I think that the credibility of the person propounding the claim may also be important. When a scientific theory is universally accepted in the scientific theory, it is in fact a virtuous act of humility to give one's assent. To refuse assent ...[text shortened]... should be able to calculate wave length; they should be familiar with Planck's constant, etc.[/b]
Perhaps in the case of certain non-essential doctrines. In most cases, though, encountering the Bible on its own terms is enough to familiarize a novitiate with the main thrust of what is peculiar to Christianity.
Originally posted by epiphinehasDo you not see an ever so slight difference between
If Jesus Christ does, in fact, exist in a spiritual realm beyond the means of modern science to confirm (BTW, much of String Theory is currently unconfirmable), and if the entire natural world does, in fact, proceed from an 'uncaused Cause' -- if all this is true, of what use would it be to distinguish between natural and supernatural? Isn't that besid how much of a stretch is it to imagine any possible spiritual reality being any less weird?
1) a perhaps overly trusting belief in scientific explanations where the base assumptions are clearly laid out and justified, with rigorous mathematical models (the credibility of such undermined only by the validity of the base assumptions), with the stipulation that this 'wierd' phenomenon is bound to certain constraints, and...
2) whatever you can imagine?
Originally posted by AgergPoint taken. I'm not saying quantum mechanics equals the end of skepticism. Only that it is unreasonable how people can swallow the most improbable, irrational, counter-intuitive aspects of physical reality, without question, yet dismiss certain religious claims out of hand based entirely on those claims seeming to them improbable, irrational, and counter-intuitive. If improbability, irrationality and counter-intuitiveness isn't necessarily a sign of unreality, then perhaps a more agnostic stance is in order.
Do you not see an ever so slight difference between
1) a perhaps overly trusting belief in scientific explanations where the base assumptions are clearly laid out and justified, with rigorous mathematical models (the credibility of such undermined only by the validity of the base assumptions), with the stipulation that this 'wierd' phenomenon is bound to certain constraints, and...
2) whatever you can imagine?
Originally posted by epiphinehasIn my opinion, your attempt to evaluate QM and the Christian truth (regardless of the Christian denomination) the way you propose it, it fails. Methinks the case regarding QM is that we are able to calculate -thanks to our observation alone- how exactly a quantum particle arrived at a certain point, although we don't have a clue regarding the exact nature of the quantum particle. Thanks to our observation alone we can do the math and keep up fruitfully with our scientific finds and evidence although we still ignore the meaning of the wavefunction, the exact nature of the mechanism of the collapse, and the exact way the connection between the classical and the quantum realm is established. Of course, nobody "accepts unquestionably" the scientific finds and evidence of the (fully falsifiable) QM;
Certain skeptics are able to unquestioningly accept the notoriously mind-bending, counter-intuitive nature of quantum mechanics (even if they don't understand it), while categorically denying any given Christian truth out of hand simply because it strikes them as improbable and/or irrational.
However, since the so called “Christian truth” is neither a result of our observation, nor can it be falsified, I evaluate it as just another religious non-justified (by philosophic and scientific finds and evidence) theory of reality
😵
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by epiphinehasPerhaps in the case of certain non-essential doctrines. In most cases, though, encountering the Bible on its own terms is enough to familiarize a novitiate with the main thrust of what is peculiar to Christianity.
[b]When, however, a religious doctrine is heavily contested and there are multiple dissenting voices, then skepticism is mere prudence.
Perhaps in the case of certain non-essential doctrines. In most cases, though, encountering the Bible on its own terms is enough to familiarize a novitiate with the main thrust of what is peculiar to Christianity.[/b]
My point though is not about consistency among Christians sects but rather the fact that these doctrines are heavily contested, whether by rival Christian communities or by non-adherent critics. Now an ordinary person might say 'Look, I don't understand these abstruse points of Christian theology, whether by Christians themselves or by atheist critics, but I see that there is implacable division and so for now I will be skeptical.' That's just prudence. In the case of quantum mechanics, however, that same person would more likely say 'Look, I don't understand quantum mechanics but I see that there is a consensus and so I will offer my provisional support to this scientific theory.' That's humility.
I would also challenge your claim here is that there is some essential Christian thrust. The fact that you put the bible at the front of Christianity indicates a particularly Protestant view of Christianity. Where you emphasis Scripture, a Catholic or Orthodox Christian might rather emphasise church and apostolate, sacrament and devotion. Obviously the Bible is essential but it is certainly not enough for them to encompass their view of Christianity. Someone un-initiated in complicated points of Christian doctrine may then justifiably refuse assent.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
I think some people are becoming a little side-tracked here. The issue is not whether quantum mechanics is verifiable. Perhaps it is. The dilemma that epiphinehas raises here is how a person should proceed when that verification is unintelligible to them. If it is unintelligible and yet they still approve the theory of quantum mechanics, then how could they dismiss Christianity as unintelligible? epiphinehas' point is that such a person is guilty of hypocrisy. I do not think it is helpful for others to say that quantum mechanics is verifiable -- it is the premise of epiphinehas' original post that the ordinary person cannot evaluate the validity of that verification.
What a person could say is that they accept quantum mechanics based on other reasons. They do not actually have to evaluate the data and do every proof. Rather, they can assess the credibility of the scientists and the extent of support for the idea in the scientific community. On the other hand, they could dismiss a religious doctrine without actually needing to become involved in heavy theological debates. They may apply the same tests. They could check for example whether the religious leader is intellectually capable, mentally sound or of a fitting moral character. So I don't think it is hypocritical for someone to be skeptical of Christianity and supportive of quantum mechanics, even if having limited understanding of both.
Originally posted by Conrau KIf a scientist says A and a priest says B, and A and B is mutually exclusive, then we should apply the same criteria to judge which one of the two is true.
I think some people are becoming a little side-tracked here. The issue is not whether quantum mechanics is verifiable. Perhaps it is. The dilemma that epiphinehas raises here is how a person should proceed when that verification is unintelligible to them. If it is unintelligible and yet they still approve the theory of quantum mechanics, then how could they ...[text shortened]... ristianity and supportive of quantum mechanics, even if having limited understanding of both.
Is A true on the only reason that a scientist says so? Is B true on the only reason that a priest says so? The answer is no for both.
Is A true because it is intuitively right and therefore not B? Is B true because it is intuitively right and therefore not A? Again the answer is no for both.
I don't believe quantum mechanics to the last detail only because a scientist says so. I don't believe in the global flooding to the last letter only because a priest says so.
What should be the ultimate criteria of what is right and wrong? That is the interesting question for me.
Originally posted by Conrau KIn just the same way there are different sizes of infinity, there are 'different sizes' of unintelligible.
I think some people are becoming a little side-tracked here. The issue is not whether quantum mechanics is verifiable. Perhaps it is. The dilemma that epiphinehas raises here is how a person should proceed when that verification is unintelligible to them. If it is unintelligible and yet they still approve the theory of quantum mechanics, then how could they ristianity and supportive of quantum mechanics, even if having limited understanding of both.
generally speaking, there are no constraints with supernatural claims, no limits, no validation, no valid means to differentiate between competing claims, no means to test or falsify, no justified explanations.The same is not true with QM or other scientific fields.
I don't think it's anymore hypocritical to accept the base statements of quantum mechanics (not discussing the different interpretions) whilst dismissing religious claims anymore than it is hypocritical to believe weather forecasters and dismiss so called 'water finders' or dowsers - even if you have no knowledge of meteorology.
As to the question of how a person should proceed when a verification is unintelligible to them;
if it is a verification of a scientific hypothesis that must be based on scientific method and therefore is evidence and reason-based, then if that verification is unintelligible to them then they have good reason to believe that it IS intelligible to some people who know a lot more than they do and are a lot more clever and done the research etc (i.e. the relevant scientists) and thus it is perfectly reasonable for them to just take the word of those people that are much cleverer than them that it does make sense and is sound.
But if it is a verification of a religious hypothesis that therefore almost certainly not be based on scientific method and therefore is certainly not necessarily evidence and reason-based, then if that verification is unintelligible to them then they have good reason to doubt that it is actually sound no mater who or what athority says otherwise.
Originally posted by AgergAll bets are off with the supernatural - in particular, certain formulations of Christian God (et al.)
But it is still a natural phenomenon - I somehow doubt you would ever have the case that you could have two particles in the same place, suddenly transforming into a bowl of spaghetti. Again (and I appeal to the great work done by phycisists alive or dead), the behaviour of such freaky particles can be quantified.
All bets are off with the supernatural - in ...[text shortened]... fectly feasible...how about just magicking planets into existence? Again not a problem for God!
Not true. In fact, one of the staples of orthodox Christianity is its insistence on the faithfulness--- the consistency--- of God. His integrity is precisely what makes God, God. Without the full body of knowledge available to us (the Bible in its entirety) our understanding of His nature would be imbalanced, just as it is when we attempt to isolate one aspect of His person without the informing principles of all others. That He acts in accordance with His nature ought to be a source of comfort, but, alas, for those who have set themselves up against Him, His nature is a source of irritation.
Hi epiphenihas,
I have been thinking about some things you said over a year ago. Nice to see you posting again.
As far as Quantum Theory, like many other things, it seems that different people take it to different levels. Not everyone is making a religion of Quantum Theory.
But I admit that I have read some exceedingly mystical pseudo Buddhist philosophy supposedly wrapped up with Quantum Theory. I think so far these seem to be fringe thinkers. However, I suspect that their numbers will grow.