From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 02:01:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.213226.11458@reks.uia.ac.be> gustin@nat2.uia.ac.be (Emmanuel Gustin) writes:
>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>:      Science is not about everything that is 'true'
>:      in this world.  It involves a very restricted subset of all of 
>:      the possible 'realities' in this 'world'. Now while I believe that
>:      all scientists should obey certain tenets of morality and ethics,
>:      that is a belief that is completely independent of science.
>: 
>:      As for creating moral problems, moral issues are outside of science.
>:      Science doesn't create moral problems *within* science.
>:      How could they be otherwise, since there seems to be no way to 
>:      assign scientific 'value' to morality.  Moral problems come in 
>:      the context of societies, and must be solved within that context.
>
>Read what I wrote, not what you think I should have written. I didn't
>write that science is about everything that is 'true' in this world; I
>wrote that what science considers 'true', is to be considered 'true' in
>this world. I didn't write that morality and etics are part of science. I
>think that science has important consequences for morality and ethics. I
>did not even write that moral issues are 'inside science'. I insist that
>they can be *created* by science (Ever heard of genetic engineering?) and
>are very much inside religion. 

     Good.  If they are outside, why are we discussing them here?

>:      There are any number of religions that could claim that large 
>:      elements of what you consider 'reality' are illusory.  Outside of 
>:      science, you'd be hard-pressed to defend your 'reality' as any 
>:      different from theirs.  Maybe you are living in *their* reality and all 
>:      of our physical laws are simply illusions.     
>
>1. But a scientist has to select a religion that accepts physical  
>   laws, or create a new religion, or explain his beliefs in a 
>   scientifically acceptable 'reality'. And this scientific reality is
>   quite hard to ignore even for the non-scientist.

     A scientist has to do nothing of the sort.

>2. Are you saying that the 'reality of science' is not qualitatively different
>   from any (other) illusion? Then science is at most some kind of religion.
>   Would be nice for you, has one clearly cannot believe in TWO religions
>   at the same time.

     Yes, 'the reality of science' runs by a fundamentally different
     set of rules.  It is not a religion.  The question of whether science
     is an illusion or not is not answerable within science so is
     completely moot within science.

     The number of religions that one can believe in at one time seems
     moot as far as science is concerned, as are my feelings on religion
     outside of science.

>   One difference is that what you call (obviously with disgust) '*their*
>   reality' has to be based on dogmatism, something one TRIES to avoid in
>   science.

     Why with disgust?  It is just a recognition that the game is
     played by different rules outside science.  'Other' reality can
     be based on whatever one wants it to be based on.

>: >:      Also, 'clearly not true' is in the eye of the beholder.
>: >
>: >But that is what science is about: gathering knowledge the truth whereof
>: >is NOT in the eye of the beholder, but accepted by everybody. 
>: 
>:      Ohno.  Back to 'science is truth' again. 
>: 
>:      Since I liked Ben Weiner's words on this topic I'll leave that
>:      aspect of it alone.  I will only point out that 'clearly not
>:      true' is not restricted to science, and does not necessarily 
>:      have a scientific answer. 
>
>Okay, science is not truth itself -- for many reasons. But science
>always TRIES to PROVE things, and it often DOES. 

     Science proves nothing.  See our most recent thread on Popper.

>Example: '2+2=5' is 'clearly not true'. This is a scientific question with a
>scientific answer, and even religious people have to accept that 2+2=4.

     Where did you get the idea that 2+2 = 4?  Take two protons (rest mass
     assumed to be 1) and another two protons  (again rest mass of 1),
     put them together and you get a helium atom with a rest mass somewhat 
     less than 4 (in our assumed units).  Sometimes 2+2=4, sometimes it
     doesn't.

     You are confusing mathematics with science.
     
>'Did God create the universe?' is not a scientific question, and does not
>have a scientific answer, thus everybody is free to have is own opinion on
>the latter question. I can imagine that long ago (primitive people often
>know only 1, 2 and 3) there was a religion that said, amongst more
>important things, that 2+2=5. It obviously disappeared when mathematics
>were invented. 
>
>One can be sorry for it, and it of course has lots of disadvantages, but
>'general acceptance' is the way science often works. It is not the way
>religion works. 

     Actually, that is usually the way religion works too, ultimately.
     However, what difference does the sociology of religion make for
     the purposes of this discussion?

>:      Show me that the universe was not created ex nihilo
>:      4 seconds ago, with the genesis of my response created in my brain.
>:      Show me how that can be inconsistent, madness or not.
>
>I like this one. It doesn't matter wether the universe is X billion years
>old, or a X billion years old universe has been created '4 seconds ago':
>there isn't any difference. In both cases, universe IS X billion years
>old. It doesn't make sense to define a time scale outside the universe!

     Doesn't make sense for whom?

>(Who or what would you expect to experience this extra-universal time?
> God? Many religions hold the view that He is not subject to time.)
>
>I know the argument was used by some creationists -- they were just
>wasting their precious time.

     Within science, I agree with you.  Outside, it seems consistent,
     no matter what my opinion of the concept.

>Can someone supply a (scientific) definition of madness? We are going to
>need it. You wrote that doing things for religious reasons is
>madness, and I disagree. I stated that saying things that are 
>'clearly untrue' is madness. 

     No.  I wrote that certain things done in the name of religion
     certainly wseem a bit mad in the right context.

>:      It is inappropriate to judge theology by the rules of science.
>
>Except when theology enters the realm of science.

     My point exactly.

                           dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926