From: andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion vs science: two questions, concluded
Keywords: anthropics, faith
Date: 28 Dec 92 16:47:28 GMT
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setauket, NY.

In article <1992Dec26.040018.2907@aee.aee.com> gene@aee.aee.com writes:

>BINGO! Again, we both agree. Science can say nothing about the mystical,
>by the very nature of the mystical.

No. I didn't say anything of the sort, and have gone to some lengths
to not say anything of the sort. What I maintain is that there is not
any known connection between the existence of God, and physics. In
particular this is the present state of affairs but there is no guarantee
that such connections are impossible, or that either the nature of physics
or God prevents such a thing. I have also been very careful to avoid any
connotative terms such as mystical, limiting my statements to the question
of physics and the existence of God.

It seems we do not agree. For all I know science may very well be capable
of arriving at important conclusions about God, but nobody has done this
yet. There is no proof that this is impossible, and in the view of some
philosophers of science one cannot be given. Note that I do not need to
answer the question of whether science can _in principle_ or _in practice_
provide information about God in order to say that the present state of
the art does not provide any meaningful information. See below.

>>>Again, Andrew, how can we agree to anything, IF WE DO NOT LET EACH OTHER
>>>KNOW WHAT WE ARE THINKING!
>
>>My position is that physics is mute on the subject of God. No useful
>>physics follows from or is contradicted by the hypotheses of existence or
>>non-existence of God.
>
>>Another position I take is that informed religious believers are usually
>>extremely circumspect about trying to describe, delimit, or define God.
>>This means that aside from some of the more vocal/less thinking religions,
>>very little problem is posed for many religions by the findings of physics.
>
>>So trying to explain how physics confronts even the most hidebound
>>and narrow interpretation of some unlikely event in someone's religion
>>is really an exercise in finding out that the founding fathers of that
>>religion did not provide testable hypotheses.
>
>We are batting 1000. I agree, it is possible to create rational
>explanations for any proported religious event. As you have brilliantly pointed 
>out, the _real_ problem is presenting the explaination as a hypothesis 
>in a manner that can be investigated scientifically. Again, I agree with you, 
>this is more than likely impossible for science to accomplish.

Again, I just say that it hasn't been done. I can speculate that if it _is_
possible, it may be very difficult, (since it hasn't been done yet), but
it isn't necessary.

>All of this brings me to the point I have been making all along, a scientific 
>person can be religious, but it is not easy, and requires the person to admit 
>that the two activities must be separated from one another, a sort of 
>"doublethink". They must hold two kinds of truths, the scientific and the 
>religious. These two different truths are explained and judged by two entirely 
>different systems of thought. This is not an impossible task, but it would be 
>refreshing if the people practicing it could admit to doing it.

In other words, you are claiming that all religious scientists are Averroeists,
(dualists). This is not the case. If you consider the case of rational
explanations for miracles, you find that your proposed doublethink is not
employed or even tolerated by the explanator. (I.e. why explain something
if you have the option of labeling it 'religious truth' and being done with
it?) So no, it is not necessary for a religious scientist to be a dualist,
and in fact some religions (e.g. Roman Catholicism) explicitly contradict
dualism.

>>>PS. What is OED?
>
>>The Oxford English Dictionary is by far the most authoritative and complete
>>dictionary of any language.

>Ah! Two great english speaking people separated by a common language. It would
>seem more appropriate, when if required, that American dictionaries be used in
>discussions involving Americans. It is not that I have anything against the 
>English, but if you have ever had a protracted converstation with an Englishman, 
>you would find that, in the meaning and use of words, they are almost two 
>different languages, very dodgy communication (get the point?).


Nope. The OED is the best dictionary for the American use of English. If you
consult it, you will find that the OED often makes clear many various uses
of words, notably the differences between British and American usage. For
purposes of this discussion, we can consider it a dictionary of the English
language, as opposed to a dictionary of English usage. In fact, English
usage is a much more specialized question than British usage, which is what
would normally be opposed to American usage.

In terms of great American dictionaries, there is (Noah) Webster's which
is very much out of date. Note that the Webster's of today are Merriam-Webster
which is a name which must be used as a result of a legal settlement in which
they were prosecuted for wrongly using the name 'Webster's'. There is no
dictionary remotely close to the OED for American usage, although there is
a recent dictionary of slang which is getting up there. Partridge's Dictionary
of American and Regional English is not in the same league.

But enough about dictionaries. You will be very unlikely to find any book
in which it is written what every word _means_. It is a matter of significant
dispute among philosophers and scientists (Cf. Bernard d'Espagnat's Reality
and the Physicist) whether such a thing is in any sense _possible_.

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Newsgroups: sci.physics