From: andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion vs science: two questions, concluded
Keywords: anthropics, faith, humor
Date: 23 Dec 92 15:49:35 GMT
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setauket, NY.

In article <1992Dec22.151303.2412@aee.aee.com> gene@aee.aee.com writes:
>andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt) writes:

>>important if it comes from a dictionary. Even the OED cannot be taken
>>as beyond dispute.

>OK. If this is the way you feel, then what exactly is your definition of
>"faith". 

It is not relevant to my postings here in sci.physics since I am trying
to get people to discuss this in sci.philosophy.meta. Now this is not
simply some notion of bandwidth or ettiquette, but it is an issue of
what part of this question can physics speak to. My claim is that physics
neither confirms nor denies the existence of God. It is entirely possible
to do good physics with or without faith, religion, etc. So unless we
are to contemplate outlandish definitions of faith, such as "the belief
that physics is actually a psychotic delusion with no relevance to any
reality", we don't really have to worry about what the definition is
while talking about physics.

>I guess is all boils down to that. As you said, it is what the
>two parties agree to. But it seems to me that your reluctance to divulge
>your definition, accompanied or not by one from the dictionary, indicates
>an attitude of intellectual smugness, and certainly no desire on your part
>to discuss the issues. 


Sort of. I have no desire to discuss the part of the issue (which is the
larger part) in sci.physics, since as far as I can tell, physics has
_nothing_ to say about the truth or falsehood of religion in general.
It does contradict some particular religions, but there are plenty left
over which do not. The puzzle of truth in religion is not a simple one,
nor one that can be resolved in a debate, and ultimately it is one with
solutions which are notoriously unstable.

>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.

In particular, if God actually turns out to be manifested in a spark of
probability giving rise to the universe, or a pre-geometric dust, it in
no essential way inconveniences many possible religious beliefs. One
example is the Judeo-Christian tradition where God is manifest as the
explanation of light, as well as in human visions. In fact there is no
essential contradiction to a literal interpretation of the Bible in
places like Moses hearing the voice in a burning bush _and_ in taking
the view that the mechanism by which God brought about this impression
in Moses was what we would now understand as a hallucination. Only a
small number of religious people would be so bold as to claim that
God _did not perform the miracle in this way_, (assuming that they
belong to a religion which subscribes to that story).

Another example is Eka Desa Rudra, where Balinese Buddhists must attempt
to convert seven evil spirits into good spirits every 100 years. Can
you _prove_ that the world will not end if they fail? Can you seriously
suggest an ethical experiment to test this hypothesis? Remember that
when people's lives are at stake, there are very strict requirements
imposed on the scientist.

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.

>PS. What is OED?

The Oxford English Dictionary is by far the most authoritative and complete
dictionary of any language. One interesting fact about it is that it is
likely to contain _more_ definitions of a word than other dictionaries,
along with literate examples to explain how people have used the word, in
other words, the OED does not impose meaning on words, but tracks their
historical use. You will find these large volumes and supplements take up
a sizable space in your local college library.

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Newsgroups: sci.physics