![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 43 to 67 of 126. Go back in thread:
Posted by Bob on November 14, 1999, at 15:21:36
In reply to Question for all of you...., posted by CarolAnn on November 13, 1999, at 16:14:36
... forward into the new section! Quite a few on the names on this thread are those who agreed with what a pain it is to have long threads pulled out of old archives into the latest version of Babble.
Now, I only hope I haven't been reading so long that Dr. Bob's already done the archiving!!!
Bob
> This is getting to be such a long thread. Anyone sufficiently interested in the topic to go down and start again with a new thread?
> I really hope so, I love this discussion.CarolAnn
Posted by Bob on November 14, 1999, at 15:32:38
In reply to Re: A rant with no apologies(to the stranger), posted by CarolAnn on November 14, 1999, at 13:23:08
> > Suggestion:
> > Stop trying to impose your version of order on an incredibly complex world.I'd also like to point out that most of those who try to impose some order on the world, unless one is in charge of the crusade, aren't imposing *their own* version of order.
I do agree with you last point: one of the most powerful thing a teacher can do is say "I don't know" to a student's question. Even ore powerful are the words "Why don't you go find that out for yourself, then come back and teach me."
Bob
Posted by stranger on November 14, 1999, at 16:36:54
In reply to Re: A rant with no apologies(to the stranger), posted by CarolAnn on November 14, 1999, at 13:23:08
CarolAnn, I never meant that you or anyone else impose your beliefs on others.
I'm talking about the way theists and other supernaturalists force things to MAKE SENSE in your own head by inventing god or any other supernatural explanation for things that we can't understand (yet) through natural means.
I just meant to add to this discussion the idea that belief in the supernatural is the result of fear of the unknown (what happens after death, the meaning of life).
Rather than accepting the mystery and the pain that often comes with it, supernaturalists invent explanations. And if the explanation sounds ludicrous, they of course have the built in argument - "God (or whatever) works in mysterious ways."
It's nothing more than postulation. Rather than just saying life and mother nature are full of mysteries, we say life and mother nature do make sense because god (or whatever) has a plan/meaning in mind. We just can't see it because god (or whatever) is full of mystery.
Either way we end with mystery. Why create the extra character? It just bogs down the story (life).
Posted by CC on November 14, 1999, at 19:06:37
In reply to Re: Depression, Evolution (CC), posted by Bob on November 14, 1999, at 14:21:15
> > [Me] ...If what I hold true by faith has any correlation to what is taught by any book or any minister, I cannot accept that external source as corroboration for what I believe.
> > [CC] by analogy, suppose I had a patient with OCD who seemed to respond well to luvox. I then consulted the literature to see if other people reported similiar findings. And later, I attended a Psychiatrist convention and discussed my observations with other psychiatrists and they reported similiar results. Would my belief in luvox's effectiveness be reinforced?
>
> (1) The analogy doesn't apply. Scientific rules of being and knowing are different from those of faith. You're comparing apples and oranges. All the same, all of those anecdotal supports for luvox may reinforce my belief in luvox's effectiveness after all, but I'd hardly be basing my "trust" in luvox through a scientific process of coming to know.
>
> > [Me]... the traditional teachings still have validity because the faith of contemporary individuals who look inside provide the evidence. Not so much that we invent god, but rather that god is continually renewed and reinvented through us.
> > [CC] Here your working assumption seems to be that the Scriptures have no merit of their own...
>
> (2) Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.
>
> >[CC] and that people just read into them what they want to see.
>
> (3) What stops anyone from doing so anyway? Even if god wrote exactly what god meant in any or all of the foundational religious tomes out there, using each author as god's own instrument, there remains the problem of interpretation by those of us not so blessed as to have god reading back inside of us what god wrote in the first place. On the other hand, there are those who believe that god does exist in each of us and it is through aspiration, through the listening to and realization of that voice that faith is gained and scriptures become meaningful.
>
> > [CC]And then there is prophesy, which although it isn't iron clad science, is pretty compelling evidence of God or precognition
>
> (4) Prophesy is not science of any kind. On the other hand, our complete lack of understanding of the nature of time, particularly its dimensionality, does not rule out a scientific explanation for what gets described as prophecy. The phenomena categorized as prophecy may one day have an empirical explanation, and prophecy (as something that is akin to scientific understanding) may takes its place with spontaneous generation, the transmutation of elements, the caloric theory of heat, and the flat earth theory.
>
> > [Me] Along the same lines, I'd say those who need to demonstrate proofs of the literal interpretations of religious texts have no faith whatsoever.
> > [CC] ... the origin of the universe is still a pretty strong argument for the existance of God.
>
> (5) So why belittle the argument by trying to affix dates to events? To seek evidence of god in evidence of the Great Flood or the Ark of the Covenant is to admit your faith is insufficient; particularly if you need to turn to worldly explanations to support it. If you need material evidence of the hand of god in the material world, then meditate on a spider's web or the face of a newborn for a while, but don't waste anyone's time trying to prove the spiritual message in any book of god through such "historical" proofs as finding the wreck of Noah's Ark.
>
> > [CC] First, you seem to be assuming that "God" created the problems we are stuck with...
>
> (6) In coming to know the material world, we often find that the answer to one questions raises even more questions. So yes, in creating this world, god created both the potential for its problems and its wonders. (That is, if you believe that god created the universe in the first place.) But I never said anything about being stuck with these problems. My faith has no place for such pessimism.
>
> > [CC] ... and given the enormity of the problems, do you think man can figure his way out of them, without God's help?
>
> (7) God created us in god's own image, or so we are told. Shouldn't that be enough? I think god's provided all the help that is both necessary and sufficient.
>
> > [CC]If you do I don't share your optimism, and would it be too much to ask if I could store some spent plutonium in you garage?
>
> (8) Would you base an argument on the qualities of faith on reduction to the absurd? If you believed in god's message and had the faith to back it up, would you ever **seriously** even consider asking that question?
>
> > [CC]... we don't know whats going to happen next, or could we look it up in the literature?? If you are curious how things end, you could look at the last few chapters of Revelations.
>
> (9) That much of the bible I have read. It's pretty good propaganda for keeping the masses in their place underneath the clergy. As for the apocalyptic visions of various organized religions, I think they say more about humanity's infidelity in seeing god's vision for us than about that vision itself. An abortion of this universe reflects just as poorly on god's imperfections as it does on god's creation. I'd prefer to believe that god has more faith in us than we place either in god or in ourselves.
>
> (so, I wonder that this conversation has to do with depression and evolution ... ;^)
>
> BobIn response,
"> [Me] ...If what I hold true by faith has any correlation to what is taught by any book
or any minister, I cannot accept that external source as corroboration for what I
believe.
> [CC] by analogy, suppose I had a patient with OCD who seemed to respond well
to luvox. I then consulted the literature to see if other people reported similiar findings.
And later, I attended a Psychiatrist convention and discussed my observations with
other psychiatrists and they reported similiar results. Would my belief in luvox's
effectiveness be reinforced?(1) The analogy doesn't apply. Scientific rules of being and knowing are different from
those of faith. You're comparing apples and oranges. All the same, all of those
anecdotal supports for luvox may reinforce my belief in luvox's effectiveness after all,
but I'd hardly be basing my "trust" in luvox through a scientific process of coming to
know."faith does not have to be in any "mystical" thing, you could have faith in science or humanism, that is you believe in them or their validity or have confidence in them. The analogy is about reinforced belief. Scientific rules or not, I am talking about reinforcement of experiencial observations. If you want to deify science thats your perogative.
"> [Me]... the traditional teachings still have validity because the faith of contemporary
individuals who look inside provide the evidence. Not so much that we invent god, but
rather that god is continually renewed and reinvented through us.
> [CC] Here your working assumption seems to be that the Scriptures have no merit
of their own...(2) Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying."
Well you are free to have your own opinion.
">[CC] and that people just read into them what they want to see.
(3) What stops anyone from doing so anyway? Even if god wrote exactly what god
meant in any or all of the foundational religious tomes out there, using each author as
god's own instrument, there remains the problem of interpretation by those of us not so
blessed as to have god reading back inside of us what god wrote in the first place. On
the other hand, there are those who believe that god does exist in each of us and it is
through aspiration, through the listening to and realization of that voice that faith is
gained and scriptures become meaningful."You can read anything into anything. This has nothing to do with the validity of the text. The idea that God exists in or influences everybody is not, as far as I know, inconsistent with Christian belief.
"> [CC]And then there is prophesy, which although it isn't iron clad science, is pretty
compelling evidence of God or precognition(4) Prophesy is not science of any kind. On the other hand, our complete lack of
understanding of the nature of time, particularly its dimensionality, does not rule out a
scientific explanation for what gets described as prophecy. The phenomena
categorized as prophecy may one day have an empirical explanation, and prophecy
(as something that is akin to scientific understanding) may takes its place with
spontaneous generation, the transmutation of elements, the caloric theory of heat, and
the flat earth theory."Well maybe it seems farfetched, but no more so than a time machine. And the idea that it is antiquated nonsense is your opinion. I think you have way too much "faith" in science.
"> [Me] Along the same lines, I'd say those who need to demonstrate proofs of the
literal interpretations of religious texts have no faith whatsoever.
> [CC] ... the origin of the universe is still a pretty strong argument for the existance of
God.(5) So why belittle the argument by trying to affix dates to events? To seek evidence of
god in evidence of the Great Flood or the Ark of the Covenant is to admit your faith is
insufficient; particularly if you need to turn to worldly explanations to support it. If you
need material evidence of the hand of god in the material world, then meditate on a
spider's web or the face of a newborn for a while, but don't waste anyone's time trying
to prove the spiritual message in any book of god through such "historical" proofs as
finding the wreck of Noah's Ark.> [Me] Along the same lines, I'd say those who need to demonstrate proofs of the
literal interpretations of religious texts have no faith whatsoever.
> [CC] ... the origin of the universe is still a pretty strong argument for the existance of
God.(5) So why belittle the argument by trying to affix dates to events? To seek evidence of
god in evidence of the Great Flood or the Ark of the Covenant is to admit your faith is
insufficient; particularly if you need to turn to worldly explanations to support it. If you
need material evidence of the hand of god in the material world, then meditate on a
spider's web or the face of a newborn for a while, but don't waste anyone's time trying
to prove the spiritual message in any book of god through such "historical" proofs as
finding the wreck of Noah's Ark."Well faith tends to need periodic reinforcement. And maybe they thought finding historical evidence to back up the Scripture might help facilitate the conversion of the secular world.
"> [CC] First, you seem to be assuming that "God" created the problems we are stuck
with...(6) In coming to know the material world, we often find that the answer to one
questions raises even more questions. So yes, in creating this world, god created both
the potential for its problems and its wonders. (That is, if you believe that god created
the universe in the first place.) But I never said anything about being stuck with these
problems. My faith has no place for such pessimism.> [CC] ... and given the enormity of the problems, do you think man can figure his
way out of them, without God's help?(7) God created us in god's own image, or so we are told. Shouldn't that be enough? I
think god's provided all the help that is both necessary and sufficient."Well it is my opinion that we are where we are because of a lot of mostly bad choices made by exercising our free will. God tried to give us guidance that we to often ignored. What do you have "faith" in that allows no room for pessimism? And what exactly is meant by "we are created in God's image" isn't clearly defined.
"> [CC]If you do I don't share your optimism, and would it be too much to ask if I
could store some spent plutonium in you garage?(8) Would you base an argument on the qualities of faith on reduction to the absurd? If
you believed in god's message and had the faith to back it up, would you ever
**seriously** even consider asking that question?"This was a joke alluding to one very serious problem mankind is faced with, what to do with all the nuclear waste. As far as I know they haven't figure out what to do with the bulk of it. And you have the greenhouse effect, the depletion of the ozone layer, the possibility of nuclear war, and the degeneration of the media. These problems seem to me pretty unmanageable, and if we could get help from God, we would be fools not to take it.
"> [CC]... we don't know whats going to happen next, or could we look it up in the
literature?? If you are curious how things end, you could look at the last few chapters
of Revelations.(9) That much of the bible I have read. It's pretty good propaganda for keeping the
masses in their place underneath the clergy. As for the apocalyptic visions of various
organized religions, I think they say more about humanity's infidelity in seeing god's
vision for us than about that vision itself. An abortion of this universe reflects just as
poorly on god's imperfections as it does on god's creation. I'd prefer to believe that
god has more faith in us than we place either in god or in ourselves.(so, I wonder that this conversation has to do with depression and evolution ... ;^)"
Shame on the clergy for discouraging evil, immorality, socially destructive or irresponsible behavior. The "Church" can augment psychotherapy or sometimes replace psychological treatment. I personally would feel more comfortable confiding in a Priest than a Psychiatrist, its a matter of trust. I am not however advocating an abandonment of psychological medical treatment. And religion is the main opposition of evolution, isn't it?
Posted by Bob on November 14, 1999, at 19:59:22
In reply to Re: Depression, Evolution (CC), posted by CC on November 14, 1999, at 19:06:37
> faith does not have to be in any "mystical" thing, you could have faith in science or humanism, that is you believe in them or their validity or have confidence in them. The analogy is about reinforced belief. Scientific rules or not, I am talking about reinforcement of experiencial observations. If you want to deify science thats your perogative.
I was arguing quite the opposite -- the last thing science needs is to be deified. The same goes for Faith with a capital F. If Faith in god isn't mystical or spiritual, then I say it is not Faith but faith in the teachings of an authority, such as a clergy. Empiricizing Faith is as undermining as deifying Science.
> You can read anything into anything. This has nothing to do with the validity of the text. The idea that God exists in or influences everybody is not, as far as I know, inconsistent with Christian belief.
So if the God of Christ lives within us, why would we need to rely on the words of men to teach us Truth? If you are in touch with your Faith, then IT validates what you read from others, not the other way around. Faith comes from First-Hand "experience" if it comes from within, second-hand at best if from without.
> Well maybe it seems farfetched, but no more so than a time machine. And the idea that it is antiquated nonsense is your opinion. I think you have way too much "faith" in science.
You're reading too much into the text. For now, prophecy is as mysterious as why life exists on Earth and not Mars or Venus, as Earth's environment was once as hostile as either. There is no explanation that can explain prophecy through some other means, so there's no basis for calling it antiquated nonsense.
And as a scientist, I have no faith in science. I may trust well-documented and replicated explanations and I may have hope in the trajectories of understanding what we know today suggest, but Science is far too narrow a means of knowing the world to put any faith in.
And again, to keep the apples and the oranges separate, I find no Faith in Science, nor do I look to Science to prove my Faith. They exist in difference spaces of knowing.
> Well faith tends to need periodic reinforcement.
And I still say that looking outside of yourself to reinforce your Faith means you're looking in the wrong place.
> Well it is my opinion that we are where we are because of a lot of mostly bad choices made by exercising our free will.
And each bad choice of Man compounds the bad choice of God that allows such to happen in the first place, does it not?
oops ... the X-Files is on ... gotta get my priorities straight. Nice chatting with you, CC
Bob
Posted by CC on November 14, 1999, at 22:54:32
In reply to Re: Depression, Evolution (CC), posted by Bob on November 14, 1999, at 19:59:22
Just a few comments,
"Empiricizing
Faith"Everything in the outside world that reinforces your faith or strenghtens it is like empirical data that would strenghten a scientific theory except that it is a personal thing that does not readily yield to scientific prodding. Of course I only have my own personal experiences to base this on.
"So if the God of Christ lives within us, why would we need to rely on the words of
men to teach us Truth? "In isolation from a larger body of "believers", and given that there is a spiritual adversary, in Christianity Satan, even though you may have some spiritual insight, your adversary is there to confuse you, and people have been known to come up with some weird ideas. So outside influence would hopefully set these people straight, not to imply that anyone has all the answers.
Another analogy might be, if people are born with a natural instinct to procreate, why do we need sex-education? They have all the necessary information in their being, why would they need anything else?"And as a scientist, I have no faith in science."
I think you do have faith in science though you might call it something else. If you didn't "believe" science gives an accurate representation of reality, why would you bother with it? Its a systematic representation that you hold to be the most valid model available, and you have confidence in it. Not that you worship or revere it. For me this is pretty much synonymous with "faith".
"And I still say that looking outside of yourself to reinforce your Faith means you're
looking in the wrong place."This idea is probably incompatible with Christianity. Christianity encourages fellowship and for us to consider ourselves part of a larger "body". Various things can strengthen one's faith and a lot of them come from day to day experiences, from outside the "self".
"the bad choice of God "
We believe in a "perfect" God.
"oops ... the X-Files is on ..."
I believe it was a good episode, did they take a chunk of Mulder's brain out!?
Posted by Elizabeth on November 14, 1999, at 23:00:16
In reply to Re: Depression, Evolution (CC), posted by CC on November 13, 1999, at 16:59:42
> If you could prove God exists, there would be no need for "faith".
Well, exactly; it's an untestable hypothesis. (And do we really have need for it? Laplace didn't....)
> I think Christians generally beleive that without faith, nothing can be accomplished.
Plenty of people have accomplished great things without needing to appeal to an object of religious faith.
> The good thing about Mainstream Christianity is that you have something besides your own personal experiences to guide you, the Scripture and the hierarchical higher ups.
Appeals to authority aren't inherently bad, but I think it is a good idea to look at where the authorities' opinions came from. If you can't find good reasons there, then arguably they should not really be considered "authorities."
> What about my question, do you think "man" is capable of solving the problems currently facing us?
An answer to this rather broad question would require a lengthy dissertation! Briefly, though, I don't necessarily expect all problems to be solved by humanity, certainly not in my lifetime.
One question is, is it possible for people to *accept* that some problems will go unsolved? (Any Buddhists out there?)
Posted by Elizabeth on November 14, 1999, at 23:16:41
In reply to I'm so sorry Elizabeth, I mis-spoke, posted by CarolAnn on November 13, 1999, at 16:28:36
> I didn't mean to equate Atheism with religion.
I know. What I meant might be summarized by saying that "atheism" should not be capitalized - it's not a "movement," a religion, a political party, any of these things.
For me it is a matter of skepticism (with a pinch of Occam's razor thrown in): I have found no reason to suppose that there are supernatural beings, so I do not include the supernatural in my beliefs or world view. The existence of supernatural forces seems an unlikely explanation for what can be explained by causes that are natural.
> So, if a person is an atheist based on only what they have been told by other athiests, it is the same thing as a person who is a christian based only on what they have been told by other christians.
And as I said, there is no atheist pope.
Posted by Adam on November 15, 1999, at 0:22:41
In reply to Re: Depression, Evolution (CC), posted by Elizabeth on November 14, 1999, at 23:00:16
> One question is, is it possible for people to *accept* that some problems will go unsolved? (Any Buddhists out there?)Though I am not a Buddhist, I expect a learned Buddhist might answer that all problems have an ultimate (if not direct) solution
in the extinction of the self (which can only be fully achieved through Moksa, or Enlightenment). After that "problems" cease
to be problems; once one has achieved Nirvana, there is no concious mind to percieve them as such.
Posted by CC on November 15, 1999, at 0:46:13
In reply to Re: Depression, Evolution (CC), posted by Elizabeth on November 14, 1999, at 23:00:16
"Well, exactly; it's an untestable hypothesis. (And do we really have need for it?
Laplace didn't....)"
Untestable from a scientific viewpoint, not necessarily from a personal viewpoint. Laplace can worry about how to transform an equation from the time domain to the frequency domain for all I care."Plenty of people have accomplished great things without needing to appeal to an
object of religious faith."This is part of Christian doctrine, maybe it should read "nothing of any real consequence".
"Appeals to authority aren't inherently bad, but I think it is a good idea to look at where
the authorities' opinions came from. If you can't find good reasons there, then arguably
they should not really be considered "authorities.""These "authorities" have had 2000 years+ of study to base their ideas on, thats good enough for me.
"An answer to this rather broad question would require a lengthy dissertation! Briefly,
though, I don't necessarily expect all problems to be solved by humanity, certainly not
in my lifetime."Do you think that mankinds survival as a species over the next 100 years is likely?
"One question is, is it possible for people to *accept* that some problems will go
unsolved? (Any Buddhists out there?) "Sorry bud, I can't help you there.
Posted by Bob on November 15, 1999, at 10:34:10
In reply to Re: Depression, Evolution (CC), posted by CC on November 14, 1999, at 22:54:32
> "oops ... the X-Files is on ..."
>
> I believe it was a good episode, did they take a chunk of Mulder's brain out!?Certainly looks like they did ... maybe all that hyperactive frontal lobe graymatter is now in the CSM's head. Hmmm ... but left or right lobe? Looks like this should be moved to Noa's thread on laterality of function....
b
Posted by bigbertha on November 15, 1999, at 22:40:50
In reply to Re: Depression, Evolution 2E, posted by CC on November 15, 1999, at 0:46:13
>Elizabeth:
>"Appeals to authority aren't inherently bad, but I think it is a good idea to look at where
the authorities' opinions came from. If you can't find good reasons there, then arguably
they should not really be considered "authorities."">CC:
These "authorities" have had 2000 years+ of study to base their ideas on, thats good enough for me.
Well that might work for you but let's look at some people who had
opposing views having "real" consequences:1. Probably THE biggest thorn in Jesus' side (no pun intended!)
was the authorities better known as the Pharisies, Sudduccies,etc.
Learned men naturally became the "authorities", because reading/writing
skills were taught on a limited basis. And what happens when access to info
is restricted? Control. The Starchamber sets the rules (see the Book of Numbers!)
because they know challenges will be few. As I recall, Jesus blasted them for
just this thing - creating imposssible rules that THEY themselves didn't follow.
And look what happened at HIS annual review!2. Martin Luther challenged the Catholic Church authorities on their interpretation
of the New Testatment. Although a firebrand, he didn't set out to cause the rupture
but after much debate he realized he had to "walk the walk". Oh yes, there was also
that thing about selling indulgences, and other clerical liberties with the "rules",
but again that's what happens when checks and balances are missing.
3.Women Suffragettes, Ghandi, ML King, Rosa Parks, etc, etc,
took at the racist "ideas" that had been studied by "learned
authorities" who established "their" rules and said "I don't think so!"CC, I'm certain you'll think of many examples. but as JLennon said:
"Whatever gets you through this life..."
Posted by CC on November 15, 1999, at 23:52:52
In reply to See No Evil?, posted by bigbertha on November 15, 1999, at 22:40:50
These people all had faith in something, didn't they? The Beatles at one time thought they were more popular than Christ. Do you now any Beatlist that practice Beatlism?
Posted by Elizabeth on November 16, 1999, at 3:05:41
In reply to Re: See No Evil?, posted by CC on November 15, 1999, at 23:52:52
> These people all had faith in something, didn't they? The Beatles at one time thought they were more popular than Christ. Do you now any Beatlist that practice Beatlism?
I think my sister may fall into that category!
Posted by CarolAnn on November 16, 1999, at 9:15:19
In reply to the Beatles, posted by Elizabeth on November 16, 1999, at 3:05:41
Yes...I do like Sonny & Cher(even though they're wwaaayyyy before my time, okay maybe only slightly "way" before).
Anyway, are we suuurrrre we don't want to go to a new thread on this discussion?
If anyone does want to start again, please take the initiative. I'm just too darn co-dependent to rock the boat!
It just seem as if there is always a reply to be made, with every possible *last* post. CarolAnn
Posted by Elizabeth on November 17, 1999, at 2:58:45
In reply to Re: Depression, Evolution (to Elizabeth), posted by CarolAnn on November 13, 1999, at 16:10:11
Sorry I seem to have missed this one. Am responding now.
> Well, yes Elizabeth, but there are many scientific hypotheses and theorys that are considered to be absolute truths, even with no real way to test them.
I wonder what you consider to constitute "evidence." Really none of the examples you give is at all comparable to mystical claims. To wit:
The big bang heory is based on the fact (observed) that galaxies are moving away from each other at a speed that increases with distance. The most reasonable interpretation of
this observation is that, from any position in
the universe, galaxies are moving away from each other in the same way.This is consistent with the predictions of Einstein's general theory of relativity and
the cosmology he based on it: the universe is expanding. GR is not only consistent with the BB theory, it's also consistent with another theory, the steady-state theory, which says that the universe is eternal, but that new matter is created from nothing in between the galaxies as they separate. This ultimately forms new galaxies, so according to SS, the universe
looks pretty much the same from whatever point in space it is being observed from, but also from whatever point in time. The SS theory is the only
serious rival to the BB presented so far. It fails miserably: far-away galaxies show clear evidence of evolution: early galaxies are ragged and scraggly, and there are more radio galaxies and quasars at great distances than there are in
our region of the universe. So the universe doesn't look even roughly the same no matter when you look. Furthermore, the cosmic background radiation cannot be interpreted in any way suggested by SS or any other conceivable theory, whereas, as was shown definitely in 1990, ALL the observational evidence falls precisely on the curve predicted by the BB. Furthermore again, the
amount of helium and deuterium (heavy hydrogen) predicted by BB is equal to the amount found in the universe today, if you into account the (calculable) amount of helium produced from hydrogen in stars. If that's not enough, since the 1970's BB has been combined with the new physical theories of the elementary particles
(electroweak theory and quantum chromodynamics) to give a much more powerful theory that makes it possible to calculate in detail the processes that occurred in the first seconds after BB. Those physical theories are supported by
overwhelming evidence - many different experiments, all favoring the theories - and all that evidence also supports the theory combined
with them - namely, BB.
Posted by CC on November 17, 1999, at 4:04:32
In reply to science superior to religion? (CarolAnn), posted by Elizabeth on November 17, 1999, at 2:58:45
"God does not play dice with the universe" Einstein. Elizabeth, where did you hide all the dark matter! Do neutrinos have mass? Do protons have a half-life? What caused the big bang? What about galaxies accelerating away from us? What causes that? How come Quasars give of the energy of 10^10 stars, but are not much larger than a star? What known process could generate that much energy? Current cyclotrons can generate 10^9 eV. It is estimated we would need a cyclotron or other device that could generate energies around 10^40 eV to get the elusive graviton to show itself, is this possible? Why do galaxies spin more like spokes of a wheel rather than like water going down a drain, that is faster toward the center?? Are all the forces interacting with matter known?
Posted by Adam on November 17, 1999, at 13:37:35
In reply to Re: science superior to religion? (CarolAnn), posted by CC on November 17, 1999, at 4:04:32
> "God does not play dice with the universe" Einstein.
Einstein made mistakes, just like everybody else. Einstein refused to accept the implications of the uncertainty principle, and thus its complete validity.
However, the uncertainty principle has withstood every experimental test. Einstein initially believed in a static universe, despite the fact his own theories
demonstrated such a scenereo was impossible, and tried to add an additional term to his equations (describing an unobserved repulsive force created by matter and
energy to counteract gravity) to preserve his cosmological preconceptions. When later observational evidence showed unequivocably that this "cosmological
constant" was ill-conceived (though perhaps still useful in explaining what appears to be an accelleration in the expansion of the universe) he described this
as "the worst mistake of my life".>Do neutrinos have mass?
It would appear that they do. Neutrinos seem to exist simultaneously as a mixture of wave states. These waves can shift out of phase, and this out-of-phase mixing
results in a wave of different amplitude, which yields a neutrino of a different type. The only way the waves can shift out of phase is if they represent different
inertial states (one will propogate more slowly than the other), which means they have mass. This wouldn't account for all the dark matter, but some of it.>What caused the big bang?
It just happened. The implications of applying quantum physics to cosmology is that, if the sum of the matter and energy in the universe and the energy of its expansion
is zero, then it can arise spontaneously out of nothing. Virtual particles do this all the time in the vacuum, and if they are created near a black hole, they can become
"real". These things happen because, given certain restrictions (the uncertainty principle), there's no reason why they can't. It makes as much sense to ask "why should
there be a universe" as it does to ask "why shouldn't there be?">What about galaxies accelerating away from us? What causes that?
It is thought that initially the universe was infinitely dense, but that due to quantum fluctuations, this state was unstable. At some point the universe expanded slightly and
thus cooled. This cooling led to a "phase transition" where matter and energy became differentiated through the creation of quantum fields that define the properties of particles.
Given the huge density of matter and energy at that time, these "scalar fields" had an enormous positive potential energy that, in effect, repelled gravitational attraction. This
huge energy density caused space and time to expand, at a rate (according to General Relativity) proportional to the square root of the density of matter and energy. The universe
got very big very quickly (sometimes referred to as the inflationary phase) and then started to slow down as the denstity decreased and gravity became more important. What is
important to remember here is that space and time are expanding, and carrying everything along with it. Everything appaers to be flying away from everything else because the
intervening space is increasing in size. That's why there's no center of the universe and that partly why everything appears roughly the same no matter what direction you look.
Everything is the "center". The center just got bigger.
>How come Quasars give of the energy of 10^10 stars, but are not much larger than a star? What known process could generate that much energy?Quasars have been shown through observations with the Hubble Telescope to be early galaxies with a highly energetic center. It is beleived that extremely masssive black holes
are found at the centers of quasars and that, given the fact we are glimpsing an early phase of galactic evolution, the center of the galaxy is dense, highly dynamic, and that
a huge amount of the matter in the galaxy is falling into the black hole. As the matter spirals in, it gets very dense and moves very fast, creating a lot of energy through
plain old friction, and also releasing a lot of "cyclotron" radiation as particles get accelerated to close to the speed of light. There are still active galaxies to be found
(so-called radio galaxies) relatively close to us, and there is even a powerful radio source near the center of our own galaxy. The origin of this energy is most likely a
massive black hole. It is likely that all galaxies at one time were quasars, or nearly as energetic, and as time passes, they settle into a calmer state like that of our own
Milky Way.>It is estimated we would need a cyclotron or other device that could generate energies around 10^40 eV to get the elusive graviton to show itself, is this possible?
There may be other ways to "observe" the graviton. Observations of the orbital periods of binary pulsars (extremely dense and massive dead stars or neutron stars orbiting each
other) have shown changes predicted by Gen. Relativity to be caused by the loss of gravitational energy through "gravitational waves". So these binary systems are radiating
gravitational energy (everything does, you just need really massive orbiting objects to detect the effect). All matter/energy is quantized. The quanta of gravitational energy
must be the graviton.>Why do galaxies spin more like spokes of a wheel rather than like water going down a drain, that is faster toward the center??
They don't rotate like spokes of a wheel. Things revolve faster near the center due to the law of conservation of angular momentum.
>Are all the forces interacting with matter known?
There may be another force (besides electric, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and gravitational) represented by Einstein's old cosmological constant. Some astronomers think, due to
unexpected differences in the brightness of supernova in distant galaxies, that light from those supernova is getting stretched out more than can be accounted for by the predicted
rate of expansion of the universe, which should be slowing down. In other words, the rate of expansion may be slowly speeding up, and this might be due to an undescribed repulsive
force. This is a very controversial conclusion, and is nowhere near being resolved, because there may be flaws in the assumptions about star evolution that inform the accelerating
expansion theory.
Posted by Bob on November 17, 1999, at 13:48:06
In reply to Re: science superior to religion? (CarolAnn), posted by CC on November 17, 1999, at 4:04:32
> "God does not play dice with the universe" Einstein.
"Stop telling God what to do." Niels Bohr to Einstein.Besides, the quote is about quantum mechanics, which ironically received its earliest big boost from Einstein's paper on the photoelectric effect (for which he won the Nobel Prize). Einstein also said, "God is subtle, but he is not malicious" which has been interpreted as "God may have created the universe as a puzzle for us to solve but, however He did it, He wouldn't have done it using quantum mechanics!" And then there was, I believe, Stephen Hawking, the first to apply quantum mechanics to black holes successfully, who said, "Not only *does* God play dice, sometimes he throws them where you can't see them!"
CC, lots of your questions are being explained fairly well. The Hubble has contributed quite a bit here, such as finding evidence of blackholes at the centers of most galaxies (lending credit to the primary explanation on the nature of quasars). *All* galaxies are moving away from us -- that's a central tenet of Big Bang theories. THAT should be acknowledged -- that there is no one Big Bang Theory, but litterally hundreds of them. The data from the COBE satellite, out of George Smoots' shop, pretty much eliminated 95% of those by demonstrating that there is a non-uniform distribution of background radiation (most contenders could not explain anything other than a uniform distribution). Work over the last few decades on "quantum" gravity has been making inroads into why spiral galaxies both spin the way they do and FORM the way they do, since the simple accretion-disk theories applied to planetary systems fail miserably at this. So, for any of your questions, science is making good progress on coming up with an answer. Even for the missing mass problem -- the bias in the cosmology community for a closed universe (big bang, big crunch, rinse, repeat...) smacks of how Occam's Razor and the notion of elegance can blind scientists to other, better explanations (such as the universe via the big bang truly being a unique event), but there's progress nonetheless.
So much for what science can answer and for what religion cannot. Religion won't give us explanations on how things work based upon true prophecy or the self-serving proclamations of authorities.
On the other hand, while one day we may be able to say how the universe came to be what it is today, science will never be able to explain "Why the universe?" or even "Why *this* universe?"
Apples and oranges, folks. The notion of science being better than religion, or religion being better than science, is non-sense when each stays within the bounds of what it can explain.
Bob
Posted by Adam on November 17, 1999, at 15:38:03
In reply to Re: science superior to religion? (CarolAnn), posted by Bob on November 17, 1999, at 13:48:06
> On the other hand, while one day we may be able to say how the universe came to be what it is today, science will never be able to explain "Why the universe?" or even "Why *this* universe?"Again, given the older theories about the big bang, it is plausible to conclude that teh universe arose spontaneously, with no causative event,
no plan behind it, no higher consciousness, nothing. It just is. In this case it makes as much sense to say why does it exist as to ask what
came before. There was no "before" in real time (though you can theoretically survey the process mathematically in "imaginary time").One competing theory on the origin of the universe I'm not all that familiar with proposes that our universe is an extention of a much more expansive
structure, a "megaverse" that has always existed. Due to random fluctuations in whatever quantum fields defined the structure of what came before,
portions of this megaverse can spontaneously inflate, sometimes at an enormous rate of speed, and give rise to whole sub-universes, of which ours is
one. The initial conditions defined at the moment of inflation give rise to the constants of nature that are true for that particular region. Given
the infinite extent of this megaverse, and the infinite opportunity for universes to bud off from it (and subsequent universes to bud off of those),
there are an infinite number of possible conditions, some amenable to life, some not. We happen to occupy a universe that has certain physical constants
that allow for the kind of life that we know to develop and intelligent creatures such as ourselves to ask questions like why (the anthropic principle,
I believe, perhaps the "weak anthropic prinicple"). Since there are an infinite number of possiblities, it was bound to happen at some point. Why this
universe? Because we couldn't exist in another one.
>
> Apples and oranges, folks. The notion of science being better than religion, or religion being better than science, is non-sense when each stays within the bounds of what it can explain.I agree that it's apples and oranges, but I don't feel that religion "explains" anything. It used to be that faith was our only guide, and that nothing in
the universe made sense without being ibued with a divine spirit. What seemed inexplicable (like forces at a distance) was attributed to the hand of God.
History has shown nothing but a retreat from this spiritually-centered world view to a mundane one. Where those who practice science in one way or another
converge on plausible explanations for the most fundamental questions, distinct faiths have only found common ground, or brought all humanity closer to a
state of mutual understanding, where they have abandoned their most dogmatic principles. More often then not, what influences this transition from religious
dogma to ecumenical liberalism is the supplanting of old, mutually exclusive mythical ideas with unifying principles bestowed upon us by science.What science perhaps can never do is tell people how they ought to feel. I see no fatal problem with faith (so long as it isn't imposed on me or anyone else,
by means violent or otherwise) because I have known and sometimes loved perfectly rational, intelligent, informed people who practiced religion and derived
great joy in it. Religious faith has inspired such movingly beautiful creations of literature and music and art, I would feel deeply saddened if it were all
suddenly taken away. What will inspire future creators to compose another requiem mass, write another Upanisad, move with the grace and serenity of tai chi.
I have participated in Latin masses, Bhuddist chants, read part of the Pesach Hagadah. I even helped organize the Divali celebration at my college and adapted
part of the Ramayana as a play. To lose religion seems a terrible thing to me, and at the same time, I cannot truly understand it or be a part of it, and I
predict it is slowly dying. But the rise of fundamentalism in many parts of the world in reaction to this trend is even more disturbing. I do not feel a sense
of pride in our country when I know kids in Kansas aren't being taught evolution.Perhaps we can strike a balance between the need for accurate, scientific theories to guide us into the future, and the redemtive and joyful aspects of faith.
I'm not hopeful that this can be achieved, and I can't imagine what the world will be like bereft of one or the other.
Posted by Scott L. Schofield on November 17, 1999, at 19:57:29
In reply to science superior to religion? (CarolAnn), posted by Elizabeth on November 17, 1999, at 2:58:45
> Furthermore, the cosmic background radiation cannot be interpreted in any way suggested by SS or any other conceivable theory, whereas, as was shown definitely in 1990, ALL the observational evidence falls precisely on the curve predicted by the BB
My friend's father was the co-discoverer of the background radiation. They stumbled upon it by accident when they were testing a new radio antenna meant to track Telstar. If I remember correctly, the magnitude of the radiation was about 3 degrees Kelvin. (There is a funny story regarding this measurement that involves pigeons).
Don't forget dark matter. If it doesn't exist, the universe might expand forever.
Opinion:
I'm not sure how far this topic will go, but I figured I'd drop in anyway. I think that there is a tendency for man to wage war against uncertainty. However, some of the greatest twentieth century physicists were comfortable with uncertainty. Certainly, Heisenberg must have been, although I'm not absolutely certain.
Both science and religion spend quite a bit of time and energy trying to fill in the gaps. What seems to get lost within the many quandaries pursued by both is spirituality. Spirituality can act as a bridge between the two - if you let it. I don't see any conflict between spiritualism and atheism. Often, I think science and religion argue over the existence of something that neither can define.
- Scott
Posted by CC on November 17, 1999, at 20:57:22
In reply to Re: science superior to religion? (CC), posted by Adam on November 17, 1999, at 13:37:35
"the sum of the matter and energy in the universe and the energy of its expansion
is zero"So energy of expansion = total energy of matter and energy? Wouldn't these energies be additive rather than cancelling each other out?
"It is thought that initially the universe was infinitely dense, but that due to quantum
fluctuations, this state was unstable. At some point the universe expanded slightly and
thus cooled. This cooling led to a "phase transition" where matter and energy became
differentiated through the creation of quantum fields that define the properties of
particles."Where did this infinitely dense unstable thing come from? If it came from a "megaverse" then where did the megaverse come from? I don't see how anything can come from nothing. The model of the beginning of our universe started with "something". If something can come from nothing it should be observable. Virtual particals can come into existance but only for a very short time. What about conservation of mass and energy? It still looks like a "first cause" issue to me, albeit a very complex one. Do you know anything about string theory? I was wondering if the "collapsed dimensions" would allow strange interactions between matter not explained by electromagnetic or other energies. Can you tell me how something can come from nothing and if so is it anything more than pure speculation?
Posted by CC on November 17, 1999, at 22:54:07
In reply to Re: science superior to religion? (CC), posted by CC on November 17, 1999, at 20:57:22
I have heard that the theory of evolution has some major problems with it. The birds, the pre-cambrian explosion, gaps in the fossil record, no fossil record of microorganisms to speak of, falsification of data, etc., etc.. I also heard that the statistical probability of chlorophyll assembling itself under ideal circumstances was 10^40 against. Can anybody comment on whether this is a reasonable number? And doesn't it just take one contradiction to invalidate a theory?
Posted by Elizabeth on November 18, 1999, at 0:25:27
In reply to Re: science superior to religion? (CarolAnn), posted by Adam on November 17, 1999, at 15:38:03
> What science perhaps can never do is tell people how they ought to feel.
Why should *anything* tell people how they "ought" to feel?
On another note (pun intended):
>Religious faith has inspired such movingly beautiful creations of literature and music and art, I would feel deeply saddened if it were all
>suddenly taken away.Hmm...the same claim has been made of depression. (e.g., what if Dostoevsky, Salinger, Mozart, etc., had been on Prozac?). Does that make depression a good thing that shouldn't be eliminated? (And how do we know that depression, or religion, is required for inspiration?)
(For that matter, speaking of Dostoevsky, it's been hypothesized that his apparent mood disorder may have been related to temporal lobe epilepsy. Does that make epilepsy a good thing?)
> What will inspire future creators to compose another requiem mass, write another Upanisad, move with the grace and serenity of tai chi.
> I have participated in Latin masses, Bhuddist chants, read part of the Pesach Hagadah. I even helped organize the Divali celebration at my college and adapted
> part of the Ramayana as a play. To lose religion seems a terrible thing to me, and at the same time, I cannot truly understand it or be a part of it, and I
> predict it is slowly dying.I wrote a "little mass" as my final project for a music composition course in college. It's not Bach (actually Palestrina was the inspiration), but it shows something I think: it doesn't require faith to write a mass or to be moved by it. (A lot of Catholic-style masses have been written by Protestants, and Brahms reinvented the requiem.)
I don't think faith is required to be inspired, either. I've found at least two of the classes I've taken deeply inspiring (Allan Hobson's sleep class, and a course of my dad's that I sat in on).
For that matter I've sometimes experienced brief spontaneous episodes of "inspiration" or ecstasy (sort of like being moved by a beautiful piece of music or a sad story, only more so). (This seems to be predictive of panic attacks, interestingly enough.)
Posted by CC on November 18, 1999, at 0:29:11
In reply to The validity of the theory of evolution., posted by CC on November 17, 1999, at 22:54:07
Here is challenge for all you scientist out there. Starting with non-living matter, create living matter. Use what ever chemicals you like and any enviroment you like. No cheating by using any form of living matter or material from dead organisms of any kind. Virus doesn't count. Does this sound unreasonable? If sheer chance can generate life then it ought to be a cinch for intelligent sentient beings. Get back to me when you have succeeded.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.