Surfing the interwebs, this resonated with me. I thought I would share it.

[pezDispenser]

[PassingFair]

1. K & R....I stumbled across THIS one a while back:

I feel no need for any other faith than my faith in the kindness of human beings. I am so absorbed in the wonder of earth and the life upon it that I cannot think of heaven and angels.





--Pearl S. Buck

[pezDispenser]

13. I like that, thanks. n/t

[GliderGuider]

2. Yep. Like phlogiston, right? n/t

Last edited Mon Jan 16, 2012, 01:01 PM - Edit history (1)

[Deep13]

3. Not sure what your point is...

...but no one accepts phlogiston now. Scientists are not always right, but since science--unlike religion--is self-correcting, the general trend is toward the truth. Religion's general trend is toward self-deception.

[GliderGuider]

4. Of course religion is hooey.

My point bears on Jillette's rather amorphous comment, "If all of science were wiped out it would still be true".

What would be "true" exactly? As you point out, the products of scientific investigation are falsified regularly, so we can't say confidently that any particular finding is "true" in any absolute sense. The process of science - that of hypothesis, experiment and replication - is simply a process. It's not "true" in and of itself, but rather leads to replicated results. The results themselves may or may not be true depending on the validity of the shared assumptions of the researchers. Ultimately "truth" is a very slippery concept, one that is more dependent on human interpretation than is generally recognized - even in science.

Religion, of course, is not a truth-seeking endeavour - not even nominally so. It's a social phenomenon aimed at promoting group cohesion and control. Its claims to being a truth-seeking endeavour (which are primarily intended to give it improved cultural standing in this scientistic era) don't even stand up as well as phlogiston.

It's quite obvious that we have a case of non-overlapping magisteria. One magisterium - religion - wishes to partake in the current cultural acceptability of science. The other magisterium - science - wishes to be seen as the universal organizing principle of social belief, terrain that it is fighting hard to re-take from religion.

The problem I have is that science has entered the arena of belief systems. Its evident procedural validity is its ace in the hole, but that has been parlayed - in the minds of laymen and scientists alike - into a sort of "Shining city on the hill" whose governing principle is Truth, when Truth (at least when it's capitalized) is just as diaphanous a product of the human imagination as God.

That's my point.

[Deep13]

5. I see.

I don't accept NOMA, though. Science may not absolutely prove things (although in practical terms it has come pretty close), but it does absolutely disprove things. Those things include many ideas that many religions hold to be true. Likewise, religion makes supposedly factual claims about the nature of the universe or human nature that are within the purview of scientific investigation.

I think Gillette's point is that even with false starts, careful scientific inquiry will always lead to the same conclusion because there is only one reality. The Earth will always be round(ish) no matter who does the testing or when it is done. Religions are all different because they are not based on reality.

[GliderGuider]

7. "There is only one reality"

That's a perfect example of one of the implicit assumptions of science.. It's also an example of one thing I have explicitly suspended judgement on - I neither believe nor disbelieve that proposition. I know it's an axiom of the physical sciences, but I'm not comfortable with being that categorical about something so foundational, particularly something that has not been demonstrated and may not even be falsifiable. The Earth may be an oblate spheroid at the time of measurement no matter who measures it, but that's a long way from saying "there is only one reality".

In fact you've hit on what might be the assumption that betrays science over into the field of faith...

One doesn't even need to be a theist to hold this objection. Atheism works just fine in this context.

[Deep13]

8. How could there be multiple realities?

Sorry, but the singular nature of reality is actually very well established. If multiple realities were true, evolution would not be possible. If reality were different for each of us, one of us would be killed by it. Our senses and intellect have to be sufficiently in tune with the real reality to prevent us from being killed by it. If the nature of matter or energy were different for each of us, technology would not work. In fact, nothing would. Stars would not shine, cells would not function. Saying the earth is always the same shape is precisely why there is only one reality. If you concede the uniform nature for physicality, then in what sense can reality be multiplied? You've defined that problem out of existence.

[GliderGuider]

9. I was thinking along the lines of the Multiverse theories

To a hypothetical being living in dimensions that don't intersect (or intersect only minimally) with the ones we perceive, their version of "reality" would be quite different.

Now, it's always possible to say "The singular nature of reality encompasses the multiverse and all its dimensions," but that strikes me as the same question-begging but with the goal-posts in a different place.

[ZombieHorde]

10. Wouldn't multiverses, with different rules, just be a part of reality?

Isn't reality all that is true, regardless of what we know and don't know?

For example: Table salt can be dissolved in water. But if this isn't true in some other dimension, then the reality would be table salt can be dissolved in water in some locations. A reality concerning table salt and water would still exist, we would simply be missing some details.

[GliderGuider]

11. As I said above,

Now, it's always possible to say "The singular nature of reality encompasses the multiverse and all its dimensions," but that strikes me as the same question-begging but with the goal-posts in a different place.

In order to resolve this question, you have to define what you mean by "reality", and provide some falsifiable test for singularity. If there are a couple of logically coherent and commonly accepted definitions for "reality", then the axiomatic, singular nature of the bird flies out the window into the 7th dimension.

The underlying thrust of what I'm saying has more to do with the nature of positivism and skepticism than it does with atheism (though it has a whole lot to do with agnosticism). I choose to reject most axioms about reality (and yes, I look both ways before crossing the street) in the interest of a broader playground for thought.

[Deep13]

12. I guess I can see that.

Other universes--something that the whole membrane idea suggests--could have other laws of nature.

[AlbertCat]

16. Other universes--something that the whole membrane idea suggests--could have other laws of nature.

And we would be able to study those realities... how exactly.

The multiverse thing is a fun idea.... but ultimately not very accessible.

[AlbertCat]

15. Like phlogiston, right?

What does a misunderstanding of oxidation (before they knew about oxygen) have to do with this?

Except the misunderstandings and guesses of religion persist.... due to threats, and ignorance.... not to mention Religion is a great money making scam.

[GliderGuider]

17. My point about phlogiston wasn't particularly clear was it? I clarified my meaning in comment #4.

My obscure point was about the difficulty of searching for Truth in an inherently knowledge-limited context (as all human contexts are).

The process of science is useful, and even noble. However, we should recognize that it's like a computer algorithm - no matter how good it is, its output still depends entirely on the quality of the data available.

I don't have an argument with the process of science itself, or even with its goals. I do have an argument with people (scientists and laymen alike) who have been so programmed to "believe that they must believe", that they have elevated a simple, self-evident formula for reliable experimentation into yet another belief structure about the nature of reality. I saw evidence of that attitude in Jillette's comment.

Organized religion is a whole other ball of crap, useful only for social control while desperately trying to camouflage itself as a truth-seeking mission.

[Soylent Brice]

6. K&R

get thee to the greatest.

[OriginalGeek]

14. I liked his recent book, "God, No!"

but I still wish he weren't so much a Libertarian - although as libertarians go, he seems like a pretty cool one - way different than Ron Paul.

I know it is selfish of me to wish for him to be something he's not but I can't help the way I feel. I still like him and hope to see Penn and Teller live some day. I LOVED his Bullshit episode on Mother Theresa.