https://www.edge.org/conversation/paul_davies-taking-science-on-faith

Paul Charles William Davies, AM (born 22 April 1946) is an English physicist, writer and broadcaster, a professor at Arizona State University as well as the Director of BEYOND: Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science. His research interests are in the fields of cosmology, quantum field theory, and astrobiology.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Paul_Davies.jpg/220px-Paul_Davies.jpg



SCIENCE, we are repeatedly told, is the most reliable form of knowledge about the world because it is based on testable hypotheses. Religion, by contrast, is based on faith. The term "doubting Thomas" well illustrates the difference. In science, a healthy skepticism is a professional necessity, whereas in religion, having belief without evidence is regarded as a virtue.

By Paul Davies [12.31.06]

Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith —
namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too. For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence.

It always amuses me when theists try to argue about science because all it shows is their ignorance about science.

The laws of physics are seen as set in concrete because every application of those laws proves them to be true.
The mere fact that you can read this on a computer, drive down the street in your internal combustion engine car and work in your sky scraper office block is proof that the laws of physics are constant and are valid.

Why are these laws as they are? Some of them were explained by Einstein and his theories on space-time. Others we simply don't know yet.

Don't fall into the trap of assuming that just because science doesn't know the answer to something that this is proof of God. It just means we don't know the answer (yet).

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 21^st, 2021 at 11:27am:

It always amuses me when theists try to argue about science because all it shows is their ignorance about science. The laws of physics are seen as set in concrete because every application of those laws proves them to be true. The mere fact that you can read this on a computer, drive down the street in your internal combustion engine car and work in your sky scraper office block is proof that the laws of physics are constant and are valid. Why are these laws as they are? Some of them were explained by Einstein and his theories on space-time. Others we simply don't know yet. Don't fall into the trap of assuming that just because science doesn't know the answer to something that this is proof of God. It just means we don't know the answer (yet).

Hi Barny,
picture an atom in your  mind.
What do you see?
Is that really what an atom would look like if we could see it?
How can we ever be sure about that and many other things?
The answer is to some extent based on faith -
and is probably not correct as the model
for an atom has changed a lot in the last 100 years.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 21^st, 2021 at 11:32am:

Hi Barny, picture an atom in your  mind. What do you see? Is that really what an atom would look like if we could see it? How can we ever be sure about that and many other things? The answer is to some extent based on faith - and is probably not correct as the model for an atom has changed a lot in the last 100 years.

Our understanding of atoms is not based on faith.
We have loads of evidence that our understanding is correct, from nuclear reactors to anti rust treatments.

If you want to go to the quantum level - well that is another story - but don't confuse incomplete knowledge with evidence for God

It gets very tricky:
http://www.chem1.com/acad/webtut/atomic/WhyTheElectron.html


The picture of electrons "orbiting" the nucleus like planets around the sun remains an enduring one, not only in popular images of the atom but also in the minds of many of us who know better. The proposal, first made in 1913, that the centrifugal force of the revolving electron just exactly balances the attractive force of the nucleus (in analogy with the centrifugal force of the moon in its orbit exactly counteracting the pull of the Earth's gravity) is a nice picture, but is simply untenable.

An electron, unlike a planet or a satellite, is electrically charged, and it has been known since the mid-19th century that an electric charge that undergoes acceleration (changes velocity and direction) will emit electromagnetic radiation, losing energy in the process. A revolving electron would transform the atom into a miniature radio station, the energy output of which would be at the cost of the potential energy of the electron; according to classical mechanics, the electron would simply spiral into the nucleus and the atom would collapse.


http://www.chem1.com/acad/webtut/atomic/death_spiral.jpg

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 21^st, 2021 at 12:08pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 21st, 2021 at 11:32am: Hi Barny, picture an atom in your  mind. What do you see? Is that really what an atom would look like if we could see it? How can we ever be sure about that and many other things? The answer is to some extent based on faith - and is probably not correct as the model for an atom has changed a lot in the last 100 years. Our understanding of atoms is not based on faith. We have loads of evidence that our understanding is correct, from nuclear reactors to anti rust treatments. If you want to go to the quantum level - well that is another story - but don't confuse incomplete knowledge with evidence for God

Doth thou argue with the famous Professor Paul Davies?

Isn't faith a poor man's bargaining tool with a book in his hand  at the other end of a Military weapon?

Jasin wrote on Feb 21^st, 2021 at 12:14pm:

Isn't faith a poor man's bargaining tool with a book in his hand  at the other end of a Military weapon?

If you walk using crutches and you have enough faith -
you can throw the crutches away and walk normally.

Its a simplified model, useful in teaching high school students how atoms work.
In truth an electrons position at any point in time is only a probability. As i said earlier, a lot of quantum theory seems counter intuitive an contradictory, however the fact that it works and can be used to predict outcomes means that we aren't just relying on faith.

It's not a case of "I don't understand it therefor..........God"

Bobby. wrote on Feb 21^st, 2021 at 12:15pm:

Jasin wrote on Feb 21st, 2021 at 12:14pm: Isn't faith a poor man's bargaining tool with a book in his hand  at the other end of a Military weapon? If you walk using crutches and you have enough faith - you can throw the crutches away and walk normally.

Rubbish

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 21^st, 2021 at 12:24pm:

Its a simplified model, useful in teaching high school students how atoms work. In truth an electrons position at any point in time is only a probability. As i said earlier, a lot of quantum theory seems counter intuitive an contradictory, however the fact that it works and can be used to predict outcomes means that we aren't just relying on faith. It's not a case of "I don't understand it therefor..........God"

When I was young I went to Uni all starry eyed -
I was going to find out what an electron was -
amongst many other things.
Instead I learnt the particle wave duality of electrons
and that what they were depended upon the
experiment used to investigate them.
I expect further changes to the current models.

Did you know that when a neutron is outside of the nucleus
it becomes unstable and has a half life of only 10 minutes?
It decays into into a proton an electron and an antineutrino.
It's strange that the electron is made out of part of a neutron
yet that electron is called a fundamental particle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_neutron_decay

Bobby. wrote on Feb 21^st, 2021 at 3:57pm:

When I was young I went to Uni all starry eyed -

University of Gaylord? ::) ::)

https://www.ucgaylord.org/

Bobby. wrote on Feb 21^st, 2021 at 3:57pm:

Did you know that when a neutron is outside of the nucleus it becomes unstable and has a half life of only 10 minutes?

You know that Goober? Or is that just your 'faith' talking? ::)

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 21^st, 2021 at 11:27am:

It always amuses me when theists try to argue about science because all it shows is their ignorance about science. The laws of physics are seen as set in concrete because every application of those laws proves them to be true. The mere fact that you can read this on a computer, drive down the street in your internal combustion engine car and work in your sky scraper office block is proof that the laws of physics are constant and are valid. Why are these laws as they are? Some of them were explained by Einstein and his theories on space-time. Others we simply don't know yet. Don't fall into the trap of assuming that just because science doesn't know the answer to something that this is proof of God. It just means we don't know the answer (yet).

Science has no ethical, esthetic, interpersonal answers. Science isnt a TOTAL explanation, it is a method of asking questions and testing answers to those questions.

But not every question is a scientific one. Most of the ones we live by aren't. This doesnt diminish science, it limits it.

Frank wrote on Feb 21^st, 2021 at 5:57pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 21st, 2021 at 11:27am: It always amuses me when theists try to argue about science because all it shows is their ignorance about science. The laws of physics are seen as set in concrete because every application of those laws proves them to be true. The mere fact that you can read this on a computer, drive down the street in your internal combustion engine car and work in your sky scraper office block is proof that the laws of physics are constant and are valid. Why are these laws as they are? Some of them were explained by Einstein and his theories on space-time. Others we simply don't know yet. Don't fall into the trap of assuming that just because science doesn't know the answer to something that this is proof of God. It just means we don't know the answer (yet). Science has no ethical, esthetic, interpersonal answers. Science isnt a TOTAL explanation, it is a method of asking questions and testing answers to those questions. But not every question is a scientific one. Most of the ones we live by aren't. This doesnt diminish science, it limits it.

It begs the question of how sure we can be about anything but
especially about something that is impossible to see -
the inside of atoms.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 21^st, 2021 at 6:13pm:

It begs the question of how sure we can be about anything but especially about something that is impossible to see - the inside of atoms.

If repeatable experiments provide consistent results then we can be sure.
As I've already mentioned, there is plenty of evidence that our knowledge about atoms is correct, from nuclear reactors to rusting and any other chemical reactions that can easily be predicted and confirmed.

Frank wrote on Feb 21^st, 2021 at 5:57pm:

Science has no ethical, esthetic, interpersonal answers. Science isnt a TOTAL explanation, it is a method of asking questions and testing answers to those questions.

Psychology and anthropology can answer most of the questions you are implying.


Frank wrote on Feb 21^st, 2021 at 5:57pm:

But not every question is a scientific one. Most of the ones we live by aren't. This doesnt diminish science, it limits it.

So why don't you provide a question that science can't answer?

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2021 at 11:10am:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 21st, 2021 at 6:13pm: It begs the question of how sure we can be about anything but especially about something that is impossible to see - the inside of atoms. If repeatable experiments provide consistent results then we can be sure. As I've already mentioned, there is plenty of evidence that our knowledge about atoms is correct, from nuclear reactors to rusting and any other chemical reactions that can easily be predicted and confirmed.

It's still strange though.
The electrons exist in shells surrounding the atom.
You would think that shells of electrons would all repel each other.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2021 at 1:48pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 22nd, 2021 at 11:10am: Bobby. wrote on Feb 21st, 2021 at 6:13pm: It begs the question of how sure we can be about anything but especially about something that is impossible to see - the inside of atoms. If repeatable experiments provide consistent results then we can be sure. As I've already mentioned, there is plenty of evidence that our knowledge about atoms is correct, from nuclear reactors to rusting and any other chemical reactions that can easily be predicted and confirmed. It's still strange though. The electrons exist in shells surrounding the atom. You would think that shells of electrons would all repel each other.

The nucleus contains protons

Barny - your point?

Bobby. wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2021 at 2:49pm:

Barny - your point?

I made my response in the wrong field.
I have amended my reply

Frank wrote on Feb 21^st, 2021 at 5:57pm:

Science has no ethical, esthetic, interpersonal answers. Science isnt a TOTAL explanation, it is a method of asking questions and testing answers to those questions. But not every question is a scientific one. Most of the ones we live by aren't. This doesnt diminish science, it limits it.

Frank, I'm waiting to hear the questions you claim that science doesn't have the ability to answer

Bobby. wrote on Feb 21^st, 2021 at 12:15pm:

Jasin wrote on Feb 21st, 2021 at 12:14pm: Isn't faith a poor man's bargaining tool with a book in his hand  at the other end of a Military weapon? If you walk using crutches and you have enough faith - you can throw the crutches away and walk normally.

Thank Europe for the Medical Industry, while being invaded by Religious people from the Middle-East who walked across  the Medical-rannean sea.


As I said to a guy working next to me at the Nursing Station.
"Are you religious?" I asked.
"Yes. I'm a Christian" he answered proudly.
"Well here then - you can do the paperwork" as I got up to attend to the ward again and shoved the paperwork his way.

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2021 at 10:15am:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 22nd, 2021 at 2:49pm: Barny - your point? I made my response in the wrong field. I have amended my reply

You said
The nucleus contains protons -
we know that but there are also neutrons for elements above Hydrogen.

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2021 at 10:18am:

Frank wrote on Feb 21st, 2021 at 5:57pm: Science has no ethical, esthetic, interpersonal answers. Science isnt a TOTAL explanation, it is a method of asking questions and testing answers to those questions. But not every question is a scientific one. Most of the ones we live by aren't. This doesnt diminish science, it limits it. Frank, I'm waiting to hear the questions you claim that science doesn't have the ability to answer

A Scientist will tell us that the Earth is NOT at the center of the Universe - and they are right.
A Spiritualist will tell us that the Earth is the center of OUR Universe and they too are right.

one rules the brain, the other the mind.
But as most people think there can be only one right answer - the world is populated by HALF-WITS on both sides.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2021 at 5:09pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 23rd, 2021 at 10:15am: Bobby. wrote on Feb 22nd, 2021 at 2:49pm: Barny - your point? I made my response in the wrong field. I have amended my reply You said The nucleus contains protons - we know that but there are also neutrons for elements above Hydrogen.

electrons are attracted to Protons

The last guy that tried to merge faith and religion, lost his job in politics. Not for Australia in the 21st century.

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2021 at 10:18am:

Frank wrote on Feb 21st, 2021 at 5:57pm: Science has no ethical, esthetic, interpersonal answers. Science isnt a TOTAL explanation, it is a method of asking questions and testing answers to those questions. But not every question is a scientific one. Most of the ones we live by aren't. This doesnt diminish science, it limits it. Frank, I'm waiting to hear the questions you claim that science doesn't have the ability to answer

Any question about meaning.  Any question about purpose (which is ultimately about meaning). Any question about ethics and esthetics (meaning, purpose, value).

All the important, meaningful stuff of life.  Science is very valuable but its limits need to be recognised.

Frank wrote on Oct 15^th, 2021 at 1:55pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 23rd, 2021 at 10:18am: Frank wrote on Feb 21st, 2021 at 5:57pm: Science has no ethical, esthetic, interpersonal answers. Science isnt a TOTAL explanation, it is a method of asking questions and testing answers to those questions. But not every question is a scientific one. Most of the ones we live by aren't. This doesnt diminish science, it limits it. Frank, I'm waiting to hear the questions you claim that science doesn't have the ability to answer Any question about meaning.  Any question about purpose (which is ultimately about meaning). Any question about ethics and esthetics (meaning, purpose, value). All the important, meaningful stuff of life.  Science is very valuable but its limits need to be recognised.

Putting aside for now the contentious issue of ‘meaning’ let’s ask ourselves if Freud and Jung’s subjective investigations are now a suitable area for neuroscience to re-exmine or is this area still out of bounds to science?

Or maybe you’re actually asserting only those areas outside the realm of science are important &/or meaningful?

Here... Smoke this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUQoSaBGRGU

Ayn Marx wrote on Oct 15^th, 2021 at 7:10pm:

Frank wrote on Oct 15th, 2021 at 1:55pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 23rd, 2021 at 10:18am: Frank wrote on Feb 21st, 2021 at 5:57pm: Science has no ethical, esthetic, interpersonal answers. Science isnt a TOTAL explanation, it is a method of asking questions and testing answers to those questions. But not every question is a scientific one. Most of the ones we live by aren't. This doesnt diminish science, it limits it. Frank, I'm waiting to hear the questions you claim that science doesn't have the ability to answer Any question about meaning.  Any question about purpose (which is ultimately about meaning). Any question about ethics and esthetics (meaning, purpose, value). All the important, meaningful stuff of life.  Science is very valuable but its limits need to be recognised. Putting aside for now the contentious issue of ‘meaning’ let’s ask ourselves if Freud and Jung’s subjective investigations are now a suitable area for neuroscience to re-exmine or is this area still out of bounds to science? Or maybe you’re actually asserting only those areas outside the realm of science are important &/or meaningful?

Too much dope.

Revise and reformulate when you have slept it all off.

Frank wrote on Oct 15^th, 2021 at 8:12pm:

Too much dope. Revise and reformulate when you have slept it all off.

Ad hominem argumenta superfluum.

Ayn Marx wrote on Oct 15^th, 2021 at 7:10pm:

let’s ask ourselves if Freud and Jung’s subjective investigations are now a suitable area for neuroscience to re-exmine or is this area still out of bounds to science?

Ask away.

Frank wrote on Oct 15^th, 2021 at 1:55pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 23rd, 2021 at 10:18am: Frank wrote on Feb 21st, 2021 at 5:57pm: Science has no ethical, esthetic, interpersonal answers. Science isnt a TOTAL explanation, it is a method of asking questions and testing answers to those questions. But not every question is a scientific one. Most of the ones we live by aren't. This doesnt diminish science, it limits it. Frank, I'm waiting to hear the questions you claim that science doesn't have the ability to answer Any question about meaning.  Any question about purpose (which is ultimately about meaning). Any question about ethics and esthetics (meaning, purpose, value). All the important, meaningful stuff of life.  Science is very valuable but its limits need to be recognised.

So no actual questions, just vague motherhood statements

meaning and purpose: The only meaning and purpose is to ensure our genes are preserved into the next generation.there is no evidence of any other meaning or purpose (and there is no problem with that). Psychologists and neurologists could give you an accurate reason behind many peoples need to feel that there is meaning and a purpose.

ethics: an anthropologist could give an accurate reason why it was necessary for societies to develop ethics. Every tribe/civilisation needs a set of rules to live by.

esthetics: it's surprising how our tastes actually have roots in our evolutionary past. Why do you think the female nude features so prominently in historical artwork (done mostly by males).
Even in our cities we feel the need to enjoy pockets of nature in our parks and gardens.

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 17^th, 2021 at 12:55pm:

Frank wrote on Oct 15th, 2021 at 1:55pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 23rd, 2021 at 10:18am: Frank wrote on Feb 21st, 2021 at 5:57pm: Science has no ethical, esthetic, interpersonal answers. Science isnt a TOTAL explanation, it is a method of asking questions and testing answers to those questions. But not every question is a scientific one. Most of the ones we live by aren't. This doesnt diminish science, it limits it. Frank, I'm waiting to hear the questions you claim that science doesn't have the ability to answer Any question about meaning.  Any question about purpose (which is ultimately about meaning). Any question about ethics and esthetics (meaning, purpose, value). All the important, meaningful stuff of life.  Science is very valuable but its limits need to be recognised. So no actual questions, just vague motherhood statements meaning and purpose: The only meaning and purpose is to ensure our genes are preserved into the next generation.there is no evidence of any other meaning or purpose (and there is no problem with that). Psychologists and neurologists could give you an accurate reason behind many peoples need to feel that there is meaning and a purpose. ethics: an anthropologist could give an accurate reason why it was necessary for societies to develop ethics. Every tribe/civilisation needs a set of rules to live by. esthetics: it's surprising how our tastes actually have roots in our evolutionary past. Why do you think the female nude features so prominently in historical artwork (done mostly by males). Even in our cities we feel the need to enjoy pockets of nature in our parks and gardens.

What do you MEAN?

Say it scientifically.


Genetic preservation IS about meaning, not science. Presevation , purpose etc are about meaning, not science. The nude in art is ALL about meaning, not about science.

Don't  be ridiculous.

Its not whether there IS meaning or purpose. Its that some people need to believe in meaning and purpose, others do not. No one is going to achieve anything by trying to convince the other that they are wrong.
However, it must be remembered that when meaning and purpose where required beliefs in Western society, the believers persecuted the unbelievers. And I am not going to allow them to simply say something about Faith having moved on, without reminding them of their spiritual inheritance.

issuevoter wrote on Oct 17^th, 2021 at 10:13pm:

Its not whether there IS meaning or purpose. Its that some people need to believe in meaning and purpose, others do not. No one is going to achieve anything by trying to convince the other that they are wrong. However, it must be remembered that when meaning and purpose where required beliefs in Western society, the believers persecuted the unbelievers. And I am not going to allow them to simply say something about Faith having moved on, without reminding them of their spiritual inheritance.

So, all those millions upon millions of words dumped on internet forums are a waste of time ?
Oh well, some people are turned on by the sound of their own sermons.
Psalm 40 : V 9 ?

issuevoter wrote on Oct 17^th, 2021 at 10:13pm:

Its not whether there IS meaning or purpose. Its that some people need to believe in meaning and purpose, others do not. No one is going to achieve anything by trying to convince the other that they are wrong. However, it must be remembered that when meaning and purpose where required beliefs in Western society, the believers persecuted the unbelievers. And I am not going to allow them to simply say something about Faith having moved on, without reminding them of their spiritual inheritance.

You do not decide NOT to 'believe in meaning and purpose'. It's an absurdity since expressing no belief in meaning and purpose is itself a declaration of meaning and the speaker's purpose by saying it.
You cannot move your mind outside meaning and purpose without destroying it completely. Meaning and purpose are aspects of human consciousness, not optional extras.

This Topic was moved here from Atheism by freediver.