Children should wear bicycle helmets.

David Hansen

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:45:33 +0000 someone who may be Peter Clinch
<p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote this:-

>Though you accuse people here of having a "religion", it's
>your actions that have all the hallmarks. Rather than shout "heresy"
>when someone disagrees with you, you shout "troll", and you try and
>"prove" your point by just reciting the same mantra from your prophets
>without ever questioning them.

You need to understand religion rather better before making such
sweeping statements. What you describe is not religion, but the
actions of zealots. Cults and suicide bombers are not representative
of religion in general. If you think religion does not involve
questioning things then you have a lot to learn.

I could add that science is another religion, though its adherents
usually fail to see that. There are at least as great a proportion
of zealots in this religion as there are in the more well known
religions.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

JLB

David Hansen wrote:

> You need to understand religion rather better before making such
> sweeping statements. What you describe is not religion, but the
> actions of zealots. Cults and suicide bombers are not representative
> of religion in general. If you think religion does not involve
> questioning things then you have a lot to learn.
>
> I could add that science is another religion, though its adherents
> usually fail to see that. There are at least as great a proportion
> of zealots in this religion as there are in the more well known
> religions.

You could add that, and it seems you have done so, but it would not make
it correct. There is a fundamental qualitiative distinction between
science and religion. I'd have to agree that its easy to find people who
talk in favour of science by using quasi-religious arguments. They say
they support science, but it is apparent they do not understand it. That
is unfortunate. But there is a vast difference between belief based on
faith and authority, and seeking to improve one's understanding of the
world through empirical tests of theories about the world.

Note that an empirical test does not prove that a theory is true. It
either shows it is false or shows that it satisfies that test. Any
scientific theory is available to be thrown down at any time by any
scientist who can find a test that does that. Religions do not even come
close to admitting such a challenge to any of their fundamental tenets
[1], most of which are beyond being tested anyway.

This is why so many regulars on this group get nowhere with the
pro-helmet people. The arguments that helmets don't work are based on
scientific principles, of taking empirical evidence and using it to test
the theory that helmets a good thing for the health and safety of
cyclists. The pro-helmet arguments are full of faith ("I know helmets
work, it's obvious") and a consistent refusal to engage with and analyse
the empirical facts.

[1] At least, that is my theory; feel free to falsify it with a
counter-example.
--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Peter Clinch

David Hansen wrote:

> You need to understand religion rather better before making such
> sweeping statements. What you describe is not religion, but the
> actions of zealots. Cults and suicide bombers are not representative
> of religion in general. If you think religion does not involve
> questioning things then you have a lot to learn.

A fair comment up to a point, but only up to a point. Religion does
require a degree of pure faith that is beyond question. I can't do
that, which is why I'm an agnostic (note that I am not an atheist, which
requires a level of certainty in belief itself).

> I could add that science is another religion, though its adherents
> usually fail to see that. There are at least as great a proportion
> of zealots in this religion as there are in the more well known
> religions.

But to fire your own point back at you, what you describe is not
science, but the actions of zealots, and not really representative of
science itself. Science is ultimately answering questions about the
physical nature of reality with reproducible observations. It should be
at least theoretically possible for anyone with the relevant grey matter
and access to apparatus to demonstrate any point of accepted science to
their own satisfaction if they are objective. The same is not true of
religion, which requires a leap of faith (literally and necessarily) to
accept the unprovable. Science deals with nature and provides a
mechanism to try and understand it, while religion deals with
supernatural and metaphysical issues. Science is not a religion to
anyone who understands what it is, as it cannot properly deal with
metaphysical issues.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

David Hansen

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 13:28:22 +0000 someone who may be JLB
<JLB@bigbad.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-

>there is a vast difference between belief based on
>faith and authority, and seeking to improve one's understanding of the
>world through empirical tests of theories about the world.

You make them sound mutually exclusive. However, the Roman Catholic
Church maintains a small staff improving understanding through
empirical tests of physical things. IIRC they do a lot of astronomy,
amongst other things.

>Note that an empirical test does not prove that a theory is true. It
>either shows it is false or shows that it satisfies that test. Any
>scientific theory is available to be thrown down at any time by any
>scientist who can find a test that does that. Religions do not even come
>close to admitting such a challenge to any of their fundamental tenets
>[1], most of which are beyond being tested anyway.

May I respectfully suggest that your knowledge of religion is not up
to date. To take Christianity as an example one can look at such
challenges being discussed by theologians 100 odd years ago, put
into books 50 odd years ago and still being discussed today. There
are of course religious people who crave the certainty of simple
ideas, but that does not mean all religious people crave that.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Colin Blackburn

David Hansen wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 13:28:22 +0000 someone who may be JLB
> <JLB@bigbad.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-
>
>
>>there is a vast difference between belief based on
>>faith and authority, and seeking to improve one's understanding of the
>>world through empirical tests of theories about the world.
>
>
> You make them sound mutually exclusive. However, the Roman Catholic
> Church maintains a small staff improving understanding through
> empirical tests of physical things. IIRC they do a lot of astronomy,
> amongst other things.

The Vatican Observatory, now based in Tucson, Arizona as well as Rome:

http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/VO.html

Colin

Peter Clinch

David Hansen wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 13:28:22 +0000 someone who may be JLB
> <JLB@bigbad.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-

>>there is a vast difference between belief based on
>>faith and authority, and seeking to improve one's understanding of the
>>world through empirical tests of theories about the world.

> You make them sound mutually exclusive.

I'd say he makes them sound different, which they are. They involve
different processes to achieve different things. Different does not
necessarily imply mutually exclusive, though metaphysics and the natural
world described by science are, at least with our current level of
understanding of totality, not measurable with the same tools.

> However, the Roman Catholic
> Church maintains a small staff improving understanding through
> empirical tests of physical things. IIRC they do a lot of astronomy,
> amongst other things.

It is good that a church is willing to reconcile scientific
understanding with its own view of the natural world, for example
admitting that the world isn't flat and that evolution takes place.
However, I don't think this is fundamental to either the religion that
does it (the Roman Catholic church is, quite rightly, rather more
concerned with the direct teachings of Jesus Christ rather than how
quantum mechanical theory reflects on God's design of creation) or to
science.
In other words, it helps evolve the universal view of that religion, but
does not affect the primary teachings. Hubble scientists aren't going
to discover something that renders Mass and Communion pointless, for
example, and Mass and Communion aren't going to tell us how stars are
formed.

> May I respectfully suggest that your knowledge of religion is not up
> to date. To take Christianity as an example one can look at such
> challenges being discussed by theologians 100 odd years ago, put
> into books 50 odd years ago and still being discussed today. There
> are of course religious people who crave the certainty of simple
> ideas, but that does not mean all religious people crave that.

But the Christian Church isn't going to say, "actually, we got it all
wrong and Christ wasn't the son of God as we'd thought, we suggest you
have a look at what the Buddhists say as we're not confident we're right
any more". There are fundamentals in religious belief that are beyond
simple evidence based questioning, and that is not true (or at least
should not be true) of science.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Simon Brooke

in message <cokgtn$9sa$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk>, JLB
('JLB@bigbad.demon.co.uk') wrote:

> David Hansen wrote:
>
>> You need to understand religion rather better before making such
>> sweeping statements. What you describe is not religion, but the
>> actions of zealots. Cults and suicide bombers are not representative
>> of religion in general. If you think religion does not involve
>> questioning things then you have a lot to learn.
>>
>> I could add that science is another religion, though its adherents
>> usually fail to see that. There are at least as great a proportion
>> of zealots in this religion as there are in the more well known
>> religions.
>
> You could add that, and it seems you have done so, but it would not
> make it correct. There is a fundamental qualitiative distinction
> between science and religion. I'd have to agree that its easy to find
> people who talk in favour of science by using quasi-religious
> arguments. They say they support science, but it is apparent they do
> not understand it. That is unfortunate. But there is a vast difference
> between belief based on faith and authority, and seeking to improve
> one's understanding of the world through empirical tests of theories
> about the world.

If you believe this you need to read more Feyerabend. The ideology of
Science is arguably not religious; the language in which scientists
describe their practice is arguably not religious; but what they
actually do as opposed to what they say they do has many of the
hallmarks of religion.

<URL:http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0860916464>

(In a past life I was author of the world's first strictly Popperian
inference engine, so I know a bit about these things. It's what happens
when you take philosophers and let them loose with a LISP Machine...)

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; making jokes about dyslexia isn't big, it isn't clever and
;; it isn't furry.

JLB

David Hansen wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 13:28:22 +0000 someone who may be JLB
> <JLB@bigbad.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-
>
>
>>there is a vast difference between belief based on
>>faith and authority, and seeking to improve one's understanding of the
>>world through empirical tests of theories about the world.
>
>
> You make them sound mutually exclusive. However, the Roman Catholic
> Church maintains a small staff improving understanding through
> empirical tests of physical things. IIRC they do a lot of astronomy,
> amongst other things.
>
That is absolutely not what I was doing. Why would you interpret
"different" as "mutually exclusive"?
>
>>Note that an empirical test does not prove that a theory is true. It
>>either shows it is false or shows that it satisfies that test. Any
>>scientific theory is available to be thrown down at any time by any
>>scientist who can find a test that does that. Religions do not even come
>>close to admitting such a challenge to any of their fundamental tenets
>>[1], most of which are beyond being tested anyway.
>
>
> May I respectfully suggest that your knowledge of religion is not up
> to date. To take Christianity as an example one can look at such
> challenges being discussed by theologians 100 odd years ago, put
> into books 50 odd years ago and still being discussed today. There
> are of course religious people who crave the certainty of simple
> ideas, but that does not mean all religious people crave that.

Neither did I say that.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

David Hansen

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 14:05:13 +0000 someone who may be Peter Clinch
<p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote this:-

>Religion does require a degree of pure faith that is beyond question.

Some religions do, some do not.

Anyway, parts of science require a degree of pure faith. The history
of the understanding of the basic building blocks of chemical
elements, which started off as chemistry and then moved to physics,
involved and involves steps of pure faith. Is Niels Bohr's model of
an atom true? Well, it is true up to a point. It all depends on how
deep one wants to delve and how much one is capable of
understanding. Will the quest come to some ultimate truth? It might
do, but the searchers have thought they were on the brink of some
ultimate knowledge many times before. Those who do not understand
and do not want to delve deeply can simply accept Niels Bohr's model
of an atom on faith. Some people can't even grasp that simple model.

It is much the same with religions. Many people are only capable of
dealing with a simple faith. I have no objection to this, provided
they do not try and ram it down other's throats. However, others are
able and willing to take things further. For example I wouldn't
advise anyone with a simple Christian faith to read any of the books
of Dietrich Bonhoeffer [1] (except for Letters and Papers from
Prison, where the letters were written for the censors), but these
books have had great influence. Those with a limited grasp of
Christianity would find some of his concepts difficult or
outrageous, such as perhaps the most famous "religionless
Christianity" [2].

>But to fire your own point back at you, what you describe is not
>science, but the actions of zealots, and not really representative of
>science itself.

I disagree. The zealots I was thinking of tend to be atheists who
try and go out of their way to mock religion. Many of these people
are senior scientists (science has a hierarchy too).

[1] http://www.dbonhoeffer.org/who-was-db2.htm is a fairly short
biography.

[2] for a glimpse of how much some Christians dislike his work try
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm...fer/general.htm
where he is described as an atheist.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 14:57:05 +0000 someone who may be Peter Clinch
<p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote this:-

>I'd say he makes them sound different, which they are.

While I have been tweaking the tail of the religious aspects of
science a little bit there is not as much clear blue water between
them as some people like to think. It is very cosy to sit in a
bunker and laugh at those in the other bunker, but not something
everyone finds comfortable.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 15:49:44 +0000 someone who may be Simon Brooke
<simon@jasmine.org.uk> wrote this:-

>> there is a vast difference
>> between belief based on faith and authority, and seeking to improve
>> one's understanding of the world through empirical tests of theories
>> about the world.
>
>If you believe this you need to read more Feyerabend. The ideology of
>Science is arguably not religious; the language in which scientists
>describe their practice is arguably not religious; but what they
>actually do as opposed to what they say they do has many of the
>hallmarks of religion.

I would add that the artistic critique of science has merits.
Expressing one's opinions in third person language does not mean
that the opinions are impersonal unvarnished truths.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Tony Raven

Simon Brooke wrote:

>
> It's what happens
> when you take philosophers and let them loose with a LISP Machine...)
>

You end up with philothophers don't you?

Tony ;-)

Peter Clinch

David Hansen wrote:

> While I have been tweaking the tail of the religious aspects of
> science a little bit there is not as much clear blue water between
> them as some people like to think. It is very cosy to sit in a
> bunker and laugh at those in the other bunker, but not something
> everyone finds comfortable.

But to my mind the bunkers aren't really dug into the same soil.
Science and Religion are (generally) dealing with fundametally
different things. The most famous journal of science is called
"nature", because it is physical nature that science seeks to
understand. Religion is about /super/nature, by definition
entirely outside of the place science operates. So I think that
one does not really relate to the other (at least beyond a human
level, in areas such as medical ethics), and they only become
exclusive to one another where eejits insist that Pi is 3 becuase
they're done some dopey inference from II Kings or the like, or
other eejits say that since nobody has scientifically proven God
exists, therefore he doesn't. Eejits aren't exclusive to either
camp, just generally ocurring in human populations.

So I think people in one laughing at the other are probably
mistakenly thinking they are trying to do the same thing, which
they aren't AFAICT.

> The zealots I was thinking of tend to be atheists who
> try and go out of their way to mock religion. Many of these people
> are senior scientists (science has a hierarchy too).

Idiots, to my thinking. Atheism requires a blind faith in
something that cannot be proven, so for atheists to mock religion
is to mock themselves. Many senior scientists have deep religous
conviction, so I do not believe that sciences hierarchy is in any
way connected to an attitude to religion.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Tony Raven

Peter Clinch wrote:
>
> But to my mind the bunkers aren't really dug into the same soil. Science
> and Religion are (generally) dealing with fundametally different
> things. The most famous journal of science is called "nature", because
> it is physical nature that science seeks to understand. Religion is
> about /super/nature, by definition entirely outside of the place science
> operates. So I think that one does not really relate to the other (at
> least beyond a human level, in areas such as medical ethics), and they
> only become exclusive to one another where eejits insist that Pi is 3
> becuase they're done some dopey inference from II Kings or the like, or
> other eejits say that since nobody has scientifically proven God exists,
> therefore he doesn't.

Religion is based on the belief that the Universe is governed by supreme
being(s). Science is based on the belief it is governed by mathematics.

Tony ;-)