Religion II

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

You could always do some research. I am not paid to be your history teacher.

You brought it up. I mistakenly thought you actually had something in mind.

Are you qualified to teach history? I mean do you have a degree, certificate, etc?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Nietzsche did not have syphilis.

How do you know that?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Isn't the higgs boson called the "god Particle?

A description which Higgs himself disliked.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

I disagree with the idea that the so-called "anthropic coincidences" are at all remarkable. That's putting the cart before the horse. Live in its most basic form is nothing more than something that can reproduce itself. Viruses qualify. Natural selection drives life to adapt to what is available.

Dawkins points out that if one of the anthropic constants had been too small then the only element possible would be hydrogen. Had it been too large only elements heavier than hydrogen would be possible. In either case Dawkins thinks the chemistry would not be interesting. That does not matter. Life could very well arise in a universe of pure energy with no matter, or at the other extreme, a universe without photons. Life could arise inside a proton or entire galaxies could be mere molecules in a larger universe.

Bottom line: the universe is not designed to support life. Life evolved to fit the universe. End of story.

The anthropic principle (calling it a principle is giving someone too much credit) in no way calls for a any "prime mover" to be a who. If there is/was a prime mover it could very well be a boson.

You're aware that your disagreement with the term "remarkable" is with Carr and Rees in the Rational Wiki link, whom you otherwise utilized to take down anthropic coincidences? In any case, you have ventured into philosophy, else the interpretation of the science by two astrophysicists would not differ from yours.

As for anthropic constants, Stephen M. Barr points it out, too, in much more detail. If the constants had been stronger, it would have been too easy for hydrogen nuclei to fuse together, equals a burning in the stars too fast. The stars would burn out in millions of years or less, rather than the billions of years needed for the evolution of complex life. I'll go with the theoretical particle physicist, who also was one of the contributors to the paper on the Higgs particle...

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9707380v2.pdf

...over the biologist.

Anthropic coincidences would not be my choice to get to "who" as First Cause. That was Boxcar. And again, the theoretical particle physicist, Stephen Barr, suggests;

"In the final analysis one cannot escape from two very basic facts: the laws of nature did not have to be as they are; and the laws of nature had to be very special in form if life were to be possible. In my view these facts lend themselves most naturally to a religious interpretation. Certainly, they tend to undercut the claim so often confidently made by materialists that the discoveries of science point to a universe without meaning or purpose, in which man is an accidental by'product.'

You no doubt will assign to him a priori theological assumptions. For his part, he has distinguished between science and the philosophy of scientific materialism in the past.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

A description which Higgs himself disliked.

Stephen Barr again:

"Why do journalists — not physicists — call the Higgs particle 'the God particle'? It is because Leon Lederman, a Nobel-prize winning physicist, wrote a book in which he wanted to call the Higgs particle the 'god-damn particle,' because it was so hard to find. Apparently his publishers thought 'God particle' would sell better. So, thanks to the idiocy of publishers, we have to suffer one of the most inane pieces of media hype in history. Does the Higgs have anything to do with how the universe began? No. Is it the holy grail of physics? No. But its discovery is, for those of us interested in particle physics, something to celebrate."

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

You brought it up. I mistakenly thought you actually had something in mind.

Are you qualified to teach history? I mean do you have a degree, certificate, etc?

Yes.

I have a few degrees, including post-graduate, but I don't like to brag. How about yourself?

[dnlgfnk]

Richard Dawkins, commenting on his A Devil's Chaplain, regarding a world without religion:

"“paradise on earth… a world ruled by enlightened rationality… a much better chance of no more war… less hatred… less waste of time.”

Nietzsche (The Gay Science)...

“shadows… must soon envelop Europe,” that a “sequence of breakdown, destruction, ruin, and cataclysm… is now impending,” indeed a “monstrous logic of terror… an eclipse of the sun whose like has probably never yet occurred on earth” (p. 279).

And the protagonist of Nietzsche’s "parable of the madman":

“Whither is God? … I will tell you. We have killed him -- you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? … God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

“How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us?...”

Gimme the old-time atheism.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Yes.

I have a few degrees, including post-graduate, but I don't like to brag. How about yourself?

Yes.

I have a few degrees, including post-graduate, but I don't like to brag.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

You're aware that your disagreement with the term "remarkable" is with Carr and Rees in the Rational Wiki link, whom you otherwise utilized to take down anthropic coincidences? In any case, you have ventured into philosophy, else the interpretation of the science by two astrophysicists would not differ from yours.

The two astrophysicists have also ventured into philosophy. I put it to you that the entire Anthropic Principle is philosophy, not science. If all these "coincidences" had been discovered by an intelligent species that did not have the religious gene it's very unlikely that they would have come up with the God Hypothesis as an explanation. They would probably have noted them as interesting and moved on.

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

"In the final analysis one cannot escape from two very basic facts: the laws of nature did not have to be as they are; ...

That's an opinion, not a fact. Observations of the Hubble Deep Field indicate that the laws of the universe have been constant since the big bang. There is presently no evidence that they could once have been something else.

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

... and the laws of nature had to be very special in form if life were to be possible.

Also an opinion, not a fact. If you are hung up on the idea that life has to consist of double helix hydrocarbon molecules, then that's also an opinion, not a fact. Life could very well take other forms.

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

In my view these facts lend themselves most naturally to a religious interpretation.

Of course these opinions lend themselves to a religious interpretation, particularly if you are predisposed to religious thinking. What else is new?

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Certainly, they tend to undercut the claim so often confidently made by materialists that the discoveries of science point to a universe without meaning or purpose, in which man is an accidental by'product.'

You no doubt will assign to him a priori theological assumptions. For his part, he has distinguished between science and the philosophy of scientific materialism in the past.

What this all comes down to is that not all scientists are atheists. No one is disputing that. Even among the top scientists (Nobel Prize material) around 5% are religious. That being the case it's not particularly hard to come up with a religious scientist of whatever field you desire.

Even if I were to grant that (1)the universe had a beginning, (2)this beginning had a cause, (3)this cause was a deity, it still does not follow that (A)said deity was the Christian god, nor (B)any other deity worshiped by humans, nor (C)that said deity intervenes in human affairs, nor (D)that said deity intervenes in the affairs of any of billions of sapient species on billions of other planets throughout the universe.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

You're aware that your disagreement with the term "remarkable" is with Carr and Rees in the Rational Wiki link, whom you otherwise utilized to take down anthropic coincidences? In any case, you have ventured into philosophy, else the interpretation of the science by two astrophysicists would not differ from yours.

Religion is missing the mark whenever it tries to "logically" employ forced explanations for the "suchness" or Tathātā of things. Confusing ones own bias for that of "god's truth" is always present The antropic principle is an example of 20-20 hindsight and back-fitting theory as theology.

Texas sharpshooter fallacy

...The fallacy's name comes from a parable in which a Texan fires his gun at the side of a barn, paints a bullseye around the bullet hole, and claims to be a sharpshooter. Though the shot may have been totally random, he makes it appear as though he has performed a highly non-random act. In normal target practice, the bullseye defines a region of significance, and there's a low probability of hitting it by firing in a random direction. However, when the region of significance is determined after the event has occurred, any outcome at all can be made to appear spectacularly improbable.

I am also reminded of Voltaire's Candide and his satirical "best of all possible worlds.

in many teachings such as Zen we are warned about stretching the intellect to backbit the"suchness" or Tathātā of things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tath%C4%81t%C4%81

Remembering the human incapacity to know god is also Judaism contribution to western religion

Instead of painting a picture of outside us using so called philosophical principles, study of self can be much more useful and direct.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

The correct notation is 1.0E22.

Why are you attributing comments to me that I didn't make? Are you senile?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Is Ross saying that constants are different on different planets?

I guess so, since we haven't discovered life on other planets. And trust me on this: No one ever will!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Religion is missing the mark whenever it tries to "logically" employ forced explanations for the "suchness" or Tathātā of things. Confusing ones own bias for that of "god's truth" is always present The antropic principle is an example of 20-20 hindsight and back-fitting theory as theology.

Texas sharpshooter fallacy

...The fallacy's name comes from a parable in which a Texan fires his gun at the side of a barn, paints a bullseye around the bullet hole, and claims to be a sharpshooter. Though the shot may have been totally random, he makes it appear as though he has performed a highly non-random act. In normal target practice, the bullseye defines a region of significance, and there's a low probability of hitting it by firing in a random direction. However, when the region of significance is determined after the event has occurred, any outcome at all can be made to appear spectacularly improbable.

I am also reminded of Voltaire's Candide and his satirical "best of all possible worlds.

in many teachings such as Zen we are warned about stretching the intellect to backbit the"suchness" or Tathātā of things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tath%C4%81t%C4%81

Remembering the human incapacity to know god is also Judaism contribution to western religion

Instead of painting a picture of outside us using so called philosophical principles, study of self can be much more useful and direct.

Hey, Wild West Dude, it's not back fitting to make factual, scientific observations and to make logical inferences from those observations.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Hey, Wild West Dude, it's not back fitting to make factual, scientific observations and to make logical inferences from those observations.

You are doing the same thing as you did bragging about your Ray Talbot system. And just like the Anthropic principle you only picked the correct solution after the race was run. Never before.

For your info science does much better predicting future events than any religious selector of anything has done, and that includes you and your really lunatic theories about time and space, let alone craziness about "evil" genes responsible for original sin passed down from Adam and Eve.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

"In the final analysis one cannot escape from two very basic facts: the laws of nature did not have to be as they are; and the laws of nature had to be very special in form if life were to be possible. In my view these facts lend themselves most naturally to a religious interpretation.

Well said food for thought.