Does Science Piss Off God?

[mike777]

I only present the following for discussion.

 

Some of the posters seem to be saying:

1) Mathematics is the study of absolutely necessary truths.

2) Hilbert's tenth problem is to establish once and for all the certitude of mathematica methods' by finding a set of rules of inference sufficient for all valid proofs, and then proving those rules consistent by their own standards

3) Godel's incompleteness theorem is a  proof that Hilbert's tenth problem cannot be solved. For any set of rules of inference, there are valid proofs not designated as valid by those rules.

4) Godel tells us there will never be a fixed method of determining whether a mathematical proposition is true any more than there is a fixed way of determining whether a scientific theory is true.

5) Therefore progress in mathematics will always depend on the exercise of creativity.

 

 

Or to rephrase one would debate that proofs do not confer certainty upon their conclusions. The validity of a particular form or proof depends on the truth of our theories of the behavior of the objects with which we perform the proof.

 

Do incomprehensible mathematical entities, example Cantgotu environments, exist despite that they appear inextricable in our explanations of the comprehensible ones?

I don't believe that this is an accurate summation (In all seriousness, I don't think that you understand what you're talking about. For example, Item 2 seems to confuse a specific Hilbert problem with the entirety of the Hilbert Program)

 

This stuff is way beyond my math skills - I always steered very far away from symbolic logic - but I'm going to try to summarize Hilbert's 10th problem:

 

First of all, we need to define what's known as a Diophantine Equation:

 

A Diophantine equation is an equation that which has a set of integer's as roots. For example, the equation ax + by = 1 is a Diophantine equation.

 

Hilbert's 10th problem was to identify a universal algorithm that can be used to test whether or not any equation is a Diophantine equation.

 

Roughly 40 years ago a proof was completed that demonstrated that such an algorithm does not exist.

 

From what I can tell, this proof does not rely on Godel's Incompleteness theorem. The proof makes use of a halting problem - there is a bunch of discussion about recursively enumerated sets and the fact that all Diophantine equations are recursively enumerated sets - however, I don't believe that this is in any way equivalent to the Incompleteness Theorem.

 

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem does apply to what is known as Hilbert's program. (which is distinct from any one individual Hilbert problem). Here's how the Wikipedia summarizes Hilbert's program:

 

The main goal of Hilbert's program was to provide secure foundations for all mathematics. In particular this should include:

 

    * A formalization of all mathematics; in other words all mathematical statements should be written in a precise formal language, and manipulated according to well defined rules.

    * Completeness: a proof that all true mathematical statements can be proved in the formalism.

    * Consistency: a proof that no contradiction can be obtained in the formalism of mathematics. This consistency proof should preferably use only "finitistic" reasoning about finite mathematical objects.

    * Conservation: a proof that any result about "real objects" obtained using reasoning about "ideal objects" (such as uncountable sets) can be proved without using ideal objects.

    * Decidability: there should be an algorithm for deciding the truth or falsity of any mathematical statement.

 

Godel's second incompleteness theorem demonstrates that the Hilbert program can not be achieved. However, it doesn't necessarily mean that any one individual Hilbert problem can not be successfully solved. Indeed, several of Hilbert's problems have been successfully resolved.

 

In a similar vein, Turing proved "that that a general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist." This doesn't mean that it is impossible to solve the halting problem for a specific program-input pair.

1) Yes I am a referring to the tenth problem. I am paraphrasing so I make no claims of exact math. B) IT was to find a set of rules of inference with certain properties and by their own standards, to prove them consistent.

1b) Godel proved there is no hope that any set of rules of inference that is capable of validating even the proofs of ordinary arithmetic could never validate the proofs of its own consistency. There is a further second part to this that there must exist valid methods of proof that those rules fail to designate as valid. This all has to do with inference.

1c) IT will be necessary for smart math people to invent new types of proof to expand new mathematical knowldege ..in other words use creativity.

2) Yes the halting problem is germane, very, to the discussion as is Cantor's diagonal argument.

3) The math is way past me, I just approach this from a layman's viewpoint to further the discussion.

[mike777]

Another area of possible discussion is are the relativist and constructivist conceptions of truth and knowledge, which is basic orthodoxy in vast areas of the academic world, fundamentally flawed?

 

See such books as Understanding Scientific Reasoning by Ronald Giere or Theory and Evidence by Clark Glymour.

[Codo]

2. What are christian ethics? From my point of view it is something like the Don´t do until others .., the ten requirements and that you should marry just one partner, not more at the same time. Surely there is more in it, but these are more or less the bottom lines.

 

Would you say that the western world is not more or less build on these basics? I would be quite surprised.

You don't seem to be understanding the difference between

 

"Treat others as you would like to be treated."

 

and

 

"Treat others as you would like to be treated because it is a part of Christian ethics."

 

As for the shock at your statement, the entire point is religion should have nothing to do with those decisions. As above, it is ok to say

 

"Killing stem cells should be illegal because I believe that is equivalent to killing a person."

 

if that's what you believe. But IMO it's ridiculous to say

 

"Killing stem cells should be illegal because I believe it violates Christian ethics."

 

BTW, in your post right before this you say

 

Of course we believe that "our" way is the right way. But we respect other ways too.

Which totally contradicts your belief that public policy decisions and political decisions should be based upon the ethics of 'your way'.

The discussion drifted into another direction, but I could not resist to return to this point:

 

I would nver claim (at least not intentionally) that etical descissions must be based on a christian view. I tried to say that they are based on this ethics, if we want to or not. And this is no matter of right or wrong ethics, it is a matter of historical development.

 

I tried to say that we all in the western world are very much influenced from christian ethics, no matter what we believe. In Western Europe the Christian Church had an unbelievable influence for more then 1000 years. They influenced the ethics and the thinking of your grandparents, their grandparents and so on. This is not a matter of right or wrong ethics, it is just a matter of influencing people thhrough 1000 years of indoctrination.

And when people with this background went to America some 300 years ago, they established the same way of thinking there.

 

I did not want to say in this context: Do this or that because in the sense of christian ethic it is right.

I wanted to say: We do this or that, but all our ethical descissions are based on our history. This history influences our descissions today. And this history is very much christian.

 

My apologisze for not being able to make this point clear at the beginning.

[Codo]

Also, you seem to impose on fellow Christians your own views on what true Christianity is. I would suppose GW is as Christian as you are, "Christian" simply being defined by self-identification. Now it is possible that GW knows about as much about theology as he knows about geography but then again, I suppose stupid people are entitled to their self-identification.

I find it hard to define what a real christian is. Maybe your idea of self-identification is correct. But I doubt that.

If I should try to find a definition it would be something like: Believe in God, try to follow the ten requirements, be honest, take people serious and try to do the right thing.

 

Without being able to define, I would still refuse to call GW a christian, but it is surely possible that I am in a very small minority in my views. And in my real world, there are many people who label themselves as christians but their life does not look like a christian life to me, so maybe my definition is wrong, but who knows...

[mike777]

It is interesting to see the debate that if knowledge is socially constructed either as truth or as justification or the common sense view is that there is a way the world is that is independent of human opinion and we are capable of arriving at beliefs about how it is that are objectively reasonable.

 

See Boghossian, Fear of Knowledge

Scientific Reasoning, Giese

Theory and Evidence, Glymour.

[han]

Another area of possible discussion is are the relativist and constructivist conceptions of truth and knowledge, which is basic orthodoxy in vast areas of the academic world, fundamentally flawed?

What do you want Mike? Are you interested in discussion? Or do you want to write down strings of fancy sounding words that seem like sentences?

 

If you want to rephrase your original question again, please do, but if you want an on-topic response from me you'll have to make it easier:

 

1. Use at most one difficult word per sentence. Keep in mind that I am a foreigner with very limited English understanding.

 

2. Write precisely and preferably in correct English. As a mathematician I am too sensitive and reading your writing hurts me.

 

3. Don't use terms you don't understand.

[Gerben42]

I did not want to say in this context: Do this or that because in the sense of christian ethic it is right.

I wanted to say: We do this or that, but all our ethical descissions are based on our history. This history influences our descissions today. And this history is very much christian.

 

One would hope that knowing history we would make more sensible ethical decision than those made in the past.

 

As a simple example I think that anyone who is against gay marriage cannot call himself a Christian as this violates the prime directive "do not onto others what you do not want others to do onto you". If you love someone you want to marry this person, you want others to allow you to. So you have to allow others to do so too.

[kenberg]

I did not want to say in this context: Do this or that because in the sense of christian ethic it is right.

I wanted to say: We do this or that, but all our ethical descissions are based on our history. This history influences our descissions today. And this history is very much christian.

 

One would hope that knowing history we would make more sensible ethical decision than those made in the past.

 

As a simple example I think that anyone who is against gay marriage cannot call himself a Christian as this violates the prime directive "do not onto others what you do not want others to do onto you". If you love someone you want to marry this person, you want others to allow you to. So you have to allow others to do so too.

I think of it this way: If God didn't include "Thou shalt not tell other people how to live their private lives" as one of the Ten Commandments it's only because He thought it was too obvious to need saying.

[luke warm]

I think of it this way: ~~

and i think of it this way... for all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory, and the wages of sin is death, but even so God has given us the gift of life through Jesus Christ, his son

[Al_U_Card]

Science = to know, so how could God be pissed off at us for "knowing" unless....its that apple from the tree thingie again.....I guess banishment from paradise could be considered an act of a pissed-off God.

 

So, based on past history, the answer must be yes because who "knows" what God is thinking? We only "know" what He is doing or has wrought. :P

[han]

It is interesting to see the debate that if knowledge is socially constructed either as truth or as justification or the common sense view is that there is a way the world is  that is independent of human opinion and we are capable of arriving at beliefs about how it is that are objectively reasonable.

 

Does this sentence start at the beginning and end at the end or does it require a less traditional way of reading?

[matmat]

Does this sentence start at the beginning and end at the end or does it require a less traditional way or reading?

is is is? or is is was? or is is will be?

can is be? does everything that is need a beginning and end? can an end be before a beginning, does a beginning need an end?

[doldridg]

So, is Scientific Creationism falsifiable?  Does it predict, in an experimentable way, something?

 

Without those two properties, it may be decent belief, *it may even be right* - but it's not Science (it also has to explain all the data to be current Science, but it does).

 

The answer to all of the "why can't we just" questions is that in order for it to be Science, it must meet those three criteria.  If it doesn't, then it isn't Science and should no more be taught in Science classes as Spanish (which is probably a good thing for certain people to learn, but it's not Science - and I wouldn't want people trying to teach me Science in Spanish class, either).  I make an exception for using it to make the exact argument I'm making here - that it is an explanation, but since it can't be tested, falsified, or used for prediction, it doesn't meet the criteria for Science.  That doesn't mean it's *wrong*, necessarily.

This is a strong point. Creationism theory cannot be a science.

 

"For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:

-consistent (internally and externally)

-parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)

-useful (describing and explaining observed phenomena)

-empirically testable and falsifiable

-based upon controlled, repeatable experiments

-correctable and dynamic (changing to fit with newly discovered data)

-progressive (achieving all that previous theories have and more)

-tentative (admitting that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)", but:

 

a)Creation science is not falsifiable : Theism is not falsifiable, since the existence of God is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. If God is a transcendental being, beyond the realm of the observable, no claim about his existence can be supported or undermined by observation.

 

b)Creation science violates the principle of parsimony : Creationism fails to pass Occam's razor. Many explanations offered by creation science are more complex than alternative explanations.

 

c) Creation science is not empirically testable : Creationism posits the supernatural which by definition is beyond empirical natural testing, and thus conflicts with the practical use of methodological naturalism inherent in science.

 

d)Creation science is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments : That creationism is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments stems not from the theory itself, but from the phenomena that it tries to explain.

 

e)Creation science is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive : Creationism professes to adhere to an "absolute Truth", "the word of God", instead of a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. "

 

On the other half, evolution theory it's a science and it's rational. It helps its main purposes.It put things in order, from small to big, from simple to complex, everyone has his branch in the evolutionary tree. It also tries to explain how did it happen. It's logical and apprehensible. But it has some flaws:

 

"a) There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

b ) The fossil recors shows the species do not evolve but exist for million of years without changing

c)natural selection cannot change on species into another because it can work only on variation already present in the species.

d)The odds against random chance for producing a complex organism from lifeless ingredients are astronomical

e) life contains structures and systems too complex to have evolved gradually, step by step.

f) Evolution violates the second law of thermodinamics

g)The rock strata finds are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution"

 

So my point of view is that evolution theory should not be used as an atheic theory. Humans, in all their history, were searching for the ultimate answers for the essential questions like our origin, and i think we are still far from that. Everyone has his choice that satisfies his way of understanding the universe, no matter if one's choice is Darwin's theory, or a catastrophic theory, or an external interference or an omnipotent creator

You reiterated here certain false claims that are popular with creationist apologists.

 

1. You state there are no transitional fossils. This is false. Very false, in fact, since every fossil not at the end of an extinct lineage is, in some sense, transitional. What is missing in the fossil record is a lot of rich, gradual transitions between species.

Above the species level it is difficult to find a non-transitional fossil.

 

2. You say the fosssil record does not show that species evolve, yet the hominin record is replete with a set of our very own ancestors and several extinct collateral branches.

 

3. You claim that species are immutable, yet experimental evidence shows that new genetic information arises in every generation. Dobzhansky bred two incipient species of drosophila from a single monoclonal pair--in just 20 generations!. We have protocols for producing new genera in flowering plants.

 

4. You claim that the odds against are astronomical. We don't actually have any way of knowing this--yet. The odds against nature producing any particular organism as a random synthesis are huge indeed. But what are the odds against the random synthesis, on an entire planet, of a single, successful 200-atom replicator?

 

5. The mandelbrodt set and its cognates demonstrate that infinite complexity can result from simple iterative processes.

 

6. You claim evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This is also false. Entropy is additive, If the evolution of man from microbe entails a negative entropy change, then it follows that at least one, single, necessary event in that evolution must entail a negative entropy change. When I make this point to creationist apologists they either change the subject or attempt a grand handwave. What they have never done is produce the required evidence. I conclude, therefore, that this argument, when repeated by anyone claiming scientific credentials is a deliberate lie intended to deceive people lacking the scientific education to see what is wrong with it,

 

7. The fossil record is most emphatically not sorted in anything resembling hydraulic order. On the contrary, it is very obviously sorted in phylogenetic order. This, when told by an apologist claiming expertise in geology or paleontology also qualifies as a deliberate lie.

 

The real solution to this conflict is for the churches that care about truth to stop giving pulpit space to the deceivers and for honest Christians to abandon churches that support a false witness as part of their requirement for communion.

[Winstonm]

There are some unsettling aspects of "The Christian Right" and untoward influence.

 

Examples:

 

Tuesday 18 September 2007

 

    A military watchdog organization filed a lawsuit in federal court Tuesday against the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and a US Army major, on behalf of an Army soldier stationed in Iraq. The suit charges the Pentagon with widespread constitutional violations by allegedly trying to force the soldier to embrace evangelical Christianity and then retaliating against him when he refused

 

 

A religious freedom foundation that has sued the military alleging widespread violations of religious freedom said Tuesday that it has evidence showing that soldiers are pressured to adopt fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

 

When Albuquerque attorney and businessman Mikey Weinstein stopped in to see his son Curtis at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs in late July of 2004, he could tell something was wrong. Normally upbeat and exuberant, the 20-year-old seemed downcast and troubled.

 

Mikey Weinstein, who served more than three years as an attorney/advisor in the White House during the presidency of Ronald W. Reagan, started his own investigation. After talking to more than 100 people, he uncovered an atmosphere at the Academy saturated with evangelical Christianity. Chaplains and other top military leaders at the institution, he said, exhorted cadets to bring their peers to faith in Jesus. Cadets who embraced evangelical beliefs received preferential treatment, and cadets of other faiths or none found that their perspectives were not respected.

 

 

Monday October 8, 2007 - The Defense Department (DOD) allegedly provided two fundamentalist Christian organizations exclusive access to several military bases around the country. This access became official sanction for these groups to proselytize amid the ranks, despite the fact that such activities were in violation of federal law.

 

 

Sorry, but it is too dangerous to have this type thinking pervade the greatest instrument of warfare known in history - the U.S. military cannot be allowed to become the war machine of this religious fundamentalist right wing.

 

This has to be stopped dead in its tracks before it takes roots.

[blackshoe]

If that stuff is true, it's a serious problem that needs to be stopped now. Also, if it's true, the military has changed drastically since I retired 14 years ago.

[Winstonm]

Here is more on this subject: http://militaryreligiousfreedom.org/press-..._notsofast.html

[Al_U_Card]

The pernicious influence of the evangelical bible-thumpers is especially dangerous because it instills them with a "divine right" to espouse and support others who "profess" to their ideals and creeds. The neocons and PTB use these "soldiers of Christ" in the same way that the crusaders were used etc. There is no difference in their fanaticism than that of the radical Islamists or Catholic/Protestants in Belfast or any other zealot group.

 

The absolutely corrupt power-brokers use these faith-blinded zombies to do their bidding without question and without hesitation, for they are doing "God's work". That is a god to which I will never yield to nor accept.

[kenberg]

They tell me that during the First World War the soldiers took a break at Christmas to sing carols to the other side. A fine idea.

 

Merry Christmas and/or Happy Holidays to all.

 

Ken

[barmar]

They tell me that during the First World War the soldiers took a break at Christmas to sing carols to the other side. A fine idea.

 

Merry Christmas and/or Happy Holidays to all.

 

Ken

This seems to be true:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce

http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/truce.asp

 

They took a one day break from violating one of the 10 Commandments. What a "Christian" thing to do.

 

Maybe if religion were more often used as a reason to avoid war in the first place. Sadly, iit's often precisely the opposite -- many wars have been instigated over religious conflicts.

[Winstonm]

It seems The Flying Spaghetti Monster has invaded Florida, as well, and saved the children there from another fundamentalist board of education.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/.../268/826/426324

 

This quote make me shake my head:

 

And board member Fields, who started the controversy, tried to blame - big surprise here - the media! Fields told the Tribune, via e-mail, that she didn't realize there would be a story "on the front page of the Ledger indicating that I opposed evolution."  Yes, it's definitely the Ledger's fault for letting the public know what a publicly elected school official told the newspaper, on record, about a public education issue.

 

"All who do evil hate the light and will not come to the light, because it will show all the evil things they do."

 

Damn Newspapers!

[blackshoe]

They took a one day break from violating one of the 10 Commandments. What a "Christian" thing to do.

Heh. I think your understanding of that commandment is flawed. Killing in the course of war is not, generally speaking, murder. B)

[Winstonm]

They took a one day break from violating one of the 10 Commandments.  What a "Christian" thing to do.

Heh. I think your understanding of that commandment is flawed. Killing in the course of war is not, generally speaking, murder. B)

The Ten Commandents were changed? THOU SHALT NOT MURDER?

 

I didn't see that....was there a vote?

[luke warm]

They took a one day break from violating one of the 10 Commandments.  What a "Christian" thing to do.

Heh. I think your understanding of that commandment is flawed. Killing in the course of war is not, generally speaking, murder. B)

The Ten Commandents were changed? THOU SHALT NOT MURDER?

 

I didn't see that....was there a vote?

nope, no vote... as you know, winston, some people read one thing and see another

[Winstonm]

nope, no vote... as you know, winston, some people read one thing and see another

 

This is all getting a bit confusing, but let me see if I can sort it out. Killing is not necessarily murder; as long as it's not murder, it's O.K; that should be a relief to all the drunk drivers of the world, charged with manslaughter instead of murder. However, I'm still confused on this "war" issue. Korea and Vietnam were undeclared wars - does that mean the killings there were undeclared murder?

And what about police officer who kills in the line of duty - that's not a war, either, so are they guilty of warless murder?

 

Who knew there were so many loopholes in The Ten Commandments - guess that's to expected when the guy who brought them down from the mountain is a past president of the NRA.

[hrothgar]

They took a one day break from violating one of the 10 Commandments.  What a "Christian" thing to do.

Heh. I think your understanding of that commandment is flawed. Killing in the course of war is not, generally speaking, murder. B)

The Ten Commandents were changed? THOU SHALT NOT MURDER?

 

I didn't see that....was there a vote?

There wasn't any "vote"

 

The Christianists needed some way to reconcile the Sixth Commandment with

 

1. The old Testament which is chock full of righteous wrath

2. Their own pet theories about "just war", killing abortion providers, the death penalty, and "collateral damage".

 

So, they divided killing into "good killing" (the kind "god" likes) and bad killing.