The Problem with Religious Moderation

[Trinidad]

My experience has been that when people begin with "Kindly explain" they really are not remotely interested in an explanation. But for anyone who is, it goes something like this:

 

etc. etc.

Matthew 7:6

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

Matthew 7:6

 

But others can learn something when a post is so clear and well-written.

[mike777]

Gwnn, PassedOut, mikeh and Vampyr

 

Kindly explain to us in layman’s terms why you guys needed to create all these Axioms in the first place. Then you went further by creating Logical Axioms and Non-logical Axioms. Why was it necessary to create these two distinct groups?

 

How about telling us which of all your theories contain the Logical Axioms, and which contain the Non-Logical Axioms. What would really fascinate all of us is: Which of all these theories contain both.

 

Is Math created or simply discovered?. In other words is it the same as geography; it was always there just waiting for some brave soul to come along and see it?

 

Are Mathematicians better called explorers, our Indiana Jones?

 

Ken(Indi)Berg :)

[kenberg]

Is Math created or simply discovered?. In other words is it the same as geography; it was always there just waiting for some brave soul to come along and see it?

 

Are Mathematicians better called explorers, our Indiana Jones?

 

Ken(Indi)Berg :)

 

I think explorer's get babes. So yeah, explorers.

 

Slightly more seriously: Our language suggests exploration. We speak of discovering theorems and discovering proofs. To the best of my knowledge, this is not some gimmick suggest4ed by some PR type, it is how the language naturally evolved. We think of it as existing, waiting to be discovered. But I would not insist that this is in any deep sense the correct philosophical rule.

 

I recall an author (Marvin Greenberg), slipping into philosophical reflection, saying something like that the philosophical foundations of mathematics are in a shambles. He might have added that to a large extent, no one is much worried about this. Hockey players are probably not losing any sleep over the philosophical foundations of hockey.

[32519]

The Particle Everyone Said Was the Higgs Boson is likely to be the Higgs Boson Seems like you guys aren’t sure yourselves if the Higgs was found.

Here’s an extract:

I asked physicist Sean Carroll how they determine if it is or is not a Higgs, and he said the ways the particle decays – and the rates of those decays – could have indicated that it was something different. “This is one of those situations where it would be easy to know that it's *not* the Higgs, but very hard (impossible, in some sense) to know for sure that it *is* the Higgs,” he wrote in an email.

 

The Higgs boson is often called "the God particle" because it's said to be what caused the "Big Bang" that created our universe many years ago. The nickname caught on so quickly (even though scientists and clergy alike do not care for it) partly because it's a great explanation of what it's supposed to do -- the Higgs boson is what joins everything and gives it matter.

Seems like not one of you guys know who said the Higgs Boson caused the Big Bang. Can you answer this question from the article –

I’d like to know who said the Higgs Boson caused the big bang. Obviously not a physicist.

 

How about this one: Higgs Boson, the so-called ‘God Particle’ – What’s really as stake?

If the Higgs doesn't exist, it will also be, for some, a relief. A resounding 'No' from the data would be easier to swallow, after all, than another couple of decades of expensive and time-consuming research on something that would turn out to be wrong anyway. If the Higgs doesn't exist, it will be back to the drawing board on science that's dominated for decades, so you can expect to see a range of "Higgsless" models that may contain even more novel mechanisms.

 

CERN is under pressure to produce something tangible. So there is a lot of hype around the POSSIBLE existence of the Higgs Boson, CERN’s Expensive Science.

Proof of the Higgs boson would be perceived as one of the most important scientific discoveries for decades. Disproving its existence would be even more substantial, as this would lead to a tearing up of current scientific textbooks and a major rethink about the way the universe works.

This week’s announcement is an indication that the boson almost certainly does exist. But scientists, being scientists, are wary of giving iron clad guarantees without irrefutable evidence. That will have to wait for months or years, while CERN’s computers crunch through the data.

 

How about this? Cash Challenged CERN

[mike777]

"I recall an author (Marvin Greenberg), slipping into philosophical reflection, saying something like that the philosophical foundations of mathematics are in a shambles. He might have added that to a large extent, no one is much worried about this. Hockey players are probably not losing any sleep over the philosophical foundations of hockey."

 

 

I note he indeed did NOT add that.

 

I would be rather surprised if Math majors/profs do not think about this.

 

I would be rather surprised if math majors/profs do not think about the philosophical foundations of math.

 

If not you then who?

 

 

As a finance guy, trust me, the philosophical foundations of finance are under constant question/attack.

[mike777]

"The Particle Everyone Said Was the Higgs Boson is likely to be the Higgs Boson Seems like you guys arent sure yourselves if the Higgs was found...."

 

Ya you guys in Physics always seem to question, at times you even question/challenge "settled science"?

[gwnn]

Seems like not one of you guys know who said the Higgs Boson caused the Big Bang. Can you answer this question from the article –

I’d like to know who said the Higgs Boson caused the big bang. Obviously not a physicist.

No one in this thread. You may or may not have, I am not sure. You do post a lot of stuff, many of it clearly in a different language than ours.

[gwnn]

Yep, it is indeed impossible to prove that it is the Higgs boson. It is also impossible to prove that all objects with mass are attracted to Earth. It is only possible to increasingly make the alternative hypothesis (there are some objects with mass that are not attracted to Earth) more and more unlikely. I know you like Wikipedia, maybe you have a moment to click on this link? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value Science works by accepting as tentatively true whatever is sufficiently unlikely to be false. Religion works by accepting certain facts as absolute, unambiguous truths revealed to us by the creator of the universe, and then changing them/interpreting them differently according to circumstances (for example, the god of the Mormons changed his all-knowing, unchanging, absolutely good mind on polygamy just in time for Utah to join the United States). Well, anyway, listening to Hitchens is probably more pleasant than listening to me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_cNReWlXhw

[32519]

Can you guys still not see the flaw in the BBT? Here, let me help you.

 

The Higgs boson is often called "the God particle" because it's said to be what caused the "Big Bang" that created our universe many years ago. The nickname caught on so quickly (even though scientists and clergy alike do not care for it) partly because it's a great explanation of what it's supposed to do -- the Higgs boson is what joins everything and gives it matter.

 

If you still can’t see the flaw, try this. You guys needed to build (now already your fourth attempt) a massively expensive machine to collide two particles together at the speed of light or better. But you haven’t told us where the original two particles originated from. Nor have you told us the source of energy behind them enabling them to travel at these speeds. Nor have you told us the mathematical probability of these two particles colliding in the vastness of emptiness (or nothing). Nor have you told us how, from these two tiny particles, the universe and everything in it managed to evolve. We have growing food crises all across the world. Why not spend your time developing a new kind of yeast which we could mix into a batch of dough causing it to rise to the extent that these two particles of yours have done. One loaf can feed the entire human race into eternity.

 

All of you guys reject the existence of God, yet you needed him to create the Big Bang for you to get your theories in motion. Directly after the bang, you conveniently move God off-stage while you embark on a 50 year and more crusade to find the Higgs boson to substantiate endless meaningless calculations as to the age of the universe, the planets, etc.

 

Let me make a prediction:

As soon as you guys can say with absolute certainty that the Higgs boson has been found, you will embark on your next crusade, and that is to eliminate God entirely out of your vocabulary. Oh sorry, you are already going down that road with your Theory of Everything.

[Vampyr]

Ah, why didn't the LHC produce the black hole that was supposed to swallow the earth? In some ways this would have been preferable...

[gwnn]

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

[Zelandakh]

But you haven’t told us where the original two particles originated from.

This might be a difficult concept to graps but in physics space and time are inextricably linked. The origin of the universe is therefore a singularity in both space and time. Thus for many physicists the question of what came before is meaningless, since you first have to define what you mean by "before".

 

That said, in recent years there has been a move to produce theories exploring this concept. This is a difficult and still very young area of physics and I recommend researching around for the various competing theories (hint: brane theory will get you started). Or if that is too much effort for you at least watch the BBC Horizon episode from a few years back that outlines a few possibilties. None is yet even close to being accepted.

 

Believe it or not there are still many unanswered questions regarding the beginning of the universe. Much more troubling than the question of what came "before" is adequately explaining inflation. And going back to your Theory of Everything post, the issue of gravitation is still very much open. The problem with gravity is that it is just too weak, far weaker than any other force. You can explain this if you expland your thought process to 10 (or 11) dimensions, something that forms the basis for string theory. Again there is still much evidence lacking for this to be accepted.

 

In other words, I would suggest there is much more than 200 years of work left in science. The point is that the more we find out, the more questions we can ask. So one thing leads to the next. We can also prove that we cannot know everything, so it is expected that certain questions will never ne answered. My degree was in maths (so obviously I am well acquainted with axioms) but I love science and knowledge in general. I can only suggest that you try to open your mind to it and perhaps you can develop a similar passions.

[kenberg]

 

In other words, I would suggest there is much more than 200 years of work left in science. The point is that the more we find out, the more questions we can ask. So one thing leads to the next. We can also prove that we cannot know everything, so it is expected that certain questions will never ne answered. My degree was in maths (so obviously I am well acquainted with axioms) but I love science and knowledge in general. I can only suggest that you try to open your mind to it and perhaps you can develop a similar passions.

 

This is very well said, which perhaps just means that it matches the way I think. It's an offering, and it may reach some ears.

[Trinidad]

But others can learn something when a post is so clear and well-written.

Absolutely. The post is a pearl..

 

Rik

[32519]

You guys have continued your search for the Higgs boson for the past 50 years and counting, despite the obvious flaw in the BBT. Even more amazing is that after the dismal failure of the first three colliders you guys went and built a fourth one (soon to be upgraded at a further cost of $8 billion). During the past 50 years none of you guys have come up with new science fiction (sorry, theories) to displace the dogged search for the Higgs boson. I just couldn’t get my head around this so I started digging a bit deeper.

 

Here is a foretaste:

In 1964, three teams wrote scientific papers which proposed related but different approaches to explain how mass could arise in local gauge theories. These three papers are immortalised as 1964 PRL symmetry breaking papers. Peter Higgs was on one of these teams. His Higgs mechanism is essential to explain the generation mechanism of the property "mass". This is a most-important property of almost all elementary particles. In the Standard Model, quarks, hadrons, leptons and the three weak bosons gain mass through the Higgs mechanism by interacting with the Higgs field that permeates all space.

 

You better read what this says on the Mass Generation Mechanism as well, yet another unproven theory. Once you have read that you will understand why for the past 50 years and counting, these guys have been searching for this Higgs boson.

Quote:

“Physicists have proposed a number of models that advocate different views of the origin of mass. The problem is complicated because mass is strongly connected to gravitational interaction, and no theory of gravitational interaction reconciles with the currently popular Standard Model of particle physics.”

 

Here is a reminder of what was posted higher up in this thread:

If the Higgs doesn't exist, it will be back to the drawing board on science that's dominated for decades, so you can expect to see a range of "Higgsless" models that may contain even more novel mechanisms. Disproving its existence would be even more substantial, as this would lead to a tearing up of current scientific textbooks and a major rethink about the way the universe works.

 

How much of all this crap of yours is currently being taught in schools across the USA? You guys launched a protest campaign and managed to get any Bible teaching removed from the school curriculum. Then you took it a step further and managed to include all these unproven theories of yours into the school science textbooks about the origins of the universe, brainwashing unsuspecting children who are still too innocent to see through the pretense of all these unproven theories of yours being taught as science.

 

There has to be at least one member in these forums who is from the Bible belt in the south of the USA. Come and post here for us the following –

1. The name of the person/group of people who managed to put an end to any Bible teaching at your schools.

2. In what year did this take place?

3. The name of the person/group of people who managed to get all these unproven theories included in the school science textbooks.

4. In what year did they make their first appearance?

 

Now you guys from the Bible belt, start mobilizing your own counter protest action to get all these unproven theories removed from the school curriculum as well. At least the playing field should be even; if the one is forbidden, then so should the other. Higher up in this thread I have already posted that the flaw in the BBT is about to be rammed down the throats of all these physicists until they start gagging on it. Get your pastors and fellow believers to start launching the counter protest action.

[gwnn]

Do you really think Higgs bosons or string theory are taught in high schools? And Bible teaching or study is not banned, mandatory prayer is. You can study the Bible in any religious school, or in any public school as literature. Public schools should not favour one religion over another (although they do all the time).

[Zelandakh]

If you retsircted school teaching only to proven things then you would have short classes. Note that this criterium would also ban any religious teaching in school whatsoever.

 

No scientific theory is ever proven. You must always be willing to be open to new evidence that amends or completely alters the basis of understanding. A good example of that comes from our understanding of light. Back in the day it was thought that white light is pure, coming directly from God. Through experiment it could be shown that white light is actually made up of different colours. Later it could be shown that there was even more there that could not be seen and that these colours were formed from simpler blocks which behaved in different ways depending on how you observed them (photons or wave function). And so on. All the time our understanding of what is really going on increases.

 

The same is true of the origin of the universe. Once upon a time our best understanding was that it was created by a divine being (or in a giant clam, or various other ancient possibilities). Time and observation has shown that the universe can be traced back to an incredible small pocket of space and time that expanded. That in itself does not exclude the possibility of it being created by a divine being, nor does it imply the suggestion of anything before creation (see previous post) but it is useful to be able to improve our knowledge of what happened. For one thing what happened back then might well have a bearing on what will happen in the future. For another, the knowledge gained is likely to find its way into the inventions of the future. In the same way as "useless" pure research into electricity ended up transforming our lives in ways that the early reasearchers could never have dreamed of. Perhaps if there really is a field connecting all matter at a sub-atomic level it can be tapped into providing something like unlimited clean energy - who knows?

 

The real point here (of the new sub-topic at least) is that we want our children to go out into the world having the most knowledge possible. So obviously teaching them about what we know now rather than what we knew 2000 years ago is a good idea. Our knowledge has improved during this time and it would be extremely unfair to handicap children by not bringing them up to date. That does not mean that religious teaching cannot have a place in schools. Religion acts for many as a means of increasing happiness and quality of life and these are also positive things to teach children. But it has no place in the modern science room other than perhaps showing the history of our knowledge progression. This is not a case of teaching one unknown over another, any more than it is an equal guess in bridge between taking a finesse or playing to drop a singleton king offisde in a 7 card fit without any additional information about the opposing hands.

[kenberg]

There has to be at least one member in these forums who is from the Bible belt in the south of the USA. Come and post here for us the following –

1. The name of the person/group of people who managed to put an end to any Bible teaching at your schools.

2. In what year did this take place?

3. The name of the person/group of people who managed to get all these unproven theories included in the school science textbooks.

4. In what year did they make their first appearance?

 

I grew up in St. Paul, Minnesota. Not the Bible Belt but not exactly Sodom or Gomorrah either. I was born in 1939, so I can tell you a little of the (mostly non) role of schools in religion back then. In 8th grade, in the spring (1952, this would be), we got off early a couple of days a week for a few weeks to go to religious instruction at a church. I went to the local Presbyterian church, there was also a nearby Lutheran church. There were a fair number of Jewish kids who went to Hebrew School after school, but maybe they used these hours also, I am not sure. Catholic kids, fairly numerous in the neighborhood, mostly went to Catholic Schools. We Protestants were moving toward confirmation, The Jewish boys toward Bar Mitzvah. I think that Bat Mitzvah was less, if at all, an item then. The time off from school for religious instruction was seen as a practical accommodation.

 

So the schools came to some workable arrangement, as far as I know no one objected. But it was also the limit of what was done. We were definitely not taught from the Bible in school. There would have been, pardon the expression, hell to pay if anyone had tried to do so. During the Korean War one of the teachers took it upon herself to warn us all, stridently and frequently, about the Red Menace. My mother mostly did not involve herself in school things but she made sure that I understood that she thought this teacher was, on this subject at least, a nut and should keep her opinions to herself. This would have been the universal reaction of parents if some teacher decided to explain God to us.

 

 

As far as I know, this idea that in the past we all studied The Ten Commandments in school is simply a myth. It didn't happen, and no one wanted it to happen.

[PassedOut]

As far as I know, this idea that in the past we all studied The Ten Commandments in school is simply a myth. It didn't happen, and no one wanted it to happen.

I went to school a few years later, but my experience was the same.

[billw55]

If you retsircted school teaching only to proven things then you would have short classes. Note that this criterium would also ban any religious teaching in school whatsoever.

I don't normally nitpick language, but I admit this one made me smile. Criterium ≠ criterion.

 

Time and observation has shown that the universe can be traced back to an incredible small pocket of space and time that expanded. That in itself does not exclude the possibility of it being created by a divine being, nor does it imply the suggestion of anything before creation

A very important distinction. The big bang is merely an event that occurred in the past - like last week's weather, or a meteor strike in the Arizona desert. In itself, it says nothing about creation. It is therefore unnecessary for religious advocates to argue against it.

[PassedOut]

A very important distinction. The big bang is merely an event that occurred in the past - like last week's weather, or a meteor strike in the Arizona desert. In itself, it says nothing about creation. It is therefore unnecessary for religious advocates to argue against it.

Yes, and self-defeating at that.

[mikeh]

That does not mean that religious teaching cannot have a place in schools. Religion acts for many as a means of increasing happiness and quality of life and these are also positive things to teach children.

I couldn't disagree more....this form of religious accommodation sounds very nice on the surface, and is unfortunately likely to be as good as we can expect to get for the next several generations, but it is a truly awful idea, saved only by being a little less awful than the zealots want, which is to extinguish science teaching and substitute bible (or Koran or...fill in the blank) teaching.

 

I think it perfectly ok, and a good idea, to teach religion as an item of, say, abnormal psychology...or in the exact manner that we now teach the religions of the ancient greeks or the norse. As in: 'look how humans always try to explain their worlds, and how, when humanity lacked the physical and intellectual tools needed to appreciate how the universe worked, we created gods to explain what then seemed inexplicable. Look at how this creation of gods created power structures that gave rise both to beauty and some good, while also causing immense hatred, cruelty and a rigid, misogynistic society....and it still does in many parts of the world'

 

We do not need 'god' or religion to create a sense of community. We definitely do not need religion or 'god' to create a sense of morality. Indeed, religious teaching, when it comes to creating community, is at least as much about creating exclusion as it is about inclusion. The purpose of community building in all religions is primarily about ensuring the unthinking loyalty and obedience of the flock (does anyone think that referring to Christian believers as part of the minister's flock is coincidental?). Creating 'other' as the alternative to being included allows for the dehumanizing of non-believers, which in turn allows for discrimination, persecution, torture, murder, and genocide.

 

I don't think we should be teaching children about religion with a view to encouraging the adoption of any religious belief.

[ArtK78]

As far as I know, this idea that in the past we all studied The Ten Commandments in school is simply a myth. It didn't happen, and no one wanted it to happen.

 

Ken:

 

My experience is different than yours.

 

When I was in second grade, my family moved from Woodbury, NJ, to Cherry Hill, NJ. Until we moved, I was the only Jewish kid in my entire elementary school. And I am talking about public school. We had prayer in the school every morning, and Christmas carols and Santa Claus in December. My mother did make it clear to my teachers and the Principal that we were Jewish and we did not believe in any of that "stuff." The result was, as a 5 year old, I had to explain to all of my classmates about Hanukkah. It didn't matter that I really didn't know much about Hanukkah - I was Jewish and I had to do that. Sort of like Kyle in South Park.

 

We moved to Cherry Hill in late February 1964 - when I was in second grade. Cherry Hill was a much more affluant community that was about 25-35% Jewish. Needless to say, my environment changed dramatically.

 

Interestingly, Woodbury continued to have prayer in its public schools until the last 10 years or so. Supreme Court - who cares?

[Vampyr]

Interestingly, Woodbury continued to have prayer in its public schools until the last 10 years or so. Supreme Court - who cares?

 

I am sure that it is a federal or state law that children can leave the classroom during the prayer. Of course, kids want, above all, to fit in, so this option is not likely to be widely exercised.

 

When I was in high school, also in New Jersey, there was a "moment of silence" at the beginning of each day. My first period class was Wind Ensemble, and the band director always emphasised that this "moment" was not necessarily for prayer. I think that he put it a little stronger than that, but this was many many years ago, so I can't say for sure.