Harmony of faith and science

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

In fact it is wrong to try to reconcile science and mysticism.

Agreed.

One is about sensory experience…

Yes.

…and the other is about extra sensory experiences.

No. It may be about claims of a supposed “extra sensory” experience but there’s no evidence to justify those claims.

They don't need to be  reconciled.

Any more than architecture and morris dancing can be “reconciled”, but ok…

They are two parts of the same spectrum of life. There is nothing to reconcile between the colors 'red' and 'violet'.

Maybe, but the analogy is a false one. Red and violet are both demonstrably in the category “colours”: science and mysticism on the other hand are in different categories – call them "objective" and "subjective" for the sake of simplicity. 

[Alan Burns]

final episode:
A Window on Salvation
Mathematics and the mystery of the incarnation
(17 minute duration)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uucsCOcg0yU

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

final episode:
A Window on Salvation
Mathematics and the mystery of the incarnation
(17 minute duration)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uucsCOcg0yU

Does it occur to you that reasoning people are likely not your optimal target audience for this stuff?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Does it occur to you that reasoning people are likely not your optimal target audience for this stuff?

Depends how deep your reasoning goes.
And you have yet to explain how subconscious brain activity can be capable of successful reasoning without conscious control of the thought processes involved.

[Dicky Underpants]

Depends how deep your reasoning goes.
And you have yet to explain how subconscious brain activity can be capable of successful reasoning without conscious control of the thought processes involved.

Well then, Alan, please make clear to us just one instance in part 2. The statement is made that all things in the universe are interrelated and as such the universe may be considered a unity. This much seems to be true as revealed by empirical research so far, though it may eventually prove that certain factors in the universe are inexplicably anomalous. Who knows what the future may bring? But please explain the rational sequence by which you get from "The universe is an interrelated unity" to "There is a creator of this universe who is a Trinity in Unity, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son to create the universe." If the universe has a creator, is it any more logical to say there are three 'parts' of the Godhead, or multiple gods who are all unified in Brahman, for instance?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Depends how deep your reasoning goes.

No it doesn’t. The videos you linked to are either hopelessly wrong when they try to reason their way to conclusions, or they don’t attempt reasoning at all and rely instead on false analogies (essentially: “Science tells us some amazing things; religions claim some amazing things too – therefore these two sets of amazing things are epistemically equivalent”).

It’s crude propagandising aimed at the credulous and the hard of thinking. 

And you have yet to explain how subconscious brain activity can be capable of successful reasoning without conscious control of the thought processes involved.

First I have “explained” that to you many times inasmuch as I’ve given you a potential model based on the most robust reasoning and evidence available to us. You've never even attempted to falsify that model, but instead just asserted it to be "impossible" with no supporting argument to justify that claim.

Second, even if that wasn’t the case however a “don’t know” would take you not one step of one iota of one smidgin of the way down the path of “goddidit” for which there is no explanation of any sort whatsoever. Your endless to return to this same mistake in thinking is just making you look dishonest now.     

[Alan Burns]

First I have “explained” that to you many times inasmuch as I’ve given you a potential model based on the most robust reasoning and evidence available to us.

But in order to cast judgement on how robust the reasoning and evidence is which you present, you need conscious control of whatever resides in your conscious awareness.  Such control does not exist in the model you present, which renders it untenable.  Once you accept the reality of your own demonstrable ability to exert conscious control of your thought processes, it adds a new dimension to the limitations of what is feasible within a material brain governed entirely by the time related cause and effect events driven by the laws of physics.  Just saying "don't know" is the equivalent of the proverbial "hiding your head in the sand."

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But in order to cast judgement on how robust the reasoning and evidence is which you present, you need conscious control of whatever resides in your conscious awareness.

Wrong.

Such control does not exist in the model you present, which renders it untenable.

That’s because “conscious control” as you imagine to be isn’t necessary for the model. It's also logically impossible.

Once you accept the reality of your own demonstrable ability to exert conscious control of your thought processes, it adds a new dimension to the limitations of what is feasible within a material brain governed entirely by the time related cause and effect events driven by the laws of physics.

That’s not “the reality” at all though; that’s actually just your standard, endlessly-repeated misunderstanding of the reality that best aligns with the most robust reasoning and evidence to hand.   

Just saying "don't know" is the equivalent of the proverbial "hiding your head in the sand."

No, just saying “don’t know” is the only honest thing we can do when we actually don’t know. That does not though give you a justification for filling the knowledge gap with whatever supernatural claim most appeals, but that has no supporting evidence of its own at all.

Do you think you’ll ever be able to grasp this?

[Alan Burns]

That’s because “conscious control” as you imagine to be isn’t necessary for the model. It's also logically impossible.

So I think you need to elaborate more on how this "model" can possibly accomplish the reasoning you claim and how it can verify the accuracy of this reasoning without any form of conscious control.
I concede that conscious control is a physical impossibility, but how can you possibly conceive of any logic without conscious control of your own thoughts?

[Enki]

I watched the first of Alan's suggested videos(Light from Light) in its entirety. I found the use of background music rather intrusive and it reminded me somewhat of a background soundtrack of a 1940s or 50s romantic 'B' movie. I also thought that the use of slow motion throughout in the video was rather over the top to say the least. As to the content. It seemed not too dissimilar to the usual hackneyed format of BBC 4's Thought for the day, when something topical/meaningful is talked about and then the attempt is made to align it with some sort of Biblical teaching however awkward or clumsy the result. In this case the intriguing and well researched concept of wave particle duality is made to fit the paradoxes in Christianity without so much of a mention that the science has been the result of experiment and evidence, whereas the Christian paradoxes are little more than faith concepts without any evidence to substantiate them at all. I'm not exactly enamoured by the result. Indeed, I find it a little tawdry to enlist real science in an attempt to make the paradoxes of Christianity rather more palatable.

Suffice it to say that I won't be wasting my time in watching the other videos.

[Dicky Underpants]

I watched the first of Alan's suggested videos(Light from Light) in its entirety. I found the use of background music rather intrusive and it reminded me somewhat of a background soundtrack of a 1940s or 50s romantic 'B' movie. I also thought that the use of slow motion throughout in the video was rather over the top to say the least. As to the content. It seemed not too dissimilar to the usual hackneyed format of BBC 4's Thought for the day, when something topical/meaningful is talked about and then the attempt is made to align it with some sort of Biblical teaching however awkward or clumsy the result. In this case the intriguing and well researched concept of wave particle duality is made to fit the paradoxes in Christianity without so much of a mention that the science has been the result of experiment and evidence, whereas the Christian paradoxes are little more than faith concepts without any evidence to substantiate them at all. I'm not exactly enamoured by the result. Indeed, I find it a little tawdry to enlist real science in an attempt to make the paradoxes of Christianity rather more palatable.

Suffice it to say that I won't be wasting my time in watching the other videos.

Spot on.

[Sriram]

Sriram,

Agreed.

Yes.

No. It may be about claims of a supposed “extra sensory” experience but there’s no evidence to justify those claims.

Any more than architecture and morris dancing can be “reconciled”, but ok…

Maybe, but the analogy is a false one. Red and violet are both demonstrably in the category “colours”: science and mysticism on the other hand are in different categories – call them "objective" and "subjective" for the sake of simplicity.

The normal tendency is for people to think of science and mysticism as opposed phenomena which contradict one another. If one is right the other has to be wrong.

This need not be so. They deal with different phenomena both of which are real but one is sensed easily through the senses while the other is more subtle. It is more meaningful to see them as parts of a spectrum of reality. Seemingly different but related.

OK.... if you have a problem with the red and violet analogy...you can think of it as the difference between the color red and X-rays. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

The normal tendency is for people to think of science and mysticism as opposed phenomena which contradict one another. If one is right the other has to be wrong.

Only when religions make claims to scientific truths (about the age of the earth for example). On those occasions they are “opposed” inasmuch as the scientific answers are demonstrably right and the religious ones demonstrably wrong. In other cases though science is merely indifferent to the claims of the religious.   

This need not be so.

Generally speaking, it isn’t so (see above).

They deal with different phenomena both of which are real…

Have you any evidence at all to justify the assertion that the claims of “mysticism” are also real? 

…but one is sensed easily through the senses while the other is more subtle.

Or non-existent. By all means though try at least to show that something is there to be “sensed” rather than just imagined. 

It is more meaningful to see them as parts of a spectrum of reality. Seemingly different but related.

Depends what you mean by “reality”. It’s clearly a reality that some people believe all sorts of subjective opinions map to objective truths, but that’s not to say that they necessarily do.   

OK.... if you have a problem with the red and violet analogy...you can think of it as the difference between the color red and X-rays. 

No - both are phenomena that demonstrably exist at different points on the electromagnetic spectrum. You’d be better advised trying, say, the colour red and pixies – ie, fundamentally different categories of claim.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So I think you need to elaborate more on how this "model" can possibly accomplish the reasoning you claim and how it can verify the accuracy of this reasoning without any form of conscious control.
I concede that conscious control is a physical impossibility, but how can you possibly conceive of any logic without conscious control of your own thoughts?

As you’ve returned to the same territory you’ve so doggedly failed to grasp over on the “Searching for God” thread I’ve replied to you there.

[Sriram]

Sriram,

Agreed.

Yes.

No. It may be about claims of a supposed “extra sensory” experience but there’s no evidence to justify those claims.

Any more than architecture and morris dancing can be “reconciled”, but ok…

Maybe, but the analogy is a false one. Red and violet are both demonstrably in the category “colours”: science and mysticism on the other hand are in different categories – call them "objective" and "subjective" for the sake of simplicity.

Demonstrate to whom and why?

You just don't get it. You keep asking for stars to be demonstrated through a microscope.  There is a range of phenomena in existence...all of them cannot be sensed in similar ways.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Demonstrate to whom and why?

To whoever you expect to take your various claims and assertions seriously. That’s how reason and rhetoric work.

You just don't get it.

Well, let’s see shall we?

… You keep asking for stars to be demonstrated through a microscope.

Straw manning me won’t help you here. I’ve never asked for any such thing. What I have said though is that, if you want your claims to be taken seriously and you don’t think empirical tools are the right way to verify them, then it’s your responsibility to find some other means of verification.

There is a range of phenomena in existence...all of them cannot be sensed in similar ways.

Yes, there is “a range of phenomena in existence” but there’s also a range of phenomena believed to be in existence but that are actually just imaginary. If you want to assert there to be some phenomena that are in the former rather than the latter group, then you need to find some method to justify the claim – which is when you always disappear. 

Can you see now why it's actually you rather than me who doesn’t “get it”?

[Sriram]

I don't need to do anything at all. You need to take the trouble to understand certain systems and follow certain techniques and find out for yourself....as Sam Harris has done.
 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

I don't need to do anything at all.

You do if you want your various claims and assertions here to be taken seriously.

You need to take the trouble to understand certain systems and follow certain techniques and find out for yourself....

Ah, the Courtier’s reply fallacy. We haven’t seen that one here for a while:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply#:~:text=The%20courtier's%20reply%20is%20a,any%20sort%20of%20criticism%20whatsoever.

…as Sam Harris has done.

And the argument from authority fallacy to finish:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#:~:text=An%20argument%20from%20authority%20(argumentum,evidence%20to%20support%20an%20argument.

Just think: one more fallacious argument and you’d have had the hat trick!

I have no idea whether SH also thinks he has the magic specs or whatever you claim to have to see “patterns” invisible to the rest of us (because you haven’t bothered with a citation to that effect) but even if he has, then it’s his justifying reasoning that matters, not the claim that he (supposedly) thinks it. 

[Stranger]

But in order to cast judgement on how robust the reasoning and evidence is which you present, you need conscious control of whatever resides in your conscious awareness.  Such control does not exist in the model you present, which renders it untenable.  Once you accept the reality of your own demonstrable ability to exert conscious control of your thought processes, it adds a new dimension to the limitations of what is feasible within a material brain governed entirely by the time related cause and effect events driven by the laws of physics.  Just saying "don't know" is the equivalent of the proverbial "hiding your head in the sand."

Wow. I've been away from here for over a year and come back to find, not only that you have failed to learn anything, but you still haven't even been bothered to think of some new ways to approach the subject or even new wording. Just the same repetition of the some old phrases that have been taken apart and demolished countless times before - demonstrating all the 'conscious control' of a broken record. Ho hum.

Still having fun here?   

[Sriram]

Sriram,

You do if you want your various claims and assertions here to be taken seriously.

Ah, the Courtier’s reply fallacy. We haven’t seen that one here for a while:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply#:~:text=The%20courtier's%20reply%20is%20a,any%20sort%20of%20criticism%20whatsoever.

And the argument from authority fallacy to finish:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#:~:text=An%20argument%20from%20authority%20(argumentum,evidence%20to%20support%20an%20argument.

Just think: one more fallacious argument and you’d have had the hat trick!

I have no idea whether SH also thinks he has the magic specs or whatever you claim to have to see “patterns” invisible to the rest of us (because you haven’t bothered with a citation to that effect) but even if he has, then it’s his justifying reasoning that matters, not the claim that he (supposedly) thinks it.

Please see my reply no 106 in the 'Adaptation' thread...  Thanks.

[Stranger]

I have no idea whether SH also thinks he has the magic specs or whatever you claim to have to see “patterns” invisible to the rest of us...

He doesn't. I've actually read his book Waking Up, which is what I assume Sriram is referring to. Given his record on making mistakes about the content of books in the past (notably The Selfish Gene and On the Origin of Species), I would not be surprised if Sriram hasn't.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Please see my reply no 106 in the 'Adaptation' thread...  Thanks.

Please see my demolition of your reply no 106 in the 'Adaptation' thread in Reply 108...  Thanks.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Stranger - a very warm welcome back to you. It's good to have you here again.

He doesn't. I've actually read his book Waking Up, which is what I assume Sriram is referring to. Given his record on making mistakes about the content of books in the past (notably The Selfish Gene and On the Origin of Species), I would not be surprised if Sriram hasn't.

Yes, I was was pretty sure HS hadn't said what Sriram claims him to have said but was reluctant to say so just in case. As Sriram didn't bother with a citation thought there's no guessing what he was thinking of.   

All best.

[Stranger]

Hi Stranger - a very warm welcome back to you. It's good to have you here again.

Thanks.    Looks like nothing much has changed here, so not sure that I'll stick around long but I thought I'd dip in again and see what was going on.

[torridon]

Wb NTTS