You're accusing me of something. I didn't even come close to saying nor is it something I object to in the slightest.
Seriously? Is that what it's come to? Just make something up and chide from that point forward?

You're right, you're saying that reverence for nature is insufficient, rather than 'wrong'. Sorry. What we're saying is that insufficient or not, it is the best we can do. We could do as you do and have "faith", but that is insufficient to us. Because such complex faith is not something that should be the cornerstone of a worldview. Let's revere things we 'know' are real, rather than things we simply believe are real. That realness more than compensates for any divine meaning within the story created to satiate your "human experience".

"What do you mean by “beyond the material world.” What do you know of this thing which exists outside of all ability to be detected? How can you assert a reality which you admit you have no way of knowing about, yet make claims to what would exist there?

You and your logic driven, empirically affirmed brain no doubt would have a similar gripe with the Scientists
Duf,f Green, Greene,Gross, Maldacena. Mandelstam, Polchinski, Polyakov,Ramond,Scherk,Schwarz, Sen Susskind, Townsend, Vafa, Veneziano, Witten, AND Hawking for their positing of 11 separate dimensions of String Theory.

Hawking, I might add has stated that he realizes theories like these are not scientific but metaphysical.
But, it becomes necessary to "push beyond" the limits of scientific methodology when you've reached boundaries that can not be breached due to human limitations of the present.

Lets see how dishonest you can get about this. It won't surprise me though because of what you claimed in another post about science and evil.
Yes, there is no such person as the mad scientist Dr Evil, therefor there is no such thing as science being used for evil purposes (paraphrased, of course. But that's what you meant in a sense)

This is great! Here's the logic to come:
Science certainly can't prove there's other dimensions, or worm holes, or P-branes, but based on the evidence (don't ask me what evidence that is!!) it certainly is possible!
Come to think of it, there might even be a tea pot in orbit around Mars if it helps out String Theory!

I love it!! (giggle)

Interbane wrote:

You're accusing me of something. I didn't even come close to saying nor is it something I object to in the slightest.
Seriously? Is that what it's come to? Just make something up and chide from that point forward?

You're right, you're saying that reverence for nature is insufficient, rather than 'wrong'. Sorry. What we're saying is that insufficient or not, it is the best we can do. We could do as you do and have "faith", but that is insufficient to us. Because such complex faith is not something that should be the cornerstone of a worldview. Let's revere things we 'know' are real, rather than things we simply believe are real. That realness more than compensates for any divine meaning within the story created to satiate your "human experience".

What is so complex about faith?

Note: I'm no expert on faith but I've never heard it referred to as being complex.
Also, I can't say I agree with your interpretation of my post - that a reverence for nature is insuficent.
I'd say that it's a good thing to look at the natural world as wonderous,and respect and help care for it.
But deeper spiritual needs that many many people experience in a lifetime, I'd say its not enough.

What is so complex about faith?

Note: I'm no expert on faith but I've never heard it referred to as being complex.

It was to differentiate between simple faith. It depends on how you disambiguate the concepts. We all have faith in our senses. We all have faith in a few basic axioms as well. That is basic faith(or confidence, or trust), required to be functional in life. Everyone has such faith/trust.

Belief in a god involves a lot more content than sense datum. It's a component of a worldview, and requires an epistemic framework to justify. That is complex faith. Even if you don't like my terminology, they are necessary distinctions within the conceptual definition of faith.

Also, I can't say I agree with your interpretation of my post - that a reverence for nature is insuficent.
I'd say that it's a good thing to look at the natural world as wonderous,and respect and help care for it.
But deeper spiritual needs that many many people experience in a lifetime, I'd say its not enough.

I take your first sentence to be contrary to your last sentence. You're saying reverence for nature is insufficient to satisfy deeper spiritual needs. But how do you know? Have you ever replaced your reverence for the divine for a reverence for nature? Must the object of your reverence be sentient(omniscient in this case)?

Are you talking about his quote, Ant?

There is such a thing as an evil scientist.

There is no such thing as evil science.

I think you'd better re-read that post.
You didn't get it.

Honestly, i haven't done any real reading on string theory (although i've got some books on my to-do list), so i couldn't speak to much of the in-depth explanations offered by string theory.

All the same there is a difference when you talk about theorists who are trying to piece together the facts of Quantum and relativity theory into one cohesive theory of everything. They are imagining how it might all link together, trying to figure out the right equations and what those equations say about reality. When those ideas and equations stand in stark contradiction with the way the world has been observed to behave those ideas are reworked or disgarded.

They may be wrong, we don't know that yet, but they are starting from fact building toward theory. Rather than starting from preferred myth to ignoring everything that disagrees with that myth.

They are trying on string theory to see what it implies, and trying to test to see if string theory predicts our world.

So far, to my knowledge, they haven't been able to put it to the test. and until Until string theory and alternate dimensions can be empirically confirmed, they remain speculation.

I don't think i've ever gone to bat for string theory on this site, so i'm not sure what you are getting so ventilated about.

ant wrote: Hawking, I might add has stated that he realizes theories like these are not scientific but metaphysical.
But, it becomes necessary to "push beyond" the limits of scientific methodology when you've reached boundaries that can not be breached due to human limitations of the present.

You have summed up your position quite nicely in the above line. You are suggesting it is necessary to push beyond science, to meet certain needs. When any scientist talks about pushing beyond scientific methodology, he or she is referring to speculation. One can speculate, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that, and one can construct tentitive theories that are ready to be altered at any time. This is a long way from accepting a certain paradigm that one feels comfortable with, and then fighting off all dissidents until one's knuckles are raw, whatever evidence is presented.

Feeling a necessity to push beyond logic and science begs the question of why- what human need is being met? There are some obvious answers here, and they point to the need to have meaning in life, a sense of security, and some ethical rules. Great so far, but how satisfying are these answers ultimately if they are simply human constructs, ones that seem to ominously diverge from the observed universe as our body of knowledge grows?

You have been critical here of various theories of the universe, but right or wrong, at least they have some logical input in them. Yet you seem uncritical of folklore.

"They are imagining how it might all link together, trying to figure out the right equations"


Yes they are indeed. I have stated before that imagination is important, vitally important to science.
Science is attempting to imagine how it "might all link together" in some grand unified theory.
And we do need imagination and at times conjecture if scientific progress is to be made.

Let me quote Karl Popper:

"The way in which knowledge progresses and especially our scientific knowledge is by unjustified and unjustifiable anticipations, by guesses, by tentative solutions to our problems, by conjectures"

Science proceeds on a faithful belief that there is order to nature, and on that basis seeks to explain natural phenomena as best as possible. If for not faith, science could not proceed accordingly.

Religious belief in a god in unjustifiable because there is no empiracle evidence for god?
Scientific "imagination" and "conjecture" is somehow seen as justifiable dispite the non "empiracleness" of it?

Theists believe in a god that is the prime source of all creation. They've imagined this, they've "guessed" this is true based on claims of revelation AND faith of things unseen.

Scienctists are allowed to be Metaphyscians when convienent,
religious people aren't?

This lofty goal science has to obtain a theory of everything is fantasy. Almost to the point of believing in a fictional Never-Neverland. The quest for the whole truth is impossible for it would require one to know everything about everything. But the quest often turns to the desire to know something about everything, and then everything about something. Nothing like this is realizable.
We can only know something about something.

I appreciate you admitting that you do not know a whole lot about String Theory.
Gosh, I'd be lying if I told you I understand it. It is such an obscure area of science. Why, it's nearly downright meraphysical! The idea of imagining dimensional realities that exist beyond our known reality and attempting to assign related equations to create models that confirm relevant hypothesis is difficult to fathom.

How should we deal with the metaphysical nature of this area of science?
Shall we give our blessing to it despite its non empiracle nature?

"Have you ever replaced your reverence for the divine for a reverence for nature?"

Thanks for asking.
Actually, it's one and the same to me. I'm speaking for myself, of course.

And quite frankly, I don't give a damn how some of the mocking know-it-all disrespectful punks here on BT would react to that.

Thanks for your input. You've had some interesting things to say.

ant, first you say.

You wish to exalt the natural world in a way that replaces religion.
I'm sorry my friend, but that will never come to pass.

then you say

"Have you ever replaced your reverence for the divine for a reverence for nature?"

Thanks for asking.
Actually, it's one and the same to me. I'm speaking for myself, of course.

perhaps i can be forgiven for doubting if even you know your own position on certain matters.

And quite frankly, I don't give a damn how some of the mocking know-it-all disrespectful punks here on BT would react to that.

well why not look in the mirror and ask one?

ant wrote: "The way in which knowledge progresses and especially our scientific knowledge is by unjustified and unjustifiable anticipations, by guesses, by tentative solutions to our problems, by conjectures"

Science proceeds on a faithful belief that there is order to nature, and on that basis seeks to explain natural phenomena as best as possible. If for not faith, science could not proceed accordingly.

It does not. Science proceeds on the basis that we know nothing until some reasonable evidence comes to light. There may be order, or disorder, either one of which would be followed up with more investigation by those taking an authentically scientific path.

Any "faith" required in the scientific method is of a different order of magnitude from the faith you are subscribing to. One employs all checks and balances possible, the other simply seizes on a myth, and then will not relent, no matter the evidence.

ant wrote: Religious belief in a god in unjustifiable because there is no empiracle evidence for god?
Scientific "imagination" and "conjecture" is somehow seen as justifiable dispite the non "empiracleness" of it?

Speculation is always acceptable, but there is a difference between that and theories for which evidence has been amassed. No scientist is going to insist you simply accept speculation as reality, yet you are doing just that.

ant wrote: Theists believe in a god that is the prime source of all creation. They've imagined this, they've "guessed" this is true based on claims of revelation AND faith of things unseen.

Scienctists are allowed to be Metaphyscians when convienent,
religious people aren't?

This lofty goal science has to obtain a theory of everything is fantasy. Almost to the point of believing in a fictional Never-Neverland. The quest for the whole truth is impossible for it would require one to know everything about everything. But the quest often turns to the desire to know something about everything, and then everything about something. Nothing like this is realizable.
We can only know something about something.

How do you know? I mean, you may be right, but how will you ever know anything, if you won't look? There may be something out there, but if you can't, or won't put your eye to the telescope, you will have to be content to live with ignorance- and myth.

ant wrote: I appreciate you admitting that you do not know a whole lot about String Theory.
Gosh, I'd be lying if I told you I understand it. It is such an obscure area of science. Why, it's nearly downright meraphysical! The idea of imagining dimensional realities that exist beyond our known reality and attempting to assign related equations to create models that confirm relevant hypothesis is difficult to fathom.

How should we deal with the metaphysical nature of this area of science?
Shall we give our blessing to it despite its non empiracle nature?