A better definition of science might help clarify the science vs. religion debate. Here goes.
Science is a concise language system for making consistent statements about the universe.
Consistency in formal language theory means that only true statements can be generated and that the language cannot generate a statement that true equals false. Since truth in science is tied to observation and experiment, the axioms of the language must survive empirical scrutiny. The limitations and complexities of observation and experiment add uncertainty to science and give job security to scientists who continually try to make science more consistent. Guidelines like Occam's razor help to ensure a concise language by advising parsimony.
Gödel's proof says that a language cannot prove its own consistency, nor can it make consistent statements about things not in the language. This means that science cannot make consistent statements about a possible meta-universe or God; it can only make statements about things having empirical support. Science is limited to statements that can be generated from its axioms and are thus tied to empirical truth.
If God violates the laws of physics with revelations, prophesies or miracles, science can only observe that there is some evidence of these exceptions. Those who believe the Gospel accounts see them giving at least some empirical evidence for such exceptions, whereas others believe that violations of physical laws have never occurred. The intelligent design motivation is to look for empirical evidence for these exceptions.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Friday, April 11, 2008
Vox Day vs New Atheists
I thoroughly enjoyed reading The Irrational Athiest, Vox Day's excellent refutation of the anti-religious arguments of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, et. al. My favorite section was Chapter XV "Master of Puppets or Game Designer", since that is the subject of my entire book "Darwin's Dove" and I would argue that it need not be a "completely heretical concept of theodicy" as it gives a remarkably good logical explanation for Christianity.
Vox thoroughly destroys the atheist arguments that Christianity is an evil force in the world. In many cases such as Harris' red vs. blue county data on crime, Vox shows that the atheist's own arguments prove exactly the opposite of what they intended. Vox also rigorously documents the many atheist butchers of the 20th century, a record of evil that should give some pause to the angry atheists.
Vox is also good as he points out that science has no explanation for the origin of the physical laws nor for the origin of the replicating mechanisms that started evolution. Dawkins' delusion argument dissolves into wishful thinking about his hope for a "physics crane". Dawkins' lack of logical or scientific support for his use of the word delusion or for his emotional antipathy toward religion is quite surprising given the growing evidence behind the anthropic principle.
I would have liked Vox to discuss how Gödel's proof—that no formal system can make consistent statements about things outside the system—might serve to place a formal limit on the proper domain of science. Science is silent about the metaverse.
Vox is weaker when he argues against evolution's ability to produce behaviors that can be considered moral. It seems to me that evolution produces both the emergent mathematical beauty of cognizance and altruism, as well as suffering and evil behaviors. Vox's valid point is that only a moral foundation from God can disambiguate the good and evil behaviors arising from evolution. It comes down to the definition of morality or piety, a definition that, as Vox points out, Socrates sheds little light on. Without God's definition, Hitler's eugenics can be considered moral and supported by the motivational underpinnings of evolution.
Vox was a bit weak on Occam's razor. Occam's razor is not a law of science but rather a weak heuristic for choosing the simpler of two theories that equally fit the data and have equal explanatory power, mathematical beauty etc. Dawkins has claimed that it is a more complex theory to believe in an intelligent designer than to believe only in the laws of physics. But Occam's razor doesn't apply for those of us who think—unlike Dawkins—that the explanatory power of Theism is superior. Occam's razor does not advise taking the simpler theory if the more complex one has greater explanatory power, for if it did, we might still prefer the simpler Newtonian physics over the more complex relativistic ones.
Vox thoroughly destroys the atheist arguments that Christianity is an evil force in the world. In many cases such as Harris' red vs. blue county data on crime, Vox shows that the atheist's own arguments prove exactly the opposite of what they intended. Vox also rigorously documents the many atheist butchers of the 20th century, a record of evil that should give some pause to the angry atheists.
Vox is also good as he points out that science has no explanation for the origin of the physical laws nor for the origin of the replicating mechanisms that started evolution. Dawkins' delusion argument dissolves into wishful thinking about his hope for a "physics crane". Dawkins' lack of logical or scientific support for his use of the word delusion or for his emotional antipathy toward religion is quite surprising given the growing evidence behind the anthropic principle.
I would have liked Vox to discuss how Gödel's proof—that no formal system can make consistent statements about things outside the system—might serve to place a formal limit on the proper domain of science. Science is silent about the metaverse.
Vox is weaker when he argues against evolution's ability to produce behaviors that can be considered moral. It seems to me that evolution produces both the emergent mathematical beauty of cognizance and altruism, as well as suffering and evil behaviors. Vox's valid point is that only a moral foundation from God can disambiguate the good and evil behaviors arising from evolution. It comes down to the definition of morality or piety, a definition that, as Vox points out, Socrates sheds little light on. Without God's definition, Hitler's eugenics can be considered moral and supported by the motivational underpinnings of evolution.
Vox was a bit weak on Occam's razor. Occam's razor is not a law of science but rather a weak heuristic for choosing the simpler of two theories that equally fit the data and have equal explanatory power, mathematical beauty etc. Dawkins has claimed that it is a more complex theory to believe in an intelligent designer than to believe only in the laws of physics. But Occam's razor doesn't apply for those of us who think—unlike Dawkins—that the explanatory power of Theism is superior. Occam's razor does not advise taking the simpler theory if the more complex one has greater explanatory power, for if it did, we might still prefer the simpler Newtonian physics over the more complex relativistic ones.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Gross National Happiness
The Economist (3/29) article about Arthur Brooks book "Gross National Happiness" summarizes the research of Brooks who is an economist at Syracuse University. In America, he finds, conservatives are happier than liberals, religious people are happier than secular ones, and those with children are happier than those without. So religious conservative parents tend to be happy and optimistic. So be kind to liberal, atheist, singles, they are miserable and pessimistic.
Monday, April 7, 2008
The Cost of War
Anyone who quotes the cost of the Iraq war in terms of current dollars since its inception is revealing a lack of respect for objective truth. The same deception applies to the casualties. Whether we oppose or support the Iraq effort we should at least use meaningful measures. The US spending on national defense declined from the late 80s to 2000 as the nation spent the "peace dividend" following the cold war. Defense spending as an annual percent of GDP—which is the only objective way to state it—rose to about 6% of GDP in the 80s and declined to 3% by 2000. The current defense budget, including the supplementals for the Iraq and Afghan war, is about 4.5% of GDP which is similar to the 4.4% of Clinton's first year in office. So the hubris of those who talk about the disaster of the trillion dollar war can be safely ignored.
No one wants to belittle the casualties of our troops but we still need to speak rationally and have some perspective. About the same number of Americans have died by violence in Detroit and Baltimore since 2003 as have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems that those who write the news stories are relatively unconcerned when Blacks and Hispanics are killing each other.
No one wants to belittle the casualties of our troops but we still need to speak rationally and have some perspective. About the same number of Americans have died by violence in Detroit and Baltimore since 2003 as have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems that those who write the news stories are relatively unconcerned when Blacks and Hispanics are killing each other.
Anthropogenic Global Warming RIP
The soft sciences are prone to fads, due in part to the fact that their particular disciplines deal with complex systems having huge numbers of poorly understood variables, and partly due to the unfortunate genetic tendency of humans to form groups whose members oppose those not in the group and engage in petty status competition within the group. This status competition includes the competition for grant money and self serving political posturing. Anthropogenic global warming was the perfect storm for this group ID psychosis, but now, as Thomas Kuhn would have appreciated, the AGW group is increasingly unable to suppress the march of science. Their arguments are becoming petty even as their political juggernaut drives on. The bubble looks soon to burst.
The science that is defeating AGW involves two issues: feedback and solar activity. The computer models say that the climate's response to increasing CO2 is positive feedback which makes the problem worse. Roy Spencer is one of the leading scientists showing that the feedback is more likely negative, and thus tends to regulate earth's temperature not exacerbate it. Global climate computer models should be seriously questioned. James Hansen had too much faith in his babies.
Solar activity (surprise!) is increasingly looking like the primary driver of earth's temperature changes. David Archibald is one of many solar scientists who is building the case that earth's temperature is highly correlated with the varying lengths of the roughly eleven year solar cycles. With the delayed onset of solar cycle 24 (SC24) it looks like earth may be in for a cold ten years instead of the fever that Al Gore is betting his political career on.
You can keep an eye on the sun here.
The science that is defeating AGW involves two issues: feedback and solar activity. The computer models say that the climate's response to increasing CO2 is positive feedback which makes the problem worse. Roy Spencer is one of the leading scientists showing that the feedback is more likely negative, and thus tends to regulate earth's temperature not exacerbate it. Global climate computer models should be seriously questioned. James Hansen had too much faith in his babies.
Solar activity (surprise!) is increasingly looking like the primary driver of earth's temperature changes. David Archibald is one of many solar scientists who is building the case that earth's temperature is highly correlated with the varying lengths of the roughly eleven year solar cycles. With the delayed onset of solar cycle 24 (SC24) it looks like earth may be in for a cold ten years instead of the fever that Al Gore is betting his political career on.
You can keep an eye on the sun here.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
More Snow Camping
Another snow camping trip and another igloo. This picture was taken after my wife and I used our snow saws to build this igloo. It snowed during the night while we were sleeping in the igloo, leaving a nice soft smooth covering to hide our construction irregularities. It is so silent and magical inside. This was my wife's first snow camping trip and my eighth. Imagine how many art and craft fairs I will now be expected to stroll through without complaint!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
