Science-Religion. Which wins?

[silverturtle]

<p>Has anyone read Christopher Langan’s theory? Here is the abstract (beware that his writing can be extraordinarily hard to understand):</p>

<p>

Inasmuch as science is observational or perceptual in nature, the goal of providing a scientific model and mechanism for the evolution of complex systems ultimately requires a supporting theory of reality of which perception itself is the model (or theory-to-universe mapping). Where information is the abstract currency of perception, such a theory must incorporate the theory of information while extending the information concept to incorporate reflexive self-processing in order to achieve an intrinsic (self-contained) description of reality. This extension is associated with a limiting formulation of model theory identifying mental and physical reality, resulting in a reflexively self-generating, self-modeling theory of reality identical to its universe on the syntactic level. By the nature of its derivation, this theory, the Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe or CTMU, can be regarded as a supertautological reality-theoretic extension of logic. Uniting the theory of reality with an advanced form of computational language theory, the CTMU describes reality as a Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language or SCSPL, a reflexive intrinsic language characterized not only by self-reference and recursive self-definition, but full self-configuration and self-execution (reflexive read-write functionality). SCSPL reality embodies a dual-aspect monism consisting of infocognition, self-transducing information residing in self-recognizing SCSPL elements called syntactic operators. The CTMU identifies itself with the structure of these operators and thus with the distributive syntax of its self-modeling SCSPL universe, including the reflexive grammar by which the universe refines itself from unbound telesis or UBT, a primordial realm of infocognitive potential free of informational constraint. Under the guidance of a limiting (intrinsic) form of anthropic principle called the Telic Principle, SCSPL evolves by telic recursion, jointly configuring syntax and state while maximizing a generalized self-selection parameter and adjusting on the fly to freely-changing internal conditions. SCSPL relates space, time and object by means of conspansive duality and conspansion, an SCSPL-grammatical process featuring an alternation between dual phases of existence associated with design and actualization and related to the familiar wave-particle duality of quantum mechanics. By distributing the design phase of reality over the actualization phase, conspansive spacetime also provides a distributed mechanism for Intelligent Design, adjoining to the restrictive principle of natural selection a basic means of generating information and complexity. Addressing physical evolution on not only the biological but cosmic level, the CTMU addresses the most evident deficiencies and paradoxes associated with conventional discrete and continuum models of reality, including temporal directionality and accelerating cosmic expansion, while preserving virtually all of the major benefits of current scientific and mathematical paradigms.

</p>

<p>Full: <a href=“http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf[/url]”>http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[mifune]

<p>

EDIT: I see that he has recently stated that he now believes that it is possible for the universe to create itself. So he may not be as reasonable as I previously thought.

</p>

<p>You have lost confidence in his sensibility because he doesn’t conform to your preconceptions of cosmogenetic affairs. Your perspective is entirely at insurmountable factual odds with a modern-day understanding of physics.</p>

<p>

Thus mutation is the only mechanism which produces new alleles.

</p>

<p>Did you bother to read a single one of the papers I posted?</p>

<p>

You seem to be missing my point, which is that the mutations required to produce a new creature are not so simple that a single mutation towards the goal will be retained. A functional trait that would grant a survival advantage would, in the vast majority of cases, require multiple mutations in sequence before it had a significant effect on survival value.

</p>

<p>This is biologically wrong (“highly improbable mutations in sequence”). You also don’t bother to support a single one of your erroneous biological assertions. </p>

<p>

If you have other evidence that supports your theory, why did you choose to post this particular example, which doesn’t?

</p>

<p>First of all, it is not my “theory.” It’s the way things work.</p>

[mifune]

<p>

Exactly: the organism is trending towards destruction, not greater complexity. In some exceptional cases this loss of function is beneficial, and is therefore preserved, which allows downward speciation to occur.

</p>

<p>You really are an embarrassment to argue with. The organism is not “trending towards destruction” or undergoing “downward speciation.” This is complete nonsense. Your rhetoric makes your explanation seem superficially plausible but it is very very fallacious indeed.</p>

<p>

Have we ever seen this happen?

</p>

<p>Absolutely.</p>

<p>[ScienceDirect</a> - Current Opinion in Microbiology : The biological cost of mutational antibiotic resistance: any practical conclusions?](<a href=“http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VS2-4KJTNSV-1&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=13e95f915b75059402c539f5d39cbb66&searchtype=a]ScienceDirect”>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VS2-4KJTNSV-1&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=13e95f915b75059402c539f5d39cbb66&searchtype=a)</p>

<p><a href=“http://jac.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/55/4/461[/url]”>http://jac.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/55/4/461&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

By my count this is the third time you haven’t supported this statement.

</p>

<p>Again, is it really not that obvious to you from whence creationism is derived? It doesn’t teach others to understand the world through evidence but from mind-shrinking, fundamentalist, biblical mythology.</p>

[mifune]

<p>

Geocentricism was first proposed as a scientific theory by the Greeks several hundred years before Christ was born. Do you think that they were getting their belief from the Bible?

</p>

<p>See one of my above posts.</p>

<p>

The plum pudding model, as it has come to be known, was simply a hypothesized proposal.

</p>

<p>As should be everything in science.

</p>

<p>Should the fact that oxygen is needed for the maintenance of human metabolism be a hypothesized proposal?</p>

[mifune]

<p>

Mifune, have you studied the Bible?

</p>

<p>Do you need to study leprechology to disbelieve in leprechauns?</p>

<p>But in reference to your question, yes, I have. I highly think that the Bible should be taught (in private circumstance) since it underlies so much of our culture and corresponding literature. But it emphatically shouldn’t be taught as anything even remotely proximate to fact. </p>

<p>I also consider the importance of the study of comparative religion, not full-fledged indoctrination into a single religion. Many religious folks have been so heavily ingrained in a particular theological outlook that, in times of exchange on related matters, their capacity for honest discourse and facility for undertaking analytical thought is far exceeded. </p>

<p>Not to answer to excess, but don’t act as if studying the Bible or sympathizing with the nuanced interdenominational variation in Christian theology is somehow a prerequisite for validly discarding religious assertion in its entirety.</p>

[kvothe]

<p>My favorite Bill Maher quote:</p>

<p>Bill: Do you believe in Santa Clause?
Guy: Of course not.
Bill: (laughing) Of course not! That’s crazy! A guy flying around and delivering presents in one night… thats ridiculous. But a guy being able to listen to billions of people whispering to him at once… that I get.
Guy: <serious face=“”></serious></p>

[mifune]

<p>

@xrCalico23

Exactly. You implicitly hinted at it instead.

</p>

<p>There is a very distinct difference between stating that religion stringently forbids systematic study, which is almost always untrue, and expressing that science and religion are not exactly methodologically or factually compatible frameworks. The latter is true, but I never stated the former. Science thrives and prompts change on the basis of empirical evidence, while religion has thrived on mythical narrative, ritualized practice, social cohesion, and the stroking of emotive proclivity. </p>

<p>

Could you clarify?

</p>

<p>Almost all religions (at least the ones that have survived until the present day) are fundamentally centered around a creation myth because, at the time of invention, there was a relative scarcity of accumulated knowledge pertaining to the natural sciences. To this extent, cultures invented ingenious speculations and myth destined to account for the radiance of surrounding complexity – about the origin of the sun, stars, Earth, living organisms, and humanity itself. But they are wrong – infallibly wrong – because the nature of external world and its governing physicality is too isolated from ordinary experience to be purely imagined. </p>

<p>(I worded the above mostly the same in a different post: “Without the foundations and the objectively accumulated knowledge provided by the natural sciences, humans are not far removed from a epistemic penitentiary. It’s a universal phenomenon that humanity invents ingenious speculations, myth, and religious dwellings to account for ignorance of reality to fabricate meaning and subjectively satisfy the lingering curiosity of existence. Such mythos provides a subjective account to explain the ineffable. But such accounts are wrong, always wrong, because the world is too far isolated from conventional experience to be merely ideated by baseless contrivances.”)</p>

<p>Could you possibly entertain the thought that humanity would have been contented to shroud in curiosity for millennia without first making something up? Fabricating something is a far more satisfying alternative than to remain veiled in ignorance. Unfortunately, in the modern-day, people still provide recourse to this primitive, emotionally gratifying instinct even when it deliberately contravenes objective fact.</p>

<p>

For being systems of belief concerning supernatural deities, and possessing several of the characteristics that you have listed.

</p>

<p>Thank you for the clarification.</p>

<p>

Let’s see… in the past people tried to turn common metals into gold in the practice known as alchemy, which is commonly featured in today’s satires. Because of some of its systematic methodology and its attempt at understanding the elements of nature, it can certainly be considered a valid scientific endeavor of the time period— in fact, I believe Newton devoted himself very much to the study of alchemy, and some people today actually regard the practice as the forerunner of modern organic chemistry, all of which suggests that the current scientific understanding of the natural world is destined to change as new discoveries come into light.

</p>

<p>Yes, alchemy was largely a Middle Age endeavor that quixotically sought to transform one common metal into another of greater desire. Primarily, it was initially an endeavor concerning personal economic gain, by transmuting less prestigious compounds into romanticized variants, including elixirs of longevity and the “philosopher’s stone.” But it never had any objective basis aside from the basic understanding that elemental combination or physical alteration could potentially modify chemical constitution. But overall, alchemy was a futile, visionary pursuit that never derived any substantive place in scientific enterprise. That is, it never advanced beyond hypothetical consideration on the hierarchy of certainty. Today, we have a far better concept of what constitutes methodical technique than the silliness of medieval idealism. So I wouldn’t exactly say that it was valid but rather a precursor or today’s pursuit. </p>

<p>While chemical transmutation isn’t scientifically valid, that isn’t to say that such synthesis is not feasible via other means. Through the application of an extraordinary extent of pressure, diamonds have been produced from peanut butter. Moreover, in 1919, Ernest Rutherford bombarded nitrogen with alpha particles to produce oxygen and hydrogen nuclei (chemical element 7 to chemical element 8). Nuclear transmutation can derive gold from lead, although the cost of the procedure far exceeds any associated gain. </p>

<p>But I would say that alchemy is better suited to be described as the predecessor of modern-day inorganic chemistry rather than the organic variety.</p>

<p>And pertaining to the rapidly changing nature of science, I certainly agree. The growth of science, particularly in the biological realm, is certainly proceeding in steepening, nonlinear format. It’s a very exciting time and I find such progression to be very much more appealing than the drab, static, and metaphysically conceited assertions governing religious epistemology. </p>

<p>

Probably. I didn’t intend to argue that evolution does not exist, merely that scientific theories do not necessarily always conflict with religious beliefs.

</p>

<p>Yes, I realize that. But often they do.</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1065510844-post1751.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1065510844-post1751.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[mifune]

<p>

My favorite Bill Maher quote:</p>

<p>Bill: Do you believe in Santa Clause?
Guy: Of course not.
Bill: (laughing) Of course not! That’s crazy! A guy flying around and delivering presents in one night… thats ridiculous. But a guy being able to listen to billions of people whispering to him at once… that I get.
Guy: <serious face=“”>

</serious></p>

<p>That is very funny. It find it very much associated with one of George Carlin’s popularized acerbic commentaries. It is rollicking entertainment.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.rense.com/general69/obj.htm[/url]”>http://www.rense.com/general69/obj.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[ksarmand]

<p>

That is very funny. It find it very much associated with one of George Carlin’s popularized acerbic commentaries. It is rollicking entertainment.

</p>

<p>No, rollicking entertainment can be found when you exit your room. You weren’t at the party tonight - when [url=<a href=“http://beemp3.com/download.php?file=12984&song=Dutty+Wine]this[/url”>http://beemp3.com/download.php?file=12984&song=Dutty+Wine]this[/url</a>] came on, I was very disappointed not to have you as my partner. :p</p>

[Circular]

<p>Whoa Mifune. We could keep this argument somewhat civil, can’t we? I never insulted you personally, or at least I never meant to, so please don’t be so venomous. And no, I have not read a 50 page thread. I don’t have time to do so. Requiring me to is somewhat ridiculous. </p>

<p>As for your statement: “The greater portion of this entire paragraph is a jumble of garbled, halfwitted, non-evidenced, abstract, sweeping generalities that follow a patently infantile line of reasoning. Scientists don’t obtain great pleasure from their work? Non-religious scientists feel empty? Non-religious people aren’t happy? Your reasoning is completely asinine and mentally unsound.”</p>

<p>Of course the paragraph was generalization, it was never meant to be taken as anything else. But you misunderstood my point. My point was that in my experience science provides great satisfaction. Religion, when followed correctly, provides a different kind of pleasure: joy. The people I have known who are truly religious are deeply happy people, happier in my opinion than the non-religious people I have known. That is generalization, but when taking about 6 billion people, we are forced to it. </p>

<p>Your reasoning from my statement is also incorrect. I never said non-religious people were not happy. I merely stated, from my observations, science does not provide the same kind of happiness as religion. It gives satisfaction, certainly, but at the end of the day can science tell you how to deal with your son’s suicide, as a hypothetical example? No. Attacking my reasoning as “mentally unsound” when you are leaping to such conclusions is hypocritical. Also, my evidence is my own personal observations. Take that as you will. </p>

<p>Calm yourself down. I respect you even though I think your behavior is arrogant, pompous, materialistic, and vindictive. I still respect you for all that. Stooping to insults is rather low, and does not help your argument at all. </p>

<p>EDIT: You go to Harvard, don’t you? Go talk to the people at Elmbrook if they will let you, if you have time or want to know more. Otherwise, I’m done arguing with somebody as negative and as venomous as you are.</p>

[BillyMc]

<p>

Geocentrism, while independently shared by other primitive cultures and religious traditions, was unequivocally endorsed by biblical authors, as it was for nearly every individual who gave any thought to the matter. It wasn’t until objective evidence influenced more liberal interpretations of the Bible. To say that the Bible isn’t a source of geocentric cosmology is untenable. The precise sequence of geocentric chronicle is irrelevant.

I never said that it was not contained within the Bible. However, I did state that saying that it was derived from the Bible is misleading, as you made it appear as if that was the origin.</p>

[BillyMc]

<p>Also, I just saw this and felt a desire to post it here: <a href=“http://cdn.leasticoulddo.com/comics/20100831.gif[/url]”>http://cdn.leasticoulddo.com/comics/20100831.gif&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[HarveyLewis]

<p>Threadjack! Post your favorite comics relating to science/religion.
[Surviving</a> the World - Lesson 524 - The Bible, Part II](<a href=“http://survivingtheworld.net/Lesson524.html]Surviving”>Surviving the World - Lesson 524 - The Bible, Part II)</p>

[MIThopeful16]

<p>Smh… these people argued FOREVER. Come on… there’s not much to gain, other than personal satisfaction.</p>

[kvothe]

<p>Yeah. Crazy religious freaks will never be swayed. Their logic is not consistent with ours. </p>

<p>Atheist: But dude, if you go from A -> B and B -> C then A must -> C!</p>

<p>Religious: No man its more like this. A -> B. Some miracle happens. A -> 3.14159</p>

<p>o_O</p>

[BillyMc]

<p>Hm, explain how your comment is even somewhat consistent with this debate? You seem to just be making up insults to back up your argument, and they are obviously of dubious origin.</p>

[kvothe]

<p>My point is that it is useless arguing with people who use faulty logic so we might as well stop.</p>

[BillyMc]

<p>Where is the faulty logic? You seem to illustrate an absolute logical superiority of all atheists over all theists. I do not see it, would you like to point it out?</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>mifune, in response to your quotes of the Bible’s supposed geocentricism:</p>

<p>When you wake up in the morning, you go out and watch the “sunrise”, not the “earthturn”, right?</p>

<p>Or do you consider anyone who uses that term to be advocating geocentricism?</p>

[mifune]

<p>

Whoa Mifune. We could keep this argument somewhat civil, can’t we? I never insulted you personally, or at least I never meant to, so please don’t be so venomous.

</p>

<p>I haven’t thought highly of your ability to form a cohesive argument with clear, logical illustrations, but that is far different than insulting your character, which I never have and never will. In particular, your claim that if your god didn’t give humans morality, we would all act like animals is asinine, unfounded, contrarian, and deserving of the highest criticism. Morality is biologically ingrained, like all other cognitive phenomena, not endowed by some supernatural figment as you speciously understand it.</p>

<p>

My point was that in my experience science provides great satisfaction. Religion, when followed correctly, provides a different kind of pleasure: joy. The people I have known who are truly religious are deeply happy people, happier in my opinion than the non-religious people I have known.

</p>

<p>Yes, religious folks, in many cases, attain a source of comfort from their religion. It’s quite irrefutable that many find it more gratifying to believe that there is an extramundane ally lurking about to assist them through their woes, miseries, and predicaments, and is somehow privy to the thoughts and actions governing their existence. It’s also very emotionally pleasing for some to believe that importuning the gods with prayer will somehow produce effective outcome. It won’t, aside from wishful thinking’s ability to provide a psychogenic enhancement to the immune system, although no amount of wishful thinking will resolve any plight in need of the proper active attention. Of course, all of this has absolutely no bearing on whether it’s true or not, but I agree with that portion of your message. There are some who feel that they need that particular form of consolation and there are others who don’t need such unsatisfying, baseless answers to life’s mysteries. I belong to the latter group.</p>

<p>However, your troubling assertion is the claim that science leaves someone devoid of a certain emotional fulfillment – “emptiness” as you referenced it. But I emphatically take issue with that. Conscientiously undertaking a particular pursuit – or multiple pursuits – will provide for a source of fantastic satisfaction, happiness, achievement, or whatever you wish to call it. Religion obviously isn’t necessary to be moral, pleased with life’s circumstances, or even to forge a common identity, devotion, or fidelity within a community or family unit. There is no statistical evidence that religious people are somehow better citizens, more law-abiding, or face death less bravery. In fact, there are negative correlations between the density of religiosity and low crime statistics (Source: Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris).</p>

<p>

It gives satisfaction, certainly, but at the end of the day can science tell you how to deal with your son’s suicide, as a hypothetical example? No. Attacking my reasoning as “mentally unsound” when you are leaping to such conclusions is hypocritical.

</p>

<p>Are you intimating that without religion we cannot possibly have the mental faculty to prevail over life’s difficulties? I don’t find that your arguments have any evidential substance aside from subjective, tactlessly conceived generalizations. Your posts largely cannot be read without a feeling of suffocation, a gasping and flailing around for some form of sense, wit, or competency. </p>

<p>

Calm yourself down. I respect you even though I think your behavior is arrogant, pompous, materialistic, and vindictive. I still respect you for all that. Stooping to insults is rather low, and does not help your argument at all.

</p>

<p>Criticizing your ability to support an argument isn’t a form of insult; it’s something of which you simply don’t have much of a concept. You, like most religious people, find arguments and overt resistance against your religion, penetration of your unfounded faith-claims, and ability to reason as personal indignities against yourself. And then you bemoan about how you are criticized for your fatuous, atrociously conceived statements and dismiss those who identify your argumentative shortcomings as “arrogant, pompous, and vindictive” individuals. In reality, it is about putting your own pious articulations through the same form of rigorous criticism that science subjects to its own deductions. Certainly, you have thoughts about this subject, but none of which are disciplined by logic or a factual understanding of the involved science. </p>

<p>

Otherwise, I’m done arguing with somebody as negative and as venomous as you are.

</p>

<p>Likewise, it isn’t very conducive or fruitful to respond to your spurious, bloated arguments.</p>