Do Most Atheists Know that science..... Part 2

[FireGarden]

Well, I have some quotes from Robert Jastrow, an agnostic and the Founding director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1961 where he served until his retirement from NASA in 1981. He was also a former director of the Mount Wilson observatory.

People are giving you a hard time about using Jastrow as a source. I don't agree. Jastrow is described as an astronomer, physicist and cosmologist on wiki. And the following quote is his opinion on scientific attitudes. I think he is qualified to have an opinion. That doesn't mean he's right. But I think it is fine for him to be quoted in a debate.

"There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]. They come from the heart whereas you would expect the judgements to come from the brain. Why? I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science, it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the universe, and every effect must have its cause, there is no first cause...

Einstein might have been one such scientists -- refusing to believe that some things are simply random. But, as far as I'm aware, there is no cause and effect in the decay of an atom. Science has managed to overcome such a hurdle and describes atomic decay as a random process.

So Jastrow is wrong. Scientists can "bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained" -- where "explained" means "every effect must have its cause."

This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control...

Consider the enormity of the problem. Science has proven that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks, what cause produced the effect? Who or what put the matter and energy in the universe? Was the universe created out of nothing, or was it gathered together out of pre existing materials? And science cannot answer these questions".

This sounds like God of the gaps, with a special appeal that the gaps will exist forever.

He also claims that scientists (or, at least, those that treat science religiously) have an unflinching faith that everything can be explained.

There are some people with that attitude. I don't know how many. As I said, many scientists are willing to accept that atomic decay is random.

I'm not a working scientist, but I think that I have a scientific outlook on the world. And I can accept that atomic decay, in general, has no cause and effect. (I say "in general" because the half-life of radioactive substances is different in a nuclear reactor than in general).

 

[drkitten]

But if it's a metaphor... then there is no "original sin"

Doesn't follow. There's a reason metaphors are used. They describe reality, albeit in non-literal terms.

It just means that the nature of "original sin" may not have involved a literal eating of a literal fruit as prompted by a literal serpent.

If I neglect to do something and explain it as "I fell asleep at the wheel," I may or may not have been driving and I may or may not have actually fallen asleep. But the thing left undone remains undone, and the problems it created remain.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Doesn't follow. There's a reason metaphors are used. They describe reality, albeit in non-literal terms.

It just means that the nature of "original sin" may not have involved a literal eating of a literal fruit as prompted by a literal serpent.

If I neglect to do something and explain it as "I fell asleep at the wheel," I may or may not have been driving and I may or may not have actually fallen asleep. But the thing left undone remains undone, and the problems it created remain.

But do you then expect an entire worldview and all the succeeding actions, reactions and their consequences to proceed from your metaphor?

And if you do, aren't you just the teensiest bit megalomaniacal?

 

[bokonon]

Well if appeal to authority is good enough for one of the world's great apologists, it's good enough for DOC.

Appeal to authority and appeal to popularity are the two pillars from which DOC hangs virtually all of his posts.

 

[DOC]

Appeal to authority and appeal to popularity are the two pillars from which DOC hangs virtually all of his posts.

Aren't a lot of atheists basing their beliefs on authority and popularity when they accept the below quote when they haven't a clue as to what it means.

Sure, the inflationary theory of cosmology states that vacuum fluctuations resulted in a gravitational singularity. This is essentially a point of zero volume containing all of the mass and energy we see in the current universe. Since the volume was zero, density was infinite and spacetime essentially did not exist yet. General relativity indicates other values at infinity in this singularity as well, but most people are most aware of the density value. Just after t=0, known as the Inflationary Period, elementary particles began to separate out. Less than a second later, the fundamental forces separated as well.

One of the reasons it is known as inflationary cosmology is that the Big Bang wasn't an explosion, at least not the type one normally thinks of. It is an expansion, separation, and cooling. Once things have cooled enough to allow for "normal" matter, the four fundamental forces, particularly gravity, take over and, ta-da!, here we are almost 14 billion years later.

ETA: For example, someone in here had faith in a big bang singularity and it was later shown they didn't understand the definition of it.

 

[Hokulele]

Aren't a lot of atheists basing there beliefs on authority and popularity when they accept the below quote when they haven't a clue as to what it means.

No.

ETA: For example, someone in here had faith in a big bang singularity and it was later shown they didn't understand the definition of it.

Heh, you have yet to show how the confusion between mass and density makes any difference at all to your premise.

 

[Mark Felt]

Aren't a lot of atheists basing there beliefs on authority and popularity when they accept this as true when they haven't a clue as to what it means.

Considering that atheism is simply lack of belief in god, no.

For example, someone in here had faith in a big bang singularity and it was later shown they didn't understand what it meant.

Are you still harping on about joobz being mistaken about the meaning of singularity? Because there's no relation to an appeal to authority/popularity and an "appeal to science". The first, authority, is where you state that your position is correct because, well, look! This really smart guy agrees with me, this logic must be correct!

And it's retarded because what matters isn't who says the statement is correct, but what the logic and evidence for the statement itself are.

The second, popularity, is where you state that your position is correct because, well, look! A whole huge fricking group of people agree with me, this logic must be correct!

And it's retarded because what matters isn't who says the statement is correct, but what the logic and evidence for the statement itself are.

The third, science, is where you state that your position is correct because, well, look! The is the statement, this is the evidence and reasoning for this statement, I'm pretty sure this logic is correct!

 

[DOC]

Aren't a lot of atheists basing their beliefs on authority and popularity when they accept the below quote when they haven't a clue as to what it means.

No.

So then are you saying that the majority of atheists in the world who accept the Big Bang understand this:

Sure, the inflationary theory of cosmology states that vacuum fluctuations resulted in a gravitational singularity. This is essentially a point of zero volume containing all of the mass and energy we see in the current universe. Since the volume was zero, density was infinite and spacetime essentially did not exist yet. General relativity indicates other values at infinity in this singularity as well, but most people are most aware of the density value. Just after t=0, known as the Inflationary Period, elementary particles began to separate out. Less than a second later, the fundamental forces separated as well.

One of the reasons it is known as inflationary cosmology is that the Big Bang wasn't an explosion, at least not the type one normally thinks of. It is an expansion, separation, and cooling. Once things have cooled enough to allow for "normal" matter, the four fundamental forces, particularly gravity, take over and, ta-da!, here we are almost 14 billion years later.

 

[Hokulele]

So then are you saying that the majority of atheists in the world who accept the Big Bang understand this:

No.

 

[Mark Felt]

So then are you saying that the majority of atheists in the world who accept the Big Bang understand this:

Question: Do you travel by plane, train, boat, or car?

Question: Do you understand the physics by which they operate?

Question: If the answers for the previous two were yes, and no, respectively, are you basing your "beliefs" on an appeal to authority?

 

[Olowkow]

Aren't a lot of atheists basing there beliefs on authority and popularity when they accept the below quote when they haven't a clue as to what it means.

ETA: For example, someone in here had faith in a big bang singularity and it was later shown they didn't understand the definition of it.

I can see only two purposes why you seem to be obsessed with these questions. To change our minds, or to learn. Neither of these seems to be working out for you.

First of all, no one knows the cause of the big bang. But it sure looks like something did in fact go "pop", noiselessly of course a long long time ago. If it makes people feel good to say god did it, then fine. Atheists don't believe in god, so they look to science for natural answers. They don't first think, big bang, oh! I'm gonna be an atheist. If the hypothesis is totally wrong, it doesn't change my life at all, doesn't pick my pocket or break my leg.

Brian Greene, of string theory fame, thinks the universe is infinite and multiple. This produces all kinds of interesting and bizarre claims, that's what infinity does to science, and why science hates them.

You probably see our confidence in science as "faith", since you don't have the same confidence in the scientific method, but it is not the same thing. "Faith", or belief with no evidence, becomes dangerous when one bases a life on decisions that are acquired with no regard to a scientific principles or natural law.

Now, the math becomes nonsense at time=0, so it is anybody's guess what is going on at that point. This has been stated many times here. The tricky thing is though, that time is apparently not really continuous, but comes in discrete packets of around 10^-44 seconds. The notion of a point of infinite density is very difficult to understand, but it is not like the entire mass of the universe is in the singularity, but rather what later became the universe. That's my understanding. It is merely a hypothesis, not etched in stone, so getting the details incorrect is not surprising. People are merely trying to get their heads around how this could have happened.

When one has a general knowledge of science and its principles and methods, it is natural to seek this kind of answer for everything, including the beginning. It isn't a proof of god that science does not know everything, so I really don't see the purpose of attempting to roam along this twisty turny road.

When one eschews the scientific approach, in principle, predictions and results can be very odd indeed: astrology, mind reading, dowsing, UFO's, bigfoot, crystals, etc.

Try looking into quantum mechanics. That is even weirder stuff.

 

[FireGarden]

On this point, DOC, I'm with you. Quoting Jastrow is fine. I quote scientists to speak about science all the time.

I think it's acceptable to use Jastrow as an authority on scientific attitudes, especially in regard to cosmology. Wiki lists him as a cosmologist. If wiki is wrong, I will change my mind. If his expertise is outdated, I will change my mind.

For those who think so: why is Jastrow not qualified to speak about cosmology and scientific attitudes?

Jastrow being an authority doesn't make him right. But, as far as I noticed, I am the only one to have challenged what he said.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Thanks for clarifying. There's always more to learn about the history of other countries. Remind me to tell you about Governor Philip and his Merinos some time

I'm a little afraid to ask...

 

[joobz]

On this point, DOC, I'm with you. Quoting Jastrow is fine. I quote scientists to speak about science all the time.

I think it's acceptable to use Jastrow as an authority on scientific attitudes, especially in regard to cosmology. Wiki lists him as a cosmologist. If wiki is wrong, I will change my mind. If his expertise is outdated, I will change my mind.

For those who think so: why is Jastrow not qualified to speak about cosmology and scientific attitudes?

Jastrow being an authority doesn't make him right. But, as far as I noticed, I am the only one to have challenged what he said.

DOC didn't make any argument nor answer any question posed to him. And the quote posed did not reflect a scientist speaking in regards of his field, but rather theology. This is highlighted by the fact that Jastrow's argument merely makes the first cause argument, which simply goes to the "who created the creator" debate. I fail to see how quoting Jastrow on a theological argument isn't anything but an appeal to authority.


ETA: Even if we were to pretend that Jastrow's opinion was scientific, it still reflects an appeal to authority. Jastrow's opinion is far from a consensus. Why select his opinion vs. any other number of cosmologists? In order for quoting him to be valid, it must be clear why one supports that view vs. the views of other experts in the field. Without that analysis. Without that support, it is merely an appeal to authority.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Sure, the inflationary theory of cosmology states that vacuum fluctuations resulted in a gravitational singularity. This is essentially a point of zero volume containing all of the mass and energy we see in the current universe. Since the volume was zero, density was infinite and spacetime essentially did not exist yet. General relativity indicates other values at infinity in this singularity as well, but most people are most aware of the density value. Just after t=0, known as the Inflationary Period, elementary particles began to separate out. Less than a second later, the fundamental forces separated as well.

One of the reasons it is known as inflationary cosmology is that the Big Bang wasn't an explosion, at least not the type one normally thinks of. It is an expansion, separation, and cooling. Once things have cooled enough to allow for "normal" matter, the four fundamental forces, particularly gravity, take over and, ta-da!, here we are almost 14 billion years later.

Clear as anything. What's not to understand?

 

[bokonon]

Well, I'll confess that I have no idea what a "vacuum fluctuation" is. It sounds like one of those gobbledygook tech terms they make up on Star Trek. And while I understand that zero volume means infinite density, I can't really get my head around proto-matter that occupies zero volume. I can't decide if I'm a big bang agnostic, or merely a big bang ignoramus.

 

[joobz]

Aren't a lot of atheists basing their beliefs on authority and popularity when they accept the below quote when they haven't a clue as to what it means.

no.
people beleive in the theory of gravity but do not understand the particulars.

ETA: For example, someone in here had faith in a big bang singularity and it was later shown they didn't understand the definition of it.

Poor example. My original argument was uneffected by the error in the singularity. The fact that you have been unwilling (unable?) to answer my original question is much more telling.

 

[articulett]

I would say that we don't "believe in" the theory of gravity, rather we accept it... just as we accept other scientific theories, because scientific theories turn out to be the best explanations for what we observe. Gravity is true whether we "believe in it" or not. We don't have to know anything about it to accept this, and our acceptance or rejection of the idea does not affect gravitational theory in any way. We don't "believe in" a round earth... we don't have to know why the oceans don't spill out-- we just accept round earth theory because it is the explanation that best fits the facts. Oh, and it's true. The best explanation for the facts, usually IS, it turns out.

The Big Bang and Evolution are theories that are also facts just like gravitational theory and plate tectonics and round earth theory. Our gaps in knowledge do not change the facts and facts do not need to be "believed in" to still be factual--

The theory is the framework... when you've completed the frame of a puzzle, it's much easier to fill in the missing pieces. Religions try to insert the wrong pieces into the gaps-- often pieces from an entirely different puzzle. When scientists point out the pieces don't fit, the true believer gets defensive and claims that the beauty is in the mystery of the poor fit-- and how dare the scientist say anything at all since they haven't yet put the proper piece in the gap. (Often the scientist would, but the stupid piece from the wrong puzzle is in the way-- and jammed in so tight and surrounded by god guards)

 

[FireGarden]

ETA: Even if we were to pretend that Jastrow's opinion was scientific, it still reflects an appeal to authority. Jastrow's opinion is far from a consensus. Why select his opinion vs. any other number of cosmologists? In order for quoting him to be valid, it must be clear why one supports that view vs. the views of other experts in the field. Without that analysis. Without that support, it is merely an appeal to authority.

Yes, it's an appeal to authority. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing, let alone a fallacy.

The first part I responded to seemed to me to be Jastrow talking about the attitudes of scientists. Being a scientist himself, and having worked with other scientists, he is qualified to give an opinion on that.

As for his opinion not reflecting the consensus, that is for those who disagree with Doc to demonstrate. You can't just point to Jastrow and say "we don't think that cosmologist is qualified to talk about cosmology".

 

[FireGarden]

I would say that we don't "believe in" the theory of gravity, rather we accept it... just as we accept other scientific theories, because scientific theories turn out to be the best explanations for what we observe.

I agree with that. But not so much accepting them as "fact".

I'm more of a mathematician than a scientist. A theorem in maths can be true or false. In science, it is more like a model. Models are better classified as adequate or inadequate.

Newton's laws adequately describe gravity and motion in most cases. It's still taught, it's still used.

True/False, as applied to science, is so 19th century.