33 Comments on “Billy Graham the Scientist?”   rss feed

1. Unpublished on May 28th, 2006 at 12:57 am

   I was discussing why I didn’t believe with my brother earlier tonight and the thought occurred to me that there is a sort of gauge invariance to this whole belief thing. It’s pretty easy to see how a christian fundamentalist can be rotated into a muslim fundamentalist around the abraham axis. But what about the more diverse beliefs?

   If we rotate around evolutionary benefit, and apply a healthy dose of moral relativism, we can infer that there are invariant beliefs among religions. So the belief that Jesus rose from the dead rotates around their gene’s desire to live long and prosper. And isn’t that what religious belief is about?

   Batshit insane idea? Probably… but give a man a hammer and everything looks like nails, espeically if he barely understands the hammer.

2. Richard on May 28th, 2006 at 9:27 am

   It seems kind of contradictory. You’ll have to assume that the Bible is true (as a source of information on Jesus) in order to attain the attitude that God has to prove himself to make us believers. If you think the NT is just another work of ficton, assembled by some locals from Palestine - a reasonable idea- then why bother with the story of Thomas at all?

   @Unpublished: the ‘gauge invariance’ thing is turned around by believers as well. If all of these religions tell about the great flood or something else (maybe referring to it by another name), why wouldn’t it be true? (”X billion people can’t be wrong!”)

3. Joe on May 28th, 2006 at 9:29 am

   Did he mention “Blessed are those who have not seen yet still believe”? That seems to be the hook.

   This seems intended to disuade people from being skeptical, by indicating that there will be negative consequences. It’s a bit like, “Sure you can ask for proof, but if you do, maybe God will prove it by sending you to hell. Now are you sure you need proof?”.

   Presumably these negative consequences are required by any successful religion, since it reduces the probability of someone born into that faith asking too many questions and leaving when they don’t get satisfactory answers.

4. The Ridger on May 28th, 2006 at 10:18 am

   Joe is right: the story goes on to have Jesus rebuke Thomas for needing proof. It’s always been clear that asking God to prove it means you don’t have faith. Sure, God can prove it - but you’re better off not asking for it. “Thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test” Jesus said when Satan challenged him to step off the mountain and see if angels would really come to bear him up. So the message is “God can prove it - but if you ask him to, you have failed.”

   I’ve also gotta say: Billy Graham is the one of the last places I’d look for a sea-change in doctrine. He follows change, he doesn’t make it.

5. Doug on May 28th, 2006 at 11:03 am

   Joe,

   No, this just goes to show that the principle of faith is a principle of knowledge. What Jesus was trying to teach Thomas was that the act of faith, seeking for knowledge from God, yields fruit, just as the act of reasoning, seeking for knowledge from man, yields fruit. However, the fruit of faith is greater than the fruit of reason. Thomas concluded with his reason, once he held the pierced hands of Jesus in his own hands, that Jesus had power over death, that all the things that the apostles had been taught by him, that he was the Resurrection and the Life, that he was the Son of God, the Redeemer of mankind, etc., that whosoever believed in him, would not die, but have everlasting life, were true.

   Nevertheless, what Jesus wanted Thomas to understand is that it is better for one to discover that the principle of revealed truth, based on one’s relationship to an omniscient God, is more important to comprehend than facts themselves, even when those facts are astounding (as they obviously are in this case), because that relationship to the source of all truth will be a source of knowledge eternally, springing up unto everlasting life, once it is established.

   One of the most painful things we experience in our quest for scientific knowledge is the passing away from existence of those lights of human reason who have led the way in that quest. We realize that while we are alive we can behold the wonders of nature, but this brief moment is not enough. At least it is not enough for me. What a wonder it would be if Heisenberg, Born, Dirac, Pauli, and Shroedinger were still around and still engaged in our quest to understand the structure of the physical universe. I especially would like to read the posts of Feynman from time to time, but, alas, they are gone and so will we soon.

   So, what’s more important, to seek to find out why the masses and spins of quarks and gluons don’t add up to the mass of protons, or to seek to find out why Jesus insisted that we have a divine Father who is inaccessible through our unaided faculties of reason, but who is readily accessible through the inspiration and enlightenment of our minds that comes to us when we chose to follow and obey his commandments to be just, to be morally clean in our conduct, and to love Him and one another in truth?

   I think we all know what is more important, but it is our unwillingness to believe that prevents us from finding it out for ourselves. If we refuse to believe that we must obey his commandments, then we can never discover that what Jesus tried to teach us was wisdom: The injunction to “be not faithless, but believing,” is simply the wisest course to take for seekers of truth.

6. Ambitwistor on May 28th, 2006 at 11:25 am

   But is Billy Graham better or worse than Pat Robertson, the scientist?

   I think the sky is blue because it’s a shift from black through purple
   to blue, and it has to do with where the light is. You know, the
   farther we get into darkness, and there’s a shifting of color of light
   into the blueness, and I think as you go farther and farther away from
   the reflected light we have from the sun or the light that’s bouncing
   off this earth, uh, the darker it gets … I think if you look at the
   color scale, you start at black, move it through purple, move it on
   out, it’s the shifting of color. We mentioned before about the stars
   singing, and that’s one of the effects of the shifting of colors.

   — Pat Robertson, “The 700 Club”

7. Cynthia on May 28th, 2006 at 11:37 am

   Please pardon me for casting a shadow of disillusionment over the Billy Graham fans of the world. However, I feel compelled to do so… I feel compelled to broadcast that Billy Graham is simply practicing the ancient art of circular reasoning!!!

8. CapitalistImperialistPig on May 28th, 2006 at 12:47 pm

   Thank you Padre, but I’m having some doubts about string theory, not to mention dark energy. Does the Gospel according to Mark provide any further spiritual guidance?

9. Joe on May 28th, 2006 at 1:05 pm

   Doug,

   To be perfectly honest, I feel that science is more important than theology, independant of whether there is a god.

   Taking a scientific approach, our knowledge of the workings of our universe only ever improves. We never accept a theory if it is less able to predict the nature than the theory it would replace.

   This is not the case with religion. As time passes we become further removed from primary sources (for example Jesus in Chrisianity, or prophets or others along those lines). Interpretations of holy texts change, but since you cannot check whether the new interpretation is any better than the last, the chances are that you move further away from the truth (think of a random walk), assuming there was some thruth there originally.

   So I go with the quarks, since they will never take take me further away from understanding the universe than I was in the begining. The same cannot be said of religion, I’m afraid.

10. Joe on May 28th, 2006 at 1:07 pm

    Thank you Padre, but I’m having some doubts about string theory, not to mention dark energy. Does the Gospel according to Mark provide any further spiritual guidance?

    Presumably it says something like “blessed are those theories which have not been renormalized, yet converge”.

11. Dick Thompson on May 28th, 2006 at 1:35 pm

    Religion continues to survive in spite of all the strengths and successes of rationaolism because a significant minority of the population do have inner experiences they take to refer to what Graham is describing. Having had such an expeience myself (which I later came to see as a naturally occuring brain state) I know how convincing it can be, and the people thus “blessed” are personal gurus to others who lack the experience.’

    Scientists should study this (and some do!) not just indulge in teenage style mockery.

12. Mark on May 28th, 2006 at 2:37 pm

    The vast majority of people who are religious have nothing of the sort of the kind of experience you describe. If those people have doubts, then they are thinking rationally, should be encouraged, and the people who would discourage them from doing this should be exposed as charlatans. Thanks anyway though. Dick.

13. spyder on May 28th, 2006 at 5:22 pm

    Dick, there are a number of scientists actively engaged in the study of consciousness from numerous disciplines, as are many philosophers from differing schools of axioms and principles. Among the more relevant findings thus far is the recognition that are brains are structured and chemically aligned to “believe.” For example, our retinas and optic nerves do not see objects, but rather wavelengths of reflected light, yet we, well nearly all of us would, agree that we perceive fully formed objects in four dimensions (including time). It seems that many autistics do not perceive the objects so much as see the wavelengths; and it has been research along these lines that has led to the scientific and philosophical discussions about our capacity to form constructs from believing that such and such must be true. But i shall use another better related example.

    Doug wrote: I think we all know what is more important, but it is our unwillingness to believe that prevents us from finding it out for ourselves.

    This sentence itself is laden with several a priori assumptions for which there are no valid available proofs. Yet he holds all of us (”our unwillingness”) to believe in these same assumptions; rejecting that many of us have entirely different sets and constructs. Some linguistic philosophers (and consciousness scientists) consider this sort of attempt at creating a consensual agreement that one person’s (or a larger group’s) assumptions are valid for everyone. Both Dawkins and Dennett have discussed this phenomena; an encouragement to concur consensually with Doug’s premises binds us to his conclusions. Religions are particularly powerful in creating these consensual beliefs about the cosmos, especially using various rituals and ceremonies to subtlely alter neuro-chemistry and consciousness (releasing us from certain held beliefs and towards other set or sets). Doug’s sentence above asks us to give ourselves up to his beliefs, claiming we share them and are just ignoring that. Really quite a nefarious tactic.

14. Plato on May 28th, 2006 at 6:12 pm

    Dick, has been a “rock” amongst many of science conversations, so his cautiouns were for those of younger dispositions, who are brash in disrespect? WE all know of his moderation capabilties.

    While from what I have known, he has always keep to these “science values” while looking at the maths, or talking about the science. :)

    While I cannot speak for all “religious people” who may have experiences that seem different, I find it okay for one of science mind to “let things lie” as though it was the will of something more transcendant in being, or mind boggling, without explanantion, still relevant in the ordinary everyday experiences of possibilties?

    Of course we will get these “hippy thinkers,” like Brian Greene to say what they may see is underlying the structures of consciousness and science. A form of enlghtenment perhaps?

    I won’t hold it against him.

15. Blake Stacey on May 28th, 2006 at 7:45 pm

    So, what’s more important, to seek to find out why the masses and spins of quarks and gluons don’t add up to the mass of protons, or to seek to find out why Jesus insisted that we have a divine Father [...]

    I have to go with the quarks on that one. I have plenty of reasons to believe that quarks and gluons are real, but after years of inquiry I have yet to uncover any reason why I should give Jeshua ben Joseph any more weight than I give Anansi, Baal, Chemosh, Dagon, Enlil, Freya, Gaia, Hephaestus, Isis, Jabru, Kali, Loki, Moloch, Nereus, Osiris, Ptah, Qaholom, Ra, Sedna, Tammuz, Utu, Vesta, Waqa, Xmucane, Yemaja and Zao Jun.

16. Arun on May 28th, 2006 at 10:59 pm

    What a wonder it would be if Heisenberg, Born, Dirac, Pauli, and Shroedinger were still around and still engaged in our quest to understand the structure of the physical universe. I especially would like to read the posts of Feynman from time to time, but, alas, they are gone and so will we soon.

    It would be a wonder if Jesus was still around and helping us in our quest to make sense of belief. I especially would like to read some missive from God that was more recent than about 2000 years also, but alas, the one from 600 AD via Muhammad is false according to the older one (and vice versa).

    Regarding Einstein, Heisenberg, Feynman, etc., eventually they’d become pains in the neck, constantly reliving past glory or fixated on some wrong idea; we’d want to see them only in the museum, and on special occasions. If death didn’t exist, we humans would invent it if for no other reason than boredom after a few eons with the same people (and few new ones, because if people aren’t dying, why would people be born?) It would be like having gardens of flowers of fabric and plastic,instead of the real thing.

    Another mystery is why not in this day and age, when the words, voice, image and even the DNA of the messenger can be preserved with uncorruptable digital fidelity, and instantly broadcast to all over the world, does not God send one? I mean, isn’t it unfair to the people of Inner Mongolia of 2000 years ago, that they never had a chance of establishing a permanent relationship with God? There certainly was a significant propagation delay there. We can do so much better today. The truth is that either the stream of messengers is constant (and so recording any particular one is not terribly important) or else there are none and never were any.

17. Joao Carlos on May 29th, 2006 at 12:40 am

    But, as it goes, you don’t see an “Gospel according to Thomas”. I reckon it would be somehow different ofthe ones we are used to…

18. absolutely on May 29th, 2006 at 1:59 am

    Gospel of Thomas.

19. Plato on May 29th, 2006 at 7:26 am

    spyder:
    

    It seems that many autistics do not perceive the objects so much as see the wavelengths; and it has been research along these lines that has led to the scientific and philosophical discussions about our capacity to form constructs from believing that such and such must be true. But i shall use another better related example.

    I couldn’t help but think of the earlier references to Wassily Kadinsky? I mean, “the art” is really interesting in terms of color and geometrical expressions?

    Imagine opening your eyelids and only “seeing” like this?

    
    

    Synesthesia (Greek, syn = together + aisthesis = perception) is the involuntary physical experience of a cross-modal association. That is, the stimulation of one sensory modality reliably causes a perception in one or more different senses.

    Are they seeing truer then our everyday experiences? “May,” call it transcendant, while reason prevails in all the “effects in optics” that are considered?

    Maybe an eventual evolutionary outcome to the species of humanity, as it learns to accept reality in other ways.

    That’s speculative of course.:)

20. Doug on May 30th, 2006 at 6:42 am

    Arun wrote:

    It would be a wonder if Jesus was still around and helping us in our quest to make sense of belief. I especially would like to read some missive from God that was more recent than about 2000 years also, but alas, the one from 600 AD via Muhammad is false according to the older one (and vice versa).

    Here you go Arun, if you’ll receive it:

    Modern revelation from God

21. z.king on Jun 2nd, 2006 at 7:11 pm

    Scientist the Scientist?

    >Awesome! When faced with doubts … the correct answer seems to be that
    >God needs to provide incontrovertible proof of the claim in order that the >sensible skeptic believe.

    And when faced with doubts about this theory or that theory, the correct asnwer seems to be that the scientist needs to provide incontrovertible physical evidence in order that the sensible skeptic believe, observed physical evidence rather than that scietist’s perceived incontrovertible appeal to reason that is passed off as incontrovertible proof.

    >This is science! … Thomas doubts - of course Jesus isn’t mad, the doubt is
    >understandable and so easily fixed - Jesus shows up, proving the resurrection -
    >and Thomas’ doubt is gone.

    But, the doubt of the skeptic of this theory or that theory is not so easily fixed. The physical evidence is long dead and gone and cannot be resurrected from the past.

    >Oh well, close but no cigar. Damn.

    Shucks.

22. Jeff Nuttall on Jun 2nd, 2006 at 7:30 pm

    No respectable scientist would ever pass off an “appeal to reason” as any sort of proof. Scientific theories are accepted only to the extent that they make testable predictions that are borne out by experiment and/or observation.

    The physical evidence is long dead and gone and cannot be resurrected from the past.

    What particular physical evidence are you talking about? If you’re referring to the evidence for evolution–which it’s my guess you are–no, it’s certainly anything but “long dead and gone”. Living organisms aren’t the only form of physical evidence, and the amount of physical evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

23. z.king on Jun 3rd, 2006 at 11:35 am

    >No respectable scientist would ever pass off an “appeal to reason” as any sort of proof.

    So you say.

    >What particular physical evidence are you talking about?

    Any claim about the state of matter at some point in time in the past based on interpolation.

24. Jeff Nuttall on Jun 3rd, 2006 at 1:04 pm

    So you say.

    Yes, that’s the scientific method. If you think that’s not the case, you’ll have to be specific about what “appeal to reason” you think scientists are passing off as proof.

    Any claim about the state of matter at some point in time in the past based on interpolation.

    Such as?

25. z.king on Jun 3rd, 2006 at 5:47 pm

    Yes, that’s the scientific method.

    Back to your definition.

    Scientific theories are accepted only to the extent that they make testable predictions that are borne out by experiment and/or observation.

    Sounds good to me, and therein lies my complaint. How do you test and observe the past? All we know is the present.

    If you think that’s not the case, you’ll have to be specific about what “appeal to reason” you think scientists are passing off as proof.

    Scientist: “Such and such has always remained constant.” Unspoken: It’s a given that such and such has remained constant. So much so, that I need not even defend the point. “Because of said constant, we know this or that about the past.”

    So it looks like you’re right. There’s never an appeal to reason, only an unspoken assumption of reason.

    Any claim about the state of matter at some point in time in the past based on interpolation.

    Such as?

    That such and such constant has remained constant so we know this or that is a certain age.

    Why get specific? Someone who’s an expert at the details can give more and better examples than I can. The details are just used to obscure the assumptions.

    But people aren’t going to give up that kind of thinking. Too much is at stake.

26. Jeff Nuttall on Jun 3rd, 2006 at 6:25 pm

    How do you test and observe the past? All we know is the present.

    You can test and observe processes which are still going on in the present.

    Obviously any extrapolation of these processes to the past cannot be 100% proven. No scientist will claim that they can. However, unless a better explanation comes along, there’s no good reason not to regard such extrapolations as reasonable. Scientists are fully aware that they don’t constitute absolute proof, and that no such absolute proof is possible. You’re arguing with a straw man.

    It helps, incidentally, that those extrapolations are consistent. If many different lines of evidence independently lead to the same conclusions about the past, that’s pretty good proof that they’re correct. Not 100%, absolutely undeniable proof, of course, but again, no scientist would claim that it is. We can’t prove that the entire universe didn’t, for instance, suddenly spring into existence three hundred years ago filled with fake signs of a nonexistent past, but there’s nothing useful to be gained by assuming it did. On the other hand, extrapolations of existing trends into the past have produced a number of useful and verifiable predictions. Does that mean we absolutely know for sure it’s not all just a fantastic coincidence, or a conspirancy by some omnipotent prankster? No, but so what? We can only work with what we’ve got, and it’s served us pretty darned well so far.

    Unspoken: It’s a given that such and such has remained constant. So much so, that I need not even defend the point.

    That’s far from “unspoken”. It’s called the “Principle of Uniformity”, and it’s spoken quite a bit. And defended. See above.

    Why get specific?

    That’s…such a bizarre question it’s hard to even know how to answer it. How can we possibly have a meaningful discussion without getting specific? Do you really expect to get anywhere by spouting vague generalities? If you don’t give examples of what you’re talking about, it’s impossible to take you seriously. (Though the fact you’ve apparently never heard of the Principle of Uniformity, which is considered one of the most fundamental scientific postulates, is making it kind of hard to take you seriously anyway.)

    But people aren’t going to give up that kind of thinking. Too much is at stake.

    Like the abilities to make conclusions about natural processes that are verified by prediction, to create technological development, and to come to a better understanding of how everything works? Yeah, I think those are things not worth giving up.

27. z.king on Jun 3rd, 2006 at 7:49 pm

    …unless a better explanation comes along, there’s no good reason not to regard such extrapolations as reasonable.

    Forget observation as a hard requirement, right? Reason is enough. What have I been saying?

    Scientists are fully aware that they don’t constitute absolute proof, and that no such absolute proof is possible.

    Yea, but try and put the hard requirement of observation on them, and you’ll get dissed up one side and down the other. What’s reasonable and based on science is close enough to be called science, right?

    You’re arguing with a straw man.

    No. You’ve done nothing but dismiss my complaint by pushing the idea that the only reasonable conclusion to come to is that we should call as science the extrapolation of some known, verifiable constant into the long past.

    My simple claim is that extrapolation into the long past based on science is not science. Forty processes that extrapolate to the same point in the past still can’t be observed.

    (Though the fact you’ve apparently never heard of the Principle of Uniformity,…

    I like to call it uniformitarianism.

    …which is considered one of the most fundamental scientific postulates, is making it kind of hard to take you seriously anyway.)

    If it’s a postulate, then why are arguing with me. Just tell me to accept it for the long past. But then, that would be admitting it has to be accepted without being observed. I can accept it for the present, the future will make itself known, and it’s possible I would admit it’s reasonable for all time, but I prefer the purity of science.

    Like the abilities to make conclusions about natural processes that are verified by prediction, to create technological development, and to come to a better understanding of how everything works? Yeah, I think those are things not worth giving up.

    And you’re back to melding the past, the present, and the future, making them all equivalent. The past is about philosophy, and not knowing the past with absolute certainty hasn’t prevented scientists from making advances in the present and making accurate predictions into the future.

    I’m not making any philosophical claims that require uniformitariansm, so I can reject it as science for the past, unlike many.

    This is what happens when the priests preach the purity of the message, but don’t actually practice it. The priests preach the cardinal laws of observability and repeatability, and some people take it serious, and then the priests have to teach the simple folk that it’s more complicated.

    “But, how, how?”

    “It just is, son, it just is.”

28. Jeff Nuttall on Jun 3rd, 2006 at 8:16 pm

    Forget observation as a hard requirement, right?

    Um, no, dead wrong. Hello? You’ll notice I referred repeatedly to “testing” predictions of theories? What exactly do you think that means? That’s observation, and yes, of course it’s a hard requirement. As I said in my very first reply to you: “Scientific theories are accepted only to the extent that they make testable predictions that are borne out by experiment and/or observation.” There is no accepted scientific theory that has not been backed up by observation. Period.

    Reason is enough. What have I been saying?

    Since you refuse to give specific examples, I have no idea. What the heck are you saying?

    My simple claim is that extrapolation into the long past based on science is not science. Forty processes that extrapolate to the same point in the past still can’t be observed.

    The fact that they all extrapolate to the same point in the past certainly can be observed. By your arguments, science can’t say anything at all about the past. But by the same arguments, scientists can’t say anything about the present that’s not right in front of them either. After all, they’re not observing it directly either, are they? Unless you real mean that the only thing that is “science” is what’s right in front of your face right at this moment, some extrapolation is necessary.

    I like to call it uniformitarianism.

    You can call it what you like, but the fact that in your previous post you were referring to this idea as if was something completely unfamiliar with scientists still shows your ignorance of the scientific method.

    If it’s a postulate, then why are arguing with me.

    Because you were saying scientists didn’t consciously realize it was a postulate. Of course they do. This is nothing new.

    not knowing the past with absolute certainty hasn’t prevented scientists from making advances in the present and making accurate predictions into the future.

    Then if they’ve had so much success with those methods in the past, why shouldn’t they continue them? What else would you suggest?

    Seriously, I don’t even see what you’re arguing for here. Scientists realize they don’t know the past with an absolute certainty; they realize that the Principle of Uniformity can’t be proven, but it’s always worked out very well, and they’ve made lots of advances with it. If you think it’s “science for the past”, what exactly are you suggesting is science for the future?

    This is what happens when the priests preach the purity of the message, but don’t actually practice it. The priests preach the cardinal laws of observability and repeatability…

    …and follow those laws completely.

    Again, there is no accepted scientific theory that has not been backed up by observation. Period.

    Of course, this may include indirect observation of results, rather than direct observation of processes, but again if you’re limiting science to what can be directly observed right now you’re limiting science to what’s right in front of your face right now. That’s not a very useful definition.

29. Jeff Nuttall on Jun 3rd, 2006 at 8:22 pm

    You know what? Never mind. I shouldn’t have even bothered to post that reply. Given your tendencies to ignore what I say and make bald assertions without backing them up, you’ve clearly got your mind firmly made up, and nothing anyone says is going to change it. You didn’t come here for debate. You came here for trolling. The other regular posters here knew better than to feed the troll, and I should have known better too.

    So. Post whatever further nonsense you want; I’m done with you, and I won’t be posting in this thread again. If you would like to pretend that my silence in this thread hereafter consistutes your victory, you’re free to believe that. I have a lot of things to do, and better uses for my time than to reply to pointless posts of fuzzy-headed pseudo-philosophy.

30. z.king on Jun 4th, 2006 at 10:56 am

    I have seen the light.

    I am the troll, and you are the brilliant guy.

31. z.king on Jun 4th, 2006 at 11:13 am

    The fact that they all extrapolate to the same point in the past certainly can be observed.

    Oh yea, brilliant guy, the fact that a mathematical calculation can be observed has big possiblities.

    I’m currently observing my calculation of $100,000 being added to my bank balance. I’ll let you know how it turns out. Or maybe I won’t.

    Crashing the party is only so much fun.

32. Theo on Jun 4th, 2006 at 11:36 pm

    Avoiding the current debate, I’d like to respond to the original post:

    I take Graham as meaning exactly that if you open yourself to it, God _will_ imbue you with incontrovertible proof and reason to believe.

    I have a (positive) number of friends who have had such experiences, and I respect that they _have_ been in personal conversation with God. That I can simultaneously respect their very real experiences of God, and believe in fairies and magic and modern paganism, and also be a devout science- and rationalist atheist is not so much agnosticism nor relativism as a form of pan-secretism; a seeming paradox does not tell us that something is wrong with our model, but that there are multiple levels of analysis, all accurate.

    Graham may or may not be correct in his belief that God regularly reveals (him?)self to those who try to be open to such revelation. Although I know some people to whom God has provided such proof, I know many more who have not received any revelation even though they wanted it. So it would seem that Graham is factually wrong, based on common anecdotal evidence. But his claim is not unreasonable: his experience is almost certainly that those who avail themselves do receive (physical?) proof of the divinity of Jesus, etc. Given that evidence, there is no inconsistency in his advice and logic.

33. Jeff Nuttall on Jun 7th, 2006 at 3:32 pm

    Hesitant as I am to revisit this topic after I said I wouldn’t, and reopen a thread that I’d rather not see continue, I think I may have been a bit unfair in calling z.king a “troll”, per se. z.king, if you’re still reading this, I apologize for calling you a troll. A troll is someone who posts messages intentionally for the purpose of antagonizing people. I don’t really think that was your intent. I do, however, think that you’re posting about something you know nothing about.

    (Now, your last two messages were quite trollish, but one could argue those were provoked.)

    I’m currently observing my calculation of $100,000 being added to my bank balance. I’ll let you know how it turns out. Or maybe I won’t.

    There’s a big difference between doing a single calculation, and seeing that a number of calculations independently arrive at the same result. However, I admit that I chose my words poorly, in that I implied that such an “observation” may be sufficient to establish a theory. It’s not. The fact that numerous calculations independently arrive at the same result is certainly of potential significance, and may give scientists more reason to regard a theory as likely, but the theory is not fully accepted until it makes predictions that can be experimentally and observationally verified. The calculations of string theory, for example, match up with known facts a number of ways, but is not (yet?) accepted as a fully established scientific theory because it has not yet produced any testable predictions by which it could be verified or disproved. Yet again, there is no accepted scientific theory that has not been backed up by observation. Period. And no, calculations do not count as “observation”, and it was my mistake in wording things in such a way as to imply that they do.

    Yes, theories about past trends and events are subject to experimental verification. The theory of the Big Bang predicted, among other things, a certain level of cosmic background microwave radiation, which was later observed. The theory of evolution predicted, among many other things, certain levels of genetic similarity between organisms, which were also later observed. The theories aren’t accepted just due to “reason”, or due to calculations that work out, or because scientists think they sound nifty. They’re accepted because they make predictions that are verified by later experiments and observations. And if experiments and observations instead contradict the predictions, then the theory is modified or discarded.

    Your main point seems to be that science should do without the Principle of Uniformity. The thing is, it can’t. That’s fundamental to the whole basis of the scientific method. The Principle of Uniformity is, essentially, the postulate that, unless there is reason to believe otherwise, the default assumption is that things work the same in every place and at every time. It is an unprovable assumption, but without that assumption, you can’t draw conclusions about anything. You can’t arrive at Newton’s law of gravity without the Principle of Uniformity–sure, you can see something fall, but the Principle of Uniformity is necessary to extrapolate it to a general rule that holds at all times and places. You can’t arrive at Maxwell’s laws of electrodynamics. You can’t arrive at the theory of relativity. You can’t arrive at any scientific laws whatsoever. Without the Principle of Uniformity, all you can say is that “I’ve seen X happen”. The Principle of Uniformity is necessary to extrapolate that to the conclusion that, for instance, if every time you do Y, X happens, then X is a consequence of Y. Or that if X works a given way every time you observe it, then it’s a reasonable conclusion that X always works that way. All scientific laws and theories require extrapolation. There’s no such thing as science without the Principle of Uniformity.

    Now, you’re focusing on extrapolation into the past, specifically. But that’s in principle really no different from extrapolation into the future, or into different locations in the present. We routinely assume that the processes we see in one place work similarly in others, that the same molecular reactions and the same forces are at work in distant galaxies as we can measure from Earth. We routinely assume that the processes we observe today are likely to continue into the future, that gravity isn’t going to stop tomorrow, and electricity won’t suddenly cease working. Why is it any less permissible to assume that these processes were going on in the past?

    But again, the fundamental point, the best reason to believe in the Principle of Uniformity and in the applications that have been made of it, is that it works. Scientists have made all sorts of predictions based on their theories, and (in the case of the theories that have become accepted) those predictions have been experimentally and observationally verified. So regardless of any philosophical objections one might formulate to the Principle of Uniformity, it’s got a darn good track record.

    Again, I apologize for calling you a troll; that may have been unwarranted. However, I really don’t see a point in continuing this discussion further. It seems to me that your background in science isn’t deep enough for you to be able to make any meaningful points about it, and in any case I’m not the best person to discuss the matter with anyway. I’m not a working scientist; I’m only a grad student. An experienced scientist would probably be able to express matters much better than I can. So…while I do apologize for calling you a troll, let’s let matters rest here.

Comments are currently closed.

Trackback URL for this post: http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/05/27/billy-graham-the-scientist/trackback/