The science of poetry, the poetry of science

[Mic]

Thanks for those points Ant. I'll look William James up.

A quick question - are you saying that the point about science being able to offer (very workable) theories, though not being able to offer 'proof' is not really relevant to the discussion in this thread (i.e. it just too obvious)?

Mic

[Mic]

Well, they can't all be right, because they are contradictory.

One of them could be right, couldn't they? Just like Brian could be right in his feeling that they are wrong.

Mic

[Antcliff]

Hi Mic
No I am not saying that...I was merely explaining background that I thought might help.
William James (brother of the novelist) wrote various things, the best known (though not the best I think) being something called "The Will to Believe". It is widely available on-line. His aim (not mine I stress, I'm just explaining) was to argue against a view held by a man called W K Clifford (a kind of Victorian Dawkins) that it was always wrong to believe on the basis of insufficient evidence. Almost all initial philosophy classes about faith/belief begin with a discussion of James and his opponent.
Ant

Thanks for those points Ant. I'll look William James up.

A quick question - are you saying that the point about science being able to offer (very workable) theories, though not being able to offer 'proof' is not really relevant to the discussion in this thread (i.e. it just too obvious)?

Mic

[David]

Hi David.
The context is one in which a person is doing two things: asserting (e.g. Dean Martin is cooler than David Niven) and also asserting that they do not not know (that Dean Martin is cooler than David Niven).
Perhaps adding "both" would be of use. So:

..the supposed incoherence is asserting (that so and so) and asserting that you do not know (that so and so).

Two acts, bumping.

Ant

Thanks Ant. Will (attempt to) absorb that. I wonder if my Very Brief Introduction to Wittgenstein will help? On the surface it sounds like the expression of an opinion - "In my opinion Dean Martin is cooler than David Niven, although of course I know that there is no objective way of proving this." I'm probably simplifying madly there.

[Antcliff]

David
O no, don't get caught up in the randomly picked example. Pick some other far less controversial claim re: David Niven, coolness, etc (laughing). Any old

P
and
I do not know that P

I would not recommend picking up any Wittgenstein related books. I would feel guilty if I played a role in causing that.
Ant.

Hi David.
The context is one in which a person is doing two things: asserting (e.g. Dean Martin is cooler than David Niven) and also asserting that they do not not know (that Dean Martin is cooler than David Niven).
Perhaps adding "both" would be of use. So:

..the supposed incoherence is asserting (that so and so) and asserting that you do not know (that so and so).

Two acts, bumping.

Ant

Thanks Ant. Will (attempt to) absorb that. I wonder if my Very Brief Introduction to Wittgenstein will help? On the surface it sounds like the expression of an opinion - "In my opinion Dean Martin is cooler than David Niven, although of course I know that there is no objective way of proving this." I'm probably simplifying madly there.

[Mic]

This article from Stanford uni seems to take a fairly balanced look at the religion/science thing, and covers in some detail much of what we've all been talking about (even the poetry thing is mentioned!):

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/

Mic

[Ros]

"there is no woo-woo, just beautiful physics."

If you didn't catch it, watch Brian Cox's Night with the Stars on BBC iplayer. Brilliant. The physics is the poetry.

Ros

[brianedwards]

Can I just take a moment to applaud all the contributors to this thread. How many sites are there that can produce a thread on the religion/science question that reaches over 80 posts and 400+ views without resorting to pettiness, point-scoring and insults? Bravo!

Well, they can't all be right, because they are contradictory.

One of them could be right, couldn't they?

As could have the believers in Zeus, Jupiter, Thor, Cronos, Sutekh, Marduk, Tezcatlipoca and Thor. But anyone still asserting the existence of any of these gods would be instantly dismissed.

This sort of discussion can get a bit tediously circular, can't it? As far as the Does God Exist question is concerned, in my experience people seem either to a) believe in a God b) believe the possibility of God c) don't believe the possibility of God. These all seem to be positions of faith.

As far a science is concerned, I do hope it does it's exploring with an open mind.

Mic

The main Atheist position is this: the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved, therefore the theistic position cannot be upheld because it claims to know more than can possibly be known. And yes, the discussion does become circular, as would any discussion in which one position steadfastly refuses to accept reason.

I'm not religious, so I don't know too much about this, but I have got this impression from somewhere that doubt/questioning/enquiry is an important part of faith...

I don't want to appear like I'm picking on you Michaela, but I just wanted to address this point.
Christianity purports to encourage this kind of questioning, but I'm not sure about Judaism and Islam. Not saying they don't, but that I don't know. However, regards Christianity, it's really just window dressing isn't it? Because should that enquiry lead to a rejection of god and christ as the saviour (as reasoned enquiry would very likely lead) that person would be excommunicated, cast out, and denied a place in god's kingdom. Doubt and enquiry are only permitted within the confines of preserved faith.

B.

[Mic]

And yes, the discussion does become circular, as would any discussion in which one position steadfastly refuses to accept reason.

It seems to me that people on both sides of the debate employ reason to arrive at the conclusions they think to be true.

I don't feel perfectly convinced of either case. It may well be that science is plodding its way (albeit along a very scenic route) to the 'truth' that has already been revealed to believers. On the other hand, maybe it is revealing - in the way that science 'reveals' - a different truth about the world.

I also think that this has been a fascinating thread. And that we've all been really quite grown up.

Mic

[Mic]

Because should that enquiry lead to a rejection of god and christ as the saviour (as reasoned enquiry would very likely lead)

Or could it be that it is precisely because reason has so far failed to settle the question, that the enquiry continues?

Mic

[brianedwards]

Because should that enquiry lead to a rejection of god and christ as the saviour (as reasoned enquiry would very likely lead)

Or could it be that it is precisely because reason has so far failed to settle the question, that the enquiry continues?

Mic

Well, I think reason has settled the question of theism. Science, reason and contradiction have certainly settled the question of monotheism as purported by the Abrahamic religions. It seems to me that you are speaking of deism and the idea that there may be an all-powerful entity lurking somewhere, that was responsible for the cosmos and everything in it. No, perhaps reason and science haven't answered this yet, but they undoubtedly offer us a better chance of finding an answer than dependence on ancient texts and doctrines apparently passed down to semi-illiterate desert tribes.

B.

[Mic]

Settled maybe - but not put to bed, perhaps.

This is interesting:

http://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/sc ... e-delusion

Mic

[Ros]

""I had some exposure to psychedelics, and that opened me up to the idea that consciousness was much richer than anything my physiology lecturers had ever described. "

Yeah, it would.

Some sensible comments below the article, for once:

"Never ceases to amaze me how many go with 'science thinks it knows everything' or science is arrogant, when the very notion of science is going into areas we don't understand, researching what we don't know. Science = curiosity."

"The fundamental problem with the post-modernists and relativists and purveyors of woo in general is that when they state that science is limited and we should show humility in the face of 'other ways of knowing' is that they rely on the very same bloody evidence and empiricism in their attempt to persuade others as to their point of view. When they put forward such ideas they are in fact making a truth claim - either what they state is true or false.."

Ros

[Mic]

The science of love!

http://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/sc ... ce-romance


Mic

[Ros]

There's a price for all this love, though:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/ ... NETTXT3487

Ros

[Mic]

I think it true that the 'cocoon effect' that can characterise the early part of a new relationship will often mean less physical proximity with friends. But that this should result in the loss of a close friend - never mind two close friends - seems an awful and - to me - surprising price to have to pay. I find myself wondering what the researchers in this piece would define as 'close friendships.' Easier to imagine that periphery friends might fall away while you and your new romantic interest are snuggled in the cocoon.

Mic