How (not?) to speak to scientists about Jesus

[heymike3]

@T_aquaticus

about what they are likely to find

Oh wow! This is as good as I ever thought it would get!

You can’t tell me you are not curious about the problem of finding the ever elusive nothingness of being

[T_aquaticus]

@heymike3

You can’t tell me you are not curious about the problem of finding the ever elusive nothingness of being

I am not curious about things that appear to be made up.

[heymike3]

Dreams of a Final Theory… a fitting title

[Randy]

@T_aquaticus

I have always felt that psychological projection plays a large role. People from the evangelist/apologist ranks come to the discussion with theological and ideological baggage, so they assume others are in the same position. They view science as an institution that is pushing some sort of worldview or ideology in the same way they are. This just isn’t the case. They are quick to label all scientists as atheists, all the while forgetting about the many scientists who are believers. It’s the old tactic of dragging something down in the mud with you, and beating it by being the better mud wrestler.

This is a good point. For some reason, many religious people (and I am one) feel this way. Maybe it’s that since we believe in a God who can punish us, we dismiss disagreement as that anyone who disagrees with any part of our system is trying to get out of punishment. We forget that we can be extremely biased in favor of holding on to our faith system, for our own selfish security, among other reasons. It’s a very hard plank in the eye for us to overcome, for some reason. Thanks.

[heymike3]

@Randy

It’s a very hard plank in the eye for us to overcome, for some reason.

It was only a matter of time before someone made the impossible philosophical shot. Kind of like those silly videos they have on TikTok. And yet this one is perfectly repeatable (almost, I’m a mediocre philosopher) every time you demonstrate it.

[Randy]

@heymike3

And yet this one is perfectly repeatable (almost, I’m a mediocre philosopher) every time you demonstrate it.

I certainly can not see past the plank in my own eye very well. Is that what you mean?

[heymike3]

No, more like what I was writing @T_aquaticus and @jammycakes about the possible statements to explain the world. Does even acknowledging what can even possibly be said about it, constitute an unrecoverable bias?

[Randy]

@heymike3

Does even acknowledging what can even possibly be said about it, constitute an unrecoverable bias?

I’m going to have to go back and read–I’m not sure I’m getting it all. Sorry! Thanks.

If we make a leap of faith, we can do that–but don’t we have to continue to acknowledge that that’s our leap, and needs to be evaluated by the science?

One problem I find with AiG, for example, is that they say they have a bias that is just as valid as everyone else’s–but it’s not.

But I doubt that you’re saying that–you’re saying it’s ok to make a Kierkegaardian leap, as long as you keep epistemic humility, I think. Thanks.

[heymike3]

That’s good, but not what I’m talking about now. There is probably some place to frame a Kierkegaardian leap of faith, but that is beyond my capability.

What I am talking about is a simple exercise in stating as precisely as possible the possible statements for the universe.

One way that I explained it on Reddit, a place where I spent a number of years on and off discussing it, is that when something happens, this event that happened is either explained by some other event that happened to which the same question applies, or the event just happened, or it was caused by something that doesn’t happen.

It’s a deceptively simple mapping of the possible statements to explain an event happening.

Another way to look at it, is to say the universe was caused by one of three possible statements: from nothing, an infinite regress, or an uncaused cause.

The thing about an uncaused cause is that it would be unobservable by nature, so that the immediate effect of an uncaused cause would appear to come from nothing. And an uncaused cause may be aware of its action, unaware, or not yet aware.

So that’s what I’m referring to by the possible explanations, and I don’t see how bias affects it. The bias I see is against a simple explanation like this.

[Randy]

@heymike3

One way that I explained it on Reddit, a place where I spent a number of years on and off discussing it, is that when something happens, this event that happened is either explained by some other event that happened to which the same question applies, or the event just happened, or it was caused by something that doesn’t happen.

Good thoughts; I think that there is a critique of the Kalam argument that does it much better than I can. I’ll have to look it up some time. When I was in evo bio class, the agnostic prof asked why it would be more logical to posit a God as a source, than elements; he had a point. It seems to be a bit of a presumption (a projection of our own experience) that the beginning point would be complex enough to have awareness. It doesn’t really matter to me so much, the origin of things, at this point. Lamoureux points out to God as “the ultimate” in truth, justice, etc; and that’s sort of outside of time, probably (though he definitely does believe that God is the master beginner).
I honestly don’t know the answer.

[heymike3]

I think people have so often had this discussion with someone using it to prove God, that they reflexively think I am doing the same.

I am firmly convinced that the arguments do not prove the cause of the universe is aware of its action. I am however interested in how an uncaused cause which may be aware or unaware of its action is empirically indistinguishable from nothing. The immediate effect from an uncaused cause would look the same as if that same effect came from nothing. It’s almost as if the scientist doesn’t want to admit that they cannot determine which one is true.

[heymike3]

@Randy

I honestly don’t know the answer.

The situation and timing for this discussion, has another influential bias against it. Just admitting it now poses a real risk, sort of like a leap of faith.

[Randy]

@heymike3

I think people have so often had this discussion with someone using it to prove God, that they reflexively think I am doing the same.

I am firmly convinced that the arguments do not prove the cause of the universe is aware of its action. I am however interested in how an uncaused cause which may be aware or unaware of its action is empirically indistinguishable from nothing. The immediate effect from an uncaused cause would look the same as if that same effect came from nothing. It’s almost as if the scientist doesn’t want to admit that they cannot determine which one is true.

Hm, lots of stuff I don’t know–I’d better stop as I think I’m wandering from the OP I can PM or something like that too. thanks.

[heymike3]

No worries maybe @jammycakes will join in as I have been nagging him about this (on and off) for a little while now

[T_aquaticus]

@Randy

We forget that we can be extremely biased in favor of holding on to our faith system, for our own selfish security, among other reasons. It’s a very hard plank in the eye for us to overcome, for some reason. Thanks.

That’s true for all of us, believers and non-believers alike.

[T_aquaticus]

@heymike3

Does even acknowledging what can even possibly be said about it, constitute an unrecoverable bias?

It’s the merit of what is presented, not simply the ability to present it.

[heymike3]

With respect to another subject where we have been at odds: Have you considered how the ability to present it, is the very merit itself?

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@heymike3

No worries maybe @jammycakes will join in as I have been nagging him about this (on and off) for a little while now

Sorry, I’ve been up to my ears in Visual Studio lately.

Here’s a question for you. Which is better—talking about science or doing science?

[heymike3]

If I may remind you, this was my original comment in the thread as it engaged the topic:

“But many scientists are very quick to dismiss Christianity as being non-scientific or irrational or as simply irrelevant now that we have science to explain the world.”

Asking them if they think science can explain the world, is a great question to start with.

And then being able to show that there are only three possible statements to explain the world is a good follow up.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@heymike3

And then being able to show that there are only three possible statements to explain the world is a good follow up.

It strikes me how this approach looks to any outsider. The posture it suggests to them is: “here are the limits of my world: won’t you join me inside this box, and agree with me that its boundaries are impermeable and that we will banish any curiosity or investigation of anywhere else outside this?”

Not that we don’t all live inside such boxes of our own making, every time we hold on to some conviction of some kind or another (and at least some convictions are very necessary things to have in any life well lived, I think), we are operating within some sort of de facto ‘box’, albeit perhaps more willing to recognize the potential impermanence of its walls. But engaging well with others who don’t share in our same sets of convictions, and allowing that they see different sets of walls and boundaries that often stray well outside of what we’re comfortable with - that is (I am convicted) an indispensible life skill for any growing person - including any growing Christian.

So in addition to the “three possible statements I recognize that can explain the world”, a posture with more humility goes on to add a fourth possible category: “those understandings that haven’t even occurred to me yet…”