Thomas wrote-
Quote:Electron microscopes, nuclear power plants, and transistors were all built on the assumption that quantum mechanics is correct. If quantum mechanics was false, all these devices would have failed. But it turned out they worked -- so that's compelling empirical evidence supporting quantum mechanics. There is no comparably strong evidence for the correctness of the God hypothesis.
Quote:It would be if nuclear power plants etc. had already existed, and quantum mechanics had been invented afterwards to explain why they worked. This would be analogous to stars having always existed, and epicycles having been invented to explain their trajectories.) If this had been the history of 20th century physics, you would have your circular reasoning.
But that's not how it worked. Instead, quantum mechanics was developed first. In addition to explaining earlier observations, it predicted that nuclear fission produces energy. The prediction could have been wrong, in which case the theory of quantum mechanics would have been refuted. The observation that they worked, and the conclusion that quantum mechanics is correct, is therefore not circular reasoning.
I have problems with words like "correct, false, failed and worked". In the realm of the God hypothesis I mean. The physicist can't be God.
All those words, and there are others, have human assumption behind them.
I think you have landed us with a red herring. The subject is the limitations of scientific knowledge and the self-evident human emotional need, imperative despite denials, as Voltaire showed towards his end, for explanations beyond those limits when we know there is a place beyond them to which physicists can't go. From the point of view in which those words are used Christianity "worked", was "correct", didn't "fail" and is not "false". It would seem, on the evidence, that Christian theology produced quantum mechanics. There are enough theologies which failed to do that to suggest that Christianity is very special. And scientific from the materialist point of view which says that things like thoughts are physical objects. The creation and utilisation of Christian thoughts, seen as physical objects, is a classic scientific process once society is seen as the reaction chamber. Let's say the catalyst.
How do you know that by ditching Christianity you are not removing the catalyst. Only by faith surely.
The evolutionists continually harp on variations of the same theme giving different examples couched in quasi-religious language, though not as esoteric as the language of physics, in order to throw a veil over the fact that they are running on the spot. Which is not to say that work in the fields won't produce results we "believe" are of use to us rather than of use to a particular faction, which faction, in the terms of this debate, cannot possibly have any moral values although it can parade its "strategies" as morals. Operating bureaucratically it has the morals of an alley cat and quite correctly too. If it hadn't it would be coming off the scientific method.
Christianity is a movement of the weak and powerless. It is not factional. Its adherents range over the whole international socio-economic spectrum. It takes decisions in the interests of the "whole". For sure, human nature causes certain failures in that regard but those failures do nothing to touch the basic principles. Failures can be corrected. Have been.
The mass of the population, which cannot be privy to the modern scientific knowledge, like you cannot be privy to the knowledge a top class sportsman has, and scientists would lose all their status if it could be, has a need of Christianity to protect itself from becoming enslaved to an alley cat with such knowledge and it can, and will, vote to protect itself.
"Blinded by science" is a cliche. "The mad scientist" is a cliche. Laurel and Hardy and many others have consistently portrayed scientists as dingbats and eradicating that deep-driven stereotype from the mass mind ought to be your first priority. Calamity Jane said they were nerds and I have worked with a good few and the idea of giving them power is utterly ridiculous. They sound good on here as "scientists" in the abstract but up close they have a range of foibles I have seen nowhere else.
Glaring at me over threatening horn-rimmed spectacles is just not going to work.
With these considerations in mind, and some others, I would maintain, that ID is science and thus, by definition, atheistic science is not. ID, like any other idea, is at the mercy of what one might call, to save time, rhetorical flourishes, and it is a grave error to imagine that concentrating on those which are easy to ridicule is addressing the point.
Those who maintain Christianity hasn't worked and is dysfunctional tend to drop out or convert to some other theology. Every time myself or Vic order a fresh pint we agree what a fantastically wonderful success Christianity has been and we express humble remorse at what it has taken to get us to where we are.
The Pope must have pissed himself when he heard about Prohibition.
