@Darwyn - On that we can agree. Religious views shoudl only be taught in comparative religion and philosophy classes or as suplemental material for motivation in places such as history (wars have been fought throughout history over religious views) or psychology (to understand the psyche of a religious zealot, one must understand their religion) and such. But it should not be taught in science classes as an equal to science any more than science should be taught in a philosophy class as an equal to religious philosophy. They explore different subjects.

Draug - wow, we agree on something.

@Draug - Fair enough. Thanks.

@obi, as a high school student, all of my science classes (even biology) ha dlabs in them. Chemistry and Physics even more so.

As I said, I'm a deist (with Christian leanings) but not a full theist and I believe religion, which is about morals and understanding why, is not relavent to the how of science. The purpose of science is keep asking why at each stage so you get as thorough an understanding of how things work as possible. The purpose of religion is the same as philosophy, to find a deeper understanding of our place in that how science has provided us by understanding why, on a metaphysical level, we exist.

@obi and kingdroid - I remeber doing experiments in 6th and 7th grade science. Building batteries out of potatos and lemons, examining the refraction of light through a prism to understand how light is a wave and appear ind ifferent colors by altering it's frequency through refraction, even some solar experiments involving the little floating solar panels inside the vacuum tubes. Simple stuff, but still reproducible sscientific experiments.

"How do you suppose scientists might go about addressing the question of why there is physical law?"

The laws of physics literally come from nothing. The laws of physics are not really laws. The universe and the laws of physics arose from a highly unstable and symmetric void. The universe is nothing more than rearranged nothing.

Anyway this question has been answered by physics. It is myth concocted by theologians and philosophers that it can't in principle be answered.

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Nothing/NewSciRev.pdf

@draug : "Who triggered the big bang? Who created the laws of physics, the laws by which science operates? Science and religion do not have to conflict when viewed as one being the means to examine and understand how the universe works and the other beind a reason *why* it does. "

agreed. Though the meaningful-ness of this why is hard to find without any tools.

They are not in conflict, but it is the rules of evolution which depend on the rules of physics, which you then attribute to God for writing which we are discussing.

As such, i must ask, do you support a bill which seeks to undermine our understanding of how God created this majestic universe?

Schools shouldn't actively teach atheism, but there's no palace for creationism in a school. My Catholic middle school didn't even teach it.

place

"How do you suppose scientists might go about addressing the question of why there is physical law?"


you'd really need to ask a philosopher, cause most scientists will scoff at the question.

We literally don't know 'why' merely how.

Things work, there is a how, that this how can be represented by a very nice mathematical model is very interesting. But why? i don't think anything within the system can tell why the system is what it is, we can merely seek to understand how it is...

I think the question is unanswerable. And that those people who attempt to answer it are charlatans or deluded.

@invictus: schools should cover atheism in a comparative religion/philosophy class.

schools shouldn't teach religion apart from comparative religion, that is something which parents or churchs (or insert appropriate religious building here) should do.

The question here is not whether science or religion is superior but what is optional and what isn't. Religion is a choice. Science is not. As we determine facts of our universe we teach them to students. Can it be done better? Probably but that is also not the point. If you wish to receive a religious education on any subjects, there are a multitude of churches, temples, mosques, etc at which you may learn. However, evolution as it presently stands is not up for debate. Science classes already teach to think critically about subjects and propose alternatives. This is not atheism because science does not delve into religion. Religion should not delve into science.

How is that different from what I said?

"Science can say nothing about logical- and particularly mathematical-truth, yet it relies on both. "

Math is just a language used to describe things because of the inefficiency of ordinary language. Science presupposes math in the same way that a description presupposes words. Logic is a subset of the language of math.

"I think the question is unanswerable. And that those people who attempt to answer it are charlatans or deluded."

If it is transformed into a how question, it can be answered. The question "how did there come to be/what are the origins of physical laws" can be answered. But "why" questions assume *reasons* for things, and there aren't reasons.

@orathaic - I would not support a bill which I, upon reading it, determine would undermine the *how* research in favor of a mythical *how* used by religious fanatics who don't understand the real reason for religion. But, if the bill, while created to undermine the teachings of science, actually provided science teachers with the tools to refure those ancient myths (as the one in question here does), then I can get behind it. I'd just ask the sane folks in congress to make certain that the bill doesn't see further revisions that remove the equality to it. As it stands, this bill is balanced. But let the politicians get their hands on it and revise it further and it will become a pro-creation bill and I will oppose it vehemently and it would get struck down as unconstitutional, violating the freedom of religion by effectively establishing fundamental Christianity as a state religion.

@Putin - "Logic is a subset of the language of math."

Incorrect, sir. Not all logical constructs are by necessity a subset of mathematics unless you decide that the logic, reduced to it's most basic form, is a binary analysis. But logic is actually a reasoned thought process wherein the facts can be deduced through inference and elimination. Math, as you mention, is a language for representing relationships, but logic is not.

@Putin - Why aren't there reasons why things happen in the universe?Mankind is inquisitive by nature. To not ask why along with how, is to only look for part of the answer. Sometimes the quest for "why" leads to new how questions and the result of "how" (or even the search for the answer to "how") can result in more "why" questions. I understand your frustration with dogmatic fundamental Christianity which refuses to question the suppossed answers presented in Genesis and other places. I get frustrated by the same "I can't think for myself" idiots. Seriously, I do. But I also get frustrated by the dogmatic atheists who swear there can be no higher power. If you want to say the God of the Bible is bunk, hey go for it. I'm not a solid believer in the OT fire-and-brimstone, turning cities to salt and crumbling others at the sound of a horn God either. That God is a bit too sadistic and capricious to me. And if you don't want to view God as being at all interested in mankind individually as well as in our entirety, that's your perogative. I'd just like *everyone* to keep an open mind to the concept of a higher power(s) outside the universe that maintains the balance of the forces that we describe in mathematics and physics to create the harmonious and continually existing universe. The quest for truth (religion/philosophy) is just as important as the quest for fact (science) and the two work hand in hand to provide us with a real understanding of the universe we are part of.

"why" anything is can only be produced from the relativisit human mind. i prefer "hows" by far, and draugnar is right about logic v mathematics btw

Fulham, he did not avoid the question. Check your facts.

I like both, otto, as it gives amore complete picture when you look to why and how. And, as I said, looking to one will open more questions up about the other.

I find it interesting that many of the OT laws about what was kosher and what wasn't can be ascribed to the reduction of disease and/or poisoning. For instance, because the understanding of cleanliness was basically "I don't see anything so it must not be dirty" prior to the invention of the microscope and the discovery of virii and bacteria, the idea of not cooking certain foods in the same pans and not eating certain types of animals made sense. The rules seemed arbitrary, but pork, if not cooked thoroughly, is one of the worst meats for food-borne illnesses. 6000 years ago, men couldn't conceive of the microscopic world and so suddenly all animals that had certain similar traits were also classified as unclean. But this religious law came about because, even in that primitive state, mankind was able to see a trended pattern to illness and pork. Undoubtedly, there was some charletain/wise-man who, knowing his people would only listen to superstitious nonesense, said he had a vision or a message from God and that God said these animals were unclean.

Too bad the Romans didn't see that same correlation between lead lined dishes and their own infirmaries. But then only the Romans would view bulemia and gluttony as a good thing and create a room just for the bulemics/gluttons to go puke in.

@Draugnar The correct rely to a question which you don't have the answer to is "I don't know", not "I have faith that..."

@Tiderion - Yes, religion is a choice (to have it or not, and which one) which is why it should be taught in elective courses such as comparative religion or philosophy and only taught as to the aspects which pertain to the subject in required classes such as history or other elective sciences such as psychology. Yes, psychology is very much a science, so there are courses in science where religion should be taught, but only in the appropriate setting, such as examining the mind of a religious zealot means understandign what he believes.

Where religion should never be taught in public school is as a "fact" or as a "dogma" that must be followed. I'll be the first to admit no religion has everything right. I dare say no philosophy has everything right. If one wants to teach a specific religion as "fact", they can go to a private school run by that religion.

@manganese - I agree. My deistic views are about my seeking answers, not about my asserting I have the answers to everyone who will listen. I have and put my faith in many things. I put my faith in the hands of the elevator maintenance people, that they have maintained the elevators and I won't fall to my death, several times a day at work. I have faith (because I can never know) that I have an essence beyond life in this mortal body and that my questions will all eventually be answered in the after life. But when it comes to other questions like what came before the big bang or who initiated life on earth, I don't know. I admit I don't know those answers.

@Draug

You know, if you jump in a falling elevator just before impact you'll be fine. :)

Also, if anyone is curious, the sky is blue because the short-wavelength blue light refracts off of molecules in the atmosphere down towards earth. Longer-wavelength red light has a smaller refraction angle, which is why you see it in the evening.

evolution is not inconsistent to most readings of the bible, only a fundamental reading, in a sense it isnt the religious majority that is enforcing this law on a non-religious minority, but a religious sect forcing it on all other religious sects and the non religious.

So God and a scientist were having a discussion about creating life. The scientist told God that science can create life now, so why do we need God? God called for a test and the scientist agreed, and told God to go first. So God bent down and picked up a handful of dust, fashioned into the shape of a man, and breathed life into it. Then it was the scientist's turn. He bent down, picked up a handful of dust, and... God said, "Oh no! You get your own dust."

The point should be obvious.

@Santa +1 - Well said.

@abgemacht. That statement is nonsensical because your reduced momentum may well still be enough to kill you on impact not to mention that the push off of the floor will increase the momentum of the elevator at an energy level equal to the reduction of your own badies so that the enrgy transfer has a net zero effect.

But tell you what, I'll buy an elevator car for you to ride in and we'll drop it from a helicopter approximately 200 feet in the air (20 story building) and you can try it out for me. :-)

P.S. I saw the smiley and knew you were joking, but the idea of the physics behind the momentum transfer as well as the image of dropping an elevator car from a helicopter (originally from a plane at 10,000-15,000 feet, skydiving asltitude) just brought a smile to my face.

P.S.S. I want to jump from a plane in a TARDIS replica and recreate Matt Smith's introductory episode, but with a chute on me and hop out the door juist before I reach deployment altitude so I can watch the TARDIS go *crash*.