...Continued

<<This is universally OK for everyday facts, and e.g. for centuries in Europe “the existence of God” was such a fact indisputable for the “man in the street”.>>

Of all the examples you could have chosen, you selected this?

What about an everyday fact like: if I drop a rock it, it’ll hit the ground. This really is a fact, because it is verifiable and doesn’t rely on a subjective interpretation of what it means to drop.

Now, I can accept that NOT ALL is what it seems, but what you’ve done here takes that a step further in what appears to be an attempt to blur the line between knowledge and belief; reality and fantasy with a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning to make it appear as though NOTHING is what it seems.

And that, to me, is pure sophistry - in every sense of the word.

Dear George,
I think that if two people differ on a matter, then at least one of them must be wrong. Is that too simple?

Was it Einstein who said, ‘I want to know God’s thoughts, the rest is just detail’? Fully grasping the infinite is pretty hard for a finite mind. Yet I believe God did not leave us without statement to his creative activity as seen from that which has been made.

Bugsy,
You admit that some biologists believe that quote to be true, yet admonish Berlinski for quoting one biologist having said it. You’re a hard man to please.

We are in agreement that Jesus (or anyone) changing water into wine would be considered a miracle. Creating something out of nothing is, of course, a miracle; creation ex nihilo, the first miracle.

I asked those questions regarding singular or rare events as I assumed you were touching on the plank of repeatability as regard to a proper definition of science operation. I am still wondering why you said miracles cannot be touched by science.

You say it is all about evidence. Here we are also in agreement. What can we observe as evidence?

For Azariah’s disappearance, there were traces of blood and animal tracks left behind. Authorities in the case did call on the deliberations of scientists at the time.

For Jesus’ wine making event, anyone who was there could examine the water put in the jars, or the wine that resulted, or the resultant behaviour of those who consumed it. Evidence was not in lack at the time. If another miracle occurred today similar to that found in John’s gospel, perhaps the healing of a man born blind, why could we not investigate the claim using the normal tools of science, logic and observation?

As for the disappearance of the dinosaurs, even if it was true that their mass extinction was the result of a giant meteor strike with the resultant evidence left behind, the same event could not be repeated. Such is the nature of all historical events.

.

Dear George & Oliver,

.

AJ's comments seem quite pertinent.

Employing science as an analytical tool in order to explain or justify God and religion appears to be about as effective as shovelling a pile of sand with a pitchfork.

I am wondering if you would have any more success with art.

I do not mean to suggest you abandon your quest for the Holy Grail.

I am simply wondering if art may have more relevance to scientific enquiry than God and religion.

.

Dan, singular events do not constitute miracles. Science explains things and miracles by definition are inexplicable and must remain a mystery. If they get explained by science, then they are no longer miracles. All of the historical events you mention are definitely explicable. Except for the Jesus thing, unless he was a hypnotist. I've seen stage acts from cheap illusionists that were more impressive than what he was claimed to do. I wouldn't join their fan club though.

You have given me an insight into the nature of religion, and for that I thank you. It appears to me that religion requires miracles, requires mystery to justify the existence of God. Is this not so? If it is, then I can see why people think that religion must draw the line for science somewhere, and encourage ignorance about some things, so that God still has somewhere to live.

I have often heard the complaint from religious people, that once a 'miracle' is explained the world appears to them just a little more mundane. There are bigger mysteries our there than people suddenly healing themselves, non-religious people heal themselves through belief all the time. The placebo effect is a wonderful mystery that is repeatable and observable. Not yet explicable, but touched by science and 'poof', not a miracle anymore.

For a miracle to remain, it needs to remain untouched, and untouchable by science.

Dear Oliver,

If I understand you properly, you accept the Copenhagen interpretation of QM that considers (assumes?) two physical realms: the macroscopic classical realm of our measuring instruments governed by Newton’s laws, and the microscopic, quantum, realm of atoms and other small things governed by the Schrödinger equation. Obviously a not very satisfactory way of seeing physical reality as split into two realms, the splitting depending on the measuring instrument. John von Neumann might be right to conclude that such an artificial splitting of “objective reality” necessarily involves the observer’s consciousness.

You are right to describe these things as “curious”, and whatever better interpretation there exists - a jury is still out on this - it will not involve anything “supernatural”, only probably a better understanding of human consciousness. For a theist it only indicates that not only the existence of God is enigmatic, but also that of our physical reality, if probed deeply enough, nothing else.

>>While my understanding is (counter intuitively) that an INfinite outcome (sum) can occasion a finite result<<
What you apparently mean is convergent, e.g. geometric, series in mathematics, a concept known to every HSC student but not so to e.g. Zeno with his paradoxes. This is unrelated to “infinity” as an attribute of God. The same about entanglement, which is a technical term from physics (QM). A self-explaining universe (see Paul Davies, The Goldilock’s Enigma, Penguin Books 2007, or James N. Gardner, Biocosm, Inner Ocean 2003), multiverse, or other speculations to bypass the enigma of a fine-tuned universe, are just that, speculations compatible with both belief and unbelief in God.

Another recent Huffington Post article that is relevant here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elaine-howard-ecklund-phd/the-contours-of-what-scie_b_611905.html

Dear Banjo,

Thanks for your contribution to my debate with Oliver, but I am still not sure what in Oliver’s understanding of religion could play the role of mathematics in our understanding of the phenomena studied by physics. The supernatural, fear and other things you mention are more or less relevant to the phenomenon of religion, however I do not think you could build on them a universally acceptable understanding of religion, similar to that provided by mathematics for physical theories (c.f. the different perspectives of the specialist “wise men” in my metaphor, not to mention atheist and theist perspectives, etc).

>>Employing science as an analytical tool in order to explain or justify God (etc)<<
Exactly this is what I am trying to convey to Oliver. Nevertheless, his excursions into QM I find challenging on themselves, in distinction to art, aesthetics, where I do not feel at home. If your world-view is more inspired by art than by science, there are others for whom these roles are reversed. These are preferences that are independent of whether you see yourself as a theist or an atheist.

Aslo, I do not understand in what sense art (or “God and religion” for that matter) can be "relevant to scientific enquiry".