Does God Play Dice?

[JackDaydream]

To what extent is the thinking of religion and science conflicting or complementary?

Neither conflicting nor complementary. Science is a craft and religion is a speculative system of thought.

For some, there is a lot of conflict though, when ideas about the supernatural are adhered to. For example, so many people have tried to cling on to the Biblical story in spite of the general consensus that an evolutionary process occured.

But a "general consensus" cannot replace scientific evidence. Science is a craft where all that counts is scientific evidence but "general consensus that an evolutionary process occured" is not science but a speculative story no different from "the Biblical story".

Even scientific evidence is not an absolute because it may involve coming up with a hypothesis and generating an experiment to show that there is some evidence to back it up. When I used to have to look for evidence based research when writing on mental health nursing there would often be studies backing up opposite conclusions. However, I am not dismissing evidence as unimportant at all.

Also, a lot in life is taken the basis of consensus. The philosophy of realism itself is often on the strength of the evidence of the senses. At times, there are discrepancies in sensory perception and consensus may end being mainly about the majority viewpoints.

[stevie]

Neither conflicting nor complementary. Science is a craft and religion is a speculative system of thought.

For some, there is a lot of conflict though, when ideas about the supernatural are adhered to. For example, so many people have tried to cling on to the Biblical story in spite of the general consensus that an evolutionary process occured.

But a "general consensus" cannot replace scientific evidence. Science is a craft where all that counts is scientific evidence but "general consensus that an evolutionary process occured" is not science but a speculative story no different from "the Biblical story".

Even scientific evidence is not an absolute because it may involve coming up with a hypothesis and generating an experiment to show that there is some evidence to back it up. When I used to have to look for evidence based research when writing on mental health nursing there would often be studies backing up opposite conclusions. However, I am not dismissing evidence as unimportant at all.

Also, a lot in life is taken the basis of consensus. The philosophy of realism itself is often on the strength of the evidence of the senses. At times, there are discrepancies in sensory perception and consensus may end being mainly about the majority viewpoints.

"Absolute" is a speculative philosophical term. Scientific evidence is direct in that it directly presents to the senses (mostly the eye sense) the evidence. "Coming up with a hypthesis" never is based on scientific evidence but on conceptual speculative synthesis.

[JackDaydream]

For some, there is a lot of conflict though, when ideas about the supernatural are adhered to. For example, so many people have tried to cling on to the Biblical story in spite of the general consensus that an evolutionary process occured.

But a "general consensus" cannot replace scientific evidence. Science is a craft where all that counts is scientific evidence but "general consensus that an evolutionary process occured" is not science but a speculative story no different from "the Biblical story".

Even scientific evidence is not an absolute because it may involve coming up with a hypothesis and generating an experiment to show that there is some evidence to back it up. When I used to have to look for evidence based research when writing on mental health nursing there would often be studies backing up opposite conclusions. However, I am not dismissing evidence as unimportant at all.

Also, a lot in life is taken the basis of consensus. The philosophy of realism itself is often on the strength of the evidence of the senses. At times, there are discrepancies in sensory perception and consensus may end being mainly about the majority viewpoints.

"Absolute" is a speculative philosophical term. Scientific evidence is direct in that it directly presents to the senses (mostly the eye sense) the evidence. "Coming up with a hypthesis" never is based on scientific evidence but on conceptual speculative synthesis.

The term 'absolute' may not have been the best one as it more of an evaluation based on comparison. The word 'definitive' would have made the point more clearly. As far as your idea of scientific evidence it is more an empirical description of the nature of reality, as in the philosophy of realism rather than scientific method, which is based on experimental meanings of testing or verifying specific ideas.

[stevie]

But a "general consensus" cannot replace scientific evidence. Science is a craft where all that counts is scientific evidence but "general consensus that an evolutionary process occured" is not science but a speculative story no different from "the Biblical story".

Even scientific evidence is not an absolute because it may involve coming up with a hypothesis and generating an experiment to show that there is some evidence to back it up. When I used to have to look for evidence based research when writing on mental health nursing there would often be studies backing up opposite conclusions. However, I am not dismissing evidence as unimportant at all.

Also, a lot in life is taken the basis of consensus. The philosophy of realism itself is often on the strength of the evidence of the senses. At times, there are discrepancies in sensory perception and consensus may end being mainly about the majority viewpoints.

"Absolute" is a speculative philosophical term. Scientific evidence is direct in that it directly presents to the senses (mostly the eye sense) the evidence. "Coming up with a hypthesis" never is based on scientific evidence but on conceptual speculative synthesis.

The term 'absolute' may not have been the best one as it more of an evaluation based on comparison. The word 'definitive' would have made the point more clearly. As far as your idea of scientific evidence it is more an empirical description of the nature of reality, as in the philosophy of realism rather than scientific method, which is based on experimental meanings of testing or verifying specific ideas.

Science is a craft that is based on seeing and verbal expression of that seeing based on language. That has nothing to do with realism. It is sense perception and language science as craft is based on.
You cannot verify an idea in science but you can test whether an appearance matches a linguistic expression that is conventionally used for it.

[JackDaydream]

Even scientific evidence is not an absolute because it may involve coming up with a hypothesis and generating an experiment to show that there is some evidence to back it up. When I used to have to look for evidence based research when writing on mental health nursing there would often be studies backing up opposite conclusions. However, I am not dismissing evidence as unimportant at all.

Also, a lot in life is taken the basis of consensus. The philosophy of realism itself is often on the strength of the evidence of the senses. At times, there are discrepancies in sensory perception and consensus may end being mainly about the majority viewpoints.

"Absolute" is a speculative philosophical term. Scientific evidence is direct in that it directly presents to the senses (mostly the eye sense) the evidence. "Coming up with a hypthesis" never is based on scientific evidence but on conceptual speculative synthesis.

The term 'absolute' may not have been the best one as it more of an evaluation based on comparison. The word 'definitive' would have made the point more clearly. As far as your idea of scientific evidence it is more an empirical description of the nature of reality, as in the philosophy of realism rather than scientific method, which is based on experimental meanings of testing or verifying specific ideas.

Science is a craft that is based on seeing and verbal expression of that seeing based on language. That has nothing to do with realism. It is sense perception and language science as craft is based on.
You cannot verify an idea in science but you can test whether an appearance matches a linguistic expression that is conventionally used for it.

I do agree with you that the use of language in description of the sensory, especially seeing, is an important part of science and it may be one aspect which is not given enough attention. Language is the basis for description of appearances and events and that is why linguistic aspects of concepts is an important aspect of philosophy, and may be a more significant foundation than speculation and it was the way in which Wittgenstein valued philosophy.

[Pattern-chaser]

I am writing this thread partly on the basis of the nature of uncertainty in life, as reflected in a previous thread which I starte, as well as a consideration of the explanations which may be developed from the contrasting perspectives of religion and science. The question of whether 'God' plays dice involves ones about determinism as well as ones connected to explanations, and various worldviews, especially religion and science. To what extent is the thinking of religion and science conflicting or complementary?

In my view, they are wholly complementary. It's about understanding what these two positions mean. Religion gives rise to truth, but not the same sort of truth that science gives rise to. Both use the word "truth", but they mean 2 quite different things. Science concentrates on mundane, physical, testable, truth. Religion offers spiritual truth, which is a different thing, with a different meaning, and a different purpose. As long as we understand this, there is no contradiction, and not even any friction.

If we go farther on religion, though, as some extremists do, and assert spiritual truths as if they were scientific truths, then we enter the arena of wishful thinking and unjustifiable claims. This is not a useful way to travel. It leads only to disagreement, and not to any form of learning or discovery. It has no value, that I can see.

I think that science and religion can be complementary. The problem may be where people do treat it as though it were science is that it becomes problematic. At one stage, I went to a Bible study class and I found that there was so much interpretation which was as if the writings were scientific. Even ideas like Jonah being swallowed by a whale as well as the Fall incident in The Book of Genesis are taken concretely. Often people include an apple in the story and I don't think an apple is even mentioned, so there is a lot of cultural embellishment in interpretation and how the basics are told, especially to children. I definitely grew up with a lot of confusion by this.

Yes, exactly. I also grew up with the same confusion, as I was also raised by RC religious cultists. They raised me to believe there are only two types of people: Catholics and non-Catholics. My lifelong interest in religion came from this close-minded view of humanity, as I rebelled against it. But yes, the confusion (of the scriptural literalism in which some Catholics indulge) was ... confusing for a young child like me.

[JackDaydream]

I am writing this thread partly on the basis of the nature of uncertainty in life, as reflected in a previous thread which I starte, as well as a consideration of the explanations which may be developed from the contrasting perspectives of religion and science. The question of whether 'God' plays dice involves ones about determinism as well as ones connected to explanations, and various worldviews, especially religion and science. To what extent is the thinking of religion and science conflicting or complementary?

In my view, they are wholly complementary. It's about understanding what these two positions mean. Religion gives rise to truth, but not the same sort of truth that science gives rise to. Both use the word "truth", but they mean 2 quite different things. Science concentrates on mundane, physical, testable, truth. Religion offers spiritual truth, which is a different thing, with a different meaning, and a different purpose. As long as we understand this, there is no contradiction, and not even any friction.

If we go farther on religion, though, as some extremists do, and assert spiritual truths as if they were scientific truths, then we enter the arena of wishful thinking and unjustifiable claims. This is not a useful way to travel. It leads only to disagreement, and not to any form of learning or discovery. It has no value, that I can see.

I think that science and religion can be complementary. The problem may be where people do treat it as though it were science is that it becomes problematic. At one stage, I went to a Bible study class and I found that there was so much interpretation which was as if the writings were scientific. Even ideas like Jonah being swallowed by a whale as well as the Fall incident in The Book of Genesis are taken concretely. Often people include an apple in the story and I don't think an apple is even mentioned, so there is a lot of cultural embellishment in interpretation and how the basics are told, especially to children. I definitely grew up with a lot of confusion by this.

Yes, exactly. I also grew up with the same confusion, as I was also raised by RC religious cultists. They raised me to believe there are only two types of people: Catholics and non-Catholics. My lifelong interest in religion came from this close-minded view of humanity, as I rebelled against it. But yes, the confusion (of the scriptural literalism in which some Catholics indulge) was ... confusing for a young child like me.

It was extremely confusing and, having known a couple of Catholics who developed religious psychosis, I can see why. One aspect which I found really strange was the idea of transubstantiation, in which the communion host is meant to be the body of Christ IS the literal not symbolic 'body of Christ'. The nature of the 'Virgin' Mary confused me too because it does suggest a kind of supernatural power of God, as playing dice, in the sense of allowing anything to be possible, like magic, although probably not a mere aspect of chance.

However, the inconsistencies are apparent and what I came to realise as a teenager was that the teachers at school, including those in religious studies and sciences were actually struggling with these questions themselves. Also, during adolescence, even though my parents were fairly conventional in Catholic religious views, I was having constant philosophical discussions with them about ideas, such as the fall of the angels. If anything, the dialogue between science and religion often seemed more like a dialogue of nature being like a dice, and religious thinking being more one of intricate design.

[Pattern-chaser]

...confused me too because it does suggest a kind of supernatural power of God, as playing dice, in the sense of allowing anything to be possible, like magic, although probably not a mere aspect of chance.

Any sufficiently advanced technology (or equivalent source of power) appears like magic to those who lack it, or don't understand it. In that sense, God — if there is a God — is magic. I believe there is a God, and I do not care to try second-guessing Her, as I have no idea what such a Being might be, do or want. How could I? I believe, and I hope my beliefs take me along roughly the right path.

Maybe She does play dice? Or maybe She made the dice for others to roll? Maybe the dice are made to roll themselves? It's all groundless speculation.

[JackDaydream]

...confused me too because it does suggest a kind of supernatural power of God, as playing dice, in the sense of allowing anything to be possible, like magic, although probably not a mere aspect of chance.

Any sufficiently advanced technology (or equivalent source of power) appears like magic to those who lack it, or don't understand it. In that sense, God — if there is a God — is magic. I believe there is a God, and I do not care to try second-guessing Her, as I have no idea what such a Being might be, do or want. How could I? I believe, and I hope my beliefs take me along roughly the right path.

Maybe She does play dice? Or maybe She made the dice for others to roll? Maybe the dice are made to roll themselves? It's all groundless speculation.

I am not a materialist and find many thinkers to be extremely reductive. I see the connection between human consciousness and a higher perspective, as the 'divine' to be difficult to explain philosophically, because it goes beyond appearances. I am not into ignoring the nature of appearances but this may not be where it ends. However, that is where the issue of speculation comes into play and, really, I am not sure that logic can prove or disprove the existence of God, because logic and science, while being important, are limited epistemologically. That is because measurement is on the basis of appearances, while even most scientists recognise there are underlying processes.

As far as causal laws and whether there is a 'transcendent' source, it may be that there are other intrinsic laws, including the law of attraction and the law of karma. Some may dismiss these and other ideas as unscientific. Karl Popper discredited psychoanalysis scientifically, on the grounds of it not being measurable. Unfortunately, there are limitations on what can be measured but that doesn't mean that nothing exists, and it is likely that there is a 'beyond" science, and the problem may be if ideas are reduced to fit into science and this may be where it becomes scienticism.

Getting back to causation and the issue as to whether 'God plays dice' it may be an intricate question of the external and the internal aspects of consciousness. Matter may be seen externally and measured but, consciousness, as intentionality of human beings, and any consciousness beyond, may be involved as aspects of dice throwing and ordered evolutionary processes.

[Pattern-chaser]

...and it is likely that there is a 'beyond" science,

I think it's more than likely. I think metaphysics covers many topics that are "beyond" — i.e. 'outside the scope' — of science. I'm sure this extends further too...

and the problem may be if ideas are reduced to fit into science and this may be where it becomes scienticism.

Yes, I think that's right. Some are so taken by science that they try to apply it outside its useful scope, and the result is sciencism, as you say.

[kaleido]

God does indeed play dice because otherwise the universe would be deterministic, which it isn't.

[heracleitos]

God does indeed play dice because otherwise the universe would be deterministic, which it isn't.

The universe is chaotic. However, it is not because a system is unpredictable that it would be nondeterministic. It is impossible to know if the universe is deterministic or truly random.

[kaleido]

However, it is not because a system is unpredictable that it would be nondeterministic.

I don't understand this. I believe it is precisely because a system is unpredictable that it would be nondeterministic.

Let's put it this way:

God plays dice, but the dice are loaded.

The universe isn't "truly random" because there are several theories that effectively explain and predict phenomena. So there's a degree of order in the universe, and it is indeed the job of mankind to impose some degree of order on the chaotic flux of the universe.

But the universe isn't completely deterministic either because theory does not give us certainty, it only gives us probability.

Why are the dice loaded? Because of a thing called the Eternal Recurrence, or what physicists call the Big Bang-Big Crunch cycle. I believe a portion of fate repeats itself eternally, with some entities having various degree of freedom over a persistent fate-playground. But of course freedom is relative (there is no "free will", there are only strong and weak wills).

[heracleitos]

However, it is not because a system is unpredictable that it would be nondeterministic.

I don't understand this. I believe it is precisely because a system is unpredictable that it would be nondeterministic.

Incorrect:

Chaos theory is an interdisciplinary scientific theory and branch of physics focused on underlying patterns and deterministic laws, of dynamical systems, that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, that were once thought to have completely random states of disorder and irregularities.[1] Chaos theory states that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, interconnection, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, and self-organization.[2] The butterfly effect, an underlying principle of chaos, describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state (meaning that there is sensitive dependence on initial conditions).[3] A metaphor for this behavior is that a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas.[4][5][6]

An animation of a double-rod pendulum at an intermediate energy showing chaotic behavior. Starting the pendulum from a slightly different initial condition would result in a vastly different trajectory. The double-rod pendulum is one of the simplest dynamical systems with chaotic solutions.
Small differences in initial conditions, such as those due to errors in measurements or due to rounding errors in numerical computation, can yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction of their behavior impossible in general.[7] This can happen even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior follows a unique evolution[8] and is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[9] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[10][11] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

Another example, is the universe of true propositions about the natural numbers, which is deterministic but also chaotic.

The discovery of the existence of true but unprovable propositions (from arithmetic theory) about the natural numbers is exactly the breakthrough achieved by Godel in his famous incompleteness theorems.

Hence, "chaotic" does not necessarily mean "random".

[kaleido]

This can happen even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior follows a unique evolution[8] and is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[9] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.

What is the use of calling a system deterministic if you can't determine its action? But OK, I'll go with this definition. You could argue the same happens to the universe but, likewise, you wouldn't be able to prove it. This brings us back to Zarathustra's dice-throwers and probability. Even if there is only one possible fate, you won't be able to determine it, hence it wouldn't be, from our point of view, deterministic. You could say that from the point of view of the universe everything is already determined, but we can't place ourselves on this point of view. Hence determinism as the idea that you can calculate and determine with 100% certainty the future is wrong.

Consider that just by the very act of measuring we already affect the outcome. We can never determine with 100% certainty the future, because we ourselves are included in the universe and affect it with our own actions. You would have to be situated "outside" the universe to be able to tell the outcome of the universe at any given point in time, but to be "outside" the universe is non-sensical. The universe is everything, you can't be "outside" everything. It's in this sense that I say that the universe isn't deterministic. Though, from the perspective of the universe, everything may already be determined—we just won't ever be able to determine it ourselves. The use of the words "determinism" and "deterministic" simply vanishes at this point.