# Randi tackles religion vs. science **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 25, 2003, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857 "2003-07-25T13:47:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/161 "2003-07-27T23:31:58Z")
A thing that cannot be empirically measured, or that does not have any effect on things that _can_ be empirically measured, cannot be said to exist. We can conclude that we will never encounter such a thing, because “encountering” it would constitute an interaction, and we’ve already defined it as not interacting with the physical world. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/162 "2003-07-28T00:04:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*A thing that cannot be empirically measured, or that does not have any effect on things that _can_ be empirically measured, cannot be said to exist. > > We can conclude that we will never encounter such a thing, because “encountering” it would constitute an interaction, and we’ve already defined it as not interacting with the physical world. \*\* When is the last time you empirically measured a consciousness? Well, I guess that doesn’t exist. When is the last time you empirically measured a thought? Well, I guess that doesn’t exist either. Near death experiences happen in consciousness and greatly effect the physical body of the person who had it. Ghosts sure do effect the physical mood of people, but I guess they don’t exist because you can’t measure them. Whatever made you think memory can be measured or does anyone really know where it is, come on now, I think it exists. People who make up rules and laws and such to cover all things in the universe are pretty foolish. No one knows much at all, save the egotism for something more solid than life. which itself can’t be measured either. Love Leroy ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/163 "2003-07-28T00:07:48Z")
Yes, I forgot to mention that a “thought” can interact with “mind” and produce a “mood.” Oops, guess all those things can’t possible exist. Oh, well, I tried. Love ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/164 "2003-07-28T00:30:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Doc Nickel \* > \*\*-Does it? \*\* I’m asking you. Is that your position? If not, how not so? ---
**Author:** ![Doc\_Nickel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@Doc\_Nickel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doc_Nickel)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/165 "2003-07-28T01:07:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lekatt \* > \*\*When is the last time you empirically measured a consciousness? > \*\* -Last I spoke with another human being. “Consciousness” is, among other things, a person’s ability to react with his or her environment. I spoke, they reacted, they spoke, I reacted. > [@](#): > > **When is the last time you empirically measured a thought?** -Last time I read a book, for one. Again a few moments ago when reading **TVAA** s post. Those were thoughts transcribed by the author. I “measured” them as all people measure such things- besides the technical and grammatical quality, I subconsiously weighed it vs. my preconceptions, it’s place in this argument and put it on the scale of my opinion. Not all measuring is done with a ruler. > [@](#): > > **Near death experiences happen in consciousness and greatly effect the physical body of the person who had it.** -Certainly. One does not very nearly _die_ and not be affected by the event. This leads back to the spirit/psychology synonym. Do you have a point in stating it? > [@](#): > > **Ghosts sure do effect the physical mood of people, but I guess they don’t exist because you can’t measure them.** -Ghosts? What ghosts? You mean bad memories of traumatic events? Most certainly- some call it, not always accurately, “post traumatic stress disorder”. Can happen to anyone from a soldier who survived a battle, to a man who escaped a flaming car wreck. Being thoughts, thoughts which influence emotion, they can be quanitified just the same as any human feeling. Please refer back to items one and two, above. > [@](#): > > **Whatever made you think memory can be measured or does anyone really know where it is, come on now, I think it exists.** -Memory cannot be measured? That’s odd, I was under the impression that several game shows, such as _Jeopardy_ and _Who wants to be a Millionaire_ quantify a contestant’s memory every time they ask a question. If your mother came up to you and asked if you remember what happened on your birthday two years ago, and you answered correctly, didn’t she just “measure” your memory? > [@](#): > > **People who make up rules and laws and such to cover all things in the universe are pretty foolish.** -I’m sure I don’t quite understand what you’re trying to say, but I believe you’re saying that ennumerating phyical laws, such as those for thermodynamics, is foolish. If that’s the case, you don’t seem to understand that those laws are not “made up”, they’re descriptions of observed, repeatable, tested physical phenomena. What is “foolish”, to me, is making up “laws” or dogma to somehow force reality to conform to the theistic viewpoint. We can observe that the universe appears to be expanding, and from that, postulate that it must have at some point begun that expansion- the so-called “Big Bang”. No, we’re told, by those going by a storybook, and not observed physical phenomena, God made the Universe. But, we retort, from the red-shift of the light we can observe coming from _that_ star, we can determine with a fair degree of precision that it is X million light years away. No, comes the rebuttal, this book says the Universe is not that old. Therefore God must have created that light _in transit_, to give the appearance of age and distance. But, we reply, that means God could have made the Universe at any time, and given it any apparant age. He could have made it all appear Last Thursday. No, we’re told again, God would not decieve us in that manner, for he is Loving and Good. But, comes the exasperated reply, is not creating a billion years’ worth of starlight in order to misrepresent the age of the Universe, _itself_ a deception? > [@](#): > > **No one knows much at all, save the egotism for something more solid than life. which itself can’t be measured either.** -Life cannot be measured either? We cannot put a carefully-weighed petri dish of _Escherichia coli_ under growth lights and gas spectrometers and measure food conversion vs. organism mass and expelled gasses? We cannot put an electrocardiogram recorder on a terminal patient and record the exact second of his death? We can’t compare respiration, map DNA, culture cells, transplant organs? Or do you mean quantifying “life” itself, as in"the quality of life", an esoteric parameter defining how well an organism adapts, or even enjoys, it’s environment? What about _that_ can’t be quantified? I can tell you I’m happy with my life, you can tell me, at length if need be, how well you enjoy yours. From the outside, observers can watch our motions- do we take steps to improve our lives? Do we make motions to make those lives more pleasant? Life, in any definition if the word, happens in what we call reality- the physical, natural world. Thus, we can interact with it, make attempts to quantify it, measure it. Got any more straw men? ---
**Author:** ![Doc\_Nickel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@Doc\_Nickel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doc_Nickel)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/166 "2003-07-28T01:22:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by furt \* > \*\*I’m asking you. Is that your position? If not, how not so? \*\* -I believe my position is well enumerated already. **TVAA** summed it up nicely thus: > [@](#): > > \*\*A thing that cannot be empirically measured, or that does not have any effect on things that can be empirically measured, cannot be said to exist. > > We can conclude that we will never encounter such a thing, because “encountering” it would constitute an interaction, and we’ve already defined it as not interacting with the physical world.\*\* Anything else you need to know? ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/167 "2003-07-28T01:27:25Z")
Yes. Is this proposition falsifiable? If so, how? ---
**Author:** ![Doc\_Nickel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@Doc\_Nickel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doc_Nickel)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/168 "2003-07-28T01:38:43Z")
Define ‘falsifiable’. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/169 "2003-07-28T01:57:06Z")
Is there any possible evidence that could prove this statement wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Doc\_Nickel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@Doc\_Nickel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doc_Nickel)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/170 "2003-07-28T03:26:14Z")
Presumably, you’re referring to this statement, again presumably pulled from Randi’s article: > [@](#): > > \*\* > “I have never encountered anything that cannot be empirically measured or explained, therefore no such thing exists.”\*\* Well, you tell me. Just what sort of evidence would be needed to falsify that statement? Try not to create a paradox when defining the evidence. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/171 "2003-07-28T03:28:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Doc Nickel \* > \*\*-Last I spoke with another human being. > > “Consciousness” is, among other things, a person’s ability to react with his or her environment. I spoke, they reacted, they spoke, I reacted. > > -Last time I read a book, for one. Again a few moments ago when reading **TVAA** s post. > > Those were thoughts transcribed by the author. I “measured” them as all people measure such things- besides the technical and grammatical quality, I subconsiously weighed it vs. my preconceptions, it’s place in this argument and put it on the scale of my opinion. > > Not all measuring is done with a ruler. > > -Certainly. One does not very nearly _die_ and not be affected by the event. This leads back to the spirit/psychology synonym. Do you have a point in stating it? > > -Ghosts? What ghosts? > > You mean bad memories of traumatic events? Most certainly- some call it, not always accurately, “post traumatic stress disorder”. Can happen to anyone from a soldier who survived a battle, to a man who escaped a flaming car wreck. > > Being thoughts, thoughts which influence emotion, they can be quanitified just the same as any human feeling. Please refer back to items one and two, above. > > -Memory cannot be measured? That’s odd, I was under the impression that several game shows, such as _Jeopardy_ and _Who wants to be a Millionaire_ quantify a contestant’s memory every time they ask a question. > > If your mother came up to you and asked if you remember what happened on your birthday two years ago, and you answered correctly, didn’t she just “measure” your memory? > > -I’m sure I don’t quite understand what you’re trying to say, but I believe you’re saying that ennumerating phyical laws, such as those for thermodynamics, is foolish. > > If that’s the case, you don’t seem to understand that those laws are not “made up”, they’re descriptions of observed, repeatable, tested physical phenomena. > > What is “foolish”, to me, is making up “laws” or dogma to somehow force reality to conform to the theistic viewpoint. > > We can observe that the universe appears to be expanding, and from that, postulate that it must have at some point begun that expansion- the so-called “Big Bang”. > > No, we’re told, by those going by a storybook, and not observed physical phenomena, God made the Universe. > > But, we retort, from the red-shift of the light we can observe coming from _that_ star, we can determine with a fair degree of precision that it is X million light years away. > > No, comes the rebuttal, this book says the Universe is not that old. Therefore God must have created that light _in transit_, to give the appearance of age and distance. > > But, we reply, that means God could have made the Universe at any time, and given it any apparant age. He could have made it all appear Last Thursday. > > No, we’re told again, God would not decieve us in that manner, for he is Loving and Good. > > But, comes the exasperated reply, is not creating a billion years’ worth of starlight in order to misrepresent the age of the Universe, _itself_ a deception? > > -Life cannot be measured either? > > We cannot put a carefully-weighed petri dish of _Escherichia coli_ under growth lights and gas spectrometers and measure food conversion vs. organism mass and expelled gasses? > > We cannot put an electrocardiogram recorder on a terminal patient and record the exact second of his death? > > We can’t compare respiration, map DNA, culture cells, transplant organs? > > Or do you mean quantifying “life” itself, as in"the quality of life", an esoteric parameter defining how well an organism adapts, or even enjoys, it’s environment? > > What about _that_ can’t be quantified? I can tell you I’m happy with my life, you can tell me, at length if need be, how well you enjoy yours. From the outside, observers can watch our motions- do we take steps to improve our lives? Do we make motions to make those lives more pleasant? > > Life, in any definition if the word, happens in what we call reality- the physical, natural world. Thus, we can interact with it, make attempts to quantify it, measure it. > > Got any more straw men? \*\* You got to be kidding? You think you measured a thought by analyzing the symbol of it, words, the words were not the thought. Neither is the spoken word a measure of consciousness. What were the limits of the consciousness, how big was it? And memory, you measured the man’s memory by asking one question? No point you made had any sense to it. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/172 "2003-07-28T03:46:49Z")
No, I was referring to your statement, but I take it Randi’s view is more or less the same as your own. I do not think it is falsifiable; it is an a priori statement of belief that excludes all possible refutation. Do you disagree? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/173 "2003-07-28T04:03:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > **Fine – whatever it does encompass, is it a physical phenomenon or not?** I think the soul of a man encompasses more than the merely physical. Firing synapses are part of the picture, but only part. \*\* > [@](#): > > Then why in the world should we care about your belief in Him or your claims about His nature?\*\* I don’t believe I ever said you should. I’m not looking to convert anybody. The OP asked for opinions on Randi’s article. I gave mine: I disagree with it because I disagree with one of Randi’s premises, namely that only the empirically measurable is real. \*\* > [@](#): > > It is stupid, regardless of who holds it. Appeals to authority are futile.\*\* I don’t think that’s a classic appeal to authority. I’m not saying you should believe in God because a bunch of smart guys also believe. I’m saying the characterization of a belief in God as “stupid” might be inadvisable because plenty of deep thinkers have come to the opposite conclusion. \*\* > [@](#): > > In short, he neither demands nor expects that his beliefs be respected. He has that essential humility that you lack in spades.\*\* Define “respect.” If by “respect” you mean an expectation that others agree with an idea, or even find it credible, then I disagree: I’ve been pretty consistent in saying I cannot prove the spiritual empirically. If by “respect” you mean not suggesting that religious folks are less than bright, as Randi does, then yes, I do expect respect. I don’t think that expectation makes me arrogant or otherwise non-humble. \*\* > [@](#): > > It doesn’t matter who’s said or, or how it’s been said for; the position is incorrect, so it must be abandoned. \*\* What position? Did you read what you’re responding to? I simply said that a belief in faith does not mean (as you and Randi claim) blithely accepting all faith-based justifications for a given set of actions, and noted that much of the history of human philosophy is dedicated to discerning when such justifications are acceptable. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/174 "2003-07-28T04:14:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*I think the soul of a man encompasses more than the merely physical. Firing synapses are part of the picture, but only part. \*\* So human beings are partly physical, but partly not… yet this “non-physical” part must interact with the physical part. Then what reason is there to regard this part as non-physical? > [@](#): > > \*\*I’m saying the characterization of a belief in God as “stupid” might be inadvisable because plenty of deep thinkers have come to the opposite conclusion. \*\* No one has ever managed to produce a logical demonstration that God should be believed in. There have been plenty of deep thinkers that have come up with dumb conclusions… so what’s your point? > [@](#): > > \*\*What position? Did you read what you’re responding to? I simply said that a belief in faith does not mean (as you and Randi claim) blithely accepting all faith-based justifications for a given set of actions, and noted that much of the history of human philosophy is dedicated to discerning when such justifications are acceptable. \*\* Logically, you must accept all positions that are equally well supported as a position that you do accept. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/175 "2003-07-28T04:18:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > **You just can’t seem to get this into your head: if this phenomenon cannot affect any of the things we consider to be “physical”, then we can’t think about it, discuss it, become aware of it, or interact with it in any way. If it does interact with something we recognize as physical, then it is necessarily physical by extension: that’s how we define physicality.** Plenty of people discuss and are aware of their spiritual side. I know you want to reduce that to a series of brain synapses firing. That’s your prerogative. I disagree. I think our concious selves are more than mere brain chemistry.\*\* > [@](#): > > “Generally?” Does God interact with the physical world or not? The only straw here is packed between your ears. \*\*Generally speaking, no. I say “generally” only because I hold out the possibility of God interacting with the physical in a micromanager kind of way. I do not believe that God does this in the ordinary course. ---
**Author:** ![Doc\_Nickel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@Doc\_Nickel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doc_Nickel)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/176 "2003-07-28T04:21:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lekatt \* > **You got to be kidding?** -Randi once wrote of a woman who thought as you do. She came up to him and demanded to know what the chemical formula of the soul was. Which is, like yours, a nonsensical question, like asking what the letter B tastes like. As I noted above, if you fervently desire to see magic and miracles and an overseeing God, then I’m sure your mind will find some way to interpret the world so it fits your view. > [@](#): > > **You think you measured a thought by analyzing the symbol of it, words, the words were not the thought.** -No, I simply inferred the existence of thought. For those words to appear, in that context, in response to previous inquiries, insinuated the presence of thought, cognition, analysis. Like the X-ray particle we cannot see or feel directly, we must infer it’s existence by it’s effect. I cannot hear your thoughts directly, but I can accurately assume you are, indeed thinking, by noting the pattern of your response. Do you have an alternate explanation as to where your response came from? > [@](#): > > **Neither is the spoken word a measure of consciousness.** -But it _is_ an indicator. It is very difficult to converse with someone who is unconscious, or an object with no consciousness. > [@](#): > > **What were the limits of the consciousness, how big was it?** -What color is the number three? What does your name smell like? We can determine something exists without knowing it’s entire parameters. We know there’s iron in the core of this planet- do you know the exact volume of that iron, in cubic feet? > [@](#): > > **And memory, you measured the man’s memory by asking one question?** -You didn’t ask for the limits or extent of memory, you simply stated that memory could not be measured. Do you recall your birthday two years ago? Yes? Then I just measured a small bit of your memory. With time and careful questioning, I could determine additional parameters. To say that I can’t measure the entire depth and breadth of one person’s memory in a single forum posting is akin to those mentioned in another thread that point to every space in the fossil record as an insurmountable gap, disproving evolution. > [@](#): > > **No point you made had any sense to it.** -If you wish, like **Dewey** , to remain wilfully ignorant of reality, that’s fine by me. I think you’re visiting the wrong board for it, though. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/177 "2003-07-28T04:26:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*Plenty of people discuss and are aware of their spiritual side. I know you want to reduce that to a series of brain synapses firing. That’s your prerogative. I disagree. I think our concious selves are more than mere brain chemistry. \*\* _You are completely missing the point._ You think consciousness is more complex than brain chemistry? Fine. But whatever you think consciousness is, what gives you the idea that it’s non-physical? If the mind interacts with the body (which we must logically assume it does), then what grounds are there to consider it non-physical? \*\* > [@](#): > > Generally speaking, no. I say “generally” only because I hold out the possibility of God interacting with the physical in a micromanager kind of way. I do not believe that God does this in the ordinary course. \*\* So do you claim that God can interact with the physical universe. Then God is also a part of the physical universe. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/178 "2003-07-28T04:34:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Doc Nickel \* > **-So you admit that what people interpret as the “soul” or their “spirit” is the same as the “mind”, a psychological definition of the electrochemical processes we call cognition?** No, I predict that that’s what you’re going to say about the soul and thus elect to skip ahead to the next stage of the argument. I just figured I’d save us all a little time. \*\* > [@](#): > > How sad and tiny your life must be to assume only some invisible magic entity can provide beauty or majesty.\*\* It would indeed be sad and tiny if I had actually said that. Fortunately for me, I did not. Do you by any chance own shares in a straw company? What I _did_ say is that reducing things like love and beauty to mere chemical processes in the brain is cold and sterile. That assertion does not mean that man is incapable of creating beauty or majesty, or that his devices are not fascinatingly complex, or that he is incapable of great things. I do note the irony of you using NASA photographs of the planets in your “Did God do this?” litany. Sure, God had nothing to do with the creation of the equipment that took the photograps, but I’d argue that he might well have had something to do with the subject matter of those photographs. \*\* > [@](#): > > -Then you, like many others against whom Randi rails, are being _willfully_ ignorant. You cannot answer that question, therefore you will not contemplate it. \*\* This is insulting to every serious theologan or philosopher who has ever considered the question of the divine. The question has been contemplated, carefully and thoughtfully. That some have reached different conclusions about the way the world operates does not make them wilfully ignorant. It only means that they think empiricism is not the only road to human enlightenment.\*\* > [@](#): > > These things are spiritual because the person viewing them _wants_ them to be spiritual. I see them as psychological, and we understand the two words to be synonyms.\*\* Who is “we?” ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/179 "2003-07-28T04:50:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > **So human beings are partly physical, but partly not… yet this “non-physical” part must interact with the physical part. Then what reason is there to regard this part as non-physical?** Because by definition it is nonphysical. Just because A interacts with B does not necessarily transform A into B. \*\* > [@](#): > > No one has ever managed to produce a logical demonstration that God should be believed in. There have been plenty of deep thinkers that have come up with dumb conclusions… so what’s your point? \*\* One of humility, which you accuse me of lacking but which you yourself lack in spades. When a substantial number of intelligent, serious-minded people say X, it does not necessarily mean X is true, but it does mean that X should be treated as a real possibility. Humility is, in part, recognizing the possibility that you might be wrong. \*\* > [@](#): > > Logically, you must accept all positions that are equally well supported as a position that you do accept. \*\* It’s a huge leap from finding faith to be a valid concept to finding that anything can be properly justified by recourse to faith. No serious-minded person believes that. It is silly to suggest otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/180 "2003-07-28T04:57:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*_You are completely missing the point._ > > You think consciousness is more complex than brain chemistry? Fine. But whatever you think consciousness is, what gives you the idea that it’s non-physical? If the mind interacts with the body (which we must logically assume it does), then what grounds are there to consider it non-physical?\*\* My own sense of things. Again, for the umpteenth time, I can’t logically prove the existence of God or the human soul. It is folly to try. But I, like many others, have an inherent sense that the divine exists and that I am more than the sum of my body parts. I know that is not empirical proof. I do not pretend it is. I do not expect anyone to be swayed by that. I think it real nevertheless. \*\* > [@](#): > > So do you claim that God can interact with the physical universe. Then God is also a part of the physical universe. \*\* I never claimed otherwise; God transcends all things, from the physical to the spiritual. But I believe that God elects to refrain from interaction with the physical world (outside of designing the darned thing), being more interested in the spiritual side of things. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857.md?page=10)