R
ricmat
Guest
Yes, thank you for mentioning that. I overgeneralized. Or perhaps as Bush 43 would have said, “I mis-overestimated it.”
- Status
N
Novart
Guest
Interesting article, and what I would say about it is that in Christian terms I am an atheist, and yet I know “God,” a horribly mis and over used term, is at the foundation of everything. Perhaps that is the direction of resolution regarding that survey. I don’t know. I’m only saying that on the basis of my own experience and that of many friends who decry the Christian “understanding” of what’s called God, and yet are deeply spiritual theists who would have nothing to do with a church or religion of the Abrahamic or any other sort. And yet they, we, many, even conduct worships, meditations, prayer circles, vigils, healing groups, etc, etc. And please, folks don’t go to that New Age garbage that is often the recourse of many who don’t look beyond their own prejudices and ignorance of deeper thought than superficial buzz wording. Even your “God” is bigger than that.
And yes, that is the oldest religious debate going. It would seem to be somewhat divided in degree and kind along mysitcial vs dogmatic lines. Best in-Church resolution I’ve read is the trilogy by Bernadette Roberts and her Catholic bibliography and references.
N
Novart
Guest
And then there is this:
…"For one thing, the idea of a difference between matter and spirit. This idea doesn’t work anymore. Long, long ago, physicists stopped asking the question ‘What is matter?’ They began that way. They wanted to know, what is the fundamental substance of the world? And the more they asked that question, the more they realized the couldn’t answer it, because if you’re going to say what matter is, you’ve got to describe it in terms of behavior, that is to say in terms of form, in terms of pattern. You tell what it does, you describe the smallest shapes of it which you can see. Do you see what happens? You look, say, at a piece of stone, and you want to say, ‘Well, what is this piece of stone made of?’ You take your microscope and you look at it, and instead of just this block of stuff, you see ever so many tinier shapes. Little crystals. So you say, ‘Fine, so far so good. Now what are these crystals made of?’ And you take a more powerful instrument, and you find that they’re made of molecules, and then you take a still more powerful instrument to find out what the molecules are made of, and you begin to describe atoms, electrons, protons, mesons, all sorts of sub-nuclear particles. But you never, never arrive at the basic stuff. Because there isn’t any.
What happens is this: ‘Stuff’ is a word for the world as it looks when our eyes are out of focus. Fuzzy. Stuff–the idea of stuff is that it is undifferentiated, like some kind of goo. And when your eyes are not in sharp focus, everything looks fuzzy. When you get your eyes into focus, you see a form, you see a pattern. But when you want to change the level of magnification, and go in closer and closer and closer, you get fuzzy again before you get clear. So every time you get fuzzy, you go through thinking there’s some kind of stuff there. But when you get clear, you see a shape. So all that we can talk about is patterns. We never, never can talk about the ‘stuff’ of which these patterns are supposed to be made, because you don’t really have to suppose that there is any. It’s enough to talk about the world in terms of patterns. It describes anything that can be described, and you don’t really have to suppose that there is some stuff that constitutes the essence of the pattern in the same way that clay constitutes the essence of pots. And so for this reason, you don’t really have to suppose that the world is some kind of helpless, passive, unintelligent junk which an outside agency has to inform and make into intelligent shapes. So the picture of the world in the most sophisticated physics of today is not formed stuff–potted clay–but pattern. A self-moving, self-designing pattern. A dance. And our common sense as individuals hasn’t yet caught up with this." ~Alan Watts, The Nature of Consciousness…
…"For one thing, the idea of a difference between matter and spirit. This idea doesn’t work anymore. Long, long ago, physicists stopped asking the question ‘What is matter?’ They began that way. They wanted to know, what is the fundamental substance of the world? And the more they asked that question, the more they realized the couldn’t answer it, because if you’re going to say what matter is, you’ve got to describe it in terms of behavior, that is to say in terms of form, in terms of pattern. You tell what it does, you describe the smallest shapes of it which you can see. Do you see what happens? You look, say, at a piece of stone, and you want to say, ‘Well, what is this piece of stone made of?’ You take your microscope and you look at it, and instead of just this block of stuff, you see ever so many tinier shapes. Little crystals. So you say, ‘Fine, so far so good. Now what are these crystals made of?’ And you take a more powerful instrument, and you find that they’re made of molecules, and then you take a still more powerful instrument to find out what the molecules are made of, and you begin to describe atoms, electrons, protons, mesons, all sorts of sub-nuclear particles. But you never, never arrive at the basic stuff. Because there isn’t any.
What happens is this: ‘Stuff’ is a word for the world as it looks when our eyes are out of focus. Fuzzy. Stuff–the idea of stuff is that it is undifferentiated, like some kind of goo. And when your eyes are not in sharp focus, everything looks fuzzy. When you get your eyes into focus, you see a form, you see a pattern. But when you want to change the level of magnification, and go in closer and closer and closer, you get fuzzy again before you get clear. So every time you get fuzzy, you go through thinking there’s some kind of stuff there. But when you get clear, you see a shape. So all that we can talk about is patterns. We never, never can talk about the ‘stuff’ of which these patterns are supposed to be made, because you don’t really have to suppose that there is any. It’s enough to talk about the world in terms of patterns. It describes anything that can be described, and you don’t really have to suppose that there is some stuff that constitutes the essence of the pattern in the same way that clay constitutes the essence of pots. And so for this reason, you don’t really have to suppose that the world is some kind of helpless, passive, unintelligent junk which an outside agency has to inform and make into intelligent shapes. So the picture of the world in the most sophisticated physics of today is not formed stuff–potted clay–but pattern. A self-moving, self-designing pattern. A dance. And our common sense as individuals hasn’t yet caught up with this." ~Alan Watts, The Nature of Consciousness…
C
cheezey
Guest
Has anyone read or heard of this book?? Haven’t read it yet; packed, as I am unscientifically moving somewhere…
Review from Amazon:
In Show Me God: What The Message From Space Is Telling Us About God, science writer Fred Heeren interviews today’s foremost cosmologists in order to explore how the latest findings bear upon the ultimate questions we all ask. In doing so, he introduces people of faith to the ways of astronomy, and enlightens astronomy enthusiasts in the ways of faith. Skeptics and believers are both led to ask: Have cosmologists stumbled upon evidence for God? Scientists see the usefulness of a work like this in “removing the barriers between faith and science”. Written in a down-to-earth style with humor and a multi-media approach, this newly revised edition contains 100 new pages that include recent developments in the search for extraterrestrial life and the discovery of primeval galaxies. Show Me God is a fascinating tour-de-force for anyone with an interest in astronomy and religion.
Review from Amazon:
In Show Me God: What The Message From Space Is Telling Us About God, science writer Fred Heeren interviews today’s foremost cosmologists in order to explore how the latest findings bear upon the ultimate questions we all ask. In doing so, he introduces people of faith to the ways of astronomy, and enlightens astronomy enthusiasts in the ways of faith. Skeptics and believers are both led to ask: Have cosmologists stumbled upon evidence for God? Scientists see the usefulness of a work like this in “removing the barriers between faith and science”. Written in a down-to-earth style with humor and a multi-media approach, this newly revised edition contains 100 new pages that include recent developments in the search for extraterrestrial life and the discovery of primeval galaxies. Show Me God is a fascinating tour-de-force for anyone with an interest in astronomy and religion.
A
aragonjohn1
Guest
but then how would you know the earth is not flat : )
may the peace of holy God be with you
God bless
N
Novart
Guest
Don’t know about that one, but Barbara Kingsolver’s book Flight Behavior speaks directly to many of the questions some have raised here. kingsolver.com/books/
T
TheAtheist
Guest
Ah, sanity prevails.
You know, as a member of the professional class being described, I’d have to say that above all else. this is probably the “major concern” when bumping up against these matters.
When the natural sciences are constrained by a pre-conceived worldview, it cannot proceed with its stated objectives. Heck, it doesn’t even have to be a religious idea that does this - take a look at Marxism in the Soviet Union. It was so married to the idea of group selection in biology that it resulted in Lysenkoism and a whole lot of purged Russian scientists.
I genuinely believe there is a fundamental misunderstanding here about the orientation of the profession.
You folks, by your own admission, are married to a specific outcome - Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior, etc. etc.
The New Atheists, by their own admission, are also committed to a different outcome - namely the complete reversal of yours.
But as a profession, as a field of study, the whole spectrum of those who have gone through the 5-7+ years of slave labor in the lab may all have different viewpoints.
But collectively we’re married to a Process, not an Outcome.
We may all have individual ideas of what we think the Outcome is, but the majority of us are not willing to violate the Procedural methodology we accept as scientists.
Some do - but I want to point something out.
Those who engage in the mindless chatter of throwing out 5 proofs and regurgitating 5 objections to proofs - are they necessarily the “best and brightest” in their respective fields?
Dawkins may be an exception (depending if you buy into the Selfish Gene theory), but the rest? How often is their work cited on the Impact Index?
Admittedly I’m giving a biased account of this - i’m an Experimentalist - the guy who has to figure out if all the wonderful models people are proposing on paper actually work in reality.
It isn’t all just theoretical models and cogent arguments at the end of the day - the proposed mechanism has to work. otherwise, someoen’s gotta go back to the drawing board.
I can also put the shoe on the other foot and ask the same question about the theologians, journalists, etc who engage on the debate from your end. They aren’t exactly revolutionary systematic theologians a la the men who shaped Vatican II.
What can account for the divergence? Simply put - the good scientists are off doing science (not a surprise). Your insightful theologians are pondering your God.
Leaving us only with the children of lesser minds on both sides of the aisle to rabble-rouse.
Duly acknowledged Ed - now go tell that to India.
—> rediff.com/news/2008/jun/15god.htm
You can’t pin the erosion of religious faith in NAS, squarely on science itself.
Heck, if anything it might be cultural.
Case in point - Kerala, India (where some of your Syro-Malabarian Eastern Catholics reside) has a sizeable Christian/Muslim population whose government for the last 50 years has been Marxist in character.
By all intents of purposes, if i were take even a quarter of the statements said on this board - everyone in Kerala should be either dead or one group should be massively persecuting another.
And yet that is not the case.
E
edwest2
Guest
It might be this, it might be that. Science is overrated in the sense that it is a worldview. As one who began studying science and looking forward to the possibility of ended up discovering things, I got the scientific method. I also got the fact that present day science is built on a series of things that work. What I’m objecting to here is anonymous posters who:
A) Tell us “this is set in stone. Science says so. Accept it now!!” Or what?
B) Those who take science waaay beyond its provable, testable borders (i.e., it either works or it don’t) and say: “We interpret your holy book based on these scientific ideas. Accept them even though science cannot study your god, miracles, etc.”
And, of course, I can cite the new evangelists for non-theism, like Dawkins and Sam Harris, who are perfect examples of “let’s discredit the work of a being that science does not recognize exists, especially the Christian version.” or “God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.” Got it. Right. “If we had known then what we now know, would we have ever become religious?”
You’ll note that the various people mentioned use science to back up their claims regarding a being or beings that do not exist as far as real science is concerned. Logical? I don’t think so.
Peace,
Ed
A) Tell us “this is set in stone. Science says so. Accept it now!!” Or what?
B) Those who take science waaay beyond its provable, testable borders (i.e., it either works or it don’t) and say: “We interpret your holy book based on these scientific ideas. Accept them even though science cannot study your god, miracles, etc.”
And, of course, I can cite the new evangelists for non-theism, like Dawkins and Sam Harris, who are perfect examples of “let’s discredit the work of a being that science does not recognize exists, especially the Christian version.” or “God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.” Got it. Right. “If we had known then what we now know, would we have ever become religious?”
You’ll note that the various people mentioned use science to back up their claims regarding a being or beings that do not exist as far as real science is concerned. Logical? I don’t think so.
Peace,
Ed
N
Novart
Guest
The point is that neither religion, any religion, as a paradigm, “knows” “God” and neither does science. They are thoughts about, not direct knowledge of, Deity. Religion and science are equally at fault here. The difference is in the way that religion makes a stab at the reality of interior meaning which cannot be shared in the commonality of experience save by interpretation, while science legitimately deals only with that realm of commonality and its discoverable, sharable, and provable dynamics. Science is, as TheAtheist (interesting pun) says, married to a process. Religion (Insert denomination) unfortunately claims already to have THE answer, and neither takes it home to where one actually lives in the profound way, save rarely by hard work, that changes one’s life. And in a way the reverse is true, as well. Science claims, in a sense to have THE answer by the postulate that all is measurably material and and given infinite time all will be laid bare to mathematical description. And religions are married to the process of faith as a necessity to prove the known outcome.
Neither of these is adequate to the task at hand. Science is over rated in the sense of supplying guidance and interpretation of interior meaning, and religion is over rated as an interpreter of the commonality of physics. That begs the question: how is this duality overcome. So far, as matters of public understanding, I’d point to either Amit Goswami or Ken Wilber. Beyond that, I’d point to the non dual mystics, Catholic or otherwise, who treat of the question of the actual entity that has either science or religion or both as part of their world view. I’d point in that way because until you know what you yourself are, and what your mind does, neither a religious nor a scientific explanation will suffice. So far, neither ordinary religion nor science properly accounts for the observer, nor considers its field of knowledge" as primarily an aspect of the observer. Oh. except that science has made that claim in a way, and esoteric philosophy, which religion stems from, imo, has as well. So I’m thinking that an answer is more in that direction than in deciding the supremacy of one partial or another.
A
abucs
Guest
Novart,
your post treats all religion under one banner and supposes that they are all a guess at things we don’t know.
This post only makes sense if you have rejected the incarnation of Christ.
your post treats all religion under one banner and supposes that they are all a guess at things we don’t know.
This post only makes sense if you have rejected the incarnation of Christ.
A
Agnostic_Batman
Guest
Well, I admit to not reading the posts in front of me, so I apologize if I’m saying things redundant.
I think, as a preliminary matter, one must distinguish what science they are talking about. I believe that science is involved in organ transplants, brain surgeries, etc. but this does not mean that God does not exist etc.’
Indeed, I believe the science of such things like organ transplants and brain surgeries is underrated. The science that made penicillin, found vaccines and cures for polio, and the modern flu. How would society be without modern medicine? How would a common tooth-ache or cavity be cured 1,000 years ago?
Indeed, I would say that science is involved in human progress. Electricity, gas power, the internet, automobiles, airplanes, phones, etc are all a function of science. Indeed, this very forum is probably some product of computer algorithms.
I believe, in that sense, science is incredibly underrated. Imagine society with no cars, phones, electricity, vaccines, etc. A society where polio ran rampant and doctors had no cures for disease. I guess one could compare it some African countries.
On the other hand, certain disciplines of science can be overrated insofar as they stray from providing human advance and instead try to explain humans. I don’t need science to explain me, i prefer it to make life easier for me.
I think, as a preliminary matter, one must distinguish what science they are talking about. I believe that science is involved in organ transplants, brain surgeries, etc. but this does not mean that God does not exist etc.’
Indeed, I believe the science of such things like organ transplants and brain surgeries is underrated. The science that made penicillin, found vaccines and cures for polio, and the modern flu. How would society be without modern medicine? How would a common tooth-ache or cavity be cured 1,000 years ago?
Indeed, I would say that science is involved in human progress. Electricity, gas power, the internet, automobiles, airplanes, phones, etc are all a function of science. Indeed, this very forum is probably some product of computer algorithms.
I believe, in that sense, science is incredibly underrated. Imagine society with no cars, phones, electricity, vaccines, etc. A society where polio ran rampant and doctors had no cures for disease. I guess one could compare it some African countries.
On the other hand, certain disciplines of science can be overrated insofar as they stray from providing human advance and instead try to explain humans. I don’t need science to explain me, i prefer it to make life easier for me.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Good point. After all I don’t think many of us would look at String Theory and something like orbital mechanics as being on equal footing.
I have been told that dental problems in times past could lead to infections and death.
B
buffalo
Guest
In the past? - still happens today.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
That’s true. Though at least in my sector of the world (Which I understand is not a microcosm of the entire world) such occurrences seem rare.
B
buffalo
Guest
No - even in the middle of modern medicine in the USA at leading edge dental centers.
V
VirtusTransitus
Guest
Modern science isn’t overrated, at least not by me.
I think, rather, many modern humanists have successfully convinced the average American to misunderstand science. After all, the average American knows next to nothing about science, of the sciences. So, they are shown a little bit of this or that result of scientific research, then there’s some mumbo-jumbo, and, voila, a politically-guided prediction garbed in scientific jargon and touted as fact.
Global warming is a perfect example.
Experts in science are awarded PhDs - they’re doctors in philosophy. The signficance of this should not be lost on anyone.
The best book I have read related to science is the History of Scientific Revolution. I find it very helpful.
I think, rather, many modern humanists have successfully convinced the average American to misunderstand science. After all, the average American knows next to nothing about science, of the sciences. So, they are shown a little bit of this or that result of scientific research, then there’s some mumbo-jumbo, and, voila, a politically-guided prediction garbed in scientific jargon and touted as fact.
Global warming is a perfect example.
Experts in science are awarded PhDs - they’re doctors in philosophy. The signficance of this should not be lost on anyone.
The best book I have read related to science is the History of Scientific Revolution. I find it very helpful.
A
abucs
Guest
I think what has been underated is the Church’s help in the commitment to, and development of Western science.
See the three online documents which you can find on the net.
The Popes and Science
Catholic Churchmen in Science
The Thirteenth: Greatest of all Centuries
Here’s one site that has all the articles but it might take some time to load.
whatswrongwithatheism.wordpress.com/scholarly-articles/
See the three online documents which you can find on the net.
The Popes and Science
Catholic Churchmen in Science
The Thirteenth: Greatest of all Centuries
Here’s one site that has all the articles but it might take some time to load.
whatswrongwithatheism.wordpress.com/scholarly-articles/
I
InJesusItrust
Guest
Science is a pragmatic way for finding truth. Pragmatism has nothing to do with love of truth…Lovers of truth are a non-pragmatic bunch. They will pursue it at all costs, even if it costs them their reputation, comforts and lives. When people say that something ought to not be believed without scientific evidence, they’re taking a pragmatist outlook to truth. There are other kinds of evidence, and something can be proven true without empiricism.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Not much is great in modern science. Technology amazes me, but not science.
- Status