Logos, gravity et cetera

[Jim_Baur]

Limiting ourselves to information from our five senses keeps us from seeing the deeper meaning of life at any given moment. That’s why so many of us feel that life is something that happens to us at random, bringing joy one day and tragedy the next.

Today, instead of feeling doubt when something “negative” happens, say to yourself, “I know I have done all I can to make this a positive experience. I have certainty that in the bigger picture, this situation is positive.” When you do this, you give darkness no entry into the situation

THIS IS BY KAREN BERG.
The first sentence is interesting to science and that which directs science–reasoning.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Many modern Cosmologists like Hawkings and Dawkins.

Linus2nd

Who is the modern Cosmologist Dawkins you speak of? What is his first name, and what are his creds?
My next question is, do you realize there is a difference between Cosmology and say any other scientific field?
I’m sure you do when it comes to Astrology and Astronomy. But, in other areas of science, do you understand the differences?

 

[StrawberryJam]

We await your enlightend explanation as to why bringing up Newton is hillarious. In fact you have made a rather serious assertion. And exactly where does Linus Pauling fit in? Surely you don’t expect anyone here to take your assertions serioiusly without a clear explanation. Your standing here is not that of an authority which can be trusted, since we will always assume that your assertions are tainted by your atheistic world view, which is per se antagonistic to Christianity in general and to Catholicism in particular. So, explain or apologize.

Oh, by the way, Hawkings isn’t doing much to dispel the meaning that people have attached to his assertions - excuse me, speculations.

Linus2nd

This is the Philosophy forum, not apologetics where your contributions would better fit.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Who is the modern Cosmologist Dawkins you speak of? What is his first name, and what are his creds?
My next question is, do you realize there is a difference between Cosmology and say any other scientific field?
I’m sure you do when it comes to Astrology and Astronomy. But, in other areas of science, do you understand the differences?

I think his name is Richard Dawkins and he is supposed to be some kind of scientist. I really don’t pay much attention to him. What I know is from those who have bee discussing some of his ideas.

Certainly there is a difference between Cosmology and other scientific fields. These men seem to be both, at least that is the impression they give.

Yes I understand the difference, why do you ask?

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This is the Philosophy forum, not apologetics where your contributions would better fit.

You are certainly welcome to your opinions. However, I am not making a strictly apologetic presentation - if you have bothered to read my posts. And I was perfectly correct in asking for proof in the quote you have addressed. That is not being " apologetic. " And I remind you this is a Catholic house and we ( certainly I ) will use any resource we have, including Divine Revelation and teachings from the Magisterium of the Church, if necessary.

You know I could put the shoe on the other foot. If we are to limit our discussions simply to the methods of philosophy then arguments such as those offered by Dawkins, Hitching, Krauss, and other physicists, chemists, mathematicians, etc. should not be allowed . But then that would make it rather difficult for them since none of them are philosophers and Krauss, at least, has expressed a down right loathing for philosophy.

Very sorry you disapprove.

Linus2nd

 

[StrawberryJam]

I think his name is Richard Dawkins and he is supposed to be some kind of scientist. I really don’t pay much attention to him. What I know is from those who have bee discussing some of his ideas.

Certainly there is a difference between Cosmology and other scientific fields. These men seem to be both, at least that is the impression they give.

Yes I understand the difference, why do you ask?

Linus2nd

Richard Dawkins is a scientist. Do you want to tell us what field of science his backround is in and why you felt it was relevant to this thread to mention his name, let alone state what his position on this topic would be without citations? Do you hear voices of Dawkins telling you these things?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Richard Dawkins is a scientist. Do you want to tell us what field of science his backround is in and why you felt it was relevant to this thread to mention his name, let alone state what his position on this topic would be without citations? Do you hear voices of Dawkins telling you these things?

Well, why don’t you look him up. His books and comments are all over the net.
I doubt if I hear any more voices than you do .

Linus2nd

 

[Jim_Baur]

Dawkins can be seen in a YouTube with Ben Stein.

The interview is rather enjoyable–on several levels.

Stein asks many times how life began and finally Dawkins says something like this: perhaps aliens planted it.

Also, a book entitled “Signature in the Cell” by Stephen Meyer is rather beautiful in this area.

You can find above easily.

Stein has done many things. His interview is, I believe, in a documentary called “Expelled.” It is a documentary.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Stein asks many times how life began and finally Dawkins says something like this: perhaps aliens planted it.

Dawkins and some of the other scientist that appear in that production state they were misrepresented in it. In the case of the little green men hypothesis Dawkins was referring to ideas that others have postulated but to which he does not subscribe. Elaboration of this along with Dawkins attributing this view to others and stating it is not his own can be found in a couple of his books published well before the production of the film. There are also mis-quotations of other scientist (ex: Darwin).

The name of the film is “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008)”. It may not be the best film to use to support a position given the allegations of misrepresentation associated with it.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.

 

[Jim_Baur]

youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc&feature=kp

Thinking

I paraphrased Dawkins.

He is big enough to speak for himself.

It is about six minutes long.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc&feature=kp

Thinking

I paraphrased Dawkins.

He is big enough to speak for himself.

It is about six minutes long.

He does speak for himself. He was referring to somethung discussed in one of his books. Familiarity with the book allowed me to quickly recognize the interview had been efited in a way to misrepresent the discussion.
Wiki:

In Dawkins’ interview, the director focused on Stein’s question to Dawkins regarding a hypothetical scenario in which intelligent design could have occurred.[60] Dawkins responded that in the case of the “highly unlikely event that some such ‘Directed Panspermia’ was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would themselves have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent ‘crane’ (to quote Dan Dennett).” He later described this as being similar to Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel’s “semi tongue-in-cheek” example.[60][61]

The editing of the interview with Dawkins leads the viewer to believe that Richard Dawkins is saying that some intelligent designer (God) may be discovered when the evidence of cellular and molecular biology is examined. Dawkins is midway through a hypothetical statement, making the greater point that a designer would himself have to be designed (and this is highly unlikely), when Mr Stein’s voiceover interrupts, asking, “Wait a second, Richard Dawkins is admitting that Intelligent design might be a legitimate pursuit?”. Dawkins then delivers the final words “That designer may well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe, but then that higher intelligence would itself had to of come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable, process. He couldn’t have just spontaneously jumped into existence, that’s the point.”

Stein states afterwards in a voiceover, “So Prof. Dawkins was not against intelligence design, just certain types of designers, such as God”.

See en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed

 

[Jim_Baur]

Thinking

There were two or three things that caught my attention with Dawkins. One is his strong, strong, strong feels about the Jewish Sacred Writings and what it might imply.

Second, Dawkins does say the mathematical possibility of a god. It is not as low a one, but below fifty or so percent. (I forget the exact number)

Third, if there were beings that came from no life to life so superior to our own, the time to evolve plus our own, changes the time factors greatly.

Fourth, he got caught misleading himself or us or both.

Fifth, he made an great deal of money, fame, glory or honor.

I do not have any problems with any of the above, 1-5.

Sixth, as a amateur scientist it jumps out at me–we do not know how life evolved! Then we explain something that we do not even know happened. How many potential fallacies in that kind of reasoning.

Seventh, he limits himself to only the physical world. One cannot know what human nature is when one only says my physical properties. Kant had at least one good point–noumenon.

Dawkins ideas might really be fun to investigate. Did superior beings seed life on earth? Did those beings direct that elementary life to human life? Did those being make earth the harmonious planet it is all at once? Did those superior beings construct DNA all at once or slowly develop it analogously to the Industrial age to our own era? Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera…

And I always enjoy reading your ideas–they are beautiful and invigorating.

I personally have nothing against any of the methods of Dawkins. I do all of the things that he does and much more. In fact, I would love to pursue many of his ideas if I had the time, talent, and help.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

There were two or three things that caught my attention with Dawkins. One is his strong, strong, strong feels about the Jewish Sacred Writings and what it might imply.

That he evaluates the concept of Yahweh as negative is evident from his direct declarations of this in most of his books and many of the videos in which he appears. If you are familiar with content that he has produced then I would also think that you have already become aware of this.

Second, Dawkins does say the mathematical possibility of a god. It is not as low a one, but below fifty or so percent. (I forget the exact number)

Yes, he’s maintained that the possibility of a god-concept being descriptive of a god that exists to be above zero. This is mentioned in “The God Delusion (2006)” (and possibly in “The Selfish Gene” (1976))where he is clarifying his position on the God Proposition and where he stands on a scale that ranges from absolute certainty that there are no gods and absolute certainty of a god. He states that he does not know with absolute certainty that there are no gods, but that he does think it is far more unlikely than likely.

Third, if there were beings that came from no life to life so superior to our own, the time to evolve plus our own, changes the time factors greatly.

Fourth, he got caught misleading himself or us or both.

The video that you saw was an edited version of his discussion of Panspermia. Panspermia isn’t an idea that was composed by Dawkins and itn’s an idea that he promotes. It’s something that comes up in a discussion of the origins of life and the earliest attribution of it was from the 5th century BC Greek philosopher Anaxagoras though the scientific form of it dates back to 1834. It refers to the possibility of life on one planet originating on another and was given more consideration from findings such as rocks from Mars making their way to earth and the discovery that some forms of life can withstand the hard vacuum and radiation found in space outside of our magnetosphere. Directed Panspermia is panspermia that is done by intent by another, such as if humans were to seed life on Mars.

This is something that he talked about in “The God Delusion.” That’s why it is recognizable as edited in “Expelled.” Familiarity with the original content makes it easier to recognize the removal and editing of material in the video.

Fifth, he made an great deal of money, fame, glory or honor.

Okay. What’s the implication or relevance of this?

Sixth, as a amateur scientist it jumps out at me–we do not know how life evolved! Then we explain something that we do not even know happened. How many potential fallacies in that kind of reasoning.

You’ve been in previous discussions here in the forums in which it was explained that the results of science is not knowledge that has complete certainty. At best some one can come up with a hypothesis that is supported by evidence but without complete knowledge of the truth value the hypothesis. I think you may have the misunderstanding that conclusions from science are considered final or that confidence of the conclusions is considered absolute.

Seventh, he limits himself to only the physical world.

Correct. Search the forums for the phrase “methodological naturalism” to see the discussions on this.

Dawkins ideas might really be fun to investigate. Did superior beings seed life on earth? Did those beings direct that elementary life to human life? Did those being make earth the harmonious planet it is all at once? Did those superior beings construct DNA all at once or slowly develop it analogously to the Industrial age to our own era? Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera…

Well, none of those are his ideas. If you want to know what he thinks and if you think that you can handle it then it may be worth reading “The God Delusion” if for no other reason than to know what it is that he positively asserts. Panspermia isn’t something that he argues for or against, but something that he discusses because it was relevant to some other commonly presented arguments. If you haven’t the time for reading the entire books I can find for you which sections in which books discussed the information above. Though I can’t give you the exact page numbers; my collection is digital and use something other than page numbers to track where I am in a book.

I personally have nothing against any of the methods of Dawkins. I do all of the things that he does and much more. In fact, I would love to pursue many of his ideas if I had the time, talent, and help.

I actually don’t care for many of his positions myself. But in general I don’t like to see anyone misrepresented.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Every thing which is a part of the universe is some derivative of matter, whether that be waves or particles. And, should it ever be proven that gravity is a " wave " or some kind of particle, then it would be a derivative of matter and therefore matter just as energy is matter. Matter does not have to be something " solid, "

Did you know that no one has ever succeded in " screening " gravity. Magnitism and electricity can be shielded, but not gravity. Makes one wonder doesn’t it?

Linus2nd

The electromagnetism can not be completely shielded.
The wave lengths of the shielding might be narrower than the possible electromagnetism of the gravity as well.
That could be one of the reasons gravity can not be shielded with our current technology.

Edit:
Here is a link to a book that explains how gravity could be electromagnetic.
theelectromagneticnatureofthings.com/img/emnature.pdf
… and the link to a paper that explains why relativity is not correct all the time
theelectromagneticnatureofthings.com/the-special-relativity/

 

[Jim_Baur]

This is too long to read, but I will post it for myself. THANKS!

I, like Dawkins, am a human being. Both of us need to grow and mature. Well, I need to and he can speak for himself.

I hope that this makes sense. I am not attacking any person–I have way too many weaknesses and faults to do that. I am not a scholar! I am not a saint! I am of average intellectual ability—but I am senior citizen.

Dawkins seems to be a “scientific fundamentalist.” I am not using this in a pejorative or condescending sense. He is a great man! He is a genius. We all hold geniuses to be great. I am not making any religious or moral statements. We all, in at least the area of scholarship, have to say that he is a great person.

In my judgment, my concern for his method is that he limits himself to math and physical sciences. I would imagine that he knows a great deal in all areas of human learning–but he does not give them any credence. He does not give credence to the many schools of ontology and metaphysics.

Human reason invented logic, math and discovered so much more than merely the “core” physical sciences. Math is something that we cannot weigh, measure, or even count. It cannot be sensed by the five external sense. But we as rational beings use it. There is other being that we cannot see, weigh, measure or count—human nature.

To disregard all the areas of epistemology and psychology is to inordinately limit one’s search for being, truth, goodness, and beauty. To intellectually see the different being of canine, bovine, and pine is not done through math or physics or chemistry or even biology. It is done through human reason—which cannot be sensed with the five external senses. I cannot sense my thoughts with my external senses. Again, one cannot sense logic, math, ontology, metaphysics, psychology, and other forms of epistemology with any of the five external senses. I cannot disregard logic. I would be killed on the chess board. I could not fix my electric or plumbing. I could not use math.

To abandon metaphysics of ancient Greece, the ideas all of the philosophies and all of the scientists that go to synagogue, mosque, temple, and church is illogical. There are many scientists that cannot accept the ideas of throwing out some kind of a “structurer” or designer of the universe. They might make the fallacy and then assume that it is the being of their own faith. But that is another issue.

When one considers the structure, beauty, orchestration and complexity of DNA, it becomes is self-evident that it IS structured. Our reasoning enables us to see that a “reason” implanted reason in the physical world! Perhaps a better term is “suprareasoner.”

How? When? What? Where? Who?

We do not know.

To not consider Kant, Schopenhauer, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroaster, Maimonides, Socrates, Plato, Augustine, Aristotle, Avicenna, Averroes, Einstein, and all those that could vaguely see that something is “behind” the material world that we see with our physical eyes. Many just mentioned are not theistic religions or people.

To abandon philosophy and common sense is not a wise choice. There are too many areas of philosophy that can see that there is something “behind,” “above,” or transcendent to our being. If the physical scientists abandon those things that they cannot weigh, count or measure, they must abandon logic and mathematics.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

@Jim - are you familiar with “philosophy of science”?

 

[Jim_Baur]

I have read several books on it over the years.

As I mentioned, I am an average student.

As with so many disciplines, there are many schools of thought.

One that I think that I like was Popper.

So the answer is yes, somewhat.

I could read it all day if I had nothing further to do.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I have read several books on it over the years.

Cool. The critique that you gave of Dawkin’s having not included consideration for the non-physical is probably applicable to modern science in general, not just Dawkin’s. But to summarize what some one else has said “you can’t put God in a test tube.” (the same could be said of much of the non-physical). Neil DeGrasse Tyson said something about philosophy and modern science that I think is applicable. I will post it later; I am nit in my home country right now and access to high bandwidth internet is limited.

 

[Jim_Baur]

This is too long, again. It is more for me than to torture any other person that reads it. SORRY! THANKS!

THINKING: I will find some articles about him, THANKS!

This thread is a philosophical thread.

In this kind of forum, it is my judgment that one cannot prove the existence of God.

If this was a theological thread, one has to yell, I BELIEVE! One cannot prove God revealed Himself. I believe.

I believe! Then my understanding grows–based on belief. But that is not healthy for this thread.

In a wide open use of human reason, one can clearly see that there is something behind, above, or transcends the physical phenomena. It is self-evident to a mature human reasoning self. We cannot know much more than that. But it is absolutely beautiful and filled with joy and excitement. It is highly refined. But there is more—if IT is really logical. What would that do to ethics? Now that is a reason to investigate the reality of such a being(s).

I have known for many years that science set limits on human reason and should let the horse run free.

I would make a distinction. When doing science in school and maybe professionally, many scientists will separate religion and set it to the side. In their daily living, most scientists have some religious beliefs, even if it is unorganized religion. A step further, when contemplating existence, all or most of the men and women of science do include wonder about what made all of this, at least in my experiences. In daily living they use their ability to do abstract thinking in this area; whereas in their professional life that it is forbidden to use abstract thinking when dealing with being.

I experienced the forced delimiting in theology at several (4) Catholic universities. However, in the same schools, the philosophy was free to consider the entire universe. Biblical theologians call it the higher-critical method. No faith in biblical theology. Science in the classroom suffered the same limitations. I could not see then that scientist should not use math! They have officially set aside those things that they cannot measure or observe with their five senses. I have never bumped into a circle, pi or triangles. I have, however, talked with “a few porcupines and squirrels.” (Hank Williams Jr. taught me that.) There are, however, thousands of scientists that write, lecture, preach and use their reasoning ability to defend the existence of their God. They exist and that is a fact. And, in my judgment, it is going to increase with works like “Signature in the Cell.” I have not read this work, but might if I ever get the time and stop using this forum (ha ha). However, Steven Meyer cannot prove that God revealed Himself to Adam, Noah, nor can any religion prove God revealed Himself to their founder or believers. That is pure belief. The fallacy of moving from seeing that a powerful and intelligent being structured all of this and then say it is logical that it is God can be sensed or felt by all of us, especially if it is from a different religion. But that does not disprove a “logos.” In fact it only increases the argument that there is a “logos.”

Historically speaking, there are thousands of philosophers, religions, and scientists that know that there is something above or beyond us. I cannot silence those voices. They bring abstract thinking to us. The laws of the scientific community should spread their wings and fly. It is beautiful way up high. Why cut out an area of abstract thinking when professionally or academically doing science. It is illogical. It might open up science even more. A “structurer” instead of chance is clearly more logical. Chance does not even have physical existence. One cannot sense change with any of the five senses. I have invested too much time, sorry.

 

[Jim_Baur]

I am the OP.

I started this thread for a personal and interesting quest.

In the writings of many religions, God is immutable.

He does cause changes and does “act.” But how?

I was trying to come up with analogy of a being (gravity) that acts but does not change. The beings around it change, but gravity (in a sense) does not change–it remains "perfect and does not gain or loose anything. It was a philosophical idea about religion.