Physics and Theology-- and your thoughts

[greylorn]

Suppose that Augustine was born about thirty years ago to a physics professor father and mathematician mother, and that Aquinas was born about the same time to a philosopher and a psychologist, both men raised as atheists, well educated, and comfortably accepting the disbeliefs of their university peers.

Then suppose that each man has a transcendental experience (e.g: an excess of nitrous oxide in the dentist’s chair, a dose of LSD, an out-of-body experience on the surgeon’s table, or a near-death experience) that forces him to rethink his atheism and come up with something better.

Next suppose that they happen to meet one another, become friends, and share their experiences. Upon undertaking a mutual project, the discovery of a theology that explains their experiences, what might they come up with?

Of course devout religionists will reply that they would study various religious systems and adopt yours. because it alone represents God-given truth. So you guys do not need to post a reply.

I propose that they would begin by setting a standard for their theology, such as…

• Perfectly consistent with known principles of physics.
• Absolutely logical in all respects, containing neither internal contradictions nor contradictions between theory and perceived reality,
• Makes perfect motivational sense, answering the question of why God created man, with such simple clarity that the answer, once discovered, becomes obvious and sensible to everyone with an open mind.
• Of course it must also explain human consciousness.

Finally, suppose that they invited you to contribute ideas. What would you propose? What new and different ideas would *you *invite them to consider?

 

[ManOnFire]

I propose that they would begin by setting a standard for their theology, such as…

• Perfectly consistent with known principles of physics.
• Absolutely logical in all respects, containing neither internal contradictions nor contradictions between theory and perceived reality,
• Makes perfect motivational sense, answering the question of why God created man, with such simple clarity that the answer, once discovered, becomes obvious and sensible to everyone with an open mind.
• Of course it must also explain human consciousness.

Finally, suppose that they invited you to contribute ideas. What would you propose? What new and different ideas would *you *invite them to consider?

It would be impossible since it is both illogical and unscientific to claim that the infinite gravity that created the big bang could magically poof into existence without the help of a deity. If alternative dimensions have always existed, then there was never a “beginning” of the cosmos. If there is no Deity, then this scenario is neither logical nor scientific either since a science-only cosmos must have an explanation, yet, there can never be one due to this infinite inherent contradiction. Though, thinking about it makes for some fascinating entertainment, especially over a few glasses of wine…

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Umm. This is a tough one. I think maybe this is all pretty well addressed in the encyclical “Ratio et Fides” by Blessed John Paul II. Or maybe not. You are very advanced. Perhaps you are way ahead of everyone on this matter. So maybe YOU will have to provide the answer to the world. Best wishes.

 

[greylorn]

It would be impossible since it is both illogical and unscientific to claim that the infinite gravity that created the big bang could magically poof into existence without the help of a deity. If alternative dimensions have always existed, then there was never a “beginning” of the cosmos. If there is no Deity, then this scenario is neither logical nor scientific either since a science-only cosmos must have an explanation, yet, there can never be one due to this infinite inherent contradiction. Though, thinking about it makes for some fascinating entertainment, especially over a few glasses of wine…

I invite you to have a few more glasses of excellent wine, then peruse my OP, carefully, like you would drive after wine. You might then understand my point, which was not meant to take on Big Bang theory, but rather, a theology that is consistent with hard science. .

 

[Zosimus41]

I invite you to have a few more glasses of excellent wine, then peruse my OP, carefully, like you would drive after wine. You might then understand my point, which was not meant to take on Big Bang theory, but rather, a theology that is consistent with hard science. .

I admit from the start this is over my head however if indeed The big bang was proven beyond shadow of a doubt couldnt that just be the way God started creation?

Why does God needed to be taken out of the big bang theory any way?

 

[greylorn]

Umm. This is a tough one. I think maybe this is all pretty well addressed in the encyclical “Ratio et Fides” by Blessed John Paul II. Or maybe not. You are very advanced. Perhaps you are way ahead of everyone on this matter. So maybe YOU will have to provide the answer to the world. Best wishes.

I have.

However, no one seems to like my answers, so I’m hoping that someone will do better. You should not give up on seeking an answer without first reviewing Matthew 25:14-30, reading all the way to the end.

 

[greylorn]

I admit from the start this is over my head however if indeed The big bang was proven beyond shadow of a doubt couldnt that just be the way God started creation?

Why does God needed to be taken out of the big bang theory any way?

Because the Big Bang theory is functionally equivalent to Genesis, and the Big Bang theory does not work either. Think about it: A physical singularity suddenly appeared from nothing all by itself and exploded! That is utter nonsense, and should not be blamed upon God.

Singularities are mathematical things, the result of dividing by zero or trying to calculate the tangent of 90 degrees. There is no such thing as a physical singularity. No physicist can write an equation describing such a thing. If a student’s solution to a physics problem results in a singularity, the student gets an F. The same standards should apply to perfessers.

A physical singularity is a much less credible concept than God, who while equally mysterious and unknowable, can at least operate from motivation.

Would God create a physical singularity as the first step in creation? No. The classic God-concept is logic limited and cannot create something which cannot exist.

 

[Touchstone]

Suppose that Augustine was born about thirty years ago to a physics professor father and mathematician mother, and that Aquinas was born about the same time to a philosopher and a psychologist, both men raised as atheists, well educated, and comfortably accepting the disbeliefs of their university peers.

Then suppose that each man has a transcendental experience (e.g: an excess of nitrous oxide in the dentist’s chair, a dose of LSD, an out-of-body experience on the surgeon’s table, or a near-death experience) that forces him to rethink his atheism and come up with something better.

Next suppose that they happen to meet one another, become friends, and share their experiences. Upon undertaking a mutual project, the discovery of a theology that explains their experiences, what might they come up with?

Of course devout religionists will reply that they would study various religious systems and adopt yours. because it alone represents God-given truth. So you guys do not need to post a reply.

I propose that they would begin by setting a standard for their theology, such as…

• Perfectly consistent with known principles of physics.
• Absolutely logical in all respects, containing neither internal contradictions nor contradictions between theory and perceived reality,
• Makes perfect motivational sense, answering the question of why God created man, with such simple clarity that the answer, once discovered, becomes obvious and sensible to everyone with an open mind.
• Of course it must also explain human consciousness.

Finally, suppose that they invited you to contribute ideas. What would you propose? What new and different ideas would *you *invite them to consider?

First, even as an atheist, I can at least appreciate the nobility of this idea.

I think this project unfortunately runs into intractable problems straight away, though, at least given the parameters you listed. It’s an epistemic impasse. There’s no means of judging ‘perfect compatibility with known principles of physics’, except for the application of physics models themselves. You don’t (and as far as I can see, can’t) have an epistemology that will enclose physics and yet maintain the essentials of physics (empirical, falsifiable, objective, etc.) without it being physics itself!

If I’m wrong, I’d be very interested to hear how that would work, even in principle.

A clear way to show the problem here is to point at Thomism: It basically satisfies all the conditions you list (various issues concerning forms and types notwithstanding), and what do you have: a vacuous enterprise. Nothing by way of knowledge or practice, just the intuitions one began with.

As soon as you excuse yourself from the rigors of scientific epistemology, once you renounce accountability to empirical validation and liability to falsification in objective (or at least intersubjective) terms, the gig’s up. You’re nowhere, and can’t get anywhere from there.

If you consider the Thomistic concept of motion (not the physics concept, but the present absence of particular things which are coming to be), the concept is developed so as to be metaphysical, abstracted from empirical dynamics in such a way that it CANNOT BE IN CONTRADICTION WITH PERCEIVE REALITY.

There is literally no natural experience or phenomena that could possibly be in conflict with this interpretation of motion by Aquinas (which is really Aristotle’s interpretation). Since that’s the case, it is perfectly detached from physics, and cannot be informed, affected, or challenged by it, by anything in our sense experience. It’s wholly analytical, and thus empty as means of integrating with physics.

The problem is NOT, then, avoiding conflicts with physical theories, it’s rather the challenge of identifying a framework that is not already “just physics” but which might possibly be judge “in conflict with physical theory”. If you look for examples, as I have, at length, you will see this is the major problem. Nothing but “more physics” can compete with physics. The understandings we have outside of scientific epistemology just cannot integrate with physics, or they would be physics questions.

Every theology is wholly compatible with physics, because theology is not and cannot be liable to physics, or it’s not theology.

“Explaining Human Consciousness” is a killer demonstration of this problem. How might we determine if a proposed “explanation of human consciousness” is performative, actually explanatory? That’s a very difficult, but tractable problem if we are trafficking in physics. Outside of physics, in theology, this question is incoherent. The needed semantics to approach the question are not available.

I salute the impulse, and have had very similar ideas in my days, mostly back when I was a Christian, so I understand it and salute it in my own way. But the chasm between scientific knowledge and theology is unbridgeable, so far as I’m aware. The best we can do is resort to “plain old theology” where we judge intuitions and superstitions by how they strike our fancy, then reason from those intuitions to related and developed corrollaries and implications we suppose follow from them, logically, or inferentially.

If I have a “Zen hint” here to offer, it’s that the impulse to avoid conflict with physics is the key disabler, here. That either makes your theology impotent and inchoate, like Thomistic metaphysics, where your ideas are so thoroughly abstracted from reality they aren’t accountable to reality, or you have to adopt physics, and your theology becomes physics, ensuring compatibility by surrendering anything novel in itself.

The real requirement would be a theology that DEFEATS physics, having thought about the idea I think you are pursuing a bit myself. That is the fruitful path, if there is a fruitful path to be found, here. How to construct a theology that displaces physics, and garners/supercedes its benefits without having to be compatible with it. Compatibility demands either impotence or identification with physics.A “new theology” like I suspect you may seek should boldly seek to unseat physics, and have us all trying to make physics compatible with the new theology your neo-Aristotle and neo-Aquinas have just cooked up.

-TS

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

I think they would come to some sort of conclusion that involves metaphysics, something that cannot be proven or disproven via physics alone. While I love physics (having a PhD in it and all), I do not think physics alone could possibly explain everything.

Because the Big Bang theory is functionally equivalent to Genesis, and the Big Bang theory does not work either. Think about it: A physical singularity suddenly appeared from nothing all by itself and exploded! That is utter nonsense, and should not be blamed upon God.

Ummm. What? How does big bang theory not work? We know from SNIa data that the universe is indeed expanding. Put that expansion in reverse and what do you get? A contraction. What happens when you go back the 13.7 billions years?

Singularities are mathematical things, the result of dividing by zero or trying to calculate the tangent of 90 degrees. There is no such thing as a physical singularity. No physicist can write an equation describing such a thing. If a student’s solution to a physics problem results in a singularity, the student gets an F. The same standards should apply to perfessers.

I hope that you are plenty aware that, in physics, a singularity is meant to indicate that the theory does not work in the arena at which you are applying the theory. A black hole is not an infinitely-dense former star because a physical infinity is not possible; what actually happened to the black hole is that GR does not work at the surface of the black hole–given the Schwarzschild radius and the initial mass of the precursor, it is clear that the density is no less than 10[sup]16.27[/sup] g/cm[sup]3[/sup] for a solar-mass black hole.

A physical singularity is a much less credible concept than God, who while equally mysterious and unknowable, can at least operate from motivation.

I disagree. All that is missing from the singularity is our understanding of the physics that does work there. Once that is obtain, I quite imagine your position on this would change.

Would God create a physical singularity as the first step in creation? No. The classic God-concept is logic limited and cannot create something which cannot exist.

Why do you think that God would not start the Universe as the BB? And if it was not the BB, what was it? (If you respond to only one item from this post, I would much like it to be this previous question.)

 

[Abba]

Then suppose that each man has a transcendental experience (e.g: an excess of nitrous oxide in the dentist’s chair, a dose of LSD, an out-of-body experience on the surgeon’s table, or a near-death experience) that forces him to rethink his atheism and come up with something better.

Well, what is it?

1. If it is due to drugs or insanity, why would people bother to pretend and propose a new theology based on hallucinations? After all, you want educated and intelligent people as yourself and your friend to make propositions. Why would educated and intelligent people be interested or take serious the hallucinations of a mad man or caused by psychedelic drugs? To what purpose? In a search for truth?
2. If it is non of the above, then what exactly is it that you mean by a transcendental experience?

Next suppose that they happen to meet one another, become friends, and share their experiences. Upon undertaking a mutual project, the discovery of a theology that explains their experiences, what might they come up with?

If it is an experience with the divine, as many have recorded; e.g. Saint Anthony Mary de Claret, Saint Faustina, Saint Anthony of Padua, Saint Paul, then, I would say that if it is a true experience, rather well educate or ignorant, the person would not need to develop a new theory of theology. The reason being, that the experience will be self evident. If indeed people have an experience with a divine being they will experience and witness in their soul His divinity. Saint Paul did not run off to seek another intellectual like himself, did he? He had an experience with an actual independent divine being. That means that the divine being is revealing Himself as divine being and this is extraordinary not an invention of the receiver.

 

[greylorn]

First, even as an atheist, I can at least appreciate the nobility of this idea.

I think this project unfortunately runs into intractable problems straight away, though, at least given the parameters you listed. It’s an epistemic impasse. There’s no means of judging ‘perfect compatibility with known principles of physics’, except for the application of physics models themselves. You don’t (and as far as I can see, can’t) have an epistemology that will enclose physics and yet maintain the essentials of physics (empirical, falsifiable, objective, etc.) without it being physics itself!

Touchstone,
I appreciate this reply, and will break up my own for clarity.

In the interest of full disclosure, you should know that the word “epistimology” is not in my working vocabulary. It is one of those words that I have to look up whenever it is necessary to deal with it, usually on CAF when working with someone who has taken formal philosophy much more seriously than I ever care to.

I have zero interest in worrying about the nature and limits of knowledge. Why bother, when most of what passes for knowledge is nonsense?

I am more an engineer than philosopher. My various career paths have always involved making something work that does not currently work. My approach to doing that is simple. I learn as much about the system or mechanism involved as my mind will absorb. Then I study the mechanism itself. In younger days, as a necessary side project I once spent 80 minutes simply peering at the interior mechanism of a malfunctioning Teletype before realizing that there must be a missing spring resting on the chassis bottom.

I do the same thing with every problem: Study, figure out what’s wrong, and fix it. I’ve no idea how that process works, nor do I care. No one in the NASA control room gave a hoot about my thought and knowledge gathering processes— they just wanted to push a launch button.

This is IMO a serious problem with modern philosophers. They have no imagination, and no problem solving skills. They are the kind of nits who don’t know how to figure out which tire is flat, much less how to fix it. (You may consider yourself excluded from this dismal lot, at least for the time being. ) Since they cannot contribute to any useful body of knowledge, they sit on the sidelines and nitpick about the knowledge developed by others— perfessers in the manger.

If I’m wrong, I’d be very interested to hear how that would work, even in principle.

In the interest of respecting CAF rules, I’ll PM you on this.

A clear way to show the problem here is to point at Thomism: It basically satisfies all the conditions you list (various issues concerning forms and types notwithstanding), and what do you have: a vacuous enterprise. Nothing by way of knowledge or practice, just the intuitions one began with.

Agreed. IMO Aquinas merely wrapped a lot of words and some dubious logic around ideas that people wanted to believe.

My approach is different. I wrap words and informal, possibly dubious logic, around ideas that no one, not atheists, not religionists, wants to believe.

As soon as you excuse yourself from the rigors of scientific epistemology, once you renounce accountability to empirical validation and liability to falsification in objective (or at least intersubjective) terms, the gig’s up. You’re nowhere, and can’t get anywhere from there.

I do not see how epistemology has jack to do with empirical validation. I have excused myself from epistemology class, but insist upon the principles of potential validation and possible invalidation. All elements of my theories are engineered with verification in mind, which is more than can be said for science, which believes in never-validated Darwinism and the impossible to validate Big Bang.

If you consider the Thomistic concept of motion (not the physics concept, but the present absence of particular things which are coming to be), the concept is developed so as to be metaphysical, abstracted from empirical dynamics in such a way that it CANNOT BE IN CONTRADICTION WITH PERCEIVE REALITY.

I do not know Aquinas’ motion concept. Just Zeno’s and Newton’s. From the latter two plus the evidence (not the theory) of quantum physics, I can only conclude that motion in the sense we understand it, as lumps of matter smoothly traversing space, is impossible.

There is literally no natural experience or phenomena that could possibly be in conflict with this interpretation of motion by Aquinas (which is really Aristotle’s interpretation). Since that’s the case, it is perfectly detached from physics, and cannot be informed, affected, or challenged by it, by anything in our sense experience. It’s wholly analytical, and thus empty as means of integrating with physics.

In the interest of being slightly informed I perused this link, iep.utm.edu/aris-mot/#H4 and from it concluded the following:

• While TA’s definition may be unassailable, it is also non-functional. It is of no value to anyone calculating ballistic tables or rocket thrust vectors, or engaging in a late night drag race on city streets (fun!).
• Descartes anticipated quantum mechanics, way ahead of his time.

The problem is NOT, then, avoiding conflicts with physical theories, it’s rather the challenge of identifying a framework that is not already “just physics” but which might possibly be judge “in conflict with physical theory”. If you look for examples, as I have, at length, you will see this is the major problem. Nothing but “more physics” can compete with physics. The understandings we have outside of scientific epistemology just cannot integrate with physics, or they would be physics questions.

i have looked into a few theories myself and am compelled to agree with you, Therefore, to develop my peculiar God-concept, I invented more physics. Just a little bit, and nothing that conflicts with the available evidence. For example, I can explain dark energy.

Every theology is wholly compatible with physics, because theology is not and cannot be liable to physics, or it’s not theology.

Again, I am pleased to agree with you. The way I put it is that the properties of the Creator must be reflected in that which he has created.

“Explaining Human Consciousness” is a killer demonstration of this problem. How might we determine if a proposed “explanation of human consciousness” is performative, actually explanatory? That’s a very difficult, but tractable problem if we are trafficking in physics. Outside of physics, in theology, this question is incoherent. The needed semantics to approach the question are not available.

Once again, agreement! At least, until your penultimate sentence. I do not take theology out of physics. To my mind they must be integrated, and are part of the same problem. We presume (I hope correctly) that if a Creator exists he must have the property of consciousness. Thus, figuring out how God became conscious leads comfortably to an understanding of how some humans mimic the phenomenon.

And I must also disagree with your last sentence. Figuring these things out is a matter of very basic physics and ordinary common sense. The language needed already exists. Semantics are not relevant.

Continued…

 

[greylorn]

I salute the impulse, and have had very similar ideas in my days, mostly back when I was a Christian, so I understand it and salute it in my own way. But the chasm between scientific knowledge and theology is unbridgeable, so far as I’m aware. The best we can do is resort to “plain old theology” where we judge intuitions and superstitions by how they strike our fancy, then reason from those intuitions to related and developed corrollaries and implications we suppose follow from them, logically, or inferentially.

…end of reply.

Open your mind to the possibility that if the single barrier to clear thinking about both theology and physics (that one thing can become multiple things) is removed, the chasm between theology and physics becomes a mere crack in the sidewalk.

If I have a “Zen hint” here to offer, it’s that the impulse to avoid conflict with physics is the key disabler, here. That either makes your theology impotent and inchoate, like Thomistic metaphysics, where your ideas are so thoroughly abstracted from reality they aren’t accountable to reality, or you have to adopt physics, and your theology becomes physics, ensuring compatibility by surrendering anything novel in itself.

These comments do not apply to my ideas, wherein a novel theology and expanded interpretation of thermodynamics are engaged in an intimate and balanced dance, where the principle, “Sometimes you lead, sometimes you follow,” always applies.

The real requirement would be a theology that DEFEATS physics, having thought about the idea I think you are pursuing a bit myself. That is the fruitful path, if there is a fruitful path to be found, here. How to construct a theology that displaces physics, and garners/supercedes its benefits without having to be compatible with it. Compatibility demands either impotence or identification with physics.A “new theology” like I suspect you may seek should boldly seek to unseat physics, and have us all trying to make physics compatible with the new theology your neo-Aristotle and neo-Aquinas have just cooked up.
-TS

This analogy seems to regard the integration of physics and theology like an MMA tournament, or Superbowl match. That seems to be the way that atheists and religionists have been going about it since the time of Galileo.

My style is more like dancing. A dancer does not seek to defeat his, or her, partner. Nor does a good dancer ever try to demonstrate skills superior to his partner, unless he can lead his partner into the move or pattern. A good dancer brings out the best in his partner, A superb dancer (e.g: Peta Murgatroid in the last sequence of Dancing with the Stars) brings forth qualities in her partner (e.g. Donald Driver, a professional football pass catcher) that no one knew even existed.

 

[greylorn]

I think they would come to some sort of conclusion that involves metaphysics, something that cannot be proven or disproven via physics alone. While I love physics (having a PhD in it and all), I do not think physics alone could possibly explain everything.

Alberti–
Thank you for replying to this. To begin, while I respect your position (and once held it myself) I am convinced that a universally credible theology will require its integration with physics.

Of course, how much of any result can be proven or not is open to question. Proof seems to operate on a sliding scale, even in physics, ranging from unquestionable certainty to, “Joe’s theory is looking better and better.”

Then there is the matter of proof of theory vs. proof of data. The evidence behind QM is out there, but the Copenhagen interpretation of QM was decided upon by a stinking vote in a packed council, much like the Council of Trent. The American scientists who opposed the Danes could not afford to attend an overseas meeting in Europe, because back in 1929 our universities did not have that kind of money to spend.

Nonetheless, some measure of proof, which will likely be as inferential as most, is essential.

Ummm. What? How does big bang theory not work? We know from SNIa data that the universe is indeed expanding. Put that expansion in reverse and what do you get? A contraction. What happens when you go back the 13.7 billions years?

Yes, yes— I know the story. I was working in astronomy while it was being kicked around. IMO the same expansion effect can be accounted for by dark energy, operating from the very beginning of things, from the creation of the first quarks and leptons.

Hark back to an old and vaunted principle of science. A good theory predicts things. This is how Einstein’s theories became accepted despite their counter-intuitive properties.

With that memory fixed in mind, ask yourself about the predictive value of Big Bang theory. I seem to recall that it predicted the deceleration of the universe’s rate of expansion. As you know, experiment showed the exact opposite— the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

Why hang onto a theory which predicted the exact opposite and is therefore apparently, if not obviously incorrect?

I recall an article from Scientific American several months back which got a front page lead which went like, 'Why Big Bang theory must be fixed or replaced! I am clearly not the only one who sees problems with it.

I hope that you are plenty aware that, in physics, a singularity is meant to indicate that the theory does not work in the arena at which you are applying the theory. A black hole is not an infinitely-dense former star because a physical infinity is not possible; what actually happened to the black hole is that GR does not work at the surface of the black hole–given the Schwarzschild radius and the initial mass of the precursor, it is clear that the density is no less than 10[sup]16.27[/sup] g/cm[sup]3[/sup] for a solar-mass black hole.

The more simplistic style in which I put it— if a student’s solution to a physics problem results in a singularity, the student gets an F— is less elegant than your expanded (and correct) description but valid nonetheless.

In your terms, it means that the theory which produced the singularity gets an F, which you state in slicker terms. My statement holds: There is no such thing as a physical singularity. Singularities are mathematical by definition, and only appear in our theoretical models of physical reality.

If you’ve not watched the documentary channel cosmology pieces, you might want to do so. There you can see how your understanding of a singularity has morphed into a magical micropea that suddenly appeared out of nothing and exploded to make the Big Bang. These fools are treating a mathematical model as an absurd representation of what really happened. Do you really want to stand behind that nonsense?

Then, ask yourself how does such a singularity, the great-grandmother of all black holes, actually do something? Seems to me that a little lump containing all the mass-energy in the universe would have all the space-time in the universe wrapped around it so tightly that it cannot possibly expand.

I disagree. All that is missing from the singularity is our understanding of the physics that does work there. Once that is obtain, I quite imagine your position on this would change.

If history is an indicator, my position will always be a function of empirical reality, like it or not, even if I must abandon my entire paradigm set (which I’ve done twice already). What you are saying is that physics must change before these apparent singularities are resolved. I agree completely and expect the changes to be significant.

Why do you think that God would not start the Universe as the BB? And if it was not the BB, what was it? (If you respond to only one item from this post, I would much like it to be this previous question.)

I address your first question from principle, in that God would not kludge the universe into existence. The notion of gathering up all the available raw energy into a tiny lump, then standing back and hoping that when it explodes this time, it will create a nice universe with all the necessary physical laws and perfectly balanced operating parameters, is the silliest imaginable way to fire up a universe. Way too haphazard for my taste.

Besides, the Big Bang is functionally equivalent to creation by an almighty God. Nothing can be known about either, Why pile one unknowable possibility atop another? Remember phlogiston theory?

Your second question, the “what was it?” part, is also the part that I would like to answer. I have some notions about it which I kick around in a recent book, but these are just handwaving ideas based upon my limited knowledge of physics. A mathematician friend has been trying to bump my theoretical math skills up a few ticks, but we both agree that some innovative math/physics guy is more likely to work out the details. We both agree that they can be worked out. He’s trying to interest some physicist friends in the problem, and I’m doing my part by initiating this thread.

I appreciate your interest.

 

[greylorn]

Well, what is it?

1. If it is due to drugs or insanity, why would people bother to pretend and propose a new theology based on hallucinations? After all, you want educated and intelligent people as yourself and your friend to make propositions. Why would educated and intelligent people be interested or take serious the hallucinations of a mad man or caused by psychedelic drugs? To what purpose? In a search for truth?
2. If it is non of the above, then what exactly is it that you mean by a transcendental experience?

Kindly take a few moments to re-read my post. I offered four kinds of events known to have produced transcendental experiences. Yet you focused upon the one which is, in your opinion, the least credible.

I do not believe that the method of obtaining an experience invalidates, or necessarily validates the experience.

I mentioned LSD because of a long-ago friend who mentioned that he had taken it, and that it produced a remarkable OOB experience for him. That experience gave him an entirely different perspective on his life, and he never took recreational drugs since. (Of course I cannot speak for his history since then.) He went back to college and got an engineering degree, and was leading a clear and clean life, especially in light of his certainty that it would not terminate at death.

I’ve never had a transcendental experience, so any attempt to explain them would be second hand information. Others have written of theirs. Read them, please. Hemmingway wrote eloquently of his. Life After Life describes a variety of them. I know only a few things about some ways that such experiences might be generated.

 

[aquohn]

Hmm…in response to the OP, if I had a supernatural experience and drew from it the conclusion that a God created the universe, the simplest (Occam’s razor) theory would be Deism. However, Aquinas’ argument from degree plays a role here, I believe. If God is Perfect, he must also be Perfectly Good, Wise (all-knowing), Powerful (almighty), and so forth. Perhaps an intuitive analogy can be drawn between this and gravitational potential energy, which is defined (in the lecture notes that I have sitting in my lap now) as ‘the work done by an external agent in bringing the mass from infinity to its present location’. God is that infinity. It doesn’t matter where its present lcoation is, in what direction it rest, etc., it is still the same infinity. As long as there is something positive to be measured, something non-physical, God possesses the maximal (i.e. infinite) amount of that quality. And it’s sort of like a light-and-darkness duality. God posesses maximal knowledge, benevolence and power, not maximal ignorance, malevolence and impotence, which are merely the lack of their counterparts (i.e. darkness to light).

Alright, now that that’s over with, God has all his traditional attributes. Unless one denies that these attributes are ontologically real, but that’s a different story altogether. Now, this genius blogger here argues for the reasonableness of God having revealed himself to us: bonald.wordpress.com/in-defense-of-religion/revelation/ and this other brilliant blogger explains why the faith of the Apostles was far more credible than that of Mohammed or Joseph Smith: catholicdefense.blogspot.sg/2011/04/why-trust-apostles-over-muhammad-or.html

And finally, poke around here enough, and you’ll realise Protestantism fundementally does not gel with Christianity. With all the options pruned, only the Church is left.

 

[Touchstone]

…end of reply.

Open your mind to the possibility that if the single barrier to clear thinking about both theology and physics (that one thing can become multiple things) is removed, the chasm between theology and physics becomes a mere crack in the sidewalk.

I have, which is what I saluted in the first sentence of my reply to you!

These comments do not apply to my ideas, wherein a novel theology and expanded interpretation of thermodynamics are engaged in an intimate and balanced dance, where the principle, “Sometimes you lead, sometimes you follow,” always applies.

If I had to play this back, I’d have to say you are trying to tell me that this subject is ‘fuzzy’, the way you envision it. It can’t be finely determined and concrete-model-based as physics, it seems, nor is it as vacuous as theology. That’s as far as I can get.

This analogy seems to regard the integration of physics and theology like an MMA tournament, or Superbowl match. That seems to be the way that atheists and religionists have been going about it since the time of Galileo.

To paraphrase a popular phrase: “models are stubborn things”. Scientific epistemology is not hardnosed and bareknuckle because it’s just an epistemology with a bad attitude, a rough childhood. It’s necessary to hold the epistemology together at all. As soon as you start “dancing” (as I understand your use of the term, here, which I admit may be mistaken), or as Lewontin might put it, as soon as you let a divine foot in the door, the whole edifice completely collapse.

Scientific epistemology can’t dance, not even a step, because if it does, it instantly devolves into mere theology, and only theology. As I understand it, for any proposition X, a scientific epistemology is incompossibly with a theological one. Both science and theology may agree on X (or not), but the methods they rely on to get there are mutually incompatible, fundamentally they annihilate the other. Theologians and scientists can try to stay out of each others’ way, but scientific epistemology is hyper-brittle. Break it even a little bit (in the interests of harmony, ecumenism or whatever), and it’s just a pile of broken shards.

My style is more like dancing. A dancer does not seek to defeat his, or her, partner. Nor does a good dancer ever try to demonstrate skills superior to his partner, unless he can lead his partner into the move or pattern. A good dancer brings out the best in his partner, A superb dancer (e.g: Peta Murgatroid in the last sequence of Dancing with the Stars) brings forth qualities in her partner (e.g. Donald Driver, a professional football pass catcher) that no one knew even existed.

This seems to forget the nature – the essential core – of scientific epistemology: performance of models making novel predictions, explaining phenomena, and passing tests where the model is liable to falsification, at least in principle. I can admire the inspiration here, but I can’t rectify any of the above with the actual operation of scientific epistemology.

In your ‘dancing’ view, do scientific models still get assessed according to their performance?

-TS

 

[JimG]

Suppose that Augustine was born about thirty years ago to a physics professor father and mathematician mother, and that Aquinas was born about the same time to a philosopher and a psychologist, both men raised as atheists, well educated, and comfortably accepting the disbeliefs of their university peers.

Then suppose that each man has a transcendental experience (e.g: an excess of nitrous oxide in the dentist’s chair, a dose of LSD, an out-of-body experience on the surgeon’s table, or a near-death experience) that forces him to rethink his atheism and come up with something better.

Next suppose that they happen to meet one another, become friends, and share their experiences. Upon undertaking a mutual project, the discovery of a theology that explains their experiences, what might they come up with?

Of course devout religionists will reply that they would study various religious systems and adopt yours. because it alone represents God-given truth. So you guys do not need to post a reply.

I propose that they would begin by setting a standard for their theology, such as…

• Perfectly consistent with known principles of physics.
• Absolutely logical in all respects, containing neither internal contradictions nor contradictions between theory and perceived reality,
• Makes perfect motivational sense, answering the question of why God created man, with such simple clarity that the answer, once discovered, becomes obvious and sensible to everyone with an open mind.
• Of course it must also explain human consciousness.

Finally, suppose that they invited you to contribute ideas. What would you propose? What new and different ideas would *you *invite them to consider?

When I read this post, it seemed to me that everything I know of Catholic theology already complies with the above bullet points. Theology treats of God while physics treats of matter; I can’t think of any aspects of physics which would be contradicted by a theological proposition. And physics has no way of dealing with non-material reality, so the same applies there.

As for bullet point four, it is not totally a theological matter, but has been considered extensively in treatises on philosophical psychology. Of course, theology treats man as a composite of body and soul, and the soul as having the faculties of intellect and will. But the soul, being immaterial is not a subject of study by physics. However, because of this aspect of man, it is in the study of mind, intellect, will, and consciousness, that the two areas of study would overlap.

 

[greylorn]

Hmm…in response to the OP, if I had a supernatural experience and drew from it the conclusion that a God created the universe, the simplest (Occam’s razor) theory would be Deism. However, Aquinas’ argument from degree plays a role here, I believe. If God is Perfect, he must also be Perfectly Good, Wise (all-knowing), Powerful (almighty), and so forth. Perhaps an intuitive analogy can be drawn between this and gravitational potential energy, which is defined (in the lecture notes that I have sitting in my lap now) as ‘the work done by an external agent in bringing the mass from infinity to its present location’. God is that infinity. It doesn’t matter where its present lcoation is, in what direction it rest, etc., it is still the same infinity. As long as there is something positive to be measured, something non-physical, God possesses the maximal (i.e. infinite) amount of that quality. And it’s sort of like a light-and-darkness duality. God posesses maximal knowledge, benevolence and power, not maximal ignorance, malevolence and impotence, which are merely the lack of their counterparts (i.e. darkness to light).

Alright, now that that’s over with, God has all his traditional attributes. Unless one denies that these attributes are ontologically real, but that’s a different story altogether. Now, this genius blogger here argues for the reasonableness of God having revealed himself to us: bonald.wordpress.com/in-defense-of-religion/revelation/ and this other brilliant blogger explains why the faith of the Apostles was far more credible than that of Mohammed or Joseph Smith: catholicdefense.blogspot.sg/2011/04/why-trust-apostles-over-muhammad-or.html

And finally, poke around here enough, and you’ll realise Protestantism fundementally does not gel with Christianity. With all the options pruned, only the Church is left.

Written like a dogmatic Catholic who did not trouble to peruse the OP in much detail.

 

[greylorn]

When I read this post, it seemed to me that everything I know of Catholic theology already complies with the above bullet points. Theology treats of God while physics treats of matter; I can’t think of any aspects of physics which would be contradicted by a theological proposition. And physics has no way of dealing with non-material reality, so the same applies there.

For starters, consider the first Law of Thermodynamics which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Yet according to Catholic theology, God created it.

That is normally called a contradiction.

Physics deals with non-material reality just fine. Electromagnetic radiation, gravitational fields, electric/magnetic fields, and all known forces are non-material. That is exactly what physics deals with.

What kind of reality do you imagine that physics does not, or cannot deal with?

As for bullet point four, it is not totally a theological matter, but has been considered extensively in treatises on philosophical psychology. Of course, theology treats man as a composite of body and soul, and the soul as having the faculties of intellect and will. But the soul, being immaterial is not a subject of study by physics. However, because of this aspect of man, it is in the study of mind, intellect, will, and consciousness, that the two areas of study would overlap.

If, according to theology, the soul has the faculty of intellect, exactly what do you think that the brain does?

Your statement, “But the soul, being immaterial is not a subject of study by physics,” is no more valid in this paragraph than it was in the first. Physics became the force for understanding that it is by studying, primarily, the immaterial. You do know that only about 4% of the universe is composed of regular matter, do you not?

 

[greylorn]

I have, which is what I saluted in the first sentence of my reply to you!

I shall hold you to that!

If I had to play this back, I’d have to say you are trying to tell me that this subject is ‘fuzzy’, the way you envision it. It can’t be finely determined and concrete-model-based as physics, it seems, nor is it as vacuous as theology. That’s as far as I can get.

Nope. It only appears “fuzzy.”

“Fuzzy-wuzzie was a bear; Fuzzy-wuzzie had no hair; so Fuzzy-wuzzie wasn’t fuzzy, was he?”

Alas. I could not restrain myself. Mea culpa.

To paraphrase a popular phrase: “models are stubborn things”. Scientific epistemology is not hardnosed and bareknuckle because it’s just an epistemology with a bad attitude, a rough childhood. It’s necessary to hold the epistemology together at all. As soon as you start “dancing” (as I understand your use of the term, here, which I admit may be mistaken), or as Lewontin might put it, as soon as you let a divine foot in the door, the whole edifice completely collapse.

Does that not depend upon the size and properties of the foot? If it was a foot of infinite proportions controlled by the traditional deity, you would be correct. This is why Darwinists are so fearful of Intelligent Design.

However, what if the “deity” was a non-traditional sort, entirely logic limited, with a finite store of information, and obedient to the first and third laws of thermodynamics?

Scientific epistemology can’t dance, not even a step, because if it does, it instantly devolves into mere theology, and only theology. As I understand it, for any proposition X, a scientific epistemology is incompossibly with a theological one. Both science and theology may agree on X (or not), but the methods they rely on to get there are mutually incompatible, fundamentally they annihilate the other. Theologians and scientists can try to stay out of each others’ way, but scientific epistemology is hyper-brittle. Break it even a little bit (in the interests of harmony, ecumenism or whatever), and it’s just a pile of broken shards.

What you write is true, but not applicable to the kind of theology I propose. All atheists disbelieve in the very same God in which religionists believe. You have the opportunity to be an exception. All you would need to do is consider the possibility that the rift between science and theology is caused by religions’ adoption of a God-concept that cannot be discussed in physical terms.

Yet, look at how silly this is! The definition of physical is that which interacts with matter or other physical components of the universe. If God created the universe, he is physical by definition. Theologians are unwilling to take a look at that elementary notion. But you could.

This seems to forget the nature – the essential core – of scientific epistemology: performance of models making novel predictions, explaining phenomena, and passing tests where the model is liable to falsification, at least in principle. I can admire the inspiration here, but I can’t rectify any of the above with the actual operation of scientific epistemology.

Give me a break! Big Bang theory’s prediction of a decelerating universe expansion has been proved dead wrong. Darwinism has never predicted anything, and cannot be falsified, according to Darwinists. The mathematical odds for the assembly of a single small human gene are one chance in 10[sup]542[/sup]. There are about 23,000 genes in the human body, and probabilities multiply. Yet a net probability for the random assembly of some small percentage of the human genome of one chance in 10[sup]12,466,000[/sup] does not faze these ninnies.

The core of science that attempts to explain the beginnings of things is rotten, and its followers are as dogmatic as the worst of religionists.

In your ‘dancing’ view, do scientific models still get assessed according to their performance?
-TS

Absolutely! So do theological models.