Rene Descartes: Catholic attitudes toward him

[Cecilianus]

Hmmm. ‘Predictions.’ Perhaps you can help me: if I calculate the mass of a proton, what will that help me predict?

It will help you predict what you measure the mass of a proton to be in the laboratory.

 

[Cecilianus]

C:

How?

Still?

The problem is, we must be absolutely sure we are communicating precise meaning, and not non-sense. Remember, there are many who believe in a geocentric model of nearby space.

But he is not describing ‘words’. He is speaking about “dogmas.” And, believe me, I am not at all bothered by your non-adherence to correspondence theory. Correspondence is not the universal application for truth, as you aptly described.

Of course we can. But, here we are trying to describe, or rather, define, the undefinable, for finite being. On the other hand, there are many ideas about “being,” per se. But I think that is another abstract. It is our attempt to extract the intelligible from a factical.

God bless,
jd

When I use the term “fact” I usually just mean a true statement about things in relation to each other concerning which there is no controversy. It’s a fact that we landed on the moon, it’s a fact that atoms exist, it’s a fact that today is Friday.

I said “things in relation to each other” because I think that’s the difference between facts and things, as in Wittgenstein’s otherwise puzzling statement “the world consists of facts, not things”.

Regarding dogmas and words - my view is that words are insufficient to grasp the full being of even finite reality, just like dogmas are. Part of the reason why I say this is because I have read a lot of postmodernism and deconstruction; part of the reason why I say it is because in physics many equations are transcendental, and can only be approximated by infinite series like Taylor expansions - so these equations are in a true sense infinite, and we can only grasp part of the precision they can predict.

Yes, we must express precise meaning. But language can be more or less precise. I still say the sun rises in the morning, even though I’m aware that the center of mass in the earth-sun system is inside the sun, and geocentric models do provide some degree of predictive accuracy and precision in predicting star locations (such not very much, any more, and you start having to add LOTS of epicycles in order to get the model close to reality).

 

[JDaniel]

Let’s clarify terms. You wrote, “and I’d like to ask you how you could apply the scientific method to a case other than the material world.” I would have used physical world. This is an important semantic issue, especially for non-physicists who might be reading this exchange. Material is a specific term which refers to matter. But we know that physics encompasses the study of more than matter— electromagnetic radiation, gravity, nuclear forces, charge— even space, and energy itself.

Greylorn:

Putting our likes and dislikes aside, I am expecting you to be hospitable for this exchange, even though you did not intend it for me. I thank you in advance.

In your paragraph above, you begin by explaining that there is a “semantic difference” between ‘physical’ and ‘material’. Where I am lost is where you make the leap from centering upon the ‘physical’ to centering on “physics.” Is there not a semantic difference here that’s important? If they are somehow the self-same thing, you would help me/all of us to understand why or how. For example, I see: “electromagnetic radiation, gravity, nuclear forces, charge— even space, and energy itself” as properties of matter, but, not things separate from matter in the sense that they are differing objects of study. Except perhaps for “space” which, to me, is the medium in which matter, i.e., material things exist. Without “space” there is no such thing as “place.”

Now ask yourself honestly— if they had known as much physics as we do, might they not have regarded the substance of soul, and of God, as pure energy?

Perhaps, but, perhaps not. I view God not an energy, but as the energizer (source) of energy in some way as a sort of continuous charging station, but this is merely analogical.

Next, consider what the study of physics means. While it began with the study of matter, men soon learned to apply calculus and the experimental method to light and heat, discovering thermodynamics and the general principles of energy behavior as described in the three laws thereof. Ultimately, physics is about anything that interacts with matter, or with anything else that is physical.

Are forces energy? Or, are they something else? Is ‘gravity’ energy?

From the perspective of a physicist, the inevitable definition of physical is, having the property of interacting, or being able to interact with, any other physical forms, such as matter, electric charge, magnetic fields, radiation, and space itself.

Is not God physical by this definition?

Most respectfully, there seems to be another leap here that I do not understand. I will admit that it might be over my head, but I am obstinate enough to believe that to not be the case. Here’s the leap:

1. To be physical means to be able to interact with (some, any, all) other physical forms.
2. But, God interacts with (some, any, all) other physical forms.
3. Therefore, God is physical.
   Is there are problem with this? Or, did you not intend for the argument to be phrased like this? (I am not being facetious - I’m really trying to understand.)

To declare otherwise would say that God cannot interact with the components of the universe He is said to have created.

This would seem to be another syllogism with an unfounded leap:

1. If God is physical that would mean that God can interact with (some, any, all) other physical forms.
2. But, if God is not physical that means that He cannot interact with (some, any, all) other physical forms.
3. Therefore, God would not not the Creator of the universe.

I agree with you that a method which depends upon physical observation seems of little use in elucidating the characteristics of something which is non-physical and cannot be observed, but I regard God and the human soul as perfectly physical.

Why? [Seriously.]

Moreover, if the soul is interactive with the human brain-body system, as I assume, there will be equations which describe that inherently physical interaction. It will take a neurologist with serious mathematical skills to find them, but surely you do not believe that because we know of no such things now, our ignorance precludes their existence?

I do not; your assertion is correct. However, I do not regard mathematics as any more than a secondary form of abstraction. As such, it can be at the whim of the mathematician. In other words, the equation is not a statement of sense perception. A corroborated statement of sense perception is called a “fact.” Another great semantic difference.

Of course we cannot stuff God into a test tube. Look to your own field, astronomy. Last I heard, no one had figured out how to get so much as one gram of a burning star into a lab here on earth. Likewise neutron star cores or black hole chunks. The field is entirely dependent upon inferential observations, which collapse into ridiculousness if the theoretical foundation upon which the observations depend proves false.

Yes,

Consider what happens to astronomy if, for example, the speed of light is not constant? What if the laws of physics are not the same in black holes or pulsars? What if the strength of the strong nuclear force is a function of velocity?

Interesting.

continued . . .

 

[JDaniel]

contiuation . . .

I submit that by studying the only scripture which is absolutely certain to have been written by God and no other-- the physical universe-- we can understand more about our Creator than we have imagined. Certainly more than the inventions of ignorant men would allow.

There is a rather large difference between Scripture and the quasi-scripture that is the universe, in my mind. (We could spend several entire threads solidifying Scripture, just as we could verifying the physics of the universe.) A second difference is that they math models can change dramatically, just as the model of geocentricism was changed, or the early models of atoms to the current. But, only interpretations of Scripture have changed, and those only outside of the descendants of the guaranty of Jesus).

I seem to recall that you do not include your physics knowledge when thinking about God. You have a considerable God-given talent there. Few are capable of understanding things which you can understand. In that context, you might want to read Matthew 25:14-30. Pay particular attention to its conclusion, which seems to apply to you.

The Parable of the Talents. Interesting. It would appear that this parable is a warning to each of us not to squander our God-given talents. As I recall, there are quantity differences between the servants of the master of the house: 10, 2, and 1. But I do not recall there being a quality difference. The master did not say, e.g., this servant’s talents are superior to that one’s, and that one’s superior to that other one’s. (Although, a presumption of superiority could be argued for of one over the other, when the master gives the one talent to the servant with ten, I suppose. But then, based on what? Was the first servant’s method of growing the talents from five to ten better than the second servant who grew his from two to four? After all, they each effectively doubled their holdings.)

Anticipatively yours,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

It will help you predict what you measure the mass of a proton to be in the laboratory.

But, for what purpose?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

When I use the term “fact” I usually just mean a true statement about things in relation to each other concerning which there is no controversy. It’s a fact that we landed on the moon, it’s a fact that atoms exist, it’s a fact that today is Friday.

C:

Is a singular object, alone in all of empty space, not still a fact? Unless ones posits the necessity of mind in order that it may be perceived as such.

I said “things in relation to each other” because I think that’s the difference between facts and things, as in Wittgenstein’s otherwise puzzling statement “the world consists of facts, not things”.

(Sounds like something he would say!) Can you briefly describe the difference between ‘facts’ and ‘things’?

Regarding dogmas and words - my view is that words are insufficient to grasp the full being of even finite reality, just like dogmas are. Part of the reason why I say this is because I have read a lot of postmodernism and deconstruction; part of the reason why I say it is because in physics many equations are transcendental, and can only be approximated by infinite series like Taylor expansions - so these equations are in a true sense infinite, and we can only grasp part of the precision they can predict.

I’ll accede to this - for the time being.

Yes, we must express precise meaning. But language can be more or less precise. I still say the sun rises in the morning, even though I’m aware that the center of mass in the earth-sun system is inside the sun, and geocentric models do provide some degree of predictive accuracy and precision in predicting star locations (such not very much, any more, and you start having to add LOTS of epicycles in order to get the model close to reality).

This was used merely as an example. I do not suppose that it is in any way simpler to depict geocentricism. That would be one of the few clear violations of Occam’s razor.

God bless,
jd

 

[Cecilianus]

Greylorn:

Putting our likes and dislikes aside, I am expecting you to be hospitable for this exchange, even though you did not intend it for me. I thank you in advance.

In your paragraph above, you begin by explaining that there is a “semantic difference” between ‘physical’ and ‘material’. Where I am lost is where you make the leap from centering upon the ‘physical’ to centering on “physics.” Is there not a semantic difference here that’s important? If they are somehow the self-same thing, you would help me/all of us to understand why or how. For example, I see: “electromagnetic radiation, gravity, nuclear forces, charge— even space, and energy itself” as properties of matter, but, not things separate from matter in the sense that they are differing objects of study. Except perhaps for “space” which, to me, is the medium in which matter, i.e., material things exist. Without “space” there is no such thing as “place.”

I don’t really think so - it’s better to think of “energy” as the fundamental stuff of which the universe is made, of which matter is one way of looking. My understanding of quantum field theory is that a field is more basic than a particle, but they’re sort of co-foundational. Massless particles like photons we certainly wouldn’t refer to as “matter”, and in principle they don’t need massive particles to create them.

Space is relative to the things between which distance is measured, so it is better to say of space that it is a property of matter than to say that of energy or radiation.

Are forces energy? Or, are they something else? Is ‘gravity’ energy?

A force - or “interaction” as high-energy physicists prefer to call it - is an interaction between two particles, particles being a way of looking at energy. Gravity is an interaction.

Most respectfully, there seems to be another leap here that I do not understand. I will admit that it might be over my head, but I am obstinate enough to believe that to not be the case. Here’s the leap:

1. To be physical means to be able to interact with (some, any, all) other physical forms.
2. But, God interacts with (some, any, all) other physical forms.
3. Therefore, God is physical.
   Is there are problem with this? Or, did you not intend for the argument to be phrased like this? (I am not being facetious - I’m really trying to understand.)

In the classical Aristotelian logic we learned in school (Barbara celarent darii etc.) that’s invalid with an undistributed middle, but traditionally definitions are A-statements with distributed predicates, the predicate in the major premise being the middle term, which would make this a valid syllogism.

In other words, I think this argument works because the major premise can be rephrased “to be physical means to be able to interact with some physical forms, and to be able to interact with some physical forms means to be physical”. The ambiguity of some/any/all doesn’t matter, because a universal statement implies its subalternate particular.

This would seem to be another syllogism with an unfounded leap:

1. If God is physical that would mean that God can interact with (some, any, all) other physical forms.
2. But, if God is not physical that means that He cannot interact with (some, any, all) other physical forms.
3. Therefore, God would not not the Creator of the universe.

This does seem invalid to me.

I do not; your assertion is correct. However, I do not regard mathematics as any more than a secondary form of abstraction. As such, it can be at the whim of the mathematician. In other words, the equation is not a statement of sense perception. A corroborated statement of sense perception is called a “fact.” Another great semantic difference.

Mathematics does describe the universe though, even though its foundational axioms can be arbitrary. Which axioms need to be chosen depends on empirical findings, I think.

I would say that Godel’s incompleteness proof shows there is no way to know a priori which axioms describe a physical system, but last time I invoked Godel a philosophy student writing his doctoral thesis on it corrected me on some subtlety of the application of the incompleteness proof, so I’ll shy away from stating it that confidently.

 

[Cecilianus]

C:

Is a singular object, alone in all of empty space, not still a fact? Unless ones posits the necessity of mind in order that it may be perceived as such.

(Sounds like something he would say!) Can you briefly describe the difference between ‘facts’ and ‘things’?

My understanding of Wittgenstein is pretty amateur. The class on him I wanted to take at college coincided with plasma physics, so I resorted to reading the Tractatus on my own and emailing the professor with questions. I think the difference is that a “thing” is an object, whereas a “fact” is a situation.

This was used merely as an example. I do not suppose that it is in any way simpler to depict geocentricism. That would be one of the few clear violations of Occam’s razor.

God bless,
jd

Interestingly - and tangentially to the discussion - Wittgenstein tried to use his theory of language to make Occam’s razor a theorem rather than just a vague fuzzy principle, which would make it much easier to determine when the principle is being violated and when it isn’t.

Tractatus 3.328:

If a sign is useless, it is meaningless. That is the point of Occam’s maxim. (If everything behaves as if a sign had meaning, then it does have meaning.)

In other words, since a sign is defined by its use, if it is useless it is meaningless, and we can discard it without losing any truth.

However, it’s not clear that this version of Occam’s razor applies to scientific models where it is the entire model, not a linguistic “sign”, that is being examined, so I think Occam’s razor remains as ambiguous as before.

Pardon the tangent - I just find this interesting.

 

[greylorn]

No. And neither do I.

Energy is either motion, or the potential quantity associated with a force. You can’t describe consciousness or divine grace in terms of energy.

Furthermore, traditionally motion was regarded as a state of being in potency (motion, or change, is in potency to the end state of the process), and likewise matter was regarded as being in potency to form (the “first potential principle of a substance”, if I remember Aristotle’s metaphysics right). They also had no problem layering potencies on top of each other (why they could talk about formed matter and unformed or “prime matter”). So the idea of matter being in potency to motion would probably not have surprised them much or changed their views much. Both are still in potency to form, like a soul, in the case of corporeal beings, and incorporeal forms strictly speaking do not engage in motion (of either the classical sense - because both matter and form are required for change - or the modern sense, since forms do not exist in a place).

My own view of the matter is that a moving object is in potency only relative to something exterior to it, namely its surroundings, while the principle of inertia still holds true, and that matter is in potency only with regard to change, but that ontologically a substance’s being comes from, or is, its matter (this is a medieval Franciscan view), concerning which the “form” is just a description.

When I say “matter” I usually mean particles with mass, but when I say the “physical world” I mean the world of mass-energy. Just a semantic difference; science concerns them both. But science cannot explain the phenomenological reality of consciousness. No matter how precisely you figure out the wavelength of a photon, it is not going to tell a blind man what it feels like to see the color red (the qualia of red, to employ the philosophical terminology).

C,
As a physics student I found it much easier to solve problems by expressing initial and final conditions in terms of energy states, and out of that, developed a broader view of energy than that which you express.

My question about defining God in terms of energy did not mean to imply that I would do so, or that I agree with the idea. New age religionists made that mistake quite a while back. It does not solve any problems.

I explain consciousness using scientifically derived information and other principles which can be verified. They might be, after I’m dead. Then it will be possible to say that science understands consciousness. Certainly it does not at the moment— but insofar as I can tell, classical Buddhism has a more logical take on that question than the Church.

But let’s not try to discuss this. We lack the common base necessary for doing so fairly, alas.

 

[greylorn]

Yes, but with a qualification - physics is about anything that interacts with matter (or anything else that is physical) by a force.

I don’t believe that God interacts with the components of the universe He created by physically pushing on it, or through the electromagnetic or weak force or any other sort of quantitative force, except maybe when He is performing miracles (and note that miracles, like anything else in the natural world, ARE subject to the laws of physics).

To employ scholastic terminology, that would confuse God’s “first causality” with the “second causality” of the natural world. To employ more modern terminology, you are making a “God of the gaps”. God, through His divine nature (setting the Incarnation aside, which again is subject to the laws of human psychology, biology, and physics), does not interact physically with the universe, and this is why it is possible to do physics without recourse to theology. This is true even for the creation of the Universe - it is compatible with God’s creating it for the universe to extend backwards in time infinitely, as an eternal universe. (The universe is not eternal, however, for three reasons - a) the revelation in Scripture of creation in a moment of time, b) the kalam argument of the Arabic philosophers, who said that we would never get to where we are now if an infinite amount of time had to have passed first, and c) the evidence of modern astrophysics, pace the highly speculative Hawking-Hartle solution to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, which is where you get the notions of imaginary time and so forth from.)

I don’t pretend to understand well how “first causality” works. As I do understand it, God creates and sustains the world in one act, an act which is the “act of being” by which things exist. Being itself is a participation in God who is “Being Itself” (ipsum esse) - or, in Meister Eckhart’s words, a thing’s existence is the same as God existing it, as if “exist” were a transitive verb. I think I can understand this a little bit, because one afternoon in an amateur’s attempt to practise phenomenology after reading far too much Hegel for my own good, it seemed that the farther I bracketed and pushed back the experience of subjectivity as subjectivity, I got to a point where the act of subjectivity seemed like a surging forth from nothingness into being, or the eternal act of creation of the consciousness or self. God “interacts” with the world by creating it, but this is not deism because He is also immanently present everywhere in the world (“not so much that God is in the world, but that the world is in God,” as St. Thomas says in the Summa Theologiae), and intimately tied to the being of the world, and somehow by this process of existing the world into existence, He guides it through what we call divine Providence.

continued…

C,
Years of practice on CAF has taught me that there is no value in replying to this. It is all about dogma, and I was hoping for something better from you. I do not even attempt to deal with dogma anymore, because there are no restrictions on it. You can pretty much invent whatever you want, to make a point or be right.

You remind me very much of myself around your age, back when I was struggling to reconcile my Catholic beliefs with physics, before coming up with Plan B. The difference between us is that you are more widely educated, smarter, more erudite, and much more reasonable that I was. This means that you will be performing your juggling act between physics and theology longer than I could, perhaps forever, simply because you are more competent at doing so.

I am focused upon integrating theology and physics, not maintaining the barrier between them. Therefore there seems no point in further communications between us, despite my appreciation for the quality of your mind. I will try to tidy a few things up before closing.

 

[greylorn]

greylorn:

I agree with you that a method which depends upon physical observation seems of little use in elucidating the characteristics of something which is non-physical and cannot be observed, but I regard God and the human soul as perfectly physical. I’m not smart enough to write a set of equations which describe soul’s interaction with, say, dark energy, but you might be.

If they are physical, which eigenstates can you put them into, or which operators can act on the “wavefunction” or God or the soul? Which properties do they have - mass, velocity, momentum, charge of any sort?

I believe that I made it perfectly clear that I am unqualified to write the requisite equations. I’m disappointed that you felt a personal need to pile on. Tacky.

Let me make my limitations perfectly clear. I’m not good at theoretical math and bottomed out at advance calculus. Working in the real world I manged some simple problems like writing pointing equations and code for a spacecraft, and solving theoretical stellar-atmosphere problems, but that’s it. I never heard of an eigenfunction until coming across John Schulenberger’s wonderful little paper in which he used them to prove that the Michelson-Morley experiment could not have detected the aether. Unfortunately I never really understood wave mechanics. I tried sucking up to Schulenberger by bringing along beer and good cigars to our occasional conversation, but by the time he was ready to go into teaching mode (not his thing) he was unfit to do so at my level.

My point in trying to learn that stuff was the same as now. I am certain that the right ideas combined with the kind of advanced math that he was capable of would yield insights into the nature of the physical connection mechanisms between God (and soul) and the physical universe.

This project went afoul of two factors: His disinterest (he was an atheist, of course, I suspect that is no longer the case, since he died.), and a serious fault in my own theories (at the time I thought that God was some kind of energy-being, an absurd concept).

God, like consciousness, is perfectly simple. There is no “more” or “less” of Him (or of consciousness as consciousness), and therefore no quantitative aspect to spirit whatsoever.

To understand this better, in a purely non-theological context, I recommend studying phenomenology…

i disagree entirely that consciousness is simple. Regarding it thusly is simpleminded, a way to avoid examining it in detail. But again you are writing from dogma, and there is no point is pursuing this. I don’t do dogma.

Looked into phenomenology some years back. Boring philosophical trivia.

No, I do not believe that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. And I do not know how the soul interacts with the body as an agent - I’m guessing something a bit more sophisticated than the pineal gland or pre-ordained harmonies . However, unlike most people in the post-Cartesian universe, I do not regard the soul and body as separate substances (though, pace Spinoza, I should note that I also don’t regard spirit and matter as two perspectives on the same reality). Right now, I’m just me - a rational body with selfhood. When I die, we can start talking about a soul separately from the body, but not really until then.

Yes, more sophisticated than the pineal gland, in keeping with the inherent complexity of any being capable of consciousness. (Hey! Descartes was making a stab at understanding, not declaring the pineal gland as the true and certain organ of soul connection. Give the maligned genius a break.)

Try writing a paper describing what “Rational body with selfhood,” actually means.

Philosophically it would seem that pure spirits like angels and ghosts do not have any way of interacting with the physical world, but empirically it seems they do - for example in the case of demonic possession or infestation, where a pure spirit will (possibly using a human body?) interact with other objects in the room and engage in other preternormal activity. How a demon would do this nobody knows. Insofar as it is relating to the physical world, there is a physical explanation. It will probably take a lot better empirical understanding of how the brain works before we can understanding the age old body-spirit problem, not just sophisticated mathematics.

I invite you to make a printout of the above paragraph and read it every night before going to bed until you realize that it contradicts your beliefs about soul and body, soul and physics, and most everything else. If that ever happens, come on back. In the meantime, I don’t have the energy to deal with your erudite combination of dogma and philosophical jargon.

But I also hold, with the medieval Church, that God wrote two books - the book of Nature and the book of Scripture (in the more general sense, divine revelation given to us in Christ), because I believe in nature and spiritual reality.

You go ahead and enjoy the dark ages. Last I heard, men wrote the Bible, and its many variant translations. Then some other men came along and declared that God inspired every word, and insured the correctness of every translation. More men showed up and claimed that the last batch were absolutely correct.

It does not take a critical thinking class to see that God did not “write” a word of scripture. I do not know what it takes to distinguish an obvious element of physical reality from everyday religious dogma, the same kind of self-reinforced assurances that bring us every other religion on the planet. I think that for one programmed to believe dogma, all facts, and critical thinking are subservient to the dogma.

 

[greylorn]

JDaniel:

Hmmm. ‘Predictions.’ Perhaps you can help me: if I calculate the mass of a proton, what will that help me predict?

It will help you predict what you measure the mass of a proton to be in the laboratory.

I’m surprised that you answered JD’s question, which seemed honest enough, with a tautology. Was that a test or a veiled insult?

Why not explain that knowing the mass of a proton is essential for the identification of atoms which contain protons? Or that it is essential to nuclear bomb makers who want to predict the yield of a particular device. You could have noted that when building particle colliders such as the LHC, which smash protons into one another, knowing the mass of the colliding particles is essential to predicting outcomes. Dark matter would not have been discovered without knowing the proton’s mass. Etc etc.and so on.

 

[Cecilianus]

C,
As a physics student I found it much easier to solve problems by expressing initial and final conditions in terms of energy states, and out of that, developed a broader view of energy than that which you express.

It’s almost always easier to solve problems by the Lagrangian than by Newton’s Laws, but I don’t see how that leads to a broader view of energy.

My question about defining God in terms of energy did not mean to imply that I would do so, or that I agree with the idea. New age religionists made that mistake quite a while back. It does not solve any problems.

Then what is your view of God?

I explain consciousness using scientifically derived information and other principles which can be verified. They might be, after I’m dead. Then it will be possible to say that science understands consciousness. Certainly it does not at the moment— but insofar as I can tell, classical Buddhism has a more logical take on that question than the Church.

But let’s not try to discuss this. We lack the common base necessary for doing so fairly, alas.

 

[Cecilianus]

C,
Years of practice on CAF has taught me that there is no value in replying to this. It is all about dogma, and I was hoping for something better from you. I do not even attempt to deal with dogma anymore, because there are no restrictions on it. You can pretty much invent whatever you want, to make a point or be right.

You remind me very much of myself around your age, back when I was struggling to reconcile my Catholic beliefs with physics, before coming up with Plan B. The difference between us is that you are more widely educated, smarter, more erudite, and much more reasonable that I was. This means that you will be performing your juggling act between physics and theology longer than I could, perhaps forever, simply because you are more competent at doing so.

I am focused upon integrating theology and physics, not maintaining the barrier between them. Therefore there seems no point in further communications between us, despite my appreciation for the quality of your mind. I will try to tidy a few things up before closing.

Well, if you want to integrate physics and theology, you’re going to have to deal with theology as well as physics, and I was trying to explain the theology to you. The term “dogma” is technically incorrect here, since I was describing the Scholastic theology of causality, not defined dogmas of the Church. What is it that you mean by theology?

 

[JDaniel]

I’m surprised that you answered JD’s question, which seemed honest enough, with a tautology. Was that a test or a veiled insult?

Why not explain that knowing the mass of a proton is essential for the identification of atoms which contain protons? Or that it is essential to nuclear bomb makers who want to predict the yield of a particular device. You could have noted that when building particle colliders such as the LHC, which smash protons into one another, knowing the mass of the colliding particles is essential to predicting outcomes. Dark matter would not have been discovered without knowing the proton’s mass. Etc etc.and so on.

Thank you, Greylorn. That’s what I was looking for. I might make one comment on the list of purposes you provided: it seems to me that the only really useful prediction to be made is that of the discovery of dark matter. I see the others as perhaps useful to further investigations. In the old days, the nucleus of an atom was determined by the number of protons and neutrons within it (ignoring electrons, for the moment).

What effect does the following have on your hypothesis: nytimes.com/2008/06/03/science/03dark.html

Thank you,
jd

 

[greylorn]

contiuation . . .

The Parable of the Talents. Interesting. It would appear that this parable is a warning to each of us not to squander our God-given talents. As I recall, there are quantity differences between the servants of the master of the house: 10, 2, and 1. But I do not recall there being a quality difference. The master did not say, e.g., this servant’s talents are superior to that one’s, and that one’s superior to that other one’s. (Although, a presumption of superiority could be argued for of one over the other, when the master gives the one talent to the servant with ten, I suppose. But then, based on what? Was the first servant’s method of growing the talents from five to ten better than the second servant who grew his from two to four? After all, they each effectively doubled their holdings.)

Anticipatively yours,
jd

JD,
Your final paragraph may be helpful to understanding our communication difficulties. It took me about two minutes to open my Catholic Study Bible and find this:

Matthew 25:15

To one he gave five talents, to another two, to a third, one-- to each according to his ability.

Had you taken the trouble to open for yourself the source of scripture which you claim to set such store by, your previous paragraph could have been eliminated. Likewise this reply.

This is a problem with you. You spout off from ignorance and do not bother to research even the simplest and most obvious sources relevant to your claims. This characteristic of yours is way too tiresome to deal with.

It is made more tiresome by your tendency to become nasty and overweening when your errors are pointed out. You never admit the most obvious errors on your part, but are quick to condemn what you often view as the mistakes of others. This makes you, for me at least, an uninteresting and often unpleasant communicant.

In the preceding sections of your extended post you pose acceptable questions. While I appreciate that you posed them in a well mannered way, every one can be answered by reading my previous posts. Again, failure on your part to do the most basic research. I don’t have the time to be your tutor. Try re-reading.

I know that many non-technical people read things differently from those of us who’ve studied some science and technology. I read everything at least twice. The second pass is to find the things I did not fully understand on the first pass. Then I’ll read a third time, narrowing my clarifications. I will research terms I don’t understand, or am unclear on. When faced with jargon I don’t know, or the names of writers I’ve not read in a long time, I open up Wikipedia. It often requires an hour of research time to produce a 1000 word reply, and even at that I often get things wrong.

It is all the price of understanding. If you really want understanding, pay its fee.

From previous responses to you I’ve come to recognize your style, which is to ask apparently honest and interesting questions, by way of an ideological trap. Basic bait and switch technique (are you a salesman?). When I reply, I find myself sucked into more of your dogma. Guess what, Lucy-- I’m not Charlie Brown and this isn’t Thanksgiving. You can hold that football for a different sucker.

 

[greylorn]

Thank you, Greylorn. That’s what I was looking for. I might make one comment on the list of purposes you provided: it seems to me that the only really useful prediction to be made is that of the discovery of dark matter. I see the others as perhaps useful to further investigations. In the old days, the nucleus of an atom was determined by the number of protons and neutrons within it (ignoring electrons, for the moment).

What effect does the following have on your hypothesis: nytimes.com/2008/06/03/science/03dark.html

Thank you,
jd

Considerable. Some personal setbacks beginning late 1997 forced me to spend years in recuperation and surgery, then focus upon earning a living, forcing the abandonment of research and writing. When I got back into that work in 2004 I discovered that in my absence, dark energy had been discovered. This required a serious rethinking of my theories, which resulted in the complete abandonment of years of prior writing— all wrong, all worthless.

Upon making sense of dark energy, it became clear that it could not be dismissed or worked around with words. That meant that it was important enough to be put to work, thoroughly integrated into my entire set of theories. This took a few years but proved worthwhile. My book will be the first (if I get off my butt) to explain the core nature of dark energy. Curiously enough, this can only be accomplished in the context of my hypotheses about the core nature of God, which is certain to be a source of annoyance for religionists and scientists alike.

 

[JDaniel]

Considerable. Some personal setbacks beginning late 1997 forced me to spend years in recuperation and surgery, then focus upon earning a living, forcing the abandonment of research and writing. When I got back into that work in 2004 I discovered that in my absence, dark energy had been discovered. This required a serious rethinking of my theories, which resulted in the complete abandonment of years of prior writing— all wrong, all worthless.

Upon making sense of dark energy, it became clear that it could not be dismissed or worked around with words. That meant that it was important enough to be put to work, thoroughly integrated into my entire set of theories. This took a few years but proved worthwhile. My book will be the first (if I get off my butt) to explain the core nature of dark energy. Curiously enough, this can only be accomplished in the context of my hypotheses about the core nature of God, which is certain to be a source of annoyance for religionists and scientists alike.

Greylorn:

I believe I once said to you that I would not be interested in reading your book. But, to tell you the truth, you have now got me curious. If it’s not too expensive, I guess I’ll have to buy one. Now, get to work!

Let us know, and
God bless,
jd

 

[greylorn]

Well, if you want to integrate physics and theology, you’re going to have to deal with theology as well as physics, and I was trying to explain the theology to you. The term “dogma” is technically incorrect here, since I was describing the Scholastic theology of causality, not defined dogmas of the Church. What is it that you mean by theology?

I regard theology as a field which depends upon the hypothesis that the universe has been created by an intelligent being. Generally, theology is an investigation into the nature (properties) and purposes of that being in creating the universe and man.

I have no more interest in studying “Scholastic” theology than you would have in mastering phlogiston theory. The respective works are equally irrelevant. Those so-called theologians are just a bunch of halfwit philosophers making more work for one another, kicking around worthless ideas destined to go nowhere, to justify a salary. They need to go out in the real world and do something useful, like change some oil or pick some beans. The nits have no understanding of physics, and are therefore incapable of contributing anything to an intelligent discussion that includes the word “creation” or “universe.”

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn:

I believe I once said to you that I would not be interested in reading your book. But, to tell you the truth, you have now got me curious. If it’s not too expensive, I guess I’ll have to buy one. Now, get to work!

Let us know, and
God bless,
jd

JD,
Well, you may have gotten that wrong too. I thought that the way the complaint went down, I told you not to read it?

If a mind can’t change, it isn’t much of a mind.

The book will be as cheap as I can get it printed, with just enough margin to support a reprint in case anyone reads it, because after publication I’ll be flat broke.

Thank you for the encouragement. Final chapter will be drafted tomorrow night, late.