Science & Religion

[Elizabeth502]

Paul A.M. Dirac
Quantum Physicist, Matter-Anti-Matter:
“God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”

Every mother who is actually paying attention understands that He is also a genius computer programmer/systems analyst. Every infant is positively programmed to develop cognitively, intrinsically. Mere minimum stimulation, nourishment, and response is required to continue that auto-development. Had I been an atheist before motherhood, I would have been an evangelizing convert after childbirth, standing on street corners, shouting. It’s positively astonishing the invisible micro-chips inside every human being. Motherhood is an unassailable confirmation of God’s existence.

 

[SGWessells]

Not being a mother, I can’t speak from experience, but this sounds like yet another example of our innate pattern-making ability plus imagination running wild. If we know little about the biological and genetic basis of human development, it is likely to seem supernatural, but that does not follow. Just as, in Arthur C. Clarke’s words," any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic," evidently any insufficiently understood theory is indistinguishable from God. But it does not follow from “something immaterial exists” that “therefore a god exists”, let alone “therefore the God of the Bible exists.”

 

[Elizabeth502]

Well, since I am a mother, I can speak from experience.

You’re very unclear on how “we” manage universally, throughout known history, to arrive at precisely the same patterns of behavior and development, cross-culturally. Even minus motherhood, had you read widely in medicine, it would become apparent how automatic and internal these patterns are. Do you think that babies watch other babies develop and therefore model “patterns”? What about babies who are singletons and in other respects isolated from other babies? From whom are they “patterning”? (Answer: no one, yet they develop from within just as spontaneously and inevitably as other babies.)

I think anyone who suggests that anything other than divine power is responsible for this is struggling with great contortion to avoid the notion of mystery whatsoever. I’m so grateful I am not in that group.

P.S. You wouldn’t know how complex my notion of God is, nor whether it is consistent with whatever stereotype you may have regarding “the God of the Bible.”

 

[tonyrey]

With the equally facile response that it is a load of nonsense to believe that everything is composed of natural thingamajigs…

In that case persons don’t come into your scheme of things - unless you equate them with bodies! Nor does God - unless He is visible and perceptible…

Call them what you like, I don’t care, but please make a constructive unemotional case without attacking those who of us who believe God created an explicable world by saying we’re mad and immoral to disbelieve in supernatural thingamajigs. Forgive, but until you do that I’ve no way of separating them from unexamined superstition.

You are wildly mispresenting my statements!
I fail to see how superstition comes into it… but at all events faith in matter amounts to substition, i.e. explaining everything in terms of that which is underneath our feet and losing sight of the glory of God.

How could I imply anything about you when I haven’t even mentioned you?!

Charitably, you must have forgot what you wrote a few posts previous. Here’s what you said to me again:
According to you everything whatsoever is composed of natural thingamajigs some which are aware that they are natural thingamajigs and they don’t want to be anything but natural thingamajigs because it liberates them from every form of responsibility for other natural thingamajigs…

You are the one who is including yourself in “some (of) which”, not I…

 

[tonyrey]

Not being a mother, I can’t speak from experience, but this sounds like yet another example of our innate pattern-making ability plus imagination running wild. If we know little about the biological and genetic basis of human development, it is likely to seem supernatural, but that does not follow. Just as, in Arthur C. Clarke’s words," any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic," evidently any insufficiently understood theory is indistinguishable from God. But it does not follow from “something immaterial exists” that “therefore a god exists”, let alone “therefore the God of the Bible exists.”

It certainly does not follow from “something material exists” that “therefore **everything **is material”, let alone “good and evil exist”…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

What would there be in nature, in the physical world, that causes us to feel spiritual uplift when we hear a sublime piece of sacred music such as Mozart “Ave verum Corpus”? What natural sensation is reflected in that music? Why should that combination of sounds assure us that what they refer to is something a good deal more interesting than a random association of purposeless molecules that exist in a purposeless universe?

 

[inocente]

What do you believe in that is **not **material?

The fact that electrical activity in the brain is related to thoughts does not imply that thoughts depend on or are caused by electrical activity.
Light and Beethoven’s Ninth for two.

All the evidence is that thoughts are **associated with **physical activity in the case of human beings. The evidence is that thoughts are aware of, and control physical events, whereas physical events are not aware of, and do not control thoughts. If they did you would be irrational!

Considering that God created everything it is hardly likely! Are you proposing that God and souls are not supernatural?

What is your concept of God?

It doesn’t follow that they have an existence dependent on matter.

Does anything have an existence independent of the Supreme Mind?

 

[inocente]

What would there be in nature, in the physical world, that causes us to feel spiritual uplift when we hear a sublime piece of sacred music such as Mozart “Ave verum Corpus”? What natural sensation is reflected in that music? Why should that combination of sounds assure us that what they refer to is something a good deal more interesting than a random association of purposeless molecules that exist in a purposeless universe?

Well, let’s see. The music was written by a physical person, is played on physical instruments, comes through the physical air to our physical ears where we physically perceive it, and the text is about physical events. A random purposeless signal (white noise) is a lot less interesting while ironically having more uses.

 

[inocente]

I haven’t heard about the “Secular Humanistic Theory of the Big Bang.” Can you describe this theory, and how it differs from Lemaitre’s “Big Bang” theory?

I think it’s the episode where Penny gets Sheldon to sing Soft Kitty with her, while Raj, Leonard and Howard go the desert to watch shooting stars, but it was a while ago so I could be wrong.

 

[inocente]

What do you believe in that is **not **material?

Light and Beethoven’s Ninth for two. The list is long but the general idea is: not material = not made of matter.

The fact that electrical activity in the brain is related to thoughts does not imply that thoughts depend on or are caused by electrical activity.

Why else would there be electrical activity? It’s a HUGE coincidence that the confusion, language breakdown and memory loss in Alzheimer’s is always associated with a physical deterioration of the brain?

*All the evidence is that thoughts are **associated with ***physical activity in the case of human beings. The evidence is that thoughts are aware of, and control physical events, whereas physical events are not aware of, and do not control thoughts. If they did you would be irrational!

Thoughts only magically control the world in occultism, and if thoughts have an independent existence then the physical world need not exist, God created it all for nothing.

It’s also a circular argument - substitute “thoughts” with “physical events” and you’ll see what I mean - “All the evidence is that physical events are associated with physical activity in the case of human beings. The evidence is that physical events are aware of, and control physical events, whereas physical events are not aware of, and do not control physical events.”

Why? Are you proposing that God, and souls, are made of a supernatural thinking substance? Don’t pass this one by pretty please, I want to know the theory here as it’s totally alien to everything I was taught as a Baptist.
tonyrey;8458592:

Considering that God created everything it is hardly likely! Are you proposing that God and souls are not supernatural?

I even said pretty please and you still didn’t explain a thing. You passed me by again! How about me responding to your other points when and if you at least attempt an answer?

 

[SGWessells]

Well, since I am a mother, I can speak from experience.

You’re very unclear on how “we” manage universally, throughout known history, to arrive at precisely the same patterns of behavior and development, cross-culturally. Even minus motherhood, had you read widely in medicine, it would become apparent how automatic and internal these patterns are. Do you think that babies watch other babies develop and therefore model “patterns”? What about babies who are singletons and in other respects isolated from other babies? From whom are they “patterning”? (Answer: no one, yet they develop from within just as spontaneously and inevitably as other babies.)

I think anyone who suggests that anything other than divine power is responsible for this is struggling with great contortion to avoid the notion of mystery whatsoever. I’m so grateful I am not in that group.

P.S. You wouldn’t know how complex my notion of God is, nor whether it is consistent with whatever stereotype you may have regarding “the God of the Bible.”

Ouch! Sorry, Mommy, I promise to do better I actually had other people, more than you, in mind in that last statement.
However, as far as patterns of infant development, which patterns exactly? Genetics explains many patterns seen cross-culturally, while, of course, other patterns are culture-specific. Nor do infants have to learn them from other infants; they can learn from ancestral programming in their genes, just as birds raised in isolation can still migrate from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, 18,000 miles, and find their ancestral feeding spots along the way, without any instruction from their parents. Suppose we respond to this amazing fact with, “what marvelous evidence that God guides even the sparrows” – what does that explain exactly? Nothing. We don’t know if God did it, why God did it, or how God did it. All it does is stop religious people from inquiring any further, and expanding the scope of our knowledge; for who are we to seek what is too deep for us? Is not God’s wisdom past finding out?
I do still see in your posts and others that tendency to label mysteries as somehow proof of God’s operations. However, if you study the history of science, you see how many mysteries that were formerly considered evidence of God’s wonderful wisdom were explained by scientific discovery as natural processes. One can, of course, attribute natural processes to God’s creative agency, but that attribution is generally based on other grounds than “we don’t know how this happens, but it’s so orderly that it seems miraculous, so God must have done it.”

 

[inocente]

What would there be in nature, in the physical world, that causes us to feel spiritual uplift when we hear a sublime piece of sacred music such as Mozart “Ave verum Corpus”? What natural sensation is reflected in that music? Why should that combination of sounds assure us that what they refer to is something a good deal more interesting than a random association of purposeless molecules that exist in a purposeless universe?

The text is about physical events, the music was written by a physical person, it’s played on physical instruments and sung with physical voices, and comes through the physical air to our physical ears where we physically perceive it - it has a physical purpose to communicate. On the other hand white noise, being a random purposeless signal, is a lot less interesting.

Nice recording here by the way (Bernstein / Bayerischen Rundfunks) - youtube.com/watch?v=6KUDs8KJc_c

 

[SGWessells]

It certainly does not follow from “something material exists” that “therefore **everything **is material”, let alone “good and evil exist”…

No, it does not. But it leaves us free to investigate further. But wait…how are we to investigate the nature of nonmaterial substances?
There are also many different theories about the existence of “good and evil,” not all of which involve a deity. But if only a god can provide adequate grounds for moral absolutes, which god would it be?
Suppose we say Yahweh. How do we know he is good? Because he says so? Why is that less arbitrary than a culture or society determining what is good? Because, we are told, God’s character is good, therefore so are his commands. But that is a circular argument. We know God’s character is good because he commands good things, and we know his commands are good because his character is good. If he commands behavior for some reason other than that it is good, then the word “good” amounts to “whatever God commands,” not to any innate goodness in the nature of the behavior, which amounts to a kind of divine relativism. In that case, the nature of good and evil are determined by sheer power, not by any absolute qualities of goodness. That is not morality, it is tyranny. If, on the other hand, God commands some things because they are innately good in themselves, then atheists can discover and obey those laws as well as Christians; besides which, God would then be constrained by something outside his own nature, which makes Christians twitchy.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Ouch! Sorry, Mommy, I promise to do better

Point taken.

Nor do infants have to learn them from other infants; they can learn from ancestral programming in their genes,

But there is still this tendency (since we’re naming “tendencies” ) by those who believe in the absolutism of science (the “religion” of science, if you will), that concepts like programming arose spontaneously. Computers didn’t invent themselves , and the concept of artificial intelligence is predicated upon the progressive development of computer technology which had its origin in human initiative. (There is no such thing as spontaneous artificial intelligence.)

I do still see in your posts and others that tendency to label mysteries as somehow proof of God’s operations.

Fair enough, poster, but it’s oversimplifying to assume that all epiphanies of divine action (all subjective perceptions of that) are based merely on equating the unknown with God. It is more complex than that; I’ve simplified it for purposes of a discussion board.

However, if you study the history of science, you see how many mysteries that were formerly considered evidence of God’s wonderful wisdom were explained by scientific discovery as natural processes.

Indeed (and I do love science!), but I don’t see such natural processes, and God’s action, as mutually exclusive.

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback.

 

[You]

innocent:

Tonyrey:

The fact that electrical activity in the brain is related to thoughts does not imply that thoughts depend on or are caused by electrical activity.

Why else would there be electrical activity? It’s a HUGE coincidence that the confusion, language breakdown and memory loss in Alzheimer’s is always associated with a physical deterioration of the brain?

A thought;
tonyrey believes in a soul not made from matter and also in a way is independent of matter.
innocent believes the soul is matter, the soul is the electrical impulses created by neurons in the brain.

What happens in a case of Alzheimer’s or any other brain disease which changes a persons character in total. A person with Alzheimer’s may become violent, mean and aggressive. According to innocents hypothesis the soul of this person is now changed because of disease and this violent and aggressive person now sins in their violence and so the soul of this person is not fit for heaven and it goes straight to hell. All as a consequence of the soul being dependent on the material of the brain.

In tonyreys hypothesis the soul is a spirit or supernatural thing not dependent on the matter in the brain. So a diseased brain-matter cannot harm the soul because the person is not responsible for the damage a disease inflicts on him. So this persons soul cannot go to hell, it is intact, because the brain disease changed the persons character only by changing the material brain.

Would this represent both your views?

 

[tonyrey]

What do you believe in that is **not **

How about God, angels, persons, truth, freedom, goodness, evil, justice and love?

The fact that electrical activity in the brain is related to

thoughts does not imply that thoughts depend on or are caused by electrical activity.
Why else would there be electrical activity? It’s a HUGE coincidence that the confusion, language breakdown and memory loss in Alzheimer’s is always associated with a physical deterioration of the brain?

A musician cannot play if his instrument is damaged… Brains don’t direct themselves - unless they contravene the laws of nature!

All the evidence is that thoughts are **associated with **

physical activity in the case of human beings. The evidence is that thoughts are aware of, and control physical events, whereas physical events are not aware of, and do not control thoughts. If they did you would be irrational!
Thoughts only magically control the world in occultism, and if thoughts have an independent existence then the physical world need not exist, God created it all for nothing.

Are your thoughts, decisions and actions **controlled **by physical objects?

It’s also a circular argument - substitute “thoughts” with “physical events” and you’ll see what I mean - “All the evidence is that physical events are associated with physical activity in the case of human beings. The evidence is that physical events are aware of, and control physical events, whereas physical events are not aware of, and do not control physical events.”

Your substitution of “physical events” for “thoughts” is misguided considering that physical events are not aware of anything, let alone thoughts!

          * Are you proposing that God, and  souls, are made of a supernatural thinking substance? Don't pass this  one by pretty please, I want to know the theory here as it's totally  alien to everything I was taught as a Baptist.*

Orthodox Baptists believe that there are three Persons who know and love one another - and that we are made in their image and likeness (certainly not because of our physical resemblance!)

 

[tonyrey]

It certainly does not follow from “something material exists” that “therefore everything is material”, let alone “good and evil exist”…

By using our intangible power of reason. If you didn’t have an intangible mind you wouldn’t even know tangible things exist!

There are also many different theories about the existence of “good and evil,” not all of which involve a deity. But if only a god can provide adequate grounds for moral absolutes, which god would it be?
Suppose we say Yahweh. How do we know he is good? Because he says so? Why is that less arbitrary than a culture or society determining what is good? Because, we are told, God’s character is good, therefore so are his commands. But that is a circular argument. We know God’s character is good because he commands good things, and we know his commands are good because his character is good. If he commands behavior for some reason other than that it is good, then the word “good” amounts to “whatever God commands,” not to any innate goodness in the nature of the behavior, which amounts to a kind of divine relativism. In that case, the nature of good and evil are determined by sheer power, not by any absolute qualities of goodness. That is not morality, it is tyranny. If, on the other hand, God commands some things because they are innately good in themselves, then atheists can discover and obey those laws as well as Christians; besides which, God would then be constrained by something outside his own nature, which makes Christians twitchy.

Since God is Love He commands what is good and everything He created is good because without love life is valueless. Unless of course you reject love as a meaningless term which merely portrays a pathetic impersonal pursuit of purposeless permutations of particles!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente
**
The text is about physical events, the music was written by a physical person, it’s played on physical instruments and sung with physical voices, and comes through the physical air to our physical ears where we physically perceive it - it has a physical purpose to communicate. On the other hand white noise, being a random purposeless signal, is a lot less interesting.**

More than all physical. Add them all up … divine.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

SG

**However, if you study the history of science, you see how many mysteries that were formerly considered evidence of God’s wonderful wisdom were explained by scientific discovery as natural processes. One can, of course, attribute natural processes to God’s creative agency, but that attribution is generally based on other grounds than “we don’t know how this happens, but it’s so orderly that it seems miraculous, so God must have done it.” **

Science has not and cannot explain the Big Bang. Yes, it is an unsolvable mystery. And yes, it is plausible that Something or Someone very powerful caused it. We say God caused it. What do you say caused it? Or do you think the Big Bang was self started? If so, that is no scientific answer.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

How and why did unconscious matter direct itself toward consciousness?

Why did evolution occur at all?

Why did abiogenesis occur at all?

Why is man the only creature capable of imagining God?

Is that a defect in his brain or is he onto something?