M
mcs7474
Guest
hogwash
- Status
F
Fran65
Guest
You haven’t offended me at all.
I don’t diagnose or treat demonic possession. If you have read my post carefully you would know that.
Tricky - of you, not for me. It does not mean that at all!
However, there are documented accounts and detailed observations of possession and of major exorcisms carried out. These are empirical - that is they are observable, measurable and can be verified and replicated (should another case occur of a similar type).
Medical practioners, like psychologists and psychiatrists who are not trained Priests and exorcists are not qualified. What I have been trying to explain - without success apparently - is that this is a very complex area, and one in which only teams of highly experienced and theologically educated should be working. That is why other faiths such as African pentecostals do such a great disservice to this area. The danger of having a single diagnostician is that they may be subjective and make a mistake, for all sorts of reasons, just as mistakes occur in medical diagnosis all too frequently.
It could be something else. But if the treatment (major exorcism) works then it was possession. This is also how some mental illnesses are diagnosed. If Lithium works, its Bipolar disorder, if anti-psychotics, work then its Schizophrenia. Not so unscientific after all!
It would be unethical to submit someone suffering demonic possession to a battery of neurophysiological tests. That is, if the funding were available and its not. As far as I know these are the reasons for any lack of neurological studies. In addition, I’m unsure why you think that there would be markers? You have made an association between brain activity and human action, and whilst there is one, we don’t know how it works. Demons may not operate through matter - they are supernatural after all. I’m not a demonologist though
I believe in demons because of my study of Catholic teachings yes; and because it explains much of what I see and have experienced in this world. I have no reason not to believe in them.
You have to accept that they are possibility - unless you are a materialist with a closed mind. Why do you think they don’t exist? presumably you believe in all sorts of things that you have never seen and have only been told about
Atomic structure for example, string theory, nuclear fusion (you’ve only been told that it occurs remember).
R
rishisharma
Guest
It is not a matter of faith. The scientist is attempting to
create a consistent explanation of how nature works that allows predictions
and correlations of data that are currently not known. The emphasis is on how
nature works, not on why or who made nature to work the way it does. It is
possible, and indeed the case that several scientists are religious, but the
creation of scientific knowledge does not conflict with religious truth of who
and why unless the religion tries to describe how in a way that conflicts with
reality. Any time that the religious belief attempts to construct a
description of the way in which nature works without testing it, (ie., without
doing science) then it has stopped being religion and tried as science. At
that point it must meet the same standards of testing and assessment and it
stops being religion. Some of the past conflicts between science and religion
were cases where religion tried to extend its description beyond the who and
why, into the how without checking reality. The student should be able to
have any belief about who and why, but any belief about how needs to stand the
test of direct comparison with nature itself.
medium format digital general dentistry raleigh
create a consistent explanation of how nature works that allows predictions
and correlations of data that are currently not known. The emphasis is on how
nature works, not on why or who made nature to work the way it does. It is
possible, and indeed the case that several scientists are religious, but the
creation of scientific knowledge does not conflict with religious truth of who
and why unless the religion tries to describe how in a way that conflicts with
reality. Any time that the religious belief attempts to construct a
description of the way in which nature works without testing it, (ie., without
doing science) then it has stopped being religion and tried as science. At
that point it must meet the same standards of testing and assessment and it
stops being religion. Some of the past conflicts between science and religion
were cases where religion tried to extend its description beyond the who and
why, into the how without checking reality. The student should be able to
have any belief about who and why, but any belief about how needs to stand the
test of direct comparison with nature itself.
medium format digital general dentistry raleigh
T
twb1621
Guest
Abbadon;4282116]Huh what… I was talking about theology and religion…
I presented this to you before in another thread but you didn’t respond, A scientific response, excerpt from Thomas Aquinas; summa Theologica;
"existence of God can be proved in five ways.
First and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
Second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
Third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
Fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
Fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
I presented this to you before in another thread but you didn’t respond, A scientific response, excerpt from Thomas Aquinas; summa Theologica;
"existence of God can be proved in five ways.
First and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
Second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
Third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
Fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
Fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
A
Abbadon
Guest
yea civ reading that it’s in higlight blue and aquanis’ “proofs” are covered (rebutted) pretty well by Hume and Dawkins… I don’t really want to comment… Sorry this convo with fran I am liking and is taking my time and would like 2 explore more… 2morrow… typing with one hand is hard… =.=
A
Abbadon
Guest
Just a quick comment. I was discussing my convo with you fran with a friend. And conveyd my disbelief at a psychologist who believes in demonic possesions. His reply was,
“Yea buy psychology isn’t a science it’s an arts”
Jokingly of course, psychology does follow the scientific method so I’m sure it’s a science…
On another note your probably an outlier, and as outliers exist in everything, I really should not be surprised. Don’t really know why I was…
I’ll respond 2morrow…
“Yea buy psychology isn’t a science it’s an arts”
Jokingly of course, psychology does follow the scientific method so I’m sure it’s a science…
On another note your probably an outlier, and as outliers exist in everything, I really should not be surprised. Don’t really know why I was…
I’ll respond 2morrow…
A
Abbadon
Guest
Okay I really have to talk about this one before I leave it. Yes BUT, these are all theories that exist from testing evidence and models are constructed which accurately predict results, if these theories were true.You have to accept that they are possibility - unless you are a materialist with a closed mind. Why do you think they don’t exist? presumably you believe in all sorts of things that you have never seen and have only been told about
And these theories are by no means infallible, if new data is presented which does not fit them, the models we have we will change the to understand the data (we have to). Or add to the model, like what we did with understanding benzine rings.
I also trust the rigorous gauntlet that is the peer review process, as also there is always another scientist willing to check your facts. Which I’m sure you have experienced. And it does no real good to lie, I mean why would you?
I do not believe these things becuase I am told about them, or they are “divinely” revealed to someone. I believe these things because I know there is evidence to them, I understand some of them (atomic theory and neuclear fusion, is pretty early chem work which like every one does) and where there evidence comes from. But all other concepts and theories, if they were ever relevant to me in my field, I know that I could go away and understand them and see where the evidence comes from.
Physics is way over my head anyway, I tried it at the start, time just went so far over my head. I’ll just stick to biology and math…
T
twb1621
Guest
WELL, WHEN YOU GET TIME PERHAPS. REBUTTLES? "…
In the nineteenth century, it certainly looked as though science was going in that direction. The “God of the gaps” was finding himself in a narrower and narrower niche. However, 20th century and now 21st century science is leading us back down the road of design - not from a lack of scientific explanation, but from scientific explanation that requires an appeal to the extremely unlikely - something that science does not deal well with. As a result of the recent evidence in support of design, many scientists now believe in God. According to a recent article:
“I was reminded of this a few months ago when I saw a survey in the journal Nature. It revealed that 40% of American physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God–and not just some metaphysical abstraction, but a deity who takes an active interest in our affairs and hears our prayers: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”(1)
The degree to which the constants of physics must match a precise criteria is such that a number of agnostic scientists have concluded that there is some sort of “supernatural plan” or “Agency” behind it. Here is what they say:
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” (2)
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): “Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.” (3)
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all…It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe…The impression of design is overwhelming”. (4)
Paul Davies: “The laws [of physics] … seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design… The universe must have a purpose”. (5)
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.” (6)
John O’Keefe (astronomer at NASA): “We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures… … If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.” (7)
George Greenstein (astronomer): “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?” (8)
Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): “The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.” (9)
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.” (10)
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): “I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.” (11)
Tony Rothman (physicist): “When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.” (12)
Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): “The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.” (13)
Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” (14)
CONTINUED
T
twb1621
Guest
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST…
Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): “Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God.” (15)
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): “When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.” (16)
Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): “We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.”(17)
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): “Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one… Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.” (18)
Edward Milne (British cosmologist): “As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God].” (19)
Barry Parker (cosmologist): “Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.” (20)
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): “This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.” (21)
Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): “It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” (22)
Henry “Fritz” Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): “The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.” (23)
Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) “I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.” (24)
Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) “Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique.” (25)
FOR ADDED INFO USE LINK geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/6562/apologetics/quotes.html?200815
Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): “Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God.” (15)
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): “When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.” (16)
Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): “We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.”(17)
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): “Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one… Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.” (18)
Edward Milne (British cosmologist): “As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God].” (19)
Barry Parker (cosmologist): “Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.” (20)
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): “This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.” (21)
Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): “It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” (22)
Henry “Fritz” Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): “The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.” (23)
Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) “I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.” (24)
Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) “Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique.” (25)
FOR ADDED INFO USE LINK geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/6562/apologetics/quotes.html?200815
T
twb1621
Guest
Originally Posted by Abbadon
pretty well by Hume and Dawkins… I don’t really want to comment…”
When you may have time of course.
Hume AND Dawkins Have been “pretty well rebuted as well” by Francis Collins.
you can learn about him starting here.
asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf
If your serious about your position, you may want to review his debate with Dawkins and read his book “The Language of God” By Francis S. Collins
pretty well by Hume and Dawkins… I don’t really want to comment…”
When you may have time of course.
Hume AND Dawkins Have been “pretty well rebuted as well” by Francis Collins.
you can learn about him starting here.
asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf
If your serious about your position, you may want to review his debate with Dawkins and read his book “The Language of God” By Francis S. Collins
T
twb1621
Guest
For those debating the validity of the possibility of God and science, another good source to reference for consideration…
NEW YORK, MARCH 12 – Michael (Michał) Heller, a Polish cosmologist and Catholic priest who for more than 40 years has developed sharply focused and strikingly original concepts on the origin and cause of the universe, often under intense governmental repression, has won the 2008 Templeton Prize.
Heller established himself as an international figure among cosmologists and physicists through his prolific writings – he has more than 30 books and nearly 400 papers to his credit – on such topics as the unification of general relativity and quantum mechanics, multiverse theories and their limitations, geometric methods in relativistic physics such as noncommutative geometry, and the philosophy and history of science.
STATEMENT BY PROFESSOR MICHAEL (MICHAŁ) HELLER
At The Templeton Prize News Conference, March 12, 2008
templetonprize.org/pdfs/heller_statement.pdf
templetonprize.org/pdfs/114-140.pdf
templetonprize.org/pdfs/141-157.pdf
NEW YORK, MARCH 12 – Michael (Michał) Heller, a Polish cosmologist and Catholic priest who for more than 40 years has developed sharply focused and strikingly original concepts on the origin and cause of the universe, often under intense governmental repression, has won the 2008 Templeton Prize.
Heller established himself as an international figure among cosmologists and physicists through his prolific writings – he has more than 30 books and nearly 400 papers to his credit – on such topics as the unification of general relativity and quantum mechanics, multiverse theories and their limitations, geometric methods in relativistic physics such as noncommutative geometry, and the philosophy and history of science.
STATEMENT BY PROFESSOR MICHAEL (MICHAŁ) HELLER
At The Templeton Prize News Conference, March 12, 2008
templetonprize.org/pdfs/heller_statement.pdf
templetonprize.org/pdfs/114-140.pdf
templetonprize.org/pdfs/141-157.pdf
F
Fran65
Guest
Yes, but, we don’t know they are ‘true’ as in ‘at all times, in all places’, what we know is that the theory fits the evidence or vice versa.
With respect to, for example, dark matter and how it makes sense of the models that we have for the universe. It is possible to write a mathematical model for the existence of spirits. You could call them ‘x’ and without ‘x’ the model does not work. I wrote a paper on mathematical modelling of bird foraging - so it ought to be possible?? (I’m not a mathematician though!)
Our understanding of God and of the supernatural world does likewise. Several hundred years ago, we did not know about evolution. Now that we do, our understanding of how the human race was created has developed accordingly.
So you don’t regard the examination of argument and conclusion as peer review or rigorous? I take your point that there is subjectivity in the review that takes place in theology that is ideally absent in scientific peer review.
Exactly. So why would the Disciples have lied when they faced torture and certain, agonising and slow death? Why would they have made up something that was so contrary to what was socially and doctrinally acceptable? Why not make things easy for themselves, as many other sects did, if they were just seeking power and influence?
I feel the same way about my faith. I know that I can and have followed the arguments and examined the some of the available evidence for myself.
Same here, with respect to Physics and Maths. However, having taught philosophy of science I also know that ‘Science’ is not the cohesive, unified approach that many think. There are debates and there is conflicting evidence, some do take things on ‘faith’ and accept that because a paper has been published ‘that is how it is’.
But you are right - there is little observable, measurable and scientifically acceptable for the esixtence of demons or God; and I am an outlier in several ways - but I see that as a good thing.
I have been through many years of uncertainty and frank agnosticism. What makes sense to me after many years of searching and thought and discussion is Catholicism and what it teaches.
I’ve enjoyed our conversation so far.
L
Leela
Guest
Hi all,
If science is about basing our beliefs on evidence and faith is believing without evidence then these are necessarily in opposition?
Best,
Leela
B
buffalo
Guest
Empirical evidence is true. Revelation is true.
Evolution is a philosophy, it is not empirical.
Science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe. It cannot speak to the supernatural. It is limited to what we can observe by our 5 senses and 3 dimensions. It is based on observations and then drawing conclusions.
L
Leela
Guest
Hi Buffalo,
I agree that science is limited to what we have evidence for. But why can’t science look into the supernatural? If there were good reasons to believe in the supernatural, then the supernatural would be a part of our scientific understanding? Isn’t faith about believing when we don’t have good reason to believe, while science in the broadest sense is our attempt make our beliefs reasonable? I can’t see how the two could be reconciled.
Best,
Leela
B
buffalo
Guest
Science could- it won’t.
Science is a subset of reason. Faith and reason cannot be opposed for they both come from the same God.
I believe in the past it did - it required positive proofs. Then it went into the falsifiable idea.
W
Wirraway
Guest
there are plenty of organizations willing to evaluate paranormal claims based on scientific criteria. the problem is paranormalists keep coming out of the woodwork with the same claims debunked last year, and the year before, and the decade before that. how many times is astrology going to have to be debunked? or numerology, or ESP, or psychic touch therapy?
L
Leela
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
L
Leela
Guest
Hi Buffalo,
I know what falsifiable means. I just don’t know what your point is?
Best,
Leela
- Status