The deification of science

[Nullasalus]

Hmm… I find it extremely difficult to believe in transubstantiation. What is a “substance” in the context of transubstantiation, in contrast to believing the the bread and wine did not change at all. We cannot observe any change, so it is parsimonious to say that there is no change.

Regarding purpose, there is no objective purpose to life (that is what I think), but I do believe that one can supplement subjective purpose to life. That is why we act like we have a purpose in our lives.

Regarding transubstantiation - do you think it wasn’t until the onset of microscopes that people noticed that the bread and wine was apparently not becoming flesh and blood? The essence of the teaching is that body and wine becomes the flesh and blood. For me, I think of it as rock becoming a barrier. You don’t need to transmute the rock to make it into a barrier. A ‘thing’ can change its ‘thingness’ while still having the exact same atomic composition.

And yes, people can force a purpose in their lives - but that’s a true exercise in make-believe, done to ignore the ‘reality’ of the objective lack of purpose. Even people with subjective purpose typically act as if the purpose is objective - it has all the hallmarks of a pleasant delusion. However, I’m sure you can find reviews out there that criticize the work - they don’t even need to be Christian.

prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7803

Well regarding Dawkins, I just got my copy of The God Delusion, which contains Dawkins’ intellectual reasons for denying the existence of God. I wonder if Catholic answers Forums would put a banner “refuting” the book on this forum (as it did with the Da Vinci Code, and it coexists with the other banners “How to become a Catholic”, “God’s love for you,” and “The Pillar of Fire”). The God Delusion, in my opinion, is an extremely potent polemic to the Christian faith in contrast to the work of fiction by Dan Brown.

Why does the Catholic Church see Dan Brown a greater threat to their faith as opposed to Richard Dawkins?

At this point, Dan Brown’s book is no longer considered a threat - and it was so only because of the popularity it was building, and the accusations it made were on specific, refutable points. Dawkins largely writes off all of religion and spirituality (I notice he has it in for Christians in particular), and tends to… well, rant. At this point, even people sympathetic to his basic assumptions are finding his material to be embarassing because of how unreasonable his claims are. (‘The religious are enemies of free speech!’ → ‘It should considered child abuse to raise a child with religion.’, Implying that all the unpopular acts of Stalin had nothing to do with atheism whatsoever.) I don’t think Dawkins has potent polemic - he simply has a very damning view of religion and blames it for many things (and excuses atheism for just as many), but does so with very weak justification.

I can assert that atheism is the single greatest cause for widespread suffering, immorality, institutional decay, and that they should be considered second class citizens and denied the right to vote. Strong, controversial stuff. But if I can’t provide sound reasoning for why I think this - or better yet, defend theism against the counter claims convincingly - why waste your breath on me? Write me off as a loudmouth partisan. That’s more or less what’s happening with Dawkins.

Orogeny:

No, the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution. It is an interesting question and certainly evolution doesn’t occur without it , but it truly is irrelevant.

I’m sorry, but I remain entirely unconvinced. Evolution can be true without knowledge of the origin of life. However, all the denial in the world doesn’t make it irrelevant to the process. You disagree, that’s fine - I just don’t see any reason given other than ‘JUST BECAUSE’.

 

[Saint_Michael]

I side with Holy Mother Church.

**CCC 159**Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth."37 "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."38

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a1.htm#159

LOL that’s about as clear as mud…

 

[dattaswami]

Spiritual Knowledge - Concepts Of Science

Science is the logical analysis of the items existing in this creation based on only one authority that is perception (Pratyaksha Pramanam). Even in the ancient logic, all the authorities (Pramanas) are based on perception only. You see the fire giving smoke. This is deduction or perception. When you see the smoke coming from a distance and do not see the fire, you say that fire exists there and this is induction or inference (Anumana Pramanam). But this induction is based on your previous deduction only. Somebody says to you that fire gives smoke. If that person is your dearest, you believe it and infer the fire from the smoke. This is authority of word ‘Shabdha Pramanam’.

Though you have not seen the fire, your dearest person has seen the smoke coming from fire. Like this all the authorities are based on perception only. I do not find any scripture of any Religion, which contradicts the experience of perception. There are four ways of authority. 1) Sruthi, which is the original scripture. 2) Smrithi, which is the commentaries of Scholars on the original scripture. 3) Yukthi, the logical analysis based on deduction, induction etc., 4) Anubhava, the experience based on the perception of the items in this world, which may be direct or indirect. Out of these four ways, the fourth way is the most powerful. If anything contradicts the fourth way, that is not valid or it may be a misinterpretation based on misunderstanding of the Sruthi or Smrithi or Yukthi. Thus Science and Philosophy are not separate. The very frame of the spiritual knowledge is Science only. Thus Science is the basic foundation and over all underlying structure of all the Scriptures.

A true Scientist should always stand on the perception and should not deny the experience derived by perception. If he denies, he is not a scientist. All top most scientists were philosophers and spiritual people only. Those scientists have travelled along the river of Science and reached its end, which is the ocean of spiritual knowledge called as philosophy. Philosophy is pervading all the branches of Science. Every branch of Science gives Ph.D as the final degree. Ph.D means Doctor in Philosophy. If Science and Philosophy are different, why this word Philosophy is regarded so much by all the branches of Science? Philosophy means the essence of the knowledge of every branch that is experienced when one reaches the end of that branch.

Therefore, the spiritual knowledge, which is the ocean is the Philosophy in which all branches of Science and all the Religions merge and loose their identity. A scientist who has not reached the end of Science and who is still travelling in the river only denies the existence of the ocean, since he is still perceiving the limiting boundaries of his knowledge – river. Such river-travellers are called as atheists. They neither see the ocean nor see the other rivers. Even the follower of any particular Religion is in the state of this atheist only. He is no better than these atheists because he believes that God is a particular form only, which is a small part of this creation. Some other followers believe God as formless, who is the all-pervading cosmic energy. Since cosmic energy is also a part of the creation, their form of God is very big. These atheist-scientist believe that this creation is God. Thus all these are atheists only. All these atheists, who may be scientific atheists or religious atheists, will realize the true nature of God only when they reach the end of the Science or Religion.

 

[dattaswami]

A scientific atheist is contradicting his own authority, which is the perception. When the human incarnation performs the inexplicable miracles, how can they deny the perception of such miracles? You may do that miracle in an alternative way, but that does not contradict the different path of the original miracle. One may get first class by copying. Such false first class cannot contradict the genuine first class. The result is same, but the process is different. You may produce ash by putting a fine powder of wet salt in the grews of your hand like a magician. The same ash may be produced by a divine miracle also. Since the result is same, can you argue that the process also should be same? Since the first class result is same in the case of the original student and a fraud student, do you mean that the hard work of the original student is fraud?

Do you mean that the original and fraud students are one and the same? Therefore, the same result can have two different processes. Since the result is same, processes need not be same. Do you mean that a result has only one process? Is it not contradicting the very fundamentals of Science? A Chemical compound can be produced in several ways (Hess Law). Since the compound is same, do you mean that the alternative reactions are also one and the same? Same Chennai city can be reached by several ways. Since the end City is same, do you mean that all the paths are not different? Do you mean that all the paths are merged as one path only and thus there is only one path to reach the Chennai city? Therefore, conservative scientists and conservative religious followers can be categorized as immature analysts. The immaturity indicates their position in the river and maturity indicates their position in the end of the river, which is the ocean. Einstein, Newton, Heisenberg etc., are the top most scientists who have travelled and travelled along the Science River and reached the final spiritual ocean.

 

[ribozyme]

A Chemical compound can be produced in several ways (Hess Law)…

Correct, but it has nothing to do with Hess’ law. Hess’ law states that for a series of chemical reactions (e.g. A → B → C → D ) the overall change (from A → D) in enthalpy is the sum of all of the reactions change in enthalpy (A → B , B → C, and C → D) .

 

[dattaswami]

Thank you for the reply, the point is that science can be used to identify the non-god items, and scieince cannot touch GOd;

Science and God

Science has developed tremendously and faculty of logic improved a lot. People used to reject the existence of an unimaginable item. They refused God, who is unimaginable. But today in Science, Heisenberg proves the existence of uncertainty or unimaginability owing to the limits of human capability. Today is the right time to introduce the unimaginable concept of God. Buddha kept silent about God because, He did not like to introduce God through some unreal concepts. But, this lead to the misunderstanding of Buddha as an atheist. Shankara introduced God as almost unimaginable by representing God as awareness. Awareness is almost unimaginable to an ordinary person. Mohammed introduced God as power or energy. Awareness is energy only. Thus there is no fundamental difference between these two incarnations.

But a common man cannot imagine God through that concept. God is represented by the energetic form as Narayana by Ramanuja or divine Father in heaven by Jesus. The awareness or the energetic form is charged by God and thus there is no lie even if it is considered as God just like the electrified wire considered as current. But the entire awareness or energy or all the energetic forms are not charged by God. All the wires are not electrified. Angels, who are servants of God, are not God. Indra, an energetic form was not God as proved by Krishna in Bhagavatam. The energetic form is imaginable but not perceivable. It appears only to the mind. It appears to the eyes also, but very rare. Even, if it appears to eyes, the time of appearance is very short and so it is not congenial for preaching the knowledge. Therefore, the materialized form is necessary. The human body is the best suitable form for such purpose. A statue or photo can be also perceivable and God can charge it also.

But such photo or statue cannot preach. It can preach also by the super power of God. But it becomes quite unnatural. The unnatural means create tension and fear, which are not good background or conducive for receiving the knowledge. Such form cannot mix with humanity freely to preach the knowledge. Therefore, the concept of Krishna of human incarnation (Manusheem… the Gita) was more stressed by Madhva through Rama and Hanuman. Krishna, a human form declared that He is God based on the electrified wire. The same concept of “God in flesh” was introduced by Jesus, who stated that He and His Father are one and the same.
Suppose you have started a school with first standard and you are not admitting anyone into the next second standard from outside. Then you are teaching only to the first standard, though you are a postgraduate and can teach up to the 10th standard. To start the second standard in that year, majority was not available. You will teach the same students next year in second standard in another full section. Meanwhile if one or two students worthy of second standard approach, you will guide them personally. Same was the situation. Whenever the human incarnation came, it was dealing with the majority as a section and the lesson pertaining to that standard was only taught. He taught a few devotees of high standard personally but that was not carried on. Therefore, today you think that the preaching of God in the human form on that day was only the first standard. Today, majority is available due to the development of logical faculty and so the high standard is opened as a section.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

ribozyme

*I would be happy if someone could demonstrate that I am wrong.

So my own words say that I prefer that a personal God exists.*

This is hard to take seriously. If you really prefer to believe in God, what’s the problem? Most people who prefer to believe in God have no trouble doing it, even when doubt continues to lurk.

Why not give God the benefit of the doubt?

Are you looking for absolute certainty that God exists?

I doubt that you have absolute certainty that God does not exist! Yet you are willing to commit that way. Sounds to me that you really prefer not to believe.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

ribozyme

*I would be happy if someone could demonstrate that I am wrong.

So my own words say that I prefer that a personal God exists.*

This is hard to take seriously. If you really prefer to believe in God, what’s the problem? Most people who prefer to believe in God have no trouble doing it, even when doubt continues to lurk.

Why not give God the benefit of the doubt?

Are you looking for absolute certainty that God exists?

I doubt that you have absolute certainty that God does not exist! Yet you are willing to commit that way. Sounds to me that you really prefer not to believe.

You could take an experimental approach: Pray to God and see if and when He responses.

 

[Saint_Michael]

You could take an experimental approach: Pray to God and see if and when He responses.

I’ll save you the time, he doesn’t, and he won’t…

Any faith I had was all my own doing, God never once responded to my millions of pleadings, and he won’t respond to the other petitioner either.

 

[dattaswami]

You could take an experimental approach: Pray to God and see if and when He responses.

The personal God is available infront of you in Human form for your sevice in this present generation itself.

www.universal-spirituality.org

 

[Trelow]

The personal God is available infront of you in Human form for your sevice in this present generation itself.

www.universal-spirituality.org

In all charity you are nuttier than a fruitcake.

I’ll tell you what, you pray to yourself (just trying to figure it out from your web-page) for my conversion, and I’ll pray to Our Blessed Mother for yours.

Deal?

 

[Orogeny]

I’m sorry, but I remain entirely unconvinced. Evolution can be true without knowledge of the origin of life. However, all the denial in the world doesn’t make it irrelevant to the process. You disagree, that’s fine - I just don’t see any reason given other than ‘JUST BECAUSE’.

All you have to do is look up the scientific definition of evolution and see where it discusses the origin of life. That’s a second reason.

Peace

Tim

 

[Nullasalus]

All you have to do is look up the scientific definition of evolution and see where it discusses the origin of life. That’s a second reason.

Peace

Tim

You’re telling me that evolutionary biologists are concerned about every branch and leaf on the ‘tree of life’, but as far as the deepest root goes, they’re apathetic.

Like I said - this is very weak. If we found out tomorrow what the specific ‘root of all life’ was, it would be disregarded as irrelevant to those scientists who explore evolution? You may as well say that physicists were never interested in the origin of the universe - sure, the causal chain of matter acting on matter is well within the discipline, but the ‘first’ movement means nothing. It doesn’t wash, and I don’t even understand the point of the resistance here.

 

[ribozyme]

ribozyme

But personally,* I prefer the truth*** in contrast to believing in what I precieve to be a pleasant delusion.

How did you discover the truth of the Cyclic Model or String Theory? Where is the proof? You have nothing but conjecture. One man’s conjecture is as good as another.

But the Big Bang is as close to scientific fact as astronomy can get. One creation is all the Big Bang reveals. Nothing more. Nothing less.

That is a truth I prefer to believe in rather than your own “pleasant delusion” that God does not exist, that there is no soul, that man has no purpose, and that we are all dead meat in the end.

Did I say that the cyclic model or string theory (I don’t consider string theory as a scientific theory) is truth? I merely stated that the cyclic model might be an explanation for the “origin” of our universe. It is a possibility, but it has not been supported with scientific evidence, or accepted in the scientific community.

This is hard to take seriously. If you really prefer to believe in God, what’s the problem? Most people who prefer to believe in God have no trouble doing it, even when doubt continues to lurk.

Why not give God the benefit of the doubt?

Are you looking for absolute certainty that God exists?

I doubt that you have absolute certainty that God does not exist! Yet you are willing to commit that way. Sounds to me that you really prefer not to believe.

I said I would never abandon my skepticism. That goes against the principles Gerald Joyce and Robert Shapiro stand for. They encouraged me to be skeptical and to test everything.

You should define what “God” means in that post. Currently I am certain that the Judeo-Christian God does not exist, but I am agnostic to the existence of a deistic God, although I do not care about the issue of such an entities existence because it cannot be observed nor does it interact with the world.

 

[Nullasalus]

I said I would never abandon my skepticism. That goes against the principles Gerald Joyce and Robert Shapiro stand for. They encouraged me to be skeptical and to test everything.

You should define what “God” means in that post. Currently I am certain that the Judeo-Christian God does not exist, but I am agnostic to the existence of a deistic God, although I do not care about the issue of such an entities existence because it cannot be observed nor does it interact with the world.

Why are you certain that the Judeo-Christian God does not exist? Especially in light of your apparently being uninformed about the general claims and tenets of the faith. You hold skepticism up as a high standard, but one problem I have with skepticism is that it always seems to work in a certain direction - when it comes to, say, Jesus Christ, many self-described skeptics will gladly accept or look into various skeptical but contradictary accounts - everything from ‘Christ never existed’ to ‘Christ existed, but every miracle was a big misunderstanding’. Granted, you’ve said in the past that you believe Christ existed, just that the resurrection in particular is explainable in another way.

 

[ribozyme]

Why are you certain that the Judeo-Christian God does not exist? Especially in light of your apparently being uninformed about the general claims and tenets of the faith. You hold skepticism up as a high standard, but one problem I have with skepticism is that it always seems to work in a certain direction - when it comes to, say, Jesus Christ, many self-described skeptics will gladly accept or look into various skeptical but contradictary accounts - everything from ‘Christ never existed’ to ‘Christ existed, but every miracle was a big misunderstanding’. Granted, you’ve said in the past that you believe Christ existed, just that the resurrection in particular is explainable in another way.

Well, I do know what the tenets of the Christian faith are; indeed, the core faith has been elaborated in the Nicene Creed. But unfortunately, I learned most of what I do know about the faith from other sources, like Dawkins.

Well, I do hold Jesus mythers with some disdain, as I do think Jesus existed and I think the Jesus mythers are guility of hypocrisy, as they think they are “skeptics.” On IIDB, there are some skeptics who believe that Jesus did exist, but like myself, they argue that his
“miracles” are embellishments on the details of his life, and his “resurrection” has a natural explanation. Unfortunately, on the BC&H forum on IIDB, the Jesus mythers outnumber those who believe in a historical Jesus.

 

[Nullasalus]

Well, I do know what the tenets of the Christian faith are; indeed, the core faith has been elaborated in the Nicene Creed. But unfortunately, I learned most of what I do know about the faith from other sources, like Dawkins.

Well, you may do as you will, but I really suggest reading about Christianity from a source other than Dawkins. I have to read it myself, but one title I’ve heard recommended to me again and again is Mere Christianity by CS Lewis, and Everlasting Man by GK Chesterton - more the former than the latter. Dawkins, for whatever reason, has a strong emotional and personal investment in atheism. Everyone has their own similar reasons for their faith or lack of one, but he’s got many personal motivations to make Christianity seem as unlikely and erred as possible.

Well, I do hold Jesus mythers with some disdain, as I do think Jesus existed and I think the Jesus mythers are guility of hypocrisy, as they think they are “skeptics.” On IIDB, there are some skeptics who believe that Jesus did exist, but like myself, they argue that his
“miracles” are embellishments on the details of his life, and his “resurrection” has a natural explanation. Unfortunately, on the BC&H forum on IIDB, the Jesus mythers outnumber those who believe in a historical Jesus.

Not sure what IIDB is, but yes, I do know you’re not of that particular variety of thought. For what it’s worth, I’m a skeptic as well - maybe not by your most stringent definition, but I’d consider myself such. By the way, I suggest reading up on the Shroud of Turin sometime if you haven’t - I have absolutely no belief that it will ‘convince’ you of anything, but you seem to honestly enjoy science and controversy, and the story behind the shroud is fascinating. Fatima as well, just for an interesting look at a ‘modern miracle’.

 

[ribozyme]

Not sure what IIDB is, but yes, I do know you’re not of that particular variety of thought. For what it’s worth, I’m a skeptic as well - maybe not by your most stringent definition, but I’d consider myself such. By the way, I suggest reading up on the Shroud of Turin sometime if you haven’t - I have absolutely no belief that it will ‘convince’ you of anything, but you seem to honestly enjoy science and controversy, and the story behind the shroud is fascinating. Fatima as well, just for an interesting look at a ‘modern miracle’.

IIDB = Internet Infidels Discussion Board (www.iidb.org) .

Regarding the Shroud of Turin… at first I thought it was an unequivocable hoax. I remember in my edition (2002 I think) of Chemistry: The Central Science it has mentioned in the chapter about nuclear decay a brief discussion about the Shroud of Turin. it has mentioned that Carbon 14 dating has shown that the shroud was made in 1200-1400 A.D. because of the dating results, so I thought this meant it was obviously a Medieval forgery. Even if the results were valid, one can argue that Jesus’ resurrection changed the carbon nucleii of the fabric, but this is an unsupported ad hoc hypothesis, only invoked to substain hypothesis that the Shroud was his burial shroud. However, by wiking “Shroud of Turin” I found this:

Raymond Rogers’ January 20, 2005 paper[7] in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta provides apparent chemical proof that the sample cut from the Shroud in 1988 was not valid. Also in the paper, his determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old.

What also interests me about the Shroud is the location of nail wounds. It is in the figure’s wrists, not his hands. Of course, Christian iconography depicted Jesus’ crucifixion with the nails on his hands not wrists, but it is not possible to conduct a crucifixion in that way, and it does not seem likely that piece of information was known at that time.

Regarding skepticism, I did not read that paper by Rogers, and I should if I want to investigate the origins of the shroud, but I doubt I have a comprehensive knowledge regarding the chemistry of textiles to understand it. Personally in the origin of life field, there are many overstated claims published in peer-reviewed journals. Thankfully, there a scientists who challenge these claims, such as Professor Robert Shapiro, who I think is the most skeptical scientist regarding the origin of life. He goes as far as calling some hypotheses “dogma” and I agree with him on this. It is worth noting that the supporters of the RNA World hypothesis has published their views about the origin of life in peer-reviewed journals, yet Shapiro and I deem it an extremely implausible hypothesis.

pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/shapiro_on_dbb.html

Long story short, peer-reviewed articles are not infallible, but they still provide an excellent resource for scholastic information.

 

[Nullasalus]

Even if the results were valid, one can argue that Jesus’ resurrection changed the carbon nucleii of the fabric, but this is an unsupported ad hoc hypothesis, only invoked to substain hypothesis that the Shroud was his burial shroud.

Actually, there’s some theory regarding Jesus’ resurrection and an effect on the shroud - not changing the radiocarbon dating, but some other aspect of it. It is, of course, totally pulled out of the air. Even in the case of a real divine resurrection, no one can even begin to theorize what the material effect would be in that way (Well, Frank Tipler tried.)

What also interests me about the Shroud is the location of nail wounds. It is in the figure’s wrists, not his hands. Of course, Christian iconography depicted Jesus’ crucifixion with the nails on his hands not wrists, but it is not possible to conduct a crucifixion in that way, and it does not seem likely that piece of information was known at that time.

Not to mention that, if it was a forgery, it was forged using a method which - apparently - was concocted for one specific ‘forging’, and then never again. It stands apart from the artistic techniques of the time. Whatever the shroud is, it’s certainly unique to say the least.

Though, you did illustrate a point in a positive way. There are a lot of self-described skeptics who will accept the first dating of the shroud (1300s) without question, but the paper by Rogers gets heaps of skepticism from the same people. It’s not really skepticism if you’re only willing to question the results you don’t favor.

And thanks for the biology link - it was interesting to see his attitude regarding such things. Science should be without dogma, but there are certainly dogmatic scientists regardless.

 

[Cristiano]

On IIDB, there are some skeptics who believe that Jesus did exist, but like myself, they argue that his
“miracles” are embellishments on the details of his life, and his “resurrection” has a natural explanation. Unfortunately, on the BC&H forum on IIDB, the Jesus mythers outnumber those who believe in a historical Jesus.

Now you start to sound like someone who chooses to be ignorant. You have been told why and given references to understand why miracles cannot be explained from an historical point of view. Please drop the topic of trying to ask for a proof Jesus’ miracles.