Physics and God

[El Viejo]

...insult...offensive...attacking.. ...condescending, arrogant...offensive...false...

... you are an atheist, and atheists have the monoply on the truth, right???

I did read your post/quotes, and read them again. Then I read mine again. I don't see the problem.

I will say that 'huge' is rather an overstatement re: the number of scientists who fall back on God to explain whatever they don't yet know.

Your closing statement is amusing. Years ago, when I was a zealous evangelical Christian, my brother made a similar accusation: that I acted as if I knew all the answers that mattered.

Here, as a gesture of good will, I offer a link to a site full of God-celebrating quotes from famous scientists in history:

http://www.eadshome.com/Sciencequotes.htm

[mangueken]

I did read your post/quotes, and read them again. Then I read mine again. I don't see the problem.

I will say that 'huge' is rather an overstatement re: the number of scientists who fall back on God to explain whatever they don't yet know.

Your closing statement is amusing. Years ago, when I was a zealous evangelical Christian, my brother made a similar accusation: that I acted as if I knew all the answers that mattered.

Here, as a gesture of good will, I offer a link to a site full of God-celebrating quotes from famous scientists in history:

http://www.eadshome.com/Sciencequotes.htm

EL Viejo,
I would ask you to refer back to my post #42. No one has a monopoly on the truth but scientific work deals with what we can work with in nature not the supernatural.

[weltanschauung]

[RichardHresko]

The scientific enterprise/mindset is devoted to discovering the truth of how things work. It does not answer the question of what the universe means (if anything). This is not a failing of science, but rather a triumph of its discipline. Philosophy (in metaphysics) and theology deal with the question of the ultimate nature of reality in itself (not just operationally). This is why an attempt to use one field to answer questions in another inevitably generate more heat than light. That being said, if used cautiously, insights from one field can aid those in another at least in an analogical sense.

[islandclimber]

The scientific enterprise/mindset is devoted to discovering the truth of how things work. It does not answer the question of what the universe means (if anything). This is not a failing of science, but rather a triumph of its discipline. Philosophy (in metaphysics) and theology deal with the question of the ultimate nature of reality in itself (not just operationally). This is why an attempt to use one field to answer questions in another inevitably generate more heat than light. That being said, if used cautiously, insights from one field can aid those in another at least in an analogical sense.

[mangueken]

if used cautiously, insights from one field can aid those in another at least in an analogical sense.

I agree with you about the two differing functions of science and theology. Unfortunately, the caution you talk about is nearly always forgotten, and with it respect. I'm not just talking about respect between individuals debating the two sides but about the respect that comes from actually knowing what the other side is talking about.
I may be an atheist but I spend a lot of time reading about various religious subjects. That probably comes from the fact that I studied history and you can't study history in the western world without looking at religion. I also take time to read the creationists / ID arguments. I admit that I find the history of religion more interesting. The other stuff I read because many groups try to change public / educational policies with it.
I do have one question for those on the theological side that I have been mulling over and would like some insight on. Why do many on the religious side try to use science for their beliefs? It seems contradictory to me, to try to use objective science as a support for faith. It most reminds me of Moses tapping the stone twice, his moment of doubt in God's word.

[islandclimber]

I agree with you about the two differing functions of science and theology. Unfortunately, the caution you talk about is nearly always forgotten, and with it respect. I'm not just talking about respect between individuals debating the two sides but about the respect that comes from actually knowing what the other side is talking about.
I may be an atheist but I spend a lot of time reading about various religious subjects. That probably comes from the fact that I studied history and you can't study history in the western world without looking at religion. I also take time to read the creationists / ID arguments. I admit that I find the history of religion more interesting. The other stuff I read because many groups try to change public / educational policies with it.
I do have one question for those on the theological side that I have been mulling over and would like some insight on. Why do many on the religious side try to use science for their beliefs? It seems contradictory to me, to try to use objective science as a support for faith. It most reminds me of Moses tapping the stone twice, his moment of doubt in God's word.

For the same reason many on the atheistic side use science for their beliefs.. Everyone, or close to everyone, (especially on the fundamentalist side) wants to prove that their set of beliefs is right, if not, well, we would most likely not have wars... at least not religious wars.. dissenting beliefs do not fit into fundamentalist religion..

theists often will claim science proves that god is real, and try to marry faith and reason because faith isn't always strong enough, and when both fail well in the past we have had religions resort to faith by the sword.. but atheism, and again not in all cases, commits the same error in saying science supplies evidence and proves there is no god.. where? in the fact that science hasn't discovered a god in the universe?? well that is not evidence, nor is it proof... whether I think science provides a small degree of evidence for some form of god or not, I agree with you, it is a little contradictory to use objective science as a support for faith (assuming you believe science is objective truth, and not just relative to our viewpoint, to our ideas, our language, and most of all the fact science is theoretical and never fully truth or fact.)... faith is supposed to be there regardless of needing proof.. that is the point of faith and that is what can make it so incredibly beautiful at times but also so incredibly dangerous at other times when it overpowers all sense of reason...

i've been all across the board in what I've believed and studied... I've been atheistic for the large majority of my life, but I find when I meditate there is something else there, and I have complete faith in it... and I don't need science to prove this for me.. I have my heart and my mind for that.. science is great for a better understanding of the physical universe but it will never prove or disprove the existence of god, and it will all depend on opinion whether you see evidence for god in science, or see evidence against god..

[RichardHresko]

I agree with you about the two differing functions of science and theology. Unfortunately, the caution you talk about is nearly always forgotten, and with it respect. I'm not just talking about respect between individuals debating the two sides but about the respect that comes from actually knowing what the other side is talking about.
I may be an atheist but I spend a lot of time reading about various religious subjects. That probably comes from the fact that I studied history and you can't study history in the western world without looking at religion. I also take time to read the creationists / ID arguments. I admit that I find the history of religion more interesting. The other stuff I read because many groups try to change public / educational policies with it.
I do have one question for those on the theological side that I have been mulling over and would like some insight on. Why do many on the religious side try to use science for their beliefs? It seems contradictory to me, to try to use objective science as a support for faith. It most reminds me of Moses tapping the stone twice, his moment of doubt in God's word.

I agree that learning, and thereby wisdom, can be achieved only by moving beyond one's comfort zone, and doing so respectfully.

I am not sure that it is fruitful to consider why people use certain arguments inappropriately.

In the Christian tradition since the time of Augustine it has been accepted that there can be no contradiction between correctly reasoned non-Christian science (or, in those days, philosophy) and revealed Christian truth. Augustine himself first came to be a Christian by reading "certain Platonists" (Confessions Book VII). The whole enterprise of Scholasticism was based on the premise that Christian beliefs and the best of pagan thought must be compatible.

There was a falling out about that with the collapse of scholasticism under the attack of William of Ockham and others in the 14th Century, but the enterprise in one form or another has continued in Christianity.

A relatively recent phenomenon has been fundamentalism (or literalism). This movement began no earlier than the 16th Century and really became vocal in the 19th Century onwards. It has broken with centuries of Christian tradition and has looked to interpreting the Bible in a way that few before Calvin's would have thought responsible (whether Calvin himself would have agreed with fundamentalism is a matter of debate, and I hazard no opinion on it).

Given the fundamentalists' lack of historical roots and tradition, they must look elsewhere for validation. While the fundamentalist must claim that all the validation he/she needs is to be found in the Bible, the position itself is so extreme and so unforgiving (by its very nature) of nuance and interpretation that it must either force all other knowledge within the narrow confines of its framework or else reject it entirely.

I hope this helps.

[mangueken]

Thanks for the response Richard, it does help. I agree about the fruitfulness of questioning why ideas are misused. Heck, even within a given system some people misuse and abuse ideas. I was really trying to get my head around the brief history you presented. Since I was born in a Catholic family in a Catholic town I don't have much experience or knowledge of fundamentalist's beliefs except for their tireless push to influence public policies and science. I will have to try to find some books on this topic, because it seems that they don't share the Catholic tradition of education. Off the top of my head I can't think of any example of a Kepler or Copernicus. It doesn't mean they don't exist but at least I found a direction to go in to find out more about this other part of Christianity.

[teleios]

Hey El Viejo,
I felt this post wasn't adequately responded to, so I thought I might interject.

Our entire society would be seen by our forebears as flagrantly consorting with the devil. We grant equality to those decreed by God to be inferior. We expose our bodies in unseemly ways. We violate God's will by easing pain, fighting disease, correcting his divinely administered defects. We dare to scrutinize the heavenly spheres and reveal them to be imperfect, not living. We fly, yet have no wings. We dare to teach others what we've learned.

I wanted to take this paragraph from you and break is down sentence by sentence.

Our entire society would be seen by our forebears as flagrantly consorting with the devil.

I agree most wholeheartedly. Our forebears were very intelligent with their simplicity.

We grant equality to those decreed by God to be inferior.

There are none that God has claimed to be inferior, according to the Christian Bible. If this statement was concerning a different god, forgive my intrusion. Could you expand on this? I'm curious as to what you are referring to by it.

We expose our bodies in unseemly ways.

Our forebears certainly were more modest. Do you find nothing wrong with the way people dress nowadays? I would imagine that just how much of an issue sex has become in this culture serves as enough proof that something is wrong with our 'exposing' of our body.

We violate God's will by easing pain, fighting disease, correcting his divinely administered defects.

Again, referring to the Christian God...
There is nothing wrong with easing pain - there is something wrong with doing away with pain completely, or becoming slaves to the various medicines we have created to dull pain. Fighting disease is fine. Disease is a product of sin entering into the world. As for 'correcting his divinely administered defects', I would first say that not all defects are 'divinely administered'. Of those that are, often enough they are not meant as a crippling condition that is meant to be with that person for the rest of their life, but a temporary condition that is there to help them grow through a specific part of their life.

We dare to scrutinize the heavenly spheres and reveal them to be imperfect, not living.

Just because life doesn't exist makes them imperfect?
I think they are absolutely beautiful in the night sky.

We fly, yet have no wings. We dare to teach others what we've learned.

For better or for worse. Some knowledge it absolutely wonderful when shared, but I've come to realize that some knowledge truly should never be shared (nor should have been found in the first place).

Just my own thoughts though.

God bless.

-Teleios

[NikolaiI]

First let me say I was really excited to see everyone's post on this thread... very exciting debate going on.

...

I do have one question for those on the theological side that I have been mulling over and would like some insight on. Why do many on the religious side try to use science for their beliefs? It seems contradictory to me, to try to use objective science as a support for faith. It most reminds me of Moses tapping the stone twice, his moment of doubt in God's word.

I saw this earlier but was otherwise engaged, now I wanted to reply a little... why they would use science for their beliefs... I couldn't tell you about anyone else, but I have a couple of ideas which have not so much to do with proving God, but using science as well...

First of all we must acknowledge that there is more to science than just physical science. Psychology for instance is part of the mental sciences. In this vein, I would first really like to share with people the name of Milarepa, a Tibetan saint-mystic who is deeply revered in Buddhism. Now, I've read collections of his songs, and even though I'd studied psychology and psychotherapy, I haven't seen anything deeper or truer than Milarepa's songs... nothing that went as deep or as penetrating as his insights-- and this was from a sage from over a thousand years ago! So in this vein; Hinduism and Buddhism both, for a very long time, have had a much deeper understanding of psychology, which is a mental science.

Now also self-realization, in Hinduism, is considerd a science. The science of self-realization-- this is a process, especially it is called bhakti-yoga, or devotional yoga. It is scientific because it is a system which gives you quantifiable results... "the proof of the pudding is in the eating." It is all about spiritual growth, which is the culmination of mental development. In this connection there are also many Hindu mystics who have made contributions to the discipline... the same is true with Buddhism. These have very good understandings of psychology.

Gopi Krishna was a... "yogi, mystic, teacher, social reformer, and writer..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopi_Krishna - who did work about spirituality and other topics. He invited scientists to read his work and to communicate, he was always trying to increase communication. He made the good point that in today's society, the physical side of our universe has gotten an unbalanced greater attention than the mental or spiritual side. Humanity, we, have both physical and spiritual aspects to us; and if we learn about one exclusively and never learn about the other side; it will be unbalanced and lead to... well, something-- despair? Who is to say.

And, another teacher who did wonderful work for all of us, was Sri Aurobindo. Aurobindo had a really good message, hopeful, etc... because he described things like Truth-Consciousness, the Consciousness-Force...described various parts of spirituality in great detail... the idea is that the "Truth" is a good thing... it is much better than pessimistic or gross materialistic, etc... of course almost all atheists on this website have good intentions, but I sincerely believe God is real, and so I am engaging them also with the intention of sharing... And some people I have been insulted by...they would say something about Aurobindo insulting him, though they have not read him... close-mindedness above all is an enemy of finding the truth... for either side. For myself, I do not see a difference between atheism and other beliefs... on an absolute level, either way is immaterial, but in our daily lives, faith is very sacred.

I think it's very important to share that faith and reason are not at odds. Writers like Aurobindo are not preaching ignorance, quite the opposite their writings are often guided by light...

Aurobindo spoke of an awakening of the entire race... sort of a radiant apocalypse, to use the words of Andrew Harvey... other religions taught the same thing... Buddhism speaks of Shambala, Gaudiya Vaishnavas speak of the 10,000 year long golden age, began about 500 years ago; Christian mystics spoke of eras similar to Awakening... so this is a very important message, I believe.

The main thing is that these teachers are saying there will be peace. I heard a Kabbalist say that nothing worldwide, or societal, can be put in effect without the individuals of society changing their inner values, to develop their inner qualities until they are reflections of the light of their Creator. There is actually a very wondeful world beyond this material one; beyond the material universe exists the spiritual world. It is where we came from and to which we may return... all religions have some elements of the truth, I would say sometimes they do not have it all correct, and there are bits that are off-center... but there are certain truths.. there are things that we can know, we can learn, having to do with spiritual maturity, growth, etc... it is a predicition but will not come true unless the individuals in society and in the world do not develop their inner qualities and spiritual lives.

Atheists ask why God is conspicuosly absent, but mystics/prophets speak of awakening... there is great and detailed knowledge from many sources, about the science of self-realization, of the long, gradual process until one has knowledge of the self. As soon as one develops true vision, then all the deluded and suffering-causing concepts one has held up in the mind, are simply transformed. Mainly, if we take to the path of self-realization, then we can know for sure that the future will be bright. We ourselves can cross over birth and death; we can transcend the suffering of existence, after this the only thing to do is to continue living and exploring... helping others to find realization-- or not disturbing them if to speak to them would disturb them, etc... just my ideas!

And... to come back to topic... again, it's simply the scientific part of these writers... Aurobindo's was not so much a vision because it was so scientific... how he described everything up until the end. Gopi Krishna always called for science to come into the spiritual part of it, and to learn and share and collaborate.. okay I know I've written enough, hope this helps.

[Edit; Milarepa was an individual, not 'some people' ]

[mangueken]

Nikolai1:
Thanks for your input. One of my reasons for participating in this discussion is to find some common ground between those who believe in something and those who have a scientific view. If we could at least understand how our perspective sides approach questions then we could at least agree to disagree, respectfully.
When you said, "First of all we must acknowledge that there is more to science than just physical science. Psychology for instance is part of the mental sciences."
I'm not sure if you phrased what you wanted to say accurately. I agree that there is more to life than science but not that there is more to science than physical science. There is good scientific work done in psychology but there is also a lot in that specific field that is not done with any scientific basis.
But beside that, I have no problem with the philosophical aspects of Buddhism (I know nothing of Hinduism, so I won't comment upon that) or other philosophies of life like the Tao Te Ching. We all search for some type of internal harmony through our personal journeys in life. Honestly, I don't begrudge any one's religion or beliefs. I know some atheists have some type of campaign to belittle people who believe, as if smug insults were a good recruiting tool, but that is not my approach.
I think I have always been an atheist, religion has never been important or comforting to me in my daily life. I also don't have any "classic" trauma stories to tell of growing up Catholic and going to Catholic school. As I feel that it is something personal, I do not try to interfere with other people's personal lives.
However, saying all that, I do try to help people understand what is the scientific method and I try to help correct the misunderstandings they may have about different scientific ideas. For example, Islandclimber and Virgil, both used mistaken views about science to bolster their support of their religious ideas. I directed them to a book, written by scientists that help explain the science part.
In my opinion religion and science do not need to fight. It is a false war. Science only has tools to deal with the natural, physical world. It can not say, infer, measure or quantify anything in the supernatural world. Any scientist who says different is just expressing his personal opinion, he definitely cannot prove his views for or against any belief system.
Religion on the other hand, has no need of the scientific tools for any type of spiritual salvation. Where is the spiritual comfort to be found in understanding how viral DNA attaches itself to human DNA? Science deals with the physical temporal part of life and religion deals with the spiritual, atemporal part.
I also think there is a universality to religions, The Sacred and The Profane: The Nature of Religion by Mircea Eliade is a great book to read about this subject. Now, whether they all have a kernal of truth or not, is not likely to proven scientifically. Each of us will discover the truth on that lonely day we die.

[NikolaiI]

Nikolai1:
Thanks for your input. One of my reasons ...

Well, you gave me pause and I had to look up psychology; since I called it a mental science and got this from the Foundation Trilogy by Isaac Asimov! But looking it up it seems generally to be accepted as science. Now that we speak of it, I am remembering in my high school psych class how psychology struggled as a discipline to enter the scientific communities as a real science. In Asimov's book, that was an underlying theme, that psychology got less funding, etc. because there was more research than results; whereas physical science gave us comforts and greater entertainment, etc..

But yes, as you said, they are not at odds... like I said Gopi Krishna was always calling for communication and collaberation between scientists and religionists.

Now I am also not interested in interfering with people's lives... or rather, not forcing them into anything, that's absurd; however, I will ask you this. If you had an experience which was revelatory in nature, which was an illumination and you felt, you knew it was true; and more importantly, you knew this was absolutely the most important thing, because you were viewing truth... the rest of your whole life was not real in comparison to this one truth... wouldn't you wish to share this? I've had several experiences like this, when I had to tell myself, you cannot forget this! And so I am always speaking of faith, trying to get people to think about God, because I know God is real. I'd studied different mystics, yogis, philosophies, so many things before I had these experiences, and... I remember Dostoyevsky's character from "The Dream of a Ridiculus Man," and I can only say that I feel exactly the same as him... to go forever with my message, even though it may not be received.

Physics are part of the physical universe but again, that's not all there is to us. There is an infinite world, as well as the physical world.

Buddhists state that there is no independent phenomena, that all phenomena is interdependent. But they don't have any statements about God. In fact all belongs to God. If we take food but do not recognize where it came from, we are being thieves. Therefore God should be at the center of all one's thoughts and actions. Are doing what God wishes? Are we pleasing Him? We should simply act to please Him. And when we study physics, when we use it, we should not use it against people, or for our own glory...

[mangueken]

Well, you gave me pause and I had to look up psychology; since I called it a mental science and got this from the Foundation Trilogy by Isaac Asimov!

That is one of my my favorite sci fi pieces!

But yes, as you said, they are not at odds... like I said Gopi Krishna was always calling for communication and collaberation between scientists and religionists.

I think scientists and people of faith can work on social problems that plague all sectors of society. But that requires respect on both sides and a willingness on both sides to use what each side is best at rather than belittle each other. I heard a podcast of an atheist (Perry DeAngelis) who said he hated extremism of all kinds whether it was from the religious camp or the atheist camp. He said both were just a fervent, just as bigoted and just as loud-mouthed as the other. (you can find the podcast on iTunes (it's free) from The Skeptics Guide to the Universe #109 August 24 2007).

however, I will ask you this. If you had an experience which was revelatory in nature, which was an illumination and you felt, you knew it was true; and more importantly, you knew this was absolutely the most important thing, because you were viewing truth... the rest of your whole life was not real in comparison to this one truth... wouldn't you wish to share this?

While I find that it is very improbable that I would have a moment like you talk about, I do understand that people do feel that and I surely agree with desire to share it. From my own perspective I do the same. I love to share my information, my views and if I am not qualified or able to explain something from the various fields of science, I can usually point a person in the right direction to find out from a good source. As I think it wrong that some atheists dismiss people's beliefs, I think it is wrong of faith based people to dismiss or misstate scientific principles.

I've had several experiences like this, when I had to tell myself, you cannot forget this! And so I am always speaking of faith, trying to get people to think about God, because I know God is real. I'd studied different mystics, yogis, philosophies, so many things before I had these experiences, and... I remember Dostoyevsky's character from "The Dream of a Ridiculus Man," and I can only say that I feel exactly the same as him... to go forever with my message, even though it may not be received.

Some of my favorite thoughts about religion and secular society come Dostoyevsky. Particularly, The Brothers Karamazov. I haven't read the story you mention, but I will look for it.

Buddhists state that there is no independent phenomena, that all phenomena is interdependent. But they don't have any statements about God. In fact all belongs to God. If we take food but do not recognize where it came from, we are being thieves. Therefore God should be at the center of all one's thoughts and actions. Are doing what God wishes? Are we pleasing Him? We should simply act to please Him. And when we study physics, when we use it, we should not use it against people, or for our own glory...

I would say something similar of faith. Do not use it against people or one's own glory. And like the master painters learn how to paint by copying and recreating their masters. If there is some real god type being, science is but trying to explore and understand the work of that master.

[El Viejo]

EL Viejo,
I would ask you to refer back to my post #42. No one has a monopoly on the truth but scientific work deals with what we can work with in nature not the supernatural.

We agree on some points. Where we disagree is on the matter of the supernatural. You're saying nature and the supernatural are different things. I'm saying the supernatural is simply nature as yet unknown.

We also disagree that faith and science can peacefully coexist. In "When Prophesy Fails" Festinger et al found that when believers are faced with fact not aligning with their faith, it is easier to simply disregard the facts.