- aditya dendukuri
- Hyderabad
- India
This conversation has closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
can science be linked with god?
I believe that god made our world.Then there got to be an way that science can be linked with god.With help of science we found out the origin of the universe,so there has to be an way science should find an proof for god..............Stephen Hawkins told that science makes god unnessary then why this life came to existence.......Is our existence reason is god or the mere luck of the explosion in big bang.........even im in vergr of science I believe in god........but I am confused about this matter........please help me out this confusion
Franciz Desouza
Nolan Poe
Good luck on your journey of self-discovery!
Comment deleted
Thomas Jones 50+
You seem to have a slight persecution complex. You claim to do one thing and then "screech" somewhat hysterically when someone does the same thing ... ("follow the dictates of [their] heart, which tells [them] to do the right thing.")
This light that you speak of would be less diminished, and burn brighter, if you refrained from your adolescent name-calling and defensiveness. (" ... I don't get thumbed up (ooh, ouch!)")
Your stance - demonstrated by your behaviour - seems to be that anyone who holds a position contrary, or even orthogonally opposed to yours is somehow cognitively, morally, or "spiritually" deficient.
In your guise as Kathy, you referred to Stephen Hawking as an imbecile (or some such thing) because his position on God differs from yours - you are an expert on God, doctrine and all things spiritual, while Hawking only knows about physics. "Richard Dawkins is a frustrated old man who could not advance his own field...," with the stature of Miss Piggy (and everything.)
You seem to believe your position as a "spiritual initiate" elevates you above us mere mortals and affords your insights a fidelity unavailable to those of us fumbling around in the mundane reality of our barren little worlds of science, facts, and personal life experience: Santa becomes real; the Bible becomes a Kabbalistic training manual; energy passes through astrological houses (in spirals! ... or should that be helixes? ... we do live in four-dimentional spacetime after all.) And all of it is real. More real than poor Dr Hawking's scribblings on physics. More real that Dawkin's opinions on those things over which your spiritual acuity gives you special insight. More real, even, than anyone who does not share your elevated gift for metaphor and capacity for noticing "correspondences."
Who can argue with correspondences once Bridget/Kathy has confirmed they corroborate a deeper spiritual truth she knows supersedes more "common" and "mundane" knowledge?
I can.
John Frum 10+
Sorry about replying to you here instead of where you addressed me -- no free slots there.
"... lots of published papers" Take it from an insider: THIS is how science moves forward. As for all the books he has written, they have definitely inspired many to get into science, but such works are not usually counted as direct contribution to science. Research papers are generally the only way science is advanced. THIS is where a person tells the scientific world something it has not known before. Papers that are good are "cited" often. Papers that are bad are cited a few times in criticism, and forgotten soon after. Dawkins' papers are good. (We can go into details of citations if you like.) The Nobel prize for the sciences is sometimes a good indicator but not always. For what it's worth, I assure you, he is not reckless as a scientist. He is very well regarded in his field. (As is Stephen Hawking, in /his/ field.) But remember, there are no gods in science. They both have been wrong their fair share of times. Hawking lost a bet to Susskind -- it was about an aspect of physical laws. Dawkins 'lost' to Zahavi -- it was about an aspect of evolutionary mechanisms. No one is omniscient.
"What are his degrees in Theology or Comparative Religion?" Have you read The God Delusion? He goes over the arguments rationally. Did you come across sections of poor reasoning? What qualifications would you accept for talking about religion? By the same token, does Christ qualify? How about all the popes we have had? Only once have I seen Dawkins make the comment "god does not exist"... but otherwise he is always careful to add the word "probably".
I am not a fan of Dawkins' hard stand against religion. I prefer to stick to things that matter.
But Dawkins sometimes gets that right, and is still criticized for it by some other atheists: http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/644905-freedom-of-speech-for-street-preachers
Does that answer "Has he redacted it since?"
Comment deleted
Thomas Jones 50+
QUOTE: "..the facts are easy enough to verify, (such as with the origin of the Kabbala v. Bible) but not as easy as simply saying 'you're wrong.'"
And while you seem to be having another meltdown, you have yet to provide one credible fact that support your claims, for example, that the Bible is a Kabbalistic training manual.
As interesting as they are, your "correspondences" do not qualify as objective proof.
Yes, you see correspondences, fine. But that does not alter the fact that the Bible was written hundreds of years before the Kabbalah; that no Biblical or Kabbalistic authority substantiates your claims; that, in fact, these authorities deny them.
These are facts. Facts you simply ignore or counter with even more "correspondences."
Bridget, I am sorry for your suffering - but it has nothing to do with me - and I am not going to ignore your posts just because you are emotionally fragile.
If you post unsubstantiated claims with the authority of a "spiritual initiate" - such as your claim the Bible is a Kabbalistic training manual for the spiritual initiate - or that Santa and Saturn are one and the same - I am going to respond.
If you don't want me to comment on what you write, stop making such wild and extraordinary claims ... unless you are willing to back them up with proof.
And, if you would like to make this "easier" if you do make such claims, and if I do comment on them, stop making it so personal. Simply provide an answer. For example:
- You could provide objective evidence the Bible is a Kabbalistic training manual (and by that I do not mean, your emphatic claim it is so, followed by more examples of "correspondences.")
- You could provide a link to any credible Christian authority that supports your claim.
- You could provide a link to any credible Jewish authority that supports your claim?
- You could provide a link to any credible Kabbalistic authority that supports your claim?
And so on.
Gabo Moreno 50+
You are right, it takes a PhD to find the comments here. I use the find function in my browser, but even then I get lost. So now I have to ask my friends in the computational sciences to find our comments. :)
Anyway, dino to avian lung. The answer is this: which dinos to which birds?
The real answer should be "I don't know." However, I desisted because I suspect you have been mislead by your quacks that you can take any dino and any bird, and you should be able to trace the evolution from the former to the latter if evolution is true. That should be true if birds evolved from any dino, but, alas, that's not how evolution works. Dinos comprehend a lot of different families, and not every dino family went into birds. Perhaps a proper examination of the evolutionary history of the family that gave rise to birds would give you the answer you are looking for. I also suspect that you have been misinformed about lung function.
However, here another note. Creationists will find details whose evolution nobody has studied yet. I don't see how that means that the scientific community thinks that evolution involves half-formed organisms. So far you failed to show that we would expect such a thing, and whatever other questions you might ask, that still does not mean that any scientist has proposed half brains, or half lungs. Creationists draw that cartoon as a straw-man. Easy to ridicule, right? But, in my view, that ridicules the creationists much more, because if creationists can believe that such are the proposals of the scientific community, something must be truly wrong with creationists.
You mention lucy and archaeopteryx as examples of glorified fossils because of incompleteness. I answer that nobody claimed them to be incomplete, you just ask another question. Does that make sense? Did you at least learn that evolution does not propose incomplete organisms?
:-(
P.S. Hum, first hit:
http://www.evolutionpages.com/bird_lung.htm
Peter Law 10+
Wish I had access to computational science department.
I agree the most honest answer is "I don't know." Nobody knows everything, but many tend to give an assured answer with their fingers crossed, and that leads to confusion. We don't do that, do we? Lol
I don't believe there are any creatures that are incomplete, Lucy or otherwise. There are gaps between creatures & those which they are said to have evolved from. When an interim creature is found it has facets of both the features it 'links', but is ALWAYS a complete creature in every respect. This leaves old cynics like me the opportunity to classify it as an autonomous creature with no connection with the others, or a 'micro' derivation of one of the others.
The beauty of the lung question is that it showcases a typical problem for evolution; how does a body part ( of any kind) change from one design ( sorry ) to another while at the same time :- 1) Not leaving any trace of the transformation, 2) Not killing the creature, 3) Conferring a continuous evolutionary advantage to drive further development. All this without a design outcome in mind. In the dino's case the lungs have to change in conjunction with the skeleton, which is much more involved in the avian lung. The rear legs have to reduce greatly, while the minuscule 'arms' have to grow into powerful wings. Plus the scale to feathers transformation, & goodness knows what all detailing. Male & female have to change together & remain compatible. All this while finding suitable food, not getting eaten oneself, & leaving no trace for us to find.
This is true for all transformations. Do you agree, or am I missing something ?
No quacks were invoked in this post. There is plenty of quackless info on avian lungs available. It' s just me & my penchant for awkward questions.
I'm off to see if I understand your link. Btw, the video link didn't work; I assume because I wasn't a member.
:-)
John Frum 10+
It's about Peter's comment "I don't believe there are any creatures that are incomplete, Lucy or otherwise."
I don't know in what context you use the word creatures here, but if you are talking about individuals, there are MANY that are incomplete... these are usually either not born or if they are, do not live long enough to reproduce. There are gazillions of mistakes made in the process of creating children. Extremely few of those potential children survive. Even in humans, miscarriages are awfully common.
There is beauty if you look at just the survivors. If you look at the non-survivors, there is still a lot of beauty, but not as much.
Check out this article that deals with just one aspect of it: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/10/17/the-two-genome-waltz-how-the-threat-of-mismatched-partners-shapes-complex-life/
This article talks of just one of the innumerable aspects of propagation. Mistakes happen at every level... and many of those mistakes leave behind non-survivors as food for other organisms.
"Not leaving any trace of the transformation" There are plenty of traces of transformation. You can look at how a human embryo develops... it goes through stages that are strictly unnecessary for a human being. In our evolution, getting rid of these stages provided no advantage for survival, so it remained. Want a more commonly seen example? How about our appendix? Does nothing useful for us... it is just a shriveled up organ that our primate forefathers used for digesting cellulose. In us, it is just a silly old organ that sometimes gives us appendicitis, and at other times, cancer. Why do we still have it then? Well, these disorders happen so rarely that most humans that have this organ survive long enough to have kids and raise them.
Gabo Moreno 50+
Peter Law 10+
Gabo knows me well enough to write this for me. He'll probably win his bet.
I remember a guy saying that in Darwin's day there were around 180 vestiges in the human body. There used to be a lot at least. Today I would say there are approximately zero.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090730-spleen-vestigial-organs.html
Only know two things about embryos. 1) Folks get confused by Haekel's fake drawings which graced our textbooks for a century after the forgery was exposed. 2) I watched a talk through of the whole process & don't recall any 'extra' stages. Feel free to elaborate if you can in layman's (me) language.
I agree incomplete creatures do not survive; that is my whole point.
Gabo: the link in the long thread didn't run, I think I have to register or something.
I read the link above which shows how some dino's may have had avian lungs. I notice that in all the tv documentaries the dino's all have feathers as well. All this stretches my credulity, but I can accept it if you like. It still doesn't address my point. My English must be wanting, either you don't understand, or your ducking.
There has never existed an animal with half a lung / brain, or whatever. I never claimed anyone said there ever had. But how do we get from no eye /. Brain /. Lung, whatever to a fully functional whatever without an intermediate stage which would severely disable the owner. Stick with lungs. At some time a mammalian lung had to transform to an avian, or maybe the other way round. Maybe not in dino's ,but it had to happen sometime. The mammalian is powered by a diaphragm, the avian isn't. So many things have to change to make the transition, the odds on 'evolution' hitting on the necessary combination without wiping out the creature are monumental. I think the only difference we have is that you believe it can happen & I don't. We're a lost cause, the two of us.
:-)
Gabo Moreno 50+
I could answer, and quite well, but did you read the link? Did you also follow that other link I left you in the longest thread?
There are quacks involved in your answer because you took the idea about lungs being "very different" from them quacks. The bird's lungs have these structures we don't, and the air flows differently. Yet, there is no doubt that the bird's lung comes from a lung more like the most common lungs among vertebrates. Read the link. It starts with describing dinosaur lungs very similar to avian ones, but that's not all. Check that some reptiles have some structures like those in birds, but not enough to make the air flow as it does in birds. There is also a note by the end about the answer to some creationist web site that you might find illuminating.
And again, and again, I still don't see your answer about how any of what you say means that scientists have proposed evolution as half-brains and half-lungs, or incomplete organisms.
Best!
Mike Euverman
Evolution does not claim that god did not create the universe. Evolution is the process where living creatures adapt to their surroundings. Could you please point at which evolutionary theory refers to god, or compares itself to gods ability to create the universe and offer itself as proof against god?
I can answer this question for you. You will not find a single credible reference, because evolution at no point refers even to the creation of the universe or the big bang theory. It is an explanation of how the universe operates, and not how it was created. Even the Vatican has come out to state that the two do not contradict each other.
The problem stems from two main sources. One is anti evolution propaganda from sources such as yourself. The other is a lack of understanding of the bible, and taking portions of it literally, rather then as metaphorical teachings. If you choose to view the bible as literal, then you must choose to view it in it's entirely as literal. To pick and choose portions to suit your own agenda is outright insulting. Who are you, to make the choices on behalf of god?
Furthermore, how is the statement "god created evolution", a statement which disproves god? You say that evolution is contradictory to god. Does that mean that god is incapable of creating the laws which guide evolution? Again, that is outright insulting. Who are you to say that god is incapable of doing such a thing.
To answer Aditya's question: It is quite easy to link science and religion if you choose to take it from a religious perspective.
Mike Euverman
So the answer is that if you want to link religion and science, in order to be both scientific and religious... Then yes, you can do that quite easily. On the other hand, if you want to link the two in order to promote your religion to other scientists... Then you'll run into problems as they can't be linked when taken from a scientific perspective.
Yuri Gomez
E G 10+
Franciz Desouza
Ive learn t some great perspectives on your topic below: from th debate going on at TED, Maybe you should check it out to clear your confusion:
http://www.ted.com/conversations/9147/whatever_has_a_beginning_to_it.html
I hope this helps, from a tedster to another tedster. Ted is a great way learn & share ideas by the way. :)
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Orlando Hawkins 20+
Sam Harris was right, Religion, truth claims and bad ideas really does cause balkanization.....
anyhow, its back to the sidelines for me
Adriaan Braam 10+
After all, according to science, there is no purpose for us being here, right? So we are all here for our selves, well, and maybe our kids, if they behave.
Have individuals in a religion ever done anything wrong in the last 1000 years, they certainly have, no doubt about it. I'd like to think, however, that it was not based on their religion and/or religious beliefs. Just going to a place of worship does not make anyone a better person, just as sitting in a restaurant does not make us any less hungry.
In themselves conversations like this have indeed little use for a person that has a closed mind. There are some, however, that don't.
Since just over 250 ago a new revelation has emerged that does indeed connect religion with God. So now there is proof?? No, God does not want to force us to love Him.
Joanne Donovan 30+
'Spirituality" (what Richard Dawkins refers to as sexed up atheism lol) is a different matter. I have observed it, still dont really get it, but I acknowledge it exists. It is diametrically opposed to religion in my view. (see bhuddist teachings 101.)
John Frum 10+
"... could not advance his own field through his own area of science and became famous not for his science..."
Careful now! Your ignorance is showing! Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_publications_by_Richard_Dawkins#Academic_papers
To answer your last question, remember that he said this soon after 9/11.
Mary M. 50+
In the end, we can agree to disagree, but still try to understand why we think the way we do.
I know couples who are married where one is a believer of God and the other isn't.
Well, guess what? They stick up for each other because each "understands" the other's persperctive. I mean isn't that what conversations are for.........asking questions and trying to understand the other person?
And, besides, this conversation thread is in the questions, not in the debates.
It's little wonder that the world is the way it is....and why people get so angry when others express their o-p-i-n-i-o-n......my goodness!
Joanne Donovan 30+
Verble Gherulous 20+
And yes, let's keep striving, and never stop!
Nolan Poe
And as I've stumbled around investigating Christianity, I've found something quite different. It seems that God does want to force us to love him. Why else would the bible so specifically target our self-interest (avoiding hell)?
Adriaan Braam 10+
Swedenborg, in his book explaining God has as title of the first chapter: Love is the Life of man[kind]. That's what I was referring to in the last paragraph. If people want to look, go ahead. You'll never, ever see me say 'do this!' or believe that! Only look if you're interested. That's my religion :) (BTW it's the same as Helen Keller's).
'Spirituality" .. ..It is diametrically opposed to religion in my view. (see bhuddist teachings 101.)"
I know too little about other religions so I don't know what you are pointing at. I do realize that Christianity does not have a very good spiritual connection with anything, including God. But as I mentioned, there is now
a totally new approach to the literal text of the Bible. We no longer have to start long and hateful arguments about the "Creation Story" because it has nothing to do with this physical world but applies to our spiritual level..
Yes Mary, I was laughing because if we do not raise out mind about the natural, there is no progress possible. A married couple loves each other first and spends the rest of their life getting to understand each other based on love. If people (and religions!) could FIRST have a love for the other (whatever they see as true) and then shape their conversations around that.. That's why the basic premise of Swedenborgianism is that EVERY religion has good in it, and through that good, is connected to life. Sayings like 'believe as I do or else! are not based on love.
Creation:
http://sites.google.com/site/liveitupspiritually/home/source/The%20Real%20Creation%20Story.pdf?attredirects
Joanne Donovan 30+
Regarding 'ethics'; I do not think something has to fall under the auspices of 'science' which often annoys the hell out of me, (the 'if we cant measure it according to our narrow parameters it doesnt exist and you are a fool for thinking it does, mentality') ...so if it does not fall under the auspices of 'science' it does not mean that thing does not exist, that it does not have an affect, or that we should not try to understand it. Working with things that cannot be easily defined, is terrifying for some people.
When you talk about 'love' as the root of mankind, as the beginning and end of all things in the universe, as a kind of forward thrusting life energy (are you squirming in your seat Thomas? Go on launch in, I can take it) then we might have plenty of common ground. Interestingly 'science' begins to explore some of these ideas too, (after sucking the life out of them first.)
Someone like myself, and perhaps Thomas too, speaks against religion, not to hurt, but really because of the damage it does and has done. I think it removes the individual conscience, the individual connection to life and the planet, 'spirituality' if you like that word. Needing a figurehead, is a big problem for me, and I think to follow one is the antithesis of 'spiritual' experience.
Thanks for your kind and thoughtful response.
Mary M. 50+
I am humbled by your kind word. Have a pleasant weekend Joanne.
Be Well. Mary
Thomas Jones 50+
I'm not following you; why would I be squirming in my seat?
I agree that working with things that cannot be defined terrifies some people ... and this is not limited to just those of us with a scientific bent but it applies, at least equally, perhaps more so, to those of us who have a religious or spiritual temperament.
Those of us who embrace religion (either organized or personal) often identify that which "passeth all understanding" and then immediately try to define it; to confine it to the limits of the human mind (or to the limits some imagined super-mind or super-soul. ... which, of course, has been envisioned by an average run-of-the-mill human mind. We are whole, not fragmented.)
For that which cannot be known through, let's say the faculty of thought, we construct hugely elaborate cosmologies so that we may pretend to know. We create Religion, Astrology, spiritual practices, "afterlives" and so on.
Which are fine, in their place.
But remove the stories and the posturing and what is left?
A breathing human being.
And very often we seem to be afraid or angry if we do not have our stories, and our secret knowledge, to comfort us. Or if our stories are challenged.
Thomas Jones 50+
Joanne Donovan 30+
Regarding this ; 'I'm not following you; why would I be squirming in my seat? I agree that working with things that cannot be defined terrifies some people ... often identify that which "passeth all understanding" and then immediately try to define it;'
Well Dawkins would be squirming in his seat, (and I am a huge Dawkins fan) as he thinks that everything we can accept is that which is available to science for emperical measurement, now or in the near future. Do you subscribe to this? I think perhaps you do.
While I do not 'believe' in anything whether it is runes or religion, and I believe it is my responsiblity as a free thinking individual to resist believing in something out of a fear of death or other insecurity, I think it is equally dogmatic to suggest that we should accept only the knowable and the known.
What about the unknowable and the unkown? The current methods of understanding the knowable, is culturally specific to us, it requires a set of parameters, a set of thinking skills that we Europeans have developed. Is there a way of understanding beyond us? Please dont leap all over this and screech 'the path to god!' 'the path to god!' anyone, please, please (Bridget) please. I mean it in a greater sense than that. What is indefinable for us, may be definable for other creatures on this planet, or it might have been defineable for us before but not now.
I am curious about a lot of things and intensely curious about this. It does not make me a 'believer', just someone who is curious.
See what I mean?
Joanne Donovan 30+
I have read Richard Dawkins for years, long before his debut on the atheist front and I think you discredit yourself with this statement, 'Richard Dawkins is a frustrated old man who could not advance his own field through his own science and became famous not for his science..etc etc'. Firstly the man is brilliant. Secondly, I do not agree with his stance in God Delusion entirely, (almost but not entirely), as his view is also dogmatic in some ways, i.e., he is not prepared to accept the possiblity of anything he cannot 'prove'. I have seen enough weird things over my life to know this is not totally justifiable. I would like him to add, a 'right now' clause.
Lets keep our minds open Bridget, lets communicate freely, its fun!
Adriaan Braam 10+
Maybe you know, but just in case not, my motto for life, base on Swedenborg is "If, whatever you believe makes you a better person, believe it! That means we believe there is something good in every religion (however hidden :) and that's why we do not have any persuasive arguments. Whatever I write is based on "I tell you what I believe, take it or leave it" no pressure, because we strongly believe that religion should be based on love. Love can only exist in freedom, anywhere, anytime. Because if someone was 'forced' to love something, it would not be their love, but someone els' love with them, and thus not their own.
What makes us human is not that we have I-pods or can drive cars, but it is our freewill. In order for us to have freewill, and keep it, we cannot have proof of anything spiritual. We are what we love and, especially in marriage, if we could show (proof) our love on a measuring device, where would that leave us (and our relationship with the higher power)?
This little thing is about what would happen if we lost our freewill. In short i'd say we'd stop being human, but see what you think,
http://webhome.idirect.com/~abraam/studies/Freedom_No.pdf
Thomas Jones 50+
You seem a very thoughtful and loving person; I do not think you need the guidance of a somewhat deranged 17th Century Swede who "communed" with imaginary spiritual beings living on all the, then known, planets.
And this whole "freewill" thing is highly debatable; on many levels, not the least of which is neurological. There is mounting evidence our brain processes information and acts on it before we are cognizant of the data or of the resulting action. Conscious thought follows and offers a post hoc justification for what was accomplished sans "freewill."
Personally, I am a freewill kind of guy but the evidence against is mounting.
I agree, if something has value for you, that is justification enough for you to accept it; but that does not mean it has any objective veracity.
Emanuel Swedenborg was arguably sane (some assert, not unconvincingly, he was not.) He was undoubtedly brilliant, learning Hebrew so as to reinterpret the Bible, amongst other impressive feats.
My point is, a truly "enlightened" soul (if such a thing exists) would have no need of a revisioned chronicle of an archaic tribal God, in order to convey his or her message. And you, Adriaan, have no need of either the book or the intermediary.
You do not need to agree with me.
I do not expect you to.
E G 10+
It's easy to think that if God made our world then there got to be a way that science can be linked with God but is it correct to think in this way ?
I mean , look, we have only five senses : sight, hearing , touch , smell and taste; only with their help we can know the universe (resulting the science).
Can we know God by this five senses? I don't think so .
Maybe there is a way to link God of His creation but it's very unlikely for us to do that with the senses we have (in other words the science can't tell us too much about God).
However there is a way out of here : we have six senses , just that the sixth is not used too much . The sixth can help us know God , prove Him.
The sixth is the faith .
Erik Danziger
What if "God" is the natural response humans have come up with to answer that need?
To many it's very frightening (if I can say so) that we are just the result of 14 billion years of RANDOM events. For them it's unimaginable the fact that there is no higher force governing the universe.
What if our minds are "set" to admit the existance of such a higher force, be it God or a universal mathematical equation?
Science and "God" can be linked together by being different answers to the same questions, in my humble opinion.
Allan Macdougall 10+
Neither do I buy into the idea that science can reveal all things as empirical and absolute. Truth is a shaky concept and can be disproved by creative doubt just as readily as can be proved by finite certainty.
What I do buy into is the need for science and religion to form an understanding with each other, not least because both have evolved in the same human mind. They are both encompassed within our psychology for very good reason.
To quote Pascal: “The achievement of reason in science should be to recognise that there are also an infinity of things that can surpass it”. This perhaps hints that the world is not just a series of immutable facts, but also of ‘felt’ experiences.
Metaphor (and therefore much of what is revealed in religion) represents what had been ‘felt’ to be true at the time. Science has now moved metaphor into the realms of what it regards as ‘fact’.
The atheistic view (in its close links to science) says that metaphorical representations in religion are bogus. Maybe true, but at the time they served an important purpose in the understanding of ourselves and of the universe.
In devaluing religion, one effectively devalues the endemic facility we have of the metaphorical.
In devaluing science, we “…deny ourselves the facility to make useful models of the world. A model is useful if it allows us to get use out of it” (De Bono)
Verble Gherulous 20+
Regardless, thank you for the new thread.
Thomas Jones 50+
Verble, this is as much dogma as any other article of Christian doctrine. And, if you are purporting to be a Christian and to worship a Christian God, you have missed (by far) the central tenet of the Christian faith which is to accept Christ as your saviour. "Good works" have nothing to do with getting into heaven.
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9
Good works are as a sign of your faith and transformation in Christ.
And of course, your position is predicated on many things: that the Bible is accurate; that there is a God; that there is a heaven; that Christians got the instructions right; and so on.
---
QUOTE: "Every single science article that I read and can't understand speaks to me of the divine intricacy of creation."
I do not think your reverence would be diminished in the least if you understood them.
Verble Gherulous 20+
And no, my reverence would not be diminished if I understood what a neutrino is, or how the Crab Nebula as formed. In fact, the more I learn of science, the more my faith is amplified. It is not very scientific, but it is true.
Allan Macdougall 10+
I am trying to reconcile the two opposites in terms of collective psychology, rather than from an inflexible standpoint of 'belief'. Belief systems seem to be inherently divisive, but need to be understood - not so much from the point of view of the beliefs themselves, but what it is in our psychology/environmental factors and stressors that drive them into dysfunctionality.
I guess two possible factors couls be the politicizing and 'commodifying' of religion, tranforming it from something that guides collective morality, into something that leaves itself open to (deserving) criticism.
Thomas Jones 50+
I realize it is not what you said I just think you glossed over ("missed") the most important "bit" when you said "after we find this path ..."
"This path" is the really important part of the message, don't you think?
---
I agree, understanding science does amplify one's appreciation ... whether we are religious or not.
Verble Gherulous 20+
But regardless of all our differences in opinion in these discussions, i am truly glad that we both agree on science as a way of understanding, explaining, and appreciating the world. That is one of the reasons i consider us friends, if I may call you friend.
Thomas Jones 50+
Hi Verble,
You may.
Thomas Jones 50+
You seem to have elevated both science and religion to the rank of pure metaphor. They appear to be almost platonic-forms, perfect in their conception.
Perfect science would provide perfect models that we could use for practical purposes.
And perfect religion would provide us with perfect metaphors we could use, perhaps, to bring the mysteries of the universe into our consciousness.
I suppose if those were what religion and science really were it would not be too bad a thing.
Sadly, it is not so.
Science for all its failing does strive to provide us with accurate models.
Religion on the other hand is not content to deal with metaphor as metaphor. No, it deals in metaphor as fact. And as you no doubt know, the destructive force of this practice goes well beyond the hackneyed references to religious persecutions and pogroms. It is insidious: it brings its concentration to bear on the lone individual, often a child, and it crushes creativity, stifles innovation, instills schismatic fears, doubts and judgment. It freezes us in the moment of a "false-known" and impedes, if not blocks, movement towards a "true-unkown." It is, for many (most?) tantamount to intellectual death: "Why think? My religion has all the answers. These metaphors are 'true.'"
Now, is this "religion's fault?"
No, not really. We create religions. It's "our fault."
We can (and we are) examining why we do this, and how. And, of course, we are using science in the endeavor.
Perhaps science will provide us with some perfect models we can use.
Perhaps not.
Allan Macdougall 10+
I believe that anything we conceive (as a prelude to tangibility and certainty), has its roots in metaphor and imagination. And this I think is true of both science and religion.
The difference is that in science, the process of hypothesis > research > the application of experimental evidence > into what we consider as 'fact', means that scientific fact becomes static. It loses its capacity to intuit through metaphor and to think beyond what it has concluded.
At the conclusion of its own process, science gains certainty but loses the ability to doubt itself. (I believe that doubt, somewhat paradoxically, is a positive virtue):
Doubt = Freedom to move beyond stasis.
Certainty = Stasis = A rejection of those who doubt.
Yes we have created religions - but for good reason at the time of their conception. They fulfilled a need, served a spiritual purpose, and through metaphor, helped us to understand our existence in the universe all those years ago. The trouble is, (and I agree with your analysis) those metaphors have become fact and belief (stasis again).
I think the stasis of belief is the dysfunction lying at the heart of religion - and dare I say it - in science it is the stasis of certainty.
Thomas Jones 50+
I do not agree with this assessment of science.
Science, and in particular the scientific method, are based on doubt; doubt the experiment was conducted adequately, that the data was interpreted properly, that all variables were controlled for, and so on.
Now scientists? That's another story. Some scientists are as prone to dogmatic commitment to an ideology as are the staunchest of creationists.
Nor do I agree anything we conceive has its roots in metaphor and imagination.
Perhaps our ability to articulate what we conceive may be so rooted but much of what we conceive has it's roots in (non-cognitive) prior experience, and perceptions.
As much as I appreciate it, I say, we venerate thought - and its children - too highly.
Peter Law 10+
That thread was just getting too long.
I have every respect for Mr. Darwin, but, with respect, it's a very old book, & many have acknowledged that things have moved on, what with neo-Darwin, Punctuated Equilibrium etc. I feel no compulsion to read the book. Many, many evolutionists have said that Macro Evolution is just Micro Evolution over a longer period; do you disagree with that ?
Thank you for at least watching a bit of the video, that was game of you. You did seem to get a totally different message than I did. I guess we both hear a bit of what we want to hear. Tell me this though. What possible motive would these " quacks" have for setting themselves up as purveyors of lies, in the face of their scientific peers? I don't send them any money. Their career is compromised, people laugh at them; I don't see the payback. This particular guy seems to spend his whole life digging things up; & then to tell lies about it; it just doesn't make sense.
There's must be times when there is a swing in scientific opinion. Surely there was a time when the world went from being flat to being round when scientists had to stick their neck out & be vilified. There have been many times in church history where exactly the same thing happened; that's where all the denominations come from. It's just the way Homo Sapiens (?) operates, we're stubborn. We can still be friends.
:-)
Gabo Moreno 50+
Good idea to start a fresh thread.
If you won't read Darwin, I must insist that you can't say that he observed "microevolution" and then "extrapolated" with "no scientific basis." That would be the respectful, and the self-respectful, thing to do.
As much as I appreciate how the wording "macroevolution is microevolution over a longer period" would mislead you to think that extrapolation is all there is to it, you are still not justified to say so, let alone say so about Darwin without reading his book. Instead of claiming that it is just extrapolation in either case, wouldn't it make sense to figure out what the basis might be, rather than directly conclude that this is just extrapolation with no scientific basis?
I watched half the video Pete because I really wanted to get to the end. But I couldn't. I got the very same message that you got. Only I knew that he was lying because I know how things are done in science, I know that geologists don't date rocks and fossils in circles, I know geologists don't put the layers on top of each other to their liking. I don't know if this particular guy was consciously lying, or if he took the lies from somebody else and repeated them confident of his source. After all, why would a believer expect a ministry to lie? This is one of the things that infuriates me about these "ministries." Their abuse of the believer's confidence. Anyway. These ministries live of believers money. No way around. I think there must be more to it. Power over the masses might be another inspiration. Sure this guy was payed for his talk too ... Whatever his/their motivation, the facts remain: I know 100% that those were lies. Whether first or second hand lies, I don't care, they were still lies. I don't think that discovering that the world was a sphere consisted on lying about how other people concluded that it was flat.
I can be your friend Pete, but I can't be friends with those whose job consists on lying to/about me and my work.
:-)
Peter Law 10+
Hopefully I don't need to lie about your work. I don't know enough about it to be taken seriously anyway.
My vid guy has loads of other stuff, he must spend his whole life digging. I guess even you get paid for doing your thing; no shame in that. Certainly I am influenced by these guys, but I would hope that I am not brainwashed by them. They are certainly much better at explaining their stance than the evolution lobby, who expect agreement just because they say so. I love documentaries on geology & stuff. I really want to get an explanation of how the layers were laid down on a long time span & then eroded to form canyons etc. I can find loads of stuff on the flood, but nothing much else. Try googling 'geologic column' on video, & see what I mean . This is probably part of the problem, there are too many questions without a straightforward, common sense answer.
Thanks for listening.
:-)
Thomas Jones 50+
Yes.
Thomas Kuhn describes this exact process in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (1962.) It is from whence the term "paradigm shift" entered popular parlance.
It's a short book, you might enjoy reading it. I think I am one of the few who actually has.
(It is "a classic." And you know the joke about what "a classic" is?
"A classic is a book everyone knows about but no one has read.")
Peter Law 10+
Looks like a good book. I'll see if there is an IPad version out there.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/students/envs_5110/structure_of_scientific_revolutions.pdf
:-)
Gabo Moreno 50+
If this guy "spends his life digging" then he is a first source, thus he is a quack no doubt.
Let me try and explain why you get so much about the flood and so little about real science.
It is much easier to misquote and produce quackery than it is to produce informative scientifically valid stuff.
It is much easier to invent a lie than explain how actually geologic columns are studied. For the scientific one you have to explain a heck of a lot, for the lie it is enough to say "they put them on top of each other to make it fit the evolutionist desire." That takes no time. Compare to trying to explain how there's places where we actually see several geological epochs/strata, how different sets of strata overlap with each other, how before going and just put them together you have to find evidence of the ages of the rocks. How it is difficult if we only had sedimentary rocks, thus try and find igneous rocks, how ... you see how many thing have to be explained? Compare that with "they put them together to their liking." Which one takes less effort? This is why I often think that we are fighting a lost battle. Misinformation is produced easily and spreads easily. Correct information takes much more to be put together, guys like you find the real science boring, the real information requires effort to be understood, the misinformation is so damn easy.
Then, scientists have jobs to do. Science takes a lot of effort. Your quack only has to go and find images/quotes he likes because he can misuse, then claim all kinds of bullshit. We have to produce new knowledge, put together the data, figures, explanations and send for publication, then answer reviewers' concerns. Most of us also have to teach courses and be part of committees in universities. Your quacks just invent lies and propagate them. It's not a fair situation.
I still try. But, from your example, seems like my explanations never hit home. Yet, I have no option but to keep trying.
:-(
Comment deleted
Gabo Moreno 50+
He is UK-ish, but you are right about circumstance. That for sure is a reason to get much more about the flood than about science. That must explain most of his biased findings. Example, most of his claims are answered at "talk origins." I even found the misquote to the Britannica exposed there, but I bet Pete would not go there often to see if the quotes were taken out of context. Yet, misinformation is still much easier to produce and understand. Science is still harder to produce, and people have to do some effort to understand it.
Thomas Jones 50+
I didn't know that.
Well, the Brits are not as enthusiastic YECs as the Yanks but they are not far behind. About 39% of them are creationists of one kind or another - "young or old." (Ipsos MORI)
Yes, you're right, misinformation is much easier to produce. And much harder to stop. (How long have we been living in the "end times?")
---
* Ah, I went to "the source" and he is indeed UK-ish. Tain-ish to be precise.
My apologies Peter, if I had know I may have been more polite. ;-)
Peter Law 10+
SCOTLAND guys. You know; 'The Land of the Bible'.
Damn should have checked Talk Origins. I use it a lot to get balance, but they are just as 'enthusiastic' as we yec's, & make the occasional mistake.
You yanks are certainly ott on this subject. Dawkins is much more measured when he talks over here, & more strident over there. Scots are a laid back bunch, not much adrenalin.
:-)
Mary M. 50+
James Whitehead
Mary M. 50+
James Whitehead
Little example: A man runs down the street blabbering in an incomprehensible language, flailing his arms and screaming at the skies.... later he is questioned and says "well i was communicating with the Lord".... have a really nice afternoon, praise be to Jesus.
Another man does the same, except when questioned he says, "well i was swept up by an intense emotion that i was unable to contain, and there was this voice in my head revealing all the hidden truths of this world. I was so impassioned that i had to run and scream and flail around (foaming at the mouth perhaps).... 20 years in a mental institute
Mary M. 50+
Verble Gherulous 20+
I'll make it short: God doesn't condemn any one to Hell. All he did was provide a way to Heaven. The only thing He asks in return after we find this path is to spend the rest of our lives on earth tryong to help people - feed the hungry, heal the sick, minister to the poor and defend the defenseless, and above all do no harm. That's it. Everything else is dogma.
My apologies for being off topic, but I just read some sadness in your post. ( and if I'm out of line, please accept my humble apologies)
And by the way, I assure you I have never run babbling in tongues down the street!
James Whitehead
Mary M. 50+
what if the word was translated wrongly?
what if....?
Verble Gherulous 20+
Every single science article that I read and can't understand speaks to me of the divine intricacy of creation. And frankly, CS Lewis' Mere Christianity brought me back into deeper understanding of true Christianity. Once I realized I could follow Christ and not have to speak like a hypocritical closed-minded zealot, then peace like a river flowed through my veins.
Sappily poetic, yes, but if I'm going to be a starry eyed geek dreamer, might as well be for the Creator.
Regardless, I say this as my testimony that science CAN be linked to God, no matter what a bunch of fuddy-duddies might have you believe!
Verble Gherulous 20+
Adriaan Braam 10+
When force is present, love is out the door.
The literal meaning of the Bible has been used to hit people over the head. The spiritual meaning that now exists is there to unite people.
Does hell exist? yes, it does because one person's heaven is another person's hell. Those that know God and hate him anyway are the ones that go there because they want to. No one is ever forced to go to heaven or hell.
Thomas Jones 50+
Richard Krooman 30+
You're kinda mixing up 2 things here.
Science is explaining the universe as detailed as possible mainly through the means of physics and math. This includes ofcourse the creation of the universe of which we are very unsure about.
Religion explains the world by saying 'Well god made it".
So you could say that if you have enough faith in whatever religion you are a member of that: "God made the it, science tries to understand and describe it".
But even if we know how the universe came to be... we probably will never find out why that happened. At max we can find out the circumstances that were there at the time and reason our way how that came to be... but people even then could argue 'that god made it so in 6 days'.
One of the very basic principles of faith is that you cannot be sure. And in disregard to not being sure you believe it anyway.
Fact is however we don't know, and we might never know.
We can even go and question the universe even more, to really mess up your mind.
You can ask yourself: "When I measure something, do I really measure it or is something putting a number on what I believe is a display?". Other famous questions include: "Are these other people real or does 'my mind' make them up?" Or the old: "Am I really here or does something just feed me experiences from somewhere?"
These are questions to which we cannot ever find any answer (although one might reason that the question is flawed in some way). So it's just up to you to decide what you think is correct.
Julia Grotenhuis
The truth is, there are many Christians who believe in evolution. Now some people who believe in evolution would laugh and say, simply, "Impossible." Yet some Christians consider the creation story in Genesis something you cannot take literally. Read the Language of God, a brilliant book by a Christian who used to be an atheist, but was converted - but he still believes in evolution. And he is a scientists and a physicist. A very brilliant person.
You can believe in the creation story and believe in evolution. Look things up on Christians who believe in evolution. Once again, do look up the Language of God. It is a very enlightening book.
Christians need not be afraid of advancing science. Science and the Bible CAN work together. They always have, and they always will. God is the greatest scientist out there, after all, which makes science for the Christian so very fascinating. The world is a glorious place. It is magnificent. The fact that God could have used evolution to create the world is a legit point to be considered. Choose where you stand on the matter.
As for me, even with this option, I still do not believe God used evolution for the creation of the world. Or that evolution even happened.
Obey No1kinobe 20+
My view is that science, psychology, sociology, anthropology, biology, astronomy, history etc and rationale thinking can explain the phenomena of a belief in gods. All these point towards humans inventing the concept of god, spreading and evolving like language through conquests, immigration and information.
Science has shown where ever we figure something out reasonably fully no gods are necessary.
Science can help explain the psychology and brain workings that result in so called religious experiences, meditative states etc. Science can explain our tendency towards seeing the universe through an anthropomorphic lens. Even gods are often characterised in human form.
Science continues to fill the gaps addressed by religion and debunk all sorts of conflicting dogma and scriptural change.
A scientific view could also be used to help maximise positive human experience through assessing values and morals instead of being stuck with polygamy, sexism, tribalism, hate, dietry restrictions, child beating and abuse, circumcision etc etc.
The main linkage for me is that Science in the broader sense explains why religions and belief in gods exist and goes about disproving or challenging many of the specifics in religion.
Other ways include saying science explains gods creation. Others try to meld our increasing scientific understanding of the universe with the mythology of earlier times.
Can Science describe, explain, or prove, or understand god as a metaphysical entity.
In a sense any study of the metaphysical, by accepting the non material, spirit realms is at best pseudo science.
Science is about evidence, the physical, the measurable etc.
I except at the limits it gets hard for us to grasp the quantum and cosmic. There are still gaps and sadly our primate brains often still cling to supernatural beliefs for all sorts of reasons.
Science runs best divorced from any god belief systems.
Thomas Jones 50+
Thomas Jones 50+
Can science be linked with God?
Why would you need them to be linked?
Science is what it is. "God" is not a scientifically testable hypothesis. What test shall we conduct to prove God exists or to prove that He/She/It/Ta does not?
All kinds of folks will tell you God exists.
Their "proof" ... subjective experience, belief, and often scripture or New Age Spiritualism.
Some can "prove" God does not exist, that He/She/It/Ta is a product of our human imagination.
Their "proof" ... subjective experience, belief, and often the fact that there are so many different scriptures and Gods that it is self-evident, God is a human creation.
Does that help you?
Not really.
We have people right here on TED who will tell you God is the Christian God, the Muslim God, or some New Age amalgamation of "all Gods," and so on.
Do they "know?"
Probably not. (They might ... but it is highly unlikely.)
So what are you to do?
Find your own answers.
If you want to "know God," seek God. Don't listen to all of us crazy people here on TED. Do not accept stories or explanations (and that is all you will get here.) Go and find out for yourself.
If you think you need a teacher to help you, find a teacher (you live in India, there are Gurus everywhere.) If your teacher offers you only a story or an explanation, leave. You can get those here.
Do not stop looking until you have found your answer.
I know of a man who studied the Vedas for more than 60 years. He too was searching for God. One day, a young boy told him, "I can show you."
Think of that!
An old man who had studied scripture his whole life being told by a young boy he could help him find what he was looking for.
The old man was sincere, and very humble. He said, "Please show me."
And the boy did.
---
Or so says the Old Man.
Does that help you?
Not really.
You must find your own answers.
Nicholas Lukowiak 30+