Breaking the Science Barrier

[Say Again, Over!]

Seeker,

Thanks for your well-wishes. We had an unfortunate "uncontained failure" which took a while to take care of but I think we're all back in the green now.

I really don't get the God that you describe; is God omnipotent or isn't he, are we created in his image or not, is God all-knowing or what? If we're created in his image how can we be imperfect? If God already knows everything why does he need to set up little tests for me to see if I Love him? And even if I do Love him what does that mean since he created me, the world and the situation that I find myself in? Since God created me, the world and the guys who wrote the bible how can it be my fault if it's not enough to sway me into believing in God?

All of those concerns are perfectly legitimate and are valid questions! The concept of omnipotence and omniscience mixed with a true liberty to choose is not an easy one to accept, I'll grant you that. I usually try to explain it with a parental example: You want your kids to love you. You don't want them to simply recognize you as their father and become little slaves of yours. You want to marvel at how they will do their own thing one minute and come back to hug you the next. That kind of love cannot be imposed, it has to be a free choice from that child of yours.

Sometimes we "know" exactly how they're going to react to a certain situation and we'll let them make a decision, right or wrong. In the end, we'd like them to choose the one that reflects their love for us and I believe it is the same thing for God.

This example is certainly not perfect and I'm sure you can poke plenty of holes through it. Maybe Greg can do better!

Thanks for that quote on Deism. I understand your theology better.

Have a good night!

Felix

[Say Again, Over!]

Hey Timothy,

I don't think you'll have many feline friends left in the come wednesday evening!

As I said further up, the kids are pretty much back in service. Now if I can just catch up on my sleep a little....

Good luck on wednesday!

Felix

[Say Again, Over!]

Hi Don,

Hm, just a second...biggrin.gif , you're saying because it's in the Old Testament and because that good book supplies context which is "evidence", that Creationism and it's political wing, ID, is somehow scientific, or did I misinterpret here?

You did!

I was referring to one's reading of the Bible but not really in the context of Creation or ID. I certainly understand how one, from language alone, cannot “get it” completely. Some truths simply transcend words.

Your discussion of the “interpretive gesture” is absolutely bang on. When examining a text or even a conversation, context and intent are key to understanding. What did the author want to say? What message did he try to convey?

So, I think my post was far below the philosophical level of yours. With “decent at grammar”, I was simply saying that the Bible can be read as a book using normal grammar, as opposed to a purely allegoric interpretation.

However, we are free to interpret the textual realities of our ancients. Some do this with less honesty and integrity than others, the purposes of which are always the same: To convince and persuade vice simply to keep the question open. The urgency to "just get at the nexus, the kernel of meaning so we "get it" is prevalent in all human activity but it is not necessary to enquiry and in fact can thwart good enquiry.

I agree with your statement on honesty. I think our best translations of the original Hebrew and greek were the ones where the meaning wasn’t imposed on the reader. The NIV is usually good at that in offering alternative translations in foot notes.

Back to freedom and determinism! Will you indeed play Bach with no mistake? I too believe you’re free to give it a go. Will you fly if you so chose? I believe your freedom is in the trying!... and reaping the consequences according to the height you tried it from!

The one freedom I wanted to emphasise was simply the one of loving God or not. It's easy outside of that to wonder if we're really free at all. To use your line of thought: the rest of the freedom question should probably be “left open”.

If all this is slightly confusing or if it feels entirely irrelevant itself, I think that is quite natural. Such positing actually gives rise to anger in some people and impatience in not a few with whom such an approach is discussed.

Not at all! As an amateur (and I do mean that) philosopher, I appreciate that a conversation is never really finished.

As to the rest of our discussion on origins, Greg summed up my position better in one post than I have in half a dozen

Enjoy your evening!

Felix

[GDR]

Do you suppose that's what Defcon was getting at? ...that's a little different than saying something doesn't exist though, isn't it?... obviously there's an acknowledgement of the existence of atomic matter ... and of the particles that make up atoms, by the notion of studying them in the first place... no?

I humbly suggest that particular bit of science is flawed. Clearly everything is not nothing. You can't study nothing... bit of a paradox isn't it? You can't accept a conclusion that you know cannot be the case, so you'd have to suspend any conclusion pending further analysis... and more data... ...No?

Someone took a wrong turn at Albuquerque. ...probably spent too much time getting lost in the math...

...or not?

None of what I'd so far come across has suggested everything is nothing (nor words to that effect)... I thought the general notion these days was M theory was the best existing theory and that we need to find "sparticles" and "gravitons" in colliders to prove it...

Hi Mitch

In my view it's yes and no. (Gad, now I'm starting to sound like a liberal. )

What do we mean by something. Does something have to have physical dimension in order to be something? Is an idea something?

When the writer said that "everything is nothing", I understood that to mean that if every bit of matter in the universe were broken down to its smallest parts, (particles), we would find that those particles have no physical dimensions and are made of of information and/or energy as near as we can tell. (At least that seems to be the general consensus as near as I can tell.)

One thing for sure though - even a cursory reading on QM will show us that nothing is at it seems.

Cheers

Greg

[Mitch Cronin]

Hi Greg.

Some thoughts...

I understand some string theorists admit they're in the realm of philosophy, since so much of their "science" can't be tested...

I've been "attending" a series of lectures, online through i-tunes, called "Introductory Astronomy"... Each lecture is about 50 minutes long, and there are, I think, 23 of them so far (another comes today)... They're given by Dr. Robert Nemiroff at Michigan Tech. (he's one of the guys who puts up the APOD's)...

Anyway, he says zero is just a number they like to use when something is too small to measure... -or, meaning so infinitesimally small, for all intents and purposes, calling it 0 will work. ...like the size of an electron for example.. "every time we try to measure it, it's smaller than that!..so we call it zero"

Of whether strings are something..: I'd say the vibration is something, the energy is something, certainly it's next higher assembly is a something, and is at least the sum of it's parts....

But an idea itself is more difficult. Though it took energy to concieve, it is neither the creator of a "next higher assembly", nor even a sub-assembly of that. It's only a reflection of the energy it took to create... but then as a reflection it contains the image of the initial energy... Maybe that's where massless particles play?

...As bizarre as it sounds to the uneducated ear [mine!], Astronomy - at least partly a study of things R E A L L Y B I G out in the universe (the biggest "thing" in our universe being a "supercluster" of galaxies), is evidently closely related and intertwined with things really really tiny! ...

For instance, some cosmologists are of the opinion that black holes are "singularities" and that our universe exploded out of a singularity.... ( Nemiroff says he prefers the notion of "really small" vs. a single point) Some think the "cosmic microwave background radiation" may contain detectable imprints of strings that expanded with the universe ...and any attempt to study the big bang event involves a time scale that's almost insane! Book-loads on the periods (plural) when the universe was less than a second old!, and then the next 13.7 billion years of comparatively boring galaxy interaction, star birth and death, first generation stars making the elements for second, and then third generation stars like our sun and our planet....

Working backwards toward zero they have to give up at 10 to the minus 43

(0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001) of a second [that's the smallest -anything- I've ever come across that's ever had any meaning at all], as I'm sure you know, because from there [From There?!?] the math of quantum physics won't work. They say it "breaks down"....

No wonder so many people believe in God!

...yet, string theory holds out a hope that it will explain it all.

...I can't even approach the math involved with this stuff with a straight face... not even close!.. But I think most of us can grasp the concepts... So to consider the ridiculously small strings and branes making up the smallest of particles that make up the ridiculously tiny particles that make up atoms, etc... I think we can do that... but to understand how they come up with mathematical equations that tell these stories of the different dimensions needed to validate their theories (is 11 the final count for the M theory?) and the math that tells of strings and branes vibrating out their specific vibrations to create the things they create?

All of that math is far beyond me, but I love the stories it tells! It's intriguing to think of the possible implications for mankind, if we ever get near to a thorough understanding of all of the physics of the universe. ...or even just a better understanding... When you consider how far our collective knowledge has come in just the past century, it's not inconceivable that we'd be able to accomplish much of what we might consider impossible today. ...

Cheers,

Mitch

[DEFCON]

Mitch

"Do you suppose that's what Defcon was getting at? ...that's a little different than saying something doesn't exist though, isn't it?... obviously there's an acknowledgement of the existence of atomic matter ... and of the particles that make up atoms, by the notion of studying them in the first place... no?"

Greg provided an eloquent answer to the question. I was attempting to motivate you to find it yourself. Apparently, you're not there yet as might be evidenced through your posts?

“I humbly suggest that particular bit of science is flawed. Clearly everything is not nothing. You can't study nothing... bit of a paradox isn't it? You can't accept a conclusion that you know cannot be the case, so you'd have to suspend any conclusion pending further analysis... and more data... ...No?

Someone took a wrong turn at Albuquerque. ...probably spent too much time getting lost in the math...

...or not?

None of what I'd so far come across has suggested everything is nothing (nor words to that effect)... I thought the general notion these days was M theory was the best existing theory and that we need to find "sparticles" and "gravitons" in colliders to prove it...”

Energy is not “nothing”. Nothing might be taken to mean, nothing observable vis a vis the “five senses”.

Earlier, I described your “keyboard” as a “manifestation” of energy and it is only “perceived” as said keyboard by you, the “OBSERVER” (special meaning).

The jury actually remains out on the composition of a string. Some consider the string as a yet undefined form of vibrating “pure” energy, and others, a bit of “space/time”. The former is the more generally accepted view.

For greater clarity; “String Theory” is not the final model. “Brane Theory” is the present edge.

String Theory provided for ten dimensions. Although on the correct track, the model also broke down at the end of the day. Brane Theory now envisions eleven dimensions, which solves the dilemma of the “singularity” by allowing theoretical science to pass through the event and “see” the other side. This new approach eliminates the crash of physical law and finally binds both classical models of physics.

I think the LHC will go some distance in resolving certain principles, but the energy levels at which the Collider will operate are probably not yet high enough to produce conclusive data regarding the Higgs Boson. It’s more likely the machine will produce data in support of Higgs Theory as well as other unexpected findings. The new results may then allow science an opportunity to design “new” experiments that will provide proof for some aspects of the “Theory of Everything”?

From my perspective, GOD can be found within the framework of Brane Theory.

[handyman]

There are many here that have a dislike, some even hatred of religion. They're quick to quote horrible events in history to justify their own feelings against religion.

Unfortunately, humans are created with a void in their soul or inner being. This void is sometimes filled with scientific jargon and evidence created by man. However, as much as they try, the void is never satisfied. God fills that void and this is something incomprehensible unless you have it yourself.

Remember, religion is not God but just man's interpretation or method of serving God.

[Mitch Cronin]

Apparently, you're not there yet as might be evidenced through your posts?

Well golly gee Defcon, I'm trying, but you know... I guess I just haven't got the smarts to keep up with you...

[Seeker]

There are many here that have a dislike, some even hatred of religion.  They're quick to quote horrible events in history to justify their own feelings against religion.

Unfortunately, humans are created with a void in their soul or inner being.  This void is sometimes filled with scientific jargon and evidence created by man.  However, as much as they try, the void is never satisfied.  God fills that void and this is something incomprehensible unless you have it yourself. 

Remember, religion is not God but just man's interpretation or method of serving God. 

Don't you believe that the Bible is the literal word of God? How can quoting from it be an "interpretation" or justification of some hatred toward religion?

So when some priest tells me to grab a sword and storm Meccah that's just man's interpretation of what God really wants but the other stuff the same priest tells me about the 10 Commandments is supposed to taken as truth? How can I tell which is which?

[DEFCON]

"Well golly gee Defcon, I'm trying, but you know... I guess I just haven't got the smarts to keep up with you..."

I guess not?

[DEFCON]

Seeker

The Bible is an interesting book of & from history.

Prior to the existence of the written word, the stories of the Bible were only a few of many created and passed on through tribal lore, song and dance. Ultimately, it was men that decided which of those stories would survive to form the body of the Bible.

As far as I know, no document or other permanent record exists that explains the rational behind the decision to support the inclusion of one book over another? That is, there’s no record other than the claim, men under the influence of the divine hand of God created the Bible? The decree necessitating the "literal" interpretation of the bible etc came from men as well, not our God.

I share in your skepticism regarding the “word”.

[Seeker]

DEFCON;

I just find it interesting that the Bible can be deemed, by those who believe, to be "The True and Literal Word of God" when it suits some purpose or just an imperfect metaphor when it doesn't.

[handyman]

DEFCON;

I just find it interesting that the Bible can be deemed, by those who believe, to be "The True and Literal Word of God" when it suits some purpose or just an imperfect metaphor when it doesn't.

The best think and the only answer for many is to just read it yourself and you will know in your heart what to take literally or not.

Remember, it was written long ago during different times and it must be adapted through interpretations for modern mankind.

[Seeker]

The best think and the only answer for many is to just read it yourself and you will know in your heart what to take literally or not.

Remember, it was written long ago during different times and it must be adapted through interpretations for modern mankind.

So I can just read it, take what I like and discard the rest? And the meaning changes depending on when it's read? It doesn't mean the same thing now as it did when it was written, it isn't meant to be literal and I'm free to make my own interpretations? This sure doesn't sound like what the guy on TV has been saying all these years.

[Canus Chinookus]

You had better interpret it literally or else you'll be turned into a pillar of salt or drowned in a great flood.

[GDR]

I just find it interesting that the Bible can be deemed, by those who believe, to be "The True and Literal Word of God" when it suits some purpose or just an imperfect metaphor when it doesn't.

Hi Seeker

In a lot of ways it's not that hard. I believe that the creation story in Genesis contains the truth. Do I believe it should be read like a newspaper? No. Jesus told the story of the Good Samaritan. I believe that the message is true but I don't believe it actually happened that way.

Here is a quote from C.S. Lewis which I'm sure I've posted before.

Just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God’s becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth is ... a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other peoples, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology – the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truths, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical.

Miracles Ch 15 CS Lewis

The focus of the Christian should be to remove the focus from the self. Two catch phrases from the sixties were, "lookin' out for number one" and "if it feels good do it". Contrast this with this quote from the book of Matthew - "In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets".

[Timothy]

Good morning Seeker.

There are several literary forms in the Bible and, in my opinion and that of my church, these must be taken ino account when reading the Bible. It is a book, or rather a collection of books, that must be studied and interpreted as to just what a particular passage means. Jesus spoke in parables on many occassions and, while He used these stories to make a point, some of them should not be taken literally. That's why men and women have devoted their lives to studying the Bible. There are many commentaries on the Bible and if one wants to understand this work some extra reading is required. The Bible cannot be read as a novel.

I've read the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation and was as disgusted as anyone at the amount of "blood and guts" in the Old Testament. However, there were also some very beautiful stories as well as a great deal of wisdom. The tone of the New Testament is entirely different and we have such stories as the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son and the many miracles of Jesus. We also have the crucifixion.

There is much to be gained through a study of the Bible, but the key word here is "study".

All the best.

Timothy

[Seeker]

Hi Seeker

In a lot of ways it's not that hard. I believe that the creation story in Genesis contains the truth. Do I believe it should be read like a newspaper? No. Jesus told the story of the Good Samaritan. I believe that the message is true but I don't believe it actually happened that way.

Here is a quote from C.S. Lewis which I'm sure I've posted before.

Just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God’s becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth is ... a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other peoples, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology – the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truths, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical.

Miracles Ch 15 CS Lewis

The focus of the Christian should be to remove the focus from the self. Two catch phrases from the sixties were, "lookin' out for number one" and "if it feels good do it". Contrast this with this quote from the book of Matthew - "In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets".

Hi Greg;

It's good to talk to you again. We've had a similar discussion before and I remember how you feel about this but someone in this thread had mentioned that they actually believe in the seven day creation story along with Earth actually being only 6000 years old. I have met many people who believe in the literal meaning of everything that they read in the Bible and that's why I'm trying to pin down handyman and Felix on what it is that they actually believe; the Bible as a metaphor - yeah, I can accept that, but the Bible as the Literal word of God - nope, don't buy that. I can accept the idea of a God who created the universe and who is no longer active or present - the Deism belief system. I can accept the idea of God as the unifying force that ties the universe together. I don't personally believe either of these but can accept how they might make existence more easily understood by some people.

The Bible has a lot of good in it - you could spend a long time sifting out all the good ideas and come up with a considerable pile but there is a whole lot of evil in the bible too and, contrary to what has been stated by others here, I don't think you can credit God with all the good and man with all the evil. Either you can believe that man is a creation of God or that God is a creation of man - for me it just makes more sense that man created God (in his image). It's a bit of a shell game either way.

[Seeker]

Good morning Seeker.

There are several literary forms in the Bible and, in my opinion and that of my church, these must be taken ino account when reading the Bible. It is a book, or rather a collection of books, that must be studied and interpreted as to just what a particular passage means. Jesus spoke in parables on many occassions and, while He used these stories to make a point, some of them should not be taken literally. That's why men and women have devoted their lives to studying the Bible. There are many commentaries on the Bible and if one wants to understand this work some extra reading is required. The Bible cannot be read as a novel.

I've read the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation and was as disgusted as anyone at the amount of "blood and guts" in the Old Testament. However, there were also some very beautiful stories as well as a great deal of wisdom. The tone of the New Testament is entirely different and we have such stories as the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son and the many miracles of Jesus. We also have the crucifixion.

There is much to be gained through a study of the Bible, but the key word here is "study".

All the best.

Timothy

Hi Timothy;

Sorry, that's just too loose for me. What you saying is that the whole Bible is open to interpretation depending on who is reading it and when they are reading it - sometimes it's literal and sometimes it's a metaphor. How can you base anything on this when the meaning shifts so easily? I could spend a lifetime reading and studying it but still come up with different meaning than you do.

[Don Hudson]

And what are we to make of the hundreds of creation mythologies from other cultures which existed before and during and after the time of Christ within indigenous cultures entirely separate from Europe? Are they any less valid than the Holy Bible? If so, why? (Remember, indigenous peoples never knew that they were "indigenous"...that's our "hermeneutics"!).

[GDR]

I can accept the idea of a God who created the universe and who is no longer active or present - the Deism belief system. I can accept the idea of God as the unifying force that ties the universe together. I don't personally believe either of these but can accept how they might make existence more easily understood by some people.

I assume by the fact that you use the name "seeker" because you are one, which puts us both in the same camp. We are both seeking truth. Why on earth we would even bother? Why do we even bother to have these discussions? There is something about us that wants to know more than where we can obtain food and sex. We have a thirst to acquire knowledge about pretty much everything that pertains to our existence.

I contend that if we were just beings that came into existence by some very fortunate set of physical circumstances, we wouldn't have this thirst for knowledge.

I believe that this is an indication that there is something about our consciousness that transcends our physical existence. If I'm correct in this it means that there is something beyond the physical that we know.

I also believe that the fact that this world is so incredibly fine tuned for our existence suggest that there is an external intelligence responsible for our existence.

If I'm correct this far we now have a creator and his creation and we're part of it. We also have a curiosity that drives us to try and learn more about both the creator and the creation.

If all this is correct then I can't envision a creator that would then just disappear and leave us with an impossible search. I also can't accept the idea that after having created all of this that he would cease to care about it. Why bother with it at all if you are going to create sentient beings just to abandon the whole project?

Yes I believe that we can learn about our creator through reading the Bible but I also believe that we can learn about God through the natural sciences, in the same way that we can learn about an artist by the work that he/she creates. I believe that God created us all to be “seekers”.

[GDR]

And what are we to make of the hundreds of creation mythologies from other cultures which existed before and during and after the time of Christ within indigenous cultures entirely separate from Europe? Are they any less valid than the Holy Bible? If so, why? (Remember, indigenous peoples never knew that they were "indigenous"...that's our "hermeneutics"!).

The primary message of the creation stories in Genesis is that we are created beings and that there is a creator. That as far as I know is pretty consistent with all of the of the ancient creation mythologies.

Certainly Genesis carries on from there and tells us that we live with a creator who is present in our existence in a way that is different from other mythologies. I think that the way to tell which one is valid is to examine the message. The so-called pagan mythologies all involved gods that exhibited the most carnal characteristics of mankind whereas the Hebrew mythologies talk of loving your neighbour.

I also don't discount the idea that God has influenced many people of other faith traditions such as the original Buddah and Ghandi. Their message was essentially the same as what Jesus preached.

In the end though it isn't about validity it's about truth, and spiritual truths can't be proven so we are back to faith. We all have faith in something even if it is only in ourselves.

[deicer]

A further talking point...

Newsweek Article

[handyman]

A further talking point...

Newsweek Article

Another hand-grenade?

[deicer]

Not a handgrenade, but if a conversation is open to acceptance, isn't this a modern day topic worthy of polite discussion?

Iceman