Disturbing Passage from The Bible

01/04/2007 10:47:32 AM · #226

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

It will be interesting to see how this theory stands the test of time ...

Groan!! :-)

01/04/2007 10:47:54 AM · #227

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

No less a modern scientific luminary than Albert Einstein found it inconceivable that there was not a God; and surely he was an appreciater of the beauty & intricacy of creation.

R.

Einstein - one of the oft-misquoted on his personal beliefs.

Quick search for the quotes:

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

01/04/2007 10:49:09 AM · #228

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by theSaj:
So if you look at the intent to prevent such practices and the spread of deadly diseases. Then one could understand.

Agreed - it provides a practical guide to survival. Very interesting from a historical perspective.

As a related aside, I have had many friends who bordered on ridiculing Jews for their religion's dietary restrictions. When I pointed out to these friends how forward-thinking Jewish rules were (trichinosis in cloven-hoofed beasts, serious bacterial contamination in shellfish [particularly in a time of no sewers, with human excrement being dumped directly into rivers and other bodies of water], and so forth), they never fail;ed to be amazed, and those who were active Christians began to look at the Old Testament with entirely different eyes.

R.

01/04/2007 10:49:48 AM · #229

Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
It will be interesting to see how this theory stands the test of time ...

Groan!! :-)

Okay - I believe that this is true, and will defend its truth regardless of any subsequent evidence to the contrary...

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

01/04/2007 10:51:30 AM · #230

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No less a modern scientific luminary than Albert Einstein found it inconceivable that there was not a God; and surely he was an appreciater of the beauty & intricacy of creation.

R.

Einstein - one of the oft-misquoted on his personal beliefs.

Quick search for the quotes:

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

I never said, nor even implied, that Einstein believed in a "personal God".

R.

theSaj

Canon EOS-20D

01/04/2007 10:58:06 AM · #231

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

However, the more serious issue is the desire to explore and find out more: if there is something about nature that is not understood, my instinct is to (encourage others more qualified to) find out more, obtain a better understanding, perhaps revisit previous understanding and refine it. Presumably a creationist does not feel the same desire, given the soporific explanation that there is no need to enquire "because god made it so", and perhaps "and who are we to question god?".

This is really prejudiced presumption without basis historically or factually. Sure, there are stupid religious people who are like "God made it that's good enough for me." But their are just as many apathetic atheists who are like "it's there that's good enough for me". Or never even give it a thought regardless.

That said, I looked up at the sky and cursed twice this week. For the lazinessness of mankind and lack of curiosity.

See your assumption is the polar opposite of me. I look into the sky and see the multitude of stars and believe the Creator made those for us to explore, to enjoy, etc. The Scriptures say "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth". I've always believed that if the fall had not been. Then after the completion of that we'd have been told now go out to all those other worlds.

I look up into space and think what beauty and curiosities are there to discover. Here we have the Grand Canyon...out there might be planets with canyons bigger than the earth. On Mars there is a mountain nigh the size of Texas. For years I've wanted to walk on Mars. Even colonize Mars. I had hoped as a child I might get that chance. Sadly, many don't care about discovery or dreams. Just the hear and now.

LegalBeagle, I really encourage you to try to open your mind a bit more and drop some of your prejudices. Many things I've seen you state as assumptions are really poor correllations to a mere handful at best and seldom limited to just religious.

Throughout history a great many of our famed discoverers have been religious and pious men. Many launched onto those paths of discovery because of their understanding and belief of God.

I for one, believe that curiosity is an inherent trait of mankind. I believe our gifts of imagination and creativity are a reflection of being made in God's image. You do not. I do not think that either understanding precludes the use of imagination or the curiosity to discover. We might attribute that aspect of our nature to different sources...but it is still an aspect of our nature. Just as the fact that mankind can be both amazingly noble and hideously ignoble. Man will jump into the danger of an oncoming subway to save his fellow man even when he knows not the other's name. And at the same time will kill his fellow name for a cause be it a morsel of bread or some dogmatic ideology.

01/04/2007 10:58:35 AM · #232

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

No less a modern scientific luminary than Albert Einstein found it inconceivable that there was not a God; and surely he was an appreciater of the beauty & intricacy of creation.

R.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I never said, nor even implied, that Einstein believed in a "personal God".

R.

It was certainly implied in your statement. Einstein is using the word "god" to signify something outside religious parlance. He clearly does not find it inconceivable that there was no god - merely that the harmony which he identifies is admirable to a god-like degree.

01/04/2007 11:04:26 AM · #233

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

The great ages of discovery were profoundly religious times, far more so than what we have now.

The point is not my major one - I don't wish to belabour it (I accept that there are/have been religious scientists).

However, I believe that the answer to your point lies in this quote. I don't have my sources to hand, but there are significant indications that many key scientists in history did not believe in god (certainly not in the personal sense). However, the religious nature of the times required that certain religious pleasantries be observed (cf Copernicus).

Edit: to add, the more pernicious side to this issue relates to the teaching of ID - why bother understanding evolution from the evidence around us, when we can answer every question with an "intelligent designer". It is an entirely non-constructive theory that encourages the denigration of hard-won and life improving science.

Message edited by author 2007-01-04 11:09:38.

01/04/2007 11:11:32 AM · #234

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The great ages of discovery were profoundly religious times, far more so than what we have now.

The point is not my major one - I don't wish to belabour it (I accept that there are/have been religious scientists).

However, I believe that the answer to your point lies in this quote. I don't have my sources to hand, but there are significant indications that many key scientists in history did not believe in god (certainly not in the personal sense). However, the religious nature of the times required that certain religious pleasantries be observed (cf Copernicus).

So it's your contention (if I understand correctly) that in general, throughout history, the greatest scientific advances have come from scientists who, for their time, were skeptics or unbelievers, whatever the forced public mask? In the broader sense, it's your contention that belief in a Creator stifles one's sense of wonder at the glory of creation, the universe about us and all its intricate particulars? And that the primary "scientific motive" stems from a desire to expose/understand this intricacy?

R.

01/04/2007 11:24:55 AM · #235

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Not really - you have exaggerated my point. I think that teaching people that gaps in our understanding can be explained with the word "god" stifles curiosity.

I think that science promotes curiosity. I understand that the strength of religious belief in US scientists is very low compared to that of the general populace. The strength of belief is also inversely proportional to the level of acclaim received by the scientist. I do not know which is cause and effect, but it appears to be true that better scientists have fewer religious beliefs.

As I edited to add (and which you may not have seen), this is predominantly an issue for concern over the teaching of ID - my original post on what I would lose as a believer was slightly tongue in cheek.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/04/2007 11:32:35 AM · #236

Originally posted by theSaj:

See your assumption is the polar opposite of me. I look into the sky and see the multitude of stars and believe the Creator made those for us to explore, to enjoy, etc.

So, would you be interested in finding out how those stars, planets, mountains, canyons etc came to be? Or would the fact that the Creator made them for you be sufficient?

If you would go there to obtain a better understanding of universal physics and geology, I could relate to that. If you want to go in order to marvel at the Creator's works, then that is what I object to.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/04/2007 11:51:33 AM · #237

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

He was just making the point that presenting evidence that conflicts with the popular belief of those in power has certain risks, so even if prominent scientists didn't personally believe in the popular concept of God, they still had to be "politically correct." Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein and others had to tread lightly around the issue of religion (and not always succesfully). I personally have a difficult time imagining anyone with a reasonable understanding of astronomy or paleontology believing in Creation over evolution, yet the Vatican employs scientists at its own observatory, so it's apparent that some do.

01/04/2007 12:06:15 PM · #238

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

So, would you be interested in finding out how those stars, planets, mountains, canyons etc came to be? Or would the fact that the Creator made them for you be sufficient?

Why does it have to be so black and white? i.e. implying that either the Creator created nothing, or he created everything.

What if the Creator was the initial 'cause' of the Big Bang, setting the natural laws in motion, effectively creating a recipe for the eventual creation of life, and then letting physics do its thing...

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/04/2007 12:06:54 PM · #239

Originally posted by scalvert:

I personally have a difficult time imagining anyone with a reasonable understanding of astronomy or paleontology believing in Creation over evolution, yet the Vatican employs scientists at its own observatory, so it's apparent that some do.

Some did not - but have been silenced!

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/04/2007 12:12:52 PM · #240

Originally posted by jhonan:

What if the Creator was the initial 'cause' of the Big Bang, setting the natural laws in motion, effectively creating a recipe for the eventual creation of life, and then letting physics do its thing...

See my earlier post. There are only two possible choices for the universe before the Big Bang- either nothing existed or something existed. If nothing existed, then by definition there couldn't have been a creator to set things in motion. If a creator had always existed, then you are claiming the possiblity that things can always have existed, and there's no reason that time, space and energy couldn't have been among them.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/04/2007 12:22:53 PM · #241

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So it's your contention (if I understand correctly) that in general, throughout history, the greatest scientific advances have come from scientists who, for their time, were skeptics or unbelievers, whatever the forced public mask?

He was just making the point that presenting evidence that conflicts with the popular belief of those in power has certain risks, so even if prominent scientists didn't personally believe in the popular concept of God, they still had to be "politically correct." Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein and others had to tread lightly around the issue of religion (and not always succesfully). I personally have a difficult time imagining anyone with a reasonable understanding of astronomy or paleontology believing in Creation over evolution, yet the Vatican employs scientists at its own observatory, so it's apparent that some do.

This hasn't really changed much in modern times either. The best way to get your funding cut is to annoy the people paying for the funding. While they don't tend to kill you any more, the research community is incredibly political. Religious influence in politics waxes and wanes. The current situation in the US wrt to various scientific issues is a prime example. intelligent design, global warming - there are plenty of what would seem to be superficially scientific issues that are funded and politicised.

Do you think the scientists are immune to pressure, due to some divine intervention ? :)

01/04/2007 12:26:28 PM · #242

Originally posted by jhonan:

Given that we have no information about what this god might be, it would be an odd thing to believe in such a god in any meaningful way.

If you believe in some force that started the events then walked away, then that is very different from the god of mainstream religion. The absence of interaction with the universe would make such a god irrelevant to its operation.

If this is all that "god" did, you would have to wonder (other than answering in a simplistic and easily digestible manner the question "why did the big bang happen?") why would anyone persist with such a belief? Indeed, such a force would rarely be regarded within the usual meaning of "god".

It is the more common attributes applied to "god" that create difficulty.

Message edited by author 2007-01-04 12:27:32.

01/04/2007 12:28:55 PM · #243

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by jhonan:
What if the Creator was the initial 'cause' of the Big Bang, setting the natural laws in motion, effectively creating a recipe for the eventual creation of life, and then letting physics do its thing...

See my earlier post. There are only two possible choices for the universe before the Big Bang- either nothing existed or something existed. If nothing existed, then by definition there couldn't have been a creator to set things in motion. If a creator had always existed, then you are claiming the possiblity that things can always have existed, and there's no reason that time, space and energy couldn't have been among them.

Proton decay means the matter that makes up the Universe can only exist for a finite time. However, there's no reason that the energy that makes up the Universe could not have always existed in some form.

Assuming a Creator is setting things in motion with a Big Bang, or 'Big Bangs' the only thing that needs to have existed forever is the energy state, and something to create the Big Bang(s). Time and space are created when each Big Bang happens.

So, wait another 10^1000 years or so, the energy in the current Universe has dispersed, so eventually the next Big Bang happens.

It may or may not work. Perhaps the next time around the 'creator' gets the physics wrong so that atoms don't stick together properly. Or perhaps it works a treat and we're living in galaxies where every planet is full of peace-loving humanoids who all love him. Or perhaps he decides to give recipe 1928392 another go, and we end up back exactly where we are right now for the trillionth time having this exact discussion.

Groundhog day.... :-)

Message edited by author 2007-01-04 12:39:58.

01/04/2007 12:31:12 PM · #244

Originally posted by jhonan:

Proton decay means the matter that makes up the Universe can only exist for a finite time. However, there's no reason that the energy that makes up the Universe could not have always existed in some form.

May want to make the edit indicated above in boldface... :-)

R.

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM for Canon

01/04/2007 12:40:38 PM · #245

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by jhonan:

Proton decay means the matter that makes up the Universe can only exist for a finite time. However, there's no reason that the energy that makes up the Universe could not have always existed in some form.

May want to make the edit indicated above in boldface... :-)

R.

Thanks

james_so

Canon EOS 77D

01/04/2007 12:41:32 PM · #246

Originally posted by jhonan:

Proton decay means the matter that makes up the Universe can only exist for a finite time.

Proton decay is a theory it has never been witnessed and as such it cannot 'mean' anything.

01/04/2007 12:46:06 PM · #247

Originally posted by jhonan:

Assuming a Creator is setting things in motion with a Big Bang, or 'Big Bangs' the only thing that needs to have existed forever is the energy state, and something to create the Big Bang(s). Time and space are created when each Big Bang happens.

While interesting, the science of what might happen outside the universe's expansion and collapse is enormously speculative. And "god" is only one of a multitude of possible explanations (and incidentally the one that is easiest to grasp). What happens outside/before/after the universe, however, must be of relatively little concern to us compared to what happens inside it.

01/04/2007 12:46:28 PM · #248

Originally posted by james_so:

Originally posted by jhonan:

Proton decay means the matter that makes up the Universe can only exist for a finite time.

Proton decay is a theory it has never been witnessed and as such it cannot 'mean' anything.

My whole post was a theory / hypothesis. I should have said 'based on the theory of proton decay...'

But I'm also suggestting the theory of multiple big bangs, and hinting at multiple instances of the current universe. And who knows, parallel universes could fit into that model quite nicely as well... All theory.