Science and Religion - Page 16 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-21-2013, 09:42 PM   #226
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:25 PM
Did anyone else catch "Through the Wormhole" last night? It was about viewing the universe as one living organism.
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 09:46 PM   #227
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 55,045
Local Time: 09:25 AM
I think I watched it on a plane once. I would have loved it, I'm sure, but I can't remember it.
__________________

__________________
cobl04 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 09:56 PM   #228
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 06:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cactus Annie View Post
Very good. Now is someone going to start a thread about History and Mathematics? How about Linguistics and Geography?
I'm definitely looking to start a history/archaeology thread because I love that stuff as much as JT loves science. I just need a good story to start it off with.

Oh hell, why not just do it?
__________________
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2013, 10:40 AM   #229
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:25 PM
We were talking about this earlier in the thread (watch the Susskind video).

Universe Really Is a Hologram According to New Simulations

Quote:
A team of physicists has provided some of the clearest evidence yet that our Universe could be just one big projection...


The mathematically intricate world of strings, which exist in nine dimensions of space plus one of time, would be merely a hologram: the real action would play out in a simpler, flatter cosmos where there is no gravity....

“They have numerically confirmed, perhaps for the first time, something we were fairly sure had to be true, but was still a conjecture—namely that the thermodynamics of certain black holes can be reproduced from a lower-dimensional universe,” says Leonard Susskind, a theoretical physicist at Stanford University in California who was among the first theoreticians to explore the idea of holographic universes.
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2013, 11:15 PM   #230
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:25 AM
The idea that science and religion can be complimentary still seems misplaced to me. Obviously people can be religious and accept scientific explanations about the world but it seems that religious thinking is not a hinderance at best because people are great at compartmentalising their thoughts (which we all do). This is all well and good until there are subjects where the a priori religious belief requires something that the science doesn't provide evidence and bad assumptions are made.

Theistic evolution is a nice example of this. The processes that drive evolution which have been uncovered through scientific investigation appear to be unguided (at the level of mutation it looks random and selection itself is without any goals). Theistic evolution (or evolutionary creationism) wants to salvage the idea of a creator with us in mind by asserting an imperceptible God of the Gaps. When Ken Miller starts introducing a God that jigs with mutations over the course of natural history to ultimately lead to humans he's making a pseudoscientific claim. Having an intelligent designer that's intervening in a way that's indistinguishable from explicable natural processes just adds a layer of untestable complication for no good reason. It also reopens the questions of natural evil that come along with an interventionist God. I think these are bad assumptions (made by smart people) and I don't think they would be made without an earlier commitment to the idea of a creator.

/Wandering into town post
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2013, 11:20 PM   #231
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:25 PM




I'm too agitated to read your post. I will come back later.
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2013, 12:34 PM   #232
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
The idea that science and religion can be complimentary still seems misplaced to me. Obviously people can be religious and accept scientific explanations about the world but it seems that religious thinking is not a hinderance at best because people are great at compartmentalising their thoughts (which we all do). This is all well and good until there are subjects where the a priori religious belief requires something that the science doesn't provide evidence and bad assumptions are made.

Theistic evolution is a nice example of this. The processes that drive evolution which have been uncovered through scientific investigation appear to be unguided (at the level of mutation it looks random and selection itself is without any goals). Theistic evolution (or evolutionary creationism) wants to salvage the idea of a creator with us in mind by asserting an imperceptible God of the Gaps. When Ken Miller starts introducing a God that jigs with mutations over the course of natural history to ultimately lead to humans he's making a pseudoscientific claim. Having an intelligent designer that's intervening in a way that's indistinguishable from explicable natural processes just adds a layer of untestable complication for no good reason. It also reopens the questions of natural evil that come along with an interventionist God. I think these are bad assumptions (made by smart people) and I don't think they would be made without an earlier commitment to the idea of a creator.

/Wandering into town post
Hey! Glad to hear from you!!! I hope all is well!!!

I've come to agree with what you've been saying here over the years. I agree that science and scientific thinking are generally not compatible with religious faith.

Yet - I have both in my mental "toolbox." Trying to use science to "prove" God is basically useless, as Immanuel Kant demonstrated a few hundred years ago. So - trying to insert "God" into something like evolution as serious scientific research is not going to go far. However - that doesn't mean that it isn't safe to discuss in a non-scientific way the nature of the God and his role in the universe (if he has one). Not in order to prove anything - just to simply play the game, "I wonder if..."

To me, theology/philosophy and science live on a sliding scale. If one end of the scale is white (science) and the other end is black (theology/philosophy) the slider sometimes (especially in quantum mechanics and astrophysics) enters into a very grey area. And I love that place!
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2013, 01:48 PM   #233
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 06:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
To me, theology/philosophy and science live on a sliding scale. If one end of the scale is white (science) and the other end is black (theology/philosophy) the slider sometimes (especially in quantum mechanics and astrophysics) enters into a very grey area. And I love that place!
The thing that science and theology have in common is that there is no solid answer. Yes, some believe science has the absolute answers and some would say their version of theology is the absolute truth. But many would say there is no absolute in either. I mean, how we see evolution keeps changing. Look at the recent reports of human bones found that are older than Lucy. Plus, no one knows where the universe ends or begins, if it does. Same with God. There have been theologians throughout history who have said that anyone who claims to know who or what God is does not know Him at all.

Science and theology have that big "if" going on, so there's where they are compatible.
__________________
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2013, 03:26 PM   #234
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:25 PM
Science is like Ivory soap, it is 99% pure.

Religion is 99% nonsense (crap)

if one wants to get clean and have good hygiene
to say that both are not 100 pure, therefore, one is not better is a poor argument.
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2013, 10:44 PM   #235
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
Science is like Ivory soap, it is 99% pure.

Religion is 99% nonsense (crap)

if one wants to get clean and have good hygiene
to say that both are not 100 pure, therefore, one is not better is a poor argument.
Well - so far at least - science hasn't been able to tackle some of the big questions like "Why are we here? What' s the purpose of my life? What happens after death?"

This is an area that is quite hospitable to theology and philosophy.
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2013, 10:50 PM   #236
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 06:25 PM
Of course if there is no why....(why is a coyote here, why is a lightning bug?--they serve their purposes but pose no cosmic question)....if we have no other purpose than procreation or in some other way nurturing the young....if nothing happens after death...
Then the big questions just sputter with ego diminishing silence if we are dependent on a big answer.

And we are left with creating our own purpose that does not interest the universe.

But, hell, yeah, I love the what if discussions. And I can embrace them whether or not I believe them. I am flexible on there being a big answer. I always found "what if" healthy thought for the imagination.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2013, 12:52 AM   #237
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearl View Post
Yes, some believe science has the absolute answers and some would say their version of theology is the absolute truth. .
It's been said before...only a Sith deals in absolutes.
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2014, 02:06 AM   #238
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:25 PM
It is hard to be a skeptic with irrefutable proof like this

'Hand of God' spotted by NASA space telescope | Fox News
__________________

__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com