Science and Religion

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
lol - here's some Scripture that I think captures the idea of entropy without the benefit of a modern understanding of physics...

Lift up your eyes to the heavens, look at the earth beneath; the heavens will vanish like smoke, the earth will wear out like a garment and its inhabitants die like flies. But my salvation will last forever, my righteousness will never fail. - Isaiah 51:6

the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay. - Romans 8:21

There's also a reference to God as the source of the universe expanding (Dark Energy?)

This is what God the LORD says - the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out - Isaiah 42:5

Now - I'm not mistaking the Bible for a science book. I actually use these verses to help other Christians understand that theology and science do not cancel each other out.

These are poetic, observation verses to help us understand the vastness and wonder of the universe - and it also describes it is in a state of slow decay (Entropy). I think that's sort of cool.
 
You know I think this thread has inspired to prepare to take the undergrad Quantum Physics track at MIT OCW. I've watched the Stanford lectures, but I didn't do any of the assignments.

I'm going to take refresher classes in Calculus and Differential Equations before I do.

I was an MIS/English major and then an MBA, but I want to get into the math instead of just reading their conclusion and watching their awesome seminars.

The way I see it - we're about the reverse the aging process within 10-15 years - combined with breakthroughs in nootropics and BCI's - starting off my Theoretical Physics education at the tender age of 43 shouldn't be an issue. Because by the time I'm ready to make an impact and discover the essence of Dark Energy, I'll be a 22 year old genius with wisdom far beyond his years...
 
How do you, as a believer, see the line between such (potential) scientific advances and 'playing God'? Does it depend on the subject?

For the most part I don't see scientific advancements as a threat to God, or my faith. Since I accept that God is ultimately sovereign - if he really wanted to stop our progress, he would (and he still might, but until he does - I say with press forward).

However, I do think there will be some serious issues to address if we continue our rapid technological progress. For instance - if we could live forever (or very extended lives) - then some evil person or system could in theory lock someone in a torture chamber for a million years. A literal Hell.

But I would personally welcome the chance for a radically extended life (provided it also came with youth and health). We live in a wonderful universe and I'd love to take a few billion years to explore it and maybe write some poetry on some distant moon. Maybe, when I'm bored some day in the way distant future - I'll surrender my "life" in this realm for my life in the next one.

How do you feel about things like Transhumanism? Can humans be trusted with such extreme tech?
 
How do you feel about things like Transhumanism? Can humans be trusted with such extreme tech?

Humans, in general, can't be trusted with anything that can be exploited for monetary or material gain. That sounds so cynical...but I believe it's true, in general. Transhumanism is not a subject I've given a ton of thought too but I basically see something in that vein as being inevitable, at least in terms of physical advancement. Given how superficial we are as a species. I would also suspect that unless the intellectual aspect is just as easy to 'acquire' it would lag behind just as it always has. Hope that made sense.
 
For the most part I don't see scientific advancements as a threat to God, or my faith. Since I accept that God is ultimately sovereign - if he really wanted to stop our progress, he would (and he still might, but until he does - I say with press forward).

However, I do think there will be some serious issues to address if we continue our rapid technological progress. For instance - if we could live forever (or very extended lives) - then some evil person or system could in theory lock someone in a torture chamber for a million years. A literal Hell.

But I would personally welcome the chance for a radically extended life (provided it also came with youth and health). We live in a wonderful universe and I'd love to take a few billion years to explore it and maybe write some poetry on some distant moon. Maybe, when I'm bored some day in the way distant future - I'll surrender my "life" in this realm for my life in the next one.

How do you feel about things like Transhumanism? Can humans be trusted with such extreme tech?

But what about the ethics with living for artificially extended lives? I'm aware that the argument could be made that we're currently living for artificially long periods of time, but if we're talking virtual immortality [there's an equation that says even if we can defend from 'natural' causes (cancer, heart disease, etc), 700 years is still the upper limit before probability catches up to us], are we not morally obligated to step out of the way for future generations? We're already stressing our natural resources as it is
 
scientism isn't a thing. it's one more made up word from the religious side in a long list of "I know you are but what am I" arguments. I'll place it in the cylindrical filing cabinet along with "atheism is a religion too" and "you need faith to believe in evolution"
 
-are we not morally obligated to step out of the way for future generations? We're already stressing our natural resources as it is

There are some assumptions I've made:


1) Technology such a molecular manufacturing, desalination, cheap solar, graphene, food printing, nanotechnology...etc will greatly reduce our reliance on natural resources and allow us to expand the earth's population.

2) Over the course of a few hundred years, that same technology will allow is to begin colonizing the moon, Mars, spaceships...etc.
 
There are some assumptions I've made:


1) Technology such a molecular manufacturing, desalination, cheap solar, graphene, food printing, nanotechnology...etc will greatly reduce our reliance on natural resources and allow us to expand the earth's population.

2) Over the course of a few hundred years, that same technology will allow is to begin colonizing the moon, Mars, spaceships...etc.

All these things need base 'building blocks' that will inevitably have to come from the environment. But for argument's sake, lets say they don't. Do we really need to populate the Earth with more people? The space alone comes at a great expense to the natural environment. Natural habitats and wild animals will pay the price.
Even if we do eventually expand out into the solar system, that's likely to be a slow and labourious process and will probably do little to curb the effects of monumental population explosion.

It's an interesting thought though. I imagine in a world where we're able to stave off death, they'd feel very sorry for us unfortunate folks who were unlucky enough to have been born before that technology was realized.

Oh, and congrats on the decision to go back and take more courses :up: that's awesome
 
I imagine in a world where we're able to stave off death, they'd feel very sorry for us unfortunate folks who were unlucky enough to have been born before that technology was realized.

According to Kurzweil, you just have to make until 2045. His projections are known to be accurate, but often a bit optimistic on the timing and mass adoption. So, let's say 2055. I'll be 85 - cutting it close...but like I said, in the next 10-15 years there will be many breakthroughs to slow down and reverse some aging, these are what they call the "bridge" years - to "live long enough to live forever."

Ray Kurzweil — Immortality by 2045 - YouTube


Oh, and congrats on the decision to go back and take more courses :up: that's awesome
Thanks, man. It'll be awesome. I love the this move toward open/free courses. I've done enough "official" schooling for me resume, not I can take classes that actually excite me.
 
Ray Kurzweil is a kook. He might've got some things right in the past, but he seems to have spiraled into this weird obsession with death after his father passed away. It seems to have clouded his judgement a great deal.

The idea of living forever is almost as horrifying as being dead forever
 
Ray Kurzweil is a kook. He might've got some things right in the past, but he seems to have spiraled into this weird obsession with death after his father passed away. It seems to have clouded his judgement a great deal

Yeah, I quote him because most people know him. And he is pretty well accomplished.

I do prefer this guy:

Aubrey de Grey: A roadmap to end aging
 
Kurzweil's understanding of technology is also much better than his understanding of biology, which seems to be pretty bad
 

I don't know, man. We can't even figure out how to keep people dying from cancer, heart disease, and countless other ailments and this guy thinks we'll be extending lifespans indefinitely in the coming decades? He's never even clear on how he proposes we do that other than "start getting serious about it" as if researchers aren't already working tirelessly to try and find cures for these things. Not sure I'd put much stock into this
 
I don't know, man. We can't even figure out how to keep people dying from cancer, heart disease, and countless other ailments and this guy thinks we'll be extending lifespans indefinitely in the coming decades? He's never even clear on how he proposes we do that other than "start getting serious about it" as if researchers aren't already working tirelessly to try and find cures for these things. Not sure I'd put much stock into this

If you to places like /futurology on reddit, can you find links to breakthroughs they're making every day.
 
Interesting...

Just Thinking about Science Triggers Moral Behavior

Researchers at the University of California Santa Barbara set out to test this possibility. They hypothesized that there is a deep-seated perception of science as a moral pursuit — its emphasis on truth-seeking, impartiality and rationality privileges collective well-being above all else. Their new study, published in the journal PLOSOne, argues that the association between science and morality is so ingrained that merely thinking about it can trigger more moral behavior.
 
The Dark Age Myth: An Atheist Reviews “God’s Philosophers”

One of the occupational hazards of being an atheist and secular humanist who hangs around on discussion boards is to encounter a staggering level of historical illiteracy. I like to console myself that many of the people on such boards have come to their atheism via the study of science and so, even if they are quite learned in things like geology and biology, usually have a grasp of history stunted at about high school level. I generally do this because the alternative is to admit that the average person's grasp of history and how history is studied is so utterly feeble as to be totally depressing.

So, alongside the regular airings of the hoary old myth that the Bible was collated at the Council of Nicea, the tedious internet-based "Jesus never existed!" nonsense, or otherwise intelligent people spouting pseudo historical claims that would make even Dan Brown snort in derision, the myth that the Catholic Church caused the Dark Ages and the Medieval Period was a scientific wasteland is regularly wheeled, creaking, into the sunlight for another trundle around the arena.

The myth goes that the Greeks and Romans were wise and rational types who loved science and were on the brink of doing all kinds of marvelous things (inventing full-scale steam engines is one example that is usually, rather fancifully, invoked) until Christianity came along. Christianity then banned all learning and rational thought and ushered in the Dark Ages. Then an iron-fisted theocracy, backed by a Gestapo-style Inquisition, prevented any science or questioning inquiry from happening until Leonardo da Vinci invented intelligence and the wondrous Renaissance saved us all from Medieval darkness.
The online manifestations of this curiously quaint but seemingly indefatigable idea range from the touchingly clumsy to the utterly shocking, but it remains one of those things that "everybody knows" and permeates modern culture. A recent episode of Family Guy had Stewie and Brian enter a futuristic alternative world where, it was explained, things were so advanced because Christianity didn't destroy learning, usher in the Dark Ages and stifle science. The writers didn't see the need to explain what Stewie meant - they assumed everyone understood.

About once every 3-4 months on forums like RichardDawkins.net we get some discussion where someone invokes the old "Conflict Thesis". That evolves into the usual ritual kicking of the Middle Ages as a benighted intellectual wasteland where humanity was shackled to superstition and oppressed by cackling minions of the Evil Old Catholic Church. The hoary standards are brought out on cue. Giordiano Bruno is presented as a wise and noble martyr for science instead of the irritating mystical New Age kook he actually was. Hypatia is presented as another such martyr and the mythical Christian destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria is spoken of in hushed tones, despite both these ideas being totally untrue. The Galileo Affair is ushered in as evidence of a brave scientist standing up to the unscientific obscurantism of the Church, despite that case being as much about science as it was about Scripture.
 
Great thing about science is working towards a solution or answer based off of data as it changes.

If this theory were to be true it's due to a better algorithm and data that's presented to us.

Science will try to prove this theory wrong and if it can't then great!

Still better than making a claim its true and I evidence to back it up
 
Science will try to prove this theory wrong and if it can't then great!

I agree - that is why I think science is better at describing the observable/testable universe than philosophy/theology.

What's really interesting - if it can be proven that the universe never had a beginning - this would be a major obstacle for Creationism. At least the Big Bang points to a single moment when the universe came into existence (which can actually assist - and certainly does not contradict - a Creationist argument).
 

Interesting article, but I'd be curious to see what other theoretical physicists have to say about it. My first thought upon seeing the headline was "what about the cosmic background radiation?". Glad that isn't being overlooked. There are other problems to an infinite universe though. For one, our night sky should be lit up like a giant skylight from all the light of every star in the universe having an infinite amount of time to reach us.
 
There are other problems to an infinite universe though. For one, our night sky should be lit up like a giant skylight from all the light of every star in the universe having an infinite amount of time to reach us.

Unless the exponential "expansion" is faster than light...just a thought...
 
Unless the exponential "expansion" is faster than light...just a thought...

But the expansion isn't really an expansion in the way we would normally think about it. The space itself isn't moving. More space is being added. It's more of an inflation... interesting thought none the less. And really, what the hell do I know?
 
Back
Top Bottom