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.

Jive Turkey

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Mar 28, 2005
Messages
13,645
Figured we should take it out the Fox thread if we want anyone else to find our discussions and join in.
This thread is to discuss science that is directly intertwined with religion in some sense (evolution, cosmology, theoretical physics, morality, free will, etc).

Post papers, videos, blogs, whatever. Hopefully people on both sides of the fence chime in. I think it will be fun.

I'll start with the Krauss video from the other thread. I really need to watch it again/read the book again before responding to Aeon. It's one of those things that I kinda get most of (some of... a bit of) when I'm involved, but that evapourates from my brain the less I think about it.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo‎
 
I will re-post my summary from the other thread...

Summary of video: I liked his review of how we came to our present cosmological view. I've seen it from many other presenters and TV shows but he got right to the point and tied it all together very well.

I LOVED his slides on the view of the expanding universe - "Everywhere is the center of the universe"

I think he made my point accidentally when he talked about the priest Lemaitre and the Pope - and to not mix science and religion. Dr. Krauss states that either side of the Does God Exist argument can take science to validate their beliefs. A great point. Strange he doesn't seem to follow his own point.

"Quantum fluctuations can produce a universe" - I did not see how he proved that. Perhaps it's too big of a discussion for his lecture here, but I would like to see how he came to this conclusion. In his own short proof - he does seem to infer pre-existing energy.

There seems to be assumption in this talk that only matter "exists" - that energy somehow does not count. Am I correct? If so, how would this tie into another Quantum Physicist's view, Dr. Susskind (I posted a video from him a few weeks back) - that almost all of the universe is energy, and that all of the actual matter would fit into the size of a pea.

I loved the point that the static of the TV when it went off the air was 1 percent background radiation from the Big Bang. Makes the movie Poltergeist even that much more creepy.

He's covering dark matter and dark energy fairly well - would love to hear more of it.

At about the 49 minute mark, he concedes that the God created view of the universe is repugnant, but may be true. He just kind of tosses it away and moves on, although it is a major concession in my point of view.

Overall, a great way to spend and hour or so. I love these topics. I think we live in a wonderfully mysterious universe and appreciate that minds like Dr. Krauss can reveal a little more of that to us.

In the end, science will never disprove God - nor will it ever prove God. So, when a theorical physicists tries to do it, it comes across more as vindictive. I would rather they just continue to expand our shared understanding of what the universe is and how it works. That's cool.
 
I posted this video a few weeks back, but I think it adds to this discussion

Leonard Susskind on The World As Hologram - YouTube

It gets very interesting around the 35 minute mark.

Around 37:00 "Your brain creates a three dimensional fiction"

52:25 "There is a region of the world(universe), maybe most of the the world, which out beyond all possible observation"

52:38 "the universe at least a thousand times larger in volume than the region we can ever see"

52:55 "There's stuff out there and that stuff is simply beyond observation science. Period. Or maybe not." LOL

53:20 "What is the meaning? I mean this raises both philosophical questions, scientific questions...puzzling questions that really do bother people who think about this"

I think that the puzzling and amazing world of Quantum Mechanics/Cosmology is where science, philosophy, and theology can still have an intelligent discussion. Notice - I did not say religion, but theology.
 
I posted this video a few weeks back, but I think it adds to this discussion

It gets very interesting around the 35 minute mark.

Around 37:00 "Your brain creates a three dimensional fiction"

52:25 "There is a region of the world(universe), maybe most of the the world, which out beyond all possible observation"

52:38 "the universe at least a thousand times larger in volume than the region we can ever see"

52:55 "There's stuff out there and that stuff is simply beyond observation science. Period. Or maybe not." LOL

53:20 "What is the meaning? I mean this raises both philosophical questions, scientific questions...puzzling questions that really do bother people who think about this"

I think that the puzzling and amazing world of Quantum Mechanics/Cosmology is where science, philosophy, and theology can still have an intelligent discussion. Notice - I did not say religion, but theology.

General comment, don't know where to begin.

This is all very fascinating and makes the head almost explode with a convergence of what we don't know and just how...BIG everything is.

That said, I think there needs to be a healthy respect for 'God of the Gaps' arguments in both directions. When we don't know something - we don't know it. *Nothing dictates a supernatural explanation and nothing says that we know so much we can rule out all supernatural explanations*.

This is why I love this particular kind of science so much. The scientists in this field are (mostly) so comfortable with the phrase "I don't know". It seems quaint and almost meaningless, but to me - it means a lot. Think about how many people we all know that have a lot of trouble uttering the simple phrase "I don't know". We don't have to answer the question if we don't know the answer. This, to me, indicates someone in genuine search of truth, with little to no 'confirmation bias' (there you go, deep.). I refer back to this*.
 
Susskind is great. If String Theory could ever be proved (is it even possible?) he'd be a household name.

But anyway...what is it? 90% or more (?) of the OBSERVABLE Universe is unknown. And that's just what is observable. And that's just our single Universe. Dark matter, dark energy...holographic principle. Love thinking about it.

It's a fascinating mystery. THE best mystery of all time. And I don't need any supernatural answers. I just want them. I'm like Fox Mulder. I want to believe. But more than that, I want the truth. And I am content with a perfectly natural answer. Just gimme some truth.

Anyway, sorry for my generic comments, didn't know where to begin. I just hope we can have a good back and forth on all these topics and steer away from all the typical pitfalls.
 
General comment, don't know where to begin.

This is all very fascinating and makes the head almost explode with a convergence of what we don't know and just how...BIG everything is.

That said, I think there needs to be a healthy respect for 'God of the Gaps' arguments in both directions. When we don't know something - we don't know it. *Nothing dictates a supernatural explanation and nothing says that we know so much we can rule out all supernatural explanations*.

This is why I love this particular kind of science so much. The scientists in this field are (mostly) so comfortable with the phrase "I don't know". It seems quaint and almost meaningless, but to me - it means a lot. Think about how many people we all know that have a lot of trouble uttering the simple phrase "I don't know". We don't have to answer the question if we don't know the answer. This, to me, indicates someone in genuine search of truth, with little to no 'confirmation bias' (there you go, deep.). I refer back to this*.

I can appreciate this line of thinking. I will flat out admit I am guilty of confirmation bias on this subject - inasmuch that I have faith in the notion that God is playing a part in all of this. But I don't know much or how little and what that part really is and how much I can "interact" with it - and to me, that is the joy of science and especially mind-bending science like QM. Each time I read about new breakthrough, I feel like I know the transcendent God just a little bit more.

As I said before - I don't think any of this proves God, it just proves the more we seem to learn about the universe - the more wacky it gets. Yet, in some unseen way - we find a hint of order, even though the math says we shouldn't.

To me - there is no gap for God to fill. There is God - and then everything else. The more we learn about everything else, I slide the scale a bit closer to God.
 
Susskind is great. If String Theory could ever be proved (is it even possible?) he'd be a household name.
He is awesome. I took (or should I say watched) his Stanford Class on Quantum Mechanics. It won't turn you into the next Sheldon Cooper, but it's still a good way to catch what he's all about.

But anyway...what is it? 90% or more (?) of the OBSERVABLE Universe is unknown. And that's just what is observable. And that's just our single Universe. Dark matter, dark energy...holographic principle. Love thinking about it.
Absolutely there with you. I think we'll start to see some major breakthroughs in the next decade or two - especially if they can harness the power of quantum computing.

It's a fascinating mystery. THE best mystery of all time. And I don't need any supernatural answers. I just want them. I'm like Fox Mulder. I want to believe. But more than that, I want the truth. And I am content with a perfectly natural answer. Just gimme some truth.
I'm in between on this. My faith tell me there is such a thing as Truth, but it does not give me all of it. It's like I'm looking at a multi-faceted diamond - only catching flickers of light here and there as light shines through it into our "non-observable" darkness. And Mystery is my favorite word in both science and theology.

I just hope we can have a good back and forth on all these topics and steer away from all the typical pitfalls.
I think we're off to a good start.
 
BTW - Dr. Krauss was on tonight's episode of "How the Universe Works" - pretty cool.

And Dr. Kaku said "moment of Creation" instead of Big Bang - interesting slip :)
 
my listings say the episode is about Solar Flares
Through the Wormhole's episode is titled Did God Create Evolution?

I like Dr Kaku, when I can't sleep, I find a podcast of his Exploration program and put it on.
 
To me - there is no gap for God to fill. There is God - and then everything else. The more we learn about everything else, I slide the scale a bit closer to God.

How does the Many Worlds Interpretation or Theory affect your belief or does it at all? If all possible outcomes are...well, possible, then does that negate our choices as moral or immoral?
 
How does the Many Worlds Interpretation or Theory affect your belief or does it at all? If all possible outcomes are...well, possible, then does that negate our choices as moral or immoral?
Interesting question. The Many World Theory is something I am personally leaning toward - I think, perhaps ironically, is the only theory that allows true free will.

I'm a bit of a universalist (meaning that most people will be "saved" over the course of time) - but that is only possible in a Ground Hog Day type of scenario. Does that make sense even if you don't agree?
 
my listings say the episode is about Solar Flares
Through the Wormhole's episode is titled Did God Create Evolution?

Both shows were very cool. My son got a bit scared on the Solar Flares (especially the part about Gamma Flares)

I like Dr Kaku, when I can't sleep, I find a podcast of his Exploration program and put it on.
He's like an awesome, cute, teddy bear of physics. I love him and his optimism.
 
Through the Wormhole's episode is titled Did God Create Evolution?

That was a good a episode. I especially liked the part about the pre-existent patterns of geometry from Dr. George Ellis (about 45 minutes in). As a person that found God through studying Plato - I was pleasantly surprised :)
 
Since Planck is referred to several times in this video I thought you might find this quote interesting:

“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.” ― Max Planck, found of Quantum Mechanics
 
“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.” ― Max Planck, found of Quantum Mechanics

*ding* red flag.
And why must be assume that, Dr Planck?

It's important to point out that nothing in his studies lead him to this conclusion.
 
*ding* red flag.
And why must be assume that, Dr Planck?

I'm not saying this proves God - I'm just pointing out philosophy and theology have a voice in understanding reality just as much as a quantum physicist stating there are multiverses or membrane bubbles or parallel universes (without any possible way to ever measure or prove that) to explain the unobservant substance beyond the veil of our agreed upon reality.

I'm glad you point out the word assume - because that is mostly all they have in the quantum world, assumptions. Of course, these assumption a really cool and fun to discuss and they are based on at least some observable facts (not unlike theology) - but it is the same as my sign post in the fog analogy - they are only pointing in a certain direction...perhaps.

Given that quantum mechanics is the foundation of our entire existence - I think it is fair to point out that scientists at this point really have no frack'in clue why quantum particles behave they way they do...which means all information is subject to that substance behind the veil - whatever it is - but everyone, including the brightest minds, knows exists.
 
Last edited:
But the question to why quantum particles behave the way they do could be a complete non-question. In what sort of universe would we find ourselves where quantum particles behave in no way at all?
If one were to completely forget the idea of a god, they wouldn't be independently lead that way by studying the natural world
 
I'm glad you point out the word assume - because that is mostly all they have in the quantum world, assumptions.

But positing a god in place of knowledge doesn't answer any questions
 
But positing a god in place of knowledge doesn't answer any questions

I agree... for the most part. I'm not saying because I believe that God is somewhere behind that veil - that we shouldn't keep pushing that veil back and back with our own exploration and understanding. That's why I love Quantum Mechanics.

However, the occasional arrogant tone and self-contradicting statements of someone like Dr. Krauss really places himself a negative light. Even though he states himself that the God-creation may be true - by smug facial expressions and demeaning jokes he makes it seem you must be an idiot to not agree with him and his creation-by-quantum-fluctuation-even-something-like-energy-and-particles-must-be-in-existence-in-order-to-fluctuate theorem.
 
But the question to why In what sort of universe would we find ourselves where quantum particles behave in no way at all?
There would be no us to find ourselves into much of anything at all.

If one were to completely forget the idea of a god, they wouldn't be independently lead that way by studying the natural world

JT - I love you man, but I can't follow this post after several times rereading it. Can you please rephrase this question?
 
I agree... for the most part. I'm not saying because I believe that God is somewhere behind that veil - that we shouldn't keep pushing that veil back and back with our own exploration and understanding. That's why I love Quantum Mechanics.

Despite coming from opposite ends, I can still get behind this

However, the occasional arrogant tone and self-contradicting statements of someone like Dr. Krauss really places himself a negative light. Even though he states himself that the God-creation may be true - by smug facial expressions and demeaning jokes he makes it seem you must be an idiot to not agree with him and his creation-by-quantum-fluctuation-even-something-like-energy-and-particles-must-be-in-existence-in-order-to-fluctuate theorem.

I'm not sure he's being self contradictory though. He's saying it may be true in the same way it might be any other unfalsifiable hypothesis anyone might have.
For his quantum fluctuations, there literally aren't any particles or energy in existence to fluctuate out of. They pop into and out of existence from nothing at all. That's the amazing thing about it.


There would be no us to find ourselves into much of anything at all.

Right. So it could very well be a meaningless question. There needn't be a reason why.

JT - I love you man, but I can't follow this post after several times rereading it. Can you please rephrase this question?

hahaha, alright. I guess I can put it like this:
You (the general you...but I guess also you) come to these questions with the idea of a god already in mind. If you were a blank slate, gathering the knowledge we have of the universe around us wouldn't independently lead you to the conclusion "well, it's obvious there's someone who put all of this together". When the veil is pushed back so far that a god is completely irrelevant, the "blank slate" wouldn't just invent, then plop one in at the end.
Make sense?
 
They pop into and out of existence from nothing at all. That's the amazing thing about it.
Or...they pop in and out of our ability to observe...Also, are we to believe these particles pop in and out of existence in such a randomly perfect manner that is necessary to support this known (classical physics) universe with no guidance or predetermined pattern whatsoever? Are you suggesting the universe is an ongoing, moment-by-moment series of the same accident over and over again? Yet, the math (the new Holy Grail but we'll go with it) suggests that the odds are horribly against (meaning beyond reason to accept) such an idea - that this same randomness can keep occurring, moment-moment, over the course of billions of years in a uniform manner. Which is why men from Einstein to Susskind invoke something greater than our universe is beyond the veil.



Right. So it could very well be a meaningless question. There needn't be a reason why.
Well - if we didn't question why there wouldn't even be a field like Quantum Mechanics or Philosophy or Theology. We are human - it is in our essence to question why Just like Dr. Susskind asked, "Why all this stuff?"


hahaha, alright. I guess I can put it like this:
You (the general you...but I guess also you) come to these questions with the idea of a god already in mind. If you were a blank slate, gathering the knowledge we have of the universe around us wouldn't independently lead you to the conclusion "well, it's obvious there's someone who put all of this together". When the veil is pushed back so far that a god is completely irrelevant, the "blank slate" wouldn't just invent, then plop one in at the end.
Make sense?
Well, perhaps you are right. But I was an Ayn Rand atheist before I read Plato - so, my filters aren't so strong that I can't change my mind in the face of a compelling/enlightening idea. An all-powerful, all-loving eternal God is a compelling/enlightening idea.
 
Found some quotes that might add to the discussion.

I will certainly concede that when top physicists do mention the possibility of God or Intelligent Design they are referring to a more Deist view than a Theist one.

But physicists can never explain what 'breathes fire' into the equations, and actualises them in a real cosmos. The fundamental question of 'why is there something rather than nothing?' remains the province of philosophers." - Martin Rees

"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual...The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both." - Carl Sagan
 
You (the general you...but I guess also you) come to these questions with the idea of a god already in mind. If you were a blank slate, gathering the knowledge we have of the universe around us wouldn't independently lead you to the conclusion "well, it's obvious there's someone who put all of this together". When the veil is pushed back so far that a god is completely irrelevant, the "blank slate" wouldn't just invent, then plop one in at the end.
Make sense?

Isn't it human existentialism and social interaction, or maybe mortality that led God and religion to arise in the first place? And if so, didn't it arrive naturally?

Superstitions are also taught, yes, but those initial superstitious were not passed down by ancient astronauts. Humans will place Order over Chaos, naturally. Even to this day. See: conspiracy theories. I think if we forgot all about the concept God one day, there would be a new "God" within weeks.

I think it's a very natural thing. It's also basic deduction of causation, is it not? Science has a difficult time explaining this sort of...human nature. Some of us are able to rationalize through that science but many cannot. This is also why I believe anti-theism is pretty damn wrong (note - not atheism, but anti-theism). There is a lot not accounted for in terms of basic human need. And most anti-theists, formerly including myself through most of my 20's, opine from a place of luxury that not everyone else has.
 
Or...they pop in and out of our ability to observe
Perhaps. But they you can attribute any quality of the universe you want to just something we can't observe.

...Also, are we to believe these particles pop in and out of existence in such a randomly perfect manner that is necessary to support this known (classical physics) universe with no guidance or predetermined pattern whatsoever?

There's nothing about it that suggests they pop in and out of existence at just the perfect manner to support the universe.
But yes, we are to believe there is no guidance or predetermined patterns because there is not a shred of evidence for either

Are you suggesting the universe is an ongoing, moment-by-moment series of the same accident over and over again? Yet, the math (the new Holy Grail but we'll go with it) suggests that the odds are horribly against (meaning beyond reason to accept) such an idea - that this same randomness can keep occurring, moment-moment, over the course of billions of years in a uniform manner. Which is why men from Einstein to Susskind invoke something greater than our universe is beyond the veil.

What perfect pattern do you mean? Either way, you can't use probability in reverse like that. The probability of me seeing license plate number ADHR 274 today out of all the license plates in the world was infinitely small. So small in fact to be statistically impossible. But since we can't use probabilities in reverse that way, it's irrelevant.

(Einstein didn't believe in something greater. His god was metaphorical)



Well - if we didn't question why there wouldn't even be a field like Quantum Mechanics or Philosophy or Theology. We are human - it is in our essence to question why Just like Dr. Susskind asked, "Why all this stuff?"

Oh, no, no. I wasn't suggesting we shouldn't ask questions. Rather, I was suggesting we should sometimes recognize that some questions are meaningless (ie what is the meaning of life?). I will concede asking questions about the behavior of quantum particles is well worth exploring, but it's completely within reason that at some base layer in the onion, things just are.

Well, perhaps you are right. But I was an Ayn Rand atheist before I read Plato - so, my filters aren't so strong that I can't change my mind in the face of a compelling/enlightening idea. An all-powerful, all-loving eternal God is a compelling/enlightening idea.

I'm sure different people have different scales with which they apply preconceptions. I have no doubt you'd be reasonable enough to change your mind when presented with something compelling (as evidenced by your willingness to push the veil (and thus, god?) further back in light of new understandings). But like you mentioned to be in another thread, I'm not here to convert you; I'm just here to share my views and listen to others :)

Found some quotes that might add to the discussion.

Sagan's god was also more of a metaphor. When he speaks of spirituality, he isn't talking about supernatural spirituality. More of the contemplate-the-vastness-of-the-Universe awe (You can probably, on occasion, add smoke-a-joint-and to the beginning of that string). Harris, Dawkins, Krauss, etc also talk about this kind of spirituality. I experience it myself and believe it's even more fulfilling than anything supernatural because it doesn't require a leap of faith and the inkling of doubt that certainly must creep in
 
Back
Top Bottom