| From: Malcolm Oliver | 10/05/99
14:08:43 |
| Subject: God. The Ultimate Post | post id:
10754 |
| God and the Science Page.
3. Terry, Sorry about the repetitions. We are about to have a Festival and Inventors Fair up here in Grafton. Its official title is "The 1st International Philosophy, Science and Theology Festival" and it has the theme, "Is there an Answer?" This festival is on in the Anglican Cathedral from June 23rd. through June 27th. this year. You want more information??? Contact Kathleen O'Grady at scifest@nor.com.au I felt I had to try something different to get some more detailed responses from the contributors. I was more successful. Really got some wonderful ideas. There obviously is an Answer! Sue, "Matters spiritual may or may not exist and that they cannot be scientifically supported or refuted." But they are lots of great fun to create hypotheses about. You never know when you might just create a great hypothesis you can test. James Richmond Sounds as if your metaphors for God are rather limiting. God as a King, Lord, Wise Old Man, etc., obviously cannot be supported. Roy Frieden in his work on Fisher Information, suggests that the "universe is a frolic of primal information". St. John suggests that this "primal information" came from the mind of God. Do you have anything on how Roy Frieden can extract all the laws of physics from this gap between what we can observe and what nature will let us know? You say, "I don't think anyone would dispute that a belief in Christ can profoundly change a person." If you can observe a profound change in a person, and the only thing that has changed in their life is that they have accepted Christ, what more do you need? - sure you can't measure it and say that there is a 10 % increase in goodness, but is measurement really necessary? - if you see an apple fall from a tree, you know that it is gravity. You don't have to weigh the apple and determine the size of the force acting on it to know that its gravity. Originally Science was Theology. It then graduated to Natural Philosophy. You still can gain a Doctorate of Philosophy as your research degree. Philosophy is literally "love of wisdom". Science was originally "knowledge". Today Science has also become a method. Some say that each scientist has their own method. You have knowledge, a love of wisdom and a method of creating knowledge. A restriction of Science to working with "testable hypotheses" seems very limiting to me. Your comments on my levels of science don't recognise that any model is a simplification of the real thing. The real test of a model is checking it to see that it represents something which exists in the real world and that you create hypotheses from it. It appears that there is little difference between the experiences of people at the highest levels of science and religion. Religous people have always expected them. Scientists have yet to learn this lesson. Calculating the path of a ball does not occur in the action of catching it. Good hand to eye coordination is what is required. I would suggest that your brain constantly updates the relative position of your hand and ball, and mostly you catch the ball. Why do you still try to catch a very fast ball, slightly over your head. If there was a very fast calculation involved then your brain would surely tell you that you couldn't do it and you would not move your hand. You would only catch a ball after it landed, if you had to measure the angle at which it was launched, measure its velocity, etc., then do the calculation. Sean, Are the highest authorities the people who can make the best models from which they can make the greatest hypotheses? Lucky, The "God Dunnit" answer is the answer of a person not prepared to make the effort to create a model from which they can create a hypothesis as a possible answer. This does require that the hypothesis can be tied in closely with events in the real world. Many would suggest that experiments carry out this function. Michael, We have to change the way we think about God. God is not a person. We are limited greatly by the metaphors we use to try and understand the concept of God. The best I can suggest to you is that "God is like light" or even, "God is a presence found throughout the Universe." Jesus was a real person. He preached a religion involving dynamic worldliness with a God-within-us ethic. You want to make the world a better place? Set your goals, then get off your butt and do something about it yourself. I agree with your idea of "the more you investigate the more deeply you know and understand a particular subject." This applies to religion, science, or any other area of human thought. I wonder how the comments in this thread would change if the people who made them had spent as much time studying religion as they have science? Chris (Plebeian), Interesting comments on the calendar. Dave, Thanks for your input. If you c | |
| From: Michael Gunter | 10/05/99
14:11:21 |
| Subject: re: God. The Ultimate Post | post id:
10756 |
| rap on my doorstep, I won't like
you | |
| From: James Richmond (Avatar) | 10/05/99
19:41:27 |
| Subject: re: God. The Ultimate Post | post id:
10803 |
| In reply to your comments on my
posts: Sounds as if your metaphors for God are rather limiting. God as a King, Lord, Wise Old Man, etc., obviously cannot be supported. Roy Frieden in his work on Fisher Information, suggests that the "universe is a frolic of primal information". St. John suggests that this "primal information" came from the mind of God. I didn't use any metaphor for God as a King, Wise Old Man etc. In fact, I didn't tell you ANYTHING about my conception of God (if I believe in one at all!). What I gave you was my idea of what science and religion are. Do you have anything on how Roy Frieden can extract all the laws of physics from this gap between what we can observe and what nature will let us know? Frieden's work sounds very interesting. I've been meaning to follow up on it. But I guarantee it's a scientific effort, not a religious one. You say, "I don't think anyone would dispute that a belief in Christ can profoundly change a person." If you can observe a profound change in a person, and the only thing that has changed in their life is that they have accepted Christ, what more do you need? What more do you need for what? If I see a person profoundly changed by "getting religion", it only tells me that the person has undergone a change in beliefs and/or outlook on life. It tells me nothing about whether God exists. ...A restriction of Science to working with "testable hypotheses" seems very limiting to me. It may seem limiting. It may BE limiting. But that's the way science works, and that is why it is separate from religion! Your comments on my levels of science don't recognise that any model is a simplification of the real thing. The real test of a model is checking it to see that it represents something which exists in the real world and that you create hypotheses from it. It appears that there is little difference between the experiences of people at the highest levels of science and religion. Religous people have always expected them. Scientists have yet to learn this lesson. Of course I realise that a model is a simplification. What I asked you before is: what do you hope to gain from your model? What advantages are there in dividing people up as you propose? Calculating the path of a ball does not occur in the action of catching it. Good hand to eye coordination is what is required. I would suggest that your brain constantly updates the relative position of your hand and ball, and mostly you catch the ball. Why do you still try to catch a very fast ball, slightly over your head. If there was a very fast calculation involved then your brain would surely tell you that you couldn't do it and you would not move your hand. You would only catch a ball after it landed, if you had to measure the angle at which it was launched, measure its velocity, etc., then do the calculation. I agree. But how do you know even roughly where the ball is going to land so that you can position yourself in the general vicinity? You build up an intuition from experience. JR | |
| From: Malcolm Oliver | 12/05/99
12:10:45 |
| Subject: re: God. The Ultimate Post | post id:
11100 |
| Post script. Some of the thread got lost and I know you all be worried about the funny endings on the original. Dave, Thanks for your input. If you could send me references to the things you are talking about, I could look them up. Michael, I must plead ignorance. What is a Raster? I can't even make an extravagant guess from contextual clues. Help! Science was initially mothered by the church then finally smothered. Today things are slowly changing. It was all theology originally. The Wayside Chapel is a great example for us all. Its work in King's Cross is showing us that there is nothing that can separate us from the love of God. This is another great demonstration of the dynamic worldliness and the God-within-us ethic of Christianity. Cam, Now Butterfly effects I like. Note the Butterfly in the Sue and Cam challenge. You should, Let a Butterfly Effect Affect the rest of your Life TODAY. A Butterfly Effect is a small thing which happens to you or which you decide to do, which slowly grows to be very important to you and changes your life for ever. When someone says:- Yes!!! Terrific!!! You're a Legend!!!! I Love YOU!!!!!!! When YOU decide to:- Turn your dreams into reality. Commit yourself to doing something you don't know how to do YET! Send the TIME you need to learn something to show yourself you can. Use "the system" to your advantage. When someone gives you a great idea you just needed to solve a problem which was really worrying you. Sue, Scientific Creationism is something up with which I will not put. You really know how to hurt a man! I am a Christian trying to follow the summary of the Commandments which include:- "You shall love the Lord your God...... with all your mind. If you are so tired of what you call "predictable and excruciating garbage", why are you so intent on answering in the same vein? Ian Plimer, Professor of Geology in Melbourne University wrote a book which cooly, and rigourously destroys the hypotheses put forward by Creationsists. No ridicule, just effective, empirical truths. This is a great example of scientific debate. Allan, See previous discussion. Update your ideas on God. Well this is it!. The end of this Thread. Thanks to all the people who have spent so much time contributing to this chain of critical debate. I am certain that new ideas and some great hypotheses have emerged. When people have developed a set of beliefs on which they have built their lives and the values they live by, it is very difficult to change these beliefs. Thanks again for the discussion. If you really feel that you want some more, than email me at malcolm@nor.com.au | |
| From: Cass | 12/05/99
21:38:59 |
| Subject: re: God. The Ultimate Post | post id:
11229 |
| Update your ideas on God.
No. | |
| From: Alan | 12/05/99
23:07:14 |
| Subject: re: God. The Ultimate Post | post id:
11252 |
| My sentiments exactly Cass, but I
was just ignoring him. And for anyone interested I've been watching all of this guys topics. It just wasn't worth gertting involved. | |