| From: Rhys | 16/03/99
20:25:47 |
| Subject: God | post id:
4098 |
| This one is mostly aimed at Doc
ed, and anyone else who lives and breaths science, and particuarly those
who practice science as a means of earning a buck. Is the concept of God in direct conflict with science? Can the two co-exist in your minds? Of course, in our counrty at least, Paul Davies is the great Defender of the Faith in the scientific realm, and I tend to sympathise with his views that an understanding of the natural laws does not preclude the possiblity of God. Now personally, I lean towards the idea that there is a governing principle or pattern which dicates the way the universe takes shape. This is in a way, my concept of God, or the closest I can allow. So.. any thoughts? | |
| From: Terry Frankcombe | 16/03/99
20:52:49 |
| Subject: re: God | post id:
4099 |
| What, you trying to pick a
fight? Anyway, I agree that 'belief' in science (ie believing in reproducability and that causation does and must hold in our universe, usually based on a lifetime of experience and not a single conterexample for which there is any sort of certifiable evidence) and belief in God are not mutually exclusive. Religion and science deal with different things, and problems only arrise when one tries to extend one outside its boundries into the realm of the other (ie those who take Genesis as a literal description of creation). Personally, I don't believe in any deities and religion has no place in my life. | |
| From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar) | 16/03/99
21:05:42 |
| Subject: re: God | post id:
4101 |
| From a scientific point of view I
must say with absolutely no fear of error or contradiction, that there is
no reason whatsoever that adherence to the principles of science cannot
logically co-exist with a belief in God. I must say that I don't think that Paul Davies is perhaps the best example of the compatibility of science and religion. For my money he makes too many unnecessary forced leaps of faith to show that science proves the possibility of a God, when really, it does not (of course it also doesn't exclude it, either). If you want a really impressive display of the compatibility of science and religion, I reckon you can't go past the Reverend John Polkinghorne. He is a high energy particle physicist of international reknown, a Fellow of the Royal Society, and an Anglican Minister to boot. He is easily the best, clearest, and most engaging public speaker I've ever had the priviledge of listening to (he gave an amazing talk in the School of Physics at the University of Sydney on sub-atomic physics, without the use of slides, overheads, or chalk, and yet it was one of the most informative talks I've seen). He's written dozens of books on the relationship between religion and science, and argues that, far from being in conflict with it, the critical analytical principles of the scientific method are of VITAL importance to religious faith, spiritual knowldege, and religious pursuit (not to mention the survival of organised religions into the 21st century). Having said that, however, I am not a believer. I do not personally need the Church or any means of religious authority (be it written authority or otherwise) as a source of moral guidance or conviction - I have a brain to work these things out for me. I feel that morality and moral laws that exist outside of philosophical reason (not necessarily strictly scientific) completely pointless and hollow, and morality that can be justified by reason does not require religious authority to acquire "truth". Of course, there is more to spritiuality and religion than just a moral code of conduct (unless of course you're a small-minded fundamentalist), and for these things I think it can have an important and vital role in society. Soupie twist, Ed G.  | |
| From: bob | 16/03/99
21:08:23 |
| Subject: re: God | post id:
4103 |
| God now resides with his father
at the center of the daddy of all black holes and it is taking all of his
god power to keep it from collapasing onto them and a few servants who
keep them nourished with black hole champagne. Gods father created the
universe and the son thought he would go one better and create a dozen
more all orbiting about the daddy black hole. In order to keep existing
god and the father had to retire to the black hole. They are near driven
mad by all the requests for help but as nothing can escape the black hole
god is unable to make replies and this is why prayers to him are never
answered except by sheer luck. The fact that god and his father had to
retire to the black hole is a case of the sins of the son being visited on
the father. | |
| From: James Richmond (Avatar) | 16/03/99
23:29:40 |
| Subject: re: God | post id:
4118 |
| Ed, I'm interested to know how
you justify morality by reason. Is it possible to define "right" and
"wrong" objectively? JR | |
| From: Rowan Crawford | 16/03/99
23:40:19 |
| Subject: re: God | post id:
4121 |
| As I see it, science in no way
removes the possibility of god. I think that even if we reached a point
where we understood -everything- in the universe, science would still not
be able to clearly remove the possibility of a god. What I do think science effects is religion. Science is continually tearing away at the religious "beliefs" to the point where the beliefs actually need to be re-evaluated, a process that has been happening continually over the centuries. Could science prove the existance of god? No, I don't think so. The level of amazing "design" (sorry..) the universe features is phenomenal, and I used to think that this apparent design suggested the possibility of a god, but the more I read, and so the more I understand, the less I lean towards this view. Actually, I always loved the part in Sagan's "Contact" novel where the aliens had discovered that if you evaluate pi to some incredibly deep decimal place that you come across a large series of 1's and 0's which, when arranged into a huge array, form a perfect circle. After reading that I thought that if something like that really -did- exist in the "design" of the universe, then that would be a way that science could prove the existance of god - something like a "god was here" message - but later I realized that if you were to go deep enough into pi, probablity dictates that you would eventually find a pretty impressive copy of the Mona Lisa. So no, I don't think science can either prove or disprove the existance of god. Personally, I don't believe in the concept of god, although just because I'm not convinced doesn't mean there isn't a god. There may well be! To me, the concept of a 'god creating the universe' and the concept of 'religion' have always been two vastly different topics, even though they do share that one major idea. Religion as a subject really interests me in much the same way as science, although I suspect that this is because I see both of them as "puzzles" waiting to be solved. I love puzzles. To tie this back to science, I wonder what the possibility of there being a "religion gene" might be? A gene that would greatly increase the chance that you could simply "believe", which is probably the element of religion that I have the greatest difficulty grasping - I really don't feel any overwhelming desire to just "believe" no matter how many people tell me it's the truth and how much Sunday school I went to as a kid. I wonder at times if I'm missing something. But anyway, I find it an interesting subject and so whoffled on a bit longer than intended - hope I didn't bore anyone :). God luv ya, or the deity of your choice, Rowan. | |
| From: James Richmond (Avatar) | 17/03/99
0:12:54 |
| Subject: re: God | post id:
4123 |
| Re: belief genes Maybe there are two types of these. One type makes people doubt things until they are given enough solid evidence to justify belief. The other type makes people believe things until they are given enough contrary evidence to justify discarding the belief. In other words, one possible approach to science, religion, or life in general, is to start from a state of believing nothing, and slowly build up a list of things you believe, based on "sufficient evidence" (whatever that means). The other path to take is to start by accepting all explanations as possible, only disbelieving them when there is enough evidence that they are false. A kind of middle line between these two positions is also possible: Start by believing nothing. Add to beliefs on the basis of minimal evidence, but be willing to discard beliefs if contrary evidence builds up to a high enough level. I think scientists mostly range from the "doubt everything" position to the "middle" position. New Agers, on the other hand, tend towards the "believe everything" line, often forgetting the "Be prepared to ditch your belief in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence" part. The issue of faith also comes into this somewhere. You can believe something because you have faith that it's true. But there must be some reason for your faith. For different people, faith is rooted in different places - evidence of the senses, subjective experience, say-so of authority figures and so on. Well, enough rambling for now... JR | |
| From: Mark Dewis | 17/03/99
9:52:10 |
| Subject: re: God | post id:
4133 |
| I think the trait of "faith" is a
required part of human upbringing. Children take pretty much anything on
faith until their world experience shows otherwise. This is natural and
necessary; someone who doubts the existence of the world beyond their
senses is going to be quite neurotic. (Not my field, but I'm sure any psych types out there would be able to confirm this from case studies) I see sceptisism and cynicism as basically adult traits, but we all need faith to function in the real world. Religious belief is a tool that many people use to make sense of the world, as I use my faith in the scientific method. | |
| From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar) | 17/03/99
11:22:20 |
| Subject: re: God | post id:
4141 |
| Ed, I'm
interested to know how you justify morality by reason. Is it possible to
define "right" and "wrong" objectively? Because I can't justify it without reason. (okay, so I might be being a teeny bit circular here) You don't need to be a genius to realise that it is a good thing to treat others how you would like others to treat you. Many might claim that the only reason we hold this belief is because it is drummed into us by religion (many might also claim that this principle was first proposed by Jesus, which is rubbish as Confucius proclaimed just this, almost word for transliterated word, over 500 years previously). But surely this prompts the question, which came first, morality or religion. There a large number of different religions, which are otherwise dogmatically conflicting, that hold this principle of mutual respect at the core of their philosophy. Does that mean all these religions effectively follow the same god? I think not. Or does it mean that the principles all these religions are constucted by human thought? Conversely, take the idea of equality. Surely this must be the overarching principle of social reform of the late 19th and 20th centuries. Many claim that this idea came directly from the Church. RUBBISH! The church was DRAGGED kicking and screaming into an acceptance of the principle of universal equality by the secular humanist philosophy of The Enlightenment. Before The Enlightenment (and even WELL AFTER) no high ranking theologian in the Church ever said "You know, maybe women and people of African extraction should be allowed to get equal access to education, equal access to paid work, and of course equal pay." Sure, the Church is NOW one of the principle advocates of social justice and equality, and the notion of equality is now considered a core principle of many liberal religious thinkers, and I say, "GOOD ON 'EM!!!" But this is more a result of history than the patent teachings of religious authority. The Church has had to "move with the times" and accept radical moral principles like "equality" as part of their new belief, or face oblivion. Basically, my personal moral philosophys starts with the core belief (call it faith if you want, although it is based in part on the recurrent exhibition of core moral principles by completely separate religions the world over) that there exists human morality, and that the basically principles of that morality can be explored by thought, experimental evidence gained by inquisition into the social world around us (isn't it interesting how often arguments are put forward regarding, say, the prevalence of single mothers on welfare, without any reference at all to actual facts), open debate, and self-reflection. Surely any principle that cannot be justified by such means is baseless. Soupie twist, Ed G. | |
| From: Chris (Avatar) | 17/03/99
12:26:55 |
| Subject: re: God | post id:
4147 |
God is a zero rest mass particle! We are all familiar (to one extent or another) with the concepts of time dilation and length contraction due to relativistic effects. Ok, consider the universe from the perspective of a photon. Because the photon travels at c, time is infinitely dilated and length infinitely contracted. Infinite compression of this type results in a subjective time experience for the photon of practically an eternal instant. Combined with infinite contraction of length and the concept of "where-ness" all but disappears. The upshot is that the photon experiences all times and all places simultaneously! Now consider for a moment our definitions of knowledge. One could argue that observation is a type of knowledge, and that the only barrier to its retention is memory. The photon, being at all places, "observes" everything. With time infinitely dilated about it, there is no time for memory loss. The photon observes everything at the same place-time - therefore it is, in a sense, omniscient. Does that make the photon God? It sees everywhere everywhen. It knows all. And what about us? Well, when we die we "shuffle off this mortal coil" (no coincidence that all languages are riddled with such euphemisms I can tell you!). We dump our mass and instantly accelerate to light speed (we're massless now). We become part of the photon-God collective. Of course, your successful conversion to God-hood (the shuffling of your mass and photonisation) is dependant upon your current financial status within the Church. The Church of God of the Zero Rest Mass Particle, that is. Make sure you post your donations today! Yours in faith and science The Grand Photonoclast …conditions apply | |
| From: Rhys | 17/03/99
12:49:08 |
| Subject: re: God | post id:
4150 |
| A short story I wrote a while
back.. seems relevent to this thread. (It was one on my early ones, so
it's a tad rough around the edges.. my humble apologies) By the way, Chris... where do I sign? Catch the Fox by Rhys Allen (c)1998 He's an elusive old swine, I'll give him that much. Here I am, working as I do every night; pounding out equations, principles, theories and more theories, all zipping through my mind at near the speed of light. One theory topples, another rises; test it, refute it, retest it, predict what it will do, write an equation, test it again, refute it again. And again watch it fail, and again watch another take it's place. Patterns of chaos, three dimensional fractal patterns, curvatures in space-time, eight dimensional holograms, parsecs, nanosecs, genetic destiny, neural activity. I wade through the swamp of science slowly, and in agony. Damn Him. He must be here. Is the chase a futile one? Perhaps. Aristotle had Him cornered for years, until Copernicus, Galieo and Newton outwitted the wiley old Greek, and cut Him loose before anybody had the faintest idea what was going on. Oh, they denied what they'd done, of course. Particularly Newton, who in wild desperation pulled every string he knew in order to get Him back into the box. Once free, however, there was no catching Him. The best old Isaac could manage was to keep a thread tied around His big toe, which was achieved with the help of a friendly poet named Alexander Pope. And they had the nerve to call that thread a box. Huh! So; He was getting away from us faster than we could let out the thread, but that single thread covered our shoulders with the comforting warmth of a security blanket, keeping us safe in the knowledge that we could at least follow that thread and get to Him eventually. Until, that is, scissor happy Darwin entered the scene and with a deft flick of his wrist, severed the thread for good. Things for the trappers were looking mighty grim. But... ...then came Einstein; trapper extraordinaire. In His year of 1905, A young Albert donned his gloves and began to fight. He was amazing, landing blows in places other trappers had never dreamed existed. Brutally Albert grabbed Him by the neck and little by little began forcing him into a glass box, demanding He cry "uncle". Some witnesses at the time claimed that He'd even uttered the first syllable of the word. But then Hiroshima disappeared and in an atomic flash He landed a heavy blow to Einstein's left temple, cantered off, and laughed as He ran. He is cunning, no doubt about it, and worse (for a trapper) He's unpredictable. I saw Him once, less than a fleeting glimpse, dancing like fire within the arms of a Mandelbrot, right there on my computer monitor. For the tiniest nano-second, there He was, staring at me with burning eyes and the cheeky, innocent grin of a child. Then he was gone in puff of logic. And that's when I started looking. In that instant for me, an eternity for Him, he threw the gauntlet at my feet, and demanded I pick it up. I did. He skips around avoiding our pointed fingers, and all the while He's singing: "Catch Me if you can!" Well, I can, and I will. Tomorrow I begin work on a new theory. My box is ready, the trap is set, the bait is fresh. Come to papa. | |
| From: Chris (Avatar) | 17/03/99
14:15:21 |
| Subject: re: God | post id:
4162 |
Excellent, dude! If that isn't a recruitment ad for physicists I don't know what would be... :o) | |
| From: STU | 17/03/99
20:28:39 |
| Subject: re: God | post id:
4194 |
| On FAITH: one person said, "it is not a leap into darkness, but a step into the light" and another person said, "it's such a sloppy way to run a universe" | |
| From: Yoda Oz | 18/03/99
12:36:30 |
| Subject: re: God | post id:
4271 |
| As I said before
"there is no God." Now, before anybody says "how can you prove there is no God?", how about you turn that sentence around and say "how can you prove there is a God?" | |
| From: Chris (Avatar) | 18/03/99
13:15:46 |
| Subject: re: God | post id:
4279 |
Yoda... Most adherents of traditional faiths will explain to you that their God exists based on faith. Faith and proof are mutually exclusive, Yoda. Their God exists fine without proof, in fact it might be said to be a requirement of the existance. Unfortunately, then, the burden of proof does rest with you. After all you assert that God does not exist. Chris | |
| From: Terry Frankcombe | 18/03/99
18:35:20 |
| Subject: re: God | post id:
4319 |
| "And then God dissapeared in a
puff of logic..." | |
| From: Rhys | 18/03/99
20:40:57 |
| Subject: re: God | post id:
4326 |
| Terry, not sure if you were
dragging out that line for dramatic effect or to point out that it is in
fact a line of Douglas Adams' from 'Hitch-hikers guide to the Galaxy'
(essentially what Adams said was: God's existence relies on faith, and
proof denies faith. Zebra crossings are a dead giveaway to God's
existence, therefore His existence is proved. Since proof denies faith,
and God requires faith to exist, God cannot exist if he it is proved He
does... "and then God dissapeared in a puff of logic") The line in my story was not a rip off from this, but a reference to it. :o) rhys | |
| From: bob | 19/03/99
8:09:25 |
| Subject: re: God | post id:
4339 |
| By God! what a God whopping saga
on God. I was expecting to be blackballed for my bit but I tell you Gods
father did not dicipline him properly and he got out of hand. God now has
to sit on his father's right hand to keep hiim from getting a well
deserved whack. God's father's left hand is paralysed from overwork RSI.
God's mother is still over dominated. Tell me, I believe as Einstien is mentioned in this saga, I ask, was not the experiment of Michealson and Morely on the speed of light in different directions an essential precursor to Einstien's thoughts on relativity. It is never mentioned when Einstien's brilliant conclusions are talked about. | |
| From: James Richmond (Avatar) | 19/03/99
11:09:07 |
| Subject: re: God | post id:
4343 |
| The Michelson-Morley experiment
was a precursor to Einstein's work, since it was performed in 1887.
Einstein's special theory of relativity was published in 1905. However, it
may not have been an "essential" precursor, since it seems that Einstein
was unaware of it when he formulated his
theory. JR | |
| From: STU | 19/03/99
12:58:56 |
| Subject: re: God | post id:
4346 |
| Most of the classical arguments
in support of the existence of God, those proposed by the likes of Thomas
Aquinas et al, are fairly convincing in thier ability to show that there
is more to the universe than that which science tends to focus on. This
'extra' is often called supernatural but that term is so loaded with
preconceptions and bias that I am loath to use it except for a lack of
anything more accurate. Which brings me to the main point. These arguments
strongly support the idea that there is more happening in the universe
than just physics. They then make a casual leap of faith and conclude that
the extra is 'God'. Definitions then vary according to which particular
deity the proponent of the argument is supporting on the particular day.
Arguments which attempt to refute the existence of God are generally hard
pressed to prove that nothing exists which cannot be explained by physics
or science. These arguments can however show that if they grant to the
religious believer that there is more to the universe than physics and
science, there is no indication from any religion which gives a stronger
argument for their particular deity than any other religion. So although
religious philosophers are often willing to grant that there are
unexplained forces at work in the universe, very few will admit that any
of these indicate the existence of any particular deity and therefore no
deity can be proven to exist. Sorry that took so long. | |
| From: bob | 20/03/99
8:04:28 |
| Subject: re: God | post id:
4407 |
| the concept of God is a
convenient way to explain the otherwise non explicable. If Einstien was unaware of the Morley experiment then did he make the assumption that the speed of light would be the same to all observers regardless of their motion in space. I find this hard to believe. | |
| From: Martin Smith | 20/03/99
10:47:12 |
| Subject: re: God | post id:
4408 |
Watched one of those ABC school physics programs last Wed morning and it said the Morely experiment was very important to Einstein in the process of coming up with his theories. Do not know how accurate that bit of historical evidence is - though the rest of the program was excellent. Martin | |
| From: James Richmond (Avatar) | 20/03/99
12:13:31 |
| Subject: re: God | post id:
4409 |
| The Michelson-Morley experiment
was very important in the process leading up to Einstein's development of
special relativity. I have to take issue with Bob's point that it is
"never mentioned when Einstien's brilliant conclusions are talked about".
Virtually every introductory textbook on relativity has a description of
the experiment, making it perhaps the most famous "null-experiment" in
history. It is really only a point of historical interest as to whether Einstein knew about the experiment when he formulated his theory. Other scientists were aware of the experiment, and made some efforts to explain the null result. In particular, Fitzgerald proposed that the lengths of objects contract with motion, in proportion given by the familiar length contraction formula. Lorentz also came up with a correct mathematical description, with the result that the transformations between reference frames in Special Relativity are now called Lorentz transformations. The efforts of Fitzgerald and Lorentz both these predated Einstein by several years. However, they envisaged their theories as mathematical ways to patch up the aether theory by making the aether undetectable. Einstein took a much bigger step, by discarding the aether concept all together and postulating the constancy of the speed of light in all inertial reference frames. It is debatable as to whether Einstein drew at all on the theories of Lorentz and Fitzgerald. At the time he was working in the patents office, and his access to scientific literature was limited. He may have been motivated partly by his work on the photoelectric effect, published in the same year as special relativity. This theory described light as particles (photons), and since particles can travel through a vacuum, Einstein would have been predisposed to the possibility that the aether was unnecessary. Einstein's great step in formulating relativity was the speed of light postulate. It was great precisely because it is so counter-intuitive. There was much opposition to it at first, based on notions of common sense. However, the predictions of special relativity were gradually confirmed by experiment, which implied that, regardless of their non-intuitive nature, the postulates of the theory fit the observed world. In summary, the Michelson-Morley experiment, along with several other factors, was important in the development of relativity mainly in that it contributed to the general feeling among scientists at the time that there was something wrong with contemporary theories. Einstein was generally aware that there were difficulties, but he may not have known of all the particulars. JR | |
| From: Cass | 22/03/99
20:02:21 |
| Subject: re: God | post id:
4574 |
| The babel fish would be proof
that there was no god...if such a spendid creature existed!!
;) | |
| From: Cass | 22/03/99
20:35:21 |
| Subject: re: God | post id:
4578 |
| Further to my post on the Babel
Fish, Rhys you got it all wrong! The Babel Fish is such a useful creature
(it is a universal translation device) that it couldn't possibly exist
without divine intervention, and seeing as proof denies faith and without
faith God is nothing (or so Man pointed out), God said "Oh bother!" and
disappeared in a puff of logic. Man then went on to prove that white was black and got himself killed on the next zebra crossing... | |
| From: Rhys | 22/03/99
22:18:59 |
| Subject: re: God | post id:
4582 |
| Well, slam me into a Vogon cargo
hold and shoot me out into space! You're so correct Cass, that i could
only be wrong... and I'm sure the odds of that happening would be long
enough to power The Heart of Gold through all points of the universe
simultaneously. ;) *insert whimsical phrase about the sorrows of a failing memory here* So long, and thanks for all the fish. rhys | |