 |
|
|
|
Next: Disappearing Army? LWW Movie Spoilers
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Feb 06, 2004
Posts: 238
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:41 pm
Post subject: Re Science and God
Archived from groups: alt>books>cs-lewis (more info?)
|
|
|
Not to ignore you Dan! And many thanks for your very thoughtful posts.
It's just that I know nothing about what you write.
Just from a philosophical/educator pov. It would not make sense to me for
folks to be so specialized that they failed to seek some kind of
co-inherence in things. Science and God, for instance. Or anything else.
The very best brains that I've had the pleasure to know or hear lecture
never ignored 'the big picture'.
I apologize for the lack of response to your posts. I know the time it
takes. What is your bottom line for instance on co-inherence? 
Blessings,
Ann |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Feb 06, 2004
Posts: 238
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:27 pm
Post subject: Re: Re Science and God [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Dan Drake" <dd.RemoveThis@dandrake.com> wrote in message
news:vhIsdqY67dTD-pn2-o9l3P6YNZtkr@localhost...
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 23:41:51 UTC, "AJA" <ahnemann.RemoveThis@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> Not to ignore you Dan!
>
>>... It would not make sense to me for
>> folks to be so specialized that they failed to seek some kind of
>> co-inherence in things. Science and God, for instance.
>
> I sort of see. But looking into the many interactions among the sciences
> can take one's full time. If one doesn't have the faith in the first
> place, then the cross-imnplications between the faith and the science
> simply don't show up as a question -- this I do understand, but it's not
> easy to convey.
Nah. Not one's full time. Even scientists have families, play golf, walk
the dog.
) There are many scientists that are at least thinking outside of their
scientific boxes.
Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is
because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and
therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.
-- Max Planck
In this modern world of ours many people seem to think that science
has somehow made such religious ideas as immortality untimely or old
fashioned.I think science has a real surprise for the skeptics.
Science, for instance, tells us that nothing in nature, not even the
tiniest particle, can disappear without a trace. Nature does not know
extinction. All it knows is transformation. If God applies this
fundamental principle to the most minute and insignificant parts of
His universe, doesn t it make sense to assume that He applies it to
the masterpiece of His creation, the human soul?
-- WERNER VON BRAUN
And so forth.
>
>>... What is your bottom line for instance on co-inherence?
>
> Wish I knew. I really don't know enough to comment. That's in spite of
> having read and appreciated a few of Williams's novels. Anything you or
> others wanted to say about the idea, as "Co-inherence for people operating
> in another paradigm" would be most interesting.
It does happen that people in vastly different disciplines of study hold
the essential co-inherence of all things- in the simplest terms, that is
that everything is bound with everything else. (Butterfly wing, pebble in a
pond) But there is definitely a language barrier. Math, for instance, can't
be communicated very effectively in words. Joshua Burton affirmed that here
long ago.
>
> "Paradigm" is overworked. But the idea that a person operating in one
> paradigm really can't understand what's being said in another, although
> wrong as to science, has a lot of merit more broadly.
I'm not so convinced of that. I suspect lack of understanding is the result
the one is just not talking to the other, or taking the time to find a
common language. However, those who work with the elegance of mathematics
can speak to the question of purpose and meaning in terms that even I can
understand. Polkinghorne, Heisenberg to name two.
Another question would be, what are philosophers saying/or not saying to
science?
I know that the Vatican is actively working on this question.
Shucks. Perhaps it is oh so simple- and the question doesn't show up, as you
say. People generally are not concerned with purpose and meaning. We're
not schooled or trained to look for such, right? For instance, I don't know
of a single high school here that offers a course in philosophy. I've
always thought such a course should be a graduation requirement. Ah well.
Good I retired I guess.
> > (What are paradigms worth, anyway? Two of them won't get you 50 cents.)
Or even a cuppa in my part of the country. )
Blessings,
Ann |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 15, 2005
Posts: 128
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:11 pm
Post subject: Re: Re Science and God [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Speaking of coincidence, waiting to get my hair cut I pick up a July
issue (didn't notice the exact date) of Time magazine. Inside is an
article about Francis Collins one of the lead biologists of the Human
Genome Project, who is also an evengelical Christian. He has written a
book about the genetic code titled "The Language of God." Naturally, he
is not the sort of Christian that denies evolution, but evidentially,
as I mentioned, is still an evengelical. Guess who provided the impetus
for his conversion from a self proclaimed "obnoxious atheist" to
Christianity? Exactly, our beloved Jack. The article did not go
into further detail about his positions, but it does seem germain to
our discussion here.
Daryl >> Stay informed about: Re Science and God |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 15, 2005
Posts: 128
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 7:45 pm
Post subject: Re: Re Science and God [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
AJA wrote:
>
> Wow. Take a look at the reviews in Amazon.com. I've ordered this book.
> Our Jack is certainly still bringing the message!
> Blessings,
> Ann
I ordered it too, as well as another book where he wrote the forward.
"Coming to Peace With Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and
Biology"
Darrel R. Falk
Daryl >> Stay informed about: Re Science and God |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 06, 2004
Posts: 238
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 8:37 pm
Post subject: Re: Re Science and God [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Thanks for that, Daryl. Very interesting. I'm going to look up that book.
Blessings,
Ann
<darylgene DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in message
news:1154905867.049189.237110@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Speaking of coincidence, waiting to get my hair cut I pick up a July
> issue (didn't notice the exact date) of Time magazine. Inside is an
> article about Francis Collins one of the lead biologists of the Human
> Genome Project, who is also an evengelical Christian. He has written a
> book about the genetic code titled "The Language of God." Naturally, he
> is not the sort of Christian that denies evolution, but evidentially,
> as I mentioned, is still an evengelical. Guess who provided the impetus
> for his conversion from a self proclaimed "obnoxious atheist" to
> Christianity? Exactly, our beloved Jack. The article did not go
> into further detail about his positions, but it does seem germain to
> our discussion here.
>
> Daryl
> >> Stay informed about: Re Science and God |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 06, 2004
Posts: 238
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:23 pm
Post subject: Re: Re Science and God [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
> <darylgene DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1154905867.049189.237110@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Speaking of coincidence, waiting to get my hair cut I pick up a July
>> issue (didn't notice the exact date) of Time magazine. Inside is an
>> article about Francis Collins one of the lead biologists of the Human
>> Genome Project, who is also an evengelical Christian. He has written a
>> book about the genetic code titled "The Language of God."
Wow. Take a look at the reviews in Amazon.com. I've ordered this book.
Our Jack is certainly still bringing the message!
Blessings,
Ann >> Stay informed about: Re Science and God |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 15, 2005
Posts: 128
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:07 pm
Post subject: Re: Re Science and God [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Dan Drake wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 01:27:16 UTC, "AJA" <ahnemann DeleteThis @optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >...
> >
> > Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is
> > because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and
> > therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.
> > -- Max Planck
>
> Good; but the question here, and I speak from experience, is whether there
> really is a mystery that's worth trying to solve. A truly atheist view,
> from which I am not wholly divorced, is sympathetic, at least, to A. J.
> Ayers's view that metaphysical questions and assertions, inherently
> intractable to logical analysis or empirical test, may be categorized as
> "meaningless noises".
Then what is Science, which inherently assumes a plethora of
metaphysical axioms, including the efficacy of logic and empirical
testing, other than the wind generated by meaningless noises?
>
> But again, this presupposes that the existence of things needs to be
> explained, and that God is a better explanation than none. To you,
> self-evident; to many, not. (I'm not taking sides, or anyway making an
> effort not to.)
>
I am puzzled, isn't this the quest of Cosmology and Particle Physics,
to explain, to some extent the existance of things? But I suppose, as I
mentioned before it comes down to "will this idea affect my experiment"
if it doesn't, who cares.
> >
>
> Whether it's that science is not listening or that professional
> philosophers are saying little to scientists or to anyone outside their
> circle, I won't say, though of course I just have. "Both of the above" is
> not without merit.
>
> Not quite irrelevantly: A large number of scientists who do give some
> thought to things outside their direct field consider philosophers of
> science to be talking mainly nonsense. (Taking sides: by and large, I
> agree with the scientists.) This makes it harder to take other
> philosophical dicta seriously. Not entirely a logical reaction, but a
> human one.
I would grant the point, scientists slipping outside their field
sometimes get rather silly, (witness Linus Pauling) and philosophy
would be no exception. You do have the occasional Issac Newton though.
>
> > I know that the Vatican is actively working on this question.
> >
> > Shucks. Perhaps it is oh so simple- and the question doesn't show up, as you
> > say. People generally are not concerned with purpose and meaning. We're
> > not schooled or trained to look for such, right?
>
> Not sure about this. People automatically see patterns and causation and
> meanings, even without looking for them
snip-
..
I like to think there are good solutions to this
> in the matter of the natural world, which is not to say that such
> solutions are being pursued well.
I am curious, what would such a solution look like? I really cannot
concieve of anything in the "natural" world that could provide meaning.
> > For instance, I don't know
> > of a single high school here that offers a course in philosophy. I've
> > always thought such a course should be a graduation requirement. Ah well.
> > Good I retired I guess.
> > ...
>
> Would you like the course if they did offer it?
Touche!!! The courses in philosophy I had in lower division college
really did not equip anyone to make worthwhile value judgements
>
> Seriously, I sometimes wonder if it's worth teaching philosophy to
> _undergraduates_ other than a few early-developing enthusiast.
> Good that I never taught at all.
Well....philosophy taught properly .... there is not the
courage in education to do this nowadays, it would seem intolerant.
Daryl >> Stay informed about: Re Science and God |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 11, 2003
Posts: 84
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:12 am
Post subject: Re: Re Science and God [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <vhIsdqY67dTD-pn2-ld8hWWks1diG@localhost>,
"Dan Drake" <dd.RemoveThis@dandrake.com> wrote:
> A truly atheist view,
> from which I am not wholly divorced, is sympathetic, at least, to A. J.
> Ayers's view that metaphysical questions and assertions, inherently
> intractable to logical analysis or empirical test, may be categorized as
> "meaningless noises".
As I am sure you realise, the view that metaphysics is meaningless
noises can itself be considered a metaphysical position, and thus to saw
off the branch on which it is sitting. (More precisely, "All meaningful
assertions are either logically demonstrable or empirically testable" is
itself neither.)
> Not quite irrelevantly: A large number of scientists who do give some
> thought to things outside their direct field consider philosophers of
> science to be talking mainly nonsense. (Taking sides: by and large, I
> agree with the scientists.)
I tend to be particularly irritated by philosophers (and theologians)
who have failed to notice what is perhaps the most fundamental
consequence of relativity: that time is strictly an _internal_ property
of the physical universe. In my experience, those (comparatively few)
colleagues in physics who do think about the 'philosophy of science'
tend, like myself, to find Popper reasonable (except when talking about
quantum mechanics) and Kuhn unpalatable.
> Seriously, I sometimes wonder if it's worth teaching philosophy to
> _undergraduates_ other than a few early-developing enthusiast.
One of the very few theses of the _Republic_ that I sympathise with is
that philosophy should only be taught as a 'postgraduate' subject.
Plato insisted on prior study in mathematics; I would admit some other
subjects as reasonable alternatives (e.g. any of the natural sciences,
history or lingistics). Some data points: Aristotle's primary interest
was biology, Kant started in celestial mechanics, Wittgenstein had been
an engineer.
Best wishes,
Matthew
--
Those who assert that the mathematical sciences have nothing to say
about the good or the beautiful are mistaken. -- Aristotle >> Stay informed about: Re Science and God |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 06, 2004
Posts: 238
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:44 pm
Post subject: Re: Re Science and God [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Dan Drake" <dd RemoveThis @dandrake.com> wrote in message
news:vhIsdqY67dTD-pn2-ld8hWWks1diG@localhost...
> On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 01:27:16 UTC, "AJA" <ahnemann RemoveThis @optonline.net> wrote:
> A truly atheist view,
> from which I am not wholly divorced, is sympathetic, at least, to A. J.
> Ayers's view that metaphysical questions and assertions, inherently
> intractable to logical analysis or empirical test, may be categorized as
> "meaningless noises".
Interesting. I'm wondering if one can so easily decide what meaningless
noise is, or is not. And then came quantum theory. Strings. Things that
no one has observed, but scientists postulate are in fact there. Boggles
the mind those 'noises'.
> But again, this presupposes that the existence of things needs to be
> explained, and that God is a better explanation than none. To you,
> self-evident; to many, not. (I'm not taking sides, or anyway making an
> effort not to.)
I thought that what the scientist does is attempt to explain the existence
of things.
> Would you like the course if they did offer it?
I would have loved a course in philosophy in high school. The closest I got
was a course, a good one, in Greek mythology.
>
> Seriously, I sometimes wonder if it's worth teaching philosophy to
> _undergraduates_ other than a few early-developing enthusiast.
> Good that I never taught at all.
But, those are the ones you want. And incidently I did manage to teach at
least some philosophy in Advanced French III and AP. Captive audience, you
know. That, and asking interesting questions. And one especially gifted
girl did go on to major in philosophy in college.
Great posts you write. As you can see I have nothing much more to offer.
Blessings,
Ann >> Stay informed about: Re Science and God |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 06, 2004
Posts: 238
|
(Msg. 10) Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:04 pm
Post subject: Re: Re Science and God [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
<darylgene.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1155002848.554640.263980@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Well....philosophy taught properly .... there is not the
> courage in education to do this nowadays, it would seem intolerant.
If nothing else were accomplished by a philosophy course, I would hope that
students would come away thinking 'out of the box' stp. I did see many
brilliant kids over the years who did. One in particular who comes to mind
is the boy who said he started his thinking career reading the Narnia books,
when I asked him about things he liked to think about.
Go figure.
Blessings,
A >> Stay informed about: Re Science and God |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 29, 2006
Posts: 10
|
(Msg. 11) Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 4:23 am
Post subject: Re: Re Science and God [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 22:04:48 -0400, AJA wrote:
/snip/
> If nothing else were accomplished by a philosophy course, I would hope that
> students would come away thinking 'out of the box' stp.
Hm? Depends on who taught it. Could just box them in, precluding questions
they would have done some real speculating on alone.
> I did see many
> brilliant kids over the years who did. One in particular who comes to mind
> is the boy who said he started his thinking career reading the Narnia books,
> when I asked him about things he liked to think about.
> Go figure.
Quick before my connection goes out again....
Saw the OP maybe in Google, from Daryl re "M" and multiple timelines etc.
Which sounds like what the Professor said in LWW, re other worlds just
round the corner: "Nothing is more probable." Now look in Lovejoy's THE
GREAT CHAIN OF BEING. God would not have been stingy (ok, not that word) by
refusing to fill EVERY possible niche with rich lifeforms. Thus disbelief
in mermaids etc was impious.
How close ARE the ideas?
Bree
off the net for months.... >> Stay informed about: Re Science and God |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 29, 2006
Posts: 10
|
(Msg. 12) Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 4:34 am
Post subject: Re: Re Science and God [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 07 Aug 2006 20:01:50 GMT, Dan Drake wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 00:30:42 UTC, "darylgene@aol.com" <darylgene.RemoveThis@aol.com>
> wrote:
/snip/
>> where you were nearest to God, wherever that is, when
>> you resonate with some revelation of human nature in Shakespere; when
>> the person you care for most suddenly seems supernaturally beautiful,
>> just for a second; when a poem, or a line from a poem, transports you
>> away and above the banal world.
Which chorus ending from Euripides was it, has anyone found out?
>> There are things that just soothe and
>> satisfy the soul, nature often, sometimes a persons touch, I suppose
>> you could explain it all with biochemistry or such, but that would
>> still leave the why's open if you were looking at the cosmic sense.
>>
>
> The latter reminds me of what I think may be valid behind Lewis's argument
> in Miracles, which does not convince me in its (as I believe) simplified
> form.
I've got both editions but haven't dug deep enough.
> However, I don't understand what I think well enough to express it.
)))
Bree >> Stay informed about: Re Science and God |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 15, 2005
Posts: 128
|
(Msg. 13) Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 10:13 pm
Post subject: Re: Re Science and God [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Bree wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 22:04:48 -0400, AJA wrote:
>
> /snip/
>
> > If nothing else were accomplished by a philosophy course, I would hope that
> > students would come away thinking 'out of the box' stp.
>
> Hm? Depends on who taught it. Could just box them in, precluding questions
> they would have done some real speculating on alone.
>
Often these just get into the current philosophical style and don't
provide any real foundation for independent thinking at all. I remember
when it was Existentialism but then drifted into a vacuous relitivism.
I think a course in ethics might be useful (might!!!)
but the wrong sort of teacher could mess that up too.
>
> Saw the OP maybe in Google, from Daryl re "M" and multiple timelines etc.
> Which sounds like what the Professor said in LWW, re other worlds just
> round the corner: "Nothing is more probable." Now look in Lovejoy's THE
> GREAT CHAIN OF BEING. God would not have been stingy (ok, not that word) by
> refusing to fill EVERY possible niche with rich lifeforms. Thus disbelief
> in mermaids etc was impious.
>
> How close ARE the ideas?
>
I wish I were an expert, twelve dimensions, supergravity, parallell
worlds * around every corner. Reminds me of the oft repeated idea in
fantastic literature that the ideas for our fantasies are glimpses of
those worlds. Hmmm. wonder if I can find "Ring Around The Sun" Clifford
Simak's book again? I know I had it at one time.
*to answer a question that I missed when it was written as to what
parallell worlds have to do with heaven; just that they would provide a
reasonable locale, explaining why the cosmonauts didn't see it when
they got to space.
>
> Bree
> off the net for months....
Welcome home, Mary
Daryl >> Stay informed about: Re Science and God |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 29, 2006
Posts: 10
|
(Msg. 14) Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 7:10 pm
Post subject: Re: Re Science and God [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 13 Aug 2006 22:13:01 -0700, darylgene.RemoveThis@aol.com wrote:
> Bree wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 22:04:48 -0400, AJA wrote:
>>
>> /snip/
>>
>>> If nothing else were accomplished by a philosophy course, I would hope that
>>> students would come away thinking 'out of the box' stp.
>>
>> Hm? Depends on who taught it. Could just box them in, precluding questions
>> they would have done some real speculating on alone.
>>
>
> Often these just get into the current philosophical style and don't
> provide any real foundation for independent thinking at all. I remember
> when it was Existentialism but then drifted into a vacuous relitivism.
> I think a course in ethics might be useful (might!!!)
> but the wrong sort of teacher could mess that up too.
I almost think ANY course could mess up the long long thoughts of youth
about philosophy. About ethics, now, a course in AOM.... <g,d,r>
>> Saw the OP maybe in Google, from Daryl re "M" and multiple timelines etc.
>> Which sounds like what the Professor said in LWW, re other worlds just
>> round the corner: "Nothing is more probable." Now look in Lovejoy's THE
>> GREAT CHAIN OF BEING. God would not have been stingy (ok, not that word) by
>> refusing to fill EVERY possible niche with rich lifeforms. Thus disbelief
>> in mermaids etc was impious.
>>
>> How close ARE the ideas?
>>
>
> I wish I were an expert, twelve dimensions, supergravity, parallell
> worlds * around every corner. Reminds me of the oft repeated idea in
> fantastic literature that the ideas for our fantasies are glimpses of
> those worlds.
Lewis said that, in PERELANDRA (and in a silly story about Medusa on the
moon).
> Hmmm. wonder if I can find "Ring Around The Sun" Clifford
> Simak's book again? I know I had it at one time.
>
> *to answer a question that I missed when it was written as to what
> parallell worlds have to do with heaven; just that they would provide a
> reasonable locale,
MIght fit well with the Hindu/Buddhist system of multiple heavens and hells
(all temporary, rather like purgatories tho some pleasant).
> explaining why the cosmonauts didn't see it when
> they got to space.
Pfuff, that's silly. Where would their travels fit into SILENT PLANET? Were
they even above the moon? They got up high enough for excess sunlight and
overheating to be their main problems -- Lewis should get credit for
predcting that in SP.
>>
>> Bree
>> off the net for months....
>
> Welcome home, Mary
)))))) As AJA once said, it's good to see a friendly typeface.
Bree >> Stay informed about: Re Science and God |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 06, 2004
Posts: 238
|
(Msg. 15) Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:50 am
Post subject: Re: Re Science and God [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Welcome back, Mary.
As to the question, we're all in Shadowlands here!
Blessings,
Ann
>> *to answer a question that I missed when it was written as to what
>> parallell worlds have to do with heaven; just that they would provide a
>> reasonable locale,
>
> MIght fit well with the Hindu/Buddhist system of multiple heavens and
> hells
> (all temporary, rather like purgatories tho some pleasant).
> >> Stay informed about: Re Science and God |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
