Science and theology

seaghdhas

I am aware that the subject for this thread may seem off topic.

But, and I am open to correction, scientific explanation for natural 'phenomena' are accepted by pagan religions. Things like auras and lunar influence (my range of reference is limited so I'm liable to being shot down).

Therefore, if it is accepted (as it seems to be by all religions) that things like electricity (electron transfer), magnetic fields and gravity do actually exist and are taught as science, how is it that some religions have no time for an explanation for their theology. In the way that some wiccans believe that other realms are merely the subconcious, whether or not the subconcious recieves or sends messages from other beings.

My question is can it be said that theology is only trying to explain what science hasn't yet?

rcunning03

I think theology does fill in the gaps (cause we all want some sort of explanation) until there is a scientific explaination, but just because something can be explained scientifically it doesn't (for me, anyway) make it any less special or mystical.

You could explain in exact detail the process of how mist covers most of a mountain and it would still remain an awe inspiring sight just as much as if you thought it was a work of a god. The study of the brain is only a recent science (according to the discovery channel) and eventually it provide a rational scientific explanation for all sorts of weird things and will increase our abilities to use magick (for lack of a better word).

One last point, I agreee with you when you say pagan religions accept scientific explanations more readily, I think that's because nature based religions are a form of science that seek to explain the world, whereas other religions have a set view of the world and don't like science coming up with other explanations. How much more advanced would we of been, if christainity never happened but then again it has shaped the world as we know it and given us some amazing architecture.

Myksyk

just because something can be explained scientifically it doesn't (for me, anyway) make it any less special or mystical.

I couldn't agree more with this point. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the vast majority of scientific explanations of natural phenomena add spectacularly to the perceived beauty of those phenomena.

Richard Dawkins makes this point again and again in his writings, suggesting that scientific explanations can inspire deep appreciation of and unrivalled awe about the workings of nature. it is one thing to appreciate the aesthetic beauty of a flower as God's creation, if one were religiously inclined. However, it is quite another thing to experience that aesthetic appreciation while being overwhelmed by an understanding of the flower's evolutionary past, dynamic genetic development and wonderfully intricate relationship with other flora and fauna.

The next time you see a wild flower, just think that at that moment, hundreds or perhaps thousands of genes are turning on and off, instigating unseen and incredibly complex cascades of chemical reactions, helping the flower to turn what's in the muck at its feet into spectacularly-coloured petals and subtle fragrances aimed at enticing insects to unwittingly start its next generation, continuing a dance of life connected through an unbroken chain back a thousand million years to its earliest ancestors who have unfailingly passed on the secret of life over that immense time.

If that flower doesn't impress you ... nothing will!

rcunning03

The next time you see a wild flower, just think that at that moment, hundreds or perhaps thousands of genes are turning on and off

I will, can you recommend a good book by Dawkins ? and from now on I'm going to find out how exactly how nature works. What I like doing is comparing what nature can do as opposed to civilised man. Even the simpliest of lifeforms can reproduce itself and grow and that is a technology way out of our league. Imagine if there was a robot that was capable of growing i.e. going from 3ft to 5ft just by consuming energy. If natured wanted to, it could destroy the United States in 20mins or less. If our sun went supernova, bye bye earth and most of the solar system, it kind of puts nucelar bombs in their place.

Nothing we build can compare to the spectacle of nature and the sad thing is we don't even try anymore, where are the towering statues of marble, the gold plated temples, and utopian public spaces?. We have lost touch with nature, were not inspired by nature to try and match it, we don't respect nature cause we think we so advanced that we have to protect the delicate and fragile natural world and we have just seem to have accepted a life of financial serfdom.

The way I see if our planet and everthing on it was created by an alien civilisation, their technology is light years ahead of us. What we need is street lighting with no light pollution so we can get our night sky back again so we can feel we are a part of nature.

Myksyk

The obvious choice of Dawkin's writings in this context is 'Unweaving the Rainbow' which directly addresses the accusation that science takes from an appreciation of the world. His argument is of course that it in fact adds significantly to our appreciation.

However, any of Dawkins general writings are superb in evoking a sense of wonder about nature. I personally would go for 'The Blind Watchmaker' or 'Climbing Mount Improbable' which, while essentially explaining Darwinian natural selection, are like an intense workout on the appreciation of the wonders of the natural world. Highly recommended.

rcunning03

Thanks

seaghdhas

Nothing we build can compare to the spectacle of nature and the sad thing is we don't even try anymore, where are the towering statues of marble, the gold plated temples, and utopian public spaces?

Aren't those material things? Didn't nature create life itself? What can life create to rival that? Some are going to laugh at this but humans have created the worlds biggest interactive paper trail. Where and in what has your name or likeness been left. In about a thousand years they'll look back and wonder about a certain fragmented e-document the same way that a tenth century journal written on vellum is now. What life creates is it's personal 'butterfly effect'. Who's to say that in a few years one of us writes a theory that leads eventually to the creation of an artificial self reproducing entity?

We may accept individual insignificance, but chess ain't played without all the pawns.

rcunning03

Aren't those material things?

What I meant was in no way would those things be better than nature but at least we would be trying to create something spectacular as a sort of tribute to nature. Earth has created some incredible scenery, the least we can do is create awe inspiring cities, as a way of showing we can create beauty too, but instead we have Liberty Hall.

Who's to say that in a few years one of us writes a theory that leads eventually to the creation of an artificial self reproducing entity?

I think you'd like a Japanese Anime film called "Ghost in the Shell", it's a bit slow moving but it's good and the concept is similar to what you were talking about.

seaghdhas

What I'm trying to get at is;

Since nature is a evolving living system, would it not be better to create something along those lines as opposed to a static monument. I realise a building's use can change, it's cosmetic appearance altered. But would an efficient system of whatever not be a better tribute.

Having said that such things have to be housed. I'm after answering my own question.

I'm sorry for pushing this but thinking out loud works better for some.

MeatProduct

While reading the dogmatically defensive, close-minded Dawkins I would recommend a book that he viciously attacked because it pushed the boundaries of his tiny imagination.

Shattering The Myths of Darwinism - Richard Milton - ISBN: 0-89281-884-0

Try this site also:www.alternativescience.com

I applaud any attempt by people to learn more about nature. This is vital for people to start thinking for themselves rather then accepting the crap excreted by our schools regarding evolution.

I'm preparing an essay on why Darwinist evolution is not only offensive to our intelligence but that it borders on being a religion requiring faith. I will post a link to it when done.

Nick

Moriarty

Originally posted by MeatProduct
Try this site also:www.alternativescience.com

Forgive me for not putting any credence in a site that purports, among other things, that cold fusion has been supressed for 15 years (even though a multi-billion dollar fusion reactor - funded by, among others, the EU and US - is in the planning stages of being built in France) and the proven existance of psychokinesis. I can say that it actually flat-out lies in a number of stages throughout the cold fusion article, as I have an intrest in this sort of thing and have done some reading in the area.

Originally posted by MeatProduct
I'm preparing an essay on why Darwinist evolution is not only offensive to our intelligence but that it borders on being a religion requiring faith. I will post a link to it when done.

Nick

Heh. Enjoyable reading, no doubt

MeatProduct

You should look up this book: Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain

I have just finished reading it and it has me rather shocked to be honest. There is plently of proof in that book, written by two American scientists, that psychokinesis was being researched in Russia in the 60's.

Nick

I would recommend you read the book I listed in my earlier post: Shattering the Myths of Darwinsm.

Moriarty

I have no inclination to waste time or money on these books. If you find me a reputeable author/journal/anything that has similar details, then I'll think about buying it.

Myksyk

I find it hilarious (and depressing) that Nick can feel his 'intelligence' is offended by perhaps the greatest idea in science but he is fervently enthusiastically about the rampant nonsense in his alternative science (for which, read 'pseudoscience') website.

Yes of course there is a worldwide conspiracy to keep from us the vast powers of psychokenesis and cold fusion ... and he talks about tiny imaginations and offending one's intelligence? Please ... spare us ... seriously!

It sounds like his world view is offended by the idea rather than his intelligence. But what is your world view Nick? ... new age mysticism? fundamentalist religion? If the great ideas of science are in fact 'crap', what are the great ideas. Stop hiding and fill us in on what you accept, rather than what you don't.

Myksyk

From Nick's alternative (aka non) science website ...
_______________________________________________________________

"Notice the words; "The characteristics themselves do not directly matter at all." This innocent phrase fatally undermines Darwin's original key conception: that each animal's special physical characteristics are what makes it fit to survive: the giraffe's long neck, the eagle's keen eye, or the cheetah's 60 mile-an-hour sprint.

Simpson's reformulation means all this must be dropped: it is not the characteristics that directly matter -- it is the animals' capacity to reproduce themselves. The race is not to the swift, after all, but merely to the prolific. So how can neo-Darwinism explain the enormous diversity of characteristics?"
________________________________________________________________

Is this perhaps the most transparently stupid statement ever made on evolution?

Does the author seriously think that ability to reproduce has nothing to do with characteristics which enable you to survive against competition from rivals?

As he clearly cannot see ... I'll explain slowly. In order to reproduce old man, you must survive until you actually can reproduce (Does this really need explaining????).

In other words you must still be alive after whatever constitutes your 'puberty'. In order to get to that stage you must survive in your environment and you must compete with other animals for the resources in your environment. If you lose, you increase your risk of dying and not reproducing and your genes don't get passed on. Whatever genes helped you win the race, or at least stay in it, will then be 'naturally selected' for. There is no use in being potentially prolific if you die age 2!!!!

At the risk of overdoing it ... the cheetah's speed is important because it help's him catch the poor impala and feed himself/herself so s/he can reproduce and then it helps him/her again to catch more poor impala so he can actually keep his/her offspring alive until they reach reproducing age ... and so on.

If I'm faster (or quieter, or have better camouflage, or can fend off colds better, or am sexier) than my cheetah mate Padraig (and the local "Didjahearsumtin" impala family) then I'm more likely to have loads of food, be able to attract that sexy vixen of a cheetah, Lulu (who also has all the characteristics which have helped her survive until I get a chance to woo and jump her), and survive long enough to pass on my genes and keep my demanding offspring alive.

Of course, if my environment changes (say a new ice age brings loads of snow) then this camouflage I've being perfecting unwittingly for the last million years will prove my undoing ... cos I know longer 'fit' best in my surroundings. Now I won't be able to survive long enough to be prolific so ... in a deeply ironic sense ... I'm shagged!!!