[Article] What do you get if you divide science by God?

sink

Just read an interesting article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7955846.stm

I would agree with the sceptic Martin Rees, it is impossible to know whether the cosmos has a purpose outside of it's own existence. But I would also add that if it is the case, humans appear to be a very insignificant part of it. Which seems to be where the atheist Weinberg is coming from in dismissing a human-centric spirituality. I wonder what his thoughts would be if he considered the cosmos as a whole with humans only playing an insignificant part. Would he be closer to the opinion of Rees and myself that we can not even begin to contemplate one way or the other?

tech77

sink wrote: »

Just read an interesting article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7955846.stm

I would agree with the sceptic Martin Rees, it is impossible to know whether the cosmos has a purpose outside of it's own existence. But I would also add that if it is the case, humans appear to be a very insignificant part of it. Which seems to be where the atheist Weinberg is coming from in dismissing a human-centric spirituality. I wonder what his thoughts would be if he considered the cosmos as a whole with humans only playing an insignificant part. Would he be closer to the opinion of Rees and myself that we can not even begin to contemplate one way or the other?

Very interesting article.
FWIW, i'd probably find myself in the same camp as Rees.
It's trying to know the arguably unknowable.
Would knowing about a putative God's (non-)existence necessarily require knowledge of everything first.
Ah fcuk it, i dunno...

That connundrum posed by Roger Penrose is very interesting btw.

Zombrex

sink wrote: »

Just read an interesting article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7955846.stm

I would agree with the sceptic Martin Rees, it is impossible to know whether the cosmos has a purpose outside of it's own existence. But I would also add that if it is the case, humans appear to be a very insignificant part of it. Which seems to be where the atheist Weinberg is coming from in dismissing a human-centric spirituality. I wonder what his thoughts would be if he considered the cosmos as a whole with humans only playing an insignificant part. Would he be closer to the opinion of Rees and myself that we can not even begin to contemplate one way or the other?

Didn't follow that article at all. Vernon just seems to drop statements in without any explanation. For example

The equations and predictions of the science, super-accurate though they are, offer us only a glimpse behind that veil. Moreover, that hidden reality is, in some sense, divine.

How is the weird and wonderful world of quantum physics "divine" (in some or any sense)?

I would imagine the suggestion is that to glimps further behind the "veil" we need to start looking at spirituality and theology and religion, which is a bit of a silly suggestion if that is what is being suggested.

Naz_st

Reminds me of the JBS Haldane quote Dawkins has used before:
"I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."

Quantum physics is full of crazy concepts that defy human comprehension (right now). Superposition, quantum tunnelling, Probability waves, etc. No more implies a God than, say, gravity does IMHO.

God of the Quantum gaps - now that's the ultimate in deity shrinking!

kiffer

divide by zero error, redo from start.

Zombrex

Naz_st wrote: »

Reminds me of the JBS Haldane quote Dawkins has used before:
"I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."

Quantum physics is full of crazy concepts that defy human comprehension (right now). Superposition, quantum tunnelling, Probability waves, etc. No more implies a God than, say, gravity does IMHO.

God of the Quantum gaps - now that's the ultimate in deity shrinking!

And in fact cut through a lot of the "common sense" arguments for God, the idea that in a universe that makes sense their must be a god. Well guess what, the universe doesn't make sense

The Mad Hatter

Naz_st wrote: »

God of the Quantum gaps - now that's the ultimate in deity shrinking!

Does make burning a face in a slice of toast pretty darn impressive, though.

Genghiz Cohen

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Does make burning a face in a slice of toast pretty darn impressive, though.

We've already seen that Michel Jackson is the God of Toast.
May he forever remain golden brown, may we shelter in the warm butter of his compassion.

Goduznt Xzst

hmm... I wonder how John Polkinghorne made the leap from thinking quantum physics leads to an understanding that a God must of created the universe, to following the dogmas of Anglicanism.

Dawkins view of Polkinghorne would mirror mine, as one of a number of "good scientists who are sincerely religious" but "I remain baffled ... by their belief in the details of the Christian religion."

Galvasean

Wicknight wrote: »

Well guess what, the universe doesn't make sense

God doesn't make sense.
Ergo, God must be real. :cool:

The Mad Hatter

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

We've already seen that Michel Jackson is the God of Toast.
May he forever remain golden brown, may we shelter in the warm butter of his compassion.

Pfft. Obviously that was just a coincidence/divine test/photoshop.

DapperGent

x/0=∞

5uspect

In the interest of science I left a copy of the Selfish Gene on top of a loaf of bread last night. In the morning I toasted a random slice of bread from said loaf.

Here is an image of that toast:


This clearly illustrates that:
a) The experiment reveals is an underlying force at work.
b) Dawkins is merely a test by God this force.

ScumLord

sink wrote: »

I would agree with the sceptic Martin Rees, it is impossible to know whether the cosmos has a purpose outside of it's own existence. But I would also add that if it is the case, humans appear to be a very insignificant part of it.

How do you know that? If the universe did have a purpose who's to say it wasn't to breed an intelligent self aware animals. If you want to make humans your going to need a universe for them to live in.

Galvasean wrote: »

God doesn't make sense.
Ergo, God must be real. :cool:

The traditional Gods don't make sense by today's standards that doesn't mean something didn't create this universe for a specific purpose.

If your definition of God is= The cause of this universe coming into being or what makes this universe work, then God could be anything and is just the answer to unknowns.

robindch

5uspect wrote: »

Here is an image of that toast

Behold, the Holy Toast!

sink

ScumLord wrote: »

How do you know that? If the universe did have a purpose who's to say it wasn't to breed an intelligent self aware animals. If you want to make humans your going to need a universe for them to live in.

I suppose the "creator" was just having a laugh when he made the universe 99.999999999999999999999999999% of redundant uninhabitable empty space and also created an unfathomable amount of things that can wipe out all life in a second. If we are the purpose of the universe the creator did a seriously bad job.

Galvasean

sink wrote: »

I suppose the "creator" was just having a laugh when he made the universe 99.999999999999999999999999999% of redundant uninhabitable empty space and also created an unfathomable amount of things that can wipe out all life in a second. If we are the purpose of the universe the creator did a seriously bad job.

Maybe he wanted to give us a challenge?

Zombrex

ScumLord wrote: »

How do you know that? If the universe did have a purpose who's to say it wasn't to breed an intelligent self aware animals. If you want to make humans your going to need a universe for them to live in.

Yes but it is questionable that you would need such a big universe.

It is sort of like saying you are going to build a custom dog house just for your dog to live in, with all the mod cons that a dog could want, and oh yes you are going to make it the size of the Milkyway, for no particular reason. (note the galaxy to dog house ratio is actually far smaller than the Earth to universe ratio).

If humans were the purpose of the universe it does cause one to wonder what all the other stuff was for?

the_syco

John Polkinghorne worked on quantum physics in the first part of his career, but then took up a different line of work: he was ordained an Anglican priest. For him, science and religion are entirely compatible. The ordered universe science reveals is only what you'd expect if it was made by an orderly God. However, the two disciplines are different. He calls them "intellectual cousins".
"Physics is showing the world to be both more supple and subtle, but you need to be careful," he says.
If you want to understand the meaning of things you have to go beyond science, and the religious direction is, he argues, the best.

WE CAN ONLY GO FORWARD BY GOING BACKWARDS. 2000 years back, actually :rolleyes:


The bit I quoted certainly made me chortle Seems you must "go beyond science" and believe in Hansel and Gretel the "holy book"...

robindch wrote: »

Behold, the Holy Toast!

All hail the Holy Toast!

Phototoxin

HAIL HOLY TOAST!!

RICCCCCHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRDDDDDUUUU DAAAAAWWWKINS! DAWKALA AKBAR!

Húrin

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

hmm... I wonder how John Polkinghorne made the leap from thinking quantum physics leads to an understanding that a God must of created the universe, to following the dogmas of Anglicanism.

Dawkins view of Polkinghorne would mirror mine, as one of a number of "good scientists who are sincerely religious" but "I remain baffled ... by their belief in the details of the Christian religion."

I wonder how Dawkins makes the leap from "I'm baffled" to "he must be wrong!"

sink wrote: »

I suppose the "creator" was just having a laugh when he made the universe 99.999999999999999999999999999% of redundant uninhabitable empty space and also created an unfathomable amount of things that can wipe out all life in a second. If we are the purpose of the universe the creator did a seriously bad job.

Dismissing it as redundant empty space is rather anthropocentric, as is claiming that humans are the ultimate purpose of the universe.

sink

Húrin wrote: »

Dismissing it as redundant empty space is rather anthropocentric, as is claiming that humans are the ultimate purpose of the universe.

:rolleyes: of course it is because it is part of the same argument that I was criticizing for being anthropocentric. It's certainly not a belief of mine but it is a logical conclusion if you adopt the belief that humans are the sole purpose of the universe.

Zillah

Phototoxin wrote: »

HAIL HOLY TOAST!!

RICCCCCHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRDDDDDUUUU DAAAAAWWWKINS! DAWKALA AKBAR!

You can be a really terrible poster at times.

There, I said it. Everyone was thinking it.

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

I wonder how Dawkins makes the leap from "I'm baffled" to "he must be wrong!"

Húrin wrote: »

Dismissing it as redundant empty space is rather anthropocentric, as is claiming that humans are the ultimate purpose of the universe.

Neither of those posts make any sense in the context of what you have quoted.