Religion vs Science

C M Edwards · 2004-08-25 13:56:44

To be honest, whether or not there's a God really doesn't concern me all that much. I'm more interested in how others view/perceive the issue.

Fair enough.

Anyway, the point of my earlier non-sequitur is that literalism distorts Christianity's fundamentals, not highlights them. Similarly christian fundamentalist views on science, inspired by the same misleading literalism (Yay! I actually tied it in to the topic!), do not correspond to the views of all christians.

Ian Flint · 2004-08-25 14:10:55

I would describe myself as an ex-Mormon agnostic with leanings toward Taoism, or some "hands-off" kind of Creator, an some kind of life after death.

Why ex-Mormon?
As a father of three little girls, I simply had to stop and think -- Is a patriarchy good for girls? The answer is a resounding NO. Women have brains just like men, so the sexism prevalent in christian religions is unacceptable. (There are many more reasons to not be Mormon. Ask if your interested.)

Why agnostic?
I simply don't have enough facts to make a decision.

Why Taoism or some Creator and life after death?
I figure there must be something more to human existence than a measily 80 years of mortal toil. And Star Wars sold me on the Force concept long ago -- its kinda Taoish!

By the way this discussion reminds me of a little graphical argument in favor of belief in God:

God Exists God Doesn't Exist

You Believe You'll go to Heaven Nothing happens
Don't Believe You'll go to Hell Nothing happens

The choice is obvious. If you believe, the worste thing that will happen is nothing. If you don't believe, you may just end up in Hell. :laugh:

BWhite · 2004-08-25 14:11:48

So if the Almighty himself were to come down to my desk here. . . and turn my Coke into Pepsi, I'd have to reconsider the nature of the universe.

Coke into Pepsi? Nah. That would be Satan.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-25 14:18:05

Coke into Pepsi? Nah. That would be Satan.

:laugh:

Somehow I suspect Satan would turn it into stale Faygo. The blue kind.

Euler · 2004-08-25 14:22:11

By the way this discussion reminds me of a little graphical argument in favor of belief in God:
God Exists God Doesn't Exist
You Believe You'll go to Heaven Nothing happens
Don't Believe You'll go to Hell Nothing happens
The choice is obvious. If you believe, the worste thing that will happen is nothing. If you don't believe, you may just end up in Hell.

What if a god exists, but it doesn't want you to believe in it? What if a god exists, but is mad at you for believing in the wrong god?

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-25 14:40:10

Here's another thought. What if the traditional, supernatural concept of God is all wrong. If God exists and can be explained by science, does it cease to be God?

Palomar · 2004-08-25 15:00:32

*What if God once existed and is now dead? I'm not referring that to the pop culture shock statement of yesteryear.

I mean it.

Would explain a lot of things.

If God created the universe and natural order of things, then wouldn't it be "a given" that He/She/It must also abide by the laws of nature -- being an outward manifestation of Its inward nature? Then, too, might It not be subject to death?

Again, it'd explain a lot of things. For instance, like how brutish adults could torture and murder innocent children for the sake of a dictator. Or how 6 million Jews got butchered in Europe. Etc. And there was no divine interaction to stop these atrocities.

What if God is dead?

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-25 15:07:52

What if God is dead?

Hmm. Then it would seem that God is subject to physical laws of some sort, therefore not supernatural, and therefore capable of being scientificly understood. Capable of Human understanding.

So if such a being, powerful but ultimately mortal and of the mundane material universe did exist but has since expired, is that being God? If so, does any being which achieves similar levels of capability become God? In such a case, we ourselves have that potential.

If God exists, is he supernatural... or meat? Dead or otherwise.

Uh oh, storm clouds moving in... :hm:

Euler · 2004-08-25 15:22:53

Hmm. Then it would seem that God is subject to physical laws of some sort, therefore not supernatural, and therefore capable of being scientificly understood. Capable of Human understanding.

I think that you can have a non-supernatural god that is beyond our understanding. For instance, what if God is a 10-dimentional creature? Who knows what such a being could be capable of?

Ian Flint · 2004-08-25 15:56:15

I think that you can have a non-supernatural god that is beyond our understanding. For instance, what if God is a 10-dimentional creature? Who knows what such a being could be capable of?

You Trekkie! :laugh:

Again, it'd explain a lot of things. For instance, like how brutish adults could torture and murder innocent children for the sake of a dictator. Or how 6 million Jews got butchered in Europe. Etc. And there was no divine interaction to stop these atrocities.
What if God is dead?

Then I would say that God is definitely still alive. I'm talking about the god of the old testament, of course. Just a quick review of the old testament shows a very brutish, bloodthirsty god.

This makes me think of two things:
1. God and religion are both manmade, or
2. God is like a kid with a stick stirring up an ant pile. Remember 'Q' from Star Trek TNG?

Palomar · 2004-08-25 16:22:50

So if such a being, powerful but ultimately mortal and of the mundane material universe did exist but has since expired, is that being God? If so, does any being which achieves similar levels of capability become God? In such a case, we ourselves have that potential.

*Interesting you mention that. A story in the Old Testament (the Tower of Babel) mentions that very thing: The Tower had to be destroyed because mankind is able to achieve whatever we set our minds to accomplishing.

(And no, I'm not admitting I think the story itself is true [I'm an agnostic!]...although the comment regarding mankind's potential certainly might be)

Ian Flint: Then I would say that God is definitely still alive. I'm talking about the god of the old testament, of course. Just a quick review of the old testament shows a very brutish, bloodthirsty god.

*Another interesting item from the Old Testament: During the Creation account in Genesis and (coincidentally or not) during the telling of the Tower of Babel story, "God" speaks in plurality. "We" -- "Us". Folks in my childhood church explained that as The Trinity speaking...but Jesus hadn't been born yet. And the Holy Ghost so prevalent in the New Testament was not mentioned in the Old Testament (perhaps a reference to "your holy spirit" by one of the OT prophets to Jehovah...but that's about it and I'm taxing my memory here).

Scholars have pointed out references to "cherubim" and "seraphim" (spelling?) visiting (IIRC) Ezekiel and one or two other OT personages.

Anyway, what's up with this "We" and "Us" business? I've read speculation on this before, from a variety of sources. These sure don't seem to be instances of *one* (and 1 only) God deciding and acting on things.

Again, The Trinity of the NT isn't present in the OT. So...?

--Cindy

P.S.: Maybe "God" was a group of super-beings composed of scientists and pranksters, etc., who decided to cut out after they created all this...for whatever reason. :;):

Euler · 2004-08-25 16:53:48

Anyway, what's up with this "We" and "Us" business?

It could be a "royal" we. In old English, kings would often say "we" or "us", when they really meant "I" or "me". Alternately, the story may have originally been written before the origin of monotheism.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-26 06:09:57

I think that you can have a non-supernatural god that is beyond our understanding. For instance, what if God is a 10-dimentional creature? Who knows what such a being could be capable of?

Beyond our present understanding and beyond scientific explainability are two very different things. A ten-dimensional God, bound by the physical laws of those ten dimensions would still be something less than the supernatural, omnitient and omnipotent God of Judeo-Christian myth, history, whatever you choose to call it.

Then I would say that God is definitely still alive. I'm talking about the god of the old testament, of course. Just a quick review of the old testament shows a very brutish, bloodthirsty god.

That's always been one of my beefs with the whole thing. God is the benevolent creator, he loves us all and endowed us with free will and souls, placing us at the pinnacle of his creation. But if he doesn't like something we do... hellfire and damnation, seething torture and pain for all eternity. And that's if you escape an earthly smiting first, pillars of fire, plagues and things of that sort. I mean, killing the first born of every family in Egypt? C'mon you sadistic prick, the Pharoah isn't holed up in a God-proof fortress is he? What, the omnitient supreme being can't see through stone?

Excuse my blasphemous rantings, but it does undermine the whole "benevolent creator" story. At best it looks like a poorly thought out storyline, at worst an accurate record of a bloodthirsty tyrant with superhuman abilities. In which case, if it can be scientifically understood, and it isn't dead, then it can in all likelihood be killed.

And with incitement to deicide, I'll pipe down and see if any smiting occurs.

C M Edwards · 2004-08-26 14:16:00

A ten-dimensional God, bound by the physical laws of those ten dimensions would still be something less than the supernatural, omnitient and omnipotent God of Judeo-Christian myth...

Why? Are you talking in terms of philosophical principles, or actual capability?

Just a quick review of the old testament shows a very brutish, bloodthirsty god.

Just a quick review of the New Testament shows the same thing. Contrary to popular opinion, the level of violence and malaise in the New Testament is no different from the old. J.C. and the Boys were crawling with lepers wherever they went. God even sends His own Son to His death after allowing him to be dragged from one whipping post to the next. These "quick reviews" of the Bible allow the same conclusions as a "quick review" of the world around us - brutish, bloodthirsty.

So, why bother to learn about God, Creation, Science (which studies Creation) or anything except what's in the pharmacy to dull the pain?

I suppose it depends on what you're looking for in your "quick review." If you're looking for suffering, I can guarantee you'll find it somewhere. Likewise, if you're looking for hope or beauty, you can find that, too. You don't even need a Bible, just eyes to see and ears to hear.

PS. I hope you don't get smote. :;):

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-27 05:49:14

Why? Are you talking in terms of philosophical principles, or actual capability?

A bit of both. If we know that man has the potential to know and understand God in all aspects that has philosphical implications, not least of which is the posssibility that we could "catch up" to God and that if he can be measured he is bound by physical laws of the universe, drawing into question whether he created it at all. But in a practical sense we'd have to consider that just because we can't at present measure higher dimensional space doesn't mean we'll never be able to. If at some point we can flip a switch and say "hey guys, check it out, I found God. He's moving, ooh he's really mad now" then what does that mean for the concept of God? We go from a supernatural being beyond our comprehension to a ten-dimensional being with unknown motives and intentions, which we can now track. We go from God to a global security concern.

If you're looking for suffering, I can guarantee you'll find it somewhere. Likewise, if you're looking for hope or beauty, you can find that, too. You don't even need a Bible, just eyes to see and ears to hear.

Amen. Or in the words of a "lesser" prophet, "F**kin' a."

PS. I hope you don't get smote.

Does a really bad traffic jam count as a smiting of biblical proportions?

dicktice · 2004-08-27 10:41:57

I know, tossing the Bible and religious interpretations around is fun, but what about tossing around a little science at the same time--if only because the topic is called "Religion vs. Science"? For instance, literally where in the Universe is "Heaven" located? How does "God" cope with the laws defined by theoretical physics, such as light-speed limitation, as Custodian of the entire Universe? Is the "soul" located inside the brain, along with the "mind"? After how many cell divisions following conception does "original sin" appear during gestation? You know, vital stuff like that.

C M Edwards · 2004-08-27 11:42:19

Does a really bad traffic jam count as a smiting of biblical proportions?

That depends. Are you still stuck in it? ???

As for the human ability to detect, understand, and perhaps even rival the creator of the universe, that may be exactly what some of the more vehement opposition to science by religious reactionaries is all about. The attempt to do so could -- no, would -- be a prideful blasphemy the likes of which no human has attempted since the Tower of Babel.

What a great discussion topic for the New Mars forum!

Detecting, understanding, and rivaling God's abilities is actually three or more tasks, any one of which may be impossible according to Godel's Theorem or some fundamental natural law. Take the example of a ten-dimensional being. Omnipresence in a four-dimensional finite space is entirely conceivable for such a creature. (After all, we're omnipresent in many two-dimensional cross-sections of ourselves. Make the cut along the proper plane and we're even multi-local.) It's just a matter of chosing the space for consideration. Likewise, effective omniscience of events within a four-dimensional space is possible for a ten-dimensional being. (On certain scales determined by our nervous system, we can sense what happens in two-dimensional cross-sections of ourselves.) If God had the same sort of dimensional relationship to our universe as a cross-section across our gut has to us, certain aspects of God local to our universe could be understood. But what about the aspects not local to our universe? Conceivably, they could be probed and detected. But simple detection does not imply complete understanding. How much could a thin flat, sentient section of your liver really hope to find out about your brain using the hormones and other rather unfocussed methods at its disposal? Or even your diaphram? And what would that data tell it about your whole body? Maybe enough to be a better liver, or the knowledge of how to turn cancerous and set off on its own. It could conceivably learn enough to look after itself without your help as a sort of symbiont or parasite, but probably not enough to either fully understand or rival your own full capabilities as a human being.

Not that you'd ever want for conversation on the intricasies of hepatic existence. :;):

We might have an analogous relationship to God. If so, He could probably get along without us, but likes having us around for some reason (or at least hasn't opted for elective surgery to have the ugly growth removed yet). Since we'd be living off of him, we might as well try to make the relationship symbiotic, and do our best to be a cute little slice of liver instead of a mean old tumor.

C M Edwards · 2004-08-27 12:02:50

Dick, to give a proper scientific answer to a question about God and religious doctrine, you'd have to have questions where the differences between various answers could conceivably be tested. The "Does the soul reside in the brain?" question is good only if you can tell the difference between "yes" and "no". Also, you've have to make sure your definitions corresponded in the first place -- a daunting task in hermeneutics.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-27 12:05:19

...Since we'd be living off of him, we might as well try to make the relationship symbiotic, and do our best to be a cute little slice of liver instead of a mean old tumor.

:laugh: Absolutely wonderful C M! I try to elevate humanity to the pinnacle of all that is and will be, and you make us cancer!

C M Edwards · 2004-08-27 12:31:27

The analogy was facetious. The blow to dignity was not. Deciding the future evolution of humanity is no place for false pride.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-27 12:45:23

The analogy was facetious. The blow to dignity was not. Deciding the future evolution of humanity is no place for false pride.

False pride, no. But if we can actually do it...

But seriously, my entire point was that if God can be explained, detected or quantified scientifically it undermines the established religions by making God part of the physical universe, rather than creator of it. Instead of God we're left with "Q" which doesn't exactly inspire the same sort of reverance, though bowel wrenching fear could still be a factor.

Dook · 2004-08-27 14:50:09

Established religions undermine themselves by not accepting scientific evidence as proof of God's overall design.

I do think that if we really knew God we would have a much different opinion with less reverence. I think there is a practical reason behind our being here. Humans through history have strongly resisted the idea that we may very well be just another average intelligent species.

Maybe all of this exists because the only other option was a vast nothing? Or maybe God created all of this just because He was lonely? Sometimes I think there must be some benefit for Him, some need that is fulfilled. I once found a strange web site that said God created the universe because He needs love, like we need food. I don't know but I'm sure when and if we really find out those answers it will be as strange as can be.

Quote: "Uh oh, Jesus is coming. Everybody look busy!"

Euler · 2004-08-28 01:24:34

But seriously, my entire point was that if God can be explained, detected or quantified scientifically it undermines the established religions by making God part of the physical universe, rather than creator of it. Instead of God we're left with "Q" which doesn't exactly inspire the same sort of reverance, though bowel wrenching fear could still be a factor.

If there really is a being that created us and possibly our whole universe, then I think it deserves a great deal of respect whether it is supernatural or not.

Stargrail · 2004-08-28 03:46:44

I think that the bible is written fractal programme based on time travel, with a serious resurrection principle, just as Douglas Adams has the Improbability Drive in the heart of gold and Heisenberg, the uncertainty principle.

Understanding the symbolism of the Bible with the view that Jesus wanted to go to space, the Bible could be seen as the document containing the information waiting to be unlocked.

Why is God confined to 10 Dimentions?

I can see that shape of 10 cubes in 3D is abstractly a Galaxy shape, but a 3D shape that has an 11 shape is a 4 triangle with two in the middle. It has a constant of 4, through the middle. God's name is traditionally seen as a tetragrammaton four letter word, 72 of them apparently.

1
1 1
1 2 1
1 1 1 1

Dook · 2004-08-28 11:44:19

For instance, literally where in the Universe is "Heaven" located? How does "God" cope with the laws defined by theoretical physics, such as light-speed limitation, as Custodian of the entire Universe? Is the "soul" located inside the brain, along with the "mind"? After how many cell divisions following conception does "original sin" appear during gestation? You know, vital stuff like that.

I think God is out there as soul energy and surrounded by more soul (angels, other souls) energy. I think of a giant ball of light that would look like a star but emit different radiation than normal stars. And it should be located at the very center of the universe.

Hawking questioned (or was it Einstein?) whether God had any choice in the creation of the universe. Maybe God had to create it this way so that He could be a part of it? Or maybe this is the only way for intelligent life to form? Maybe there are other gods with different physical properties that create universes with physics to suit themselves?

If you could step out of the universe and into another dimension, a neutral dimension that supports all the universes, then you could just walk down a few steps and re-enter it trillions of light years from where you started. You wouldn't be travelling faster than light.

Most people think souls join the human body somewhere just before childbirth but I think it happens at about 3 or 4 years of age because this is as far back as we can remember. Before that we are driven completely by instinct and curiousity. Like an intelligent animal.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-08-25 13:56:44

Re: Religion vs Science

#27 2004-08-25 14:10:55

Re: Religion vs Science

#28 2004-08-25 14:11:48

Re: Religion vs Science

#29 2004-08-25 14:18:05

Re: Religion vs Science

#30 2004-08-25 14:22:11

Re: Religion vs Science

#31 2004-08-25 14:40:10

Re: Religion vs Science

#32 2004-08-25 15:00:32

Re: Religion vs Science

#33 2004-08-25 15:07:52

Re: Religion vs Science

#34 2004-08-25 15:22:53

Re: Religion vs Science

#35 2004-08-25 15:56:15

Re: Religion vs Science

#36 2004-08-25 16:22:50

Re: Religion vs Science

#37 2004-08-25 16:53:48

Re: Religion vs Science

#38 2004-08-26 06:09:57

Re: Religion vs Science

#39 2004-08-26 14:16:00

Re: Religion vs Science

#40 2004-08-27 05:49:14

Re: Religion vs Science

#41 2004-08-27 10:41:57

Re: Religion vs Science

#42 2004-08-27 11:42:19

Re: Religion vs Science

#43 2004-08-27 12:02:50

Re: Religion vs Science

#44 2004-08-27 12:05:19

Re: Religion vs Science

#45 2004-08-27 12:31:27

Re: Religion vs Science

#46 2004-08-27 12:45:23

Re: Religion vs Science

#47 2004-08-27 14:50:09

Re: Religion vs Science

#48 2004-08-28 01:24:34

Re: Religion vs Science

#49 2004-08-28 03:46:44

Re: Religion vs Science

#50 2004-08-28 11:44:19

Re: Religion vs Science

Board footer