Are we using science in ways that it
wasn't intended to, in which case we should be a little careful, or are we
using faith in ways that faith wasn't really designed for? There are certain
questions that are better answered by one approach than the other, and if you
start mixing that up, then you end up in … conflict.
— Francis S. Collins
The relationship between Science and Faith has
always been a subject of study by philosophers, theologians and scientists. They
provide several diverse perspectives from different geographical regions,
cultures and historical epochs. Sometimes the diversity is harmonious and other
times conflicted.
Religious Traditions
There are many traditions
of religious or spiritual thinking, which affect how we think
about science. Much of Western thinking is rooted in the Abrahamic
religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam, which started to gain respect for
science after the continuing spread of knowledge. (1)
Historically Hinduism has embraced reason and empiricism,
holding that science brings legitimate, but incomplete knowledge of the world.
Confucian thought has held different views of science over time. Most Buddhists
today view science as complementary to their beliefs.
Developed countries achieved substantial advances through
science and the mindset steadily developed that science is pre-eminent and
religion is obsolescent, or even obsolete. Witness the widespread decline of
religion in advanced economies and continued spread of religious influence only
in relatively poorer countries.
Religion &
Spirituality
There’s a difference between religion and spirituality.
Religion is a set of beliefs and rituals that claim to develop a relationship
with God. Spirituality is a focus on spiritual things, instead of physical
things. (2) Deepak Chopra says succinctly, “Religion is belief in
someone else’s experience; Spirituality is having one’s own experience.”
Thousands of years ago,
in cultures across the globe, inspired spiritual teachers such as the Buddha,
Jesus, and Lao- Tzu proposed profound views of life. They taught that a
transcendent domain resides beyond the everyday world of pain and struggle.
Beyond the reach of the five senses lies an invisible realm of infinite
possibility. And the key to unfolding its potential is consciousness. Go
within, the sages and seers declared, and you will find the true source of
everything: your own awareness.
Religion & Science
Nobel prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg writes that
his understanding of the origins of the universe leaves little room for
miracles or for a designing intelligence. The human mind, so central
to the religious belief in God, is to Weinberg a product of “impersonal laws
acting over billions of years.” (3)
Science and religion generally pursue
knowledge of the universe using different methodologies. (4) Science acknowledges reason,
empiricism, and evidence, while religions
embrace revelation, faith and sacredness. Despite these
differences, before the sixteenth century, science and innovation developed
through sponsorship by religious leaders.
In the popular imagination, science long ago discredited
religion. Facts replaced faith. Superstition was gradually vanquished. That’s
why Darwin’s explanation of man’s primate ancestry prevails over the
allegorical story of Genesis. This is why the “big bang” is widely accepted as
the source of the cosmos rather than the various myths of creation.
Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism claim to have no
particular conflict with science, particularly in the areas of the origins of creation
and the age of the universe – some billions of years. The Hinduism version of
evolution agrees with the scientific theory that evolution moves from the
simple to the complex and from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous.
Religions Shift to
Spirituality
In the past, religion in
the western world had it’s own unshakeable wall that inhibited change. Roman
Catholicism dominated Christianity for several hundred years and strong
bureaucratic criteria governed the definition of truth, or “dogma”. Scientific
evidence that showed the invalidity of any accepted belief had to first go
through a rigorous process of religious acceptance. This process was shown to have failed in many
instances – notably Galileo, who was forced to recant his evidence that the
Earth was not a central point of the universe but revolved around the Sun. A
formal apology was made only after several hundred years.
There are many instances of such failures in organized
religions. With the ascendance of science to preeminence, religion was forced
to shift its stance to tacit acceptance of proven science and has endeavored to
move towards increased spirituality.
Science &
Spirituality
The scientific and the spiritual
have been the two great quests of humanity. The scientific quest is to discover
order in the external world of space, time, energy and matter. The spiritual
quest is to discover order in our consciousness. (5)
For some, the feeling has developed that science is
antagonistic to spirituality. If it is going to win or even survive in this
ongoing struggle, spirituality must first overcome a major disadvantage. It
must go beyond the dependence on faith-based beliefs.
Reality is built up of both matter and consciousness.
Reality is matter and energy; consciousness is a function of matter and energy,
specifically in the brain. Science is trying to understand consciousness
primarily through a study of the brain.
In 1996, shortly before his death, Carl Sagan explored
the relationship between the scientific and the spiritual:
“In its encounter with Nature,
science invariably elicits a sense of reverence and awe. The very act of
understanding is a celebration of joining, merging with the magnificence of the
Cosmos. Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound
source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light
years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and
subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility
combined, is surely spiritual. The notion that science and spirituality are
somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.”
Does Spirituality
Require God?
Ray Kurzweil, computer scientist, inventor,
futurist, does not think that genuine spirituality requires an input from
divine or supernatural agents interacting with the human mind? He points out
that scientists now routinely regard neurological processes as operating at
molecular levels, according to the laws of physics and chemistry. Brain, mind,
behavior and personality are increasingly being understood and replicated
without reliance on notions of non-material causation. Human spirituality is
not obviously an exception to this process, any more than is consciousness. (6)
Kurzweil views God not as an extra-material factor but as a
meme, a powerful thought-pattern in which people find many meanings. For him
“God” symbolizes the ideal level of complexity, elegance, knowledge,
intelligence, beauty, creativity, and love. He thinks that biological and
technical evolution will continue advancing ever faster towards the
understanding of spirituality.
Science and Religion are Stuck
For several hundred years now, since the rise of Science to
preeminence, it has built a seemingly unshakeable wall around it. In my view, it
has developed its own myopic creed. Any theory must be proved and the proof
validated using accepted methodologies.
“Show me evidence!” is the demand. (7)
It seems to me that science has lost the true purpose behind
its search for truth. It still depends too much, in my opinion, on
extrapolations of too rigid, conventional logic. I think it is important to consider
a paradigm shift, driven by observations that do not conform to established scientific
dogma.
Similarly, there is a wall around Religion. The thinking and
methodology remain inflexible, in a completely detached, unconnected domain.
People who believe in God accept that their belief is “faith based” and not
subject to scientific proof. In opposition, scientists demand proof. With no
verifiable evidence, scientists simply regress to skepticism.
Pinto Quest
Religionists explain the valid questions raised by science’s
unsolved gaps by terming their beliefs
My quest is to demonstrate that there is indeed a bridge, a realm between Science
and Spirituality that can make a difference to our understanding of both. In my
view, the links are through the human brain and mind. (8)
The workings of the human brain are still a relative mystery
to science. There are more neurons in the brain than there are stars in the
galaxy, and more than one million new connections occur among these neurons
each day. The mechanics are becoming fairly well understood, but the knowledge
is based merely on physical observations at a microscopic level; the
explanations are merely empirical.
A huge amount of work is being done using functional and
advanced anatomical tools, but there are still vast gaps of knowledge and
understanding. No one has really explained the mechanics of the human mind. The
scope of the challenge is awesome and, in my view, there is very little
demonstrable progress. (9)
How can we proceed? Religion, Spirituality and Science are
waiting for the gaps in understanding to be explained. If indeed there are
demonstrable scientific results, the walls that have been built up over time
immemorial will crumble. (10)
Please Engage
I need your help here. What’s your view about the gaps
between Religion and Science? To begin,
please answer some questions and proceed with your own suggestions.
- Are you atheist,
agnostic or religious? Explain the difference between atheism
and agnosticism?
- Is there a God? Can you
provide your own definition?
- If you are atheist, how do
you explain your belief beyond, “No one can prove there is a god, so there
is no god”? Are you satisfied with that explanation?
- If you are religious, how
do you explain your belief beyond, “faith-based”? Are you satisfied with
that explanation? Is religion anything more than a set of rules?
- If you are agnostic, are
you satisfied with simply not knowing?
- Is there a difference
between religion and spirituality? Please explain.
- Is the Pinto Quest to find
a bridge between Science and Religion reasonable?
- Please provide comments and suggestions to help with my quest.
References:
- Library of World Religions
and Faith Traditions: http://goo.gl/ESqEiL
- 7 Differences Between
Religion And Spirituality: http://goo.gl/0bGmBn
- Physicist
Ponders God, Truth and 'Final Theory': http://goo.gl/u65zac
- Are Science & Religion
at War? http://goo.gl/6pg8cu
- War of the World views:
Science vs. Spirituality: http://goo.gl/dHGsz6
- Evolution Is a Spiritual
Process: http://goo.gl/qCJEly
- Stupidly stuck between
religion and science: http://goo.gl/qRIxRr
- Science Vs. Religion:
Beyond The Western Traditions: http://goo.gl/kvx6kt
- How
Does the Human Brain Work and Produce Mental Activity? http://goo.gl/jnJemQ
- YouTube video - Science, Religion, and Spirituality: https://goo.gl/MU7Dda
..ooOOoo..
Jim Pinto
Carlsbad, CA.
USA
8 June 2015
8 June 2015
1. Are you atheist, agnostic or religious?
ReplyDeleteA: I believe in God.
2. Is there a God? Can you provide your own definition?
A: Yes… creator of the big bang
3. If you are atheist, how do you explain your belief?
4. If you are religious, is your belief “faith-based”?
Is religion more than just a set of rules?
A: Faith-based for me. Religion, for me, is much more that a set of rules.
It the acknowledgement of the loving Creator, his son and his spirit,
something (yes) more intelligent than mortals.
5. If you are agnostic, are you satisfied with simply not knowing?
6. Is there a difference between religion and spirituality?
A: Spirituality is an excuse for not being religious.
7. What’s your view of the Pinto Quest to find a bridge between Science and Religion?
A: Genesis 1:1 lines up perfectly with what science says
about the universe and our planet. “… and then there was light…” ≡ The Big Bang
All one needs to understand is that when Genesis says “day” that
that day may have been 50 million years. Moses wrote in terms he understood…
8. Please provide comments and suggestions to help with my quest.
A: If you Acknowledge God
And Love your neighbor as you love yourself
You’ll have a place in heaven!
Mind blocks "god". Discussion is of mind. Therefore discussion blocks god. It's how we are made. Hard wired. Rewiring is necessary to "see".
ReplyDelete1. Are you atheist, agnostic or religious?
ReplyDeleteSort of religious.
2. Is there a God? Can you provide your own definition?
I think so. Our daughter is a hint that someone or thing is on our side.
3. If you are atheist, how do you explain your belief?
I don't think I am.
4. If you are religious, is your belief “faith-based”?
Probably because I have no proof except Bible stories.
Is religion more than just a set of rules?
I don't think of it that way. I think each person's religion is unique to them.
5. If you are agnostic, are you satisfied with simply not knowing?
If I'm religious am I satisfied with not knowing?
6. Is there a difference between religion and spirituality?
Absolutely.
7. What’s your view of the Pinto Quest to find a bridge between Science and Religion?
I think it's a great mental exercise and hopefully will lead to a higher truth for you!
8. Please provide comments and suggestions to help with my quest.
I'm still searching and am not a good guide.
1. I believe that something created all of this.
ReplyDelete2. If there is, he/she/it hasn't overtly made itself known to us beyond some stories written in a few books. He was pretty vocal a couple thousand years ago when he selected a few people to share his message. That seems inefficient method of communication for an all-powerful being that could just talk to each of us directly.
6. To be religious is to give up control to a different authority. Spirituality is relying on your own authority and guiding principles. It's easier to be religious.
7. Mankind has always sought to find some balance between a belief system and a fact-based explanation for our existence. We refuse to believe that anything happens by chance so we turn to religion to give us cause. Religion is unable to explain modern scientific theories so we change the interpretation to suit our personal agendas.
8. DNA, the basic blueprint of all life on this planet, reads like a computer program which requires an intelligent creator. Once you understand how DNA functions, you realize that creation and evolution are two sides of the very same coin. It is ingenious to create life with a basic blueprint and then let it adapt to its environment as needed. In the same way that creation and evolution are inseparable, the religious books of the world have more similarities than they have differences. It's a shame that religions of the world can't find balance through these similarities.
You quote Carl Sagan exploring the relationship between the scientific and the spiritual:
ReplyDelete“In its encounter with Nature, science invariably elicits a sense of reverence and awe. The very act of understanding is a celebration of joining, merging with the magnificence of the Cosmos. Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.”
*********************************************************
Sagan's answer is beautiful prose. However, I believe we can substitute the word "love" for "science" Science is certainly not the source of spirituality. Rather it helps us explain Reality as we all struggle to the Light of Infinite Consciousness, of Total Presence.
As you point out, we have just a tiny grasp of the wonder of creation here on Earth. What about the hundreds of billions of stars, some with multiple planets? How about the hundreds of billions of galaxies spinning around a seemingly infinite Universe? How many Universes are there?
We are all intimately connected. We are, again seemingly, an Infinite Web of multiple trillions of humans, animals, insects, flowers, greenery and on. Our minds cannot grasp the Immensity of just our beloved Little Blue Planet. It's grandeur, power, terror, beauty. It staggers all but the ignorant and the arrogant.
Let us be grateful for the gifts we have been given: Reason, powerful, but puny beside the Heart which seems to have an infinite capacity for love, for yearning to know more, appreciate more...until we have reached the Light...
...which may not be possible. But let's keep reaching! And let's do that hand in hand, not arguing our respective certainties which are all inadequate to the task of finding the Truth
Jim.
Which category does "curious" fit into?
ReplyDeleteWhich category does "discovery" fit into?
Which category does "exploration" fit into?
Which category does "intent" fit into?
What if "science" vs "religion" is an industrial economy artifact?
• Are you atheist, agnostic or religious? Explain the difference between atheism and agnosticism?
ReplyDeleteDefinitely atheist. Atheists = "without god", i.e. no acceptance of gods in the absence of any proof. Agnostic = "There is no information that god exists or does not exist; it cannot be known whether he/she/it exists."
• Is there a God? Can you provide your own definition?
There is no god. "God" to me is a sentient entity that supposedly created us and everything.
• If you are atheist, how do you explain your belief beyond, “No one can prove there is a god, so there is no god”? Are you satisfied with that explanation?
I'm satisfied. As the saying goes, same standards of proof for unicorns and leprechauns.
• Is there a difference between religion and spirituality? Please explain.
To me personally, 'spirituality' is a related to religion, in the sense that its claims are equally intangible and unproven. But at least spirituality does not demand obedience to an imagined being, so I prefer that over the big "R".
• Is the Pinto Quest to find a bridge between Science and Religion reasonable?
It's idealistic in the sense that science uses methods to discover truths, whereas religion starts with declared "truths" and fills in the gaps with fantasy to try and convince disciples of its value. They are a bit like oil and water. Attempts to bridge them are probably attempts to mollify one or both sides.
• Please provide comments and suggestions to help with my quest.
Any comments I make would of course be biased with my viewpoint. I'd only suggest to read as much as possible about each subject, and then read as much as possible in the literature of each, where they attack or ridicule the other side. In both cases, be skeptical of claims of course, and use common sense.
1. Are you atheist, agnostic or religious?
ReplyDeleteA-theist (without theism)
2. Is there a God? Can you provide your own definition?
There is no credible evidence to support such a hypothesis.
3. If you are atheist, how do you explain your belief?
Atheism is the rejection of theism - i.e. the irrational belief in a supernatural entity or entities responsible for the creation / maintenance of human existence, without supporting evidence which can be tested and verified using scientific method. Atheism is not a "belief" , simply a rejection of an unsubstantiated claim.
The burden of proof is on the theists - come up with the proof and atheist/ sceptics will be the first to change our minds
4. Is religion more than just a set of rules?
Does not appear to be.
5. If you are agnostic, are you satisfied with simply not knowing?
6. Is there a difference between religion and spirituality?
Spirituality is irrational belief, religion is the business end of spirituality.
Spirituality provides a vague "god" feeling without the burden of tithe or commitment.
What’s your view of the Pinto Quest to find a bridge between
Science and Religion?
Steven J Gould described the two disciplines as "non overlapping magisteria".
However any attempt to reconcile the two is doomed to fail unless the claims of Religion are held to the same standards as scientific claims / truths.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
8. Please provide comments and suggestions to help with my quest.
Every religious person is atheistic about the claims of all other religions apart from their own. Atheists just go one religion further. Imagine you are outside all of them - looks pretty silly from out here.
Are you atheist, agnostic or religious? Explain the difference between atheism and agnosticism?
ReplyDeleteAtheist. An agnostic is someone that is not willing to make a decision on faith or fact.
2.Is there a God? Can you provide your own definition? There is no God. Even the concept of God is either contradictory or meaningless. No two religions or even individuals have the same concept.
3.If you are atheist, how do you explain your belief beyond, “No one can prove there is a god, so there is no god”? Are you satisfied with that explanation?
One cannot prove a negative. I cannot prove that fairies do not exist.
4.If you are religious, how do you explain your belief beyond, “faith-based”? Are you satisfied with that explanation? Is religion anything more than a set of rules?
5.If you are agnostic, are you satisfied with simply not knowing?
6.Is there a difference between religion and spirituality? Please explain.
Religion is belief in some organizational creed such as Hinduism. Spirituality is belief in something transcendental, beyond existence, beyond reality.
7.Is the Pinto Quest to find a bridge between Science and Religion reasonable? Bridges are always useful.
8.Please provide comments and suggestions to help with my quest.
One comment I have is that you mentioned Galileo and his experience with Organized Religion. A better example of the power of Organized Religion is Giordano Bruno who was burnt at the stake for believing in the heliocentric theory of Copernicus. To date, the Church has not apologized!
Hi Stan
DeleteI am hoping you will read through this and maybe see a lot more depth to the Giordo Bruno example.
Christ's followers were never instructed to put people to death for their beliefs. They were instructed to love their enemies. They were expected to respectfully REASON with others, and to simply walk away from those who were not open to receiving the Word. Does this sound anything like what happened in Bruno’s case?
Wikipedia states that Bruno has been considered a martyr for science - this is most unfortunate, as this makes it look like the REAL church is anti-science. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Modern science was born among men of God. (Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Lord Rayleigh, John Ambrose Fleming, James Clerk Maxwell, Michael Faraday, Lord Kelvin, George Stokes, Sir William Hershel, Gregor Mendel… the list goes on for quite a bit)
Back to Bruno - The fact is that Bruno appears to have been an original thinker with a brilliant, inquiring mind. What happened was not religion bashing science, but rather the corrupt leadership enforcing their dogma in the interests of preserving their position of authority so that they could continue riding the gravy train that they had established using religion as a tool to suite their own ends!
Now test your objectivity: Today is hardly any different - we just have a different crowd enforcing their dogma, dominating education and the media, they have been known to derail the careers of otherwise successful scientists though their growing practice of rubbishing people solely for their views on origins. People not unlike Newton, Pasteur, Kepler, Faraday, Maxwell, you get the picture - who were also all Biblical creationists. You want to rubbish these great giants of science?
Just as I would not have sided with the Catholic Church during Bruno's time, I would HOPE that you would not want to side with the dictating Atheists in our time. You certainly would not be happy if the Creationists were loading Bible stories into the science classes – how can you expect Creationists to feel it fair that evolutionary philosophy is loaded into the science class?
In this earthly existence, a personal world view is an inalienable right that Christ himself recognised.
You get all types of people in churches. Many are not even Christians. The real “Church” (true followers of Christ) is actually a far smaller crowd – some of which may not even attend a regular “formal” church gathering.
I am certain that get all types of atheists too – I only take issue with those atheists who believe that they have some ordained right DOMINATE over the (tax-funded) education system and force their philosophy down my child’s throat in the name of “science”. (I would not at all object to my child having exposure to different philosophies and takes on origins , but these do not belong in the same classroom as physics, chemistry and biology - this is downright pernicious)
Christianity is absolutely NOT anti-science.
It really is dead simple: If it is amenable to the scientific method and can be demonstrated by experiment - then it is science - and I have no objection.
John:
DeleteSorry it has taken me so long to answer your email. I was involved in a large web design project and had very little time for much else.
I of course agree that Christ's teachings were based on love and respect. However, the Church who considers Christ equal to God (or the same as God) obviously has never followed Christ's teachings.
I am not sure what you mean by the statement "how can you expect Creationists to feel it fair that evolutionary philosophy is loaded into the science class." Since Creationists do not accept evolution but instead use religious beliefs to explain life on earth, Creationists should have no say as to what goes on in science class.
Yes, everyone can have a personal world view, but this view has nothing to do with science or any other rational topic. And one's personal view cannot be forced on anyone else - as ISIS is trying to do in the Middle East and in Africa.
Concerning atheism, it is NOT a philosophy. It is just a belief that there is no God. Nothing more or less. It so turns out that my philosophy is Objectivism. Based upon the principles of this philosophy, any faith-based belief such as belief in God is not considered a rational belief. Objectivism is basically a positive philosophy with an entire ontology, epistemology and morality as part of its teachings. Atheism is a very minor part of the philosophy.
Your statement "Christianity is absolutely NOT anti-science" is not entirely true. Christianity varies from liberal to conservative. There are many conservative denominations that are anti-science wanting to stop the teaching of evolution, wanting to ban stem cell research, wanting to prevent abortion, and so on. Books have been written on this.
As you say, "It really is dead simple: If it is amenable to the scientific method and can be demonstrated by experiment - then it is science - and I have no objection," thus all faith-based beliefs by Christians or any other religion cannot be science, and should be completely removed from all science courses and scientific literature including children's books on science.
When I got this e-news, I messaged Jim Pinto and said, “I wrote my my manifesto on the relationship between science and religion. It gets published in September 2015. It’s a book called Evolution 2.0: Breaking the Deadlock Between Darwin and Design.”
ReplyDeleteI came pretty close to becoming and atheist twice. The second time, I more or less decided to let science make the decision for me. So… down the evolution rabbit hole I went.
What I found was a huge story that neither atheists nor traditional creationists seemed very interested in talking about. In fact I’ll go so far as to say it’s the biggest untold story in the history of science.
Some readers of this blog will know me from 10-15 years ago when the fieldbus wars were in full swing. I wrote the book “Industrial Ethernet” (ISA 2002/2004) and worked for a company that designed products for a bunch of different network protocols.
I had a GIANT epiphany one day when I was studying DNA. I was seeking to understand how mutations might produce evolution, and suddenly realized that the data structures in DNA are *scary similar* to the data structures in Ethernet.
They both have error detection and error correction; they both have checksums; they both have a physical layer and many abstract data layers analogous to the OSI 7 layer model; they both have headers and footers and message content. Both ask for the message to be re-sent if it is corrupted. Both militantly defend against copying errors. Both have read-write functions and both are formally defined as communication systems according to Claude Shannon’s original work on information theory in 1948.
And I came to a realization:
1) DNA is a code
2) ALL of the other codes we do know the origin of are designed. Science has no knowledge of a code that is not designed.
3) Therefore everything we know about information technology indicates that DNA was designed.
We cannot prove this - but it is clearly inferred from the data.
I began debating this subject 10 years ago online. The above syllogism became the subject of the longest-running most viewed thread in the history of Infidels, which at that time was the largest atheist discussion board on the web. They never solved it.
Then about 5 years ago I issued a challenge on my blog at www.cosmicfingerprints.com: “Meet my specification at www.naturalcode.org - show me that you can produce a code without designing one, and I’ll write you a check for $10,000.”
In five years I have never received a single submission.
With the introduction of the new book, I’m raising the prize to $100,000. If it’s patentable we’ll buy the patent for $3 million. (I have put together an investment group to fund the prize.) The prize caps at $10 million.
It is VERY worthwhile to search for a naturalistic explanation for the origin of DNA and origin of life. We ought to search for one. And I’m willing to pay for the discovery.
Will this discovery disprove God? Not any more than gravity disproved God. It will only show that the universe gets more orderly and amazing the more we learn about it.
END OF PART 1
BEGIN PART 2
ReplyDeleteAnd that wasn’t all. There was also evolution itself.
According to classical communication theory, classical neo-Darwinism cannot possibly be right. This is because old-school Darwinism claims that mutations are caused by random copying errors which, it is claimed, occasionally are improvements.
Well, any communication engineer who understands what is actually being claimed here knows this is wrong. Copying errors NEVER improve information. They only destroy it. I realized this, so I started looking for other explanations for evolution.
I found out that evolution is NOT a hoax. You can produce significant evolutionary events in the lab in real time. Scientists do this all the time. New species of plants and animals, new organelles, bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics, all in real time. You don’t even have to argue about historical theories because all of this is reproducible. 70 years of research exhaustively proves this out. Thousands and thousands of scientific papers and experiments. Conjecture not necessary.
There are actually five major systematic mechanisms that cells use to engineer their own evolution.
But… nobody is talking about it.
Why?
Because it’s absolutely startling when you realize that cells actually cut, splice, re-arrange and re-engineer their own DNA. It’s amazing to find that evolutionary events are actually direct, engineered responses to threats and hostile situations.
This makes atheists uneasy because it demolishes the random, purposeless version of evolution - a version which not only is not true, but wouldn’t even be provable if it were true, because there is no algorithm for proving randomness.
Creationists don’t want to talk about it because they think evolution is a hoax.
The truth is in the middle. Actually evolution is the most amazing engineering achievement ever. Evolution is like water flowing uphill. It “should” be impossible but it’s not. It’s driven by the intelligence of the cell.
So that’s the story I tell in my book. It’s on Amazon for pre-order. Comes out September 1.
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-2-0-Breaking-Deadlock-between/dp/1940363802/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
Do I believe in God? Absolutely. Much like Isaac Newton, Descartes, Maxwell, Einstein, Copernicus, Galileo, Boyle, Heisenberg, Bohr, Francis Collins and many many other scientists, all of whom saw science as a window into the mind of God.
Perry Marshall
Author, 80/20 Sales & Marketing, Ultimate Guide to Google AdWords, Ultimate Guide to Facebook Advertising, Industrial Ethernet, and Evolution 2.0: Breaking the Deadlock Between Darwin and Design
To Perry Marshall:
DeleteYou are using the word "code" as if it applies equally to DNA and software code. That is a logical trap, and it appears you are using that little bridge to prove your creationist 'point'.
Please have a look at:
http://www.science20.com/chatter_box/dna_when_code_not_code
You may want to think again before publishing that book.
DNA transcription and translation is isomorphic with Claude Shannon's original definitions. See Hubert Yockey's work and his book "Information Evolution and the Origin of Life" Cambidge U. press 2005. Detailed explanation of this is available on the specification at www.naturalcode.org.
Delete1. Religious in a spiritual sense.
ReplyDelete2. Yes. That which created everything and which maybe still guides it.
3. Not an atheist.
4. Faith based in part. Religion can be and should be more than just a set of rules.
5. Not an agnostic.
6. Religion is more dogmatic, with the result that spirituality can be--not necessarily is--an excuse to avoid rigorous honesty. Religion comforts people and is therefore good. Religion is what causes people to voluntarily adhere to certain rules of society. Without it, we would need a lot more police, probably more police than would be possible. Spirituality is looser.
7. Good idea but maybe they cannot be bridged. If not, what would it matter?
8. Several posters have claimed that God does not exist because God cannot be detected of proven. Well, the laws of physics don't exist either. Physical laws are simply human inventions which approximately describe observed regularities.
Everybody should conduct their own careful due diligence before marching
ReplyDeleteto the tune of the day.
My view of the Pinto Quest to find a bridge between Science and Religion?
I think that it is marvelous that there is an interest in investigating
something that has certainly gone very wrong. No amount of political
correctness is going to fix this – the problem is caused by the human
propensity to call a spade by another name for the express purpose of
furthering a religious agenda. Until the spade is boldly, publicly and
officially proclaimed a spade, this trouble will continue.
For a brilliant, well-researched and revealing book that could severely
challenge the evolutionary world view, take a look at “Dragons or
Dinosaurs: Creation or Evolution” by Darek Issacs (That’s Darek, not
Derek). There is also a movie by the same name – search for it on You Tube.
This is Part A - to be continued - due to restrictions on length of blog responses
Part B - continued from previous comments.
ReplyDeleteAtheists and Creationists can sometimes appear to be talking different languages while using the same words. With this in mind I will answer the questions, endeavoring to make my intended meaning as clear as I can:
Am I atheist, agnostic or religious?
Religion (in my opinion) is possible in ANY belief system, including atheism. Religion is what you have when there is a blind acceptance due to peer pressure, intimidation, or fear. Religion can be mindlessly following rituals. “Religious” is what we all CAN become once we have firmly decided that our own world view is the only correct world view. So the religious aspect of a belief can also be seen as a kind of "hysteresis" - as with a thermostat. This works to hold you into whichever belief that you find yourself. Now, with this made clear, I can answer the questions:
Am I atheist? No
Am I agnostic? No
Am I religious? This is NOT something I aspire to be – I strive to establish the truth – and live accordingly, and many others from other beliefs would probably say the same.
I believe that any person CAN be an honest seeker, who has not just blindly “locked” onto his world view, and is still open to amicable and intelligent discussion over evidences that may challenge his view. Such people are NOT religious. However, when people respond to discussion on origins and morals by getting personal and resorting to profanities, THAT is when they reveal their religion. Some are chameleons – they have the ability to put on a magnanimous air, but when unguarded, and with their “crowd”, they unleash their scorn and ridicule when discussing other world views, revealing their religious condition.
Is there a God – Yes, absolutely.
God is the eternal supreme and supernatural spiritual entity who was the author of time, space, matter and life, who wishes to have a personal, mutually fulfilling relationship with every human being.
If you are atheist, how do you explain your belief?
I was once an atheist. Belief implies that atheism has the possibility of being ungrounded in reality – which would make atheism a religion – and I agree that atheism certainly CAN be a religion, which is all too often the case.
I was raised and educated as an atheist, and remained in this state until (age 26) I found that there are ample evidences of God’s handiwork when one is open to giving them fair audience (I am now 51).
So I would explain atheism (having been there) as an unbelief that is driven by our natural desire to be free of any absolute moral authority, this is strongly supported and encouraged by the relentless atheistic bias that has found its way into education and the media.
If you are religious, is your belief “faith-based”?
I do not believe that I am religious – I believe that my present world view is sanely in keeping with the abundance of evidence that is all around us. Atheists may call me religious because I believe in the existence of the Biblical God. I may call some atheists religious because of their dogma and their apparent blind faith in mere conjecture.
Is religion more than just a set of rules?
ANY world view can include people who religiously push their dogma – this includes atheists.
To answer the question: Religion can be a set of rules, it can be rituals, it can be a particularly rigid preconception on origins – and a propensity to categorize such base assumptions and conjecture as science!
If you are agnostic, are you satisfied with simply not knowing?
I would say that when I was an atheist, I “didn’t know”.
I would say that some atheists just “don’t want to know”
I would say that some agnostics are probably “fence sitters” in many things, it may give them some license to avoid many commitments while still appearing like they really care about deep truths, when maybe many don’t, really. Some have made an unspoken choice to put off any decisions with the notion of living life as they please, and then considering their eternal options when closer to the ends of their lives.
Part B - to be continued
John from Durban, South AfricaJune 10, 2015
ReplyDeletePart C - continued from previous comments.
Is there a difference between religion and spirituality?
Absolutely, here is my understanding of what these are about:
RELIGION is to what extent you rigidly adhere to rules, rituals and
beliefs.
SPIRITUALITY is how much you are able to sense or grasp what goes on
OUTSIDE of the physical. This can be largely theoretical, or it can become
every bit as vivid as the physical. This can be an awareness of the state
of your own spirit, it can involve God or angels/demons (which are just
good and bad versions of the same thing). I am of the persuasion that
those who have experienced vivid “alien/UFO encounters” have unwittingly
had demonic encounters – spiritual experiences, actually. You certainly do
not need to belong to any particular “religious group” to have such an
experience – as is shown by the stats collected by those investigating
such claims. (Those interested take a look at a book: “Alien Intrusion” by
Gary Bates)
ADDRESSING THE “SCIENCE-RELIGION” ISSUE HEAD-ON
As simply as it can be expressed: No human was around before the universe
and life came into existence. The matter of origins therefore falls into
one of two possible categories. The first would be “religious” material,
like the Genesis account, which is viewed as bona fide history by those
who are convinced of its truth (God being a reliable witness, in this
case, naturally). The second category can only be CONJECTURE – as there
were no witnesses. The unfortunate thing is that atheists have taken it
upon themselves to peddle their conjecture as if it is firmly established,
incontrovertible fact. They have somehow succeeded in getting their
conjecture on matters of origins into the science classrooms. Having
fraudulently acquired a foot in the door, the atheists then use this
“science” to back their claim that atheism is a world view that is based
entirely on solid facts, when nothing could be further from the truth!
(Conjecture is NOT the same as science, or truth.) But now that this
conjecture is widely accepted as science fact, permeating education and
science documentaries, the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party is in full swing!
The solution?
We should return to calling a spade a spade - Evolution is conjecture, not
science (even if it does make use of known laws of science, it is
nonetheless based on arbitrary assumptions that have no way of being
tested).
Biology and cosmology should only present incontrovertible facts and not
PUSH evolutionary dogma.
Atheists are free to reject the Genesis account, and be accepted in
society and the workplace (it’s called religious freedom)
Creationists should ALSO be free to reject Evolution and be accepted in
society and the workplace (it’s called religious freedom) – but
increasingly we find Creationists face ridicule and discrimination. We are
facing an increasingly passionate, religious push from atheists to
dominate over creationists.
Science is the study of cause and effect based on what can be measured and
repeatedly confirmed by experiment. Conjecture (about anything) is not
fully science until it is able to be subjected to the scientific method.
Comments and suggestions to help with this quest?
It is a difficult one because the present darkness in which we live works
by blurring the picture. The only way to clearly establish solid facts and
to get things “tidy”, so that there can be no misunderstandings, is to
turn on the lights and SHARPEN the focus – and this WILL upset people.
The atheists demand that their conjecture on origins has “science fact”
status – there can be no rational dialog after rationality has been
replaced by a state-sponsored religious, atheistic agenda. Unless the Mad
Hatter’s Tea Party is brought to an end, there can be no sense and
sensibility.
Our problem is that atheists demand that their religion be called science
- and the masses have been foolish enough to submit to this.
John from Durbin:
DeleteA few opposing comments. I restricted myself a selection of your statements. One can take issue with almost every sentence, for its content as well as its logical deficiencies, and use of re-defined words that fit your claims.
" Modern science was born among men of God.". We know that everybody pretty well had to claim to be religious. Not being religious was a fatal error for many, thanks to the religious overlords. So yes, anybody from history that we are allowed to know, was claimed by religion. Others were silenced, often brutally and permanently, and their books burned.
" People not unlike Newton, Pasteur, Kepler, Faraday, Maxwell, you get the picture - who were also all Biblical creationists. You want to rubbish these great giants of science?"
Aha, naming names....so people a few hundred years ago claimed to believe in creationism. Hardly surprising given the previous paragraph, AND the fact that no other options had generally been made available. There is no need to 'rubbish' those great thinkers, but we do need to be careful not to assign attributes from today's mindset and make erroneous claims to pursue new club members.
" I only take issue with those atheists who believe that they have some ordained right to
DOMINATE over the (tax-funded) education system and force their philosophy down my child’s throat in the name of “science”."
Question: do you also take issue with believers who would indoctrinate their (and my) children with their religious dogma? And, do you REALLY equate things like evolution with 'dogma'? Methinks more reading is required in books other than that 2000 year old one.
"I was once an atheist."
Of course you were - you were born that way - we all were. You became religious through indoctrination.
" Is there a God – Yes, absolutely."
Which of the many, many claimed gods exists? Or do they all exist? Why is yours 'the real thing', and all the others are not?
"... Atheists are free to reject the Genesis account,..."
"... Creationists should ALSO be free to reject Evolution .."
You are desperately trying to equate fact and fiction. I get it: you do not believe in evolution, although (look it up) it is a proven condition. You should know, probably DO know, that evolution does not attempt to answer the origins of life. Evolution does not answer all kinds of things, but what it addresses, it does so just fine. Creationism on the other hand, by whatever name you'd like to anoint it as acceptable, is a bogus and religious driven fairy tale.
There is a long list of things that science cannot yet explain, and it may never be able to. That does not give us license to assign a religious explanation - especially as over the decades and centuries, science has drastically shortened the list of things that religion used to be able to claim as 'divine' and true. You however, and people like you, grab onto that as-yet-unknown, and hitch your religious wagon to it, all the while condemning little children all over the world to a future of false expectations and broken promises.
PART B to follow....
PART B:
DeleteYour " ADDRESSING THE “SCIENCE-RELIGION” ISSUE HEAD-ON" paragraph is rife with leading questions and false statements. I'm at a loss which one to tackle first. This may convince some 8-year olds ... but barely.
" We should return to calling a spade a spade - Evolution is conjecture, not
science ".
Wow, your falsely equating of evolution and conjecture, and then hold biblical fairy tales out as the better solution, is nothing less that mind boggling and intellectually dishonest.
" Our problem is that atheists demand that their religion be called science..."
Reading any decent book on the subject will show you that A-theism, i.e. lack of religion, is not in any way a religion, and has nothing in common with "religion". Your well-worn attempt to redefine the word for your own creative uses is symptomatic of the weakness of your arguments.
"... and the masses have been foolish enough to submit to this."
The irony, when the religious make a claim about others that so clearly describes their own deficiencies. In this and other writings, I've often noticed that religious writers have tried to turn the chairs, and have adopted the words of the opposition in a feeble attempt to gain credibility. It's not working well for me, but it may indeed be working on the already afflicted.
FINALLY, you are generally equating atheism and science. Transparently, because ALL religions abhor and attack atheism and see it as an easy, common 'enemy', anything that can also be painted as 'by atheists' is easily equated to 'from the devil' and 'bad. A dangerous foundation upon which to build a society. Although many scientist may be atheists and vise versa, which I claim is a good thing, there is no one-on-one relationship. Claiming such a relationship is another rust spot on your creaky armor.
Note to Jim Pinto, and an appendix: Why am I so blunt, and not show more 'tolerance'?
Well, tolerance is not needed when we agree with someone. It is needed only when we disagree. If we disagree and accept that the disagreement is not worth arguing over, we practice tolerance. And when we disagree to such an extent that we cannot accept the other's position without gagging, we say so- and we don't mince words, lest a weak response be misread as somewhat agreeing.
This should be of interest to you and your interesting quest.
ReplyDeleteHow Science Affects Your Life:
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/wp20150601/science-in-everyday-life/
1. Are you atheist, agnostic or religious?
ReplyDeleteI practice a religion but I am agnostic
2. Is there a God? Can you provide your own definition?
I have a conscience. That is my definition
3. If you are atheist, how do you explain your belief?
I’m not an atheist.
4. If you are religious, is your belief “faith-based”?
I belong to a religious denomination, but I wouldn’t call myself “religious”
Is religion more than just a set of rules?
A set of rules is a good start. If practicing a religion doesn’t make you a better, more sympathetic, and ethical person, it’s not doing you any good. I admit that rules don’t necessarily contribute to being a better person, for example, I doubt that avoiding eating pork makes me a more ethical person, but if they can stimulate conscience, then rules do serve a purpose
5. If you are agnostic, are you satisfied with simply not knowing?
Yes.
6. Is there a difference between religion and spirituality?
Yes. They are clearly not mutually exclusive, but people can adhere to principals of spirituality and belief in a higher being or higher purpose, without a specific religion.
7. What’s your view of the Pinto Quest to find a bridge between
Science and Religion?
See next post below - additional comments
Continued from previous comments (above).
ReplyDelete7. What’s your view of the Pinto Quest to find a bridge between
Many years ago, when we lived in Austin Texas and were members of a very progressive Jewish congregation, we heard a sermon on reconciling the theory of evolution with biblical text. It stuck with me, and I still remember it, nearly 30 years later. The basic premise is that Creation was divine intervention in the natural process of evolution; in order to move evolution in a more holy direction.
Personally, I am fine without the bridge. It is possible practice a religion and learn lessons of life from its holy books without literal interpretations. The Bible is a brilliant history of human nature (so is Machiavelli’s “the Prince” for that matter).
(Prior to moving to Austin, I lived in small town Georgia working as a project manager for a consumer products company. My manager was an avowed atheist, struggling to live in Bible-belt Georgia. On a particularly frustrating day, when the plant maintenance superintendent had spent much of the morning trying to proselytize me, my atheist manager told me that he belonged to a group called Agnostic Social Society Holding Only Logical Explanations. I’ll let you figure out the acronym.)
8. Please provide comments and suggestions to help with my quest.
Okay, here’s what I see as the problem. Religious conservatives, working hand-in-hand with big money interest groups and their puppets in Congress, have made science denial into a tenet of faith; and they’ve done it because it’s profitable.
Imagine the impact that new earth creationism has had on extractive industries. If you believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, then you shouldn’t be worried about running out of natural resources. God will replace that oil whenever he sees fit; it doesn’t take millions of years for fossil fuels to be created from organic matter. There is money to be made by making conservationism the opposite of religion. Imagine how much profit there is to be made if we all believe that bank regulation is anti-Christian. How about the belief that organized labor is anti-Christian?
Biblical Capitalism - The Religious Right's War on Progressive Economic Policy:
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/2/1/132159/0192
The concept of free-market economics and resistance to all forms of government regulation being biblically-mandated dates back to the early 20th century and the beginnings of the labor movement. The term “Fundamentalism” comes from a set of books called “The Fundamentals” which was supposed to describe the basic principles of Christian living. I would have to look up the name and affiliation of the author, although I do recall that the books were written at a seminary in California. The work was funded by Lyman Stewart, an oil company CEO.
1. Are you atheist, agnostic or religious?
ReplyDeleteBible believing Christian
2. Is there a God? Can you provide your own definition?
Yes. He is the creator and sustainer of all things. He is the savior and redeemer for all those who come to Him in Faith. He has revealed Himself to mankind as the “Father”, “Son” and “Holy Spirit”. He entered into His creation in a very personal way thru His Son – Jesus of Nazareth who is called the Christ.
3. If you are atheist, how do you explain your belief? N.A.
4. If you are religious, is your belief “faith-based”?
No. Faith-blessed. All creation declares the glory and personhood of God. All true observable facts gathered with our human senses drives to only one reasonable conclusion. I am faith-blessed as a Christ follower.
Is religion more than just a set of rules? Depends on the Religion, I suppose. Christianity is based on a personal, intimate relationship with the God of this universe. He has provided us with an instruction manual in His love letters to the Human Race. You may find those love letters and instruction manual interwoven in our Bible.
5. If you are agnostic, are you satisfied with simply not knowing? N.A.
6. Is there a difference between religion and spirituality?
I suppose so but haven’t really thought about it. Non-Christian Religions are an effort to either approach God on Man’s merits or replace God with some Man-made substitute. Spirituality can mean many things to different people – I would urge anyone seriously considering a spiritual quest to start with the Bible and believe what it says.
7. What’s your view of the Pinto Quest to find a bridge between Science and Religion?
No need to find a bridge between Christianity and Science. All true science discovers what an All Powerful God has already created or is already sustaining.
8. Please provide comments and suggestions to help with my quest.
Read the Bible and believe what you read. I humbly quote a Bible verse for your examination: Hebrews 11:6 “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” If you are interested, I would start in the New Testament with the Gospel of Matthew or perhaps in the Old Testament in the Book of Genesis.
God is said to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting and non-composite. If God does not exist, then there will be no one about whom it can be said that he is spaceless, timeless, immortal etc.
ReplyDeleteSo God does not exist means nothing is timeless in this universe. If nothing is timeless, then why was it necessary for science to explain how anything could be timeless? This is because in special theory of relativity it has been shown that at the speed of light time totally stops.
By denying the existence of God science is denying the existence of any parmanent state of timelessness in this universe. In spite of that science has shown how a state of timelessness can be reached. Is it not self-contradictory on the part of science?
Science has shown how it is possible to be in a state of timelessness. But a state of timelessness is at the same time a state of deathlessness as well, because in a timeless world change can never occur and because death is some sort of change. So by showing how it is possible to be timeless, science has also shown how it is possible to be immortal. If no being in this universe is immortal, then why was it necessary for science to show how anyone can be immortal?
God is said to be immaterial. As per believers God is the source from which everything has originated. If the source does not contain any matter, then the outcome (the universe) as a whole cannot contain any matter. By showing that the total energy of the universe is zero, science has also shown that the total matter of the universe is indeed zero, because STR has already established that matter and energy are equivalent.
In this way it can be shown that science has explained the very God whose existence it has vehemently denied. If God is purely imaginary, then why was it necessary for science to explain an imaginary God?
Uchitrakar:Thank you for your insightful and beautiful comments. I have read and keep reading many times.
DeleteOne more reason can be given on the basis of which it can be argued that God is not purely imaginary. We say that God is spaceless and timeless. So, if such a being does really exist, then it can be shown by simple logic that his existence in this universe will imply the relativity of space and time. This is because space and time are non-real, non-existent for that being, whereas for us human beings space and time are very much real, existent. So the same space and time have two different values for different beings. For God their values are zero, whereas for us they have non-zero values. Thus, if such a God does really exist, then space and time cannot have any absolute value. They cannot have the same value for everybody, they can have only relative value. Special theory of relativity has also shown that space and time are indeed relative. So, if STR is scientifically correct, then there is no justified ground for discarding mystical experience as a mere hallucination, because mystics have repeatedly and unanimously reported that both their senses of space and time were gone when they have met God.
ReplyDeleteIn my first post here (October 3, 2015) I have written:
ReplyDelete"God is said to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting and non-composite."
It can be shown that all these various attributes of God are actually the attributes of The Whole.
Concept of The Whole
The Whole (TW) is defined in this way: it is that which contains within itself everything that is there. So by its very definition there cannot be anything outside of TW, because we have already defined it as that which contains within itself everything that is there. So whatever will be there will be within TW only and thus there cannot be anything outside it. So if we say that there is something outside of TW, then it will no longer remain TW, because in that case there will be something outside of it. Thus it will be contradictory to claim that there can be anything at all outside of TW.
(In the same way a universe can also be defined. If we define the universe as a collection of all the things that exist, then by definition there cannot exist anything outside of the universe, because we have already defined it as the collection of all the things that exist. So whatever exists exists within the universe. But here, we are not concerned about the universe at all; rather we are concerned about The Whole only.)
Before proceeding further I should say that the above is just a definition and nothing else. No claim is being made that TW actually exists, or that it has the slightest possibility to exist.
As there cannot be anything at all outside of TW, so there will be no space, no time, no matter, simply nothing outside of it. Thus we can say that TW is neither in space nor in time. This simply follows from its definition itself. TW being neither in space nor in time will thus be spaceless and timeless. Being spaceless and timeless it will also be changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting and non-composite.
TW being placed neither in space nor in time cannot change at all. Change can occur either in space or in time. So TW cannot change, because it is placed neither in space nor in time. Being not in space we cannot say about this TW that it was 'there' before, and that it is 'here' now. Being not in time we cannot say about this TW that it was 'this' earlier, and that it has become 'that' later on. So there can never be any question of change for TW.
TW will also be deathless, immortal. This is because death is also some sort of change. I am very much alive at this moment, but at the very next moment I may die. For TW this very next moment will never come, because TW is not in time. Therefore TW can never cease to be.
Now it can be shown that TW which cannot change at all will also be unborn and uncreated. An entity that is created comes into existence from non-existence, and so for it once there was a change, and thus it is not changeless. So TW, for which no change can ever occur, can never be created. It will be uncreated.
Similarly it can be shown that TW, for which no change can ever occur, was never born, because being born means coming into being from non-being. This is also a change. So TW, for which no change can ever occur, will also be unborn.
It can also be shown that an entity for which no change can ever occur is without any beginning and without an end. It is everlasting. Something beginning to exist means change, and existence of something coming to an end also means change. So for an entity, for which no change can ever occur, there will be no beginning and no end; for it there will be neither any coming into existence nor any going into nonexistence.
(To be continued)
(Continued from the earlier post)
ReplyDeleteIt can also be shown that TW will always be one. TW being The Whole will engulf everything, and thus there will be nothing else left outside of it that can be another TW. So as a result there can always be only one TW.
It can also be shown that TW will be all-pervading. If there are two TWs, then none of them can be all-pervading. Because if one TW is all-pervading thus occupying all the space, then where will be the space left for the other TW? So in case there are two TWs, then none of them will be all-pervading. But as we have already seen that there can be only one TW, so it will be all-pervading.
It can also be shown that TW is non-composite. The main reason as to why TW cannot be composite is that there is no space at all outside of TW where the mutilated portions of TW can be thrown away or dumped, because there is no space outside of TW. So TW cannot be mutilated at all, and not even an infinitesimal part of this TW can be separated from the main body of TW. This is because after separating that infinitesimal part of TW from its main body we will find that we will have to keep that separated portion at the very same place from where it has been separated, because there can never be any extra space available at all to dump even this infinitesimal part of TW, and thus all our attempts to mutilate this TW in every possible way is always bound to become a failure.
Thus it can be shown that simply by default TW will always be spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without a beginning, without an end, everlasting and non-composite.
Thus the very definition of TW lets us know as to what are the various attributes of this TW. But from its definition alone it is not possible to know as to whether this TW actually exists or not.
(continued from the previous post)
ReplyDeleteSo, what is the way out? Is there no way for us to know as to whether TW exists or not? Yes, there is at least one way out. If this TW has kept a proof of its existence in something created, then from the presence of that created thing in this universe we can come to know that TW exists. We have already seen that there can be only one TW, and that there can never be any second TW. So all the attributes of TW are actually unique, exclusive attributes of TW only. Nothing else other than TW can possess any single attribute of TW, and TW possesses all these attributes simply because it is TW. If we ask: what caused TW to have all these attributes, then the answer will be: this cause lies within TW itself. The definition of TW is such that in order to be a proper TW, it must always have to be spaceless and timeless, and there can never be any exception to this. TW being spaceless and timeless by definition other attributes of it will necessarily follow. In that sense we can also say that TW is self-caused. Nothing else other than TW can be self-caused in this way. So if we now find that something else other than TW (say X) also possesses some of the attributes of TW, then from this we can conclude that X has received these attributes from TW only, because these are the sole, exclusive attributes of TW. So the fact that X possesses some of the attributes of TW will prove that The Whole exists.
So our next question will be: is there X in the universe? Happily the answer is: yes. This X is light. Like everything else in this universe light is also within space and time. In spite of that light goes beyond space and time, because both space and time become non-real, non-existent for light. For light even infinite distance becomes zero. A scientist has written in a blog (Science 2.0) that for light our universe is 0 mm thick. At the same time we should not forget that time totally stops for light. So light has the two properties of spacelessness and timelessness that are the sole, exclusive properties of TW only. Not being TW we cannot say about light that it is self-caused. So it must have been caused by something else, and this something else can only be TW. So the fact that for light both the values of time and distance become zero proves that there is a God.
(continued from the previous post)
ReplyDeleteHere physicists will say that there is a physical explanation as to why time and distance acquire null value for light, and therefore no supernatural explanation is needed here. This physical explanation is that the speed of light is a universal constant. Speed of light (c) appears in Maxwell’s equations. As Maxwell’s equations are laws of science and as laws of science are invariant in every frame of reference, so the speed of light will also have to be invariant in every frame of reference. In this way the speed of light has become a universal constant. Being a universal constant this speed remains the same in every frame of reference, irrespective of whether this frame is moving or stationary. The speed of light emanating from the headlights of a moving car is the same as the speed of light emanating from the headlights of a stationary car. As one car is moving and one car is stationary here, so space and time will have to bend sufficiently in order that the speed of light can remain the same both in the moving frame as well as in the stationary frame. And in case of a frame moving with the speed of light, this bending of space and time will be infinite, absolute. This is the physical explanation offered by the scientists for the exceptionally extraordinary things that happen only in case of light.
But…Yes, there is a ‘but’ here. Light is not a conscious entity. Being not conscious light cannot take decision about itself. It cannot decide its own fate. So it is not light that has decided that it will move with the same speed in every frame of reference, whether moving or stationary. Therefore if we find that speed of light is a universal constant, then we can conclude that this must have been caused not by light itself but by something else other than light. As light ultimately goes beyond space and time due to the fact that its speed remains the same in every frame of reference, so whatever may be the cause of it, this cause cannot lie within space and time. An entity lying within space and time cannot cause another entity, also lying within space and time, to go beyond space and time. It is logically impossible. So this cause must lie outside space and time. This cause lying outside space and time is God.
(continues from the previous post)
ReplyDeleteBut the story does not end here. A very serious objection has been raised against our concept of The Whole by a famous American atheist who, as per Richard Dawkins, is one of the America's leading atheists. His objection is that as per our definition The Whole is neither in any space nor in any time, and therefore it is a self-referential body. Being a self-referential body nothing meaningful can be said about it. We cannot even address it by very simple words like 'it', 'that' etc. Any meaningful dialogue about TW will only be possible if, and only if, this TW is within some context that is beyond or higher. This means that it cannot be that there will be only The Whole, but that there will also have to be something else along with The Whole. That means The Whole cannot be the sole existent, something else must always have to accompany it. This objection must have to be addressed properly before we can arrive at any conclusion regarding the existence of God.
Here I will have to say that science has given full support to our concept of The Whole. By showing that the total energy of the universe is zero science has also shown that our concept of The Whole is scientifically correct. Being neither in any space nor in any time The Whole is a self-referential body, and the objection is that there cannot be any meaningful dialogue about a self-referential body. But with the help of the general theory of relativity it can be shown that only a self-referential body can have zero energy. Einstein's general theory of relativity has shown that space, time and matter are so interlinked that there cannot be any space and time without matter. Similarly there cannot be any matter without space and time. There is also a famous quote of Einstein on this: "When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter." Again from Einstein's special theory of relativity we come to know that matter and energy are equivalent. So instead of saying that there cannot be any matter without space and time, we can also say that there cannot be any energy without space and time. Now we have already shown that The Whole is without space and time. But we have also shown that there cannot be any energy without space and time. So The Whole cannot have any energy. As soon as we will say that The Whole is within some context that is beyond and higher - say within some higher space and time - we will find that its total energy cannot be zero. This is because if the total energy of The Whole remains zero in this condition also, then which energy will justify the existence of this higher space and time? This is further because we have already seen that there cannot be any space and time without energy. So if the total energy of the universe is indeed zero, then The Whole can in no way be within any higher context. Thus the objection raised against our concept of The Whole is invalidated.
Logically also this objection can be invalidated. As soon as we will say that The Whole is within some context that is beyond or higher, we will find that it no longer remains The Whole. That means for The Whole to be The whole, it can never be within any higher context.
(to be concluded)
(continued from the previous post)
ReplyDeleteNow only one question remains to be answered: "If God created the universe, then who created God?"
This question has already been answered here:
http://www.scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/76/85
Now I want to personally thank Mr. Jim Pinto for allowing me to express my thoughts in his blog.
(concluded)
THE PROBLEM WITH EVIL: Evil with no god = game over. Since all rational people recognize the existence of both massive evil and ongoing good, evil is not a proof against god but rather a part of the evidence for the existence of god; massive god.
ReplyDeleteIt can be shown that God is neither good nor evil. A God who cannot do any good to others cannot be properly called good. But in order to do good to others first of all there will have to be others. So a good God is always bound to create others, and thus he is not fully free. A fully free God is not bound by anything. He has the freedom to create. Similarly he has the freedom to not create. But a good God cannot have the freedom to not create, because in order to do justice to his own good nature a good God is always bound to create others, and thus he is not fully free.
ReplyDeleteIn the same way it can be shown that neither an evil God can be fully free. An evil God cannot be called evil if he cannot do any evil to others. But in order to do evil to others, first of all there will have to be others. Thus an evil God is also always bound to create others in order to do justice to his own evil nature, and thus he cannot be fully free. Thus a fully free God can neither be good nor be evil. He will be beyond good and evil. Being neither good nor evil he can freely decide whether he will create or not. There will be no binding for him that he will always have to create others.
A universe created by a God who is neither good nor evil will also bear the traits of its creator; it will also be neither good nor evil. That means in a universe created by a God who is neither good nor evil there will always be good as well as evil.
"Is there a God? Can you provide your own definition?" - Vedas say there is no god. All religions also say there is no god. We are only interpreting them in a specific way to satisfy the money power. Remove money from the world God will vanish and truth will come out.
ReplyDeleteVedas say the following: Just like the environment of earth is filled with oxygen and nitrogen molecules, similarly the entire universe is filled with (1) root material and (2) root cause. This root cause is called soul. Soul creates all objects using the root material. Every object in the universe is created by its individual soul by using the root material. Thus you are created by your soul and I am created by my soul. Thus there is no creator who created the universe. Therefore god can be your soul. If you replace the word God by your soul in Bible or Gita you will not find any inconsistencies. On the contrary they will be understandable and meaningful. We have modified Vedas and Bibles to fit need for money power in a wrong way to confuse people.
Math is all wrong. Real numbers are not objects of nature. Therefore real numbers are false. You cannot create anything that is true using something that is false. Therefore all of math is wrong. Since physics uses math, physics must also be wrong. The same is true for money. Money is false, free, and abundant at its source which is the central bank. We cannot create anything true using something false like money. Take a look at https://theoryofsouls.wordpress.com/ for many examples and more details.
Dear Mr. Anonymous of November 17, 2015,
ReplyDeleteThere are some major inconsistencies in your thought. In one place you have written:
"Math is all wrong. Real numbers are not objects of nature. Therefore real numbers are false. You cannot create anything that is true using something that is false. Therefore all of math is wrong. Since physics uses math, physics must also be wrong."
Again in another place you have written:
"Vedas say the following: Just like the environment of earth is filled with oxygen and nitrogen molecules, similarly the entire universe is filled with (1) root material and (2) root cause."
Now my question is: How do you come to know that the environment of earth is filled with oxygen and nitrogen molecules? If you think that physics must be wrong, then the part of physics that has provided us this information must also be wrong. So you do not know with certainty as to whether the environment of earth is actually filled with oxygen and nitrogen molecules or not, because this knowledge of yours has come from physics that, as per your view about physics, must be wrong. Still you are pretending as if you know with certainty that the environment of earth is filled with so and so.
The second inconsistency is that you are commenting in a blog. That means you are using a computer, and you are also using internet. All these inventions have been made possible by a physics that, as per you, must be wrong. And you have also commented that "You cannot create anything that is true using something that is false". So do you think that the computer/mobile phone/whatever it may be and the internet that you are utilizing for commenting in this blog are all false? Or shall we have to believe that the person who is commenting here in the pseudonym of Anonymous is himself/herself false?
For : uchitrakar November 18, 2015 at 1:45 AM
DeleteClearly more and better definitions are needed. But instead of trying to define I will try to give some examples. Take Newton's First Law - an object in motion will continue in motion in a straight line with constant velocity. Have you ever seen such an object on earth or in space? No, never. Thus Newton's laws are all false. In the same way if you investigate Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, you will find they are also wrong. Real numbers and money (which is a real number also) both are false. Using something false, you cannot create anything true.
None of the following famous people of USA, pioneers of our modern society, can be considered formally educated – Bill Gates (software), Steve Jobs (software and hardware), Wright Brothers (Airplane), Benjamin Franklin (business man, scientist, politician, revolutionary), Graham Bell (electrical communication), Thomas Edison (electrical power) etc. So math and not even education are necessary to produce engineering products. Something is used in engineering, and engineering is working, does not mean that the things used are correct. Engineering is full of patches and kludges, created out of trial and error. For more detailed examples take a look at the blog site https://theoryofsouls.wordpress.com/
To Anonymous November 23, 2015 at 7:11 AM
ReplyDeleteIn your reply you have given some names who did not have formal education e.g. Bill gates, Steve Jobs, Wright Brothers, Benjamin Franklin, Graham Bells, Thomas Edison etc. But can you give any quotes from their writings that will show that they also believed like you that math and physics are wrong?
In your reply you have answered one question, but not the other one: how do you come to know that the environment of earth is filled with oxygen and nitrogen molecules?