This talk that I heard a couple of weeks ago is a good springboard for a discussion. I wasn't sure whether to put it here, on Philosophy, or on the General Faiths pages - please feel free to move it Mods.
Daniel asks several questions here, particularly, "Do you think evolution is an argument for atheism?", "What is truth?" and "What is science?"
In the 19thC, mathematics, metaphysics and theology were all included in what was termed "science".
[url]“Evolution, revolution: Exploring science and religion/spirituality”[/url] by Daniel Scott PhD
Do you think evolution is an argument for atheism? This lecture argues that not only did Darwin believe in God, but today we can intelligently understand the nature of God without pushing aside scientific discoveries. Daniel looks beyond the popular evolution vs. creationism debate and explores the nature of God as a scientific reality.
About the speaker .. from theoretical physicist to practical Christian.
As a young teenager, Daniel Scott became fascinated with theoretical physics. He went on to spend seven years at Cambridge University studying mathematics and mathematical physics. During this time he gained a basic working knowledge of quantum theory and relativity theory, became a published mathematician, and earned a PhD in an abstract branch of mathematical physics. However, by the time he had finished his PhD, his desire to be a physicist had been superseded by a growing interest in scientific metaphysics. He explains that it was his desire to find answers to the big questions of “Life, the universe and everything!” that had sparked his interest in fundamental physics, but that he came to realize that the deepest answers weren’t to be found in mathematics or physics.
On the other hand, whilst at university he had been continuing his spiritual study, and it was during this time that he first glimpsed that Christian Science could be taken seriously as science. This led to a sharp turn in career plans: from theoretical physicist to practical Christian.
[DLMURL] http://cshealer.co.uk/about/dscott/ [/DLMURL]
Judy
Good afternoon!
I've just watched the video and thought is was definitely worth watching. I don't happen to agree with all of the ideas that Daniel Scott is expounding but I do think that they demand serious examination. In this respect, it is a shame that that the main point of criticism that Boson Higgs (isn't it Higgs boson?) can come up with is about Daniel Scott's credentials. On the other hand it does seem reasonable that we could have evidence of these, if for no other reason than to answer Boson Higgs' point of criticism. Can you get evidence of these credentials for us Judy?
Going back to the subject of this string: Higgs Boson, I would like to know what your criticism of Daniel Scott's thesis is? As I have mentioned earlier, this is because I think that it is a thesis that is worth examining and I would be very interested to hear what you think it is and how you might dismantle it.
For my part; I agree with the general direction of Daniel Scott's talk so far, at least, as he examines the development of science from a post modernist perspective. While I do think that the evidence of what he terms "Christian healing" is worthy of serious examination, I don't agree with the "metaphysical" explanations he expounds.
From my point of view the problem that Daniel Scott is facing is summed up in his suggestion that we should not so much believe in God as a being but see God as being itself. I tend to think that the word God necessarily has some kind of notion of "existence" as a "being" imputed upon it by definition. And, I'm not sure sure exactly where "existence" fits into the notion of "being," particularly if there is no object that "exists."
This, to my mind, indicates a real problem we face when we try to use language to establish "truth" in this way. We try to establish a general rule that acts when discrete objects interact. When we try to identify the discrete object we find, ultimately, nothing but general rules. And how can you have a general rule without discrete objects that act in ways that follow general rules?
Then perhaps we start to use language, that still has these same rules, to describe a reality that cannot be accounted for by language. We create a language with "special" rules or perhaps even a "metaphysical" language. Maybe we start talking about "spiritual" rather than "physical" reality.
We are clearly experiencing things differently with different perspectives if we see things as being "spiritual" rather than "material" but what is the reality that we are both experiencing? How is it affected by our perspective? Is this merely a subjective process? Can we ever really say what it is if we are seeing it from our personal perspective? As language can only describe the way we see things (subjectively), can language ever express reality (objectively)?
My take is this: Daniel Scott is saying that reality is metaphysical because physical objects have no objective reality. Whereas, I believe that language is falsely imputed with ontological significance in the first place. Just because all we can say about the object of perception is in terms of language, it doesn't mean the object is metaphysical in nature; what it means is that language is metaphysical, that's all.
Reality is there somewhere, somehow, and language and thoughts are clearly part of that reality in some way, yet where is reality to be found? I know that I do not know, and so, just maybe, I find it? Why do I find it like this? Because I am no longer trying to contain reality in terms of language and am therefore free of the projections of language constructions. I have "let the fly out of the bottle" (a quote from Wittgenstein about the function of philosophy) and therefore may just begin to discover it.
Norbu
Are you so uncertain of your position that you can't handle a little dissent?
Perhaps they may be offended because what they see goes against their indoctrination?
Everyone has the right to be offended. Or to put it another way; no one has the right to be not offended.
Your assumptions about me are best done off forum Boson Higgs, as it is off topic to the thread.
Thank you Norbu for your thoughtful response. Daniel speaks from the perspective of Christian Science, therefore he uses the term God (which does not mean to us what most people assume it to mean) while you, as a Buddhist have your own unique perspective which I respect greatly, though I find it hard to understand! 🙂
The rest of this is boring and unless you have a burning interest in Daniel's academic qualifications, as Bosun Higgs obviously has, I wouldn't bother to read it:
As Daniel won't be back from the States until next week sometime, I put the title of his paper into Google and it came up with 83 results, (all that I went through had his name attached). Here is one - the website of DAMTP, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB
University of Cambridge
Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics (DAMTP)
Theoretical High Energy Particle Physics Group
Publications by Year 1994 (no 71)CLASSICAL FUNCTIONAL BETHE ANSATZ FOR SL(N): SEPARATION OF VARIABLES FOR THE MAGNETIC CHAIN. By D.R.D. Scott (Cambridge U., DAMTP). DAMTP-94-17, Mar 1994. 13pp. Published in J.Math.Phys.35:5831-5843,1994. e-Print Archive: hep-th/9403030
References
Abstract and postscript from Los Alamos e-Print server
(and link to Trieste e-Print mirror)
On the link I provided for Bosun there is an explanation of why certain authors may not be registered as the author of a paper. I'm sorry to further bore everyone.
Why isn't a Person "Registered as an Author?"
arXiv now maintains authority records , which link a person's arXiv account with the papers that he has written. We say that a person is "registered as an author" if there is an authority record that links that person's account to a paper. Just as arXiv submitters are responsible for papers they submit, arXiv users are responsible for maintaining authority records for their papers.There are several reasons why a person might not be registered as an author:
The user might not have a user account on arXiv: Some arXiv authors do not have an account for arXiv because other people have submitted all of the papers that they have authored. For instance, some professors have graduate students submit their own papers -- such a professor will not be automatically "registered as an author" for all of his papers.
...Prior to 6 July 2003, it was possible to submit papers to arXiv via e-mail without creating a user account. Thus, some people who are quite prolific do not have arXiv accounts and are not "registered as an author". (Daniel’s thesis was published in 1994)
We may have failed to have matched the user name: Prior to 17 Jan. 2003, we did not ask people if they were authors of the papers that they owned or submitted. During the upgrade, we had an automated process compare the names of paper owners and submitters to the authors of a paper. We made the user an author of a paper if the names matched, otherwise the user was registered as a non author.
On another search I found this (have no idea how to access the paper tho but it has his PhD from Cambridge mentioned:
Separation of variables and vacuum structure of N = 2 SUSY QCD ...
191 D.R.D. Scott, University of Cambridge, Ph.D. Thesis, 1995. 1 101 E.J. Martinec and N.P. Warner, Nucl. Phys. B 459 (1996) 97. ...
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0370269396007575 - Similar
by T Brzeziński - 1996 - Cited by 3 - Related articles
Judy
Hi Judy,
Daniel speaks from the perspective of Christian Science, therefore he uses the term God (which does not mean to us what most people assume it to mean)...
I went to a talk given by a leading researcher in mindfulness last week. His opening was "mindfulness, whatever that means." Often when we look at what we mean by something we end up finding it hard to say exactly what it is. And so a word begins to take on all sort of meanings. And so maybe we try and work out what we mean by a work like "God" and find it is really quite difficult to define.
...while you, as a Buddhist have your own unique perspective which I respect greatly, though I find it hard to understand! 🙂
When asked by members of Blackfriars about his beliefs the Dalai Lama said that, as a Buddhist he did not believe in a creator god, but did believe in what he was happy to term "ultimate reality." The clerics then quizzed him further asking if he thought that "ultimate reality" had a quality that lovingly beckoned him to it as does God. The Dalai Lama said: "Yes, I think so."
Are the members of Blackfriars and the Dalai Lama talking about the same thing? Are they talking about any-thing at all?
Norbu
When asked by members of Blackfriars about his beliefs the Dalai Lama said that, as a Buddhist he did not believe in a creator god, but did believe in what he was happy to term "ultimate reality." The clerics then quizzed him further asking if he thought that "ultimate reality" had a quality that lovingly beckoned him to it as does God. The Dalai Lama said: "Yes, I think so."
Are the members of Blackfriars and the Dalai Lama talking about the same thing? Are they talking about anything at all?
I really like that! By coincidence, I spent yesterday in a group with someone who had worked with the Dalai Lama and he spoke with such reverence and admiration. He said he is the world's best speaker and is in awe od his intellect and understanidng (the 'he' is an ethical media consultant - not a Buddhist.)
Judy
PM me for the information
Good afternoon!
I've just watched the video and thought is was definitely worth watching. I don't happen to agree with all of the ideas that Daniel Scott is expounding but I do think that they demand serious examination. In this respect, it is a shame that that the main point of criticism that Boson Higgs (isn't it Higgs boson?) can come up with is about Daniel Scott's credentials. On the other hand it does seem reasonable that we could have evidence of these, if for no other reason than to answer Boson Higgs' point of criticism. Can you get evidence of these credentials for us Judy?
Going back to the subject of this string: Higgs Boson, I would like to know what your criticism of Daniel Scott's thesis is? As I have mentioned earlier, this is because I think that it is a thesis that is worth examining and I would be very interested to hear what you think it is and how you might dismantle it.
Well Norbu, Daniel is now back and has sent me the exact wording on his PhD certificate from Queen’s College, Cambridge. If anyone is interested, please PM me. I see no reason why I should have to put his personal information out on the Internet just because Bosun Higgs demands it, especially as he has not had the courtesy to respond to either of my requests for the source of his misinformation, (on the thread and by PM). I now post a third request from Daniel to him:
Please will you find out from Bosun Higgs where he thinks he is checking my credentials, because clearly if there is a mistake in the register I need to find out, but I am unable to find out where he might be checking as I can find no online list or resource. Daniel
Bosun Higgs, you have been unnecessarily insulting towards Daniel and have also posted damaging insinuations about his credibility. Now I think that the very least you could do is to let him know what the source of your mis-information was. Which department or individual did you speak to or email? If we don't hear back from you, then I must come to the sad conclusion that you were simply making this up in order to divert interest from the subject of the talk.
I'm sure I'm not the only one here to notice that BH is very quick to mock, to insult, to insinuate and demand answers from others about his allegations, but when asked questions himself, he either changes the subject, calls it an oxymoron or disappears. I notice he hasn’t bothered to answer Norbu’s question above either. :confused:
Judy
As for evidence for God, there are millions of people who have evidence sufficient to convince them of His/Her existence. It's no real surprise if an atheist doesn't see the evidence, they're not looking for it.
Truth is not decided by popular vote.
As I said Bosun, it's sufficient to convince them. I doubt whether many people with genuine experience of the Divine care two figs what you're convinced of.
You seem to be suggesting that you are somehow intellectually superior to all those 'deluded' believers, that you are somehow closer to the 'Truth'? What you're actually expressing (and that's fair enough) are your opinions on the existence of God.
I have a friend who is a militant atheist and I often wonder why he puts so much effort into trying to convert everyone to seeing the world the way he does. Like any religious fanatic he often ignores another person's very different direct personal experience, and that's just arrogant.
btw, It's billions not millions.
Even better :).
Edit to add:
I'm sure I'm not the only one here to notice that BH is very quick to mock, to insult, to insinuate...
I've also noticed that, Judy, and as I've said before it just gets in the way of whatever point he's trying to make.
Bosun said:
Perhaps they may be offended because what they see goes against their indoctrination?
Bosun, you might not realise it but you often seem to be offended.
no one has the right to be not offended.
I don't think that's true (now I've worked out what that sentence means), not in a civilised discussion. When you try to score points through the use of offensive language you've lost the argument.
Well Norbu, Daniel is now back and has sent me the exact wording on his PhD certificate from Queen’s College, Cambridge. If anyone is interested, please PM me. I see no reason why I should have to put his personal information out on the Internet just because Bosun Higgs demands it, especially as he has not had the courtesy to respond to either of my requests for the source of his misinformation, (on the thread and by PM).
Dear Judy,
Thanks for being thorough here. I had no doubt about Daniel Scott's credentials as I'm sure you realised. And I am more than happy to take your word that Daniel Scott has given you the relevant details.
As it happens, I think the that the thoroughness of Daniel Scott's talk was evidence enough and I don't really understand what difference any qualification he held made to the material of his presentation. I'm sure you realise I was trying to make it clear to Boson Higgs that I wanted him to engage in a sensible discussion and that asking you to confirm Daniel Scott's credentials was only about trying to encourage Boson Higgs to engage in reasoned argument.
Sadly it would appear he doesn't want to do that. If I'm correct in assuming he is not willing to actually engage in a reasoned discussion then I think this is a shame. This is because this is the way to examine ideas and test them to see what is there. I would have enjoyed that and maybe even learnt something even if it was just in finding the weakness in Boson Higgs thinking. I don't mean to be mean but he seems to have not had the bottle for it.
Nevertheless, I do hope that Boson Higgs may accumulate the causes of happiness and swiftly gain the fruits of the causes of happiness; happiness.
Norbu
I've just managed to watch the complete lecture given by Daniel Scott, and like Norbu I found it very interesting. The points he makes are excellent, Judy, thanks for posting it.
By the way, it made me smile to notice how some of us have referred to BH as Bosun Higgs. I did it accidentally at first but decided I preferred it. Sounds like a friend of Captain Pugwash. 🙂
By the way, it made me smile to notice how some of us have referred to BH as Bosun Higgs. I did it accidentally at first but decided I preferred it. Sounds like a friend of Captain Pugwash
I just thought he couldn't spell!
Sunanda, you always make me laugh! Good posts (and points) Barafundle and Norbu! Gosh I hadn't even noticed the spelling slip (I've used both, as Barafundle has) Well, Boson, Bosun or Boston (that was meta) we're still waiting to hear from you!
Judy
I don't need a lecture or lecturer to try to convince me of anything, so I don't know what the argument is about. I know what I believe. The Natural World is 'God' and 'God' is the Natural World (I don't use the word 'God' myself). If you want proof of 'God's' existence, just look into your own mind.
Hi Scott,
You are entitled to believe whatever it is you believe but if you are involved in a dialogue with someone esle about your beliefs you will need to find a way of putting what you believe into words. Another person that you have started to discuss things with may have different beliefs or at least not share your beliefs. They may begin to question you about your beliefs in order to find some kind of fault of logic in your views or lack of evidence for your views. In such a case just saying that you believe what you believe because you know what you believe is not really going to be a very effective way of demonstrating the validity of your beliefs.
In this case Boson Higgs has attempted to criticise Daniel Scott's credentials. This is a fairly low minded approach in any debate. Unfortunately Boson Higgs hasn't had the mind to actually try to define what it is about Danlel Scott's argument that he doesn't agree with or start to explain why he doesn't agree with it. This is a shame because we human beings are often unwarily caught in traps of our beliefs. And one very significant way that we work out what it is reasonable to believe (and so what is reasonable to do that is consistent with our beliefs) is to discuss our beliefs in a rational way. Does that explain the point of the argument?
As it happens, I have spent a great deal of time looking into my own mind and I don't believe in the existence of a creator god. Also I'm afraid I don't believe that God is the same as the natural world. At least, it seems to me that natural and unnatural are as real and just as much part of life as each other and I can't see why God is one and not the other.
I might agree, however, that "God is Love," but that's another "thing" altogether!
Norbu
As it happens, I have spent a great deal of time looking into my own mind and I don't believe in the existence of a creator god.
I think you'd really like the teachings of [url]Sri Ramana Maharshi[/url], Norbu.
Question: I find it difficult to believe in a personal God. In fact I find it impossible. But I can believe in an impersonal God, a divine force which rules and guides the world, and it would be a great help to me, even in my work of healing, if this faith were increased. May I know how to increase this faith?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Faith is in things unknown, but the Self is self-evident. Even the greatest egotist cannot deny his own existence, that is to say, cannot deny the Self. You can call the ultimate reality by whatever name you like and say that you have faith in it or love for it, but who is there who will not have faith in his own existence or love for himself? That is because faith and love are our real nature.
Question: Should I not have any idea about God?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Only so long as there are other thoughts in the Heart can there be a thought of God conceived by one’s mind. The destruction of even that thought of God due to the destruction of all other thoughts alone is the unthought thought, which is the true thought of God.
and...
With regard to his location, God does not reside in any place other than the Heart. It is due to illusion, caused by the ego, the ‘I am the body’ idea, that the kingdom of God is conceived to be elsewhere. Be sure that the Heart is the kingdom of God.
Know that you are perfect, shining light, which not only makes the existence of God’s kingdom possible, but also allows it to be seen as some wonderful heaven. To know this is alone jnana. Therefore, the kingdom of God is within you.
Hi Barafundle,
I have quickly googled Sri Ramanam Maharishi. I do like a lot of what he says and the quotes you have posted. I will come back and read them again today but I particularly like this:
[COLOR="DarkRed"]With regard to his location, God does not reside in any place other than the Heart. It is due to illusion, caused by the ego, the ‘I am the body’ idea, that the kingdom of God is conceived to be elsewhere. Be sure that the Heart is the kingdom of God.
Thanks,
Norbu
Hi Scott,
You are entitled to believe whatever it is you believe but if you are involved in a dialogue with someone esle about your beliefs you will need to find a way of putting what you believe into words. Another person that you have started to discuss things with may have different beliefs or at least not share your beliefs. They may begin to question you about your beliefs in order to find some kind of fault of logic in your views or lack of evidence for your views. In such a case just saying that you believe what you believe because you know what you believe is not really going to be a very effective way of demonstrating the validity of your beliefs.
Norbu
Demonstrating the validity of my beliefs? My beliefs are 100% valid to me. I don't have to prove anything to anyone. Why should I? I'm not interested in 'converting' anyone, nor will anyone 'convert' me (though it has been tried many times...). I was just offering the 'Readers Digest' version of my beliefs FWIW.
Norbu, Are you not doing exactly what you accuse Scott of doing, ie introducing a statement without proof..
You appear to favor Barfundle's quote by Sri Ramanan Maharishi, that God exists only in the Heart. There is no proof of this, in fact through Spiritualism and computer models depicting the planets positions two thousand years ago there is more proof that a supreme energy (God) has played a major part in events.
through Spiritualism and computer models depicting the planets positions two thousand years ago there is more proof that a supreme energy (God) has played a major part in events.
Sri Ramana Maharshi would agree with that too. 🙂
Know that you are perfect, shining light, which not only makes the existence of God’s kingdom possible, but also allows it to be seen as some wonderful heaven. To know this is alone jnana. Therefore, the kingdom of God is within you.
And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
Luke 17:20-21 (King James)
Same message.
Hi Scommstech,
Norbu, Are you not doing exactly what you accuse Scott of doing, ie introducing a statement without proof..
Can you be more specific? Can you point out for me which statement you feel that I am introducing without proof?
You appear to favor Barfundle's quote by Sri Ramanan Maharishi, that God exists only in the Heart. There is no proof of this,...
That depends on what you mean by the words "God exists only in the heart." For me this is a way of saying "God is love." For me this means that God is a word we use to describe the deepest nature of reality. I wouldn't use the word "God" because I think it is a word that is too loaded with unhelpful importance. For me, the deepest level of reality is one that is built upon relationships between subject and object that are mutually interdependent. These deep level relationships have qualities of awareness and benevolence. In fact the existence of the the subject and object are mirror-like aspects of the these qualities.
And it is in the heart that we can comprehend this. That is why "God exists in the heart alone."
in fact through Spiritualism and computer models depicting the planets positions two thousand years ago there is more proof that a supreme energy (God) has played a major part in events.
mmm... Just because there is order does not mean that there is a primal cause or creator of that order. The perception of order is part of the process of the emergence of the experience of order; that much is true. The experience or order and awareness seem to be intrinsic qualities of existence, at least from a subjective perspective, that is. And, I believe that this subjective perspective does reflect a deep aspect of reality.
The reports of mediums appear to be no more than hearsay to me. Sometime a medium may provide information that proves to be true. But that is not more remarkable that the fact that much of what people tell you is true in some shape or form much of the time. At least it is a truth to them in their words. However, most people, most of the time are subject to a notion of their separate self existence and the self existence of the objects of their perception or action. In my opinion (one which I can support quite thoroughly) this is a delusion that has powerful effects on the way people see things.
What do you mean by a "supreme energy" I wonder?
Norbu
Hi
The original quote was that God was within us and anything else was illusionary. This appears to be the interpretation of responses quoted from the Bible, that the kingdom of God was within us all. I would suggest that this is taking the Biblical words too literal. My interpretation is that we are part of the system and as such examples of this system are inbuilt in us.
A supreme power or energy (God) I regard as the instigator of the system that is the universe and all things associated. It needs order and planning to progress. It is not a random or haphazard process. We have a purpose and full fill a requirement. Sorry I can't address all the comments. but I haven't the original posts to refer to. I don't think of God as a white bearded person that is there to fulfill (if we are good) our whims. I am seeing God as the designer who's work is done and us as the fuel to maintain the system. I see this as a very simple concept where forms of self analysis are irrelevant.
Hi
The original quote was that God was within us and anything else was illusionary. This appears to be the interpretation of responses quoted from the Bible, that the kingdom of God was within us all. I would suggest that this is taking the Biblical words too literal.
Could you explain further Scommtech? Jesus said that the Kingdom of Heaven was within us. It does not deny the existence of a creator God. If the Kingdom of Heaven isn't within us, then where is it?
I am seeing God as the designer who's work is done and us as the fuel to maintain the system. I see this as a very simple concept where forms of self analysis are irrelevant.
Then what is the point of the system? I would suggest that the whole point of the system is to provide us with the opportunity for Self examination. Seek and you shall find.
Hi Scommstech
It is not a random or haphazard process.
It can't all be random else there would be no order and clearly there is some kind of order, at least some kinde of order that we, as humans, can peceive.
It needs order and planning to progress.
mmm... I'm not sure there needs to be planning. I think that the idea of planning is a very human idea and if there is a supreme God I think that he wouldn't need to do any planning because he already knows all.
A supreme power or energy (God) I regard as the instigator of the system that is the universe and all things associated.
Is God the only creator or does God create other creators, of for that matter did some other create God?
If God is supreme then he must be the only creator. If he is the only creator then there can be no creation outside him. Then if there is just creation that he has created then there isn't really any creation all as all there is just God cosmically gazing at his cosmic navel.
Then what am I? An illusion? or did God create me as some kind of twisted stunt for me to believe that I might have some relationshiop to him and so give God some kind of relationship to someone else apart from his sad lonely solipsistic self? I think that God (if he exists) wouldn't be that sad or mean.
I am seeing God as the designer who's work is done and us as the fuel to maintain the system.
mmm... So where does the "fuel" to maintain the systems come from? I thought you said that God was "a supreme power or energy." So are you saying that we are the fuel that is the power or energy that is also God?
I see this as a very simple concept where forms of self analysis are irrelevant.
mmm... I'm not saying it's complicated, but I do think that if you don't look at the machinery that comes up with your experience you are likely to be mere flotsam and jetsam of the causes and conditions that have brought about the experience of yourself. And you are likely to come up with simplistic ideas rather than simple ones.
If you do look at the processes that make up your experience, you may begin to see that there is no way you can know very much at all (in simplistic terms at least) apart from beginning to have some kind of direct experience of what it is like to be alive. And for sure, at the bottom of this is something that is about interellationship and love. Call that "God" if you want, I think the word is far too open to abuse to be used in any other than very careful ways.
Norbu
Last night I came across this interesting 12 minute video discussion with Daniel Scott (his lecture was the original subject of this thread, even though it has rather wandered since then!) 😀
[url]Can Christianity Be Scientific?[/url]
These are some of Daniel's comments:
the language of science is mathematics
it's right as a scientist to be sceptical
science is no use unless it actually works
physics has become more metaphysical through its advances
some of the quantum physicists have said that it makes the universe look like a great thought
in order to understand Christian Science and divine reality we need a paradigm shift - a whole change of thought
consciousness is the grounds of reality
There's a difference between physics and mathematics With physics, every couple of years they will say, "forget what we told you - it's all changed." That never happens in mathematics. There's a principle there. Breakthroughs in mathematics never invalidates previous mathematical facts. Mathematics is a metaphysical science.
Whether we're physicists, or other scientists or Christian Scientists, we are all searching for the truth.
One of the comments below it is really worth reading - about the difference between physics and metaphysics - this is an excerpt:
... physics reasons from effect back to cause which is what keeps it locked in the realm of matter or physical sense testimony. Metaphysics on the other hand reason from the basis of cause--the one and only Cause--divine, infinite Mind. Reasoning from effect back to cause is like trying to find what caused the water on the road when it is actually only a mirage.
Daniel mentions quantum physicists and I think this is the book he mentioned in particular:
[COLOR="DarkGreen"]
Creative Evolution
A physicist's resolution between Darwinism and Intelligent Design
Reared in the sacred Hindu Tradition, Amit has devoted his career to integrating science and spirituality.
He shows that consciousness, not matter, is the ground of all being.
[DLMURL] http://www.amitgoswami.org/creative-evolution/ [/DLMURL]
Judy
I grew up going to church and have only become an atheist in the last few years... I read a lot of books about it all, including books about evolution and decided that in the end, god didn't exist.
I think evolution strongly supports the idea that no god exists, at least not a personal god. Evolution is the process by which the world has come about. I see it as an explanation of how and why we exist without having to use "god" to explain it...
You see, religious/spiritual people too often use "god" to explain what they either can't understand or don't want to understand. We don't like uncertainty, and religion is a nice, neat way to fill in our gaps of knowledge about the world.
I don't deny that it works, and does give people strong feelings of contentment and happiness. I don't usually even engage in debates about it all, because I find them largely pointless. Unless the religious person is willing to become an atheist, or the atheist a religious person, the discussion generally goes no where, and ends with both sides convinced as strongly as ever of their viewpoint.
Religion for most people is a crutch. People believe in it because they can't deal with the alternative. And it's plagued with philosophical problems. There is a double standard. Even christians seek evidence when confronted with an extraordinary claim, such as "I can fly", and rightly disbelieve it since I can't provide satisfactory evidence.
But these same people ignore the lack of evidence when it comes to their religious belief....
Sure, they've had some sort of "personal experience" but that's a very weak proof.
And unless they're willing to accept that therefore everyone's "personal experience" is true, then their belief is hypocritical. And if they are willing to accept that personal experience is reliable evidence, then they're left with the problem of reconciling mutually exclusive beliefs. (eg. jesus as the son of god [christianity] and jesus only as a prophet [judaism])
But these same people ignore the lack of evidence when it comes to their religious belief....
Sure, they've had some sort of "personal experience" but that's a very weak proof.
Naturally it's weak proof as far as you are concerned Johnny, but only because it's not your personal experience.
And unless they're willing to accept that therefore everyone's "personal experience" is true, then their belief is hypocritical.
You've argued yourself into a corner, Johnny. 🙂
And if they are willing to accept that personal experience is reliable evidence, then they're left with the problem of reconciling mutually exclusive beliefs. (eg. jesus as the son of god [christianity] and jesus only as a prophet [judaism])
I've been struck by how most atheists I know have made their mind up on the existence of God and the nature of the universe based largely on their particular understanding of one religion's doctrine. That's really not enough to go on.
I think before we can accept or dismiss God we would have to define what we mean by God.
All Love and Reiki Hugs
I think before we can accept or dismiss God we would have to define what we mean by God.
All Love and Reiki Hugs
And that would only be what we mean by God, not what God is. If God could be defined it wouldn't be God.
Naturally it's weak proof as far as you are concerned Johnny, but only because it's not your personal experience.
You've argued yourself into a corner, Johnny. 🙂
Personal experience, or anecdotal evidence is weak proof. You rightly don't accept most claims as being true just because someone told you they were because they experienced it...
If personal experience is strong evidence, then whose personal experience do we trust?
Not a corner my friend, as I would also question my own personal experience when it comes to religion. I've read a number of books which explain how the mind can experience and believe something is real, irrespective of the truth of the actual thing...
I've been struck by how most atheists I know have made their mind up on the existence of God and the nature of the universe based largely on their particular understanding of one religion's doctrine. That's really not enough to go on.
I used the Christianity/Judaism dilemma as an example to illustrate a point. You could apply it to anything.... Look at the wide variety of religious and spiritual belief around the world. It would be madness to suggest that they are all true. A large majority of them are mutually exclusive...
But that's only one argument, and it only applies against the mutually exclusive religions.
So what of the rest?
There are numerous arguments which explain why someone does not believe in god.
Returning to the original topic, evolution provides an explanation for how the world could come about by entirely natural means.
The idea of god is almost always used as an explanation for things we cannot explain. This argument is more often called the "god of the gaps". People explain things like morality, the beginning of time, what happens after death, by invoking god...
Whatever their motivation, I think this tendency stems from the need to be certain about things.
There is something called the "burden of proof". It's the idea that whoever makes the positive claim is required to provide proof supporting his/her claim.
For example, if I claimed that santa claus existed, would it be more reasonable for you to prove to me that he didn't exist, or for me to prove to you that he did?
To prove that santa claus didn't exist, you would have to evaluate the entire universe, and even then allow for the fact that maybe you missed him... A much more reasonable approach would be to simply assume from the fact that there is no evidence that anyone has yet found of his existence, that he therefore does not exist.
The burden of proof would rightly rest of me, and I would have to prove to you (provide evidence) that he existed... If I couldn't do that, then you would rightly remain a non-believer.
Religious people already use this mode of logic when it comes to most things, but when it comes to their personal belief, they conveniently forget about it...
Put another way, if I told you that I'd personally experienced santa claus, or I personally experienced the god that was a frog that lived in the son, would you expect my testimony as truth?
You're already an atheist in regard to all the gods/religions you don't believe in...