#194766 - 10/28/10 10:34 AM
Oh Dear God!
|
ævory
Member
Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 9657
|
They squealched some aspects of modern physics just so as to 'change' the writings on the wall?
sounds a bit like religion and those who changed the Bible by a word or two (actually, they were not even as bad as those physics guys).
That had to hurt. What are you suppose to believe?
http://www.cejournal.org/GRD/Realities.htm
Interestingly, though some of these architects of modern science were deeply religious individuals, the t endency to attend to the surface qualities of phenomena could not but in time lead to the dismissal of the whole notion of God and invisible causes in general. So it was that in the early 19th century, when the great French mathematician Pierre Simon Laplace was asked by Napoleon why he had not dedicated his most recent treatise to God, as was the usual practice, the latter replied, ?I have no need of that hypothesis.? By the time we arrive in the 20th century, with the Vienna Circle and the Logical Positivists, headed by Professor Moritz Schlick, philosophy was dealing mainly with language and common sense, which for all practical purposes amounted to a reduction of scientific discourse to what can be immediately observed. These influences led to a capping-off of discussion about many of the most fascinating aspects of modern physics, for instance, until well into the second half of the 20th century, all because such discussion would have dealt with invisible aspects of reality.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#194767 - 10/28/10 10:36 AM
Re: Oh Dear God!
[Re: ævory]
|
ævory
Member
Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 9657
|
see...we're run by professors!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#194769 - 10/28/10 11:46 AM
Re: Oh Dear God!
[Re: ævory]
|
ghoti
Member
Registered: 04/06/02
Posts: 8469
Loc: Ishpeming, MI 75.128.229.255
|
Wow, that's one lengthy article and I read the first third or so and then just skimmed the rest.
The author divides science into a macro version which concentrates on forms and behaviors and a micro version whose focus is mathematics, chemical interactions, and structures and then implies that the two are at odds with each other. I totally disagree with that notion.
Observational science is an excellent way to find out how things operate, but chemistry, mathematics, and studies of microstructures are the key for understanding on a deeper level. Rather than being opposed to each other, the two approaches fill in gaps of understanding that each would fail to do on their own.
I don't get what ths has to do with religion, except that knowing more about science reveals more of the true complexity and beauty of nature than is apparent to the naked eye.
_________________________
Feisty survivors populate this site. Avoid controversies unless you have a very thick skin.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#194783 - 10/28/10 01:33 PM
Re: Oh Dear God!
[Re: ghoti]
|
ævory
Member
Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 9657
|
Well I didn't ask you to read it ALL. But, gotta say, since you Did, I respect your opinion and take on it.
What ever happened to starting threads off of part of something that someone found? Isn't that how it's gone here before? Truly, I never expected you to read it all. Now, if I had posted the entire thing here...then, maybe.
Which, ghoti, came first, the micro or the macro?
I think it has much to do with the religious (?) debates (?) that go on here. Let me give you an example: you or another say this: "well...umm, one cannot take the bible at it's word because men have changed it. What can one believe?"
While, I say: What can one believe...the philosophers and scientists, physicists of long ago? Can I take them to have been on the path of truth when they seem, apparently, to have wanted to squealch any....ANY, findings or such which could lead to the 'furthering' belief and acceptance of God being a part of it? LOOK:
QUOTE: These influences led to a capping-off of discussion about many of the most fascinating aspects of modern physics, for instance, until well into the second half of the 20th century, all because such discussion would have dealt with invisible aspects of reality.END QUOTE
What I ask is....why the silencing? what was that about? I mean, I can completely understand a scientist not wanting to devote his findings to God..or give any recognition of God's hand in it ...a scientist who does not believe in a god of anything.....................................however, doesn't it sound like (and this is my take on what is in the posting) NOT ONLY did the philosophers and physicists of long ago have their own 'nonbelief' system, but they wanted to SILENCE the discovery (the talk) of connecting (to God) anything that was found thru observation by Anyone else as well. why?
I know the rebuttal, cus shakey has said it many times...but, it's a cop out!
Edited by ævory (10/28/10 01:36 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#194785 - 10/28/10 01:51 PM
Re: Oh Dear God!
[Re: ævory]
|
ghoti
Member
Registered: 04/06/02
Posts: 8469
Loc: Ishpeming, MI 75.128.229.255
|
The macro, or observational, part came first since it's much easier to watch things happen than to try to understand why. People were observing nature long before mathematics and chemistry were ever discovered.
Once things like the microscope, advanced mathematics, chemistry, the genetic theory, etc. were developed it became possible to examine things at a level impossible by just naked-eye observation. That's where we began to see how things observed at the macro level were actually driven by micro events and interactions.
I've frankly never heard of any suppression of the study of physics in the early 20th century before reading this article. Actually a tremendous advance in physics occurred during that time period with Einstein's theories of relativity, many new developments in the understanding of electricity and electronics, the quantum mechanics theory, huge advances in astronomy and astrophysics, etc.
IMO there always has been and always will be a place for the hand of a creator in science. The more we know the more fantastic beauty and complexity is revealed about the universe and nature, and I become more convinced that some organizing force is behind it all.
_________________________
Feisty survivors populate this site. Avoid controversies unless you have a very thick skin.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#194786 - 10/28/10 01:55 PM
Re: Oh Dear God!
[Re: ghoti]
|
ævory
Member
Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 9657
|
Ok, thank you so much.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#195273 - 11/10/10 10:00 PM
Re: Oh Dear God!
[Re: ævory]
|
Paul I
Member
Registered: 02/24/00
Posts: 7913
|
I remember as a kid having the Sunday School experience which was sort of compulsary. As a teenager it was follow the crowd as in go compulsory. As a college science student it was science has the answers and Ayn Rand tells you how to behave. Maturity, such as it was, revealed the falsehood of the traditional church and a search for a more metaphysical God. Here it now rests.
_________________________
"...only the shadow knows"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#195279 - 11/11/10 06:39 AM
Re: Oh Dear God!
[Re: Paul I]
|
MerryA
Member
Registered: 01/10/04
Posts: 10887
Loc: Tennessee
|
Ayn Rand IMO wrote some pretty cool stuff (The Education of OverSoul Seven) but most of her stuff was nuts. 
I was raised in a fundy church then I studied metaphysics for about 20 years and ended up at a "the" traditional protestant church. LOL - life (God) sends people on different paths.
_________________________
"I was curious. Since I'm not a cat, that's not dangerous."
- Greg House
76.22.172.94
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#195283 - 11/11/10 11:25 AM
Re: Oh Dear God!
[Re: MerryA]
|
Deo
Member
Registered: 02/11/08
Posts: 127
|
aevory, are you implying that there were deliberate squelching or silencing of any scientific evidence over the centuries which might have led to conclusive proof of the existance of god? Another conspiracy theory.....
Deo
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#195442 - 11/14/10 10:01 AM
Re: Oh Dear God!
[Re: Deo]
|
Deo
Member
Registered: 02/11/08
Posts: 127
|
Hmm.. not reply aevory? Sorry for that last remark but you did call me a troll. Thank you for posting that link. It was a good introduction to an area that interests me i.e. the "Philosophy of Science". There is a free ebook download on this site:
http://www.reddit.com/r/PhilosophyofScie...cience_for_new/
It deals with the subject area of the post i.e Rationalism vs empiricism. Any comments.
Deo
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#195474 - 11/17/10 07:21 AM
Re: Oh Dear God!
[Re: ghoti]
|
ævory
Member
Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 9657
|
The macro, or observational, part came first since it's much easier to watch things happen than to try to understand why. People were observing nature long before mathematics and chemistry were ever discovered.
Once things like the microscope, advanced mathematics, chemistry, the genetic theory, etc. were developed it became possible to examine things at a level impossible by just naked-eye observation. That's where we began to see how things observed at the macro level were actually driven by micro events and interactions.
I've frankly never heard of any suppression of the study of physics in the early 20th century before reading this article. Actually a tremendous advance in physics occurred during that time period with Einstein's theories of relativity, many new developments in the understanding of electricity and electronics, the quantum mechanics theory, huge advances in astronomy and astrophysics, etc.
IMO there always has been and always will be a place for the hand of a creator in science. The more we know the more fantastic beauty and complexity is revealed about the universe and nature, and I become more convinced that some organizing force is behind it all.
You know, I see this counter argument all the time here to 'belief in God': you cannot see Him, can you? Where is He buried...where is Jesus buried? He's like the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus...He doesn't exist. Prove He exists!
Belief is not something that involves the functioning of the eyes. Take for instance my neighbor who is blind and says that the Bible is simple. Well, she has and seeks the Holy Spirit to help her see (understand).
When you search for the meaning of nature, of life..any of it, do you also seek the Holy Spirit's help like those who seek meaning and direction through the Holy Book? Or do you not even consider that at all...does it never enter your mind to ask the Holy Spirit for help when you go to the wilderness and have some epiphany or 'experience'? [Could one say that you think pretty highly of yourself for this, alone? or is that not fair to judge?].........................Do you attribute the experience you have to the Holy Spirit coming upon you with understanding, or do you take all the credit for it? [just asking, it is not an interigation nor meant to make anyone upset]
If you cannot see with the naked eye that which you wish to see ('to understand' our Creator) then you are using that which man created --- to quote you:
Once things like the microscope, advanced mathematics, chemistry, the genetic theory, etc. were developed it became possible to examine things...
Can I include physics in the above as well? Ok, so with these advancements (by the hand of man) we can examine life at a deeper level. I agree. However, perhaps the meaning of "My ways are not your ways" as written in the Bible obscures any understanding of God Himself if you think about the idea (not fact) that you don't get any closer to understanding the nature of God, but rather, you get closer to understanding nature (that which God created) and no matter how much you study nature, His beauty was meant for us to give thanks for, not for dissecting---after all, you have to go beyond what God did....He didn't need to 'see' beyond that which He was capable of---All.
It makes me believe that we need the Holy Spirit and we need to seek understanding thru the Bible.
And on the topic of dissecting nature, do you consider it ok to kill a plant or animal for study with the motivation of understanding God and His works?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#195488 - 11/18/10 06:37 AM
Re: Oh Dear God!
[Re: ævory]
|
ævory
Member
Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 9657
|
I don't recall if you believe in the Holy Spirit, ghoti. Do you?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#195558 - 11/22/10 06:24 AM
Re: Oh Dear God!
[Re: ghoti]
|
ævory
Member
Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 9657
|
The macro, or observational, part came first since it's much easier to watch things happen than to try to understand why. People were observing nature long before mathematics and chemistry were ever discovered.
Once things like the microscope, advanced mathematics, chemistry, the genetic theory, etc. were developed it became possible to examine things at a level impossible by just naked-eye observation. That's where we began to see how things observed at the macro level were actually driven by micro events and interactions.
I've frankly never heard of any suppression of the study of physics in the early 20th century before reading this article. Actually a tremendous advance in physics occurred during that time period with Einstein's theories of relativity, many new developments in the understanding of electricity and electronics, the quantum mechanics theory, huge advances in astronomy and astrophysics, etc.
IMO there always has been and always will be a place for the hand of a creator in science. The more we know the more fantastic beauty and complexity is revealed about the universe and nature, and I become more convinced that some organizing force is behind it all.
When Were math and science really discovered? I'm just sorry that we don't have a science forum so that we could read your knowledge and that of others as to what is truth and fallasy in that realm. It would really be a scream, I think.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#195559 - 11/22/10 06:45 AM
Re: Oh Dear God!
[Re: ghoti]
|
ævory
Member
Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 9657
|
I don't get what ths has to do with religion, except that knowing more about science reveals more of the true complexity and beauty of nature than is apparent to the naked eye.
As I don't get what trying to disrespect and disprove a man/woman's beliefs about religion and the Bible has to do with science, math, physics, yada yada...
Where do you see it fitting in in the way of 'allowing each to have their own opinions' when it comes to BELIEF?
To me, it is simply using one thing or another to dis (poo-poo) what is appropriate to this forum.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#195584 - 11/22/10 01:21 PM
Re: Oh Dear God!
[Re: ævory]
|
ghoti
Member
Registered: 04/06/02
Posts: 8469
Loc: Ishpeming, MI 75.128.229.255
|
Ronda I have said OVER AND OVER that I believe we must each find our own way to communicate with the creator. If focusing solely on the Bible works for you and others, I'm fine with that, but it just doesn't do it for many folks.
What sets me off is ANYONE who comes here and insists that their pathway is the only correct one and that everyone who doesn't follow their lead is wrong. I was told that wasn't true by a direct communication with the creator and I believe it firmly.
What's wrong with each person finding a spiritual position that works for them and then simply respecting the fact that others may disagree? Why is anyone else's possible placement in the afterlife anybody's business but their own, anyway?
_________________________
Feisty survivors populate this site. Avoid controversies unless you have a very thick skin.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
