Said Owen Gingerich, quoted in "Owen Gingerich, Astronomer Who Saw God in the Cosmos, Dies at 93/He wrote and lectured widely, often on the theme that religion and science were not incompatible. He also chased down 600 copies of Copernicus’s landmark book" (NYT).
Margaret Wertheim, reviewing that book in The Los Angeles Times, called it “lucid and poetic.” “In this time of sectarian wars, when theists and atheists are engaged in increasingly hostile incivilities,” she wrote, “Gingerich lays out an elegant case for why he finds the universe a source of encouragement for his life both as a scientist and as a Christian. We do not have to agree with his conclusions to be buoyed and enchanted by the journey on which he takes us.”
पोस्ट्स
४४ टिप्पण्या:
He is correct. The more we learn about science and the universe the more God's version looks more likely than man's IMO. Intelligent Design was laughed off twenty years ago by the "smart" people, but real working designers and engineers are saying more often that they find patterns in nature that appear to indicate an intelligent hand guiding human development as well as everything else. Another Biblical prophecy come true: Even without hearing the Gospel it is possible for humans to see the Hand of God in the universe and know Him.
God is an extra-universal entity, acknowledged through a faith or trust logical domains.
Science is a logical domain, and necessarily a philosophy and practice in the near frame, where accuracy is inversely proportional to time and space offsets from the observer.
Religion is a behavioral protocol. Judge a philosophy by its principles, not principals: God, gods, mortal gods, and experts.
Babies... fetal-babies exist in the near-frame from conception following the congress of a man and woman. While science is incapable of discerning origin and expression, the law defines viability of human life from six weeks when a baby meets granny in state, if not in process.
"Frankly it lies beyond science to prove the matter one way or the other."
I think this is right for the moment, and possibly forever.
"Science will not collapse if some practitioners are convinced that occasionally there has been creative input in the long chain of being."
I think the word "occasionally" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, but sure, science won't collapse. Lots of wrong-headed ideas are considered on the path to understanding the universe. That's how science works.
The Australian poet Les Murray said “Creation is Evolution seen end on. Evolution is Creation seen sideways.”
I reviewed Dr Stephen Meyer’s Darwin’s
doubt on Amazon a few years ago. The true believers in neo-Darwinism attacked me with a religious fervor. The more I learn about the universe the more obvious it seems it was a designed by some intelligence.
A lot of people, some of them my relatives, will deny the existence of God solely because they disagree with some of the politics of some believers. For instance:
A is a racist, homophobe, and transphobe.
A believes in God.
Ergo, God does not exist.
QED
It’s beyond science to prove that anything is true. The history of sciences littered with all kinds of things that science claims to have proved true, that are no longer believed by scientists to be true.
“He also chased down 600 copies of Copernicus’s landmark book" (NYT).
Surprised that many escaped burning. Anyway, every time I have to cut my toenails I am personally persuaded that a supermoronic Creator exists.
I read Dr Gingrich's book some years ago. It was "The Book Nobody Read" and he traced hundreds of copies. A few had notes in the margins. My daughter worked at the Huntington Library about that time and she was doing something in the stacks one day when she came across a copy of de Revolutionibus. She was astounded to see this rare book sitting in the stack.
Here is my customer review from 2004.
Humans are hard wired for transcendence. The form of transcendence is primarily shaped by culture and family. Once the theistic form of transcendence stopped persecuting atheism, it needed to compete with atheism and thus guaranteed a severe decline in theistic beliefs. The key was that in the competition between theism and atheism, theism now needed a benevolent omniscient deity, since few people want to sign on the dotted line for angry frightening Jehovah. This reversed the terms of Pascal's wager. Instead of believing in God because disbelief invites an eternity of excruciating misery (a la Pascal), one is now invited to disbelieve in God because an omniscient benevolent deity would never consign one to eternal misery, merely for acting upon sincere beliefs that, if there were a God, must have been caused by God.
Humans in the West now increasingly find their transcendence in the worship of the environment, or dreams of ultimate cosmic justice, or the worship of hedonistic selfhood. I'm reminded of the way in which Constantine's issuance of the Edict of Milan in 313 CE, though nominally a proclamation of religious tolerance, rapidly ushered in the collapse of paganism. By 380 CE, Christianity was proclaimed the official religion of the Roman Empire through the Edict of Thessalonica. Christianity made better promises than pagan beliefs and usually had the backing of the 4th Century's version of the power elite.
Unless something dramatic happens, some form of Secularist Transcendence will soon become for a time the official religion of Western Civilization, or whatever is left of it. After the dust settles, there will just be nihilism and power. Good luck, everyone!
Science and literature aren't incompatible, which is the same thing only larger.
If you accept the idea that the supernatural (that is, existing outside of the world we experience) exists, whether in astrology, Gaia, ghosts, whatever, then you should be able to accept at least the possibility that God exists.
The Australian poet Les Murray said “Creation is Evolution seen end on. Evolution is Creation seen sideways.”
Australian poet A.D.Hope on creation and evolution
The sun doth shine
The world is mine
My bones are full of marrow
O for a wench
That has a trench
Where I may push my barrow!
There is no need to see science and religion as being in competition--one concerns itself with how, the other with why. And so long as you are not reading the bible literally (which doesn't make sense for a number of reasons anyway), there is no inconsistency between the two. There is actually surprising agreement between the biblical and scientific creation stories.
Look around, isn't the existence of God evident?
It might not be impossible but it is difficult to imagine doing science without a belief that there are patterns and predictability in what is being observed. Is thinking that the universe spontaneously came together as we see it that much less a leap of faith than thinking there was a Guiding Hand?
It's no accident that the whole "we're living in a sim" thing has become popular lately. Firstly, it's because more and more people have played sims and can imagine the possibility. But it's also because it's becoming clearer and clearer that there is some intelligent design in effect. You basically have three choices: A God, aliens, or a sim. Some people will believe anything to avoid belief in a God.
I am a deist but I'm starting to believe there is a war between good and evil taking place.
There is no conflict between science and religion. Science is "natural science". The existence of God is supernatural. Natural science rejects the possibility of supernatural explanations for natural phenomena by definition. When pushed, science simply resorts to "infinite monkeys on infinite keyboards" explanations.
There is no conflict between science and religion. Science is "natural science". The existence of God is supernatural. Natural science rejects the possibility of supernatural explanations for natural phenomena by definition. When pushed, science simply resorts to "infinite monkeys on infinite keyboards" explanations.
Science still cannot explain the physical conditions of the universe in the first Planck instant after the Big Bang. It appears as if the laws of physics that govern reality were 'created' in that instant. The question, then, is what 'created' them? Did they self-organize? Did some external force do it? Fascinating questions.
Man is the only life form on Earth that is capable of thinking he knows everything.
Well said, good for Owen. It is astonishing, when I think about it, that reality is rationally explainable at all, that there is buried in nature a rationality discoverable to the human mind. I don't see how this arises out of blind interactions of matter.
You can always get them by asking, "What is the uncaused cause? What started off the whole process?"
"You can always get them by asking, "What is the uncaused cause? What started off the whole process?""
Answering "I don't know" is somehow "getting them"?
>FleetUSA said...
Look around, isn't the existence of God evident?<
I was so hoping that this hackneyed, mindless "proof" wouldn't appear in this thoughtful thread. Alas...
I highly recommend "The Mystery of Life's Origin, the continuing controversy".
Not an easy read, but worthwhile and informing.
What is the greater mystery, an uncaused and eternal God, or an uncaused and eternal Universe?
That question has been around for centuries. Matters not if it's eternal in some scientifically provable way or not--on our pissant time scale what's the difference
anyway? Expecting--or demanding--that Existence give up its secrets strikes me as presumptious on the part of mere hominids.
S. J. Gould came up with the term Non-overlapping Magesteria for the real or perceived rival Weltanschauungen of Religion and Science. That strikes me as likely to satisfy mostly those who don't care much either way.
"I am a deist but I'm starting to believe there is a war between good and evil taking place."
There always has been but it is reaching a flash point nowadays. And good is losing... for the moment.
"And good is losing... for the moment."
It's the mean tweets, no doubt.
"Look around, isn't the existence of God evident?"
Only if you believe in a god (or gods).
"Is thinking that the universe spontaneously came together as we see it that much less a leap of faith than thinking there was a Guiding Hand?"
That depends on who you're asking but that's not really the point, or the question. If there was a "guiding hand" who created all that is, where did it come from? If there is a god (or gods) who somehow brought the universe into being...who created the god(s)?
Belief in a supernatural god is simply a placeholder explanation for what we don't know, a facile "explanation" for existence that doesn't explain or answer anything, but merely raises more questions.
Why do people have a need to believe in a creator god?
"Some people will believe anything to avoid belief in a God."
Many people will accept anything that allows them to hold fast to their belief in a god.
The existence of a god as commonly described is a question, but it cannot be framed as a scientific question. It can’t be stated as a falsifiable proposition. No event can prove God does not exist, She will just hide somewhere else.
So “science” need not participate in the discussion. It is a human emotional question, on both sides.
Never understood scientist's fear of faith in a higher power. In no way does God challenge scientific discovery.
Christianity became the official religion in 380 AD. Atheism became the official religion of the Scientific elite about 1860 AD.
So, for hundreds of years there was no conflict. BTW, isn't it funny how all the dullards who clogged up internet chat boards in the 20OO's and early 2010s with endless debates over evolution, are no longer are with us. And I've seen a rapid decline in sentences beginning with "As an Atheist...".
Maybe with the Gay marriage victory and Transgenders becoming accepted, they've lost interest in atheism.
Disbelief in a supernatural god is simply a facile "explanation" claiming to know what we don't know, a "explanation" for existence that doesn't explain or answer anything, but merely raises more questions.
Why do people have a need to believe in a an indifferent self-created universe?
Over to you, Cook.
"Never understood scientist's fear of faith in a higher power."
Fear? I don't see any fear.
Many interesting and thoughtful answers. Our understanding of God is to a large extent parallel to our understanding of how the world we currently live in works....Augustine and Aquinas didn't speculate on whether the world was a simulation. Maybe Plato with his shadows on the wall, but that's not quite a simulacrum. In any event no one now believes heaven is up and hell is down but tht was the common belief not so long ago....Perhaps as mankind further evolves, we will come to different speculations on the possibility and nature of God. Different ages worshiped different God(s) in different ways. It's presumptuous for anyone now living to claim to have the final answer. Perhaps the dead know, but they're not confiding in us....The future of an illusion: Belief in God has lasted longer than belief in the Oedipus Complex....Belief in God is perhaps a proof of God's existence. We feel thirst and there is such a thing a water. We feel hunger and there is such a thing as food. Why do we have all these spiritual longings if there is not such a thing as spirit.
The issue of whether a Creator did the creation is an easy one. Unless you are afraid of the answer, a Creator did it.
The real controversy is 100% about the Hebrew God’s existence or not and what was written down about Him by the Hebrew prophets. Only the Father, Son and Holy Spirit of God believe the truth is in their Scriptures. They were there when it happened.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/13182
Go read the intro to Copernicus' book. His fear in presenting to the public his findings is clear. All I had to do to publish my research when in grad school was get my footnotes formatted correctly.
Times change, we have it good these days.
Ice Nine said...
">FleetUSA said...
Look around, isn't the existence of God evident?<
I was so hoping that this hackneyed, mindless "proof" wouldn't appear in this thoughtful thread. Alas..."
You're obviously not a fly fisherman
Robert Cook said...
"Look around, isn't the existence of God evident?"
Only if you believe in a god (or gods).
But you do, Bob. Everyone does. Your faith and belief is in the ultimate triumph of socialism. A form of humanism.
So if man is the measure of all things. And someone like you or , say, hpuddin are the ones we should emulate. Then there better be a transcendent god.
Anna Keppa said...
"Disbelief in a supernatural god is simply a facile "explanation" claiming to know what we don't know, a "explanation" for existence that doesn't explain or answer anything, but merely raises more questions."
I think that was the idea. That we'd ask questions. The universe was a gift to us, his sentient creation. Now go explore.
"Over to you, Cook."
Uh...for what? Your illogical rewording of my comment does not make any point or in any way challenge my statement sufficiently to warrant a like response.
Ok, so perhaps there was intelligent design. Where does that get you? For those sentient creatures who somehow choose to worship the designer, there have been a gazillion vehicles--religions, superstitions, cults--just on planet earth. Many of which disparage or even condemn all the other ways for worshipping the designer. What's that all about? The designer wants most worshippers punished, and cares fuck all about the vast, vast number of designed critters over billions of years?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा