The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I think I am only talking about the very rare fervent fundamentalist that causes a problem.

---

This is to me the key issue, because 'funadamentalists' have a way of forcing themselves into a debate or a situation, catching headlines and becoming the news, and often it is because they are so overwhelmed by the absolute truth of their beliefs they feel impelled to 'do something about it', which sometimes may be illegal. Then the usual suspects step up -not just extreme Muslims, but Scientologists (not known for intense and open debate about their 'religion', you either believe and obey or become a 'squirrel'), and the more extreme Christian groups who think the Churches have betrayed Christianity with its 'liberal' attitudes to divorce, abortion and homosexuality. I think for the most part, most people who believe are pragmatic on most issues, and tend not to make a fuss about the things they don't agree with, as long as it is what the majority wants, which is why there are people in the UK, for example, who think the 'gay marriage' issue is being forced on the country. I think most people couldn't really care less, as civil partnerships are broadly accepted. It isn't going to be the spark that starts a revolution.

Where's Jamie?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Dan I think that is why for most people who have been raised in a religion there is no questioning of the faith, and if there were to be such reflexive activity it could create some anxiety in believers, or reinforce the beliefs they had. By contrast, a crisis can open up precisely a difficult set of questions: there were some fascinating articles in the Journal of Holocaust Studies -I think in the 1990s- in which Jews who had either survived the European nightmare or whose relatives had survived -or died- had been interviewed, and given expression to the crisis that occurred in their religious beliefs, because of an 'absent God' or even the belief that God wanted it to happen -whichever it was it caused real anxiety for Jews for whom faith had been hugely important, not just as a cultural part of their community. I think crises like this can shake that comfortable inheritance of belief, and it doesn't happen that often, and I think that it is this unquestioning devotion which make some people think believers are like sheep.

---

You guys will probably think that I’m taking a common conversation pretty far, but you both made me think a lot, Stavros and Broncofan –not that I’m coming back with some great revelation, though… But I must admit that this argument, Stavros, that some people, especially after a difficult experience, might find great comfort in religious beliefs, is something that I feel without really reasoning it, when I am in the company of believers. I always try my best not to say anything that would shake their potentially candid if not naïve faith. It’s a respect I entertain almost mechanically. And in some cases, indeed, as you both evoked, religion goes beyond beliefs, and maybe even beyond a social or cultural bond; the case of Judaism comes to mind, of course, after the Shoah. But this is something that is so out of any criteria that it is still to this day, very difficult to “think it”.
To me, the proper way to see this world and this life, the only way in fact, is the tragic perspective. I’m not talking of course of the classical form of theatre, but rather of what is the deeper form of a middle term between optimism and pessimism. Life is short. It ends fast. There is no reason for our presence here. Our reality in this infinite universe is, relatively speaking, so insignificant; our whole history is meaningless in the duration of the universe. Strangely, I think that, religious or not, believers or atheists, we all have a feeling of this reality within us. In fact, I think it is the very reason why we do become religious and sometimes, fanatics. It is the only thing, when you stop to think about it, that really gives us a real sense of how precious life is, and how beautiful, and how important. As Blaise Pascal says (I’m sorry for the pedantic reference again), or either Nietzsche, we need to be diverted of ourselves for this very reason, because it’s a truth of such radical meaning for ourselves that it’s hardly bearable. But simulteneously, it is everything.
Yet, and this is where I’m getting at with this, anything that could potentially allow us to understand ourselves better and to create a better world (idealistically or with simple pragmatism) is to face this condition and this tragic truth. Fundamentalism is an epiphenomenon; but the only way to obviate an epiphenomenon that keeps reoccurring over and over is to get rid of the subjacent phenomenon.
Now, we can’t just start shaking people and kicking them for trying to find a comfort we all crave for. But as for anything else, we need to talk, to open eyes, to discuss, to educate.
I guess it’s not much to bring back, as I was saying, after more than a week thinking about an answer… :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

We agree then (with cosmologists) that the theory of cosmic expansion is not a theory of origins.

One way of thinking about the expansion is to imagine the spacetime metric (written in the coordinate frame of the fundamental observers) is simply time dependent. This is akin to thinking of time dilation as a frame dependent phenomenon rather than the metaphysical creation or stretching of time. It may be mind bending, but no rules of logic are in jeopardy.

---

Seems in reality that we are probably more in agreement than not, Tbh my belief in the infinite allows me to believe in the idea of the now seemingly impossible but soon to be not:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeninety

...my belief in the infinite allows me to believe in the idea of the now seemingly impossible but soon to be not:p

---

Whatever :neutral:

Whoops see how that might have come across...........I was actually being genuine when I made that remark lol

Nice recent piece by Brian Schmied
http://www.scienceomega.com/article/1275/will-science-kill-religion?utm_source=MailingList&utm_medium=email&u tm_campaign=ScienceOmega200813
Once, not so long ago, theology was the queen of sciences. The advent of modern scientific thought put a stop to that, and science became something new and separate. Today, you see religious groups trying to appeal to the authority of science, which differs from the past, when science bowed to the authority of scripture. Religion has been taken down a few hundred pegs in this sense.

Within the scientific community, the conflict was settled a good century ago. This does not hold true for wider society – especially in the United States, where science is still in the process of becoming fully accepted. When you examine the wide variety of American religious traditions, we now come across attempts to borrow credibility from this new and increasingly dominant method for accumulating knowledge.
Systems of truth
Religion relies on a system of determining truth called ‘authority’. Authority is an old alternative to science that determines truth as being whatever an agreed-upon source of authority says. This seems silly today, but on closer examination, was quite rational once.

In a time before long-term data storage existed, it was very important to respect the information passed down through tradition. Just as a child must take their parents’ word on things they do not understand, knowledge passed down through generations could not be discarded or mistrusted without risking the loss of knowledge and innovation by smarter people from the past. The bad data was accepted with the good, for the sake of maintaining the authority of the source.

The flaws seem obvious to us today, but our system relies on our ability to store, share, and challenge ideas. Science, the method that says truth is determined when a cause-effect relationship is observed and can be reliably replicated, revolutionised our civilisation just a few centuries ago. Even if someone used a scientific approach in those days, they had to rely on authority to pass their knowledge down.

Even today, most people must determine truth by recognising the authority of scientists whose method they trust. So for most people, even in our age of science, authority is the main system for determining truth. This is why religions have little problem existing, no matter how untestable their claims are, provided they can maintain their authority.
Borrowing authority
Paradoxically, the authority of science is untouchable because it does not rely on authority. Rather, it defines truth as anything we cannot falsify through experiment or observation.

Religions, having bound themselves to scriptures that often contradict observed truth, try to build superficial associations with science. Appealing to the authority of science, even if science does not back up any specific faith, is a great way to sound more credible.

So religions all over are injecting the term into their rhetoric. There is the Church of Scientology, the Church of Divine Science and the First Church of Christ, Scientist, best known as Christian Science. It would be hard to count the number of Christian denominations that rely on a doctrine that has been misleadingly called ‘creation science’, to encourage their children to avoid learning things in school.

The most obvious historical effect of science has been a slow decline in the number of religious people. Low academic achievement in maths and sciences and poverty are both correlated with religiosity. This makes sense when we consider that increased wealth allows for a better education focusing on teaching analytical thought, which has been shown to decrease religious belief.
Religion bowing to scientific authority
Many religious people are becoming less literal in their beliefs. In a recent Gallup poll, 47 per cent of Americans answered that they did not believe in the literal seven day creation of Genesis, even though 92 per cent of Americans answered yes, when asked if they believed in God.

Even the extremely conservative Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI has stated that denying evolution is absurd. There is no better illustration of how science has bent religious doctrine.

It was Catholic Bishop James Ussher who calculated the age of the Earth that is still presented by Young Earth creationists as the true age of the planet. Though the Catholic Church once went after Galileo for claiming that the earth moved, they now accept that the age of the Earth is a matter for astrophysicists and geologists, not theologians.

Churches used to split over debates of whether blessing bread could literally turn bread into human flesh and wine into human blood. Later, churches split over whether Jesus would save them from the apocalypse before, during, or after the divine tribulations that would serve as warning.

These days are over. Fundamentalist holdouts that cling to the unshakeable authority of scripture have been forced to move on to more fundamental matters; tearing families apart over whether or not the Bible is absolute truth and whether direct observation is a reliable way to know what is real.

So, will science kill religion? I doubt it. Religion is adapting. Most people rely on authority, and not everyone has the time, money, or inclination for the years of study needed to understand how each scientific truth has been determined. They will continue to bow to authority for the sake of having knowledge. As long as people submit to authority, they are open to suggestion, which makes them open to religion.

Not sure about an article that accepts Scientology as a religion, and I suspect that the rift between religion and science is strong in a lot of countries, but simultaneously contradictory -last night's programme on Nigeria and Polio offered a bewildering, scientifically and socially offensive idea that injections cause Polio, perhaps because people are ashamed that the link between faeces and the disease suggests they are unclean even though their local habitat is in every sense a threat to health -whether they can control it or not. Yet Nigerians accept the science behind mobile phones, oil wells, and hundreds of other daily events.
China has a long and distinguished history in scientific theory and practice, yet many Chinese believe Rhino horns ground into powder will make them virile; and I believe there are Saudi clerics who think the world is flat.
But just as worrying is the corpus of anti-science commentators in the UK and North America who claim a 'rational' basis for climate change 'scepticism', those deniers who are key players in the attempt to demolish science for no other reason than political -in this link the conversation Paul Nurse has with James Delingpole is illuminating -he says the idea that there is a consensus in science is 'despicable' and is basically scientists conniving with each other to agree publicly with each other, even though he freely admits he has not, indeed, cannot read the scientific literature on global warming an the data sets that were at the core of the controversy over the emails from the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia -Nurse does a good job of exposing the rift between science and the public in an age when it seems anyone can have an opinion about something which they actually do not understand...but which doesn't mean the science is wrong.
Ironic perhaps that Jamie has attempted to prove the scientific link between physics and God yet has failed to demonstrate that Tipler's theory is anything but a theory...says he with no knowledge of the science!

enjoy

Science Under Attack (BBC Horizon Documentary) - YouTube

Suppose you want to know the distance across the globe from Lima to London. What do you do? You can look it up on the web. Go to the library and consult an atlas. Call a travel agent. Etc. Or you can survey the route yourself. All but the last are a form of reliance on authority. Even if you opt to measure it out yourself, if you rely on GPS technology, or use tools you didn’t build yourself, then again you’re relying on the skills and knowledge of other human beings; i.e. experts in the art of crafting surveying tools. No one, not even the most critical and skeptical scientists can get around reliance on the judgments of other human beings.

I can test a hypothesis against the raw data that I download from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. I know a little something about the instruments that collect it, but largely I trust the engineers who built those instruments, and monitor and maintain the satellite that houses them. I trust the data hasn’t been corrupted before it’s been made available to me and my colleagues. Etc. We put a lot a faith and trust in each other, as do you when you board a plane, cross a bridge or drive through a tunnel.

I live in the rural MidWest. I’ve heard a lot of testimony. “I prayed to God, and don’t you know he showed me right to where I dropped my keys in the grass next to the car.” “Mary’s X-ray showed a mass in her brain. The whole congregation prayed for her and bless the Lord it’s gone now.” “I was scared seeing my boy off to Afghanistan, but I ask God to protect him and I felt Him right here in this car, as sure as you’re sitting there, assuring me that Luther’ll be alright.” Tim Tebow’s whole career is offered to us as a testimonial.

Isn’t the report of an experiment the same thing as a religious testimonial? “Here’s what I did and this is what I observed. This is what I witnessed.” What are the significant differences (if any) between the kinds of trust to which referred in the first two paragraphs and the kinds of trust people place in religious testimonials?

One difference I can see is the spatial-temporal location of the experiment. In the case of the finding the distance from Lima to London, you can imagine exactly how the survey might be accomplished. You can read about exactly how the Earth is surveyed and how maps are constructed. You can, if you have a mind to do so, do it yourself. If you do, and you publish your work, it will be criticised. If you’ve the integrity of a real cartographer, you’ll answer some criticisms, take others to heart, modify your maps and perhaps even redo the survey. As time goes on your maps will become more detailed and have increased accuracy. But the whole process is there for all to see should they care to do so.

In the case of the lost keys, the experiment goes on in the believer’s head. It is a thought, not an observable procedure (like collecting starlight or leveling a sextant), not even in principle. She’s reaches out with her mind, or her soul in way that cannot be witnessed by anyone else, and communicates with a supernatural being with whom she claims to be intimate. We can’t see the email, nor do we see ink on a page inside an envelop addressed to Heaven. There’s no NSA tape of the exchange. We have no idea how to accomplish such a feat ourselves. Here’s what we know. We know that yesterday she was in a panic because her keys were lost. We know that today she found her keys. We have her testimony that God led her to them. Even if we think she is honest in her belief, do we find her testimony at all credible? I don’t I’m curious to know what others think.

(Disclaimer: Of course, it would be biased to claim the whole case for the supernatural depends on testimonials such as the ones alluded to above. There are also the works of theologians, the testimony of holy books etc. etc.)

Yes, as a scientist I have to accept the authority of others; but I know that I could test their views and their claimed evidence. I would not thought to be a heretic. In fact science depends on its views being tested. I could "falsify" the distance between Lima and London (or even if Lima existed at all). I could present my own evidence that could be tested. For religious beliefs there is no way to falsify - maybe just accept (unthinkingly) some other belief - I have a soft spot for the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Suppose you want to know the distance across the globe from Lima to London. What do you do? You can look it up on the web. Go to the library and consult an atlas. Call a travel agent. Etc. Or you can survey the route yourself. All but the last are a form of reliance on authority. Even if you opt to measure it out yourself, if you rely on GPS technology, or use tools you didn’t build yourself, then again you’re relying on the skills and knowledge of other human beings; i.e. experts in the art of crafting surveying tools. No one, not even the most critical and skeptical scientists can get around reliance on the judgments of other human beings.

I can test a hypothesis against the raw data that I download from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. I know a little something about the instruments that collect it, but largely I trust the engineers who built those instruments, and monitor and maintain the satellite that houses them. I trust the data hasn’t been corrupted before it’s been made available to me and my colleagues. Etc. We put a lot a faith and trust in each other, as do you when you board a plane, cross a bridge or drive through a tunnel.

I live in the rural MidWest. I’ve heard a lot of testimony. “I prayed to God, and don’t you know he showed me right to where I dropped my keys in the grass next to the car.” “Mary’s X-ray showed a mass in her brain. The whole congregation prayed for her and bless the Lord it’s gone now.” “I was scared seeing my boy off to Afghanistan, but I ask God to protect him and I felt Him right here in this car, as sure as you’re sitting there, assuring me that Luther’ll be alright.” Tim Tebow’s whole career is offered to us as a testimonial.

Isn’t the report of an experiment the same thing as a religious testimonial? “Here’s what I did and this is what I observed. This is what I witnessed.” What are the significant differences (if any) between the kinds of trust to which referred in the first two paragraphs and the kinds of trust people place in religious testimonials?

One difference I can see is the spatial-temporal location of the experiment. In the case of the finding the distance from Lima to London, you can imagine exactly how the survey might be accomplished. You can read about exactly how the Earth is surveyed and how maps are constructed. You can, if you have a mind to do so, do it yourself. If you do, and you publish your work, it will be criticised. If you’ve the integrity of a real cartographer, you’ll answer some criticisms, take others to heart, modify your maps and perhaps even redo the survey. As time goes on your maps will become more detailed and have increased accuracy. But the whole process is there for all to see should they care to do so.

In the case of the lost keys, the experiment goes on in the believer’s head. It is a thought, not an observable procedure (like collecting starlight or leveling a sextant), not even in principle. She’s reaches out with her mind, or her soul in way that cannot be witnessed by anyone else, and communicates with a supernatural being with whom she claims to be intimate. We can’t see the email, nor do we see ink on a page inside an envelop addressed to Heaven. There’s no NSA tape of the exchange. We have no idea how to accomplish such a feat ourselves. Here’s what we know. We know that yesterday she was in a panic because her keys were lost. We know that today she found her keys. We have her testimony that God led her to them. Even if we think she is honest in her belief, do we find her testimony at all credible? I don’t I’m curious to know what others think.

(Disclaimer: Of course, it would be biased to claim the whole case for the supernatural depends on testimonials such as the ones alluded to above. There are also the works of theologians, the testimony of holy books etc. etc.)

---