Science and God

[PatrickWilliams]

Maimonides, one of the great rabbis of the Middle Ages, wrote, that if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because the science was not fully understood or the Torah was misinterpreted. Maimonides argued that if science proved a point, then the finding should be accepted and scripture should be interpreted accordingly.

Maimonides was a smart old dude. Indeed, there is no conflict between scripture and science. There is just human misunderstanding of one or the other.

 

[Kevin C Livingston]

Maimonides was a smart old dude. Indeed, there is no conflict between scripture and science. There is just human misunderstanding of one or the other.

In some cases, BOTH!

 

[Windrider]

One scientist I greatly admire was Richard Feynman (Physicist and considered one of the best teachers ever). In one of his books, Dr Feynman answers the question of scientists' belief in God. Feynman held that before we can have a rational discussion about anything, we must first define our terms. When people use the word "God", they usually mean either the "God of Miracles" or the "God of Order". The God of Order set the rules down under which the universe behaves. Feynman felt that understanding these rules brings us closer to understanding God.

Feynman did not have much patience for the believers in the God of Miracles. He felt that since the rules were made by God, God would not break them to show off or prove a point.

Stephen Hawking echoed Feynman in his book, "A Brief History of Time" when he described the search for scientific truth as a way to know the mind of God.

Many scientists believe in a Supreme Being. For some reason, Physics seems to encourage these thoughts.

 

[Duncan1574]

One scientist I greatly admire was Richard Feynman (Physicist and considered one of the best teachers ever). In one of his books, Dr Feynman answers the question of scientists' belief in God. Feynman held that before we can have a rational discussion about anything, we must first define our terms. When people use the word "God", they usually mean either the "God of Miracles" or the "God of Order". The God of Order set the rules down under which the universe behaves. Feynman felt that understanding these rules brings us closer to understanding God.

Feynman did not have much patience for the believers in the God of Miracles. He felt that since the rules were made by God, God would not break them to show off or prove a point.

Stephen Hawking echoed Feynman in his book, "A Brief History of Time" when he described the search for scientific truth as a way to know the mind of God.

Many scientists believe in a Supreme Being. For some reason, Physics seems to encourage these thoughts.

String theory extends that belief even deeper as it can some of the 'magic' & 'miracles' as changes in energy fields.

 

[Kevin C Livingston]

As far as "God of Order" vs. God of Miracles" argument, I am of this opinion: He's both! Almost all of the Bible's (or that of any other VSL) can be explained scientifically. The fact that these miracles are extremely improbable does not mean that they are impossible. Neither does the fact that they can be explained by science doesn't neccesarily make them "non-miraclulous". I have to get Thanksgiving Dinner ready so I can't go into the detail that I so want to right now.

 

[Duncan1574]

The Creator exists, he/she is known by many names by the many belief systems of this world (as detailed in the many volumes of VSL), as the Great Architect of the Universe, our very existence is a result of The Creator's deliberate intent to create, just that is miraculous in and of itself.

As in quark studies, the mere observation changes what is observed and our understanding of The Creator is modified by all of our understanding, which is beyond our true understanding in any case, we are limited by language to what we can describe.

So how do we draw a picture of the unseen?

 

[CoachN]

...As in quark studies, the mere observation changes what is observed and our understanding of The Creator is modified by all of our understanding, which is beyond our true understanding in any case, we are limited by language to what we can describe.

Yes, observation does influence what is being observed.

The question I raise is does observation alter what is observed significantly enough to warrent dismissal of what is observed OR does such influence actually enhance what is observed so that it becomes more of what is supposed to be observed?

...So how do we draw a picture of the unseen?

By using our God given gift of imagination.

 

[Duncan1574]

Yes, observation does influence what is being observed.

The question I raise is does observation alter what is observed significantly enough to warrant dismissal of what is observed OR does such influence actually enhance what is observed so that it becomes more of what is supposed to be observed?


By using our God given gift of imagination.

The answer is 'yes' with the caveat that observation can be over done and turn into interference and thereby mutate what is observed into something it is not.

My imagination has developed a view of The Creator being a 'gem' of infinite facets, each person's understanding is a unique facet biased by that person's perceptions, beliefs, and experiences, to give them access to The Creator on a level that works for them. My truth is that The Creator is all those facets and more. When we step through to be in the true presence of The Creator we will each truthfully say: "I was right" and "Wow, there is so much more than I was capable of perceiving".

 

[Robert Birtch]

If you were to bring Jesus Christ Himself here to the future, He most certainly would think us Gods with all that we can do. Send men to the moon, cure almost any disease, communicate in the blink of an eye across oceans, grow massive crops to feed millions, ans on an on it goes. Of course, the one "science" we have perfected is the science that is war. We have the power to turn a city to rubble in the blink of an eye with a nuclear ICBM. and in Jesus's time, that was a power only God could possess.

 

[Duncan1574]

If you were to bring Jesus Christ Himself here to the future, He most certainly would think us Gods with all that we can do. Send men to the moon, cure almost any disease, communicate in the blink of an eye across oceans, grow massive crops to feed millions, ans on an on it goes. Of course, the one "science" we have perfected is the science that is war. We have the power to turn a city to rubble in the blink of an eye with a nuclear ICBM. and in Jesus's time, that was a power only God could possess.

Ever read the book, The Spaceships of Ezekiel?

 

[Winter]

My imagination has developed a view of The Creator being a 'gem' of infinite facets,...

Not sure if it is pertinent, but, as Jews many teach that we are unable to comprehand the unknowable that is the devine. And any attempt to associate any image with the ineffable is not only folly, but a sin.

(Not the Catholic "sin". The hebrew word for sin, het, is an archery term that just means that you missed the mark. Try harder next time.)

 

[Duncan1574]

Not sure if it is pertinent, but, as Jews many teach that we are unable to comprehand the unknowable that is the devine. And any attempt to associate any image with the ineffable is not only folly, but a sin.

(Not the Catholic "sin". The hebrew word for sin, het, is an archery term that just means that you missed the mark. Try harder next time.)

Human nature is to put things into categories, to wrap understanding around the unknowable in order to gain some sense of peace.
As a a Mason I embrace everyone's view of Deity and share the light that I have with them in a sense of Brotherhood and co-operation.

 

[Robert Birtch]

Can't say as I have. Sounds Mormon.

 

[Winter]

Can't say as I have. Sounds Mormon.

What sounds Mormon?

 

[removed12612]

I know God and Science mix well.....or I would not have passed my class...LOL

 

[Duncan1574]

What sounds Mormon?

My wifes singing Christmas carols.
My iwfe owns a retail florist shop, she carries cards, one of them says "If I were Mormon", "I would want you to be my sister-wife!"

 

[CoachN]

Life,the universe and everything tend to be explained in the technology of the times.

2000 years ago, this was the case. Today it is still the case. In the future, it will continue to be the case. Does "It was, It is, It will be" ring a bell here?

Let me share a metaphor with the technology of our times:

The problem between Science and Religion is one of both understanding and application. One cannot apply software explanations upon hardware realities and hardware explanations upon software realities -- without totally and utterly messing up the end user product guide. The result will consistently bring dissatisfaction to those users who are emphatic about reading such useless documents and insistent on using the product according to what is Written. (Does this sound familiar?)

Hardware operates within specific constraints with probabilities that can occur at random outside those constraints due to things that sneak into the design due to limitations in material quality. In other words, here's what we know to be probable and "oh, by the way" here are a few things that are highly improbable but possible given some unexplained mechanism or our limited ability to control the actual product once it gets into the hands of truly unruly end users.

Software operates much the same way. The only thing that is different is that with software, the coding possibilities are infinitely greater than those of hardware. In other words, with software, anything is possible. (does this ring a bell here too?) What's more, DUE TO IT'S INFINITE FLEXIBILITY, anything is also probable!

​

Let's apply some of this toward "real" world situations.

The personalities of human beings are software driven and hardware supported. This means that given any one set of possible behavioral patterns, the likelihood of this specific set being manifested within a hardware support structure is greatly enhanced by that hardware design.

In other words, one is not going to get Einstein software results if the brain anatomy and its innate operating systems only supports an IQ of 90. The software simply will never run on that system and hence both the operating system and software will never manifest in that mainframe.

On the other hand, if the mainframe structure is better than average and the operating system and hardware are well maintained, the probability of software development beyond the norm is increased and the likelihood of that system exceeding the norm is much higher. (BTW - As an aside, this is why re-incarnation works so well! Software sets tend to re-emerge spontaneously given the right conditions. It matters not what language is used. Given the right set of conditions, the world is gonna recreate you! "You" can't help but happen! It's inherent in the world's design. )
​

But I digress.

The point I'm earnestly making effort to express here is:

God is both a software and hardware manufacturer. The rules God uses in manufacturing both software and hardware vary depending upon God's design intent and God's expressed application at any one instant -- which change from moment to moment depending upon litigation and other given factors within the support environment. Each will not follow the same rules as the other, these rules change constantly and to try to make sense of one construct using the rules of the other is like trying to fly fish for dead video screen sprites using hairy elephant guns as tasty live bait locked in a imaginary vault where no one can begin to fathom the right turn signal blink ratio or combination. The results will not make sense because the assumptions, paradigm, methodology, tools and materials are all wrong.​

Which leads me to state the following without reservation as a biased observer intentionally infecting this thread:

1. Most Religions try to explain reality using software codes that can't explain hardware design realities.
   
2. Most Sciences try to explain reality using hardware design that can't explain software code realities.

They each fail miserably in their own wonderful way but succeed drastically in other ways that the other can't possibly start to imagine.

But, what do I know?

Bro. Coach N

 

[Robert Birtch]

I read recently about a wildlife scientist who observed chimps, our closest genetic relatives, in the wild showing signs of what we might consider to be moral behaviors, such as sharing, compassion, and kindness. These behaviors raise the question: If morality is in our DNA, do we really need religion?

 

[Winter]

I read recently about a wildlife scientist who observed chimps, our closest genetic relatives, in the wild showing signs of what we might consider to be moral behaviors, such as sharing, compassion, and kindness. These behaviors raise the question: If morality is in our DNA, do we really need religion?

Morality is not in our DNA, what the scientists observed was learned behavior. What we are learning recently is that chimps (and bonobos) have a much greater capacity to learn and understand and pass on that knowledge to other members of their species. Tool use among non-human primates is actually on the rise.

 

[PatrickWilliams]

Morality is not in our DNA, what the scientists observed was learned behavior. What we are learning recently is that chimps (and bonobos) have a much greater capacity to learn and understand and pass on that knowledge to other members of their species. Tool use among non-human primates is actually on the rise.

Before long a chimp will petition my Lodge, I just know it. Wait ... thinking back on some of the members, it may have already happened.