[R. S. Martin]

I think we should have a new thread for this discussion. Because it grew out of the old thread, I suggest the old rules apply as stated in Antlerman's Post 212 in that thread. I will copy it here for the convenience of readers and participants:

Quote

Anterlman's Post 212 in What Are We Today:

I pulling an executive decision here. This topic was posted in the Coliseum for the purpose of a level discussion. Ruby stated this in the opening post:

RubySera, on Mar 12 2008, 02:33 PM, said:

This is in the Colesseum so let's keep it respectful so that it is "safe" to talk about one's true convictions no matter what they are. No preaching or imposing beliefs, though.

At the same time, I consider it decent to discuss beliefs and explain why we believe what we do. I think there is a difference between sharing my opinion about truth and telling you what you should believe.

This thread seems to have been hijacked by one person's strongly voiced opinions nearly exclusively. It would be nice to have the space to discuss other view respectfully and freely within this topic. Reboot has had more than enough bandwidth here for his views to be expressed. If he should wish to debate them exclusively with others, they may deal with it as a single topic in his other thread he himself started in the Coliseum. This one particular view has run it's course in the thread and needs to make room for others now.

In other words, I would like Reboot to keep his discussions on his own thread.

As will become clear, the purpose of this thread is somewhat different from my other thread. The other thread is about personal beliefs. This one is about Ted Peters's article. Antlerman wanted to discuss it with me, and anyone else who is interested in serious and intelligent discussion.

So far as I'm concerned, "intelligent" does not equal formal education. It does equal a serious interest in learning and growing and applying what we know to living life as good as we know how. Believe me, I know! If no one had listened to me just because I did not have more than a Grade 8 education, I would not be where I am today. Don't be afraid to join the conversation because of your type or level of formal education or lack thereof. A look at the former thread may give readers an idea as to why the word intelligent is used here and why a certain person is asked to refrain from contributing to this discussion.

Antlerman, on Apr 3 2008, 04:43 PM, said:

RubySera, on Apr 3 2008, 02:40 PM, said:

But to understand god as humans have understood god since time immemorial--that can fall into a number of disciplines. Art. Literature/Mythology. Music. Theology. Philosophy. Anthropology. Social anthropology is where I personally learned major amounts.

Boy, I'm thinking it's time for you and me to embark together on a discussion of real merit.

I read that link Reboot gave about defining Scientism and Scientific Imperialsim, and it's written by a theologian, talking about many areas that I think we could discuss. I found it relevant to my type of thinking in some areas, and fascinating to the discussion of that dichotomy of science and religion. I want to come back to it with you, but have to go for now. Here's the link: http://holtz.org/Lib...ers%201996.html

I'm reading the article and will comment as I go. Here are the specifics for those who haven't seen it:

TITLE: Theology and Science: Where Are We?
AUTHOR: Ted Peters
PUBLISHING INFORMATION: Zygon, Vol. 31, No. 2 (June 1996), PP. 323-343.

First I would like to note that the article was written at least 12 years ago; it was published in 1996 and normally articles are written quite some time--perhaps a year or two--before they are published. Major changes have occurred since then, given the major advances in computer technology on one hand and world politics leading up to and following 9/11. I don't know the stats but I think there has been a significant increase in fundamentalist religion since that article was written, and there seems to be a direct link between fundamentalist religion and the terrorist attack on the United States and ensuing war. Other items also play into the situation leading up to, and following, the attack. However, for the purposes of this...I was going to say paper but I guess this is a post--the focus will be on the role of fundamentalist religion, Christian and otherwise, though I know very little about other religions.

Given that the article was written so long ago, I assume anything it says is only compounded many times over. The reason for this is as stated: 1. major advancements in technology, which have majorly added to scientific discovery (especially in astrophysics) since the article's publication, and 2. the increase in both international hostilities and fundamentalist religion, also since the article's publication.

Now let's look at the article. First of all I like to know the author's position. He states it in the second paragraph of 7. Ethical Overlap:

Quote

An advocate of hypothetical consonance, I belong also to the ethical overlap camp and I believe that, at root, the ecological crisis poses a spiritual issue, namely, the crying need of world civilization for an ethical vision.

In the first paragraph of this section he provides a global overview of the Ethical Overlap. In the second and third paragraphs (in addition to stating his own position) he describes in more detail what he means by the Ethical Overlap. In the fourth paragraph he outlines his own position in greater detail. It is a summary of something he published earlier.

Having studied some theology myself, I get the idea that he is not a fundamentalist but he does believe in God and tries to find a way to reconcile science and theology. 1. Fundamentalists seem dead set against a one world government. Peters talks about "a single, worldwide planetary society." He does not mention a "one world government," but surely fundamentalists would immediately read such into it. 2. So far as I know, fundamentalists are not into environmentalism; what's the point in "saving a planet" that is going to be destroyed anyway right about next year in the Apocalypse?

Maybe this is enough for the OP to get things started. There is much more to the article. I haven't read all of it yet but I will.



Edited by Antlerman to correct formatting errors

[florduh]

Repeating what I said in one of the other threads, thanks Ruby for your confidence.

I read the Ted Peters article, and responded in the old thread:

Don't you understand that if you take the mystery out of "god" people will replace that god with something else? That is the history of gods. We make them up.

I don't think anyone has improved on Bertrand Russell's take on it. The rest is just philosophical cud-chewing in order to make a name and get published.

God (by any sane definition) is spirit, or non-physical. Science addresses the physical.


So I can't relate to the musings on a possible melding of science and religion ( or theology or spirituality). I see them as addressing separate concepts: The real and physical universe is handled by science, and the inner fantasies or feelings of a spiritual nature some people have is the realm of religion and theology.

I'm willing to listen to reason . . . change my mind . . .

- Chris

[Antlerman]

What happened to your formating in your opening post Ruby? There's all sorts of random various sizes going on in there? Would you like me to fix it for you?

I'm not feel too well right now, so I've been unable to form my thoughts well for this topic. There's a considerable amount of things to talk about regarding his different points. I'm afraid I'm not nearly so cynical about the content of this as flordhuh is. ;) His list of 8 different categories of how people deal with dichotomy of religion and science is very relevant to the world we're confronted with surrounding us every day.

Here's a brief listing of the categories of how people deal with trying to reconcile this dichotomy in the modern, and postmodern world.

• Scientism.
  
• Scientific Imperialism
  
• Ecclesiastical Authoritarianism
  
• Scientific creationism.
  
• The Two-Language Theory
  
• Hypothetical consonance
  
• Ethical Overlap
  
• New Age Spirituality

I would fit somewhere in the #5 cateogry of "Two-Language" with some quaification and some further explaination, which I'll try to do later on. What I enjoy about this read is that it talks about religion, not as "fact" on an emperical level, but the modern approaches to theology that is vastly different than your evangelcial simplicity. People are complex, society is complex. Anytime any simple answer is presented, it brings it under great suspicion by me, whether it's the religious or the secular offering their easy answer.

This is a look at humanity, IMO. When I feel better, I'll hopefully explain myself better with what I'm seeing. (I don't have to agree with him, to appreciate the depth of information in this).

[R. S. Martin]

A weakness I feel strongly in conversations like this is my very weak comprehension of philosophy. However, here is a set of questions I would like to address.

Quote

Peters asks:

What is a matter of some dispute, however, is whether or not theological assertions refer -- that is, is theology a form of realism? Do theological statements merely give expression to the faith of a religious community or do they refer to a reality beyond themselves such as God?

The only reality beyond the religious community that I can find is the universe. I don't consider the universe to be god, but some people do. This, however, is not the orthodox Christian position. Some progressive Christians do incorporate that idea. Peters is not a progressive Christian. Come to think of it, progressive Christian thought may not have existed in any sense worth mentioning at the time this article was written. I get the sense it is only now getting onto its feet as we are speaking.

I see theology as nothing more and nothing less than the expression of beliefs (not necessarily faith) of a religious community. I think many people mix up the terms "faith" and "beliefs." I think faith is the dynamics of believing or trusting and it does not have to be religious; it can be faith in one's friend or spouse to be as good as their word. I think beliefs is the contents of what we tell ourselves about reality and not all of it is religious; some of it regards what we think happens when we go to sleep at night or lock the door when we go away or log onto the computer.

Quote

Scientific reasoning depends upon the deeply held conviction -- the passion of the scientist -- that the world is rational and knowable and that truth is worth pursuing. "This is not 'faith' in the strictly religious and certainly not in the Christian sense," he observes, "But it is a commitment in the sense that it is a personal act of acceptance and affirmation of an ultimate in one's life" (Gilkey 1970, 50). [emphasis added. -RS]

How the world can be rational forever eludes my comprehension. In my mind, in order for something to be rational, it must have consciousness. I cannot be a rational person if I don't have a functioning brain. Perhaps the universe can be seen as an orderly place, and perhaps the laws of nature can make sense, if that is what they mean. But I don't understand that to be the same as "being rational." Anyone know what they mean by that?

I'm going to post this bit, then continue in a new post. Having problems with my reading program and must restart computer. Don't want to lose this post in the process.




Edited by Antlerman to correct formatting errors

[Legion]

Some years ago, the novelist C.P. Snow drew attention to a dualism that permeates and poisons the intellectual life of our times, a dualism between science and art, between science and humanism.– Robert Rosen from Life Itself pg 1

Is this the dichotomy of which you guys speak?

This post has been edited by Legion Regalis: 04 April 2008 - 08:34 PM

[Deva]

Antlerman, on Apr 4 2008, 02:09 PM, said:

Anytime any simple answer is presented, it brings it under great suspicion by me, whether it's the religious or the secular offering their easy answer.

I agree with the above statement, and when read an article where I see scientists put into different categories which they themselves would probably not agree with, I get suspicious.

I read portions of this very long article but not all of it. I would probably fit into the category "new age spirituality" in my outlook which is dismissed by the author as "contrived and uncompelling". I have read a biography of physicist David Bohm, sections of his theory of the implicate order (I admit I do not have the scientific background to understand it all) and many interviews of him. He was a collegue of Einstein's and someone who was once described by physicist Richard Feynman (to a dinner companion) with the following sentence "You don't know how great he is." I don't think that holding a "holistic" view of reality is necessarily confined to "new age spirituality" since it is very old and I am pretty sure Bohm would object to being categorized in this way.

Bohm is probably identified with the "new age" because of his association with spiritual teacher Krishnamurti, which started in the early 1960s and lasted until Krishnamurti's death in 1986. Bohm sought out Krishnamurti after having read one of his books which he found compelling because it upheld some of the discoveries of quantum physics regarding the non-dual nature of reality and questions of consciousness. I only say that to point out that it wasn't the other way around. Krishnamurti didn't come to Bohm with ideas of winning him over to a "new age" way of thinking.

The term "new age" is a very broad category covering a variety of beliefs from fairies, angels, auras, tarot card readings to astrology to serious Buddhism and Hinduism.

This may be very uninteresting to most, but if I find one item that is suspect (categorizing someone inappropriately) then I tend to suspect everything.

Then we have this sentence toward the end of the paper:

Quote

So, curiously enough, we might consider the possiblity of a reversal in natural thinking. Traditionally the aim of natural theology has been to ask what our study of nature can contribute to our knowledge of God. But might it work in reverse? Might we ask what our knowledge of God can contribute to our knowledge of nature? To know that God is the creator is to know that the world in which we live and move and have our being is Creation.

I don't know how or where it could ever be proved beyond doubt that God is a creator. There are many assumptions made, and this almost sounds like Christian apologetics to me.

[R. S. Martin]

Confession: All I've done so far is read the article and comment with my own thoughts and questions--some of you might be able to provide insight where I am baffled. I am fascinated by the topic. I hope at some point in the future--maybe tomorrow--to look at the thoughts others have posted. I didn't dare do that before I had worked my own way through the article; I knew I'd get sidetracked.

I have now read the entire article. Here is the last installment of my preliminary thoughts and questions before I read what others posted:

Quote

The first and salient legacy of the Torrance approach is a key distinction: "Science and Religion" vs. "Science and Theology." These two are not the same. Religion has to do with human consciousness and human behavior. Theology has to do with God. "Whenever religion is substituted in the place of God, the fact that in religion we are concerned with the behavior of religious people, sooner or later means the substitution of humanity in the place of religion..." (Torrance 1969, iv-v). [emphasis added. -RS]

As a deconverted half-educated theologian, and also something of a specialist in religious studies, I cannot help but disagree with this definition. I think theology is part and parcel of religion. All of it has to do with human consciousness and in many religions (but by no means all) it has to do with deity or deities. And these deities are also part of religion. You can't just put religion in place of god because god is part of it.

Quote

Theology is the unique science devoted to knowledge of God, differing from other sciences by the uniqueness of its object [God] which can be apprehended only on its own terms and from within the actual situation it has created in our existence in making itself known....Yet as a science theology is only a human endeavour in quest of the truth, in which we seek to apprehend God as far as we may, to understand what we apprehend, and to speak clearly and carefully about what we understand. It takes place only within the environment of the special sciences and only within the bounds of human learning and reasoning where critical judgment and rigorous testing are required, but where in faithfulness to its ultimate term of reference beyond itself to God it cannot attempt to justify itself on the grounds occupied by the other sciences or within their frames of interpretation" (Torrance 1969, 281-82; bold-face added).

I don't understand this. Earlier, there is reference to Barth, a 20th century theologian. Torrence is apparently post-Barth, meaning he comes after Barth. I get the impression that Peters thinks Torrence has come up with a new idea in calling theology a science. Back in 1870 Charles Hodge made his famous statement in Systematic Theology about the facts of theology being to the theologian what the facts of nature are to the scientist. For him and his colleagues, theology was a science. See Ernest R. Sandeen (Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American
Millenarianism 1800-1930, University of Chicago Press, 1970, pp 117-118).

I will quote a few passages to prove that no twentieth century theologian was the first to talk about the science of theology. Maybe I'm missing something. That's my question here to folks more philosophically minded than myself.

Sandeen quotes Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World, New York, 1960), p. 56. Whitehead refers to "two varieties of monists, those who put mind inside matter, and those who put matter inside mind. But this juggling with abstractions can never overcome the inherent confusion introduced by the ascription of misplaced concreteness to the scientific scheme of the seventeenth century" (italics original; bold-face and underline added).

Sandeen says of Charles Hodge and the Princeton Theology that it "certainly fit within this categorization as monists--continually insisting that the experiential element, the witness of the Spirit, the mystical strain, be subordinated to the matter of theological science, the Scriptures. This attempt to adapt theology to the methodology of Newtonian science produced a wooden, mechanical discipline as well as a rigorously logical one."

Let me note that Hodge DIED in 1878. It is not possible that he talked with Karl Barth or any other 20th century theologian.

Back to science and theology. According to Peters, Torrence argues that the world was created out of nothing; therefore there has to be a creator. I say, if you decide your answer before you know the argument, you can always build the argument to fit the answer.

My Conclusion

I've finally come to the end of the article. He touches on some key issues and interests of mine when he asks about seeing God in the natural world, and when he uses the death and resurrection of Jesus as the central themes by which to understand all that is. He does not answer any questions for me; rather quite the opposite. He mixes up the whole mess. He says to keep looking at things from both these perspectives. I guess some people can live with not ever arriving at conclusions. I can't.

If I am expected to give my life to a cause or belief, at the very least I should be allowed to understand what that cause or belief is. At the very most I should not be expected to lie about sacred matters. Christians expect me to over-ride both these convictions--to lie about sacred matters and say I believe something I don't, and to commit my life to something I don't understand.

There's another thing that "gets me under the skin." If memory serves, Peacock is a late member of some Christian organization in the UK dedicated to the dissemination of knowledge to laypeople so they can better answer atheists.

LATER: Did a bit of internet research. Couldn't find exactly what I was looking for but I did find some interesting stuff on Peacocke. Here is a brief biography; at the bottom is a link to his works "Search Arthur Peacocke." That link leads to a long list of links, at the top of which is a link to an article on Chance and Law in Irreversible Thermodynamics, Theoretical Biology, and Theology. That article helps me better understand some evolution theories. He's got God worked in there quite solidly, but he also explains a few other concepts that I personally find helpful. I think most people here probably understand the concepts but I don't and I didn't think anybody could explain it so I could. He comes at it from a theological perspective that somehow finds its way to my brain.

[Legion]

Quote from the article - "Science asks How?, while religion asks Why?"

This is a mischaracterization of science in my opinion. Science also asks "Why?"

I am going to have a hard time taking this seriously if science is going to be portrayed this way.

This post has been edited by Legion Regalis: 04 April 2008 - 08:56 PM

[florduh]

I think redefining god as some particle or such to be quantified by scientific inquiry is just silly.

Again, things concerning the supernatural are just that - beyond the grasp of the natural, which has to be science's domain.

[R. S. Martin]

florduh, on Apr 4 2008, 12:58 PM, said:

Repeating what I said in one of the other threads, thanks Ruby for your confidence.

I read the Ted Peters article, and responded in the old thread:

Don't you understand that if you take the mystery out of "god" people will replace that god with something else? That is the history of gods. We make them up.

I don't think anyone has improved on Bertrand Russell's take on it. The rest is just philosophical cud-chewing in order to make a name and get published.

God (by any sane definition) is spirit, or non-physical. Science addresses the physical.


So I can't relate to the musings on a possible melding of science and religion ( or theology or spirituality). I see them as addressing separate concepts: The real and physical universe is handled by science, and the inner fantasies or feelings of a spiritual nature some people have is the realm of religion and theology.

I'm willing to listen to reason . . . change my mind . . .

- Chris

What follows is simply my view or version of reason. Also, it's copied from the Lion's Den, but it's my serious and honest view of Peters's writing on these two or three paragraphs, so I thought it might be fitting to copy it here for what it's worth.

Quote

1. Scientism. Sometimes called "naturalism" or "scientific materialism" or "secular humanism," seeks war with total victory for one side. Scientism, like other "..isms," is an ideology, in this case built upon the assumption that science provides all the knowledge that we can know. There is only one reality, the natural, and science has a monopoly on the knowledge we have about nature (Gilkey 1993). Religion, which claims to purvey knowledge about things supernatural, provides only pseudo-knowledge -- that is, false impressions about non-existent fictions.

Some decades ago, British philosopher and atheist Bertrand Russell told a BBC audience that "what science cannot tell us, mankind cannot know." At mid-century astronomer Fred Hoyle argued that the Jewish and Christian religions have become outdated by modern science. He explained religious behavior as escapist, as pursued by people who seek illusory security from the mysteries of the universe (Hoyle 1950).

My study of religion and spirituality, etc., suggests this is a seriously mistaken view of religion. I should add that my research includes information that was not available to the scholars of the early or mid-twentieth century. Each scholar lays his or her own stone/brick of insight in the knowledge base on which later scholars and students work, and in turn also leave their own contribution. For this reason I respect the contribution of these earlier thinkers, though I do not accept it for my own guideline in life. We must forever strive to learn and grow in wisdom and knowledge and maturity. At some point my mind and body will be exhausted but I will expect others to continue so that there is someone I can depend on when I am too old and feeble to look after myself, and after I am gone.

Quote

More recently, physicists Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan have teamed up to assert that the cosmos is all there is or was or ever will be, and to assert that there was no absolute beginning at the onset of the Big Bang. Why no beginning? Had there been an absolute beginning, then time would have an edge; and beyond this edge we could dimly glimpse a transcendent reality such as a creator God. But this is intolerable to scientism. So, by describing the cosmos as temporally self-contained, Sagan, in his introduction to Hawking's A Brief History of Time, could write confidently about "the absence of God" on the grounds that there is "nothing for a Creator to do" (Hawking 1988; also Sagan 1980; Crick 1994). In the warfare between science and theology, scientism demands elimination of the enemy.

I have not read Hawking and Sagan and don't know if this is an accurate portrayal of their thought. Ted Peters seems to think they intentionally arranged their philosophy so as to rule out a creator. Honest thinkers do not thus strategically arrange their thinking; they are out to find truth no matter what that truth may be. There is evidence in Peters's article that he personally does not use this honest approach. Thus, I don't trust him to honestly portray Sagan and Hawkings; he has an ax to grind and a lot to lose.

Quote

2. Scientific Imperialism. This approach is scientism in a slightly different form. Rather than eliminating the enemy, scientific imperialism seeks to conquer the territory formally possessed by theology and claim it as its own. Whereas scientism is atheistic, scientific imperialism affirms the existence of something divine but claims knowledge of the divine comes from scientific research rather than religious revelation. "Science has actually advanced to the point where what were formerly religious questions can be seriously tackled...[by] the new physics," writes Paul Davies (Davies 1983). Physicist Frank Tipler, claiming that quantum theory combined with Big Bang and thermodynamics can provide a better explanation than Christianity for the future resurrection of the dead, declares that theology should become a branch of physics (Tipler 1994).

That's from the science perspective. From the theology perspective the fundies are doing what they can to conquer science and make it serve the Bible. [See below.] Scientific imperialism, as portrayed here, looks like the same thing to me, but from the opposite end of the spectrum. What Peters presents in these paragraphs are mere summaries of major philosophies. It is impossible to get a true picture of what these philosophies truly teach based on what is presented here.

The following was not posted in the Lion's Den but comes from my paper:

The best authority I found with regards to science and fundamentalist religion was Strong Religion: The Rise of Fundamentalisms Around the World, by Gabriel A. Almond, R. Scott Appleby, and Emmanuel Sivan, published in 2003. Almond et al say:

Fundamentalists blamed the erosion of religious belief and practice on the irreligious worldviews and materialistic lifestyles accompanying the growth and spread of secular science and technology. But they did not retreat from the secular-scientific world; they strove, rather, to transform or conquer it (Almond et al, 2003:11).

[R. S. Martin]

Antlerman, on Apr 4 2008, 03:09 PM, said:

What happened to your formating in your opening post Ruby? There's all sorts of random various sizes going on in there? Would you like me to fix it for you?

I fixed it now. It had something to do with copying it from the other thread.

Quote

I'm not feel too well right now, so I've been unable to form my thoughts well for this topic. There's a considerable amount of things to talk about regarding his different points. I'm afraid I'm not nearly so cynical about the content of this as flordhuh is. ;) His list of 8 different categories of how people deal with dichotomy of religion and science is very relevant to the world we're confronted with surrounding us every day.

Here's a brief listing of the categories of how people deal with trying to reconcile this dichotomy in the modern, and postmodern world.

• Scientism.
  
• Scientific Imperialism
  
• Ecclesiastical Authoritarianism
  
• Scientific creationism.
  
• The Two-Language Theory
  
• Hypothetical consonance
  
• Ethical Overlap
  
• New Age Spirituality

I would fit somewhere in the #5 cateogry of "Two-Language" with some quaification and some further explaination, which I'll try to do later on.

Being the noncommittal rebel I am, I'm not about pledging allegiance to any of these categories, though I found the scientism to fit me pretty closely. Then again, there's something of merit in all of them, and I have full understanding of none of them. Not to mention that this is a Christian's spin on the matter; he has to retain God in the picture and explain why people like Hawkings and Sagan ended up not having God. Possibly you, or someone else on here, are familiar with their work and can fill me in on whether or not you think Peters gives an fair and accurate portrayal of their thinking.

Quote

What I enjoy about this read is that it talks about religion, not as "fact" on an emperical level, but the modern approaches to theology that is vastly different than your evangelcial simplicity. People are complex, society is complex. Anytime any simple answer is presented, it brings it under great suspicion by me, whether it's the religious or the secular offering their easy answer.

Perhaps that is what I enjoy about it, too. At this point in my life I'm still trying to figure out what kinds of Christian belief are out there. Up till about five years ago all I really knew was the conservative Amish-Mennonite system. All the rest were just "society." Online forums like this have been the most helpful, in addition to my formal studies. No longer do I feel so "in the dark."

Quote

This is a look at humanity, IMO. When I feel better, I'll hopefully explain myself better with what I'm seeing. (I don't have to agree with him, to appreciate the depth of information in this).

In my opinion, this is what real learning is about--being able to see what another has to say, critique it, and see how it fits into what we/I agree with and why, so that we can apply the knowledge and work with it. And the parts we don't agree with are often helpful in shedding light on the views and opinions of others we may or may not agree with. It's all an intricately interwoven web of knowledge from/to which nothing can be taken or added without impacting the rest. As, I am finding, programs on a computer. I removed one I never used and that disabled another piece of unrelated (I thought) technology. Got the problem solved after some hassle, but knowledge in the human--at least in my--brain works in similar fashion. Or like a knitted sweater--snip one loose thread and the whole garment unravels.

[R. S. Martin]

DevaLight, on Apr 4 2008, 08:22 PM, said:

Antlerman, on Apr 4 2008, 02:09 PM, said:

Anytime any simple answer is presented, it brings it under great suspicion by me, whether it's the religious or the secular offering their easy answer.

I agree with the above statement, and when read an article where I see scientists put into different categories which they themselves would probably not agree with, I get suspicious.

I read portions of this very long article but not all of it. I would probably fit into the category "new age spirituality" in my outlook which is dismissed by the author as "contrived and uncompelling". I have read a biography of physicist David Bohm, sections of his theory of the implicate order (I admit I do not have the scientific background to understand it all) and many interviews of him. He was a collegue of Einstein's and someone who was once described by physicist Richard Feynman (to a dinner companion) with the following sentence "You don't know how great he is." I don't think that holding a "holistic" view of reality is necessarily confined to "new age spirituality" since it is very old and I am pretty sure Bohm would object to being categorized in this way.

Bohm is probably identified with the "new age" because of his association with spiritual teacher Krishnamurti, which started in the early 1960s and lasted until Krishnamurti's death in 1986. Bohm sought out Krishnamurti after having read one of his books which he found compelling because it upheld some of the discoveries of quantum physics regarding the non-dual nature of reality and questions of consciousness. I only say that to point out that it wasn't the other way around. Krishnamurti didn't come to Bohm with ideas of winning him over to a "new age" way of thinking.

The term "new age" is a very broad category covering a variety of beliefs from fairies, angels, auras, tarot card readings to astrology to serious Buddhism and Hinduism.

This may be very uninteresting to most, but if I find one item that is suspect (categorizing someone inappropriately) then I tend to suspect everything.

Deva, thanks for this information. His was my first formal introduction to New Age. He writes it off but I think there is something to it. I've always thought there is; it speaks to something inside of me. But I like your clarification and corrections. I certainly did not find it "uninteresting," as you say.

Quote

Quote

So, curiously enough, we might consider the possiblity of a reversal in natural thinking. Traditionally the aim of natural theology has been to ask what our study of nature can contribute to our knowledge of God. But might it work in reverse? Might we ask what our knowledge of God can contribute to our knowledge of nature? To know that God is the creator is to know that the world in which we live and move and have our being is Creation.

I don't know how or where it could ever be proved beyond doubt that God is a creator. There are many assumptions made, and this almost sounds like Christian apologetics to me.

This is part of the conclusion that just messed the whole thing up for me. So far as I can see, it works only if you are persuaded beyond a shadow of a doubt that God is the creator of all that exists.

[R. S. Martin]

florduh, on Apr 4 2008, 09:02 PM, said:

I think redefining god as some particle or such to be quantified by scientific inquiry is just silly.

Again, things concerning the supernatural are just that - beyond the grasp of the natural, which has to be science's domain.

I agree that studying god as particle or material is a futile project. I'm not sure why you raise the idea. Did Peters say something like that?

The domain of science. In my mind, science is broadly defined. Sociology, psychology, and anthropology are science, too; they are called the social sciences. These do not study and analyze particles; they study human thought and behaviour on various levels, and from various angles. The scientific method and statistical analysis are rigorously applied; they are rightfully called science.

It is from these sciences that we learn something about "god." To use an analogy from astrophysics, sometimes we can deduce something such as dark matter (the invisible) due to the behaviour of the visible. When large portions of the human population across time, geography, and culture consistently behave as though there were an invisible reality with whom they are interacting, yet in all other matters they are clearly in touch with concrete reality, it logically follows that there is something inherent to the human condition that prompts it. It is the task of the social scientist to find it.

It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is more to the human being than meets the eye. I would say that by the 19th century, by about 1850 to 1900, the Enlightenment had come of age. Science and reason had been thoroughly investigated. God had been disproved. Medicine, technology, and manufacture were highly developed. People born around the turn of the 20th century lived to by 90 and 100 years old. Things could only get better. Optimism was at an all-time high.

What did the 20th century bring? War. Major war. More war. Weapons of mass destruction--weapons with the power to destroy the entire planet at the push of a button. A return to religion. Fights over laws to implements Bible-based laws. Communism on the mass scale that held the world in a grip of terror for eighty years. Orwell's 1984 with Big Brother Watching YOU! And the technology to do it. In the first decade of the 21st century we look back at the optimism at the end of the 19th century and realize that the progress people then predicted for the 20th century has been of the sort that leaves us seriously concerned that we are not headed back into the Dark Ages.

And THAT, my dear people, is what I mean when I say it has been proven that there is more to the human being than meets the eye. If reason and science had the power to prevail over superstition and savagery, they would have done so. The twentieth century, and events since then, proved that more is required. There is something more to the human being. Perhaps it's an instinct. Whatever it is, it is like the elements of nature; it must be respected because it exists and, like the elements of nature, when it gets out of control it results in major catastrophe.

Denying it, ridiculing it, reasoning it away--all of this has been, and is being, done for centuries AND IT'S NOT WORKING. Success is near zero. Untill this past month or so I had thought the skeptical arguments were of our generation but they're not. They're centuries old. Been around since at least the 1600s.

[florduh]

RubySera, on Apr 5 2008, 07:24 AM, said:

florduh, on Apr 4 2008, 09:02 PM, said:

I think redefining god as some particle or such to be quantified by scientific inquiry is just silly.

Again, things concerning the supernatural are just that - beyond the grasp of the natural, which has to be science's domain.

I agree that studying god as particle or material is a futile project. I'm not sure why you raise the idea. Did Peters say something like that?

To me it's implied that an irrefutable definitive answer from science on anything supernatural would require the hard evidence of quantifying a real substance or energy. The "soft sciences" if you will, have extensively done studies and experiments in the fields of anthropology, sociology and psychology, as well as neurology. The verdict is in from the only sciences that can approach the spiritual. Feelings or impressions about gods and other spiritual experiences are functions of brain chemistry, stimulation, and damage. See Chefranden's link to this: http://www.ted.com/i...lks/view/id/229

I also agree that in the article some disciplines and people have been mischaracterized to fit the author's preconceptions.

- Chris

[R. S. Martin]

florduh, on Apr 5 2008, 09:25 AM, said:

RubySera, on Apr 5 2008, 07:24 AM, said:

I agree that studying god as particle or material is a futile project. I'm not sure why you raise the idea. Did Peters say something like that?

To me it's implied that an irrefutable definitive answer from science on anything supernatural would require the hard evidence of quantifying a real substance or energy. The "soft sciences" if you will, have extensively done studies and experiments in the fields of anthropology, sociology and psychology, as well as neurology. The verdict is in from the only sciences that can approach the spiritual. Feelings or impressions about gods and other spiritual experiences are functions of brain chemistry, stimulation, and damage. See Chefranden's link to this: http://www.ted.com/i...lks/view/id/229

I also agree that in the article some disciplines and people have been mischaracterized to fit the author's preconceptions.

- Chris

I'm reading Peters's article again. Yeah, here it is:

Quote

2. Scientific Imperialism. This approach is scientism in a slightly different form. Rather than eliminating the enemy, scientific imperialism seeks to conquer the territory formally possessed by theology and claim it as its own. Whereas scientism is atheistic, scientific imperialism affirms the existence of something divine but claims knowledge of the divine comes from scientific research rather than religious revelation. "Science has actually advanced to the point where what were formerly religious questions can be seriously tackled...[by] the new physics," writes Paul Davies (Davies 1983). Physicist Frank Tipler, claiming that quantum theory combined with Big Bang and thermodynamics can provide a better explanation than Christianity for the future resurrection of the dead, declares that theology should become a branch of

physics (Tipler 1994).

Seems my brain's got holes in it--that was so obvious. :twitch:

[florduh]

No holes in YOUR brain, ruby!