Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The science delusion


Joshpantera

Recommended Posts

  • Moderator

This is worthy of going over. Old fashioned materialistic ideas are on the chopping block here: 

 

 

He's outlined some issues that I think lead to a situation where neither the majority of religionist's nor materalistic scientists have been correct. And that the truth is going to come from neither side in total, both sides in at least part, with atheism itself surviving the clash regardless of the problems with mechanistic materialism. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well he screwed up on number 4.  Scientist claim the "Big Bang" was the expansion of a singularity.  They do not say it all came from nowhere.  The singularity is thought to have contained all the matter-energy of our whole universe so the quality did not change.  the density of that matter-energy is what changed.  He sets up a straw man and doing so makes him look weak.

 

Later on he comes back to the laws of nature and asserts that the Big Bang was a miracle because it all came from nothing.  If he needs to use a straw man then it looks like he cannot refute the real materialistic view.  We do not know what form the singularity took before the Big Bang.  What is unknown is not as assertion of "nothing".  Some scientists have hypothesized a singularity can come from a quantum field.  A quantum field is not nothing.  Some scientists have hypothesized that the Big Bang came from the collision of superstructures, called membranes, that are part of the cosmos but outside of our universe. Cosmological structures are not nothing.  Some scientists have hypothesized that our universe can create other universes and in turn ours was created from an older universe.  A different universe is not nothing.  Some scientists have hypothesized that our universe runs on a cycle and the billions of years since the Big Bang is only a tiny fraction of our universe's existence.  Once again this is not nothing.  

 

I have never forgotten that "law of nature" is a metaphor.  Human laws can be broken.  Choice is involved regarding human laws.  Laws of nature cannot be broken and there is no choice.  They are the way our universe works.  We call something a law of nature when that is how our universe is compelled to operate.

 

 

Morphic resonance?     :yelrotflmao:

 

8:40  "Every species has a kind of collective memory.  Even crystals do."   

 

Did he just imply that crystals are a type of species?  He went from species to crystals and back to 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didnt Lawrence Krauss write a book "A universe from nothing" ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, midniterider said:

Didnt Lawrence Krauss write a book "A universe from nothing" ?

 

I don't know.  I will assume he did rather than google for it.  I wouldn't put much weight in what one person states.  For example Rupert Sheldrake thinks that crystals can learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, mymistake said:

 We call something a law of nature when that is how our universe is compelled to operate.

 

 

 

What compels the universe to behave the way it does?  Our wishes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he rightfully points out some problems with the scientific conclusions of some people including scientists. Unfortunately his obviously wrong conclusions are based upon his religious thinking,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mymistake said:

 

I don't know.  I will assume he did rather than google for it.  I wouldn't put much weight in what one person states.  For example Rupert Sheldrake thinks that crystals can learn.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss

 

I agree. He just some cosmologist. Looks like #metoo is taking him down....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, pantheory said:

I think he rightfully points out some problems with the scientific thinking of some people. Unfortunately his obviously wrong conclusions are based upon his religious thinking,

 

What is his religion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, midniterider said:

Didnt Lawrence Krauss write a book "A universe from nothing" ?

 

That is Krauss' click bait.  In the book, as one example, he describes/defines the "nothing" as a quantum vacuum from which virtual particles emerge and disappear, and basically admits a quantum vacuum is a "something".

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
5 hours ago, mymistake said:

Well he screwed up on number 4.  Scientist claim the "Big Bang" was the expansion of a singularity.  They do not say it all came from nowhere.  The singularity is thought to have contained all the matter-energy of our whole universe so the quality did not change.  the density of that matter-energy is what changed.  He sets up a straw man and doing so makes him look weak.

  Yeah, I caught that part too. This guy has his own biases in the game. It's just that we have a problem pushing mechanistic materialism as truth due to a variety of uncertainties. He's better than most apologist's at zeroing in on these problems. 

 

5 hours ago, mymistake said:

Later on he comes back to the laws of nature and asserts that the Big Bang was a miracle because it all came from nothing.  If he needs to use a straw man then it looks like he cannot refute the real materialistic view. 

 

He's quoting materialist's who say, 'grant me one miracle' and I'll show you the rest. I've heard that claim made before. It's real. But it does come from what I consider outdated science. And I likewise draw a distinction between outdated materialism. 

 

5 hours ago, mymistake said:

Some scientists have hypothesized that the Big Bang came from the collision of superstructures, called membranes, that are part of the cosmos but outside of our universe. Cosmological structures are not nothing.  Some scientists have hypothesized that our universe can create other universes and in turn ours was created from an older universe.  A different universe is not nothing.  Some scientists have hypothesized that our universe runs on a cycle and the billions of years since the Big Bang is only a tiny fraction of our universe's existence.  Once again this is not nothing.  

 

 

This is where he can be pinned down. I wouldn't be shy to engage him in arguing the above because he would lose. Everything from nothing is a straw man. Whenever Kraus or anyone else says, "nothing," they actually mean "something" and that will all come out upon close examination. 

 

5 hours ago, mymistake said:

I have never forgotten that "law of nature" is a metaphor.  Human laws can be broken.  Choice is involved regarding human laws.  Laws of nature cannot be broken and there is no choice.  They are the way our universe works.  We call something a law of nature when that is how our universe is compelled to operate.

 

The problem here is where he exposed scientist's having "fudged" the speed of light. Unfortunately that sort of thing seems to happen. People will fudge numbers as some type of confirmation bias and that doesn't do science any good. It gives the opposition too much to exploit when that happens. And this has happened with temperature readings as well, which I've read about many times. It has to stop. People need to stick to the science and not treat it like a belief system that ought to be conducted with confirmation bias. That's a black eye whenever it happens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss

 

I agree. He just some cosmologist. Looks like #metoo is taking him down....

 

I have not read his book so I do not know what conclusion it arrives at.

 

Sheldrake is trying to take down materialism but does not address the many views materialists have expressed on where the singularity might have come from.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

This is worthy of going over. Old fashioned materialistic ideas are on the chopping block here: 

 

 

He's outlined some issues that I think lead to a situation where neither the majority of religionist's nor materalistic scientists have been correct. And that the truth is going to come from neither side in total, both sides in at least part, with atheism itself surviving the clash regardless of the problems with mechanistic materialism. 

 

Sir, you are blaspheming the holy science. :) 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

 

That is Krauss' click bait.  In the book, as one example, he describes/defines the "nothing" as a quantum vacuum from which virtual particles emerge and disappear, and basically admits a quantum vacuum is a "something".

 

 

Like I said, i have not read his book but if this were the case then Krauss falls into the "quantum field" style camp.  Perhaps I got the name wrong and they are called quantum vacuums instead.   Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

What is his religion?

 
Sheldrake said: "Yes, I believe in God. I am a practicing Christian, specifically an Anglican (in the US, an Episcopalian). I went through a long atheist phase, and began to question the materialist orthodoxy of science while I was still an atheist." (Jul 14, 2014)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

The problem here is where exposed scientist's having "fudged" the speed of light. Unfortunately that sort of thing seems to happen. People will fudge numbers as some type of confirmation bias and that doesn't do science any good. It gives the opposition too much to exploit when that happens. And this has happened with temperature readings as well, which I read about many times. It has to stop. People need to stick to the science and not treat it like a belief system that ought to be conducted with confirmation bias. That's a black eye whenever it happens. 

 

Right. Do natural laws not change because they dont actually change? Or do they not change because we ignore later observations? Or decide after a 100 years that we don't need to continue to verify that something is still operating the same way as when we decided to call it a law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pantheory said:
 
Sheldrake said: "Yes, I believe in God. I am a practicing Christian, specifically an Anglican (in the US, an Episcopalian). I went through a long atheist phase, and began to question the materialist orthodoxy of science while I was still an atheist." (Jul 14, 2014)

 

Oh, ok. I'll watch the video again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
4 hours ago, pantheory said:
 
Sheldrake said: "Yes, I believe in God. I am a practicing Christian, specifically an Anglican (in the US, an Episcopalian). I went through a long atheist phase, and began to question the materialist orthodoxy of science while I was still an atheist." (Jul 14, 2014)

 

This is where Sheldrake will always go wrong. Bad foundations of his own do nothing for him when trying to point out bad foundations of others. The other issue where he'd take a beating, is where bringing consciousness into the equation leads for a christian. It doesn't lead to proving a god, let alone the biblical god. And trying to go at the hard problem issue, and panpsychism from a christian perspective, can only render what TS has labeled, "Synthetic Christianity." Now Sheldrake fancies Jordan Peterson, one of the modern authors of Synthetic Christianity. None of the paths they're trying to take amount to legitimizing christianity. They only manage to raise more obscure heresy's under the guise of the label, christianity. It's so far removed that it really isn't. 

 

But nevertheless, in the process are revealed some of the weaker points of materialism. Those weaker points don't equal a win for theism, they just reveal the uncertainty at the base of a materialist worldview. And uncertainty doesn't equal god, it just equals uncertainty. None of this even touches atheism at all. But guys like Peterson and Sheldrake think they've delivered some lethal blow. Old school materialist's will probably need to learn some new tricks, by paying attention to where these claims go and how they don't end with favoring theistic believers, even though theistic believers are going around acting as if they do. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

 I'm going through some more of Sheldrake: 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

But nevertheless, in the process are revealed some of the weaker points of materialism. Those weaker points don't equal a win for theism, they just reveal the uncertainty at the base of a materialist worldview. And uncertainty doesn't equal god, it just equals uncertainty. None of this even touches atheism at all. But guys like Peterson and Sheldrake think they've delivered some lethal blow. Old school materialist's will probably need to learn some new tricks, by paying attention to where these claims go and how they don't end with favoring theistic believers, even though theistic believers are going around acting as if they do. 

 

 

Assuming our culture survives and thrives, I would expect 500 years from now some facets of our current world view will be proven wrong and discarded.  But given the pattern I would expect the replacement ideas to look more like quantum mechanics than religion or metaphysics.  Our cosmos is strange.  And the deeper we look the harder it is for our brain to relate to our cosmos.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
43 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Now Sheldrake fancies Jordan Peterson, one of the modern authors of Synthetic Christianity. None of the paths they're trying to take amount to legitimizing christianity. They only manage to raise more obscure heresy's under the guise of the label, christianity. It's so far removed that it really isn't. 

 

 

Every version of Christianity is built upon some subset of the Bible, with each denomination and every Christian latching onto the parts they prefer and ignoring the uncomfortable bits.  Just like our new friend Knott who has his own personal version.  Peterson and Sheldrake have just gone to an extreme in stripping almost all the doctrine away.  Maybe it’s what they think needs to happen in order that Christianity survive. But I think fundamentalists would agree with us unbelievers that this is a hollow shell of Christianity.  The only intellectually sound position is to admit that it’s just a collection of myths and fables.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
37 minutes ago, ThereAndBackAgain said:

The only intellectually sound position is to admit that it’s just a collection of myths and fables.  

 

None of which provide any type of valid alternative, in the wake of Sheldrake's critique of mechanistic materialism. It's logically fallacious to put forward that if mechanistic materialist philosophy isn't true, automatically christian philosophy is. That's a trap that I think many deconverts are inclined to fall into. Unless they get exposed to the debate and learn where it will lead. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

In the second video Sheldrake shows his ass in a lot of places. One really big place is around 41:00 where he goes on to claim that the modern human rights efforts are BASED on taking christian values and secularizing them, basically. He then goes on to elaborate on how the idea that we're all equal in the eyes of god is the basis for human rights - as if secular humanist's have stolen the whole thing from the bible.

 

I may have to try and find him making claims like this in debate with some intellectual atheist's like Harris. He'd mop the floor with those claims. There's no human rights in the NT any more than the OT. In fact, I heard some christian preacher recently preaching that one of the greatest evils today, completely contrary to the bible, is the concept of human rights. Sheldrake's christianity is completely synthetic, and that second video outlines that reality fully, and in detail. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, florduh said:

 

Yes, Sheldrake is a woo woo peddler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.