Mixing religion w/ science

[pantheory]

Here's another sad attempt at mixing religion with science. Unfortunately for some scientists the two cannot be separated. It's unfortunate since scientists' beliefs or considerations of such crap can get publicized and many more less educated readers also seriously consider such BS. One might remember that a Catholic Priest invented the Big Bang theory (BB), and Pope Pius XII said that he considered the BB model a religious possibility that did not necessarily contradict the Bible.

 

https://www.livescience.com/cosmic-microwave-sign-from-creator.html?utm_source=Selligent&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=9160&utm_content=LVS_newsletter+&utm_term=2875217&m_i=9%2BD9g%2BUsg8cRRyIpcg1ht7S2VydEvFm54GauVIsKUgpPynlPHZyuOvAqVheALqNaNou7wDlm4A%2BnyfdPDLEPxX8NbjKx9rJNWCaC7s999c

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

I just hope there aren't any tax dollars going toward the study! 

[pantheory]

12 hours ago, Weezer said:

I just hope there aren't any tax dollars going toward the study! 

 

I was thinking the same thing. I haven't checked yet as to what schools or institutions were paying these goof balls. I'm sure we're not the only ones that consider the wasting of tax dollars on religious pursuits.

OK, I checked. The author of the study is from the Sonneberg Observatory in Germany so no US dollars were wasted on this "stupid" study. No telescopic time was wasted for the study either. But a Harvard astrophysicist commented and discussed the study based upon its reading, but hope and expect this was done on his off-time. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[midniterider]

Snip from article: "If I was a creator and I wanted... [a] message that says 'Hi guys, I created the universe. And you're welcome.' And I wanted to make people work for that a little bit, I'd make it this sort of subtle-yet-universally observable thing"

 

Like the usual Christianity thing, this is someone searching for evidence of a 'source' because they can't find the source itself. 

 

Have you ever wondered how many scientists are secretly motivated by a similar desire to find some trace of God using their field of study?

 

 

[pantheory]

On 12/11/2020 at 9:05 AM, midniterider said:

Snip from article: "If I was a creator and I wanted... [a] message that says 'Hi guys, I created the universe. And you're welcome.' And I wanted to make people work for that a little bit, I'd make it this sort of subtle-yet-universally observable thing"

 

Like the usual Christianity thing, this is someone searching for evidence of a 'source' because they can't find the source itself. 

 

Have you ever wondered how many scientists are secretly motivated by a similar desire to find some trace of God using their field of study?

 

 

Yeah,  depending upon the field of science, according to the link below about half of US scientists believe in a higher power of some kind. This doesn't surprise me. In the social sciences belief percentages are higher and in the physical sciences percentages are lower. Religious folk believe by definition, and most religious folk of intellect search to confirm their beliefs. 

 

Fortunately peer pressure usually stops these goof balls from spending their research time and money on such foolish endeavors.

 

https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

It's temping to try and prove god exists by some means. So many people try to conceive of ways of doing it. 

 

20 hours ago, pantheory said:

Religious folk believe by definition, and all religious folk of intellect search to confirm their beliefs. 

 

Yes, these folks are into objective thinking in other areas outside of religion and seem to want to present their subjective beliefs, as if objective facts. They always fail at it, though. When challenged and critically examined. It's too tempting to give up on, though. They keep trying as though they expect a different outcome regardless of past failures in logic and where evidence is concerned. 

 

 

[pantheory]

On 12/12/2020 at 8:20 AM, Joshpantera said:

It's temping to try and prove god exists by some means. So many people try to conceive of ways of doing it. 

 

 

Yes, these folks are into objective thinking in other areas outside of religion and seem to want to present their subjective beliefs, as if objective facts. They always fail at it, though. When challenged and critically examined. It's too tempting to give up on, though. They keep trying as though they expect a different outcome regardless of past failures in logic and where evidence is concerned.

 

Even though most scientists are generally wasting their time, intellect, and other's money, in such religion motivated studies, once in a while they make discoveries that others, and sometimes themselves, realize have scientific importance. Such a person was Johannes Kepler who looked for the rhythms of God (via equations) that controlled our solar system. Kepler incorporated religious ideas, arguments and reasoning into his work and teachings at his Catholic seminary, motivated by his religious convictions and belief that God had created the world according to an intelligible plan that was accessible to us via observation and reason. He is credited as being the founder of the plan to combine the study of astronomy (separate from astrology) with physics, describing his new astronomy as "celestial physics,^."  today called astrophysics.

 

So we could consider some of these goof-ball searches as fundamental physics in that they something find something of scientific importance, but not the God proof they were looking for.

[Joshpantera]

On 12/12/2020 at 1:53 PM, pantheory said:

Such a person was Johannes Kepler who looked for the rhythms of God (via equations) that controlled our solar system. Kepler incorporated religious arguments and reasoning into his work and teachings at a Catholic seminary, motivated by the religious conviction and belief that God had created the world according to an intelligible plan that was accessible to us via observation and reason.

 

That's a good example. The "rhythms of God," of course, being the universe itself and not a god. Whatever was expected to come from a god (control factors in the universe, universal law) instead point back at natural, as opposed to supernatural foundations. Looking for the supernatural reveals greater depth within the natural order of the universe. Even to the extent of theory like multiverse or similar.

 

What's beyond the universe, god???

 

Well, not exactly. Infinite and eternal natural space, more universal regions, and the like, spanning out forever. The deeper you go, the further a god gets pushed back until infinitely out of range and relevance....

 

On 12/12/2020 at 1:53 PM, pantheory said:

So we could consider some of these goof-ball searches as fundamental physics in that they something find something of merit, but not the God proof they were looking for.

 

That seems true enough. They go looking for god, they find greater knowledge of the natural order. The god, again, infinitely out of reach and relevance during this cat and mouse game.

 

Once someone can hone in on this recurring trend, they can put aside lingering questions about, "what if there really is a god?"

 

At some point it becomes meaningless and irrelevant to get into in the first place. If analyzed far enough out like this.  It's when people stay close in and don't go the distance that they struggle with wondering if the god claims might really be true. Staying close in doesn't allow for the bigger considerations. 

 

The above must have some application towards the higher education, highly credentialed scientists and social sciences in question, right? 

 

Cognitive dissonance keeps their minds from going the distance and finding their way to these logical conclusions and deductions?  Which anyone should be independently able to come to if they stay the course and follow through?