Ah, I see. Thanks, AF. I worry about that, though, because it would be erroneous to describe a theory as fact or truth. Most of these things have drawbacks and will be superseded. The religiously extreme (differentiating fundamentalists from the sort of seeker that Hilda describes and I, frankly, respect) will take every revision and improvement of theory as proof that no theory is correct. The bottom line is that nothing a scientist can say will prevent true believers from denouncing the fruits of scientific inquiry, so I wonder how much value there is in arguing with them.
Faustus
The reason it worries scientists is because the next generation may not produce as many really good scientists to carry their work into the future.
You could argue that it's their own damn fault, but at the same time, think of the good that could be done if those brilliant minds went into the sciences instead of the ministry.
It's a double edge sword but I kind of agree that it's worth the fight.
This has been a great discussion. Easy to see who the scientists are on the board.
Here is my response to an number of good points made relative to my last post.
.........
sthilda: I guess I do sound definite. Perhaps that is because I have worked in science pretty much my whole life and have had the opportunity to compare its fruits to those of religion. I have been able to do this over many decades, and in many countries (more than 60).
Time after time, country after country, culture after culture I have compared the outcomes of irrational, unfounded believe with those of scientific inquiry and rational thinking. Based on these observations, I definitely choose science and rationality.
Dr W - I went back & read your first post & realized I glossed over something important you said. If your statement of naturally meant that an understanding of how the universe was created, or came into existence, can be explained by scientific models, processes & so forth, I would agree with you.
Isn't that what science is supposed to do? Explain the physical phenomena of our world & the universe? Fair enough.
My point was that I thought you oversimplified the position of a believer in a divine Creator by reducing such belief to the pejorative "magic." One could argue that a Creator thought the universe into existence & that science is discovering how that happened. (but this really winds up staying at the level of argument)
But of course, this Creator doesn't seem to be a physical phenomena, but truly an object of belief. So resorting to said Creator as an explanation seems like a cop-out, and not in the spirit of the pursuit of knowledge.
My deeper concern is that science, technology, and the scientific process & methods have themselves become deified in modern life. I do not feel under any compulsion to look for ultimate meaning & reality in science. I am searching for that ultimate meaning, and have learned not to confuse institutions, social mores, personal achievements, and other systems with that deeper meaning.
I guess I am as suspicious of science as I am of religion, or politics, etc.
But I am also enjoying the conversation. Thanks for the feedback.
Suspicion (I prefer the term skepticism) is an important part of science. A healthy and often expressed skepticism, directed toward one's own work and that of others, is what helps keep science on the rails.
In religion, especially Mormonism, expressed skepticism is not allowed. In an interview for a Temple recommend for example, it is not a good idea to express skepticism when asked if you accept JS as a prophet of God and whether you support the leadership of the Church.
Skepticism and the ability to alter hypotheses based on new evidence is the lifeblood of science. It is death to religion. That is why the Church has so many apologists who's job it is to explain new findings using the same old worn out and ragged hypotheses.
One should be skeptical. But the skepticism can be set aside, for the most part, once an assertion has been tested and found to be valid and true according to verifiable physical evidence.
Personally, I am often able to eventually set skepticism aside when it comes to new findings in science. This is seldom, if ever, the case when it comes to new pronouncements in Mormonism.
athena: Hawking is basically saying that the universe could have formed on its own. That is a theory. Since no one was there, no one knows for sure.All the evidence isn't in.
Actually, I think Hawking is saying that the existence of gravity makes the spontaneous formation of the universe inevitable, not just possible. He still leaves room for the possibility that God exists (because it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist), but he's saying that creating the universe isn't something that God did.
I understod that that was what he was saying ,but again that is an hypothesis not a proven fact.
Of course, the belief that God created the universe is also an hypothesis. Hawking's hypothesis is backed up by real physical evidence. The God hypothesis is backed up by none. It's based on faith. So, between the two hypotheses, I'm thinking Hawking's is most likely the correct one.
To further explore this issue, I suggest you read the book God, The Failed Hypothesis, by Victor J. Stenger, emeritus professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii and adjunct professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado. Dr. Stenger approaches the controversy by treating the idea of God as an hypothesis in the same way a scientist would treat any other hypothesis. He concludes that it fails and, moreover, that religion does more harm than good. The book is even highly recommended by Richard Dawkins.
Ah, I see. Thanks, AF. I worry about that, though, because it would be erroneous to describe a theory as fact or truth. Most of these things have drawbacks and will be superseded. The religiously extreme (differentiating fundamentalists from the sort of seeker that Hilda describes and I, frankly, respect) will take every revision and improvement of theory as proof that no theory is correct. The bottom line is that nothing a scientist can say will prevent true believers from denouncing the fruits of scientific inquiry, so I wonder how much value there is in arguing with them.
Faustus
The reason it worries scientists is because the next generation may not produce as many really good scientists to carry their work into the future.
You could argue that it's their own damn fault, but at the same time, think of the good that could be done if those brilliant minds went into the sciences instead of the ministry.
It's a double edge sword but I kind of agree that it's worth the fight.
Oh, I entirely agree. I think the sentient world must launch
a full frontal assault on the bastions of ignorance. I just don't feel that
we'll win any battles by telling people that the theory of evolution, though
still imperfect, is fundamentally better than a hypothesis, which is even less
perfect. That's a subtle distinction that does not appeal to the emotions underlying fundamentalism.
I'd rather focus on the value of science itself. Something
like, "I don't care about your religious beliefs but I want your children to
prosper in an increasingly competitive economy." Let the next generation make
its own decisions about God after receiving the best possible education.
Ah, I see. Thanks, AF. I worry about that, though, because it would be erroneous to describe a theory as fact or truth. Most of these things have drawbacks and will be superseded. The religiously extreme (differentiating fundamentalists from the sort of seeker that Hilda describes and I, frankly, respect) will take every revision and improvement of theory as proof that no theory is correct. The bottom line is that nothing a scientist can say will prevent true believers from denouncing the fruits of scientific inquiry, so I wonder how much value there is in arguing with them.
Faustus
The reason it worries scientists is because the next generation may not produce as many really good scientists to carry their work into the future.
You could argue that it's their own damn fault, but at the same time, think of the good that could be done if those brilliant minds went into the sciences instead of the ministry.
It's a double edge sword but I kind of agree that it's worth the fight.
[ ] Good point.
And from Doctor Faustus immediately above:
I'd rather focus on the value of science itself. Something like, "I don't care about your religious beliefs but I want your children to prosper in an increasingly competitive economy." Let the next generation make its own decisions about God after receiving the best possible education.
A short story to consider in support:
When I worked at a major University Research Institute in Saudi Arabia, we had to go mainly to Europe and the US (and sometimes to Egypt) to get qualified scientists for our laboratories.
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Gulf countries have well equipped and expensive colleges and universities, yet we could seldom, if ever, find qualified locals to work in the labs (out of our staff of about a dozen Ph.D. level scientists, we had one Saudi).
After a month or so in country, I asked the Rector of the University why this was the case. His response astounded me. Turns out that at that time (mid 1990's) the most popular course of study at colleges and universities in the Gulf was religion. Yep, Islamic studies.
It was a ticket to an easy degree with near guaranteed unemployment after college. But hey, who cared? The State paid for the schooling for most Nationals and the family just wanted the son to have a degree. In terms of the number of students enrolled, after Islamic studies came business and economics. The hard sciences were dead last.
Saudis to be educated in science and engineering often went to the US (Stanford was a favorite) and when they came back home, they went directly to work as managers in the oil companies or in finance.
Think about the effect(s) of having thousands of unemployed profesional Islamists running around the country, frustrated because they cannot get jobs, and yet secure in their "knowledge" of Alah and his plan to bring the world to Islam.
If you were ever looking for resons why college educated men would fly planes into buildings, I may just have provided a clue.
Hilda, I agree that God is largely a mental construct. There is nothing wrong with that. It is also possible that God exists entirely external to our world.
The first problem I see with equating God with my personal conception of god is the tendency to deify our own thoughts, and therefore ourselves.
Exhibit A - Joseph Smith.
I think that if I am going to go the route of developing my own understanding of God, I'll need to test my assumptions, check for bias, and get information & feedback from outside sources. I'll also have to examine my motives & behavior, to see if I'm really living up to my beliefs.
But that's just my perception.
As for my belief in a personal, loving God, I'll just say that this a desire & hope of mine, which comes & goes.
You step into the territory of Brother Fyodor. Dostoevsky spent a few years in a prison camp in Siberia. Life there was not bad: one did his work, got his food and privileges, and moved on. Logic and physical comfort demanded obedience and contentment. But every so often someone would apparently lose his mind, lashing out at the guards in a manner that was ultimately self-destructive. Why? Because there is something in the human soul that needs more than physical comfort and predictability. He would rather destroy himself than live in a permanently boring world.
In this sense the abundance of natural resources in the Middle East, in combination with the enforced order of Islam, is probably a curse for young men. They get good educations, enjoy social status, and yet find their lives largely meaningless. They thus act much like Dostoevsky's inmates: some percentage of them look for larger reasons to live and die. The difference is that they have wealth and access to weaponry.
You step into the territory of Brother Fyodor. Dostoevsky spent a few years in a prison camp in Siberia. Life there was not bad: one did his work, got his food and privileges, and moved on. Logic and physical comfort demanded obedience and contentment. But every so often someone would apparently lose his mind, lashing out at the guards in a manner that was ultimately self-destructive. Why? Because there is something in the human soul that needs more than physical comfort and predictability. He would rather destroy himself than live in a permanently boring world.
Dr. F - Are you referencing Notes from Underground? (which I haven't read)
FD was a passionate advocate of the necessary freedom of the individual.
---
I've run across different, but perhaps related, explanations for the turmoil in the Islamic world. The rapid, sudden introduction of Western secularism is a disorienting experience. Muslims (particularly young people) see the apparent success of the Western nations, but cannot emulate this secularism within their culture, without risking a loss of ethnic identity & family relationships.
You step into the territory of Brother Fyodor. Dostoevsky spent a few years in a prison camp in Siberia. Life there was not bad: one did his work, got his food and privileges, and moved on. Logic and physical comfort demanded obedience and contentment. But every so often someone would apparently lose his mind, lashing out at the guards in a manner that was ultimately self-destructive. Why? Because there is something in the human soul that needs more than physical comfort and predictability. He would rather destroy himself than live in a permanently boring world.
Dr. F - Are you referencing Notes from Underground? (which I haven't read)
FD was a passionate advocate of the necessary freedom of the individual.
---
I've run across different, but perhaps related, explanations for the turmoil in the Islamic world. The rapid, sudden introduction of Western secularism is a disorienting experience. Muslims (particularly young people) see the apparent success of the Western nations, but cannot emulate this secularism within their culture, without risking a loss of ethnic identity & family relationships.
Kind of like leaving Mormonism, in fact.
When people feel dispossed and years of imperialism has that effect, they will often turn to Fundamentalism.
When people feel dispossed and years of imperialism has that effect, they will often turn to Fundamentalism.
Good point. What part has the U.S. played in this? First we support Saddam Hussein, and then we round him up & put him on trial. Didn't the U.S. also support the so-called mujahadeen in their fight against the Soviet Union in Afganistan? Then we turn around a few years later & enter their country as an occupying force.
No, Hilda. The story of the prison camp is from his own personal recollections. But Notes from Underground is based in part on those experiences.
As for Islam and imperialism, I think it is easy to overstate that argument. The American colonies were victims of imperialism, after all, and yet managed to overcome the legacy. China as well, and South Korea, and Brazil. Germany and Japan were occupied and controlled tightly whereas Iran was not. Iran's experience with imperialism was limited to American and British support for an increasingly unpopular regime--like in China, South Korea, and many other countries--and support for the 1953 counter-coup. But perhaps the clearest example is Pakistan. India and Pakistan were occupied by imperial powers for centuries--first the Moguls and then the British--and yet India did not truly go downhill until it got its independence. Now the country is liberalizing and has taken off economically while Pakistan, with virtually the same history, has not.
At some point one has to ask why the impact of imperialism was so debilitating to some countries and not to others. Edward Said and his intellectual progeny have every reason to blame the West, but surely one has to ask why Islam is the one category of countries that has not been able to escape the effects of imperialism.
When people feel dispossed and years of imperialism has that effect, they will often turn to Fundamentalism.
Good point. What part has the U.S. played in this? First we support Saddam Hussein, and then we round him up & put him on trial. Didn't the U.S. also support the so-called mujahadeen in their fight against the Soviet Union in Afganistan? Then we turn around a few years later & enter their country as an occupying force.
Yes, we supported Saddam, the Taliban and the shah of Iran. The British were the real imperialists though and had a big hand in it between the two world wars
No, Hilda. The story of the prison camp is from his own personal recollections. But Notes from Underground is based in part on those experiences.
As for Islam and imperialism, I think it is easy to overstate that argument. The American colonies were victims of imperialism, after all, and yet managed to overcome the legacy. China as well, and South Korea, and Brazil. Germany and Japan were occupied and controlled tightly whereas Iran was not. Iran's experience with imperialism was limited to American and British support for an increasingly unpopular regime--like in China, South Korea, and many other countries--and support for the 1953 counter-coup. But perhaps the clearest example is Pakistan. India and Pakistan were occupied by imperial powers for centuries--first the Moguls and then the British--and yet India did not truly go downhill until it got its independence. Now the country is liberalizing and has taken off economically while Pakistan, with virtually the same history, has not.
At some point one has to ask why the impact of imperialism was so debilitating to some countries and not to others. Edward Said and his intellectual progeny have every reason to blame the West, but surely one has to ask why Islam is the one category of countries that has not been able to escape the effects of imperialism.
Faustus
Gandhi was killed by terrorists, Menachem Begin was a terrorist , Rabin was killed by a Jewish terrorist,Indira Gandhi was killed by terrorists and the Communists took over with the use of terrorism. The Colonists also used terrorism against the British that would have made Manson proud down to killing women and writing in their blood. Islam is hardly the only offender. WE WON SO TERRORISM DIDN'T BECOME A PART OF OUR SOCIETYPerhaps if we solved the Palestinian problem it would go a long ways in improving our relation with Islam. The prejudice that many Americans have against Islam and Muslims is not very helpful either.
At some point one has to ask why the impact of imperialism was so debilitating to some countries and not to others. Edward Said and his intellectual progeny have every reason to blame the West, but surely one has to ask why Islam is the one category of countries that has not been able to escape the effects of imperialism.
Faustus
F - I think caution is in order here. I have heard it expressed that the reason for the success of Europe, America & the other British colonies is directly related to their Christian heritage.
People are looking for reasons for success & failure. Maybe for ideological reasons?
At some point one has to ask why the impact of imperialism was so debilitating to some countries and not to others. Edward Said and his intellectual progeny have every reason to blame the West, but surely one has to ask why Islam is the one category of countries that has not been able to escape the effects of imperialism.
Faustus
F - I think caution is in order here. I have heard it expressed that the reason for the success of Europe, America & the other British colonies is directly related to their Christian heritage.
People are looking for reasons for success & failure. Maybe for ideological reasons?
The success or lack thereof of a country is related to many complex factors.
I couldn't agree more and the doctor is ignoring the effects of imperialism and the related terrorism on other groups. Muslims are hardly the only only terrorists in the world, most Muslims are not terrorists and there was a time when the Muslims were the intellectual light of the world. They haven't always been backward and radical.
Athena, I think you are reading a lot into my post that is not really there. I said nothing about terror. What I said was that lots of countries have been colonized and that Islam has a particularly bad record of modernization after the fact. Terror has been used on both sides of most of these conflicts, including China, South Korea, India, and lots of other places. That does not change the fact that some cultures do better than others subsequent to colonization.
As for Islam, if you reread some of our earlier exchanges you'll find that we agree on the immense contribution of the culture to global civilization. The curiosity is that over the last several centuries Islam has moved in a more reactionary direction. Some of that--Afghanistan, Pakistan--has a lot to do with the United States; and some of it does not. To see the latter point, simply look at the history of the Ottoman Empire, which went from a vibrant and open system to a brittle, introspective, and in some ways reactionary one by the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Hilda, I am aware of the debate on the reasons for the success of some countries in modernization. But the Weberian perspective that you cite is usually used to explain the rise of the West in general. The analysis does not work well for the British colonies, most of which were never Christian; and it certainly does not explain the success of Japan, South Korea, China, India, etc. The newer analysis posits that the Confucian value system is as helpful as Christianity, but the rise of other regions belies that analysis as well.
If you are interested, the late Samuel Huntington--who has subsequently been raised to the status of prophet, seer and revelator for writing The Clash of Civilizations--did a lot of work on the question of imperialism and modernization. What he found was that the nature of the imperial power had a big impact on the development of democracy subsequent to the colonial period. The best imperial power? Great Britain, half of whose colonies became stable representative democracies because of the emphasis on education, an indigenous civil service, an independent judiciary, etc. France and the United States were considerably worse, Belgium the the biggest failure. My guess is that if he were writing today he would add the USSR to the medium category.
Faustus
ETD: the Moghul Empire, which I suspect is more a case of empire-in-decline than the schlerosis that afflicted Islam from the late 19th century on.
Hilda, I am aware of the debate on the reasons for the success of some countries in modernization. But the Weberian perspective that you cite is usually used to explain the rise of the West in general. The analysis does not work well for the British colonies, most of which were never Christian; and it certainly does not explain the success of Japan, South Korea, China, India, etc. The newer analysis posits that the Confucian value system is as helpful as Christianity, but the rise of other regions belies that analysis as well.
If you are interested, the late Samuel Huntington--who has subsequently been raised to the status of prophet, seer and revelator for writing The Clash of Civilizations--did a lot of work on the question of imperialism and modernization. What he found was that the nature of the imperial power had a big impact on the development of democracy subsequent to the colonial period. The best imperial power? Great Britain, half of whose colonies became stable representative democracies because of the emphasis on education, an indigenous civil service, an independent judiciary, etc. France and the United States were considerably worse, Belgium the the biggest failure. My guess is that if he were writing today he would add the USSR to the medium category.
Faustus
ETD: the Moghul Empire, which I suspect is more a case of empire-in-decline than the schlerosis that afflicted Islam from the late 19th century on.
Interesting exchange!
DF - In my earlier post, I meant to reference the Economic Freedom Index (which has a definite libertarian slant!). Countries with British heritage rate high in this reckoning, with Hong Kong at #1. Perhaps the best explanation I've heard is the transfer of the British legal system to its colonies, with its emphasis on the rule of law.
I have not heard of Huntington. His arguments are interesting, but I suspect some ethnocentricity. But I haven't read enough to make an informed judgment. But answering the "why" of the rise & fall of civilizations is easier in hindsight.
The dominant view is that the British took that "White Man's Burden" stuff seriously. Wherever they went, they created serious civil services that were relatively uncorrupt, court systems that were largely independent of politicians, and educational systems that worked. The top tier of administrators were British but everyone else was local. So when they departed, there was a professional class that knew how to run a country. The other colonial powers invested much less in developing the institutions of democracy and, to a lesser extent, capitalism. If the numbers are still correct, roughly half of Britain's colonies became stable democracies--which is much higher than for either the colonies of other imperial powers or countries that never underwent imperial control.
As for Huntington, you may want to look him up in Wikipedia or on Amazon. He was a very important man and trained a couple of generations of political scientists, including people all across the ideological spectrum. He made some mistakes, but he did great work on civil-military relations, the effects of colonization, etc. Another interesting writer on this sort of thing is Barrington Moore, particularly The Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy.
Stephen Hawking is obviously a very bright man. I'm sure he has good reason for making these statements. However, it seems he is saying affirmatively that there is no God & the universe was not created by said God.
Anyway you look at it, belief in a god-created or non-god created universe seems to me to be a choice. Neither stance is strictly verifiable.
I agree with that. Hawling is a great scientist, but he is not the final authority on God or religion.Hawking is basically saying that the universe could have formed on its own. That is a theory. Since no one was there, no one knows for sure.All the evidence isn't in.
I have my own weird reigious bugs to work out and I am not sure if/what I believe, but something always struck my from an Old Testament class I took at the Y.
Genesis 1 begins with the hebrew word "beresheet" (sp) which can mean:
In the beginning God created
or
When in the beginning, God was creating...
Small difference, but I remembered my prof talking about how there was a possibility that something existed prior to creation, but in an unformed and chaotic state, which was then organized (or "created") into something orderly.
I don't know. This isn't a thread about debating creationism from science, but I agree with stilda, whatever happened, we see the scientific evidence of it and can create hypotheses (pretty darn good ones, too) as to what caused this to happen, but I do think either stance is a choice. If you go with creationsism, you have to believe, I think, that God is the ultimate scientist.
Again, I am confused (as many are), but that is how I see both sides.
Swearing Elder, if you liked the Einstein biography you may want to try Einstein, Bohr and the Great Debate about the Nature of Reality. It's a little more detailed but generally true to the physics and well written.
I loved reading about the relationship of Einstein and Bohr. I've just requested this book from my library.
Although I don't understand all the finer points of physics, I love seeing how science and knowledge is advanced, one idea at a time through trial and error, verification and falsification, and the occasional leap of intuition (usually coming only after much work).
It's a much more plausible process to examine than to think that a young guy suddenly heard a voice and wrote down, "Thus sayeth the Lord..."
Jared Diamond did a good jog explaining why some cultures thrive and some fail. Answering Yalis Question.
His conclusions overturn centuries of bigotted anwers. A great read.
ft
What is this--a thread about books Swearing Elder has just read, is reading, or is about to read?
Guns, Germs, and Steel is fantastic. I've had it on my to-read list for a long time. A recent Mormon Expression podcast pushed the book up to the top of my reading list.
Jared Diamond did a good jog explaining why some cultures thrive and some fail. Answering Yalis Question.
His conclusions overturn centuries of bigotted anwers. A great read.
ft
What is this--a thread about books Swearing Elder has just read, is reading, or is about to read?
Guns, Germs, and Steel is fantastic. I've had it on my to-read list for a long time. A recent Mormon Expression podcast pushed the book up to the top of my reading list.
You will enjoy it. Excellent read. Disembowels mormonism.
Jared Diamond did a good jog explaining why some cultures thrive and some fail. Answering Yalis Question.
His conclusions overturn centuries of bigotted anwers. A great read.
ft
What is this--a thread about books Swearing Elder has just read, is reading, or is about to read?
Guns, Germs, and Steel is fantastic. I've had it on my to-read list for a long time. A recent Mormon Expression podcast pushed the book up to the top of my reading list.
You will enjoy it. Excellent read. Disembowels mormonism.
ft
Really? I read and loved it as a hardcore TBM and it had no effect on my testimony -- I don't even remember any cognitive dissonance. Maybe I'll read it again (after I'm done with the 74 other books in the queue) just to see how it applies to Mormonism.
Jared Diamond did a good jog explaining why some cultures thrive and some fail. Answering Yalis Question.
His conclusions overturn centuries of bigotted anwers. A great read.
ft
What is this--a thread about books Swearing Elder has just read, is reading, or is about to read?
Guns, Germs, and Steel is fantastic. I've had it on my to-read list for a long time. A recent Mormon Expression podcast pushed the book up to the top of my reading list.
You will enjoy it. Excellent read. Disembowels mormonism.
ft
Really? I read and loved it as a hardcore TBM and it had no effect on my testimony -- I don't even remember any cognitive dissonance. Maybe I'll read it again (after I'm done with the 74 other books in the queue) just to see how it applies to Mormonism.
Or take a shortcut and listen to the Mormon Expression podcast I linked to above on the way to work one day.
Jared Diamond did a good jog explaining why some cultures thrive and some fail. Answering Yalis Question.
His conclusions overturn centuries of bigotted anwers. A great read.
ft
What is this--a thread about books Swearing Elder has just read, is reading, or is about to read?
Guns, Germs, and Steel is fantastic. I've had it on my to-read list for a long time. A recent Mormon Expression podcast pushed the book up to the top of my reading list.
You will enjoy it. Excellent read. Disembowels mormonism.
ft
Really? I read and loved it as a hardcore TBM and it had no effect on my testimony -- I don't even remember any cognitive dissonance. Maybe I'll read it again (after I'm done with the 74 other books in the queue) just to see how it applies to Mormonism.
Or take a shortcut and listen to the Mormon Expression podcast I linked to above on the way to work one day.
*whew* Thanks for pointing out the podcast again. It was a great podcast and it is now obvious that I was compartmentalizing religion away from everything else. You know - The Nephites died a long time ago. A lot can change in "a really long time." But I never made it to the "Oh crap. 400 years isn't a really long time. Where the hell are the horses in ancient America!?"
When I read it I had NO CLUE that there were any problems with Moism. Not one whisper of historical inaccuracies had wafted into my innocent TBM ear and it never even occurred to me that The Truth™ might not be true at all. Oh so very gullible.
Jared Diamond did a good jog explaining why some cultures thrive and some fail. Answering Yalis Question.
His conclusions overturn centuries of bigotted anwers. A great read.
ft
What is this--a thread about books Swearing Elder has just read, is reading, or is about to read?
Guns, Germs, and Steel is fantastic. I've had it on my to-read list for a long time. A recent Mormon Expression podcast pushed the book up to the top of my reading list.
You will enjoy it. Excellent read. Disembowels mormonism.
ft
Really? I read and loved it as a hardcore TBM and it had no effect on my testimony -- I don't even remember any cognitive dissonance. Maybe I'll read it again (after I'm done with the 74 other books in the queue) just to see how it applies to Mormonism.
Or take a shortcut and listen to the Mormon Expression podcast I linked to above on the way to work one day.
*whew* Thanks for pointing out the podcast again. It was a great podcast and it is now obvious that I was compartmentalizing religion away from everything else. You know - The Nephites died a long time ago. A lot can change in "a really long time." But I never made it to the "Oh crap. 400 years isn't a really long time. Where the hell are the horses in ancient America!?"
When I read it I had NO CLUE that there were any problems with Moism. Not one whisper of historical inaccuracies had wafted into my innocent TBM ear and it never even occurred to me that The Truth™ might not be true at all. Oh so very gullible.
I wrote that blog post about a year and a half ago at a time when I was still trying to hold onto activity in the church (for family reasons) even though I knew I didn't believe. I was earnest in asking ("with a sincere heart, with real intent").
You were not in one of the categories I listed on that post at the time you read Diamond's book -- you were an "Unaware Believer." But those who know the facts about the church and stil believe baffle me.
I wrote that blog post about a year and a half ago at a time when I was still trying to hold onto activity in the church (for family reasons) even though I knew I didn't believe. I was earnest in asking ("with a sincere heart, with real intent").
You were not in one of the categories I listed on that post at the time you read Diamond's book -- you were an "Unaware Believer." But those who know the facts about the church and stil believe baffle me.
Hypatia, I was reluctant to involve myself in this thread, maybe just let it die like all the rest, but finally, just couldn’t resist – possibly, a glutton for punishment? You must be feeling your oats; as we know so well – this controversial, highly emotional issue will likely never be resolved/remain a mystery, in-spite of our very best efforts (Big Smile)!
Renowned British scientist Stephen Hawking, writing in a soon-to-be released book, The Grand Design, theorizes that a God was unnecessary in the process of creation that he believes was caused by science spontaneously creating something from nothing!
The theoretical physicist argues that the origin of the universe, explained in modern science by the "Big Bang" theory, was the inevitable consequence of the Laws of Physics. Hawking writes that "because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist."
In a previous book, titled, A Brief History in Time, 1988, he argued that a belief in a creator was not incompatible with science/did not dismiss the idea that God had a hand in the creation!
The above excerpts from The Grand Design sparked a rebuttal from Rabbi Jonathan Henry Sacks, the spiritual head of Britain's largest synagogue body.
The rabbi refers to a widely perceived "mutual hostility" between religion and science as, in his words, "one of the curses of our age." He also warns that such hostility is "damaging to both religion and science in equal measure."
Scientist and educator George Ellis, president of the International Society for Science and Religion, is quoted as saying his biggest problem with Hawking's theories is that they present the public with "a choice, either science or religion!”
Sir Isaac Newton developed the theory of gravity. He argued that his science could explain the Universe's behavior, but not its creation, saying "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion." Hawking claims new discoveries of other solar systems outside our own in 1992, undercut a key idea of Newton - that our world was so uniquely designed to be comfortable for human life that some divine creator must have been responsible!
In his new work, Hawking rejects Newton’s conclusion that a creator must have been responsible! Hawking notes the following in The Grand Design, “we explain why, according to quantum theory, the cosmos does not have just a single existence, or history, but rather that every possible history of the universe exists simultaneously. We question the conventional concept of reality, posing instead a “model-dependent” theory of reality. We discuss how the laws of our particular universe are extraordinarily finely tuned so as to allow for our existence, and show why quantum theory predicts the multiverse – the idea that ours is just one of many universes that appeared spontaneously out of nothing, each with different laws of nature. And, we assess M-Theory, an explanation of the laws governing the multiverse, and the only viable candidate for a complete “theory of everything.”
I don’t have any preconceived prejudice against science, in-fact, Scientists must be recognized for their ability to think, a concept that far surpasses the alternative approach of using self-induced, warm fuzzes as some credible, magical guide for determining truth!
What’s wrong with the idea/theory that a Supreme Ruler/God, who understood the Laws of Science, did indeed create the Universe using these very Laws? I suspect Hawking might give this idea some credence/ agree with victim, if he believed God was a necessary player in the creation itself? Is this theory any more far fetched than “the Universe can and will create itself from nothing?” Why does it have to be one or the other... how limiting! According to Hawking, science at some point did indeed create the inevitable, spontaneous big-bang that produced something from nothing!
I do believe it is fair to ask the following… was it pure chance, blind luck/simply predetermined by science, as Hawking asserts or maybe a combination of these/ other possibilities? I know, I’m being bold… gasp – is it acceptable to also suggest that a Supreme Ruler/God might have been involved? I doubt that Stephen Hawking would ever make a definitive statement that God does not exist… how could he?
In-spite of our very best efforts, we mortals are revealed to be woefully inadequate here! No one has the key that opens the door to the mysteries of Universe/Creation! This end game is likely to have no end at all! In the mean time, I’ll bungle along/hope for the very best, while I enjoy the tangible, majestic, awe inspiring beauty that surrounds me!
I’ll leave with this thought: The idea that “nothing” can cause something to happen is logically incoherent, since “nothing” has no power to do anything - it does not exist. The following Latin axiom applies here: Ex nihilo nihil fit: from nothing comes nothing. victim
......“the Universe can and will create itself from nothing?”
I’ll leave with this thought: The idea that “nothing” can cause something to happen is logically incoherent, since “nothing” has no power to do anything - it does not exist. The following Latin axiom applies here: Ex nihilo nihil fit: from nothing comes nothing. victim
Victim - I believe the non-divine-creator argument at this point is that the Universe does not have a Causal Agent/Divine cause.
What is the cause? Maybe there is no causal force.
I personally have a difficult time imagining a void of nothingness from which the laws of physics spring, along with matter & a system for creating ever-more-complex life forms.
Maybe the cause & effect we see in everyday life is just an illusion. Just because B follows A doesn't mean that A caused B. I think that's one of the first things they teach you in statistics & philosophy. But does this mean that B has no cause at all?
Your broader point that one cannot disprove the existence of God is certainly true. If someone gives us a definition, science can falsify that particular vision of deity; but if the definition keeps changing, there is no possibility of logical debate. The problem that we have is that God keeps retreating. People postulate one form of supreme being, science disproves it, people postulate a more restrictive form of God, science disproves it, and on and on and on. This longstanding pattern of ever-more humble definitions does not amount to proof that God does not exist, but it does breed skepticism.
Hawking's position is that God is not necessary to create a universe like the one we observe. Scientists have shown that given the conditions that existed on earth, the organization of elements in self-replicating and evolving forms is perfectly natural. Next we learned that there are vast numbers of planets in roughly the right orbits around the right sort of stars to produce environments like that which generated life on earth. Science now takes us back to the initial step, showing that universes with the right sort of stars and planets also occur naturally. It happens spontaneously and often. God may still exist; he may even use scientific principles to create universes and life. But creation itself is no longer evidence of that fact.
As for creation from nothing, that too happens all the time. "Nothingness" is a combination of particles and anti-particles, matter and anti-matter, which cancel each other out. Those pairs frequently break apart into their constituent particles and anti-particles, leaving enough collective imbalance to form galaxies and perhaps anti-matter galaxies as well. There is no such thing as a vacuum precisely because of this spontaneous generation of matter. In other words, the statement that ex hihilo nihil fit is factually incorrect.
What’s wrong with the idea/theory that a Supreme Ruler/God, who understood the Laws of Science, did indeed create the Universe using these very Laws? I suspect Hawking might give this idea some credence/ agree with victim, if he believed God was a necessary player in the creation itself? Is this theory any more far fetched than “the Universe can and will create itself from nothing?” Why does it have to be one or the other... how limiting!
Along with the others, I acknowledge that one can't 'disprove' the existence of God in any absolute way, but that's not the point. As to your idea/theory quoted above, consider one of my favorite quotes:
In the early 1800s, the French mathematician Laplace presented Napoleon with a copy of his great five-volume work on the solar system, the Mechanique Celeste. Aware that the books contained no mention of God, Napoleon taunted him, “Monsieur Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.” Laplace answered, famously and brusquely: “Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothese-la,” “I have had no need of that hypothesis.”
That's the main point here: one does not need to invoke the concept of a supernatural entity in order to understand and explain the existence of the universe.
And I think someone else in this thread already referenced this, but I strongly recommend Victor Stenger's book God, The Failed Hypothesis. I don't pretend to follow all the physics, but basically while he also acknowledges the fact that one can't absolutely disprove the existence of 'god' one can do so beyond any reasonable doubt, in a statistical sense. He also delineates the definition of the 'god' he's talking about. He also explains how our increasing understanding of physical reality is showing that it is simply more 'probable' for the physical universe to exist, than for it not to exist.
......“the Universe can and will create itself from nothing?”
I’ll leave with this thought: The idea that “nothing” can cause something to happen is logically incoherent, since “nothing” has no power to do anything - it does not exist. The following Latin axiom applies here: Ex nihilo nihil fit: from nothing comes nothing. victim
Victim - I believe the non-divine-creator argument at this point is that the Universe does not have a Causal Agent/Divine cause. Agreed!
What is the cause? There doesn't appear to be any! Maybe there is no causal force. Likely!
I personally have a difficult time imagining a void of nothingness from which the laws of physics spring, along with matter & a system for creating ever-more-complex life forms. That makes 2 of us!
Maybe the cause & effect we see in everyday life is just an illusion. Just because B follows A doesn't mean that A caused B. I think that's one of the first things they teach you in statistics & philosophy. But does this mean that B has no cause at all? Does B need a cause... it's random, fantastic, inevitable/uncontrollable? Why would a roll of the dice event such as a big- bang need a Divine Agent cause? Stephen Hawking agrees with victim on this one... it doesn't!
So what caused the Universe? See below!
sthilda, thanks for your intuitive response... definitely thought provoking! Stephen Hawking has attempted to answer this very question with his science driven, big-bang theory, described as a spontaneous, inevitable event! According to Hawking, B is not a direct result of A, the Divine Agent! Because B is rooted in a mystifying/ incomprehensible, something from nothing theory that clearly defies logic - victim is justifiably skeptical!
A Supreme Creator could answer your question but has remained silent! Is silence an indictment against the existence of such a being/does The Supreme Ruler of the Universe have a coherent reason to deny us access to this knowledge... is it also possible that I am a dreamer, along with countless millions? Will we ever know the answers to these haunting questions - so sorry… not likely in this world!
If I did indeed possess the superior intellect/knowledge necessary to answer your question, I would also hold the key that opens the door to the mysteries of Universe/Creation! The possessor of such incomprehensible intelligence, would likely Govern/Rule Supreme over the Expanse we call the Universe! I don’t assume any such role!
To its credit, Science is attempting to unlock the mysteries of Universe/ Creation… I wish them well! At this point in time, I’m not ready to embrace theories that are fantastic to the absurd!
I believe you are sincerely looking for answers as is victim; however, some mysteries will likely never be solved/revealed... this may be one of them! Thanks for your thoughts! victim
Oh so very gullible.
