Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum What does Religion expect from modern Science ?

What does Religion expect from modern Science ?
============================================

What does Religion expect from modern Science ?
What can modern Science learn from Religion ?
===========================================

What does Religion expect from modern Science ?
No quarter !

What can modern Science learn from Religion ?
Fear that its products may be fall into the hands of fanatics !

What does Religion expect from modern Science ?
===========
Somebody answerd:
' Religion expects science to understand the facts about religion.'
=========================

Socratus wrote:
'Somebody answerd:
Religion expects science to understand the facts about religion.'

a) Why would that be necessary?

b) Which religion?

c) Are there any in fact any facts in 'religion'?

============================================================
d_r_siva wrote:
Visit anthropology department of a university nearest to you
and ask if they have found an ethnic tribe in any inaccessible
land which did not have a religion.

Religion expects science to understand the facts about religion.
/ d_r_siva /

But somebody wrote .
They have in the South American Piraha tribe.
The tribe has never had any religion and has no concept of spirits,
gods or anything that remotely approaches one. Not that it matters,
their being religion everywhere means only that man is a social
and itinerant species, not that religion is put their by God.
The only thing that this tribe itself proves is that religion does not
have to be present particularly if a language is isolated,
and nothing more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZJ53hn7 ... re=related

So, I don’t know what to think now ?
==

Another opinion.
========================
Theology and Physics

1.1 The New Physics

The 20th Century has been revolutionary for the study
and understanding of physics, which in turn has had profound
implications for contemporary history and society. Quantum mechanics
has opened up for us the very strange world of atomic and sub atomic
processes – which follow a very peculiar set of rules. Einstein’s relativity
theory has given us a new cosmology – a new understanding of gravity
and motion.
These are now established theories, supported by a very large number
of experiments, and lie behind the design of silicon chips and nuclear
reactors. The theories are complex, in many ways they are counter
intuitive, and the mathematics (as my aching brain still remembers
from my physics course 20 years ago) is just horrendous.
The question is what difference, if any, does modern physics
make for theology?
We draw our theology, our understanding of God, from a number of
different sources: the Bible, the church, our society, history, personal
experience of life and personal experience of God, and our experience
of the natural world. How we blend these ingredients together and form
any kind of consensus is not my topic here.
The new physics is of course reaching us through society, history and
contemporary life i.e. computers, smart weapons and nuclear devices,
and TV. Even now I am typing this on a PC. How does that affect the
content?
Again this is not my topic here. I am going to restrict myself
to the way the new physics changes our understanding of the natural
world and by that route affects our theology.
Even this is far too big a field so I propose to tackle the following:
the general impact of science on theology (the role of nature as a source
for theology, the relationship of science and religion, the ultra
Copernican revolution), quantum mechanics, cosmology
and a few final thoughts.

http://www.alansharp.co.uk/physics.htm
Rev Alan Sharp BSc. B.D.
=== .

This is a futile "discussion".

According to Wittgenstein, "discussion" involves "language games" where the participants agree to mutual semantic contexts. The context of "science" mostly involves empiricism and cauasality, whereas that of religion mostly involves idealism and teleology. Those who attempt to marry the two might as well try to play tennis with a football,irrespective of the fact that both games are about trying to make sense of what we call "reality".

NB

I believe the Templeton Foundation pays scientists to write papers on the resolution of science with "faith". A major contributor is John Polkinghorne, particle physicist turned theologian. Critics abound (see Google).

====================================
John Polkinghorne and his book ‘ Quantum theory’.
=== .
I like to read his books because they raise many questions.
And these questions give information for brain to think.

John Polkinghorne took epigraph of his book ‘ Quantum theory’
the Feynman’s thought : ‘ I think I can safely say that
nobody understands quantum mechanics. ‘
Why?
Because, he wrote:
‘ ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should.
We shall see in what follows that important interpretative
issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their
eventual settlement not only physical insight but also
metaphysical decision ’.
/ preface/
‘ Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved,
and these are the subject of continuing dispute’
/ page 40/
‘ If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything,
it is that the world is full of surprises’
/ page 87 /
‘ Metaphysical criteria that the scientific community take
very seriously in assessing the weight to put on a theory
include: . . . .’
/ page 88 /
‘Quantum theory is certainly strange and surprising, . . .’
/ page92 /
‘ Wave / particle duality is a highly surprising and
instructive phenomenon, . .’
/ page 92 /

Togetherness.
John Polkinghorne, as a realist, want to know
‘ what the physical world is actually like’, but until now
physicists don’t have the whole picture of Universe.
And in my opinion John Polkinghorne was right writing
what to understand the problems of creating the Universe:
‘ They will demand for their eventual settlement not only
physical insight but also metaphysical decision ’.
=============== .

Maybe the anthropology isn’t enough good proof for
God’s existence.
Then the Physics ( in my opinion) will help me to understand
the proof of Religion’s essence.
Why ?
Because if God exists, He must work in an Absolute
Reference Frame and have a set of Physical and Mathematical
laws to create everything.
And if we find this God’s Absolute House
when we can understand Cod’s Physical Laws.

But of course, now there is a strong tradition ( scientific and
religious) that insists that any time we say we know who God is,
or what God wants, we are committing an act of heresy.

Nobody likes heretical ideas (in the beginning of course).
======== .

Socratus,

I notice you do not reply to any challenge which attempts to derail your attempts at reconciling "science" with "religion".You produce quote after quote from those who play with such a reconciliation but you appear to be ignorant of the ontological assumptions (assumptions about "existence") to which those authors subscibe.

I will spell out some of those assumptions for you.

1. "Reality" has "existence" independent of its "observers".

This assumption is de-constructed by both non-dualistic arguments (ironically supported by quantum theory), and post-modernists who define "reality" as a "social construction". (I pointed out in your other thread that the word "fact" comes from facare - to construct)

2. "Science" progresses in successive steps towards "ultimate truth".

This is blatantly false since "progress" generates more questions than it answers. "Progress" is measured in terms of successful prediction and control via "elegant models", and this in turn leads to a concept of "understanding". (I have argued elsewhere that the concept of "the ultimate" is a psychological defence against the horror of contemplation of "the void")

3. There are logico-scientific arguments for "a deity" as a either a "prime mover" or "architect creator" of "reality".

Not only is that assumption dependent on 1. above, but it can be defeated by "logical" objections. It also completely misses those aspects of "a deity" most desirable to many believers, such as "God as a personal mentor" etc.

4. Since the word "belief" occurs in both science and religion, there must be common ground.

This error is summed up by Wittgenstein in his celebrated phrase "language on holiday". Words take their meanings from specific social contexts. That of the working activities of scientists involves empiricism and universally shared observation. To change context to a minority setting involving idealistic musings is to go on holiday.

My reference to Wittgenstein in posts above which implies that "religious belief" involves a certain sort of "language game" has been explored and applauded by believers such as Phillips who wish to emphasise their requirement of "a personal God". Such believers don't give two hoots about the reconciliation of science and religion. For them, "God" and "self" are necessarily mutually co-existent and the mysteries of the universe are a different ball/language game.

‘ QT . . . ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should.
We shall see in what follows that important interpretative
issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their
eventual settlement not only physical insight but also
metaphysical decision ’.
/ ‘ Quantum theory’ by John Polkinghorne /
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne
#
So, maybe, Aristotle was right separating the knowledge
of Nature on two parts: Physics and Metaphysics.
==== .
S.

Socratus,

Why are you quoting Polkinghorne's one-liner on QT ? For his phrase "eventual settlement" read "ultimate truth" and you are back into the psychology of security (closing off the void).

Of course a dualist/realist would have problems in applying the word "understanding" to QT because by including the observer as part of "an event" it questions the very idea of "objective stuff". But it also therefore questions the distinction between "physics" and "metaphysics". Polkinghorne is begging the question of the existence of "something beyond the physical" instead of coping with "physicality" as merely one aspect of "existence", all aspects being same level.

Note also your reference to Aristotle's "nature" assumes No.1 above.(nature=reality).

==============================
Comment by Dr. Kanda
.
Hello Mr. Israel,
Correct. Vatican was correct!
It goes even further.
Physics is based upon metaphysics.
This is precisely what dimensional analysis says.
We cannot make physics of time, space and mass etc,
namely most basic (prime) quantities.
We cannot define metaphysical concepts using physical concepts.
This is where things went wrong with contemporary physics
QM defines time from momentum.
Relativity theory defines time and space using speed and acceleration.
This is all nonsense. All of this led us to inconsistency.

Best regards,
Dr. Kanda
=================

I am sorry I have disturbed you, but I needed time to answer you.
== .
In 1900 Planck to admit the existence of quantum of action /
energy. But for many years Planck didn’t want to admit it as
a real particle, adopted it only as a symbol for math calculations
On this example we can see how hard it is for the authors to admit
their ideas. So, what to say about others.

Coming back to John Polkinghorne .
It is possible to say that he has found many metaphysical things
in the Quantum Theory not because he was paid by Vatican or
another religious organizations but because for more than hundred
( 100) years it looks so paradoxical.
In my opinion, the behavior of micro particles in Quantum theory
seems to us paradoxical only because we don’t connect together
the geometrical form of particle with its energy and impulses.
==== .

Surely, what generates the term "paradoxical" is the inclusion of the observer in quantum events. This immediately deconstructs "objectivity" and consequently notions of an "external reality" (re Planck's problem with "real particles"). The fact that so called "paradoxes" occur in our conceptualization of different models (going right back to wave-particle duality), could simply be a function of our tendency to prefer the dualistic naive realism of everyday life.

Scientists like Feynman refused to be drawn on the ontological implications of their models, such as his own "negative time" vectors. He called philosophers "tourists" who mused on the pragmatic working procedures of the occupants of a strange territory.

Those such as your absent Dr Kanda who witter about "inconsistency" and "nonsense" would do well to contemplate the words of Niels Bohr when he wrote " the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth". Tell Kanda to read up on "non-binary logic", or Piaget's attempts to account for "ordinary logic" as part of the biological developmental process. Note that biological considerations underscore Heisenberg's point that we never see "the world" directly, only the results of our interaction with "it". Thus the agreed "itness" is relative to what we understand as our common physiologies and common needs, and has no independent status.

Polkinghorne is well aware of these objections despite what he writes about particle physics. His chief argument for "belief" is with the origins of "morality" and here he comes head to head with Dawkins' "altruism gene" explanation.

The problem with ‘ paradoxes’ doesn’t connect only with
Quantum theory. They began from Galilee/ Newton’s time.
=============…
The basis of the Physics consists of:
1.
Abstract ‘ inertial movement’.
2.
Abstract ‘ideal gas’ and ‘ideal particles.’
3.
Abstract ‘absolute black body.’
4.
Abstract ‘entropy’
5.
Abstract SRT negative 4 - dimensional space,
abstract 5D, …….and 11 - dimensional spaces. .
6.
Abstract separated absolute space and time of Newton.
7.
Abstract ‘virtual particles’, ‘dark matter’, ‘dark energy’.
8.
Abstract ‘big bang’.
9.
Abstract " method of renormalization ".
10.
A fine structure constant:
‘ by the god given damnation to all physicists ‘. / Feynman. /
11. . . . . . . . . . . etc.
=========..
In my opinion to understand the paradoxes we must reconsider
the old basis of the Physics.
=========

The philosophers follow the physicists and
behave themselves like Churchill’s politicians . . . . ...
‘ A politician needs the ability to foretell what is going
to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year.
And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen.
/ Winston Churchill /