NEWTONIAN : EINSTEINIAN :: SECULAR : RELIGIOUS
I love mashing up philosophy, theology, and science. I love drawing analogies from one field and seeing how or if they work in another. In another post, I did that with Schrodingers cat and god's existence. Here, I'm going to propose a thought experiment (a "gendanken" as Einstein called them) for god to not be seen in our world but still have an effect or be real. This isn't "proof" that god exists but it should be viewed as a lesson in how certain things are outside our understanding... until they aren't.
As anyone who studies physics knows, there are regimes that correlate with energy and distance ranges. The regime of the very small is the quantum; the very large, the cosmological; Both these regimes have their own set of rules and reconciling them is one of the biggest challenges of modern physics. Another regime is that is very well understood and will serve as the basis for this gedankan is that of the very slow, the newtonian, and the very fast, the einsteinian. (note: I'll be using only special relativity for now though I reserve the right to include general relativity in the future)
Newtonian physics is "everyday physics". It's the physics that applies when you take a walk, go on an airplane, take a bath, etc. These are the effects discovered in the 17th through 19th century and that can be replicated with very little instrumentation by virtually anyone on earth.
On the other hand, Einsteinian physics is "weird physics". We do not experience it day to day and there is no way for a person to replicate it's results without complex instrumentation or measurement. The easiest proof that this physics is correct is to check star light bending as Eddington did in the 1919 eclipse but even that was a intricately precise measurement you can't do in your backyard very easily.
Now, the point is that we know newtonian physics is correct and we know einsteinian physics is also correct. So we have two theories that apply based on difference in one parameter, velocity, but only one reality. After all, the fundamental nature of the universe doesn't change depending on how fast we go... time goes slower, but still goes; inertia increase, but still works the same as before. Yet we are governed by relativistic physics at the newtonian level but not the opposite; non-relativistic physics do not apply at the einsteinan level. There are corrections that need be done even at the newtonian level due to relativity that although small and insignificant for daily life, are very much present and need to be done for many experiments.
Applied to theology, this gedanken goes as follows: it may be that gods influence is not seen in the daily life the same way that relativistic influence is also not seen in daily life. For 300 years, science progressed and gave us Newtonian physics where Einsteinian physics was not present in a similar vein that we've had religion for 10,000 years or more and god is not present in our daily lives. But if one person, Einstein, had not proposed the right way of viewing things such that they could be tested, we would be to this day have people claim that their data suggests something beyond Einstein while the Newtonians would claim that their data is wrong or there is another explanation. Likewise, when a person has personal experiences with god, the secular person dismisses them as their data being wrong or that there is another explanation for that effects.
So my agnostic punchline is that while nobody sees any Einsteinian influence in their daily life and it took special people to point it out (scientists), we are still bound by it. In a similar vein, it could be that we don't see any theological influence in our lives but are still bound by it and it will take special people (prophets) to point it out to us. Furthermore, relativistic physics is weird and paradoxical, like the famous "twin paradox" that makes no sense in a newtonian world. But, if we are devise a proper understanding, can be made to make sense. In a similar vein, a lot of the "god hypotehsis" makes no sense to us, like the famous "god creating a rock he can't lift" paradox. But maybe if we are devise a proper understanding of the "god regime" it could be made to make sense. This is why "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" is such a strong mantra in science and theology for the absence of evidence of relativity in our daily life's is not evidence of the absence of relativity in our daily lives in the same way that the absence of evidence of gods is not evidence of the absence of gods... certainly not proof that they are there, but not proof that they aren't and that people should stop looking.
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
6 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Interesting. I'm copying this so I can read it a few times and let it slosh around to see if I can make sense of it. I say that because I have poor reading comprehension, but I like the first sentence very much. I'm a fan.
AlbertSchepis
Level 7
Apr 17, 2019
0
"You would still need the aforementioned science "priests" to create the atomic clocks and the jets and that wealthy person would still just be a "sheep" insofar as they themselves have no knowledge of atomic clocks or jets and just trust that they do what the "priests" say they do.".
"However, in the case of science, if an exceptionally intelligent person, one who just happens to not currently contain the level of intelligence of that of a scientist of that caliber, but let's assume with much study and research, the same level could be attained. I could, in theory, devote the next many years of my life to that particular area of science, and in time and with the above mentioned tools in place, technically, I could learn to prove a scientific theory of my own accord. However, in the case of the priest. Even if I devoted myself to religion, theology, the only proof of God is on an emotional, psychological scale, thus there is no measures to prove the belief of the priest, the belief of any believer. Until we have a concrete way to gauge gods existence (ie: some concept that we have yet to encounter at this time in our reality, our history) there is no way to come to the same conclusion of the priest. With science I Could, feasibly, find a way to expand my mind in order to do the experiments to verify, to myself, whether or not they are verifiable. A scientist Can Create those things... But Can the Priest create god? A tangible God? Can the priest give me a formula to the finding of a provable God in the end? That would require a leap of faith... Whereas, with science, we do currently possess enough data to prove most of what we theorize. I'm sorry, I'm just off on this one tiny piece of the responses here. There are many more facets to this posting, but this portion, when I got to it, I wanted to respond, but Only to this small bit. Totally off topic, but over the past few years, I've come to the idea that what if it is us, our personal realities that create whatever it is we meet upon death. Perhaps they priests reality upon death is that his belief system created it's own personal reality, thus he would be reunited with God the Father. And what if the Buddhists beliefs lead him back to the Sea of universal energy only to soon be like a drop of water splashing into the next life. The atheist finds nothing except the long sleep if death. There currently is no measures to prove this incorrect. ""the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" " could then support any theory, mine included. My point is, we need something solid, not just the theory that if in science there are oddities and freakish contradictions that exist, that perhaps we can believe the same could apply to the existence of God.
Sadoi
Level 7
Jan 15, 2018
0
Can you prove to me I won't be reincarnated? Can I prove to the priest he won't see the face of God?
@TheMiddleWay Actually, I was also agreeing with you. I am with you on this. I am still open to the possibility. That is what makes learning so exciting. As we intellectually evolve as a species, I never want to be that person who digs their heels into the ground and says, "This is the end all, be all of ____" because that is an ignorant, boring way to live, in my opinion. I am Always ready to test the next thing out there, to study it, research it, figure out how it plays in my life, my mind, my world, my philosophy, et al. I would Love to see a theological Einstein or Eddington in my life time. Maybe I will. Maybe I won't, but... am I Open to the possibility? Hell Yes!! Just to know, even if I only lived 10 more years, the advancements in science and in theories... that Truly Excites me profoundly! I mean, I have had a pacemaker since age 19 so naturally, watching the progression of this One technology, it Bloows my mind! Therefore, who knows What could happen in the upcoming years! As for me, I will happily await it with gitty delight. I am open. Anything I believe today, i Welcome the opportunity to challenge it, uproot it, tear it down, test it, flip it, twist it... until I Fully understand it, and know how and what I wish to do with it. I Will Change. It is a promise. The world Will change. No doubt. Science, FUCK YES it is going to change and evolve on and on... so Why not Faith? Maybe God isn't the one not evolving here. Maybe it is Mans Concept OF God that isn't evolving quickly enough. Maybe it is In Man where the definition of God was misinterpreted because man, as we All Know, prefers to see life through the Eye of His Ego, hence, perhaps Man poluted the God Word, God Voice, God Message. Maybe its not God at All who fucked the pooch here. It most likely would be Mans fault. In that, who is to say someone Pure of character and of mind could come along and learn to understand the Evolution of Religion, of Theology and find a way to Marry them together, but adds even more of a New angle, a Broader View of God, or whatever god could be... but it would need to be something we've yet to know nor have heard of or something expounded upon and extended from some existing philosophy. Or perhaps our brains/psychology... Spirit is yet not Evolved enough to even Begin to understand how to comprehend such notions. Perhaps we are, as i said, in the infancy of our intellectual existence. We are still in the grasping stages. For all that we "think" we know, in all but an instant, one Mind can tear everything apart burn it to the ground. ...and from those very ashes could be born the foundation of an Entirely new branch of knowledge. Some say, "why?" I prefer "Why not?"
@Coffeo Well, therein lies the problem, sir. Whatever it is that it Would take, it seems to me that it has yet to have been discovered. SImply put: currently there is no for of proof that I would consider acceptable. Hence, why it would take, as MiddleWay put it, "a theological Einstein or Eddington" to bring to fruition whatever it is that I would need. I suppose it is akin the the chicken and the egg. How can I propose my needs by way of proofs if I have no concept of what it would require to quell those needs nor the proofs necessary to quell said, unknown needs?
@Coffeo exactly! Lol this supercedes all form of intellectual prowess we currently possess. Would be nice in my lifetime to see some crazy Discovery like proof of a soul. I've seen a few sci-fi movies recently regarding Discovery of the soul. That could prompt me to wonder what happens to our energy upon death. That is the only thing I think we could attempt to prove, but even that screams of still lacking in any concrete proof as to what that even means or entails. I love knowing there are things we do not have the ability to comprehend nor understand because that means we are barely out if the womb and into the diaper, by way of our current intelligence. What we could grow to become is what makes me excited and hopeful. For all that we think we know, there is so much more beyond our comprehension. And thank you for the kind words. You are gracious. ????
@Sadoi I'm in broad agreement, but I'm concerned about the amount of emphasis you place upon proving things. Science does not work that way. Only in mathematics do things get proven (and even then, subject to unproved axioms). Science collects evidence, and develops theories. The theories are tested by using them to make predictions that are then tested by experiment and observation. Some theories are better than others, and survive the process for longer. They can be disproved, but not proved — one can never be sure that any theory is the last word, and past experience suggests that every theory will ultimately be superseded by one that explains things better.
I'm glad that you're optimistic and excited about the future. I do hope that you will continue to be so!
@Coffeo I doubt I will see anything of that nature come to pass in my lifetime. Its more Sci-Fi than it is science, atm. I think... for me to believe in a god, it would have to be some form of proof that, in some way, combined he provability of mathematics. Anything else, it would be almost impossible to believe for the very reasons you listed above in regards to science, theory and experiments/observations. You are correct that anything else could easily be out-theorized somewhere down the line, and yes, math, thus far, seems to be the only concrete thing that keeps everything peiced and glued together. It would need to be something in that vein of intellect if it were to convince a person like myself. 
Your well-articulated "mashup" here is only an analogous one. And to complete this analogy, you'd have to name someone/some people who play the role of Newton and Einstein in religion; I.e. those who have shown evidence of God, using a difference "physics". Not just prophets who hear voices in their heads....
Hominid
Level 7
Jan 15, 2018
1
@TheMiddleWay - Now you're just moving goalposts around to suit your point. Sounds like you're just trying to be argumentative.
@TheMiddleWay - Quote "Exactly, no such person is on the map today, but we could say the same thing in 1900 and relativity: no such person was on the map then "
You invoked an outside (influencing) element to your discussion after my first comment; that of history. Your mashup, though not declared so, seemed to take place in the present time, all things considered. The mashup changes if you place all premises in a different time in history. As a matter of fact, the analogy loses relevance - it falls apart, because you were only able to create this discussion because of knowing about Einsteinian physics.
@TheMiddleWay . It's all still a poor argument to think it's possible a god exists anyway. IMHO. To me, depending on prophets as experts in the theological/spiritual world is a highly faulted premise on which to build such a thought experiment.
@TheMiddleWay. Doesn't detract from my original objection to your "analogy". Wow, you're really determined to keep throwing up objections from left field. I don't have as much time on my hands as you do, so... "Uncle". Too much ink spilled here on theory. I'm out.
I really hope that there is some kind of existence after our deaths.. If you asked me to gamble on red or black in Vegas whether there was something- my reply would be very depressing indeed.
I remember reading about a scientific study someone did maybe at the turn of the 20th century.. He weighed body mass before and after chronically il peoples' deaths. Consistently, it seemed like the corpses were a few grams lighter after death. If any scientific evidence gives me hope about some sort of god or hereafter or alternate existence- it's this study.
UrsiMajor
Level 8
Jan 15, 2018
0
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.