So this is a religious physicist's take on science and religion. Interesting read. What do you guys think?
[forbes.com]
2
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
4 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I do like to see people trying to solve the problem of the "apparent" conflict between science and religion, because I agree it's unnecessary and unfounded. But this article doesn't reveal much about Barr's beliefs, and from what little is revealed, I'm guessing I won't buy the book.
skado
Level 9
Oct 30, 2019
0
I enjoyed reading it very much. Thanks.
According to Barr:
“What many take to be a conflict between religion and science is really something else. It is a conflict between religion and materialism. Materialism regards itself as scientific, and indeed is often called “scientific materialism,” even by its opponents, but it has no legitimate claim to be part of science. It is, rather, a school of philosophy, one defined by the belief that nothing exists except matter, or, as Democritus put it, “atoms and the void.”
It’s what I’ve been saying all along. But having decided that materialism is incorrect, what does one do with that information? If Barr wants to be a Catholic, that does not bother me at all. I choose to sit in awe and wonder and relish the mystery of reality.
KIP THORNE:
"There are large numbers of my finest colleagues who are quite devout and believe in God [...] There is no fundamental incompatibility between science and religion. I happen to not believe in God."[13]
(Wikipedia)
WilliamFleming
Level 8
Oct 30, 2019
0
Ref: the Kip Thorn quote, is this really true? Science seeks to explain the unknown in terms of the known, while relleno seeks to explain the known in terms of the unknown. Here is cross-purpose if ever there was. And yet, because theology is a discipline with no observable subject matter, therefore by definition no theological question can be scientific. Hence science cannot even ignore theology! Theology simply does not obtain. What are you talking about, WilliamFleming? Of course Science is materialistic! This is because science is predicated upon empirical observation, which is by definition observation of the material world. I defy anyone to describe a non-material science!
@AaronAgassi I think that where religion attempts to explain the whys of nature that there is a conflict with science. But that’s not all there is to religion. I see religion as a way of life and as a collection of artistic expressions, not as an explanation for all of nature.
If you read about modern physics, especially quantum gravity theory, you learn that time, space, and matter as we experience them are illusions. A particle of matter is not a thing but an event. There are no things, only relationships.
Carlo Rovelli writes great books about quantum gravity theory.
@WilliamFleming (in order to not fall into the "evolution is just-a-theory trap)
AFAIK, there is no **quantum gravity theory" (hypostheses,ideas ?). There are attempts to combine quantum gravity, quantum mechanics, and general theory of relativity into Unified theories.
@FearlessFly it’s true that quantum gravity loop theory is a work in progress and is not fully accepted at this time. According to Rovelli it is the most promising area of inquiry however.
There are many physicists who have rejected materialism as the basis for reality.
Max Planck said in 1944, "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter".
Edwin Schrodinger:
Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.
@WilliamFleming A "work in progress" is not a (scientific) theory
@FearlessFly Wikipedia speaks of it as a theory:
“On the other hand, the other three fundamental forces of physics are described within the framework of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, radically different formalisms for describing physical phenomena.[2]“
However you define a theory, materialism is not science but philosophy, and has been widely discredited.
WilliamFleming: The distinction between what is apparent and accessible to the senses and what can be inferred indirectly, whatever metaphorical substance casting he proverbial shadow, is all important. But here all of that is diversionary. Unless one assumes a deliberate creation, then there can be no reason why the universe exists or exists as it does. Atheistic science can only investigate happenstance and mechanistic causality. Whereas meaning is created in the mind and in society.
The entire thrust of my rebuttal as posted on Oct 30, 2019 remains unanswered.
@AaronAgassi The question of the validity of a materialistic philosophy is not diversionary. That is a major part of the article. I don’t think reality is in any way apparent and accessible to the senses. Nothing that we experience in the physical world is anything but our own nervous system. Our entire vision or view of reality is nothing but symbolic and has only indirect association wit ultimate reality beyond. A map of Texas is not Texas. It is nothing like Texas except in grossly general aspects.
You can assume the existence of a creator, or you can assume that the universe just sort of popped into existence by accident. Neither assumption is helpful or meaningful from a cosmic perspective. One is as valid as the other but neither one sheds any light at all. That’s why I keep saying that the most rational response to reality is total bewilderment. There is nothing to be believed or disbelieved.
Scientists might be atheists but science itself should not be atheistic. Scientists who are driven by the true spirit of science are open minded and curious about all concepts and they do not limit themselves to atheism and certainly not to happenstance and mechanistic causality. Nearly all of the truly creative and eminent physicists of modern times have opined about a higher power or intelligence.
He’s a Roman Catholic. Roman Catholics sanction the systematic abuse of children. He should be ashamed of himself. I’m not going to look for it but I’ll bet he has written an essay that’s titled something like “Why I am still proud to be Catholic” or something like that. He may be a good astrophysicist and scientist but everything this man says about “human realities” should be regarded as dangerous and ignored.
Bikes4Fish
Level 7
Oct 30, 2019
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
Related Groups More
Memes R Us
3036 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.