Re: Emergence of Physical Laws

From: Gordon (gordonlr_at_DELETEswbell.net)
Date: 08/02/04 

Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 17:52:44 GMT

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 20:48:15 GMT, "MorituriMax"
<newage@sendarico.net> wrote:

>Gordon wrote:
>
>> 1. Science and religion both agree that there is a lot more that
>> we DON'T understand than that we DO understand about what life
>> really is.
>
>This isn't something that there is a conflict about specific to religion versus
>science. This applies to anything, anytime, anywhere.. Anyway, science isn't
>about figuring out what life really is, philosophically. It's about figuring
>out how biological organisms function.
>
I wasn't addressing this from a philosophical perspective. I was
addressing it from a physiological standpoint. It is possible for
us to explain precisely how a computer works, down to the most
minute detail. Can anyone explain, for example, why a new born
infant human has an instinctive fear of falling? This doesn't
seem to be a inner ear balance system reflex. The elicited
response will occur when an infant experiences a very linear,
non-rotating downward change of position. This along with the
suckling response have been reported to be the only "instinctive"
responses expressed in a human infant. Why? I know, evolution
developed and refined this trait, but by what means does it
function? Why does it illicit a fear response instead of a giddy
laughter response?
>
>> 2. Science and religion both agree that there is a lot more that we
>> DON'T understand than that we DO understand about what the mind
>> really is.
>
>Science doesn't delve into what the mind really is, from the perspective of
>religion, so this also doesn't apply.
>
Both science and religion have been trying to comprehend the
function of the mind, but their efforts have been along separate,
and largely incongruent routes...like flying to Singapore,
westward from NYC, or sailing around the southern tip of Africa.
>
>> 3. Science and religion both agree that there are space/time
>> structures outside our perception...multiverse...heavens...what
>> ever you choose to call them.
>
>No; religion dictates there is a place where souls go. Science doesn't care.
>Nowhere in the bible does it make a determination that there is a multiverse, or
>anything beyond a place where souls go after dying.
>
Science does indeed care, or there would not be such a show of
interest in unraveling all these mysteries. The goal is not to
determine "where souls go" they are both searching for answers to
the understanding of what is beyond our perceivable universe.
And, yes, there are un-attenuated radical individuals in both
camps.
>
>> 4. Science and religion both agree that these other space/time
>> structures are, from our perspective, rolled up to less than a
>> Planck length...rolled up like a scroll.
>
>Show me anywhere in religion where it mentions "planck length."
>
I didn't say that religion teaches "Planck length." I said that
religion teaches "rolled up like a scroll." Science teaches
"rolled up to less than a Planck length." Is there a connection,
or is this just a quirk? Did those ancient prophets have some
insights here that couldn't be explained scientifically at that
time, but now may be explained by SS-M theory?

The question here is, does the cosmic consciousness and the
individual human mind function somewhat like a network server and
an individual computer, connected by a Wi-Fi? Maybe some
individuals have a fully functioning Wi-Fi connection, while
others have a their Wi-Fi transmitter/receive inside a grounded
lead box.
>
>> 5. Science and religion both agree that the pursuit of knowledge
>> is one of mankind's greatest driving forces. Since Adam partook
>> of the fruit of the tree of knowledge this pursuit has been an
>> insatiable quest.
>
>But religion is more interested in keeping knowledge from the masses. They
>don't want you to think, they just want you to believe their dogma. So that one
>is definately in conflict. It's harder for religions to do this where there is
>a good public education system like the USA for one, places like afghanistan or
>iraq until recently they did their best to keep the faithful ignorant.
>
In some instances this is correct. Not all "religions" are
anywhere near the level of understanding that we seek. Some of
these "religions" do try to compensate for their ignorance by
devisive means, as you say. They are obviously wrong, but refuse
to admit it, or maybe don't realize they are wrong. There have
been top level scientists who have been wrong, also. Some never
realized that they were wrong...some did and refused to admit
it...some did finally realize that they were wrong, and humbly
admitted it.
>
>So you still have to show me 5 areas where they don't conflict.. your premise
>that they are becoming one and the same institution is off to a shakey start so
>far. Very shakey.

Do you have any scientifically acceptable (empirical) reasons to
believe that the cosmos could NOT be sentient?

Do you have any empirical reasons to conclude that such cosmic
sentience could NOT possibly be the same thing that "religion"
has perceived as God, Allah, Yahweh, Krishna, etc., down through
the ages?

Do you have any empirical justification for closing the door on
this, calling it impossible? Personal, emotion driven, gut
feelings don't count here. I'm talking about empirical
justification.

I know, you have pointed out many times that you are an agnostic,
not an atheists. What level agnostic are you? This can range all
the way from mildly skeptical to totally convinced that the issue
can never be resolved.

By the way, MoritoriMax, has it been 12 months since you were
implanted? Going on 15 months? Already broken all records?

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Case for a Designer
    ... This is not my 'official response'. ... It's calling it science that's the real problem. ... there's no need for faith. ... religion, or claiming religion as justification for weird actions. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: AiG goes after Francis Collins
    ... principles is incompatible with what science tells us about the world. ... the idea that God speaks directly to any person, ... any "is" claims must be accompanied by evidence. ... was that the proper domain of religion is "ought" claims only. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Unintelligent Design?
    ... Religion based on faith is unassailable logically. ... Universe, which somehow, at some time, congealed into thinking and ... my mind around that one. ... Logos is basically reason and ultimately science. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Unintelligent Design?
    ... Religion based on faith is unassailable logically. ... Universe, which somehow, at some time, congealed into ... my mind around that one. ... reason and ultimately science. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: OT - Religion
    ... Ultimate goal of Science: Knowledge and understanding of 'life the universe ... The 'mind of God' revealed.(The ... My observation was simply meant to suggest that when Science and Religion ... attain their ultimate goals they will be ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)