AJ, I've been reading this thread and am very interested in this discussion. I'll admit to a very naive understanding of things and apologize in advance if I misinterpret things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreadgeek
As far as some good books on quantum theory, I can think of nothing better than "The Elegant Universe" and "The Fabric of the Cosmos" both by Brian Greene. I'm planning on picking up two books by Victor Stenger based upon other books of his I've read. They are "Quantum Gods: Physics and Psychics" and "The Unconscious Quantum".
Cheers
Aj
|
When I saw these references (particularly the Elegant Universe) I thought it had sound familiar. I had started reading the string theory when the book first got released but never finished them (damn life interfering with my reading). I now have a reason to read them again (plus additional ones). I'll have more to add (likely after the holidays) and a questions to it.
For now, I'll ask the following. Are we using science today to define the universe as we see it with the tools we have and eliminating other answers just on the basis of not having the tools or knowledge yet to see those? Historically, we once thought the earth was the center of the universe (we know this to be Chicago or Toronto, depending on who you talk to). We didn't see it otherwise until we got the tools (e.g., better telescopes and such) to see our mistake.
Faith is based on an unconditional belief of the things we cannot define. Science, in some regards, is also like this. We believe wholeheartedly that science answers things fully but in fact, to my limited understanding, much of it is based on what we understand at this point. There is still a lot of theory out there. For example, even string theory supposes different universes/dimensions (science fiction has espoused that in a variety of ways --
Star Trek Original version, Turtledove's novels, other alternate history novels,
Fringe TV show, etc. are more recent examples) but I have yet to see or feel or experience these. Perhaps it's a limitation to my personal knowledge (unable to see the actual with the naked eye doesn't mean it doesn't exist.. or does it?) that I cannot see these dimensions beyond my basic 5 (6?) senses but it strikes me that in some ways, we have replaced faith in God(s) <insert deity of choice here> in faith in science. We quantify things and therefore believe it to be the truth.
But that quantification may only be on the tools we have. It makes me think of the Star Trek movie
The Voyage Home where the doctor goes into the hospital and thinks we're a bunch of savages for our cancer treatment and injects a patient with a "cure-all" from the future. Certainly is science fiction but some truth to the human condition of viewing "savages". Are those that have spirituality, faith and belief "savages"? Are scientists of today "savages" for not having all the tools available and just believing the world is based on what we have at hand?
Quote:
|
1) If there were really a god, wouldn't there be A God, one god, a singular god?
|
If I can try answer your question with a question: why do we not only have one language to communicate with and one human presentation rather than the myriad of "selfs" that are out there? I think the reasoning for multiple different definitions of "God" is how we communicate and how we've evolved in different parts of the world. We define it in the language we understand and the experience we have. Cultures define it differently. For example, North American Buddhism (Western Buddhism) is very, very different from Tibetan, Japanese, et al, definitions.
Our experiences are vastly different, our language different, our cultures, etc. If we have a limited view of what the world is, then we will see it in only one context. Is it better to see it in all context or just our one view? I personally prefer many but for others it's too much and they would prefer the world they see it in (e.g., Quakers, Amish, Amazonian tribes that have had no contact). They are happy with their world as they see it and have no need for anything else. They may define things as per a god or gods but it is their understanding.
Quote:
2) If there were really a god and this god provided a text, wouldn't there be A Text, one single bible or whatever you want to call it?
Instead, there's a bunch of different gods and bunch of different texts and stuff for each religion that prays to each of these gods, and sometimes a single religion will even have a bunch of different texts within that one religion and some people will pick this one and some will pick that one and stuff.
|
See above. The reality is we define the world in our terms, whether with or without a definition of spirituality. There are many religions today that, IMO, pervert the nature of spirituality (which doesn't mean that one is religious -- at least to me). I find spirituality in the awe of nature. The beauty of a rainbow after a torrential storm; the sorrow of death that nature affords us in these limited bodies with an expiry date.
Quote:
|
3) If there were really a god, and kings and other folks went around claiming that the voices in their heads were god telling them to rewrite the texts, wouldn't that god be kinda pissed?
|
LOL. I'd imagine so (maybe that's why we are the way we are?). The texts are the human mind's definition of life and social contracts between each other. They are not, however, as some "pervert" the true definition of god(s). Some people want to believe so badly, I think, because they want to feel like they belong and that they understand why things are the way they are. They cannot control other stuff and fear that it's the result of something else (e.g., God) at work. Maybe. Maybe not.
To me, the Bible is an interesting quasi-fictional, misinterpreted piece of historical jargon (specifically referring to the King James as that's the one I've had the most exposure to). I recently read "Mis-Quoting Jesus" which delves into how the Bible was created and how it (or rather the letters that were put together to make it) may have potentially misinterpreted due to language variations.
Quote:
|
I wonder what they mean by "Almighty God". Christian God, Muslim God, Tribal God? Would they consider Buddha to be a God? How about Goddesses? Is "God" gender-specific? The Parking Goddess - the only deity that exists as far as I am concerned - was very kind to me yesterday. Twice. And I have a witness to prove it. Is she "almighty" enough to pass their test? If they ever had to find a perfect parking space in a busy city on a regular basis, would they possibly reconsider their position on the Parking Goddess? Could I snark on all day about the high level of bullshit that is this unconstitutional law? You betcha.
|
I find it interesting that here in the US, where there is supposed to be a separation of church and state there really isn't. Canada, which doesn't have that codified, actually does have a separation of church and state. I think a lot of it stems again from historical and cultural founding of this nation. The reality is that it was done from one point of view and it's been hard to dislodge that (people have a hard time letting go of something if they think or perceive that they lose something -- even if they don't)
This was an interesting piece. I suspect they will need more research on this but perhaps science fiction wasn't that far off (and often times, it isn't -- it's just a precursor of what is yet to come). I guess we really won't know (and even then it's questionable) if it's really true until we die. The idea that our lives restart again or vary over again elsewhere (another universe) would almost lead credence to the idea of reincarnation. And also, to a degree, helps continue the definition that energy doesn't just vanish but continues in another form (how we define that form, I think, is still limited by our tools we have at this time). What was of interest to me was this line:
Quote:
|
Immortality doesn't mean a perpetual existence in time without end, but rather resides outside of time altogether.
|
If a Christian looked at this, they might say "AHA! Heaven!" while a hindu might say "AHA! Reincarnation!". A buddhist might say "AHA! More time to consider..". The question I'd love to ask is, if we continue into a plane that is outside of time altogether, how do we see things? Is it the same perception I have now? Do I see everything at once? Do I see nothing at all? Do I experience things at all in any sense close to what we do now?
Note: MsDeamenor --> your posts really twinged with me and got me really interested. I found your points very compelling and interesting although they appear, to me, pointed towards a specific kind of religion that seems found here -- nearly uniquely -- in the US in it's behaviour and arrogance (?). Perhaps the Puritan and white male privileged nature of the country's development?