Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Breaking Through Conventional Scientific Paradigm
The Epoch Times ^ | July 3, 2006 | Nataly Teplitsky, Ph.D.

Posted on 07/16/2006 4:45:40 PM PDT by walford

  "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge in the field of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods."
—Albert Einstein

 The general, historical dialogue between religion and science goes back a long way—at least to Plato, Aristotle, and Leibniz. Before the 17th century, the goals of science were wisdom, understanding the natural order, and living in harmony with it.

Ever since the "quantum revolution" of about 70 years ago, various scientists have been finding the intriguing parallels between their results and certain mystical-transcendental religions.

Heisenberg, Bohr, Schroedinger, Eddington, Einstein—all held a mystical, spiritual view of the world. Einstein wrote in a letter to a child who asked if scientists pray: "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of a man...."

...David Bohm's work in subatomic physics had led him to the conclusion that physical entities which seemed to be separate and discrete in space and time are actually unified in an implicit or underlying fashion. In Bohm's terminology, under an unfolded order of separate things and events is an enfolded order of undivided wholeness, and this whole is simultaneously available to each unfolded part. The enfolded order harbors our reality, much as the DNA in the nucleus of the cell conceals potential life and directs the nature of its unfolding...

...ever since Galileo, science has objectified nature by looking at it through lenses. Or, like Pribram put it, "Maybe reality isn't what we see with our eyes. If we did not have that lens, we might know a world organized in the frequency domain. No space, no time—just events..."

"...Has humanity taken a wrong turn somewhere in the past, which has brought about endless division, conflict and destruction?"

He confirms this when he talks about "the corruption of mankind," which was caused by "the pollution which has accumulated over the ages… in the nonmanifested consciousness of mankind, which we could call the sorrow of mankind because it leads to all this violence, corruption, disorder, self-deception…"

The nonmanifest, according to Bohm, is n-dimensional and not temporal, and cannot be handled in any way by 3-dimensional thought.

"And I think, " Bohm continues, "that this present (pragmatic) view of science has contributed considerably to the disorder in the brain. The origin of the chaos in human relationships is in our fragmented, atomistic… untruthful way of thinking..."

 "...A human being is a part of the whole, called by us 'Universe,' a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is, in itself, a part of the liberation, and a foundation for inner security," wrote Albert Einstein in 1950...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: aquarianconspiracy; crevolist; dogmatism; einstien; hologram; karlpibram; marilynferguson; mysticism; physics; relativity; religion; stringtheory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-77 next last
The debates that have arisen here and elsewhere that assume that there is a natural conflict between science/religion, faith/knowledge are pointless.

Those who have made their life’s work to study the physical world and to discover the laws that govern typically express awe at the magnificence of the universe and a conviction that the more we find out, the more we learn how little we know of the Greater Whole.

Long before the technological means of proving our theories, those of our ancestors who were committed to finding the truth and were humble enough to seek it without preconceptions did indeed find ways to apprehend reality well enough to ensure that we would be here today.

One thing that the surviving tribes had in common is that they discovered that they have a stake in the world they leave behind; that we are each a part of an interconnected whole. We have the potential to find the answers we need within us, but we must look outward. And, most importantly, we don’t make the rules here and thus cannot fashion a reality that suits us.

Dogmatists from the secular and religious worlds argue otherwise. The former hold that man can create a set of rules and impose it upon the rest of it – it will work if only we believe in it. Those who do not are a threat and should thus be destroyed. The latter claim to be Chosen to deliver God’s Will, when in fact they are blasphemously postulating their own as such. Those who do not accept this are Infidels and should thus be destroyed.

Is it no surprise then at the rivers of blood that have been spawned as a consequence? Whether it in the laboratory or at the altar, perhaps we should consider our own limitations and purpose before lashing out at others who do not accept our respective man-made constructs.

When we Westerners hear of Eastern mystics advocating surrendering self in favor of a greater consciousness, it seems absurd. What they were in fact talking about was abandoning our artificial preconceptions – even if they have been reinforced by centuries of habit and tradition – a pure form of objectivity, if you will.

Such objectivity requires that we accept that we are not equipped to have more than a small hint of the Big Picture and must therefore trust that there is something larger than us running the show.  
1 posted on 07/16/2006 4:45:42 PM PDT by walford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: walford
I confess to only skimming, as this thought was forming: the more untethered people become from the truths the great classical scientests honored (God, mainly), the more bizarre (it's aliens!) and less humane the field will become. Again.

"The inspired man will be thought a lunatic."

2 posted on 07/16/2006 4:54:38 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (dust off the big guns.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: walford

As long as nobody confuses God with religeon.


3 posted on 07/16/2006 4:59:15 PM PDT by MonroeDNA (Mohhamed drank urine from female pigs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: walford
Until very recently, science has never been associated with Truth. Science is about what is useful and what works to produce technology and better mankind.

Somewhere in the 50s or 60s it became associated with Truth, but since Truth is a constant and scientific theories ("truths") constantly change, they really are completely different. Science is the latest "truth", subject to change tomorrow.
4 posted on 07/16/2006 5:13:35 PM PDT by microgood (Truth is not contingent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: walford

Too far out for me.


5 posted on 07/16/2006 5:14:37 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MonroeDNA
As long as nobody confuses God with religeon.

Religion is merely a means for the finite to approach the Infinite. Perfectly reasonable and appropriate when it's understood for it's purpose and limitations. When we decide however, that a certain man-made system is closer than others or -- even worse -- that ours is the Only Way because the Almighty said so, then we are flirting with dogmatism. As such it is blasphemy.
6 posted on 07/16/2006 5:24:33 PM PDT by walford (http://the-big-pic.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: walford
As long as nobody confuses God with religeon.

Religion is merely a means for the finite to approach the Infinite. Perfectly reasonable and appropriate when it's understood for it's purpose and limitations. When we decide however, that a certain man-made system is closer than others or -- even worse -- that ours is the Only Way because the Almighty said so, then we are flirting with dogmatism. As such it is blasphemy.


Of all the strange "crimes" that human beings have legislated out of nothing, "blasphemy" is the most amazing -- with "obscenity" and "indecent exposure" fighting it out for second and third place.

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973


7 posted on 07/16/2006 5:29:41 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Great quote. I guess I have to read beyond Stranger in an Strange Land
8 posted on 07/16/2006 5:40:05 PM PDT by microgood (Truth is not contingent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: microgood
Great quote. I guess I have to read beyond Stranger in an Strange Land

Heinlein's Time Enough for Love is a long book with a series of interludes, called "The Notebooks of Lazarus Long." Each consists of several pages of sayings, such as the one I posted.

You can actually find them on the web. Very entertaining. (The first is "Always store beer in a dark place.")

9 posted on 07/16/2006 5:44:30 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: microgood
Perhaps you should undertake a course of study in English so you can learn when capitalization is meaningful.
10 posted on 07/16/2006 5:48:38 PM PDT by balrog666 (Ignorance is never better than knowledge. - Enrico Fermi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: walford

Why are westerners drawn to eastern mysticism when they have a whole mystical tradition in the West. Eastern Christainbity is at least as "mysticaL" as Buddhism, except that it anchors the spirit in the flesh through the doctrine of the incarnation. My impression is that Buddhism that is known to westerners is a buddhism that has been invaded by western concepts; otherwise, it would not be intelligible to westerners. Reminding me of what happened to the "Native American" religions.


11 posted on 07/16/2006 5:57:38 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
You can actually find them on the web. Very entertaining. (The first is "Always store beer in a dark place.")

Thanks. I will check it out.
12 posted on 07/16/2006 6:29:58 PM PDT by microgood (Truth is not contingent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: microgood

The great truth that every great scientist has come to understand

about the "truth" of the universe as known by "science"

is that with each great leap in science

we have learned that suddenly what do not know

has become infinitely larger and infintely more complex

than we imagined before that point.

The more we "know" the more we realize we do not know,

and the more we see pattern and intelligence in what we

have learned, so far.


13 posted on 07/16/2006 6:54:33 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: microgood

How is truth different than Truth?


14 posted on 07/16/2006 7:03:12 PM PDT by RFC_Gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

Great post and very inspiring. We can never believe we have acheived a total understanding with regard to nature and science or it will make us complacent and prevent us from moving to the next level.


15 posted on 07/16/2006 7:07:35 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RFC_Gal
How is truth different than Truth?

Truths are things we know with certainty given our senses can detect the world around us. truths are things we currently believe based on the best evidence available to us at the current time. Truth would be that you exist, and the sun rose from the east and set in the west, truth would be the big bang theory or other scientific theories that may be falsified in the future.
16 posted on 07/16/2006 7:22:50 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: microgood
Truth:

This is a word best avoided entirely in physics except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths.

Source.

17 posted on 07/16/2006 7:33:11 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: microgood

On the subject of senses.

My eyes and brain working together tell me that what I am seeing is 100% correct. It isn't, humans have two blind spots that our optical pre/post processing systems work around.


Truth doesn't tell me that a theory might be falsified in the future, science does. It isn't science if it can not be falsified.

Truth doesn't tell me that the Sun rises and sets - science tells me that the Sun appears to rise and set due to the orbiting of earth around said star.

You definition of truth "things we currently believe based on the best evidence available to us at the current time" need a little work.


18 posted on 07/16/2006 7:46:51 PM PDT by RFC_Gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RFC_Gal
Truth doesn't tell me that the Sun rises and sets - science tells me that the Sun appears to rise and set due to the orbiting of earth around said star.

Wrong. Humans knew this to be reality long before the concept of "science" existed. That is the point. Humans have been around perceiving the world around us long before anything like science existed. Humans know certain things to be true regardless of science. If a mother gives birth to a child she knows that is true. That the universe started with a big bang is a theory. There is a huge difference between those levels of certainty.
19 posted on 07/16/2006 7:58:12 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: microgood
Here are some definitions I put together a while back. They may help the discussion: Definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."

Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process.

Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.

Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."

Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.

Observation: any information collected with the senses.

Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.

Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.

Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.

Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.

Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.

[Last revised 6/20/06]

20 posted on 07/16/2006 8:00:13 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Truth:

This is a word best avoided entirely in physics except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths.


Absolutely. I love science and only get concerned when some think it is something other than you describe.
21 posted on 07/16/2006 8:00:48 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: microgood

Care to address my other points?


22 posted on 07/16/2006 8:07:45 PM PDT by RFC_Gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RFC_Gal
My eyes and brain working together tell me that what I am seeing is 100% correct. It isn't, humans have two blind spots that our optical pre/post processing systems work around.

And as an addendum, if we did not believe our sensory ability or that we were able to rationally understand the world around us, this conclusion could never have been reached.
23 posted on 07/16/2006 8:07:51 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RFC_Gal
Truth doesn't tell me that a theory might be falsified in the future, science does. It isn't science if it can not be falsified.

True, but science is an adventure in making assumptions that cannot be proven to acheive a loftier goal. Science makes assumptions that cannot be verified as true to get to a different place in reality. That is why they call them theories. For example, to embark on the theory of evolution, one has to assume all processes are naturalistic. To deliver a child, and name it, one need not engage in that abstraction.
24 posted on 07/16/2006 8:12:37 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: microgood

"Deity(s) did it" isn't falsifiable, that is why science leaves out the supernatural.


25 posted on 07/16/2006 8:16:19 PM PDT by RFC_Gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger; wallcrawlr

ping


26 posted on 07/16/2006 8:20:49 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RFC_Gal
"Deity(s) did it" isn't falsifiable, that is why science leaves out the supernatural.

True, and that is what makes science a theory, it makes assumptions which cannot be determined to be true or false. It assumes that because something is not falsifiable, it it false.

Actually, the whole notion of making scientific theories falsifiable was very recent, and came about because of philosopher name Karl Popper. The notion of falsifiability of sciencific theories is less than 50 years old.
27 posted on 07/16/2006 8:24:52 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

I go with the "No space, no time—just events..."

And memories.


28 posted on 07/16/2006 8:38:16 PM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: walford

Bump.....


29 posted on 07/16/2006 8:53:16 PM PDT by Intolerant in NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balrog666; microgood
Perhaps you should undertake a course of study in English so you can learn when capitalization is meaningful.

balrog, who cares about puncuation - we're all out of 10th grade -- right?

30 posted on 07/16/2006 8:53:48 PM PDT by GOPJ ("...we're in the third world war, which side do you think should win?" -- Newt Gingrich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Allan

ping


31 posted on 07/16/2006 9:05:17 PM PDT by ARridgerunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: walford
Religion is merely a means for the finite to approach the Infinite. Perfectly reasonable and appropriate when it's understood for it's purpose and limitations. When we decide however, that a certain man-made system is closer than others or -- even worse -- that ours is the Only Way because the Almighty said so, then we are flirting with dogmatism. As such it is blasphemy.

The article is intellectually bankrupt. It assumes God doesn't want his name used for evil, thus the Blasphemy of Dogma. However such an idea about God must also be a Dogma. Further the history in that article is wrong concerning the Reformation. Reformation initiated years of religious wars. No one, not protestant or Catholic thought at the time that they couldn't salve the disagreement by force. Only over years of exhaustive conflict did they stop fighting over it (although they haven't really in some places). In any case the religious wars did leave everyone with a cynical attitude, which paved the way for the Enlightenment and the irreligiousness of the last few centuries.

32 posted on 07/16/2006 9:16:09 PM PDT by BarbaricGrandeur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: microgood
True, and that is what makes science a theory, it makes assumptions which cannot be determined to be true or false. It assumes that because something is not falsifiable, it it false.

Two points here:

1. You write "True, and that is what makes science a theory, it makes assumptions which cannot be determined to be true or false." This is not correct. Science strives to theory. Theory is the highest level of achievement in science (see the definitions I posted earlier). Any assumption, hypothesis, or theory which cannot be falsified is not really science.

2. You write "It assumes that because something is not falsifiable, it it false." Again, not correct. If it is not falsifiable, it is not science. (ID falls within this category: If I can't understand it, then a diety musta did it! Can't be falsified: not science.)

33 posted on 07/16/2006 9:23:35 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

My bad. You are correct. It not necessarily false, it is just not science if it is not falsifiable.


34 posted on 07/16/2006 9:34:17 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RFC_Gal
Descartes pointed out that, since our senses can be fooled without our being able to know the difference (e.g. dreams, hallucinations, etc.), there is no way to objectively demonstrate that what we see, hear, etc. corresponds to an external "reality" in any way. Therefore, all observations made by use of our senses (including scientific observations) are suspect. We must take the existence of the world on faith. All we can know for certain is that which we experience directly, without use of our fallible senses -- i.e. our own existence. Cogito, ergo sum.
35 posted on 07/16/2006 9:35:54 PM PDT by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: microgood
My bad. You are correct. It not necessarily false, it is just not science if it is not falsifiable.

I am glad we agree.

On that note, goodnight. And thanks for the nice discussion (which is getting more and more rare here).

36 posted on 07/16/2006 9:37:16 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
We must take the existence of the world on faith. All we can know for certain is that which we experience directly, without use of our fallible senses -- i.e. our own existence. Cogito, ergo sum.

You might think that. I think that's a bunch of philosophy. I avoided philosophy (successfully) through 12 years of college (sociology and economics too).

I prefer science; that is, fact and theory.

Goodnight.

37 posted on 07/16/2006 9:40:55 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: walford
You could have had an excellent post......if you just left 3/4 of it out........

-p
38 posted on 07/16/2006 10:01:17 PM PDT by Phil Southern (Dirt is for growin' taters, asphault is for racin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: microgood

Hmmm, the philosophy of science. I thought they were supposed to be seperate....


39 posted on 07/16/2006 10:14:00 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
On that note, goodnight. And thanks for the nice discussion (which is getting more and more rare here).

Thank you as well. Especially for what you do. Whatever theories that are developed based on the facts that are discovered, those like yourself that meticulously document the archeological facts of this wonderous planet make a timeless and permanent contribution to the world, and for that we are all grateful.
40 posted on 07/16/2006 10:14:25 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

BOOKMARKED........Thank you!!!!!!!!


41 posted on 07/16/2006 10:21:17 PM PDT by Gabz (Taxaholism, the disease you elect to have (TY xcamel))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Who has said they should be separate?


42 posted on 07/16/2006 10:34:30 PM PDT by RFC_Gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Sorry, but your attempt to kid your way around the thorny issues of epistomology has failed. One cannot talk meaningfully about "fact" without defining fact, and how one can distiguish fact from non-fact. Until one deals with the basic questions of Being and the nature of human knowledge, "science" is just another belief system.


43 posted on 07/17/2006 12:55:42 AM PDT by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: walford; ARridgerunner
"...A human being is a part of the whole, called by us 'Universe,' a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is, in itself, a part of the liberation, and a foundation for inner security," wrote Albert Einstein in 1950...

What a lot of drivel!
Worthy of Madonna, or perhaps the Maharishi.
Outside the field of physics Einstein's opinions are about as worthwhile as those of my old aunt Hazel.

Don't forget he was a supporter of every loony left wing cause
and probably a communist sympathizer as well.

As for Dr. Bohm, he was a follower of the charlatan, Krishnamurthi.

44 posted on 07/17/2006 2:15:45 AM PDT by Allan (*-O)):~{>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ARridgerunner

As I have said on this forum before
you will learn more about Reality from your dreams
than by a lifetime studying quantum mechanics.


45 posted on 07/17/2006 2:20:32 AM PDT by Allan (*-O)):~{>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand
"The inspired man will be thought a lunatic."

True, but lunatics are also thought to be lunatics, and they heavily outnumber the inspired. If someone has moonbat ideas it is generally safest to start from the viewpoint that they are probably truly a moonbat and then go from there.

To overcome prejudice the genuinely inspired man needs to bring evidence and secure reasoning to the table. If he does this it is surprising how fast science adopts new ideas even when they overturn cherished preconceptions (which is science's strength and its weakness). Religion is largely impervious to ideas that overturn cherished preconceptions (which is also religion's strength and its weakness).

46 posted on 07/17/2006 2:38:49 AM PDT by Thatcherite (I'm PatHenry I'm the real PatHenry all the other PatHenrys are just imitators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: walford; ARridgerunner
Heisenberg, Bohr, Schroedinger, Eddington, Einstein—all held a mystical, spiritual view of the world.

Einstein's view of God is that He is some kind of cosmic auto-mechanic. Better than no God, I suppose, but not much.

47 posted on 07/17/2006 3:03:00 AM PDT by Allan (*-O)):~{>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: walford
Religion is merely a means for the finite to approach the Infinite.

In other words, science is everything that can be modeled and predicted by mathematics.

Mathematics breaks down at the singularities. The realm of mathematics is constantly expanding as we improve the models and eliminate the singularities.

Beyond the singularities - that's where religion, superstition and speculation take over.


BUMP

48 posted on 07/17/2006 3:31:42 AM PDT by capitalist229 (Get Democrats out of our pockets and Republicans out of our bedrooms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite; All
Religion is largely impervious to ideas that overturn cherished preconceptions (which is also religion's strength and its weakness)

I would have to argue that the ground that devout men and women have gained in the understanding of the laws of nature, bringing incalculable benefits to mankind, basically renders this comment absurd. But, like all absurd comments, it enjoys a certain following.

49 posted on 07/17/2006 4:15:51 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand (dust off the big guns.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand
I would have to argue that the ground that devout men and women have gained in the understanding of the laws of nature, bringing incalculable benefits to mankind, basically renders this comment absurd. But, like all absurd comments, it enjoys a certain following.

Devout men and women have contributed to understanding of the laws of nature to the precise extent to which they left their Holy Works at the laboratory door. People who take their Holy Books in the laboratory with them only make progress understanding the world if the data happens to match the preconceptions they gained from their holy books. For example the Answers in Genesis Ministry requires that its "scientific" workers must sign up in advance to the idea that scientific observations can never contradict a literal reading of the Bible. To my mind you aren't doing science if you get your answers in advance from a Holy Book.

Your absurd canard does enjoy a certain following however, I agree.

50 posted on 07/17/2006 5:51:23 AM PDT by Thatcherite (I'm PatHenry I'm the real PatHenry all the other PatHenrys are just imitators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-77 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson