Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: ctinquiry.org

Stories and comments across the archive that link to ctinquiry.org.

Comments · 6

  1. Re:Well by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Insightful · on Should Scientists Date People Who Believe Astrology?
    http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_1/torrance.htm

    Here let me refer to a very interesting letter, recorded by Helen Dukas, which Einstein wrote to a child who asked him whether scientists prayed.

    I have tried to respond to your question as simply as I could. Here is my answer. Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being. However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research. But, on the other hand, 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 man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive His 'spirit' is the actual laws that govern the universe as far as I can tell. In physics it would be a complete, consistent theory of everything. We don't have this yet, but we could possibly discover (and you'll note I didn't say invent) it. We do have various approximations of this uber theory though, relativity for big stuff and quantum mechanics for small. It's an odd idea actually - it reminds me of Plato's Theory of Forms. By analogy, the spirit would be the True theory, and our current approximations would shadows of it. All of which is obvious very science friendly.
  2. Re:The Perceived Threat of Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Did Humans Evolve? No, Say Americans

    Science is a threat to faith.

    not at all. sure, some folks think so, but they are wrong.

    albert einstein believed that science actually revealed a lot about god. surely, you aren't suggesting he wasn't intelligent enough to reach a reasonable conclusion, are you?

    http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_ volume_1/torrance.htm

    being a degreed engineer and religious myself, i see no contradiction at all. the creation can't contradict the creator - the whole concept sounds silly when framed correctly.

    yes, LOTS of people abuse god for their own selfish purposes, but if you actually read the bible, you'd know this was predicted 2000 years ago.

    yes, lots of people abuse god and create their own version of god after their own image and their own desires.

    yes, LOTS of folks are confused and don't act so rational when it comes to religion and science.

    no, this doesn't mean god is confused or is a threat to science (investigations into the creation), it just means some folks don't understand the issues.

    god is the most rational entity to ever exist. god can sum up the recipe for eternal happiness, joy and peace in a single sentence. he can do it for all to see, yet very few of the intelligent humans have the processing power to "get it."

    you will appreciate god when you meat him - and don't believe the hype that he's an eternal torturer sadist - that is 100% wrong. god clearly says so, but people reject his clear message.

    "the dead know nothing"

    "the wages of sin is death"

    simple, to the point and almost universally rejected by people claiming to be christian.

  3. Re:The Perceived Threat of Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting · on Did Humans Evolve? No, Say Americans

    i have to say, the typcial religious right fanatic offends my sensibilities as much as the next guy, but i have to take issue with your assertion that a literal reading of the bible and science are contrary to each other.

    do you know the bible literally uses figurative language to make a point - and does so all the time? think about it. the issue is that the bible is 100% accurate in its intent. the reality is that the intent of the bible isn't always clear.

    that's why i don't take a hard line on specifics incidents. not that god (think about the concept - a flood on earth is a piece of cake compared to creating systems and processes to create and manage the entirety of the physical existence) didn't rain down a flood. he well might have.

    at the end of the day, though, the MESSAGE is undisputable - bad things happen to people who do bad things and god will save those who try and do good things. now, the religious right will try and say that means they are saved and everyone goes to eternal hellfire, but they are confused on many, many levels.

    first, this life isn't the only time god can save people - read ezekiel 37 for the timing of the salvation of the "whole house of israel." it hasn't happened yet. second, the entire concept of hellfire is sadistic - god isn't like that. the right wingers misunderstand figurative fire for literal fire in lazarus and the rich man... think about, what person burning alive would ask for a drop of water for their tongue (dry mouth?) and be able to hold a coversation? try puuting your hand on a red hot stove and then proceed to have a normal conversation with someone. no, don't.

    i believe what can be proved. for example, i believe that humans acting out selfishly will eventually lead to harm for the vast majority. history has proved this out over and over and over.

    i believe in the portions of evolution that are actually proven. simple organisms showed up on earth first. check. survival of the fittest within a species. check.

    that the fossil record clearly shows a series of transitional fossils. not checked. the poster child of transitionary fossils is called into reasonable question by and evolutionst here:

    http://research.unc.edu/endeavors/spr97/bird.html

    how can this be? b/c it hasn't been proven. it might be true. it might not. we don't know.

    there are so many questions that seem to defy the basic principles of macro-evolution.

    1. how did eyes develop before teeth strong enough to not decay and fall out? eating is related to survival, no? how did our teeth survive when we didn't brush them? why do they decay now?

    2. where are all the fossils that led to dinosaurs?

    3. how is a hybrid land / water ear (required for the transition to water or to land) advantageous while still in their primary environment?

    4. what law demands that transitional entities *must* go extinct? after all, none exist today, right?

    5. how are certain characteristics selected PRIOR to their being of value?

    6. why is the world we live in so discrete instead of the expected evolutionary continuum?

    yes, many of the self professed intellectual slashdot crowd will ad hominem their way into slamming people for believing the order and complexity of the world in which we live implies a creator.

    the problem is that a guy like albert einstein viewed the world as though it implied a creator, and i don't recall him as a particularly religious person with an axe to grind. rather, his genius saw the world and couldn't comprehend the beauty and order of the world and the laws that govern it without an intelligence to bring it to be.

    i'm sorry, but the ad hominem doesn't apply - and you diminish yourself when you go that route - unless you want to lay claim to superior intlligence and insight than albert einstein.

    http://w

  4. Re:Parent post is moronic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Has Anyone Seen the Moon Pictures?

    The fact is, the original poster is _just like_ those who believe in pyramid building aliens and creationists because they deny logic, history, human nature and plain evidence of reality. They are uneducable dolts.

    einstein was an uneducable dolt?

    http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_ volume_1/torrance.htm

    This is clearly reflected in an interview which Einstein later in life gave to an American magazine, The Saturday Evening Post, in 1929:

    "To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"

    "As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."

    "Have you read Emil Ludwig's book on Jesus?"

    "Emil Ludwig's Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot."

    "You accept the historical Jesus?"

    "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

    i believe in creationism. i hold jesus in the same high regard as did einstein.

    i also believe we went to the moon.

    you see, guy/gals like you don't get all your facts together. it isn't about truth to you, it is about intellectual vanity. go to a bible and do a search on vanity. you will learn some truths that you haven't perceived before.

    einstein was a thinker. he *rejected* much of modern day religious practice based on it not being logical nor rational. he didn't reject the creation, though. nor a creator.

    "the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfilment of their wishes", for that implied for him, as we will note, a selfish "anthropomorphic" idea of God which he rejected.

    this is the typical "god" that people worship - the one they created in their own heads who has the same friends and the same enemies. think of it as the genie-god.

    like einstein, i reject this idea of god.

    god *is* love. not to preserve physical "dead man walking," but to eventually preserve immortality in people dedicated to god's way of caring for others equal to oneself.

    for all you vanity and folly, you don't see that this one simple rule is REQUIRED for true happiness, peace and prosperity. REUIRED.

    NO WAY AROUND IT. PERIOD.

    this is the GENIUS of god. so simple. so profound. unassailable by the best mankind has... and we are so ill equipped to "get it."

    do not worry, though. being ill equipped at this period of time is all part of god's master plan for the best possible eternal outcome.

    don't judge god based on wack jobs who portray him as a sadist (burning people forever in fire forever). did you know the bible teaches no such thing?

    go to an online bible and search the a new king james versions for "dead know nothing".

    god will introduce himself to you, either in this life or the next (see ezekiel 37 for an example of the resurrection focused on israel).

    you are big and bad now, obviously believing yourself to be the intellectual superior of einstein, but i wonder if your knees will support you when meet god.

    not b/c you need to be scared of him (you don't), but b/c you are so disgusted with yourself.

    please educate yourself before inserting foot into your mouth. just b/c it is big enough to fit the whole foot in, doesn't mean it is the proper place for it.

    science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

    My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior Spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. The deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning Power, which is reveal

  5. Re:That's a pretty bold statement... by CFrankBernard · · Score: 1 · on Dark Energy May Be Changing

    You may like enjoy critiqing N.T. Wright:
    "What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?"
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802844456/103-85 02175-9059832

    http://www.ntwrightpage.com/

    http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_ volume_2/wright.htm

  6. Einstein's Gulf: Can Evolution cross it? by LovedByGod · · Score: 1 · on Kansas Challenges Definition of Science

    Einstein's Gulf: Can Evolution cross it?

    http://www.christiscreator.com/evolutionclass101.h tm

    Einstein and God:

    http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_ volume_1/torrance.htm

    God bless you and keep you.