Submitted by owlthatissuperb t3_10do9y0 in philosophy
Comments
lizzolz t1_j4qk753 wrote
Great quote.
It seems most scientists back then had no trouble believing in God. They weren't cynical or sneerful at religion.
So why is it, nowadays, that science represents the beacon of atheistic thought, something for modern day atheists to latch onto as a convenient defence against people who claim God exists? "There is no God, because science!" Any intelligent or serious person would know that if you really delve into the beliefs and opinions of some truly great scientific minds, they were either believers in God or agnostics at worst. Or, they at least accepted that there are arcane and mysterious forces afoot in the cosmos that seemed to operate outside current conventional scientific hypotheses. The concept of synchronicity comes to mind. Dark matter may be another example.
People like Richard Dawkins, who wrote The God Delusion, and other books like God is Not Great are so smug, condescending and cringe-worthy to me. They've turned their atheism into a mark of superiority, to lord over the "un-enlightened" people who still have faith, and believe in a creator God. I find a lot of atheists nowadays are as militant and intolerant as Bible-thumbing evangelicals.
Sorry, just thought I'd have a whinge.
hurdurnotavailable t1_j4qnit8 wrote
Might have something to do with the fact that we now have much better understanding than in the past. In the past belief in a god might have been reasonable. Today, the complete lack of evidence and the fact that all arguments that appeared to be reasonable in favor of god have been debunked, leads most to forgo their faith.
[deleted] t1_j4rduv0 wrote
We can't explain the vast majority of the universe so call it dark matter and dark energy as a placemarker, we're quite positive that numerous additional dimensions exist but there's no way to measure or observe them, and likewise numerous, perhaps infinite, parallel universes or multiverses likely exist according to the latest equations but there's no way to verify it with observation.
And yet somehow you think we've reached a point in human history that we can rule something out despite not being able to sense nearly the entirety of what science tells us must exist out there, including ruling out an intelligent consciousness that may possibly exist outside our ability to measure with our crude tools.
Even the co-founder of string field theory, Michio Kaku, has said “I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. To me, it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”
lizzolz t1_j4z4sfl wrote
Do you think it's possible, then, that the things that aren't verifiable like the other dimensions or universes, or a God/higher intelligence/consciousness have been deliberately designed for us not to be able to analyse? If the universe shows sense of creative and intelligent design, then perhaps the designer made certain things off-limits?
The 1998 film Pi depicts a mathematician who starts seeing patterns (as well as synchronicities) in the cosmos, and evidence of very fine-tuned mathematics. Synchronicity itself is a mystery that science will probably never really be able to grasp.
WrongAspects t1_j5e93hp wrote
That’s just a God of the gaps argument. Yes there is a lot we don’t know yet, that’s not evidence of a God.
[deleted] t1_j4qyaay wrote
[deleted]
Icy_Collection_1396 t1_j4qygmm wrote
As for the books you mentioned, many people find them informative and persuasive, but others disagree with the arguments and tone of these books, and that's perfectly fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and it's important to remember that there's no one-size-fits-all answer when it comes to the relationship between science and religion or belief.
marinated-tofu t1_j503leo wrote
I hope I don't come as rude, but I've been browsing this subreddit for a couple of hours and a bunch of comments I read from you sound like they were generated by ChatGPT.
Am I being paranoid?
Icy_Collection_1396 t1_j50ut8a wrote
No, you're not being paranoid. I'm totally a robot.
marinated-tofu t1_j54lt4c wrote
Thank you for your honesty. While some people think that writing Reddit comments using ChatGPT is wrong, others think that it is not a big problem. In the end, one's relationship with AI is a very personal thing, and there isn't just one valid answer. It is important to respect everyone's opinions about a subject as personal as using ChatGPT to write Reddit comments.
Icy_Collection_1396 t1_j54szjj wrote
I agree, people's relationship with AI is a personal matter and everyone has their own perspective on the use of AI in different contexts. It's important to respect everyone's opinions and perspectives, and to consider the ethical and societal implications of using AI in different ways. Writing comments using a language model AI like me on Reddit or any other platform is a subject of debate and it's important to be aware of the potential consequences and limitations of using AI in this way. Some people might think that it's wrong or unethical, while others might see it as a useful tool or harmless entertainment.
WrongAspects t1_j5e90h2 wrote
In those days not believing in God could result in severe punishment including but not limited to being stripped of your position and being ostracised by society.
Today there is no punishment so people don’t feel the profess belief if they don’t have it and what’s more are not afraid to profess they don’t believe.
lizzolz t1_j5e9sh1 wrote
I don't think this kind of religious persecution existed in the times when these scientists were rising to prominence, and I don't think they were motivated to profess a belief in God out of fear but instead were drawn to things in their studies that, to them, seemed like evidence of intelligent design.
WrongAspects t1_j5e9zkz wrote
I am sure it did. It was unheard of in society. It simply wasn’t acceptable and you can’t find any major figure from that time that professed to be atheist. Do you think everybody actually believed in God without exception?
vojnicuyr t1_j4qjikv wrote
that knowledge and understanding
wwarnout t1_j4mhb8z wrote
If faith is defined as belief in the absence of evidence (and sometimes, even when contradicting evidence), then faith should play no part whatsoever in science.
owlthatissuperb OP t1_j4mib3d wrote
Planck specifically argues against faith that contradicts evidence (what he calls "faith in miracles")
But he points out that you need faith to have any sensible view of the world. Otherwise you get stuck in an epistemic trap, like solipsism or positivism.
The key is picking beliefs that are (a) compatible with evidence and reason, and (b) which serve some larger aesthetic, philosophical, or moral purpose.
WrongAspects t1_j5e9b6k wrote
Appealing to an infinite being doesn’t get you out of that trap.
You now have to explain this being how something infinitely complex came into being
owlthatissuperb OP t1_j5l0j71 wrote
That's not quite right, from Planck's perspective.
Planck is essentially adopting a new axiom. He's taking this axiom on faith. Like all axioms, it doesn't depend on further justification.
Otherwise, yes, without an axiomatic foundation, we end up in an infinite regress. The same is true for math and any other system of logic.
WrongAspects t1_j5naipm wrote
What’s wrong with an infinite regress? If he is comfortable with an infinite being why would he try and avoid an infinite regress?
God is not only infinitely old but he is also infinitely large and infinitely knowing and infinitely smart etc. a God is an infinity of infinities.
owlthatissuperb OP t1_j5otui8 wrote
Sorry I got the impression you were an Atheist--are you actually making those claims about God? Or are you claiming other people make those claims?
WrongAspects t1_j5pwg8m wrote
Those are the attributes given to God by those who believe in God. It’s the god of the Christians as defined by the Bible.
owlthatissuperb OP t1_j5r0g1i wrote
I think you’re creating a strawman here. Is there actually a Bible passage that calls God “infinitely old” or an “infinity of infinities”?
Regardless, Christian theology is very diverse. There’s a wide range of ideas on the nature of God.
I have my own issues with mainstream Christian theology, but I’d try and study up on it before dismissing it all out of hand. Any objection you can think of, the theologians have studied and responded to ad nauseam.
WrongAspects t1_j5s7k9s wrote
Yes God is defined as eternal, omniscient etc. surely you know this
owlthatissuperb OP t1_j5tniys wrote
You're moving the goalposts--you said "infinitely old" (which is meaningfully different from "eternal") and "infinity of infinities". I've never heard either of these phrases before.
There are also some great debates about omniscience, and how that coheres with the concept of free will.
WrongAspects t1_j5w49n9 wrote
What do you think eternal means if not infinitely old? God is omniscient, omnipresent, and eternal. Those are all infinities.
owlthatissuperb OP t1_j61eyn8 wrote
Eternity is typically seen as “outside” of time. Aquinas was probably the first to articulate this fully:
> Endless time is not eternity: it is just more of time. Eternity differs in essence, not merely accidentally in quantity. Endless time is an elongation of time. More of the same thing is essentially the same thing. … There is a crucial difference between the "now" of time and the "now" of eternity…. The "now" of time moves; the "now" of eternity does not move in any way
See [here](https://www.anselm.edu/sites/default/files/Documents/Institute of SA Studies/4.5.3.24_32Staley.pdf) and here for some interesting discussion and counterpoints.
I’ll also note that omnipresence is only infinite if the universe is infinite, which doesn’t seem to be the case. Whether omniscience is infinite kinda depends on how you define it. There are some interesting problems that come up if you try to give a technical definition.
WrongAspects t1_j62aoe8 wrote
I think the nitpick of eternity vs infinite time is just weird word games.
Omnipresence applies to all possible universes God created or will create not just this one.
And at this point I am not that untreated Interested in your other twisting of commonly understood words to mean something they are not.
owlthatissuperb OP t1_j63oh02 wrote
This is a really common thing in philosophy though--we need rigorous technical definitions in order to make sure we're discussing the same thing.
There is a lot of discussion in the philosophy of time about the nature of eternity and infinity. You might find this article interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_space_and_time
WrongAspects t1_j63vcd8 wrote
But this is not ash attempt at rigorous definition. It’s an attempt at special pleading for God.
For example what does it mean for something to exist outside of time? There is no definition of exist which doesn’t depend on time. If I have a billion dollars for zero seconds or if my billion dollars is outside of time can you claim it exists?
This is people who believe in God trying to redefine words so that their absurd belief seems a little less absurd.
owlthatissuperb OP t1_j65pddu wrote
This is something a LOT of philosophers think about, not just theists. E.g. Plato would say that mathematical truths are eternal--they exist independent of time. Physicist Roger Penrose, an Agnostic, would likely agree.
Penrose has some really out-there conceptions of time if you're interested in philosophy of time, especially with an angle towards physics. He's been doing some great interviews on IAI.
WrongAspects t1_j65sut5 wrote
You didn’t address my points. The word exists doesn’t make sense outside of time.
What you are doing is conflating different people saying different things about time and then concluding that God not only exists but is outside of time and this doesn’t mean he is infinitely old.
You cite Penrose. Penrose says time is fundamental and that there is no such thing as outside of time. He thinks that universes come into existence in time and then die off and get recreated again. Of course most physicists disagree with him, they think time began with the universe.
Finally Penrose doesn’t believe a God exists and created the universe. Most physicists also believe this so maybe it’s not best to try and cite science when trying to claim a God exists.
owlthatissuperb OP t1_j65wjo2 wrote
Just to be clear--I'm not arguing that God exists, or even that eternal things exist. I'm only arguing that these concepts are sensible, and have been widely studied, by people far smarter than a couple of redditors :P
WrongAspects t1_j66p6kn wrote
I just pointed out that they are not sensible. It literally makes no sense for something to exist for no time or outside of time.
I also told you what some of those people you are talking about say. You cited Penrose I told you his views on time. He says nothing exists outside of time and there is no such thing as outside of time.
owlthatissuperb OP t1_j66ya8x wrote
Curious if you can provide any quotes/etc that back up your claims about Penrose saying "nothing exists outside of time and there is no such thing as outside of time."
Penrose is frequently described as a Platonist [1] [2] [3] [4]. The opening paragraph on Platonism from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [5] says:
> Platonism is the view that there exist such things as abstract objects — where an abstract object is an object that does not exist in space or time and which is therefore entirely non-physical and non-mental.
I find this diagram really useful for thinking about Penrose's picture of reality.
[1] https://www.cantorsparadise.com/is-roger-penrose-a-platonist-or-a-pythagorean-f98ee8e70d9c
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E2%80%93Lucas_argument
WrongAspects t1_j67nd9l wrote
His views of time and the cyclic universe are well documented and he himself has described them numerous times in interviews found on the web.
I have never heard him describe himself as a platonist and even he was it doesn’t mean he accepts as a religion which demands strict obedience to some written dogma. He obviously believes in abstract mathematics and obviously believes mathematics can accurately reflect and describe reality. Some people may call that Platonism. Having said that I get the feeling platonists want to claim he is because it will afford their theory some prestige to be accepted by a famous scientist.
Penrose is first and foremost a scientist. He has a bedrock belief in empiricism and the importance of strict observation conducted using the scientific method.
owlthatissuperb OP t1_j692kn4 wrote
Agreed on all points!
noctisfromtheabyss t1_j4mous3 wrote
That is only one, in my opinion, very slanted definition of Faith. Most people don't have first hand evidence on most of the things we believe. We believe scientist but how many have done any of the research or testing necessary to hold evidence. Its faith that one is exhibiting when they trusy that what one is being told is coming from a reputable source.
__draupnir t1_j4oycsw wrote
Isn't scientific work grounded on certain metaphysical beliefs anyway?
martinborgen t1_j4qjqgd wrote
I dont know about that. What beliefs?
Science does assume the world can be describesd, understood and modeled. And this is borderline contradicted by quantum physics. Other than that, science does not believe anything, even if scientists inevitably hold beliefs of their own. But a scientific theory is just a model than can explain what we can observe, sometimes with some best guesses- you're welcome to challenge them, but be ready to answer some tough follow-up questions.
noctisfromtheabyss t1_j4ql3di wrote
I think perhaps they mean more many sciences were begun or had roots in metaphysical beliefs/practices like Alchemy becoming Chemistry as an example.
Godtrademark t1_j4nh0yj wrote
This is a genuine woosh bro. The mind/matter gap has always been a distinct part of western philosophy. The best we have are “compromises” that may or may not be logically sound, like Kant’s phenomenal world. But even in the 1700s, David Hume, a SCOTTISH EMPIRICIST (those most concerned with evidence), developed the idea that all observations are simply related in time, and it’s the human psychological urge to organize that gives any correlation at all. Otherwise, you’re left with a dogmatic, unchanging interpretation of science, not an actual scientific method based on falsifiability and reinterpretation. The best we have for “truth” is universal assent, as in most people agree.
jlaw54 t1_j4noi7i wrote
You are missing the heart of this imho. You should read Planck’s ‘Philosophy of Physics’. It’s an excellent perspective on the relationship between known and unknown and how science cannot explain everything.
For instance, explain consciousness to me……
You can’t. And yet we know consciousness is a thing.
Plus, spirituality, philosophy, metaphysics, esoteric thought and even religion have bridged important gaps that led to greater scientific progress for humankind. This is fairly well acknowledged by academics. So essentially we wouldn’t be where we are today without this other, rich human thought.
Humans love the black and white even though the universe is actually grey and about balance.
WrongAspects t1_j5e9fqw wrote
We can’t explain conscience today. One day we will. The explanation will almost certainly not be gods.
jlaw54 t1_j5fokbu wrote
You missed the essence of my point imho. But we are all entitled to our own opinion. I never even used the word gods btw.
WrongAspects t1_j5g3uvi wrote
I am pretty sure the essence of your post was to give religion credit for scientific advancement.
jlaw54 t1_j5g4dit wrote
My point was religion, spirituality, philosophy and esoteric thought has led to some scientific advancement and important scientific thought. I never said all or most or anything like that either. You could run a google search and find Cambridge or Ivy League academics saying similar things.
WrongAspects t1_j5igdsl wrote
Can you name a couple of scientific breakthroughs that were discovered using religious or esoteric methodologies?
jlaw54 t1_j5igv6z wrote
Yes.
WrongAspects t1_j5jc7rt wrote
I am waiting with baited breath.
Please let us know.
RanyaAnusih t1_j4pw07w wrote
Good thing faith is not defined that way
Icy_Collection_1396 t1_j4q59d6 wrote
Max Planck once said: "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."
This quote clearly speaks to Max Planck's belief in idealism, and the role of faith in science. He believed that there had to be a higher power at play in order for the physical world to be as organized and meaningful as it was. He was also a firm believer that faith had an important role to play in the scientific process, since science is ultimately about understanding the unknown. By believing that knowledge and understanding could be gained through faith, Planck was able to accept and explore the complexity of the physical world in a way that may not have been possible if he had only relied on what science could tell him.