6

Is there room for God in a quantized universe?

You are cur­rently browsing com­ments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Is there room for God in a quan­tized uni­verse?”.

Comments (6)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Jake says:

    “It is not only faith that offers the per­cep­tion of man’s per­sonal dig­nity and of its deci­sive impor­tance. Natural reason, too, can have access to it, since it is able to dis­tin­guish truth from false­hood, good from evil, and rec­og­nizes freedom as the fun­da­mental con­di­tion of human existence.”

    -Pope JPII

    Because we cannot “prove” any­thing we cannot excuse faith from being a pos­sible portal to truth. What is sci­ence but faith in our senses? As the physi­cist finds nat­ural law to be worth focusing on so I find pur­pose to be worth my own focus. Determinism is without purpose.

    This article mis­rep­re­sents the approach of faith based searches for truth as being intol­erant and sep­a­rate from science/logic.

    Saint Albertus Magnus 1206-1280:

    “For there can be no fun­da­mental con­flict between a reason which, in con­for­mity with its own nature which comes from God, is geared to truth and is qual­i­fied to know truth, and a faith, which refers to the same divine source of all truth. Faith con­firms, in fact, the spe­cific rights of nat­ural reason.”

    The catholic curch in par­tic­ular has a long his­tory of pio­neering sci­ence and encour­aging the dis­covery of truth through nat­ural dis­covery, and for good the­o­log­ical reason. If God cre­ated nature then dis­cov­ering nature is dis­cov­ering God. Like any enor­mous orga­ni­za­tion there are indi­vid­uals who say all sorts of things but the offi­cial policy of the church itself has never been anti-science.

    QST is enor­mously inter­esting, revealing and worth our mental efforts. Thank you Thad for pre­senting it in such a way that even a layperson like myself can com­pre­hend the basics of it. Unfortunately it doesn’t fill every curiosity in my own nature and regard­less of how many phys­ical laws we find to be con­cur­rent with our per­cep­tion, if our natures are left unful­filled there is little value in our sur­round­ings. While I am not a faithful person in any sense I am a hopeful person that sees the out­ward and the inward as valu­able to our human search for truth.

    Awesome web­site BTW

    • Geo says:

      OK. I can give you some of what you say.
      When ever I teach an intro­duc­tory class in phi­los­ophy I am very clear that every person, sci­en­tist, atheist, what­ever, nec­es­sarily must have at least a tiny nugget of faith. This faith, you cor­rectly point out, allows us to believe in our senses despite the over­whelming fact that we cannot prove in a strict way their veracity. This min­imal amount of faith allows us simply to believe in an external world. This is very dif­ferent though from the kind of faith a person has that believes in the old man in the sky kind of God.
      I think it fair to say the Catholic Church’s record on sci­en­tific stew­ard­ship and tol­er­ance is con­flicted to say the least. Let us not forget the forced recant of Galileo as a prime example. The church plays “nice” with sci­ence when it has no other choice but to do so. Rationality is touted by the apol­o­gists as a trea­sured gift from God, but then con­demned as a tool of Satan by the less pro­gres­sive. The church’s offi­cial policy, for most of its his­tory, has been at least antag­o­nistic with the sci­ences and their big the­o­ries, the ones that show con­tra­dic­tion to the church’s nec­es­sary dogmas.
      I think it is impor­tant to sep­a­rate spir­i­tu­alism from mys­ti­cism. Mysticism denies the rational com­po­nent, while spir­i­tu­alism embraces it in a monism of being. Attending just about any ser­vice pre­formed by an orga­nized reli­gion is almost always an exer­cise in mys­ti­cism.
      Thank you for your comments!

      • Thad Roberts says:

        “The irony of reli­gion is that because of its power to divert man to destruc­tive courses, the world could actu­ally come to an end. The plain fact is, reli­gion must die for mankind to live. The hour is get­ting very late to be able to indulge in having key deci­sions made by reli­gious people. By irra­tional­ists, by those who would steer the ship of state not by a com­pass, but by the equiv­a­lent of reading the entrails of a chicken. George Bush prayed a lot about Iraq, but he didn’t learn a lot about it. Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. It’s nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith, and enable and ele­vate it are intel­lec­tual slave­holders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fan­tasy and non­sense that has spawned and jus­ti­fied so much lunacy and destruc­tion. Religion is dan­gerous because it allows human beings who don’t have all the answers to think that they do. Most people would think it’s won­derful when someone says, “I’m willing, Lord! I’ll do what­ever you want me to do!” Except that since there are no gods actu­ally talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own cor­rup­tions and lim­i­ta­tions and agendas. And anyone who tells you they know, they just know what hap­pens when you die, I promise you, you don’t. How can I be so sure? Because I don’t know, and you do not pos­sess mental powers that I do not. The only appro­priate atti­tude for man to have about the big ques­tions is not the arro­gant cer­ti­tude that is the hall­mark of reli­gion, but doubt. Doubt is humble, and that’s what man needs to be, con­sid­ering that human his­tory is just a litany of get­ting shit dead wrong. This is why rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert them­selves. And those who con­sider them­selves only mod­er­ately reli­gious really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and com­fort that reli­gion brings you actu­ally comes at a hor­rible price. If you belonged to a polit­ical party or a social club that was tied to as much big­otry, misogyny, homo­phobia, vio­lence, and sheer igno­rance as reli­gion is, you’d resign in protest. To do oth­er­wise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife, for the true devils of extremism that draw their legit­i­macy from the bil­lions of their fellow trav­elers. If the world does come to an end here, or wher­ever, or if it limps into the future, dec­i­mated by the effects of religion-inspired nuclear ter­rorism, let’s remember what the real problem was. We learned how to pre­cip­i­tate mass death before we got past the neu­ro­log­ical dis­order of wishing for it. That’s it. Grow up or die.”

        Closing Comments from Bill Maher’s “Religulous”

  2. Very curious article. IS there room for God or any reli­gion for that matter, in QST? I don’t think so. One has to put aside any type of reli­gion that might cloud the mind of sci­ence. This go’s back to the ques­tion of sci­ence versus faith. We can explain what we can not see with math, but how do you explain a “God” that mas­tered a design on a uni­versal scale? This can not be proven in math, and blind faith brings not the answer OR the truth to light. It’s at this point that we enter the realm of phi­los­ophy, and that’s a whole other matter all together. Well written piece Mr. Roberts, you made me think.

  3. SueQ says:

    You might be inter­ested to know Einstein studied Christian Science and attended (did not join) Christian Science churches and vis­ited Reading Rooms throughout New York City and in Princeton. Because of the way Mary Baker Eddy talked about matter, Einstein was par­tic­u­larly intrigued, and a remark he made once, after a church ser­vice was: “if only these people knew what they had!” I’ve talked with friends who saw Einstein on many occa­sions; and one who knew him quite well. He invited her to visit him in Princeton.

    Note: It was Mary Baker Eddy who dis­cov­ered Christian Science which she defined as the laws of One Mind, God.

  4. davenycity says:

    great blog thank you

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.