Well debating with your good self is certainly an education Mr Robinson,when you go full tilt boogey with that big old brain of yours its really quite something. Thats a serious stream of conciousness right there. Very thought provoking. AwesomeKris, I haven't yet worked out where you are coming from mate, in more ways than one.
I'm not sure if you fully understand some of the points you are hoping to make, or in turn, it might be me, who is failing to interpret your presentations.
Some of your posts seem to miss the mark under an avalanche of name-drops, and others just seem to miss the mark, in my opinion that is.
I think you feel passionately about the subject matter but for some reason I am unable to key into the relevance / thought process, of some of your responses.
I don't think you are indulging us too much in 'Google expertise' but something ain't quite right here and it may well be me....but I doubt it
This last post catalogues an impressive array of intellectuals who you say had at sometime or another, occasion to touch base with him upstairs.
I think the point you are trying to make with this is obviously, if those guys decide to align themselves with a god, then who are we to question otherwise?
I think we need to differentiate between god and religion here, any scientist worth his salt would have to default to a creator when he ponders our position.
The fact we live in a universe where causality underpins everything, it might be hard to subscribe to any notion of spontaneous creation, and as you may be aware, the logical conclusion of winding the big bang back is to look into the ugly face of a singularity ...the mathematics used to wind it all in reverse, chokes on that.
It's hardly surprising that at this point, scientists and astro-physicists / mathematicians would all consider a prime mover.
The fact that Dawkins (The God Delusion) then dismisses any such conclusion on the basis you are then drawn inevitably toward asking , 'well who created him'? is in my opinion, a mistake.
Unfortunately for Dawkins, in my ignorant opinion, he then goes onto make this assumption a cornerstone of his book.
If he considered this point a little more instead of glossing over it as if it were a mere philosophical certainty then he mighta got my soul.
Believing in a god (creator) is not the same as being religious.
Religion to me, should be a derivative of the creator, but in this world, it is more a derivative of man, and man's emotional / spiritual / political need to look upward and also to create an extremely powerful and effective social focus.
When i posted the list of eminent scientists who made fairly earth shattering leaps in their chosen disciplines,and that have at one time or another had a relationship with him upstairs,
I was responding to the point you made:
“....... I'm just a guy with a brain who elects to use it and the notion that religion and science do not oppose each other is a lie, an absolute, outright lie.”
I meant to illustrate that these are all men who had to foster a determinist view of the tangible world,they sought to quantify and analyse the universe,to weigh,measure and calculate so they may better understand the universe and its contents using logical and systematic investigative approaches,in terms of the whole "if it cant be observed then it dont exist" angle they are prime examples of human beings who embody the quintessence of scientific investigation and discovery. They could have at any one time have rejected the notion of the esoteric but they did not.
They did not see the belief in the esoteric notion of the substance of being as diametrically opposed to the scientific notion of the substance of being,they bye and large saw the two notions as running paralell with each other.
One enriching and inspiring the other rather than negating it.
To quote Albert Einstein
“The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness. ”
I suppose if you break it down,if you have a tree,you can observe it,touch it,you can weigh it,measure it,analyse it for its chemical composition,classify it in its relevant genotype and phenotype,name it etc,but science still cannot be used to relay the essence of that tree,or indeed why that tree is there to be observed,or why i am here to observe it,science deals with the how,the when,the what and the who,but it cannot by any stretch of the imagination deal with the why,that is where the esoteric begins and the science has exceeded
it usefullness to a degree but it has to be said,one enriches the other never the less,to stand in awe and wonder why,inspires one to seek answers,the process of seeking answers enriches ones appreciation of the universe and so on,ad infinitum.
On your point about religion being a derivative of man,i concur,if theres is
a creator,he (and i'm just sayin he instead of an “it”)aint got a religion,he dont need a religion.
For good or ill,men have devised belief systems to structure their lives long before the rule of law and government and to give meaning and purpose to their existence and the universe they exist in. To gain a sense of continuity and stability and identity as individuals, and as part of the universe.
No science i am aware of can deliver this on its own.
