Kris, two things can wrap this quickly for us both.
Firstly, when I suggested science is at odds with religion and you then went onto rebut that by lining up that parade of distinguished scientists, all of whom went on to tugging their forelock at the Guv'nor, this I'm afraid cannot rebut my suggestion at all mate.
Science is at odds with religion in many ways, things like the age of the earth, some bible-bashers would have us believe it is something like 4000 years old whereas science tells us it is approx 4.5 billion years old.
The bible tells us god created all the animals etc and yet Darwin's, science would suggest we evolved from single cell organisms.
There are a myriad of problem areas when it comes to reconciling the Bible with science and I'm afraid lining up the aforesaid dignitaries does nothing to offset the problems I just mentioned mate.
As for the problem you touch upon in the second half of your post where intangibles such as beauty, form or as Einstein called it, 'essence', where science is seemingly unable to explain it, I'm not surprised it can't because these are all philosophical considerations and not really within the remit of science.
The problems you mention are all problems of perception in terms of human experience.
A comprehensive understanding of human consciousness and its properties are for the moment, well outside of scientific explanation and thus are deposited into philosophy but I think this is temporary and we will eventually be able to crack that nut.
When you quote Einstein's eloquent observations, he suggests, the awe we experience when we look at the world around us, going onto realise it has been created by an entity whose presence eludes all of science, this awe, this fascination, this obsession, this unyielding curiosity is, and should be, the basis for the real religion.
Instead, we have man's skewed, self-interested approximation to the true religion manifesting itself as *******izations such as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and so on.
We really know how to fcuk things up don't we
Hey
Just to clarify Pete so theres no confusion,i'm not trying to convince you of anything to the contrary of what you believe to be true,i'd like to think we are debating because its enjoyable and we are kicking around concepts and ideas.Not because we have the need to be right and have the last word.
As i said before,your truth is your truth,after all,you cant arrive at those conclusions without putting in the hours, and i respect anyone who actually gives substance to their point of view,more power to you.
I'd like to tackle this first.
"When you quote Einstein's eloquent observations, he suggests, the awe we experience when we look at the world around us, going onto realise it has been created by an entity whose presence eludes all of science, this awe, this fascination, this obsession, this unyielding curiosity is, and should be, the basis for the real religion"
Heres the original quote.
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.
( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)
I'd like to proffer a slightly different interpretation . And it kind of ties in with one of my previous posts (about how i can see that science and the esoteric CAN run parallel and enrich each other) When i read that quote i am mindful of Einsteins pantheistic beliefs (the belief that the "creative force",the universe and its content including us are all part of the same whole,a realisation incidentally found in many ancient belief systems and a concept that is more than ever being confirmed by science) which are no doubt articulated here in harmony with his abstractions about the nature of the universe.
Einstein suggests that "the sensation of the mystical", is the inspiration for all inquisitiveness (or at least his own),the notion that there is more than what we can observe and comprehend with our senses drives the human mind and perhaps dare i say it for some the soul,to seek answers,and is therefore a prime motivator behind all discovery and rediscovery.
Without the ability to doubt and wonder,and be filled with awe by the enormity,complexity and with that the ultimate beauty of the universe,existence is essentially empty. (But i spose there's always day time telly and jaffa cakes to fill the void)
Basically at the end,to me at least, he is saying, to know we are all as humans,perceiving the world from within the confines of our narrow and limited frames of reference,to know that we are to a great extent limited,even to a degree held hostage by our (in)ability to perceive,to know humility and to be humbled by the enormity of what we DONT know, and what we CANNOT know,is the centre of of true religiousness (*see footnote). True spirituality if you will,emanates from the realisation that we are structures of the universe and that our sense of compartmented self is but a naive delusion of the senses.
Man with all his discoveries,conjecture,questioning and answering simply can never fully penetrate the fabric of existence,because its just too flipping big for little old us to get the picture no matter how long we spend trying to suss it out.
Quantum physics, Relativity Theory, String theory, Astrophysics, Psychology(not strictly speaking a science),Neuropsychology,Neurology,Chemistry, Hinduism,kabbalism, Bhuddism, early Gnostic Christianity (before the romans got hold of it),Taoism, Shinto, Tibetan Bon many forms of Shamanism,Judaism,many Animist beliefs,many Pagan belief systems,Ancient Egyptian beliefs etc etc etc,ALL contain these ideas to varying degrees.
Anyway,back at the ranch.
"As for the problem you touch upon in the second half of your post where intangibles such as beauty, form or as Einstein called it, 'essence', where science is seemingly unable to explain it, I'm not surprised it can't because these are all philosophical considerations and not really within the remit of science"
I'm interested to know how you define the philosophical considerations you describe as distinct from the philosophical considerations that could be proffered by ancient systems of belief that by and large contain a heavy dose of philosophy anyway. (and by that i mean belief systems the world over).
"Science is at odds with religion in many ways, things like the age of the earth, some bible-bashers would have us believe it is something like 4000 years old whereas science tells us it is approx 4.5 billion years old.
The bible tells us god created all the animals etc and yet Darwin's, science would suggest we evolved from single cell organisms.
There are a myriad of problem areas when it comes to reconciling the Bible with science and I'm afraid lining up the aforesaid dignitaries does nothing to offset the problems I just mentioned mate."
I could'nt agree more,Pete.But as i've continually stated i am not taking a christian-centric stance.I looked back through my posts and i have not made a single reference to the Bible, when i was referring to "belief systems" or "religion" unless otherwise stated i was referring to religions/belief systems very much in general,as i'm pretty sure you were,but then your arguments seemed to centre around christianity, in the main.
Anyway,i'm gonna kick back and get some beauty sleep,i need as much as i can get.I'm not as pretty as you.
Peace.
Chris
*footnote:
1re·li·gious
Pronunciation:
\ri-ˈli-jəs\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French religius, from Latin religiosus, from religio
Date:
13th century
1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances <joined a religious order>
3 a: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful
— re·li·gious·ly adverb
— re·li·gious·ness noun
