A Theology Question

[Tinkerpeach]

So none of us should bother to analyze or question the received knowledge?

I'm not dissing Einstein (although that is what you will take away from this), but rather that Einstein is not God. While he was very good with his specialty of Relativity he was not the greatest mathematician, he failed to grasp Quantum and he wasn't perfection.

If someone disagrees with Einstein on philosophy it seem perfectly reasonable.

Einstein said it’s impossible to go faster than the speed of light yet things do, we’ve proven it

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Einstein said it’s impossible to go faster than the speed of light yet things do, we’ve proven it

Link?

 

[Cypress]

Einstein said it’s impossible to go faster than the speed of light yet things do, we’ve proven it

Relativity says matter and energy can't exceed the speed of light, c.

The expansion of the universe very far away from us is receding away from us faster than c, because empty space isn't subject to c.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Relativity says matter and energy can't exceed the speed of light, c.

The expansion of the universe very far away from us is receding away from us faster than c, because empty space isn't subject to c.

You should have asked her to graph it.

 

[Cypress]

I was making a comment on YOUR apparent position that Einstein is somehow someone I am required to accept as an authority on this topic. I merely pointed out that I disagree with that position.

I'm not responsible for your assumptions. You don't have to accept any ideas of Einstein

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I'm not responsible for your assumptions. You don't have to accept any ideas of Einstein

I am curious why you invoked Einstein if Einstein had nothing to do with your suggestion that we need to be careful of how far we extend science in answering these questions.

Most people, when they invoke an authority, feel that the authority is making that point or they feel the authority is somehow controlling of the conversation.

I guess you just randomly invoke authorities and then make unrelated points? If that's the case then clearly I only disagree with you.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with using scientific techniques to address these questions.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I'm not responsible for your assumptions. You don't have to accept any ideas of Einstein

I am curious why you invoked Einstein if Einstein had nothing to do with your suggestion that we need to be careful of how far we extend science in answering these questions.

Most people, when they invoke an authority, feel that the authority is making that point or they feel the authority is somehow controlling of the conversation.

I guess you just randomly invoke authorities and then make unrelated points? If that's the case then clearly I only disagree with you.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with using scientific techniques to address these questions.

Since you like pictures so much, Perry.

 

[Cypress]

I am curious why you invoked Einstein if Einstein had nothing to do with your suggestion that we need to be careful of how far we extend science in answering these questions.

Most people, when they invoke an authority, feel that the authority is making that point or they feel the authority is somehow controlling of the conversation.

I guess you just randomly invoke authorities and then make unrelated points? If that's the case then clearly I only disagree with you.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with using scientific techniques to address these questions.

I think the ideas of brilliant people are worth thinking about, maybe even discussing.

If you think every question mankind has ever pondered can be answered by an equation or graph, that's up to you.

I myself tend to be a little humble about the reach and limits of science, and am highly skeptical that our primate brains are capable of achieving omniscience.

 

[Cypress]

You should have asked her to graph it.

E = mc[SUP]2[/SUP] should be easy to graph : )

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I think the ideas of brilliant people are worth thinking about, maybe even discussing.

As do I.

If you think every question mankind has ever pondered can be answered by an equation or graph, that's up to you.

I don't think it can be answered by a graph. Nor have I said any such thing. I think it CAN be answered by analysis of information using the tools of science: inference, analysis, observation, etc.

I myself tend to be a little humble about the reach and limits of science, and am highly skeptical that our primate brains are capable of achieving omniscience.

So what do YOU use to approach these big questions?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I think the ideas of brilliant people are worth thinking about, maybe even discussing.

If you think every question mankind has ever pondered can be answered by an equation or graph, that's up to you.

I myself tend to be a little humble about the reach and limits of science, and am highly skeptical that our primate brains are capable of achieving omniscience.

Agreed. While the width and breadth of human knowledge continues to expand, it’s outward, not inward. Religions change, societies evolve, but the human beings themselves have remained relatively the same for the past 30,000+ years. Both logically and illogically/irrationally/emotionally.

Science and faith do not mix and anyone who thinks they can do so with their home chemistry set is an idiot and/or irrational.

 

[Cypress]

So what do YOU use to approach these big questions?

I'm agnostic about the questions broached herein. I don't know of anyone on the planet who has an approach to determine where the natural laws and cosmic mathmatical scaffolding came from.

Asking the right questions is often more important than getting the right answers. That is my approach.

The right questions can give one a new perspective, can inspire one to see things in a different light; to open the mind.

Great questions are teachers just like great answers are.

I guarantee you there are people on this board, even on this thread that never questioned why there is a rational mathmatical order and where it comes from. A lot of people just assume "that's just the way it is" and that's just the way it's meant to be, without probing any deeper.

 

[Cypress]

Agreed. While the width and breadth of human knowledge continues to expand, it’s outward, not inward. Religions change, societies evolve, but the human beings themselves have remained relatively the same for the past 30,000+ years. Both logically and illogically/irrationally/emotionally.

Science and faith do not mix and anyone who thinks they can do so with their home chemistry set is an idiot and/or irrational.

cheers

The 18th Enlightenment project faltered to some extent because people realized that rational order was not really a viable model for human experience, because it disregards or downplays creativity, imagination, intuition

 

[Dutch Uncle]

cheers

The 18th Enlightenment project faltered to some extent because people realized that rational order was not really a viable model for human experience, because it disregards or downplays creativity, imagination, intuition

Didn’t Asian philosophy address this as recognizing Yin-Yang? The two halves make the whole?

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I'm agnostic about the questions broached herein. I don't know of anyone on the planet who has an approach to determine where the natural laws and cosmic mathmatical scaffolding came from.

Asking the right questions is often more important than getting the right answers. That is my approach.

The right questions can give one a new perspective, can inspire one to see things in a different light; to open the mind.

Great questions are teachers just like great answers are.

I guarantee you there are people on this board, even on this thread that never questioned why there is a rational mathmatical order and where it comes from. A lot of people just assume "that's just the way it is" and that's just the way it's meant to be, without probing any deeper.

So you lack knowledge about the questions but you feel they can be approached by great questions.

Interesting approach. Sounds like developing an hypothesis. Very scientific. The questions are a start, but not a methodology.

 

[Cypress]

Didn’t Asian philosophy address this as recognizing Yin-Yang? The two halves make the whole?

I'm no expert on it, but the origin, ground zero, is supposed to be the Tao, and the two energies of ying and yang flow from it, ultimately leading to the myriad of energies and matter.


I was thinking that it's easy for some to point and laugh at the God of the Hebrews in the OT. And there is a lot of preposterous myth in it.

But when you cut right down to the basics, the sense of there being a moment of creation, and humans being the last in a series of creative acts, is actually pretty good intuition, as is the concept that envy and greed are the source of all evil, and justice is supposed to be on the side of the poor and oppressed.


It's fun though to get a holy roller to explain how Noah got all those animals on the boat!

 

[Cypress]

So you lack knowledge about the questions but you feel they can be approached by great questions.

Interesting approach. Sounds like developing an hypothesis. Very scientific. The questions are a start, but not a methodology.

I wasn't aware Socrates considered himself a scientist. I doubt that he did. He famously spent his life asking questions for which he did not know the answers

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I wasn't aware Socrates considered himself a scientist. I doubt that he did. He famously spent his life asking questions for which he did not know the answers

What a strange thing to say. Science utilizes inference, logic, mathematics, observation and countless other things. SURELY you are familiar with the fact that scientists used to be called "natural philosophers"?

Perhaps you can tell me just ONE non-scientific tool you used to address these deeper questions.

(I am also fascinated at your reluctance now to even think about any answers to these questions. You seem to just be excited to ASK them. I see little reason to ask a question for the mere pleasure of making oneself feel "intellectual". Asking the question is the first step, not the destination. If the question has no answer that's fine, but it isn't asked with the sole intent of asking without some insight generated from it).

 

[BidenPresident]

What a strange thing to say. Science utilizes inference, logic, mathematics, observation and countless other things. SURELY you are familiar with the fact that scientists used to be called "natural philosophers"?

Perhaps you can tell me just ONE non-scientific tool you used to address these deeper questions.

Science only investigates that which it considers to be physical.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I'm no expert on it, but the origin, ground zero, is supposed to be the Tao, and the two energies of ying and yang flow from it, ultimately leading to the myriad of energies and matter.

I was thinking that it's easy for some to point and laugh at the God of the Hebrews in the OT. And there is a lot of preposterous myth in it.

But when you cut right down to the basics, the sense of there being a moment of creation, and humans being the last in a series of creative acts, is actually pretty good intuition, as is the concept that envy and greed are the source of all evil, and justice is supposed to be on the side of the poor and oppressed.

It's fun though to get a holy roller to explain how Noah got all those animals on the boat!

Recognizing the dichotomy of the Universe seems to be a common spiritual observation. Views about the width and breadth of that dichotomy is a matter of debate.

Compassionate human beings help the human species survive more often than not. I think it’s in our nature to care about other people, but a lot of that may be cultural indoctrination.

Biblical literalists are usually not too bright and/or sane, IMO.

A lot of ancient myths are more apocryphal or parable than historical.