User:Filll/Thinkingreligion

book about religion built-in to humans

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/22/magazine/22wwln_q4.html?ex=1295586000&en=f98fddb663a39246&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

Design book

Owen Gingerich, an astronomer, Harvard prof, and theist, called "God's Universe"
Fine-tuned universe

Miller's book with interesting reviews

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0060930497/ref=cm_rev_next/102-1682113-6932129?ie=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=%2BOverallRating&n=283155&s=books&customer-reviews.start=11

Thinking approach to religion

Natural theology

naturalism was traditionally reading Gods works

book of bible
book of nature

Science is not about looking for truth, but seeking efficient explanations parsimonious that predict the facts (data)

atheism is religion evolutio is religion science is religion

again an abuse of the word religion a semantic problem

like evolution is just a theory

symbol: ichthys with light bulb over it

galileo refuse to believe god gave us reason and did not expect us to use it

talents parable

And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. — John 8:32 (KJV)

Nature and nature's laws lay hid in night;

God said "Let Newton be" and all was light.

Pythagoras and music of the spheres.

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." --- Martin Luther As cited in Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life, by Sissela Bok, Pantheon Books, New York, 1978. The full citation given in Bok's book is: Martin Luther cited by his secretary, in a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel Landgraf Phillips des Grossmuthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, vol. 1.

evolution is not incompatible with religion

Michael Shermer argued in Scientific American in October 2006 that evolution supports concepts like family values, avoiding lies, fidelity, moral codes and the rule of law.^[1]^[2]

Problems with inerrancy

big list including two creations

copied from other origin myths

Scientific method

Facts data observations evidence theories hypotheses corollaries lemma axioms predictions laws 2 definitions of scientific fact

People

history

scolastics

pope truth does not contradict truth

galileo

mamonides

Newton

Pascal

einsten

quotes:

knowing gods thoughts

god must be a mathematician

dawkins quote in favor of fundamental constants

did god have a choice

einstein

Trouble with blind faith

list of evangelicals with scandals do you want to be associated with these?

put themselves in a negative light rise in atheism drop in fraction of christian believers

encourage radical elements dangerous

correlation of belief with social ills study

repeating same arguments rejected years ago open themselves up to ridicule hypocrisy of haggard etc

faith is weak because they want scientific evidence

insistence of supernatural is dangerous to science

like cheating on math homework

creationism, ID

"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science." --Rev. George Coyne, Vatican chief astronomer.

attack on big bang although big bang was done by RC priest, heralded by pope

darwin trained in theology

Brains are set up

optical illusions

auditory illusions

night terrors

psychoses

lucid dreams, trouble distinguishing between dream and sleep

brains are set up for tribal conflict examples from chemistry at mit little liberal arts school down the street calgary edmonton boston new york get all you want right here LA SF

Houston dallas

tuned for religion?

Tuned to see the universe this way?

training in chinese leads to perfect pitch? Dec 06 radiolab, infinite mind

women's brains different

glossolalia like tourettes?

cou cul coup queue

ken reagan french

chinese sounds we cannot distinguish

Dog speaking

trying to speak to porpoises and dolphins

mathematics and the universe

descartes proof of god in russian court symmetry

time's arrow

noether

time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana equations invariant under time reversal but do not explain entropy

hilbert formulation of general relativity

optimality principles

Conflict between religion and science

truth cannot contradict truth: pope scholastics resolving conflicts acquinas mamoneides

simple minded creationist rejection christian scientist and others rejection of medicine allopathic medicine not other types (osteopathic, homeopathic, chiropractic etc)

magi were scientists

use of galen etc hero in temples to inspire awe

holy observatories for astrology in meso america, priesthood

no reason to divorce these two traditions

except to enrich charlatans like hovind and ham

Places for a deity

God of the gaps?

unreasonable effectiveness [1] [2] [3] [4]

[5]

anthropic principle [6]

More fruitful directions for creationists to concentrate

abiogenesis
nature of consciousness
balance of physical constants
questions about the role of the observer
work done on whether God had a choice when he created the universe
experiments suggested and ongoing in physics looking for evidence of a creator
the nature of renormalization
the nature of the vacuum
unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics

These and other areas are places where a scientific mechanism has yet to be successful. Attacking science in areas which are reasonably well understood and well supported with evidence is not particularly productive.

What it seems to indicate, is that creationists are not interested in:

finding the truth
working in a constructive manner with others who are trying to probe the mysteries of nature
compiling evidence demonstrating that God might be necessary to explain what is observed
allowing the pursuit of knowledge

but in trying desperately to defend biblical inerrancy. Not the best possible strategy, frankly.

This is especially true since many different sects disagree on what the bible means. To the point of killing each other.

Other

Humans hardwired for belief? So many in so many cultures

experiments in canada with electromagnetism? but not confirmed

tribalism hardwired in?

herd instinct wired in? evidence of herd instinct driving, shopping, museums etc

negative effects of religion over millenia

http://www.thetruthongod.com/

Problems with ID /DI

Scientists including Einstein see evidence of some sort of order in the universe. Some might even try to make analogies between it and some sort of Deity, as Maimonides did when he made the identification of scientific laws with angels. However, this of course might be just the Anthropic principle in action. However, the difficulty arises, as I see it, when this evidence for mathematical structure and balance (see The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences for example) is extrapolated to use to attack evolution. As near as I can tell, evolution is just a continuation of the same physical laws and order that others are using to justify the existence of Design. The DI argument however, tries to take reasoning and facts that SUPPORT evolution as part of design, given that they follow or seem to follow from the order and laws in the universe, and try to ATTACK evolution. So they have

evidence of order, which they claim is evidence of a designer in the laws of nature.
evolution follows directly from these laws of nature by standard scientific methods, so might be taken as evidence of a designer
want to claim that evolution is not correct since it violates evidence of a designer.

So I can produce one set of reasoning that argues evolution is evidence of Design. And another set of reasoning (DI reasoning) that argues evolution is not compatible with Design.

Seems to me they are in a bit of a logical quandry.-

Relationship between religion and science

References

^ Darwin on the Right: Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution, Michael Shermer, Scientific American, October 2006.
^ Shermer also suggests that evolution gives more support to the notion of an omnipotent creator, rather than a tinkerer with limitations based on a human model, the more common image subscribed to by creationionists.

[Shermer-1] Darwin on the Right: Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution, Michael Shermer, Scientific American, October 2006.

[2] Shermer also suggests that evolution gives more support to the notion of an omnipotent creator, rather than a tinkerer with limitations based on a human model, the more common image subscribed to by creationionists.

[1]

[2]