Science... take yer pick

[Mark A Becker]

Science must have faith
in order to discover
what God has in mind.


If science has faith
we may some day discover
what God has in mind.

[tectak]

If science has faith
we may some day discover
what God has in mind

Neat thought Mark but optimistically anachronistic...If science has faith we may someday discover what God had in mind.

[Mark A Becker]

Hey Tom-

I did actually think (fairly hard) about the tense issue.

To me, "had in mind" implies, that all is pre-determined.  

Since I am not a die-hard determinist/reductionist/materialist, I prefer the present tense "has in mind", thus indicating an on-going process.

Since I also believe that God exists outside of space/time, I think that past/present, had/has only applies to us silly humans.

Honestly, what do I really know anywho?
.... Mark

[Magpie]

Hi Mark, 

I'll stay out of the 'tense chronology' debate for the moment and say that perhaps it would be best to change the title simply because of the fact of Rudyard Kipling's similarly titled poem albeit without the ellipsis.

I am enjoying the fact that your poem swivels at so many points and offers up a number of different intriguing possibilities, which is a good thing for a short poem.

Thanks for the read,

Mark 

[Mark A Becker]

Hello namesake-

Changed title to avoid any concerns.

Also made internal changes to this simple 5-7-5 piece.

Thanks Mark.




quote='ambrosial revelation' pid='195470' dateline='1439478600']
Hi Mark, 

I'll stay out of the 'tense chronology' debate for the moment and say that perhaps it would be best to change the title simply because of the fact of Rudyard Kipling's similarly titled poem albeit without the ellipsis.

I am enjoying the fact that your poem swivels at so many points and offers up a number of different intriguing possibilities, which is a good thing for a short poem.

Thanks for the read,

Mark 
[/quote]

[rayheinrich]

... Also made internal changes to this simple 5-7-5 piece. ...

5-7-5 ? No, no, I won't go there (I promised myself I wouldn't go there). Uh, ask billy.

I like both of these:

"Science must have faith
in order to discover
what God Has in mind."

"If science has faith
we may some day discover
what God has in mind"

They carry quite different meanings.
Versa viceing the first amuses me:

"God must have faith
in order to discover
what science has in mind."

Though, truth be told, god probably uses the scientific method.



P.S.
A scientist friend of mine -- I repair scientific instrumentation and meet a lot of them --
thinks there's a high probability that god exists. "Science explores the universe, whether created or
arbitrary", she says. "Each bit of knowledge obtained through science exposes many more bits of the
unknown. Any estimates of the probability of god's existence, assuming god is unknowable, must
necessarily expand as well. And if god is knowable? I'm working on the grant application right now."

Another quote from her:
"Both science and god have a fractal morphology.  When seen from the outside, they seem unknowably
complex; when seen from the inside, we come to realize we're still on the outside."

[Mark A Becker]

Hey Ray-

The two do have their differences so I'm leaving both up as a "take yer pick" kind of option. That said, the common thread between them is my belief in God and science, as I cannot see the two as separable or mutually exclusive.

I am intrigued by many of the ideas behind "The God Theory" by astrophysicist Bernard Haisch. You may want to give it a read, as your PS seems to carry many similar sentiments. And thanks for that PS, as it added a lot for me.

... Mark

[rayheinrich]

Hey Ray-

The two do have their differences so I'm leaving both up as a "take yer pick" kind of option.  That said, the common thread between them is my belief in God and science, as I cannot see the two as separable or mutually exclusive.

I am intrigued by many of the ideas behind "The God Theory" by astrophysicist Bernard Haisch.  You may want to give it a read, as your PS seems to carry many similar sentiments.  And thanks for that PS, as it added a lot for me.

... Mark

I asked my wife* about Haish's book. Her opinion is that it's a compendium
of restatements, but should not necessarily be faulted as earnest attempts
to popularize these subjects are educational. (I'm not sure what she meant
by "educational" as the woman is chockfull of irony.) Her major objection was
to how the definition of "purpose" kept shifting to whatever was convenient
to the argument at hand. But then she thinks gods**/purposes/meanings-of-life
are artifacts of society, of social animals; that honey-bees probably have them
as well (but I don't think she meant to demean honey-bees by the comparison).
A honey-bee god... I guessed the sun; she said it was probably flowers.
(As I've never read the book, these are her opinions, not mine.)
- ray


*She started out majoring in religion (history of, comparative, something like that),
but switched to philosophy and history (double-major). Luckily for her, she married
an electronic technician who could make enough money to support her intellectual
hobbies (she was the one that called them that, not me).

**I remember talking with her about gods (or God for that matter). She said she was
interested in people's beliefs/interaction with them; whether they existed or not
wasn't that interesting and that gods probably felt the same way about us.

[Mark A Becker]

Yeah Ray-

The science/faith debate is a very interesting side discussion, and I understand your wife's meaning of "educational" in this regard.

There is a whole lot more to know, and neither "side" seems compelled to take a truly "educational" approach to what should be a topic of prime importance.

My own take is that "extremists" on either side of the fence get skewed amounts of attention, almost insuring that polarized viewpoints become the norm instead of the fringe.

Anywho, I spend a lot of time thinking, reading, and hopefully learning.... My main area of interest being "consciousness", which is infinitely fascinating... Once again, I digress woefully, and I will try harder to stick to the forum topic...

...Mark

[rayheinrich]

While I think that we're still on-topic, considering the profound simplicity of your poem,
a mod may think that it belongs in 'general discussion'. Either way is fine by me.
But assuming the first possibility, I'll continue here.

While my wife considers the subject uninteresting, I think it is. I found some abstracts of
his book on the web, and with only this knowledge, I'll continue to babble on.

From Google I get the estimate that a woman of reproductive age has about 300,000 eggs
available and that a man ejaculates about 280 million sperm. So the chances of my being
here are about 1 in 8.4×10 to the 13th.

If my mom had had in-vitro fertilization, my chances of being here would be 1 in 1. (I know this
assumes a precision that is not yet available, but for the purposes of this argument let's assume
it will be at some future date.)

Assuming my mom or dad didn't tell me, from where I sit right now, I have no way of knowing by
which route I arrived here.

So, skipping to the universe: I have no way of telling, no matter how organized it may seem,
which way it arrived here as well. What I'm looking at could have been created intentionally by
a god, or it could have been random chance.

And that's the problem I have, considering my meager knowledge of the book, with its arguments.

-------------------

And thinking about an omniscient god: Being omniscient, he knows every single action he will ever
take in the future. He also knows every single action, we, his creations, will take as well.  This implies,
at least from the moment of creation, that he has no free will. This also implies that his creations,
since he is aware of every action that they will take, have no free will as well.

Gods aside,  I can't see any logical support for the existence of free will (google "wiki free will" for an
extensive article on this subject). I, personally, agree with Niels Bohr (a major contributor to the formulation
of quantum theory): While the future can not be determined because (as quantum mechanics suggests)
it follows a random path; as long as this path is a single one (and there is nothing discovered as yet
that precludes this), the existence of free will is an impossibility.

This doesn't bother me a whole lot because I happen to love movies. In a movie I know that every
action I see on the screen has been previously determined. Nonetheless I'm stilled thrilled by them because I have no idea what these actions will be.

Life is a movie.

-ray

P.S.

...My main area of interest being "consciousness", which is infinitely fascinating...

Yes, how can consciousness possibly exist?
That question has my vote for the most difficult damn question that has ever been formulated.
While I'd love to see it resolved before I die, there are some indications that it's like
something out of a Douglas Adams (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) book*. Namely:
The ability to find an answer to this question lies beyond the capacity of our brain.

Google "The hard problem of consciousness" if the fit strikes you.
I thought their article on it was very interesting.


* So we build this immense computer.
After grinding its quantum-electronic gears for a long while
it says: "I've got good news and bad news."

"What's the good news?", we say.

"I've found the answer."

"What's the bad news?"

"Given the current capabilities of your brains,
    it's impossible for you to understand it."

[Mark A Becker]

Ah yes Ray, consider this my friend, as I bend your words to fit my ears:

Life is a movie and God
is the light 
behind the scenes.

The pure, white light... the light at freqs our eyes can't see.  BUT, of course, we can see certain freqs of light, and thus we are in effect already "seeing" God at the fringes of our sensory understanding.  As far as our eyes are concerned, life is just a movie.  So, let there be light.  

And yes, the eternal consciousness--  with the weight of an idea.  I cannot relate to consciousness anymore as emergent, precisely due to the "hard problem" that you point out.  I am wearing myself out researching consciousness, and trying my best to maintain an open mind:  I 99% agree with you that this "hard problem" is the most vexing of them all. 

I may (happily) spend the rest of my life pondering such things...  The really, really hard part is maintaining an open mind, and that is why I must always allow slightly less than 100% agreement to any fact, faith, or fiction.

And so Ray, I end with a new saying I've developed:
"I won't let anything drive me crazy, because I'm close enough to walk." 
 

   

   

[rayheinrich]

Ah yes Ray, consider this my friend, as I bend your words to fit my ears:

Life is a movie and God
is the light
behind the scenes.

The pure, white light... the light at freqs our eyes can't see.  BUT, of course, we can see certain freqs of light, and thus we are in effect already "seeing" God at the fringes of our sensory understanding.  As far as our eyes are concerned, life is just a movie.  So, let there be light.

God is a movie
and we
the projectionists

and while the light of our xenon arc lamp
is pure
the lens of our consciousness
is chromatically aberrated

And yes, the eternal consciousness--  with the weight of an idea.  I cannot relate to consciousness anymore as emergent, precisely due to the "hard problem" that you point out.  I am wearing myself out researching consciousness, and trying my best to maintain an open mind:  I 99% agree with you that this "hard problem" is the most vexing of them all. {/quote]

I may (happily) spend the rest of my life pondering such things...  The really, really hard part is maintaining an open mind, and that is why I must always allow slightly less than 100% agreement to any fact, faith, or fiction.

A wise precaution.
I limit my agreements to 49%.
When accused of being an intellectual capitalist, I remark on the weather.

And so Ray, I end with a new saying I've developed:
"I won't let anything drive me crazy, because I'm close enough to walk."

    "You can never step into the same superhighway twice."