-
Posts
-
years ago my chemistry professor deflated my faith by stating that he doubted the existence of God simply because there has never been any evidence of interaction between God and the observable universe.
I wonder about this because science of today seems to be stuck on this and I often think about the idea of spirit dominating mind which dominates matter/energy as well as the idea of The Most Highs rule.
Is a physical system simply the relationship between two objects? How does spirit/mind interface with physical systems. I realize there is more on this in TUB.
life is not so much within the organism as between the organism and the environment so I can reasonably assume there is a directional control superimposed on creation as a whole, spiritual, mental and physical.
can science ever get a glimpse of this interaction?
will science forever only try to interpret reality as relationships between objects?
there is one phenomenon of physical properties that I am surprised that science cannot see as miraculous: Bell’s Theorum and experiments in 1964 proved Einsteins theory of 1935 to be true that a change in the spin of one particle in a two particle system affects its twin simultaneous even if the two are separated by great distance. I suppose it is just one of those properties of matter/energy that should just be accepted because it cannot be explained – yet. I do not think this is miraculous but it does defy our every day experience.
discovering Gods creation is indeed spiritual, mental and physical realities – some day to be unified by persons like us.
just thinking.😊
years ago my chemistry professor deflated my faith by stating that he doubted the existence of God simply because there has never been any evidence of interaction between God and the observable universe.
I remember encountering this same doubting attitude from professors: God’s existence must be scientifically proven before any rational (i.e. non-superstitious) person can really believe that he exists. The modern secular attitude demands nothing less than evidence that God causes things to happen in the world, that he intervenes in and changes the course of the chain of material causation studied by science.
Your reference to John Stewart Bell’s theorem is an extraordinary example of physical events which occur “beyond” or “outside of” the domain of material causation. The now confirmed instantaneous interaction between quantum-scale wave-particles at arbitrarily large distances is an acausal relationship. There is no temporal separation between cause and effect, because they occur at the same instant, which means there is no causal connection between the two events in the classical sense. This is truly astonishing, but physicists are not particularly impressed; they see it as merely another aspect of the acausal nature of the quantum world discovered almost a century ago. And this discovery does not really answer the demand for hard evidence of God’s intervention in the classical chain of material causation.
In recent times those who believe in God have attempted to respond to this demand with the argument of intelligent design: If there is order in the material universe which cannot possibly be the result of mindless causation, we can confidently infer that this material order must have some non-material cause. This would establish a scientific basis from which it would be reasonable to progress to the belief that God supernaturally intervenes in the universe. These arguments are usually based upon the order apparent in living things, their evolution, and the way they go against the law of entropy by becoming more complex over time (instead of breaking down and becoming simpler). These arguments have had a real effect upon secular thinkers. The simplistic Darwinian mechanism of biological evolution as the random outcome of mindless material causation is no longer a fully credible explanation in anyone’s opinion. It is generally recognized that something more must be involved, and secularists have been forced to offer new mechanistic explanations for the evolving complexity of life forms, none of which has gained a general consensus. This is quite similar to the situation in cosmology, where there are currently dozens of competing theories.
You might be interested in some of the papers given at the 2016 Science Symposium sponsored by Urantia Foundation, since its theme was intelligent design. (http://www.urantia.org/urantia-book/study) I would particularly recommend the paper Unicellular Organisms – The Cambrian Explosion – Nano Machines by Dr. Ralph Zehr. The relatively simplistic idea of a living cell of half a century ago has been replaced by an immensely complex, stunningly dynamic, and amazingly coordinated structure which manifests what can only be characterized as purposeful behaviors designed to preserve and reproduce the whole cell. Some excerpts from his Conclusion:
“Our recently acquired ability to analyze living organisms at the molecular level has opened our eyes to myriads of nano-machines that function at unbelievably high speeds, performing precise actions, with astounding accuracy, based on specific instructions, coming from encoded sources stored in chemical libraries, that have reliably preserved and transmitted the mysteries of life from generation to generation for hundreds of millions of years.”
“So many moving parts! Flagella rotating at 100,000 revolutions per minute, ATP synthase motors turning at 8000 RPM, producing ATP molecules at 20,000 per minute, and protein motors carrying cargo at 8 nm per pace at 375 paces per minute.”
“One is reminded of an experience attending a ballet. So much movement but all perfectly synchronized to the music, all coordinated and fine-tuned.”
While everyone must make their own judgment, it seems clear to me that this is conclusive scientific evidence of a dynamically coordinated and unified material order which cannot possibly be the sole result of mindless causation; there must be some non-material cause at work to explain the phenomenon of life. There is a sound scientific basis for believing in the existence of a non-material reality and in its purposeful interaction with material reality.
“At the time of this writing the worst of the materialistic age is over; the day of a better understanding is already beginning to dawn. The higher minds of the scientific world are no longer wholly materialistic in their philosophy, but the rank and file of the people still lean in that direction as a result of former teachings.” (195:6.4)
This was written in 1935 and it appears that the worst of the materialistic age is now ending for some members of the rank and file, as well. This seems like a very positive and encouraging development with respect to the future acceptance of the fifth epochal revelation.
It’s interesting that TUB mentions that a system is at least 3 things that are arranged. I did nor get the feeling that mind was excluded.
Thanks Gene. This topic of intelligent design is of continuing interest for me, since it encompasses what I think is an essential aspect of this epochal revelation. It directly addresses and investigates the ontological differences between spirit, mind, and matter and their respective domains of religion, philosophy, and science.
Jesus’ mission had an essentially religious purpose. This revelation has a religious purpose, as well, but it also has philosophical and scientific purposes. It inaugurates a new dispensation with a new revealed religion, and it also presents a new concept of the origin, history, structure, organization, and destiny of the material universe. The fourth epochal revelation “extends the horizon of revealed religion.” The fifth does, as well, but then goes on to philosophically harmonize this new revealed religion with this new revealed cosmology – “to expand cosmic consciousness and enhance spiritual perception.”
I did nor get the feeling that mind was excluded.
You’re right. There are three levels of reality that respond to cosmic mind-gravity: causation; duty and worship. It is the responsibility of personality to unify all three in regards to the elliptical symmetry of reality and the curvature of all relational concepts (103:6.14). Scientists who insist on linear thinking will always fall short of a cosmic viewpoint.
Scientists who insist on linear thinking will always fall short of a cosmic viewpoint.
You nail it here, I think. But, there does seem to be mounting evidence that some scientists, more particularly physicists, are beginning to become less linear in their thinking. From essential the time of Newton until the 1930s the virtually universal consensus was that we live in a “clockwork universe” that is absolutely governed by the classical law of material cause and effect. If we knew everything about the state of the universe at this moment and all of the laws of physics, we could predict every event going forward because everything is governed by the law of causality. This is a nearly perfect example of linear thinking.
The development of quantum mechanics in the 1930s utterly destroyed this “clockwork universe.” Events occurring on the atomic and subatomic levels simply cannot be described using the classical law of causality. Einstein was utterly baffled by the acausal nature of the quantum world and never accepted its invalidation of the law of causality. The EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) Paradox was formulated in 1935 specifically to disprove the acausal nature of quantum mechanics, which violates the speed limit of light with its virtually instantaneous interactions. Half a century later, Einstein was proven wrong with an experiment conducted by Alain Aspect.
No physicist doubts that quantum mechanics works, but no physicist claims to understand why it works. The scientific pretension of being able to potentially explain everything by cause and effect has been disproven on a fundamental level. Science has been humbled by the discovery of an apparently acausal reality underlying the macro world. As a result, some scientists are no longer so absolutely linear in their thinking.
years ago my chemistry professor deflated my faith by stating that he doubted the existence of God simply because there has never been any evidence of interaction between God and the observable universe.
Imagine your chemistry professor or anyone for that matter face to face in a mortal combat zone of war where buildings are crumbling in front and in back and the person beside him has just been hit and died. There are no atheists in foxholes. If the scientists who doubt the existence of God got some experience in the foxholes, they might obtain a different point of view. I submit that one reason that scientists and others as well doubt the existence of God might be because they lack in extremis experience. A crisis situation isn’t necessary to find God. But crisis or no crisis, God is knock, knock, knocking at the door of every heart of every person every second, every nano-second, of every day and every night of every scientist and every non-scientist on the planet.
166:3.7 [. . .] it remains eternally true: “Behold, I stand at the doors of men’s hearts and knock, and if any man will open to me, I will come in and sup with him and will feed him with the bread of life; we shall be one in spirit and purpose, and so shall we ever be brethren in the long and fruitful service of the search for the Paradise Father.” And so, whether few or many are to be saved altogether depends on whether few or many will heed the invitation: “I am the door, I am the new and living way, and whosoever wills may enter to embark upon the endless truth-search for eternal life.”
.
111:6.6 Science is the source of facts, and mind cannot operate without facts. They are the building blocks in the construction of wisdom which are cemented together by life experience. Man can find the love of God without facts, and man can discover the laws of God without love, but man can never begin to appreciate the infinite symmetry, the supernal harmony, the exquisite repleteness of the all-inclusive nature of the First Source and Center until he has found divine law and divine love and has experientially unified these in his own evolving cosmic philosophy.
.
It seems to me the doubting scientist would best spiritually shout eureka! to have found God within his soul, than to look to his science for soul-satisfying evidence.
Mara you sound like a Vet. I know that feeling.
the fact is that God is in us and we really can’t get rid of him. Maybe ignore him until we experience a crisis or until our precious scientific method fails to explain something.
As a result, some scientists are no longer so absolutely linear in their thinking.
And that is obviously a good think as long as they take the cosmic view which includes both philosophy (wisdom) and religion (truth). The curvature of all relational concepts must tie together all levels of reality, but I think there is something within the scientific mind that resists allowing all relational concepts equal consideration. Some are reflexively ignored or considered beyond belief. I blame it on narrow-minded educators. I have a real bone to pick with education as it is today . . . a pet bugaboo.
I think there is something within the scientific mind that resists allowing all relational concepts equal consideration. Some are reflexively ignored or considered beyond belief.
There certainly is. Science as we now know it was the creation of such intensely religious men as Newton, Galileo, and Kepler, who consciously set out to discover the natural laws laid down by God. They saw no inherent conflict between science and religion, between the concept of the First Cause and God the Father (or the First Source and Center and the Universal Father presented by revelation.) What causes the modern mind to reflexively ignore and dismiss religious belief, as you point out, are the twin doctrines of materialism and secularism.
Materialism denies God, secularism simply ignores him; at least that was the earlier attitude. More recently, secularism has assumed a more militant attitude, assuming to take the place of the religion whose totalitarian bondage it onetime resisted. (195:8.5)
I think it’s fair to say that it is not science but these false beliefs, these pseudo-religions, which are the true enemies of religion.
Mara you sound like a Vet. I know that feeling.
I am not a vet, yet I do know that feeling. Others who are not vets know that feeling too.
I do not blame education. Education varies widely across our world. It is not a panacea. Some education is and some educators are very strict and narrow; some very liberal and open minded.
5:5.13 Eternal survival of personality is wholly dependent on the choosing of the mortal mind, whose decisions determine the survival potential of the immortal soul. When the mind believes God and the soul knows God, and when, with the fostering Adjuster, they all desire God, then is survival assured. Limitations of intellect, curtailment of education, deprivation of culture, impoverishment of social status, even inferiority of the human standards of morality resulting from the unfortunate lack of educational, cultural, and social advantages, cannot invalidate the presence of the divine spirit in such unfortunate and humanly handicapped but believing individuals. The indwelling of the Mystery Monitor constitutes the inception and insures the possibility of the potential of growth and survival of the immortal soul.I think there is something within the scientific mind that resists allowing all relational concepts equal consideration. Some are reflexively ignored or considered beyond belief.
There certainly is. Science as we now know it was the creation of such intensely religious men as Newton, Galileo, and Kepler, who consciously set out to discover the natural laws laid down by God. They saw no inherent conflict between science and religion, between the concept of the First Cause and God the Father (or the First Source and Center and the Universal Father presented by revelation.) What causes the modern mind to reflexively ignore and dismiss religious belief, as you point out, are the twin doctrines of materialism and secularism.
Materialism denies God, secularism simply ignores him; at least that was the earlier attitude. More recently, secularism has assumed a more militant attitude, assuming to take the place of the religion whose totalitarian bondage it onetime resisted. (195:8.5) I think it’s fair to say that it is not science but these false beliefs, these pseudo-religions, which are the true enemies of religion.
the good news is that false beliefs if not an end in themselves will evolve
take for example the Aristotle/Ptolemaic concept of earth as the center of the universe with hell below and paradise beyond the stars. Isn’t this sort out of a early science religion philosophy thing??
It took a long time to change and Catholics put scripture to it centuries ago to help it stay alive. Some of it even inspired writers like Dante who’s graphic description of hell lingers somewhat today by preachers of hellfire and brimstone.
Thank God for revelation.
the good news is that false beliefs if not an end in themselves will evolve
I’m not sure this is necessarily true in the modern case. Modernity is unique in its expulsion of God from the universe, unlike the Aristotle/Ptolemaic or medieval (Dante-an) Christian concept of the universe. I suspect that the pseudo-religions of materialism and secularism cannot evolve, because they either deny or seek to replace God. By doing so, they reject the reality of truth. I think they are self-glorified as “ends in themselves.” This is very apparent in the way they both assert they are absolutely true without offering any real proof, while at the same time asserting that truth is always relative and denying the existence of anything like absolute truth. Those who deny the reality of truth will not/cannot recognize it when it appears and, therefore, can never progressively evolve away from error and toward the truth.
George Park wrote: I think it’s fair to say that it is not science but these false beliefs, these pseudo-religions, which are the true enemies of religion.Secularism has become a religion, don’t you think?
I don’t know why it’s so hard for people to understand that God is not exclusive to organized religion. Secularism is supposedly a reaction against the totalitarianism of organized religion. Why people can’t accept the notion that God lives regardless of the destruction of all religions, is beyond me. It’s never made any sense. When I talk to most people about God, I have to spend a fair amount of time explaining that the God I believe in is not a part of any man-made religion on earth, but rather transcends all religions. So, organized religion gets the boot and God has to go with it? When I ask why, most people just stare blankly. It’s like they never thought of the possibility that God can live without a religion. Even some TUB-reading folks can’t accept that idea.
What do you think of this quote:
195:8.10 Without God, without religion, scientific secularism can never co-ordinate its forces, harmonize its divergent and rivalrous interests, races, and nationalisms. This secularistic human society, notwithstanding its unparalleled materialistic achievement, is slowly disintegrating. The chief cohesive force resisting this disintegration of antagonism is nationalism. And nationalism is the chief barrier to world peace.
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.