Science, soul and free will
- Thread starter s_lone
- Start date
It is, however, possible to show that even if strict determinism is true, which essentially means there can be no uncaused events, there can still be unpredictable events, even given perfect knowledge and unlimited calculating power.
Dexter, how? If we can analyze everything, we can predict everything, can there still be unpredictable events? I suppose it is possible, but I don’t see how we can prove it a priori, without having the tools to analyze everything.
That really is the question, isn’t it? Is randomness inherent in the universe or is what we consider randomness just something that we don’t have the tools to analyze?
That is a very difficult, profound question and I don’t have the answer (and I suspect neither dos anybody else).
Dexter, how? If we can analyze everything, we can predict everything, can there still be unpredictable events? I suppose it is possible, but I don’t see how we can prove it a priori, without having the tools to analyze everything.
That really is the question, isn’t it? Is randomness inherent in the universe or is what we consider randomness just something that we don’t have the tools to analyze?
That is a very difficult, profound question and I don’t have the answer (and I suspect neither dos anybody else).
but he favours a broadening our narrow concept of reason and its application to include philosophical and theological experiences
Coldstream, I don’t think science will ever accept philosophy or theology into its fold, nor should it.
If presence of God is accepted in science, that creates a ‘God’ short cut to every scientific question. For instance, how does photosynthesis occur? One could give a detailed explanation, involving biochemical reactions, conversion of CO2 into sugars and cellulose etc. Or one could simply say that God does it. If presence of God is accepted in science, both explanations would be equally valid. In a high school exam, you will have to give full marks to both explanations.
Same goes for almost every scientific phenomena. How does thunder, lightening occur? One could give a detailed explanation involving meteorology, physics etc., or one could simply say that God causes thunder and lightening. There would be a ‘God’ short cut everywhere.
I don’t see science ever accepting the concept of God. Concept of God is meaningless as far as science is concerned.
Coldstream, I don’t think science will ever accept philosophy or theology into its fold, nor should it.
If presence of God is accepted in science, that creates a ‘God’ short cut to every scientific question. For instance, how does photosynthesis occur? One could give a detailed explanation, involving biochemical reactions, conversion of CO2 into sugars and cellulose etc. Or one could simply say that God does it. If presence of God is accepted in science, both explanations would be equally valid. In a high school exam, you will have to give full marks to both explanations.
Same goes for almost every scientific phenomena. How does thunder, lightening occur? One could give a detailed explanation involving meteorology, physics etc., or one could simply say that God causes thunder and lightening. There would be a ‘God’ short cut everywhere.
I don’t see science ever accepting the concept of God. Concept of God is meaningless as far as science is concerned.
I disagree.
"Where would you like to eat dinner?" is not a rational or scientific question either. But nobody has an aversion to such a question. There is no such "western" aversion to things which are not rational. There certainly is an aversion to asserting unnecessary causes.
When I see or hear Ratzinger, all I can think of is the Spanish inquisition. John Paul was a much nicer pope. Note, that under Ratzinger's definition of science, physics isn't, what with it's effective field theories and lack of direct detection of gravitational waves. Heck, even at the time of Maxwell, electricity and magnetism was only an effective theory.
"The apparent dichotomy is a semantic error." That's satisfying to me.
"But when all these 'influencing' and 'controlling' factors are considered, is there any room left for the exercise of one's own freedom? Can one truly choose? Or is free choice, ultimately, a myth and/or an illusion?"
And there's my question/thoughts a few paragraphs down the front page from Dexters first link.
"The word "free" complicates matters and creates much of the confusion. Appropriately used, the word "free" refers to "freedom from coercion" -- a political usage of the term. Inappropriately used, as in the "free will" debate, it implies that causality is coercion. And not just sometimes, but always. "
and from the second link
"But when all these 'influencing' and 'controlling' factors are considered, is there any room left for the exercise of one's own freedom? Can one truly choose? Or is free choice, ultimately, a myth and/or an illusion?"
And there's my question/thoughts a few paragraphs down the front page from Dexters first link.
"The word "free" complicates matters and creates much of the confusion. Appropriately used, the word "free" refers to "freedom from coercion" -- a political usage of the term. Inappropriately used, as in the "free will" debate, it implies that causality is coercion. And not just sometimes, but always. "
and from the second link
Last edited:
Of course science is limited. It cannot begin to describe the unknown or the matters with very little data. As data is accumulated, people can begin to hypothesize and experiment. Leaping to conclusions without any data is simply baseless speculation. ANYONE can do that and don't need to be a scholar. That's how gods and demons came about in the first place was human inability to be able to explain stuff.
"Ugh. Look. Bright light in pile of sticks. Me go see. OW!! It hot. Must be heat god somewhere near."
Of course he'd base his opinion from a theological perspective otherwise he'd be discounting the very thing which gives him a job. lol
Philosophy definitely has a place as well as theology. Humans wonder about stuff and wants to explore their own nature and the nature of the universe. Theology is a very narrow field and is much like mythology. Its basis was humans attempting to explain stuff, just like science does today. The problem is, science is doing a lot better job and keeps investigating. Theology stops investigating after the words, "It's God's will", at least until science takes it farther, then there is a mad scramble to make religion congruous with what science had uncovered.
I don't dismiss his remarks and I can't say if he's a bright fellow or not as I don't know him. But I can appreciate that he's put a lot of thought into his opinions.
Definitely. The more preconceptions and whatnot we have concerning things, the less free thought we can exercise. That's one of the neatest things about kids. They haven't developed notions about everything so they are the most excellent scientists (except for things that scare them like monsters under the bed. They tend not to be willing to investigate things like that). lol
That's how things have gone, so far.
Sorry, but for science to be able to do what you say it does, it would first have to have an idea of what this god thing is. Otherwise it is simply an unknown for which there is no data as of yet. The unknown is NOT meaningless as far as science is concerned, otherwise there would be no sciences investigating the philosophies of religions and there effects.
lol That stuff gives you a headache. It makes my head spin. I get into that and lose all sense of direction and promptly start thinking I should go get a masters in philosophy or something. lol
You were doing pretty well until this, and all that followed, Anna. Theology is the 'science of God' and therefor has no limits. It investigates all of creation, in relation to God. And science can't explain the most essential questions of our existence, our origins, our purpose, our destiny. It can't explain the origin of the natural laws that it is dedicated to illuminating and utilizing.
Theology and mythology are completely different, really opposite, disciplines. Mythology is an anthropological 'social science' that attempts to explain supernatural beliefs in terms of material necessities of a society. Theology will have none of that, it's starting point is that there is a God, and the fundamental purpose of human existence is to understand and serve Him.
And real religion, that defined by theology, never attempts to make itself congruous to what science has uncovered. That would be ass-backwards, but it does accept science as an aspect of the ongoing divine revelation to mankind, but subordinates that to the moral laws that God, which are determined from other sources than science.
Last edited:
Then I think Ratzinger is only protecting his empire. He doesn't understand Buddhism because if you look at the teachings of Jesus (forget about that clown Paul) you will see a direct link to the teachings of the Buddha. Religion is organized mob control. The catholic church is the remnants of the Roman Empire and has nothing tio do with spirituality. It is all about the money and most of it sits in the Vatican Bank. The Pope is nothing more than the latest Roman Emperor. He really knows nothing about god. He is just a bureaucratic overlord.
It sounds vaguely like the teachings of John Hagee, a notorious American evangelist, who has based his ministry on 'exposing' the Pope as the AntiChrist, the Church as the ''Wh-ore of Babylon'. But, Cliffy, he's certifiable, he's out of his gourd. St. Paul has no link to Buddhism. And the finances of the Vatican are completely dependent on the donations of the faithful, largely through 'Peter's Pence' an annual appeal to cover the costs of the Holy See.
Gee, i don't think you got one thing right in that, Cliffy. You'll have to try harder next time. :smile:
Otherwise it is simply an unknown for which there is no data as of yet. The unknown is NOT meaningless as far as science is concerned,
I did not say that the concept of God is unknown, Anna, I said it is meaningless, there is a big difference.
There are many things in science that are unknown. To give a very simple example, the integral of the function √sinx is unknown; we cannot calculate it as an analytical function. However, we can define it; we can find its approximate numerical value. But we cannot find the analytical function.
That is unknown. But concept of God is meaningless as far as science is concerned. It is too amorphous, too cloudy to be of any scientific merit. Nobody can devise any experiments which will prove or disprove the existence of God. So the concept of God is meaningless, it is not unknown.
otherwise there would be no sciences investigating the philosophies of religions and there effects.
There are no sciences investigating philosophies of religions, they are not hard sciences like Physics or Chemistry. There are subjects, disciplines which investigate the philosophies of religion, but by no stretch of imagination can they be called sciences in the sense that Physics, Chemistry and Biology are sciences.
I did not say that the concept of God is unknown, Anna, I said it is meaningless, there is a big difference.
There are many things in science that are unknown. To give a very simple example, the integral of the function √sinx is unknown; we cannot calculate it as an analytical function. However, we can define it; we can find its approximate numerical value. But we cannot find the analytical function.
That is unknown. But concept of God is meaningless as far as science is concerned. It is too amorphous, too cloudy to be of any scientific merit. Nobody can devise any experiments which will prove or disprove the existence of God. So the concept of God is meaningless, it is not unknown.
otherwise there would be no sciences investigating the philosophies of religions and there effects.
There are no sciences investigating philosophies of religions, they are not hard sciences like Physics or Chemistry. There are subjects, disciplines which investigate the philosophies of religion, but by no stretch of imagination can they be called sciences in the sense that Physics, Chemistry and Biology are sciences.
Then I think Ratzinger is only protecting his empire.
Certainly he is trying to protect his empire Cliffy. The Pope is really another super televangelist. The only difference is that he is much richer than any televangelist. While televangelists deal in million or tens of millions (or perhaps even hundreds of millions) of dollars, Pope deals with billion of more. Vatican is very rich, it is loaded.
He doesn't understand Buddhism because if you look at the teachings of Jesus (forget about that clown Paul) you will see a direct link to the teachings of the Buddha.
Indeed. Christianity has borrowed freely form Judaism (of course), Hinduism, Buddhism and Zoroastrianism.
The Pope is nothing more than the latest Roman Emperor. He really knows nothing about god. He is just a bureaucratic overlord.
I don’t’ know Cliffy. It wouldn’t surprise me if the Pope knows that all this God business is bunk. But he has to keep fleecing the flock, that is how he makes his living.
Certainly he is trying to protect his empire Cliffy. The Pope is really another super televangelist. The only difference is that he is much richer than any televangelist. While televangelists deal in million or tens of millions (or perhaps even hundreds of millions) of dollars, Pope deals with billion of more. Vatican is very rich, it is loaded.
He doesn't understand Buddhism because if you look at the teachings of Jesus (forget about that clown Paul) you will see a direct link to the teachings of the Buddha.
Indeed. Christianity has borrowed freely form Judaism (of course), Hinduism, Buddhism and Zoroastrianism.
The Pope is nothing more than the latest Roman Emperor. He really knows nothing about god. He is just a bureaucratic overlord.
I don’t’ know Cliffy. It wouldn’t surprise me if the Pope knows that all this God business is bunk. But he has to keep fleecing the flock, that is how he makes his living.
It sounds vaguely like the teachings of John Hagee, a notorious American evangelist, who has based his ministry on 'exposing' the Pope as the AntiChrist, the Church as the ''Wh-ore of Babylon'.
Coldstream, Hagee (and indeed, any televangelist) is as big a charlatan as the Pope.
And the finances of the Vatican are completely dependent on the donations of the faithful, largely through 'Peter's Pence' an annual appeal to cover the costs of the Holy See.
I don’t know, I think Catholic Church has properties, art, paintings, jewellary, etc. all over the world, which are very valuable. Why, Sistine Chappell alone may be worth millions. No doubt part of Church’s income comes from donations, but it probably also has other sources of income.
Coldstream, Hagee (and indeed, any televangelist) is as big a charlatan as the Pope.
And the finances of the Vatican are completely dependent on the donations of the faithful, largely through 'Peter's Pence' an annual appeal to cover the costs of the Holy See.
I don’t know, I think Catholic Church has properties, art, paintings, jewellary, etc. all over the world, which are very valuable. Why, Sistine Chappell alone may be worth millions. No doubt part of Church’s income comes from donations, but it probably also has other sources of income.
Paul is the one who screwed the whole thing up by turning the life of Jesus into a religion. The guy was a putz. I said the teachings of Jesus and the Buddha are similar and that is because he probably spent time in India studying them. The money in the Vatican bank is partly money stolen from the Jews by Hitler and friends and partly from plundering the third world. Oh! and from the assassination of the Knights Templar and the theft of their fortunes.
None are for sale. They are held in trust for all of humanity. Even the Vatican museum, the greatest on Earth, is open for free one day a week, and at a very reasonable admission fee on others.
Essentially the Church has no other source of income, except the charity of believers.
The Vatican has billions in real estate holdings all over the globe as well as corporate holdings and investments. Not to mention tax free status in just about every country. The Vatican was the richest country in the world until the pedophile priests drained the accounts in law suits. But judging by the power it still wields in the world, they are far from bankrupt.
Well the only thing in here that can't be described as raving lunacy, is the charge that the Templars were destroyed by the Holy See to plunder their wealth, which is a widely accepted myth.. completely untrue.
The Knights Templar were in fact under interdict for any number heresies, and self enrichment, by Pope Clement V, at the time of their destruction in 1307. But it was Philip IV of France, who needed money for his Flemish war, who used their fall from grace as an opportunity to abscond with all of their treasure.