Another 'What if'? .....

[dr.strangelove]

What masquerades as paradox or even 'false dilemma' is merely the limitation of our intellect, it's just that some people refuse to acknowledge there is such a limit, presumably predicated upon an idea that 'imagination knows no bounds' unleashing the possibility of 'a prori' discoveries.
This knowledge is gained independent of experience exampled par excellence by Einstein when pondering his relativity dalliance.

I suppose that's true, and that is indeed an interesting angle on the entire subject. However, even theoretical science must either conform to conventional axioms or provide new ones, with proofs, and regardless of whether science acknowledges or not (or should acknowledge it or not) there may actually be a finite limit to our intellect. I suppose we will find out for sure in the long-long-long run, eh?

Sorry Doc, but this is hogwash mate, the fact we might be able to pry open the possibility of innumerate universes isn't necessarily gonna give rise to self-destruction ..... your ponderance seems a little skewed here because there are a million and one other questions I'd wanna ask before thinking about a baseless self-destruction consequence.

What I was getting at is that the practical implications of having broken the known rules of physics and learned how to create matter and energy would probably be wider reaching and perhaps more frightening than the moral/religious implications. It wouldn't necessarily give rise to self-destruction, but it's quite possible given how little we know about the possible consequences of the application of such seemingly-impossible knowledge and ability.

for the thinker who might be religious, it would cause some dilemma for obvious reasons ...

Absolutely. I think, though, that the religious intellectual would probably be even more likely than the layman to rationalize the discovery within the context of his theology, and probably even make a respectable case for it.

science already acknowledges its own limitation which is really not so much the limitations of the natural laws that permeate our universe but our ability to frame and understand them; at this point, science itself looks toward a god creator and then we have an ironic parallel between science and religion, both acknowledge or conclude, god is outside of this universe and most certainly not bound by any of its conventions.

This is building on the angle you mentioned earlier in your post, which poses an interesting question of whether "possible" and "impossible" or indeed axioms and "rules" themselves are constructs of our own intellectual frailty or do, in fact, exist objectively.

Nice post Doc, you made me think which is a bit of a rare occasion in my life

Well, I'm glad I could help Thanks for indulging me.

 

[Buddha 3]

Interesting tidbit that would make this whole thread moot...
Scholars have recently been digging in the original Hebrew and Mesopotamian texts on which much of Genesis was based and the texts say that God did not create Heaven and Earth. God separated Heaven and Earth, which already existed without him. He "merely" created order out of chaos.

 

[dr.strangelove]

Got links? I'm just curious, because I've never heard of the original Hebrew manuscripts being interpreted that way, and the Torah and Old Testament have been in basic theological agreement for centuries based on common historical texts (although the Septuagint is itself a translation from Hebrew to Greek).

 

[Robbo]

Interesting tidbit that would make this whole thread moot...
Scholars have recently been digging in the original Hebrew and Mesopotamian texts on which much of Genesis was based and the texts say that God did not create Heaven and Earth. God separated Heaven and Earth, which already existed without him. He "merely" created order out of chaos.

Jay, I've no doubt there are texts suggesting as much but in my humble opinion, religious texts aren't in any way reliable, far from it.
[I'd go on to say, they should be avoided at all costs if you are looking to them for truth and direction]

I think when we view problems such as the creation of the universe, which can for the purposes of this thread be distilled into a religious/non-religious discussion, then to compare religious texts with scientific documents is pretty much pointless and of course, academic.

Science is all about consistency and accountability to its own axioms, religion is all about the other kind of accountability

 

[Robbo]

Got links? I'm just curious, because I've never heard of the original Hebrew manuscripts being interpreted that way, and the Torah and Old Testament have been in basic theological agreement for centuries based on common historical texts (although the Septuagint is itself a translation from Hebrew to Greek).

Written by humans, translated by humans, inspired by what or whom???

A cynic might say, all but one religion must be inspired by a human need of one sort or another with the remainder being god inspired, the trick here is, to discover which one.

And herein lies one of my personal problems with all this religion malarkey; if I were the true god, I certainly wouldn't want my word cast amid the mess of innumerate other religions out there where nobody but a lucky few can find me.

It just seems sooo counter-productive to go to the trouble of creating the universe, then providing the building blocks of life, hanging around for a few billion years and witnessing the birth of man only to have my salvation plans and rulebook taking upon the role of 'needle in a haystack' ... seems a tad counterproductive to me and dare I say it, irrational.

That's a point, hmmmm, I wonder if God is ever irrational?

 

[dr.strangelove]

It's interesting historically and sociologically to see the textual and philosophical basis of theology, at least to me. I was raised in a Christian background and still maintain religious faith of some sort, so the secular study of religion amuses me.

 

[Robbo]

There is only one religion that can be proved [in part] ya know ..... the religion of science; all the others are faith based and as such, are definitively devoid of fact or rigorous introspection.

When I hear religious people spout ... it actually makes me feel quite embarrassed, much like reading posts from somebody who is still young, extremely naive and knows very little but never allows these impediments to prevent them from opening their gob .... pretentious, fallacious gobbledegook !

 

[dr.strangelove]

Well, going back to what Tshaka said before, the purpose of religion and science is completely different, so it makes sense that they do not answer the same questions. If all you want is to understand the why and how of the processes and interactions that comprise our physical environment, science is wholly adequate - it is that way by design, as it confines itself (in an ideal world anyway) to a set of processes and procedures that answer questions about quantifiable and falsifiable data. Philosophy and religion are designed to elucidate, if not answer with certainty, a completely different set of non-quantifiable, non-falsifiable questions. I'm comfortable with both fields of inquiry and leaving them each to their respective niche.

 

[Robbo]

Well, going back to what Tshaka said before, the purpose of religion and science is completely different, so it makes sense that they do not answer the same questions. If all you want is to understand the why and how of the processes and interactions that comprise our physical environment, science is wholly adequate - it is that way by design, as it confines itself (in an ideal world anyway) to a set of processes and procedures that answer questions about quantifiable and falsifiable data. Philosophy and religion are designed to elucidate, if not answer with certainty, a completely different set of non-quantifiable, non-falsifiable questions. I'm comfortable with both fields of inquiry and leaving them each to their respective niche.

But Doc, the point is mate, they do attempt to answer the same questions, questions like, how we got here, why we are here, how did the universe get made ... etc

Religion doesn't always concern itself with the hairy-fairy concepts, it attempts to answer how we got here, how the universe was created and so on ... and as soon as it does so, it falls flat on its face amid a plethora of scientific fact.

The whole philosophy of science is accountable in that if we get one exception to a rule, then the whole house of cards comes a tumbling down and a new, more sophisticated understanding is needed and is generally forthcoming .... and rightly so !

However, when we look at religion and how it deals with contradiction or outright mistakes, it either sweeps them under the carpet or deletes them, hardly the actions of a god inspired doctrine now is it mate?

 

[dr.strangelove]

The problem is that you're generalizing questions that science and religion address specifically and separately. "How did we get here?" in a scientific context leads to questions about the physical process of abiogenesis and how that process might be understood, replicated, and tested. "How did we get here?" in a religious context leads to questions about what sort of entity may have been responsible for actuating the physical process of creation and what his/hers/its purpose, if any, was in doing so. Maybe you've had different interactions with religion than I have, but I've seldom seen a religious text or religious scholar attempt to use theological concepts as scientific hypotheses.

You seem to have a lot of idealistic faith in the purity of science versus the corruption of religion. If you'd ever sat in on a local government environmental impact study, or written a research grant application, or read a peer-reviewed defense of a popular hypothesis when challenged by new evidence or experimentation, let alone look back at scientific history and observe the more-often-than-not hostile and stubborn nature of one generation of scientists to the next, you'd develop a new appreciation for the equally corruptible nature of science. Which, when you get right down to it, is reflective of the corruptible nature of human beings in the same manner that religion is. Science is no more or less perfect than theological or philosophical pursuits. At the end of the day, warts and all, they both do the best they can to explain the varying mysteries that plague us.