For me, things are Greener on the other side ... !

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,122
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
As I sit on the epistemological fence and contemplate my own subjective perception about religious truth, I also contemplate on my own subjective perception about science and science's place in how I might further orient a reflexive contemplation about my religious truth. And I ask myself, "Self, how much does science count for or against my faith, and even if it does, why should I allow it to?"

Although I don't think I can ever really wax with much authority on such matters, I will say that I often do think that my philosophical subjectivity, however rational it may or may not be, incorporates a perception and a handling of my own Christian faith which is somewhat "Green" in its tone and temper. Or rather, I might say that I think [physicist] Brian Greene makes some good points ... about science, religion, and when making a quip or two about present politics.

Video Published December 16, 2013 [4 minutes, 32 seconds]

Video Published March 21, 2018 [9 minutes]


Please discuss and comment upon what Brian Greene shares and how you think any of what he says, or even what Richard Dawkins says, should provide a litmus test for us (or me) to construct our (my) religious views! :cool:
 
Last edited:

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
As I sit on the epistemological fence and contemplate my own subjective perception about religious truth, I also contemplate on my own subjective perception about science and science's place in how I might further orient a reflexive contemplation about my religious truth. And I ask myself, "Self, how much does science count for or against my faith, and even if it does, why should I allow it to?"

Although I don't think I can ever really wax with much authority on such matters, I will say that I often do think that my philosophical subjectivity, however rational it may or may not be, does lean toward a perception and a handling of my own Christian faith that is somewhat "Green" in it's tone and temper. Or rather, I might say that I think [physicist] Brian Greene makes some good points ... about science, religion, and when making a quip or two about present politics.

Video Published December 16, 2013 [4 minutes, 32 seconds]

Video Published March 21, 2018 [9 minutes]


Please discuss and comment upon what Brian Greene shares and how you think any of what he says, or even what Richard Dawkins says, should provide a litmus test for us (or me) to construct our (my) religious views! :cool:

Through my continuing arduous journey, I have concluded two distinct conclusions for these videos; among many others.

Argument from ignorance - 'I can't think of a better conclusion, in which is 'unresolved'. Hence, God must be at the end of all of this.'

Intentional agency - 'All deemed 'important' life experiences and events are tailored for me and/or humans.' And for this topic, though I'm actually not a huge fan of Michael Shermer per se, he does make a pretty convincing case for the human's 'nature' in invoking intent towards humans, as a reflexive action. (i.e.) Our evolution stems more for survival, which also overlap into other arenas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,122
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Through my continuing arduous journey, I have concluded two distinct conclusions for these videos; among many others.
Well, thank you, cvanwey for watching both videos completely and in their entirety. I do value highly when folks do this and then proceed to present their own thoughts. :cool:

Argument from ignorance
- 'I can't think of a better conclusion, in which is 'unresolved'. Hence, God must be at the end of all of this.'
Some people may indeed imply that a "must" must be at play somewhere within their rational processes and their perceptions about how God may be present somehow in the world, but we might also think that it is their intuitions about religion which, in the end, determine whether or not they "buy in" to the premises which are offered by their religion.


While I think you're correct here, the caveat is, if a person realizes that he/she can't "think" of a better conclusion, then this is also to admit that the alternatives aren't so neatly stacked up and convincing to him/her either. So, as Blaise Pascal would suggest, some other considerations will be, or at least probably should be, brought in for deliberation (and I thought it was kind of humorous in the first video of the OP to see Brian Greene at least give a slight nod to this in contrast to Richard Dawkins who would not).

Intentional agency
- 'All deemed 'important' life experiences and events are tailored for me and/or humans.' And for this topic, though I'm actually not a huge fan of Michael Shermer per se, he does make a pretty convincing case for the human's 'nature' in invoking intent towards humans, as a reflexive action. (i.e.) Our evolution stems more for survival, which also overlap into other arenas.
Yes, Shermer does make an interesting case for this, as does someone like Barbara J. King. The difference between the two, however, would be that Shermer tends to be on the side of those who think science rules over human religious intuitions (like Richard Dawkins), while King would seem to alight more upon a place within the epistemic spectrum that is more moderated, kind of like Greene does, or as did the late Stephen Jay Gould.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Well, thank you, cvanwey for watching both videos completely and in their entirety. I do value highly when folks do this and then proceed to present their own thoughts. :cool:

Some people may indeed imply that a "must" must be at play somewhere within their rational processes and their perceptions about how God may be present somehow in the world, but we might also think that it is their intuitions about religion which, in the end, determine whether or not they "buy in" to the premises which are offered by their religion.


While I think you're correct here, the caveat is, if a person realizes that he/she can't "think" of a better conclusion, then this is also to admit that the alternatives aren't so neatly stacked up and convincing to him/her either. So, as Blaise Pascal would suggest, some other considerations will be, or at least probably should be, brought in for deliberation (and I thought it was kind of humorous in the first video of the OP to see Brian Greene at least give a slight nod to this in contrast to Richard Dawkins who would not).

Yes, Shermer does make an interesting case for this, as does someone like Barbara J. King. The difference between the two, however, would be that Shermer tends to be on the side of those who think science rules over human religious intuitions (like Richard Dawkins), while King would seem to alight more upon a place within the epistemic spectrum that is more moderated, kind of like Greene does, or as did the late Stephen Jay Gould.

Well, can you blame most scientists, whom devote their life's work to exploring/finding/searching such conclusions yet unanswered? Or doing further research to such discovery, which once were thought to infer 'God's' hand, and later find there appears of no such occurrence? Richard Dawkins, though considered a fairly 'firebrand' atheist, has even self-admitted that on a scale of 1 to 7, he is only a 6.5 towards 'no god'. So there does exist 'hope' for even him :)

But regardless, I could care less about his conclusions.... I'm only interested in the points and evidence - (from any and all sides).

From the scientific side, I see it as many new 'conclusions/discoveries' come to their respective set scientific theories, scientists continue to find a lack or complete absence in any 'supernatural' causation. Though this neither validates nor denies such premises about god respectively, I can hardly blame many/most scientists for just concluding that god must not exist necessarily.

As for theists, that's another can of worms entirely. Each comes to such conclusions, for a vast array of differing reasons and reasoning... The glue which directly holds (my) specific 'open door to possibility' continues to be indoctrination alone. As stated prior, for me, it becomes a tug-of-war between 'logic' vs emotion.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,122
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well, can you blame most scientists, whom devote their life's work to exploring/finding/searching such conclusions yet unanswered? Or doing further research to such discovery, which once were thought to infer 'God's' hand, and later find there appears of no such occurrence? Richard Dawkins, though considered a fairly 'firebrand' atheist, has even self-admitted that on a scale of 1 to 7, he is only a 6.5 towards 'no god'. So there does exist 'hope' for even him :)

But regardless, I could care less about his conclusions.... I'm only interested in the points and evidence - (from any and all sides).

From the scientific side, I see it as many new 'conclusions/discoveries' come to their respective set scientific theories, scientists continue to find a lack or complete absence in any 'supernatural' causation.
While it's true that some scientists keep coming up short when looking for supernatural causation in nature, when it comes to experimental science, I'm not sure why any of them would expect to find indications of causation. With what I understand from N.O.S. and the Philosophy of Science, this kind of expectation rather baffles me, to tell you the truth.

Though this neither validates nor denies such premises about god respectively, I can hardly blame many/most scientists for just concluding that god must not exist necessarily.
...If we want to try to bring in a statistical spread as to how many scientists actually do just throw in the towel on religion altogether in an atheistic huff when considering the extent to which they think they should allow science to dictate to their religious belief or non-belief, I think it's more the former [many] rather than the latter [most], really. In fact, the stats aren't so clear as to what predominates about religion in the minds of scientists, especially if we look at more areas of the world than just that of the U.S.


1) Religion among Scientists in International Context

2) Scientists and Belief

3) Science Academics and Belief

However, in contrasts to working scientists, if we were instead looking at how a lack of belief predominates among those in the field closest and dearest to my heart (or nearly so), we'd see that most modern Academic Philosophers by and large really do eschew religious belief, particularly that of Christianity.

4) What Percentage of philosophers don't believe in God? [~ 76% ]

As for theists, that's another can of worms entirely. Each comes to such conclusions, for a vast array of differing reasons and reasoning... The glue which directly holds (my) specific 'open door to possibility' continues to be indoctrination alone. As stated prior, for me, it becomes a tug-of-war between 'logic' vs emotion.
Yep, there is a bevy of different modes, mindsets, and means by which any one of us comes to entertain religious beliefs, and for some of us, something like Philosophical and Biblical Hermeneutics mediates well between cold-stone logic and insufferable, weepy-seepy emotions (and I say this as one who is prone to both of these things). :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Willis Gravning

St. Francis of Assisi
Supporter
Jun 12, 2015
236
94
Sioux Falls, SD
✟99,367.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
As I sit on the epistemological fence and contemplate my own subjective perception about religious truth, I also contemplate on my own subjective perception about science and science's place in how I might further orient a reflexive contemplation about my religious truth. And I ask myself, "Self, how much does science count for or against my faith, and even if it does, why should I allow it to?"

Although I don't think I can ever really wax with much authority on such matters, I will say that I often do think that my philosophical subjectivity, however rational it may or may not be, incorporates a perception and a handling of my own Christian faith which is somewhat "Green" in its tone and temper. Or rather, I might say that I think [physicist] Brian Greene makes some good points ... about science, religion, and when making a quip or two about present politics.

Video Published December 16, 2013 [4 minutes, 32 seconds]

Video Published March 21, 2018 [9 minutes]


Please discuss and comment upon what Brian Greene shares and how you think any of what he says, or even what Richard Dawkins says, should provide a litmus test for us (or me) to construct our (my) religious views! :cool:

Thanks for the video links. I had not seen them before. I read Greene's book, 'The Elegant Universe' quite a few years ago and enjoyed it very much. It seems String Theory is a compelling idea that makes sense in light of what we know about the universe but has yet to be experimentally verified. I think it is quite possible that our best science will never plumb the depths of the natural world and we may never know it's origin with complete certainty.

I like the concept of God presented by Paul Tillich as Ground of Being which I think somewhat answers Richard Dawkins objection of God as irrational due to necessarily having to be some kind of great complexity.

The honest answer is 'I don't Know.' so my choice is to be kind to others, continue to nurture my better angels and keep a positive attitude. The rest is beyond my control.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Video Published December 16, 2013 [4 minutes, 32 seconds]

Dawkins' basic argument in the first video is that the purpose of the scientific enterprise is to explain how complexity comes from simplicity, and at the extreme, how complexity comes from "virtual" nothing. It is very easy to formalize his argument:

1. The scientific enterprise exists to explain how complexity comes from simplicity.
2. Since God is complex, if he exists and created the universe then complexity does not come from simplicity.
3. Therefore if God exists the scientific enterprise is undermined. Further, if the scientific enterprise is legitimate then God does not exist.
4. Therefore the existence of God and the legitimacy of science are mutually exclusive.​

We can poke holes in Dawkins' logical and philosophical inadequacies all day, but this argument is much more candid than what I've seen from him in the past, and I attribute this to his interlocutor, Greene. There are two basic premises that Dawkins is working from:

P1. Complexity comes from simplicity.
P2. God is complex.​
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,122
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Dawkins' basic argument in the first video is that the purpose of the scientific enterprise is to explain how complexity comes from simplicity, and at the extreme, how complexity comes from "virtual" nothing. It is very easy to formalize his argument:

1. The scientific enterprise exists to explain how complexity comes from simplicity.
2. Since God is complex, if he exists and created the universe then complexity does not come from simplicity.
3. Therefore if God exists the scientific enterprise is undermined. Further, if the scientific enterprise is legitimate then God does not exist.
4. Therefore the existence of God and the legitimacy of science are mutually exclusive.​

We can poke holes in Dawkins' logical and philosophical inadequacies all day, but this argument is much more candid than what I've seen from him in the past, and I attribute this to his interlocutor, Greene. There are two basic premises that Dawkins is working from:

P1. Complexity comes from simplicity.
P2. God is complex.​

Actually, the sole reason I added the 1st video was to allow for a comparison of how Greene handles science and religion to how Dawkins does so .............

... but yes, I agree with your assessments about Dawkins' thoughts, Zippy.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dlamberth

Senior Contributor
Supporter
Oct 12, 2003
19,212
2,813
Oregon
✟723,372.00
Faith
Other Religion
Politics
US-Others
Yes. I like this quote of his..."You are the universe, expressing itself as a human for a little while."
A quote of Eckhart that I like a lot goes like this: "All Creatures are a Word of God."
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Actually, the sole reason I added the 1st video was to allow for a comparison of how Greene handles science and religion to how Dawkins does so .............

... but yes, I agree with your assessments about Dawkins' thoughts, Zippy.

So I watched the second video and I think Greene's approach is relatively good. "Religion can be used for evil or for good, we should seek to understand the natural aspects of belief, we should try to understand why others believe different things, etc." That's solid, but also pretty commonsensical. I guess when Dawkins is used as a foil even moderate common sense shines all the brighter. :D

To my mind the problem with Dawkins and the New Atheists is that they have substantially increased the gravitational pull of Christian fundamentalism. It was once a somewhat neglected movement and now it is becoming a central focal point for attack and defense of Christianity. The problem is that when Christianity is conflated with fundamentalism all of Christianity and even all religions are subtly undermined. Thus Dawkins' error ends up doing damage he doesn't even comprehend.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Yes. I like this quote of his..."You are the universe, expressing itself as a human for a little while."

That's Eckhart Tolle. Very, very different person. Meister Eckhart would never have said that. Meister Eckhart is very often misquoted, so if someone isn't referencing the work where the "quote" is found it probably isn't his.
 
Upvote 0

Willis Gravning

St. Francis of Assisi
Supporter
Jun 12, 2015
236
94
Sioux Falls, SD
✟99,367.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
That's Eckhart Tolle. Very, very different person. Meister Eckhart would never have said that. Meister Eckhart is very often misquoted, so if someone isn't referencing the work where the "quote" is found it probably isn't his.
My mistake. I stand corrected. Thanks for letting me know.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0