note 1
My version of the list would be all of or most of:
My version of the list would be all of or most of:
- A community of people and families who share the religion ;
- A shared history and/or narrative, including myth, facts and legends ;
- A shared ethical system ;
- A shared set of values ;
- A shared set of rituals and prayers, personal, family and institutional;
- A shared system of clothing and adornment, both for every-day and in its institutions ;
- A hierarchy of governance and clergy ;
- A shared set of meaningful symbols, including relics and body parts ;
- A shared set of art, stories, humor, poetry and music ;
- A shared calendar of holy days, festivals, and celebrations;
- A shared set of lifecycle events and rituals;
- A theology .
- A God (in some instances a set of gods, one of whom is at the top of the heap) ;
- Characteristics attributed to the deity or deities;
- One or more revelations by the God through one or more prophets ;
- A set of texts, some of which are identified as the God’s own words (scripture), delivered directly or through one or more prophets, and some of which may describe extra-natural events such as creation and miracles and/or people, and a particular cosmogony;
- Special powers (“magic”, “healing”, “judgment”, cursing, etc.) attributed to some person or persons, living or dead .
POST 9
note 1
A series of secondary questions exist also, having to do with our ability as a species to answer with satisfaction the primary questions. Questions such as: “How do we arrive at world peace?” and “How can we ensure that nobody starves or is abused?” are more than merely important questions, but they are not primary. The primary questions have to do only with the specific well-being of the individual who asks that question, and that person’s loved ones.
A series of secondary questions exist also, having to do with our ability as a species to answer with satisfaction the primary questions. Questions such as: “How do we arrive at world peace?” and “How can we ensure that nobody starves or is abused?” are more than merely important questions, but they are not primary. The primary questions have to do only with the specific well-being of the individual who asks that question, and that person’s loved ones.
note 2
The three books I can recommend wholeheartedly on this matter:
POST 10The three books I can recommend wholeheartedly on this matter:
- The Spiritual Brain (2007) by Mario Beauregard and Denyse O’Leary. A neuroscientist perspective, focusing on how the brain changes under various stimuli.
- The God Gene (2004) by Dean Hammer. A geneticist perspective that deals in detail with the concept of the meme versus the gene.
- Why God Won’t Go Away (2002) by Andrew Newberg, Eugene D'Aquili, and Vince Rause. The book asks the question: Did god create the brain or did the brain create god?
note 1
Copernicus, who lived from 1473 to 1543, proposed the heliocentric universe, with the sun at the centre. Up to that point in time, the earth was considered the centre of the universe, with the sun and the rest of the universe revolving around it. Man, and the earth upon which he lived, was therefore central. It took a bit longer for the sun to be moved out of its central position.
Copernicus, who lived from 1473 to 1543, proposed the heliocentric universe, with the sun at the centre. Up to that point in time, the earth was considered the centre of the universe, with the sun and the rest of the universe revolving around it. Man, and the earth upon which he lived, was therefore central. It took a bit longer for the sun to be moved out of its central position.
note 2
The many versions of the Strong Anthropic principle are all based on the position that the WAP points to a necessity of our being here, such that the universe is constrained in its structure to certain characteristics. At its best, the versions of the Strong principle are used to predict things about the universe on the basis that we’re here and that the Universe, for some reason, is conforming to our needs.
There was ample room for humour, too. As an example, a statement by Jay Gould, who compared the claim that the universe is fine-tuned for our kind of life to saying that sausages were made long and narrow so that they could fit into a modern hotdog buns.
The many versions of the Strong Anthropic principle are all based on the position that the WAP points to a necessity of our being here, such that the universe is constrained in its structure to certain characteristics. At its best, the versions of the Strong principle are used to predict things about the universe on the basis that we’re here and that the Universe, for some reason, is conforming to our needs.
There was ample room for humour, too. As an example, a statement by Jay Gould, who compared the claim that the universe is fine-tuned for our kind of life to saying that sausages were made long and narrow so that they could fit into a modern hotdog buns.
note 3
If you would like to research this subject, I would suggest the following:
If you would like to research this subject, I would suggest the following:
- The Anthropic Principle (1991) by Reinhart Breuer Good coverage, not hard to read.
- The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1998) by Barrow & Tipler More comprehensive, a harder read for the non-technical.
- Anthropic Bias (2008) by Nick Bottom This isn’t really about the Anthropic Principle, but rather a philosophical text that refers often to it, showing how it operates in many contexts.
- Just Six Numbers (1999) by Martin Rees Deals with the Anthropic Coincidences and is a fabulous read.
- The God Delusion (2006) by Richard Dawkins Pages 134 -151 give a good overview of how an avowed atheist treats the Anthropic Principle, attempting to show that it is more a proof of atheism than a pointer to the possibility of theism. What a good writer he is!
- The Internet Starting with Wikipedia, there’s no end of material, some of it more up to date than the books.
POST 11
note 1
There are a number of books challenging the Big Bang Theory, including The Big Bang Never Happened by Eric Lerner and Bye Bye Big Bang, Hello Reality by William C. Mitchell. Read also the article at Rense.com entitled Big Bang Theory Busted by 33 Top Scientists (at Rense.com- 2004). Here a group of top scientists put forth an open letter on the subject.
Quite a number of individual problems have been laid out with respect to the Big Bang, though defenses have been stated for many of them. To see many of them Google: Big Bang Theory Discredited.
By the way, the lead editorial of Nature magazine in 1989 blared: “DOWN WITH THE BIG BANG!”
There are a number of books challenging the Big Bang Theory, including The Big Bang Never Happened by Eric Lerner and Bye Bye Big Bang, Hello Reality by William C. Mitchell. Read also the article at Rense.com entitled Big Bang Theory Busted by 33 Top Scientists (at Rense.com- 2004). Here a group of top scientists put forth an open letter on the subject.
Quite a number of individual problems have been laid out with respect to the Big Bang, though defenses have been stated for many of them. To see many of them Google: Big Bang Theory Discredited.
By the way, the lead editorial of Nature magazine in 1989 blared: “DOWN WITH THE BIG BANG!”
note 2
In this blog, I have chosen to call something a god if that something created the universe, programmed it with consistent laws of physics, chemistry, nature and/or evolution and if it exhibited intelligence as opposed to random or accidental forces in accomplishing any of that.
Here are some quotations from some of the leading scientists of the 20th century:
I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of all being, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of men…
I believe that intelligence is manifested throughout all nature… Albert Einstein
A further necessary postulate is that there are mental as well as material properties of this universe. Julian Huxley (Biologist)
One thus cannot be satisfied with any explanation of our world which does not postulate an intelligence working in nature. Arthur A. Compton (physicist)
I could go on quoting scientists until the end of the year; to this I can add that the results of the Pew Survey, which revealed that a slim but definitive majority of scientists prefer to believe there is a God or “something higher.”
In this blog, I have chosen to call something a god if that something created the universe, programmed it with consistent laws of physics, chemistry, nature and/or evolution and if it exhibited intelligence as opposed to random or accidental forces in accomplishing any of that.
Here are some quotations from some of the leading scientists of the 20th century:
I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of all being, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of men…
I believe that intelligence is manifested throughout all nature… Albert Einstein
A further necessary postulate is that there are mental as well as material properties of this universe. Julian Huxley (Biologist)
One thus cannot be satisfied with any explanation of our world which does not postulate an intelligence working in nature. Arthur A. Compton (physicist)
I could go on quoting scientists until the end of the year; to this I can add that the results of the Pew Survey, which revealed that a slim but definitive majority of scientists prefer to believe there is a God or “something higher.”
POST 13
note 1
Post 7 introduced the concept that the singularity had to be somewhere before it could have exploded to become the Universe. We have named that somewhere the Kosmos (as differentiated from the “‘Cosmos,” which is often used as a synonym for Universe). If we need to locate yotzer, then surely yotzer is also in the Kosmos, an infinite entity at an infinite location.
Post 7 introduced the concept that the singularity had to be somewhere before it could have exploded to become the Universe. We have named that somewhere the Kosmos (as differentiated from the “‘Cosmos,” which is often used as a synonym for Universe). If we need to locate yotzer, then surely yotzer is also in the Kosmos, an infinite entity at an infinite location.
note 2
It is sometime hard to accept that the scriptures were written by humans without some sort of divine sourcing, because the poetry, the wisdom, and much of the information in it seems beyond human capability. Also, does this mean that Moses and Mohammed and others were fraudsters, pretending to have access to a non-existent God? Most certainly no. We can only speculate that these rare people had powerful visions, because they had powerful spiritual and intellectual capabilities.
It is sometime hard to accept that the scriptures were written by humans without some sort of divine sourcing, because the poetry, the wisdom, and much of the information in it seems beyond human capability. Also, does this mean that Moses and Mohammed and others were fraudsters, pretending to have access to a non-existent God? Most certainly no. We can only speculate that these rare people had powerful visions, because they had powerful spiritual and intellectual capabilities.
note 3
Most scientists today believe that the universe is finite, with a known beginning (the Big Bang), and an eventual ending (either through entropy or through a “big implosion” where the universe re-compacts into a singularity.) In the latter event, all of the properties of the Universe would be included in the resulting new singularity. When it big-banged again, a whole new Universe with the same properties would re-establish itself. This implode-explode cycle could result in an infinite Universe, and no creating force would be required other than gravity and momentum.
POST 14
Most scientists today believe that the universe is finite, with a known beginning (the Big Bang), and an eventual ending (either through entropy or through a “big implosion” where the universe re-compacts into a singularity.) In the latter event, all of the properties of the Universe would be included in the resulting new singularity. When it big-banged again, a whole new Universe with the same properties would re-establish itself. This implode-explode cycle could result in an infinite Universe, and no creating force would be required other than gravity and momentum.
note 1
There are a number of primary concerns that humans, of whatever culture or age, whether theist or atheist, have tended to ask about. What follows is the list that I've come up with; your list may be somewhat different.
There are a number of primary concerns that humans, of whatever culture or age, whether theist or atheist, have tended to ask about. What follows is the list that I've come up with; your list may be somewhat different.
- Are there some universal standards of good and evil?
- What is my motivation to do good and not evil?
- Is there anything I can do to prevent bad things from happening to me? Is there some purpose for my existence, some meaning to my life?
- How much control and individual choice do I have in the way I lead my life?
- What will make me and my family happy?
- What, if any, form of existence will I have after I die?
- Is there anything beyond life? Does anything I do now affect me after I die?
- What, if anything, do I owe to anyone or anything outside of me and my family?
note 1
In the Biblical account of creation, God creates humans explicitly, saying “let us create humans (Adam)”, and Adam becomes instantly human. But science informs that the first humans did not emerge until 100 to 200 thousand years ago, and that’s approximately 10 to 15 billion years after the Universe began. So assuming a deity (yotzer) created the Universe, it did not create humans, but rather created the Universe which, over billions of years, created life which evolved into humans, and many other species.
On earth, at least, humans are simply the species that seems to have evolved the most intelligence. Yotzer, if there is one, created us very indirectly. It didn’t say “let there be humans,” rather it said: “let life evolve and see what species emerges.”
In the Biblical account of creation, God creates humans explicitly, saying “let us create humans (Adam)”, and Adam becomes instantly human. But science informs that the first humans did not emerge until 100 to 200 thousand years ago, and that’s approximately 10 to 15 billion years after the Universe began. So assuming a deity (yotzer) created the Universe, it did not create humans, but rather created the Universe which, over billions of years, created life which evolved into humans, and many other species.
On earth, at least, humans are simply the species that seems to have evolved the most intelligence. Yotzer, if there is one, created us very indirectly. It didn’t say “let there be humans,” rather it said: “let life evolve and see what species emerges.”
note 2
I heartily recommend two books that describe the problems facing cosmology, including that of reality. One, by Jim Baggott, written in 2013, is called Farewell to Reality - How Modern Science Has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth. The second, written by Lee Smolin in 2006, is called The Trouble with Physics. Both authors are high-profile scientists and excellent writers, covering, from their own experiences, some of the issues listed here as well as others.
I heartily recommend two books that describe the problems facing cosmology, including that of reality. One, by Jim Baggott, written in 2013, is called Farewell to Reality - How Modern Science Has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth. The second, written by Lee Smolin in 2006, is called The Trouble with Physics. Both authors are high-profile scientists and excellent writers, covering, from their own experiences, some of the issues listed here as well as others.
note 3
A small sampling of examples of scientists “getting it wrong,” or hoaxing or cheating can be found in the following books. (For more instances, one needs only look up “hoaxes” on the Internet.)
A small sampling of examples of scientists “getting it wrong,” or hoaxing or cheating can be found in the following books. (For more instances, one needs only look up “hoaxes” on the Internet.)
- Betrayers of the Truth by William Broad & Nicholas Wade - 1982
- When Science Goes Wrong by Simon LeVay - 2008
- Brilliant Blunders from Darwin to Einstein by Mario Livio - 2013
note 4
The issues with Science referred to in this post are not things I have invented, and in fact, are addressed in a number of excellent books. If you are interested in exploring the topic, I suggest starting with THIS IDEA MUST DIE: Scientific Theories That Are Blocking Progress, edited by John Brockman. The book is the result of asking 175 brilliant minds: What scientific idea needs to be put aside in order to make room for new ideas to advance?
POST 19
The issues with Science referred to in this post are not things I have invented, and in fact, are addressed in a number of excellent books. If you are interested in exploring the topic, I suggest starting with THIS IDEA MUST DIE: Scientific Theories That Are Blocking Progress, edited by John Brockman. The book is the result of asking 175 brilliant minds: What scientific idea needs to be put aside in order to make room for new ideas to advance?
POST 19
note 1
Take for example the following definitions as they appear in the Oxford and Webster dictionaries:
• the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them: e.g. "he refuses to face reality"
• a thing that is actually experienced or seen, especially when this is grim or problematic: e.g. "the harsh realities of life in a farming community"
• a thing that exists in fact, having previously only existed in one's mind: e.g. "the paperless office may yet become a reality"
• the state or quality of having existence or substance: e.g. "youth, when death has no reality"
• In philosophy: existence that is absolute, self-sufficient, or objective, and not subject to human decisions or conventions.
Wikipedia provides an attempt to summarize: “Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined. Reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still broader definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist.”
As can be seen, defining “reality” is not an easy job.
Take for example the following definitions as they appear in the Oxford and Webster dictionaries:
• the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them: e.g. "he refuses to face reality"
• a thing that is actually experienced or seen, especially when this is grim or problematic: e.g. "the harsh realities of life in a farming community"
• a thing that exists in fact, having previously only existed in one's mind: e.g. "the paperless office may yet become a reality"
• the state or quality of having existence or substance: e.g. "youth, when death has no reality"
• In philosophy: existence that is absolute, self-sufficient, or objective, and not subject to human decisions or conventions.
Wikipedia provides an attempt to summarize: “Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined. Reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still broader definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist.”
As can be seen, defining “reality” is not an easy job.
No comments :
Post a Comment
Your comments are welcomed and are considered an essential part of this blog. To make this a conversation everybody can enjoy, please:
- Keep on topic.
- Be civil.
- Comment on ideas, not people. No ad hominem attacks will be allowed.
Comments are moderated and any comments deemed to be spam, phishing, commercial come-ons, or in any way inappropriate, will be deleted.