I don’t, for example, recognize quantum mechanics as truth. If it turns out there is a convincing explanation why nature has to be this way, then it has to be this way and the “divine” has been cornered. If nature can be some other way, in regimes that are hard for today’s technology to observe, then those are interesting qualifications or alternative models. It’s all just provisional.
But all of these models are essentially unrelated to doctrines that humans have invented as a way to regulate group behavior and to exercise power. A fun quote from my statistical mechanics text: The kinetic theory of gases came to be the next conceptual step. Among pioneers in this discipline one counts several unrecognized geniuses, such as J.J. Waterston who – thanks to Lord Rayleigh – received posthumous honors from the very same Royal Society that had steadfastly refused to publish his works during his lifetime. Ludwig Boltzmann committed suicide on September 5, 1906 depressed – it is said – by the utter rejection of his atomistic theory by such colleagues as Mach and Ostwald. Paul Ehrenfest, another great innovator, died by his own hand in 1933. Among 20th century scientists in this field, a sizable number of have met equally untimely ends. So “now”, (here we quote from a well-known popular text[1] “it is our turn to study statistical mechanics”. [1] D.H. Goodstein, States of Matter, Dover, New York, 1985 From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Stephen Guerin Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 11:32 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> Subject: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops) On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 5:47 PM Steve Smith <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I took Marcus statement to be primarily hyperbolic with a dash of rhetoric... or vice-versa? I also took Stephen's strong statement against it as a primarily rhetorical mode of bringing focus to the topic I think he really wants to talk about... Yes, I recognize Marcus's "I hate religious people" for what it was. I also saw it as an opportunity freeze it in the spotlight to be studied. There is a hatred and disdain of religion by many in the "scientific" community. I find it misplaced and hope this dialectic tension between the religious and scientific may soon resolve in a modern synthesis of Science and Religion. Marcus, consider the following from Max Planck: "Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view." As the father of Action in quantum physics, can you glimpse where he might be pointing with "every generalized world view"? Even if you can't follow him, could you tolerate those that do? Here's more context for the above i from Planck's Wikipedia<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck#Religious_views>. Please give it some reflection - it's only 7 paragraphs :-) Planck was a member of the Lutheran Church in Germany.[36] He was very tolerant towards alternative views and religions.[37] In a lecture in 1937 entitled "Religion und Naturwissenschaft" (Religion and Natural Science) he suggested the importance of these symbols and rituals related directly with a believer's ability to worship God, but that one must be mindful that the symbols provide an imperfect illustration of divinity. He criticized atheism for being focused on the derision of such symbols, while at the same time warned of the over-estimation of the importance of such symbols by believers.[38] Planck was tolerant and favorable to all religions. Although he remained in the Lutheran Church, he did not promote Christian or Biblical views. He believed "the faith in miracles must yield, step by step, before the steady and firm advance of the facts of science, and its total defeat is undoubtedly a matter of time." [39] In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft", Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. He was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"[39] Planck said in 1944, "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent spirit (orig. geist). This spirit is the matrix of all matter."[40] Planck regarded the scientist as a man of imagination and Christian faith. He said: "Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view".[41] On the other hand, Planck wrote, "...'to believe' means 'to recognize as a truth,' and the knowledge of nature, continually advancing on incontestably safe tracks, has made it utterly impossible for a person possessing some training in natural science to recognize as founded on truth the many reports of extraordinary occurrences contradicting the laws of nature, of miracles which are still commonly regarded as essential supports and confirmations of religious doctrines, and which formerly used to be accepted as facts pure and simple, without doubt or criticism. The belief in miracles must retreat step by step before relentlessly and reliably progressing science and we cannot doubt that sooner or later it must vanish completely."[42] Later in life, Planck's views on God were that of a deist.[43] For example, six months before his death a rumour started that he had converted to Catholicism, but when questioned what had brought him to make this step, he declared that, although he had always been deeply religious, he did not believe "in a personal God, let alone a Christian God".[44]
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
