Nick, Did you ever read "Brideshead Revisited" by Evelyn Waugh? Or see the PBS production. The patriarch of an English Catholic family who is an avowed atheist in a moment of oblivion on his deathbed crosses himself as he takes his last breath. A rigid Freudian would say that he was unintegrated.
I often wonder if we will have an epiphany (root meaning visit from God) as we die. A friend who had open heart surgery while his heart was stopped said, "No, Frank". But he wasn't really dead. --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 4:04 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > reiteration of evidence to Eric the deep disdain and hatred many in Science > > > > Yeah. Richard Dawkins and three other loonies. I was in a chatgroup with > hard scientists, etc., from all over the world for about a year, and I was > the only avowed non-religious person on the chat. The european physicists > were all dedicated cartesians seeking truth in the real world … I e, the > world that god knows and we aspire to know. Any belief in a world beyond > experience is a religious belief. > > > > I persist in thinking the key word is “hate”, here. The way you speak > these “many”, with their “deep distain and hatred” in such sweeping terms, > it seems that you hate them. So what exactly is hate. I think it’s an > attempt to recruit allies to expell the target from one’s universe, to > exile them. But Frank is right: There is an element of “*get thee behind > me”* in hatred. You cannot hate what you don’t feel in some degree > attached to. So the key to resolving hatred is to find the tie that binds > one to the thing one hates, and snip it. Once you have done that, one > doesn’t need allies any more. You just walk away. > > > > So, Steve. What do you find *attractive* in the scientistic denial of > faith? I am guessing that it has to do with their claim of certainty. But > certainty is something that ony a religious person can have. Or, to put > it round the other way, Whenever we speak with certainty, we are speaking > from the religious side of ourselves. As I am doing right now. > > > > Nick > > Nicholas Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > > Clark University > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Stephen Guerin > *Sent:* Friday, September 25, 2020 10:41 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some > people hate cops) > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 5:42 AM Marcus Daniels <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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. > > > > I brought up Planck's views for two reasons: > > - His views on religion and his rejection of its foundation of miracle > and superstition > - His challenge to the most sophisticated of scientists with > "generalized world views" that an understanding/model of "God" is a worthy > goal for a scientist. > > While I think Action and Bidirectional Path Tracing in Dual Fields is a > potential model (Glen and Jon can unpack that in a steel man) I don't want > to get distracted by the "How" the synthesis might happen. To borrow from > Eric Smith in the Jim Rutt Podcast > <https://jimruttshow.blubrry.net/the-jim-rutt-show-transcripts/transcript-of-episode-40-eric-smith-on-the-physics-of-living-systems/>: > "we shouldn’t try to spin scenarios at this point". > > > > And for full disclosure, upon reflection, my post was mostly targeted at > Eric Smith after I saw his comment on Marcus's post. > > First was to use Marcus's post as a reiteration of evidence to Eric the > deep disdain and hatred many in Science have for Religion which we've > talked about in the past and second to potentially engage Eric as one of > the few scientists I know with a sufficient "generalized world view" to see > the most basic patterns in Science and attempt a synthesis. If not leading > the synthesis, at least playing bullshit detector and helping in pointing > out potential formalizations. > > > FWIW, Eric's close colleague, the late Harold Morowitz, expressed similar > views as Max Planck. > > see: > https://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Joy-Local-Pain-Scientist/dp/0684184435 > > > > I know Eric is resistant at the value or even the worthiness of this > pursuit. I put this out as a public challenge to Eric and he can decline. > I think it could be one of the greatest scientific contributions of our > time. > > > > To Marcus, Glen and Jon, I will try to refrain from casting pearls ;-p > (meant in humor) > > -Stephen > > > > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > 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/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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/
