Science vs Religion--A New Take?

[wenglund]

Just today I came across a somewhat new (at least to me) take on the long-standing Science vs Religion debate. The new twist isn't simply that the debate consists merely of two somewhat competing dogmas, but also includes the proposition that several key dogmas of science (as a belief system--i.e. materialism, rather than as a methodology) are open to scientific question, and this in a way that may suggest a greater overlap between science and religion.

The new take came in the form of a presentation by Rupert Sheldrake, the Author of "The Science Delusion":

Let me know what you think.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, wenglund said:

Just today I came across a somewhat new (at least to me) take on the long-standing Science vs Religion debate. The new twist isn't simply that the debate consists merely of two somewhat competing dogmas, but also includes the proposition that several key dogmas of science (as a belief system--i.e. materialism, rather than as a methodology) are open to scientific question, and this in a way that may suggest a greater overlap between science and religion.

The new take came in the form of a presentation by Rupert Sheldrake, the Author of "The Science Delusion":

Let me know what you think.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I know science is very dogmatic in this atheist and materialistic view. I find it interesting that as LDS we have a different view touching many things such as the nature of light, intelligence, spirit matter, etc. We have knowledge and testimobies of spiritual phenomenon and miracles. When you place the events into summation, we really do not understand truth. And why is that? Because of the persistant dagmatic philosophies taught to us, or rather brainwashed into our minds.

Take artificial intelligence- we have arrived in the age where top scientists are convinced that scientists are close to making robots that are self aware and able to come up with new and novel information on their own, and that they will have feelings and emotions. Why? Because they truly believe that our intelligence itself is purely the function of chemicals and math in our brain which results in nothing more than a machine. 

The most frustrating part though in debating with science is that the learned scholars almost always are stuck in that dogmatism that they are right, just need to work out the details, and none of the details can include anything remotely with God, or with the fact that we aren't machines 

[Grunt]

I enjoy Edward Feser's take on this. 

https://soundcloud.com/benshapiroshow/sundayspecialep17

[Traveler]

13 hours ago, wenglund said:

Just today I came across a somewhat new (at least to me) take on the long-standing Science vs Religion debate. The new twist isn't simply that the debate consists merely of two somewhat competing dogmas, but also includes the proposition that several key dogmas of science (as a belief system--i.e. materialism, rather than as a methodology) are open to scientific question, and this in a way that may suggest a greater overlap between science and religion.

The new take came in the form of a presentation by Rupert Sheldrake, the Author of "The Science Delusion":

Let me know what you think.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

As I listened (limited - not to the whole presentation) - my conclusion is that Rupert is himself far more dogmatic than is the field of science.  I am not saying there are not dogmas in the field of science - just that those dogmas that exist are extensions of human nature and not actually the methods of science.  In addition, I would purport two elements of science that would perhaps relates to discussions of dogma.  First is that of all methods used by man - science is the least dogmatic.   If someone has another methodology that they believe to be less dogmatic - I would be interested in examining this evidence and how it was analyzed.

The second aspect of science - is that of all the activities of mankind - Science is currently the most demonstrably productive and successful.  Again if someone has a more demonstrably productive and successful methodology - I am very open to explorer that consideration. 

It is my personal observation that "pure" or true science is compatible with "pure" or true religion.  That any, so called competition between the two, is in essence, the result of pseudo science dogma or pseudo religious dogma.  And thus the failure to integrate scientific discovery with divinely inspired religion is due to failures to understand critical elements of one, the other, or both (as a side note - it is my  personal belief the whatever it is within the nature on an individual to misunderstand one - it adds to the proclivity to misunderstand the other).

 

The Traveler

Edited November 24, 2018 by Traveler

[Traveler]

9 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Take artificial intelligence- we have arrived in the age where top scientists are convinced that scientists are close to making robots that are self aware and able to come up with new and novel information on their own, and that they will have feelings and emotions. Why? Because they truly believe that our intelligence itself is purely the function of chemicals and math in our brain which results in nothing more than a machine. 

Not exactly accurate.  There have been some rather interesting advancements in the fields of artificial intelligence - but currently utilizing all the power in our most advanced super computers our artificial intelligence is basically at the level we see demonstrated in insects.  Some experts in the field of artificial intelligence believe that quantum computing is necessary to advance to artificial self awareness - and we have been stuck on quantum processing for a couple of decades now.  But this is not the point - Truth is not dependent on artificial intelligence or our understanding of it.  Truth is independent of anyone's understanding and beliefs - including G-d's

I could go into detail about how and why artificial intelligence (by it's nature) is two dimensional and that human intelligence is multi dimensional (that we do not even currently know how many dimensions human intelligence operates on).   The point is that real experts in artificial intelligence are not so worried.  The misunderstood notions seem to gravitate from seeming experts from other fields of science (as per the example of Stephen Hawking) and reporters and not the actual "white" papers on the subject.

Though I try from time to time - I am unable to deal with 3rd hand information dug up from various and sundry places from those with agenda looking from some titillating drops of information that may support some perceived notion.   While ignoring the vast oceans of relevant information that does not support the preconceived notion. 

 

The Traveler

[wenglund]

3 minutes ago, Traveler said:

As I listened (limited - not to the whole presentation) - my conclusion is that Rupert is himself far more dogmatic than is the field of science.  I am not saying there are not dogmas in the field of science - just that those dogmas that exist are extensions of human nature and not actually the methods of science.  In addition, I would purport two elements of science that would perhaps relates to discussions of dogma.  First is that of all methods used by man - science is the least dogmatic.   If someone has another methodology that they believe to be less dogmatic - I would be interested in examining this evidence and how it was analyzed.

The second aspect of science - is that of all the activities of mankind - Science is currently the most demonstrably productive and successful.  Again if someone has a more demonstrably productive and successful methodology - I am very open to explorer that consideration. 

It is my personal observation that "pure" or true science is compatible with "pure" or true religion.  That any, so called competition between the two, is in essence, the result of pseudo science dogma or pseudo religious dogma.  And thus the failure to integrate scientific discovery with divinely inspired religion is due to failures to understand critical elements of one, the other, or both (as a side note - it is my  personal belief the whatever it is within the nature on an individual to misunderstand one - it adds to the proclivity to misunderstand the other).

 

The Traveler

An important distinction was drawn between the methodology of science and the belief systems of science born of the methodology. It is certain scientific belief systems, materialism in particular, and not the methodology that is believed to be dogmatic.

As some of us see it, dogma, particularly when politicized and monitized, is the corrupting element of both science and religion because it is self-encapsulating and thus myopic and limiting and a barrier to innovation and progress.. It also is bent on power and control rather than truth and welfare..

I would imagine that were there a First Vision in response to the question of which scientific belief system were true, that Heavenly Father would decry creedalism (the codifying of dogma) of science just as with religions.

And, from what I can tell, it is the dogma of both science and religion that has illegitimately pitted the two disciplines against each other, where otherwise they can be wonderfully complimentary.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Traveler]

11 minutes ago, wenglund said:

An important distinction was drawn between the methodology of science and the belief systems of science born of the methodology. It is certain scientific belief systems, materialism in particular, and not the methodology that is believed to be dogmatic.

As some of us see it, dogma, particularly when politicized and monitized, is the corrupting element of both science and religion because it is self-encapsulating and thus myopic and limiting and a barrier to innovation and progress.. It also is bent on power and control rather than truth and welfare..

I would imagine that were there a First Vision in response to the question of which scientific belief system were true, that Heavenly Father would decry creedalism (the codifying of dogma) of science just as with religions.

And, from what I can tell, it is the dogma of both science and religion that has illegitimately pitted the two disciplines against each other, where otherwise they can be wonderfully complimentary.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I would agree - with the caveat that it was science that first challenged the dogma of religion and that in retaliation religion has attacked science and created a side show of pseudo science bent on proving the G-d of dogmatic religion cannot possibly exist.  Many think that the field of science is full of agnostic or atheistic scientist - granted there are more atheist and agnostics in science than religion - but there are also many Latter-day Saints that contribute a great deal to both science and religion.  And that such Saints from time to time tick off the dogmatic in both the fields of science and religion (but mostly in the fields of religion).

 

The Traveler

Edited November 24, 2018 by Traveler

[wenglund]

5 hours ago, Grunt said:

I enjoy Edward Feser's take on this. 

https://soundcloud.com/benshapiroshow/sundayspecialep17

I loved that episode of the Sunday Special. However, I was baffled that it was the first I had heard of these arguments, though I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised. Certain hierarchies (dogmas), whether in science or religion, are highly resistant (to put it mildly) to outside and competing ideas.

This is what I love about the Church. We are open to truth from all sorts of sources (good books, etc.), and view truth as one eternal whole. I find science greatly enhancinfg my spiritual understanding, and vice versa.

Sadly, people deny themselves vast and beautiful horizons of understanding by way of the highly restrictive filters of dogma.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I would agree - with the caveat that it was science that first challenged the dogma of religion and that in retaliation religion has attacked science and created a side show of pseudo science bent on proving the G-d of dogmatic religion cannot possibly exist.  Many think that the field of science is full of agnostic or atheistic scientist - granted there are more atheist and agnostics in science than religion - but there are also many Latter-day Saints that contribute a great deal to both science and religion.  And that such Saints from time to time tick off the dogmatic in both the fields of science and religion (but mostly in the fields of religion).

 

The Traveler

Agreed.

However, my point isn't "who started it first," but that dogma, wherever it exists, is not a good thing. Both science and religion benefit from divesting themselves of dogma, and  will thus tend towards complimenting each other rather than warring against each other.

In short, the perception that science and religion are against each other, is a delusion of dogma on both sides.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

27 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Not exactly accurate.  There have been some rather interesting advancements in the fields of artificial intelligence - but currently utilizing all the power in our most advanced super computers our artificial intelligence is basically at the level we see demonstrated in insects.  Some experts in the field of artificial intelligence believe that quantum computing is necessary to advance to artificial self awareness - and we have been stuck on quantum processing for a couple of decades now.  But this is not the point - Truth is not dependent on artificial intelligence or our understanding of it.  Truth is independent of anyone's understanding and beliefs - including G-d's

I could go into detail about how and why artificial intelligence (by it's nature) is two dimensional and that human intelligence is multi dimensional (that we do not even currently know how many dimensions human intelligence operates on).   The point is that real experts in artificial intelligence are not so worried.  The misunderstood notions seem to gravitate from seeming experts from other fields of science (as per the example of Stephen Hawking) and reporters and not the actual "white" papers on the subject.

Though I try from time to time - I am unable to deal with 3rd hand information dug up from various and sundry places from those with agenda looking from some titillating drops of information that may support some perceived notion.   While ignoring the vast oceans of relevant information that does not support the preconceived notion. 

 

The Traveler

My point is that there isn't a math equation for real intelligence. True intelligence is in itself an enigma. And it appears that true intelligence is  not really connected with math computation. AI is a purely mechanical process of-if this, then that. True intelligence is based on something different.

[Rob Osborn]

14 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Agreed.

However, my point isn't "who started it first," but that dogma, wherever it exists, is not a good thing. Both science and religion benefit from divesting themselves of dogma, and  will thus tend towards complimenting each other rather than warring against each other.

In short, the perception that science and religion are against each other, is a delusion of dogma on both sides.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Not entirely. There are many scientists who are trying to marry scientific concepts such as nature with religious ideals such the Creation. Many of the ideas advanced in the scientific theory of Intelligent Design couple science with religionists and truly make them work together. (Now watch as someone comes in and says ID isn't science! That's why dogmatism exists)

[Rob Osborn]

Also, the accepted s scientific institutions do not accept any notion of God whereas almost all religionists accept most science.

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, wenglund said:

In short, the perception that science and religion are against each other, is a delusion of dogma on both sides.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Exactly, It could not have been said better!  

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

My point is that there isn't a math equation for real intelligence. True intelligence is in itself an enigma. And it appears that true intelligence is  not really connected with math computation. AI is a purely mechanical process of-if this, then that. True intelligence is based on something different.

This is very close to the argument why a quantum computer is required for what we classify as "higher intelligence".

At this point I will introduce a tangent - because, perhaps we may find some agreement.  The requirements for artificial intelligence (at any level) is quite different that that of intelligent life.  One little example - we have not yet discovered any life form that does not require water for survival.  There may be such life forms in the universe but we have not discovered it - so that is a dead end discussion.  But water is not a requirement for artificial intelligence - thus water is a necessary dimension or element of intelligent life that is not a dimension or element of  artificial intelligence.  Thus there is not a complete mapping that can ever take place between artificial intelligence and intelligent life.  Artificial intelligence is divergent from intelligent life and will not ever intersect in a manner that we can replace one with the other.  This is also a problem many have in mapping intelligence in orders that do not include things that are alive.  It is an element that I do not believe is addressed in the constructs of "Intelligent Design" - both the arguments for and against.  It is part of the "Dogma" that exists in pseudo Science as well as pseudo Religion - that intelligence is life and life is consciousness.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints bring something quite new to the table - that is that there is a level of consciousness that has always existed and that G-d is the process of ordering and connecting the consciousness (organizing matter).  This is not a consideration of intelligent design, science or any other study of things I have encountered.  It truly is a fresh new view of everything (which sounds a lot like repentance) - which I see as a very unusual evolution of all things intelligent.

 

The Traveler 

[Rob Osborn]

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

 This is not a consideration of intelligent design, science or any other study of things I have encountered.  It truly is a fresh new view of everything (which sounds a lot like repentance) - which I see as a very unusual evolution of all things intelligent.

Are you I'mlying that intelligence has evolved? 

[Traveler]

15 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Are you I'mlying that intelligence has evolved? 

An essential element of intelligence is the ability to learn - therefore if something is incapable of learning (evolving) or does not learn it cannot be claimed to be intelligent.  It is not an implication - it is a fact that intelligence evolves.  Is there something you are implying that I have missed? 

As I have read your previous posts on "intelligent design" there is a claim that the intelligence that is evolving in our universe has a "purpose" - which implies change and evolution to a preconceived end.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

An essential element of intelligence is the ability to learn - therefore if something is incapable of learning (evolving) or does not learn it cannot be claimed to be intelligent.  It is not an implication - it is a fact that intelligence evolves.  Is there something you are implying that I have missed? 

As I have read your previous posts on "intelligent design" there is a claim that the intelligence that is evolving in our universe has a "purpose" - which implies change and evolution to a preconceived end.

 

The Traveler

I wasn't sure if you were talking about intelligence evolving from nothing as evolutionists claim or the process of something already intelligent becoming more intelligent.

[Traveler]

5 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I wasn't sure if you were talking about intelligence evolving from nothing as evolutionists claim or the process of something already intelligent becoming more intelligent.

I have had many discussions with science colleges I work with concerning chance or something created from nothing.  I have had some interesting back and forth with quantum physics about a quantum anomaly producing something from nothing.  But I have  pointed out that empty space time is not nothing and there is no evidence that a quantum anomaly has occurred outside of dimensional space time.   Even the Big Bang theory assumes a pre-event horizon.   I have also argued that if one believes in organic evolution - the very concept demands that they must believe it is possible for a G-d to exist because if a G-d does not currently exist - organic evolution dictates that eventually a G-d will exist through the process of open ended organic evolution.

The idea is quite simple - if life can evolve on it own then eventually intelligence will evolve capable of replicating (engineering) life.  But we already know life is replicated on our planet earth - therefore; My argument is that if life is possible and the replication of life has been demonstrated - then if someone assumes there is no intelligence involved - then the burden of proof is theirs to demonstrate that it either cannot be intelligently replicated or that they have the evidence that it was not.

I have posted previously that a ex nihilo is not reflected in any demonstrable process known to exist - likewise with intelligence.  There must be a pre-existing condition.  The G-d of Traditional Christianity is a G-d that creates without pre-existing conditions.  I have argued that without pre-existing condition there can be no individual will or just rewards or damnation based on individual will that had no pre-existing conditions.  The scripture demands that all things witness there is a G-d - but the witness given by all things that exists points to a G-d that creates based on pre-existing condition, which is contrary to ex nihilo.

 

The Traveler

Edited November 26, 2018 by Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I have had many discussions with science colleges I work with concerning chance or something created from nothing.  I have had some interesting back and forth with quantum physics about a quantum anomaly producing something from nothing.  But I have  pointed out that empty space time is not nothing and there is no evidence that a quantum anomaly has occurred outside of dimensional space time.   Even the Big Bang theory assumes a pre-event horizon.   I have also argued that if one believes in organic evolution - the very concept demands that they must believe it is possible for a G-d to exist because if a G-d does not currently exist - organic evolution dictates that eventually a G-d will exist through the process of open ended organic evolution.

The idea is quite simple - if life can evolve on it own then eventually intelligence will evolve capable of replicating (engineering) life.  But we already know life is replicated on our planet earth - therefore; My argument is that if life is possible and the replication of life has been demonstrated - then if someone assumes there is no intelligence involved - then the burden of proof is theirs to demonstrate that it either cannot be intelligently replicated or that they have the evidence that it was not.

I have posted previously that a ex nihilo is not reflected in any demonstrable process known to exist - likewise with intelligence.  There must be a pre-existing condition.  The G-d of Traditional Christianity is a G-d that creates without pre-existing conditions.  I have argued that without pre-existing condition there can be no individual will or just rewards or damnation based on individual will that had no pre-existing conditions.  The scripture demands that all things witness there is a G-d - but the witness given by all things that exists points to a G-d that creates based on pre-existing condition, which is contrary to ex nihilo.

 

The Traveler

Both creation via ex nihilo and the big bang, as understood by science, are really at odds with LDS doctrine.

[Traveler]

9 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Both creation via ex nihilo and the big bang, as understood by science, are really at odds with LDS doctrine.

I understand the problems of ex nihilo creation; both in consideration of the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the isotropic laws of physics.  Concerning the Big Bang theories of the origins of our universe I am acutely aware of the problems the current class of Big Bang theories face from the isotropic laws of physics in our dimensional space time universe.  When I say Big Bang theories I am referring to the classification of origin theories that propose that our universe is the result of a single event - spoken of as an event of singularity.  The idea that our universe is the outgrowth of a single or event of singularity is to explain why our universe is expanding in what is understood to be a regular, ordered non linear manner (non-linear manner meaning the expansion is increasing or accelerating at a current constant acceleration).  Again I understand well the problems because most Big Bang theories currently purport that for a brief "time" the universe expanded faster than the speed of light.

All the problems aside with the laws of physics concerning Big Bang theories - I would be very interested in your personal reasoning that the origins of our universe coming from an initial  single event (or event of singularity) violates the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

 

The Traveler

[Grunt]

I love these discussions, but boy you guys talk over my head sometimes. I wish there were a Doctrine for Dummies section.  

Edited November 26, 2018 by Grunt

[Rob Osborn]

19 minutes ago, Traveler said:

All the problems aside with the laws of physics concerning Big Bang theories - I would be very interested in your personal reasoning that the origins of our universe coming from an initial  single event (or event of singularity) violates the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

Well, we know that matter is eternal according to our doctrine- it cannot be created nor destroyed. Also, according to our doctrine, God took existing materials and carried forth the creation. Also, according to our doctrine, God is a part of the universe, His existence is inside of it. And, God himself is eternal, having no beginning, just as you and I also have no beginning. I take this to mean that the substance or material of our makeup spiritually and physically has always existed. When we look out into space we do not see an end to it. As far as can be known by our feeble instrumentation, space itself goes on forever. If the Big Bang theory is correct, there had to be a beginning or first existence of matter. And, because it started with this singularity event, it too must have an edge. So, according to the BBT, there is a limit to matter and energy. But, according to our doctrine, both matter and energy are unlimited. God's glory is ever increasing. This means his energy is ever increasing. Energy is directly related to matter and it's existence. If God is eternal, and his power is ever increasing, then matter itself cannot be limited.

[Traveler]

21 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Well, we know that matter is eternal according to our doctrine- it cannot be created nor destroyed. Also, according to our doctrine, God took existing materials and carried forth the creation. Also, according to our doctrine, God is a part of the universe, His existence is inside of it. And, God himself is eternal, having no beginning, just as you and I also have no beginning. I take this to mean that the substance or material of our makeup spiritually and physically has always existed. When we look out into space we do not see an end to it. As far as can be known by our feeble instrumentation, space itself goes on forever. If the Big Bang theory is correct, there had to be a beginning or first existence of matter. And, because it started with this singularity event, it too must have an edge. So, according to the BBT, there is a limit to matter and energy. But, according to our doctrine, both matter and energy are unlimited. God's glory is ever increasing. This means his energy is ever increasing. Energy is directly related to matter and it's existence. If God is eternal, and his power is ever increasing, then matter itself cannot be limited.

I believe that at times you display a very keen mind.  But I am not sure you understand science and the physical sciences as well as you comprehend spiritual notions of the restoration - in this case the purported family of theories of the Big Bang and what is meant by an event of singularity.  I could explain much more - however in the past you have been quite hostel to consider a new approach of things.  I use to think religionists alone should contribute to such understanding of things much as you appear to do - but my experience evolved my thinking that most religionists (including some in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) hold to apostate "Traditional" religionists thinking of the past prior to the restoration and do not realize that with the "restoration" the entire landscape of things understood by humanity has flourished under the new light of the restoration.  I have come to expect that things "discovered" since the dawn of the restoration to be of much greater value than things believed (especially by the religious community) from before the restoration.

 

The Traveler

Edited November 26, 2018 by Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

21 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I believe that at times you display a very keen mind.  But I am not sure you understand science and the physical sciences as well as you comprehend spiritual notions of the restoration - in this case the purported family of theories of the Big Bang and what is meant by an event of singularity.  I could explain much more - however in the past you have been quite hostel to consider a new approach of things.  I use to think religionists alone should contribute to such understanding of things much as you appear to do - but my experience evolved my thinking that most religionists (including some in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) hold to apostate "Traditional" religionists thinking of the past prior to the restoration and do not realize that with the "restoration" the entire landscape of things understood by humanity has flourished under the new light of the restoration.  I have come to expect that things "discovered" since the dawn of the restoration to be of much greater value than things believed (especially by the religious community) from before the restoration.

 

The Traveler

Not really sure what you are getting at. Are you suggesting that my mental capacity to reason with science and religion is faulty?

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Not really sure what you are getting at. Are you suggesting that my mental capacity to reason with science and religion is faulty?

I am saying you seem to have a problem considering the relativity new scientific discoveries of the restoration that are primarily opposed by the Traditional Christian philosophies of pseudo science developed by the apostate religious community established during the Great Apostasy - and not in any way by the current administration of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of the First Presidency or the Quorum of the 12 (although some seem to think certain individuals has spoken out on their own).  And that I am somewhat frustrated in trying to understand why based on your responses that consistently seem to favor the Traditional Christian philosophies of the Dark Ages over that of modern science of the restoration.

You seem much more concerned about a tangent of my (perhaps misstatements of your thought process) than you are in addressing the origins of our universe from an event of singularity (single event) expressed by any of  the myriad Big Bang theories and why you believe a singular initiating event of our universe is opposes the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  It appears to me that the scriptural statement, "In the beginning" could indeed reference a singular initiation.  I do not think that even those (that you seem to support) of the "Intelligent Design" variety seem to oppose an event of singularity - I do not understand why you do???

 

The Traveler