Posts
Source: www.youtube.com
Scientists have a rational, intelligent conversation about God. We all could take a lesson from Carl Sagan, to approach this issue with a little humility. Excerpts from 'God, the Universe, and Everything Else' 1988.
��� The God of Science (ft. Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, & Arthur C. Clarke) Professor Hawking,in the very last paragraph of your book you say that if we discover a complete theory of the universe then it should be in time understandable in broad principle to everyone and not to just a few scientist,and when that happens all of us will be able to start discussing the 'why' rather than the 'how' and i quote "if we find the answer to that it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason,for then will we know the mind of God."
Do you think God can intervene in the universe as he wants or is God too bound by the laws of science? (Hawking) the question of whether God is bound by the laws of science it's a bit like the question, ' Can God make a stone that is so heavy that he can not lift it?' I don't think it is very useful to speculate on what God might or might not be able to do,rather we should examine what he actually does with the universe we live in.
All our observations suggest that it operates according to well-defined laws.These laws may have been ordained by God but is seems that he does not intervene in the universe to break the laws at least not once he has set the universe going; However, until recently it was thought that the laws would necessarily breakdown at the beginning of the universe.
That would have meant God would have had complete freedom to choose how the universe begin.In the last few years however we have realized that the laws of science may hold even at the beginning of time,In that case God would have had no freedom,the way the universe began would be determined by the laws of science.
Carl Sagan, in your introduction to the book you commented on this.You said,'This is also about God or perhaps about the absence of God since Hawking left nothing for a Creator to do.' Now,God of course means many things to many people what sort of God basically are we talking about when we talk about 'reading the mind of God'?
( Carl Sagan) I think that's an excellent question and i'd be most interested to hear Stephen Hawking's answer but just to try to illuminate the range of possibilities consider two alternatives. One is the,the ,uh,notion that is popular in the west of God as a sort of outsized ,elderly white male with a long white beard sitting on a throne on the sky and tallying the fall of every sparrow.Uh,contrast that with the idea of God in the mind of,let's say,Spinoza.... or Einstein which was,at least very closely, the sum total of the laws of the universe.
Now it would be madness to deny that there are well defined laws in the universe. And if that's what you mean by God then there's no question that God exist but is a very remote God...what the French call 'Roi fainzant', a do-nothing king'. On the other hand the former model of the one who intervenes daily for that there seems to be, as Doctor Hawking said, no evidence.
I think it is wise ,my own personal feeling, to be a little humble on such matters.We must recognize that we are dealing with,by definition,the most difficult things... to know the furthest from human experience and perhaps we will be able to penetrate a little way into these mysteries.
(Hawking) I used 'God' in the same sense that Einstein did.It is really the reason why the universe is as it is,ad why the universe exists at all. I understand that in the earliest days of civilization then the priest were in fact what we call the scientist,the ones who could study Astronomy ,and who could predict eclipses and things. Do you see these scientist coming back into an almost sacerdotal position like this or am I over stating it?
( Carl Sagan) I hope you're over stating it. I think the essence of the scientific method is the willingness to admit you're wrong,the willingness to abandon ideas that don't work. And the essence of religion is not to change anything.The supposed truths are handed down by some revered figure and then no one is supposed to make any progress beyond that because the truth is thought to be in the hand.
My sense is that the scientific way of thinking: question,some delicate mix of creative encouragement of new ideas,and the most rigorous and skeptical scrutiny of new and old ideas.Uh,I think that is the path to the future,not just for science but for all human institutions.
We have to be willing to challenge because we are in desperate need of change. ' Science without religion is lame,religion with out science is blind.'-Albert Einstein.because we are in desperate need of change.
[ Arthur C.Clarke] Politics and religion are obsolete. The time has come for science and spirituality.[Hawking] I don't think that physics can tell us how to behave to our neighbors. Well,physics may determine who our neighbors are and on what planet they live.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cQI1dRvYvk ���
Do you think God can intervene in the universe as he wants or is God too bound by the laws of science? (Hawking) the question of whether God is bound by the laws of science it's a bit like the question, ' Can God make a stone that is so heavy that he can not lift it?' I don't think it is very useful to speculate on what God might or might not be able to do,rather we should examine what he actually does with the universe we live in.
All our observations suggest that it operates according to well-defined laws.These laws may have been ordained by God but is seems that he does not intervene in the universe to break the laws at least not once he has set the universe going; However, until recently it was thought that the laws would necessarily breakdown at the beginning of the universe.
That would have meant God would have had complete freedom to choose how the universe begin.In the last few years however we have realized that the laws of science may hold even at the beginning of time,In that case God would have had no freedom,the way the universe began would be determined by the laws of science.
Carl Sagan, in your introduction to the book you commented on this.You said,'This is also about God or perhaps about the absence of God since Hawking left nothing for a Creator to do.' Now,God of course means many things to many people what sort of God basically are we talking about when we talk about 'reading the mind of God'?
( Carl Sagan) I think that's an excellent question and i'd be most interested to hear Stephen Hawking's answer but just to try to illuminate the range of possibilities consider two alternatives. One is the,the ,uh,notion that is popular in the west of God as a sort of outsized ,elderly white male with a long white beard sitting on a throne on the sky and tallying the fall of every sparrow.Uh,contrast that with the idea of God in the mind of,let's say,Spinoza.... or Einstein which was,at least very closely, the sum total of the laws of the universe.
Now it would be madness to deny that there are well defined laws in the universe. And if that's what you mean by God then there's no question that God exist but is a very remote God...what the French call 'Roi fainzant', a do-nothing king'. On the other hand the former model of the one who intervenes daily for that there seems to be, as Doctor Hawking said, no evidence.
I think it is wise ,my own personal feeling, to be a little humble on such matters.We must recognize that we are dealing with,by definition,the most difficult things... to know the furthest from human experience and perhaps we will be able to penetrate a little way into these mysteries.
(Hawking) I used 'God' in the same sense that Einstein did.It is really the reason why the universe is as it is,ad why the universe exists at all. I understand that in the earliest days of civilization then the priest were in fact what we call the scientist,the ones who could study Astronomy ,and who could predict eclipses and things. Do you see these scientist coming back into an almost sacerdotal position like this or am I over stating it?
( Carl Sagan) I hope you're over stating it. I think the essence of the scientific method is the willingness to admit you're wrong,the willingness to abandon ideas that don't work. And the essence of religion is not to change anything.The supposed truths are handed down by some revered figure and then no one is supposed to make any progress beyond that because the truth is thought to be in the hand.
My sense is that the scientific way of thinking: question,some delicate mix of creative encouragement of new ideas,and the most rigorous and skeptical scrutiny of new and old ideas.Uh,I think that is the path to the future,not just for science but for all human institutions.
We have to be willing to challenge because we are in desperate need of change. ' Science without religion is lame,religion with out science is blind.'-Albert Einstein.because we are in desperate need of change.
[ Arthur C.Clarke] Politics and religion are obsolete. The time has come for science and spirituality.[Hawking] I don't think that physics can tell us how to behave to our neighbors. Well,physics may determine who our neighbors are and on what planet they live.
http://www.youtube.com/wat
0 comments:
Post a Comment