CS Lewis: “Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared—the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.”
Wikipedia: Scientific method and religion
“Laplace's work earned him a place in the prestigious French Academy of Sciences. It also removed the idea of God further (if not completely) from the mechanistic cosmology that had been unfolding over the previous century. Not even deism could stand up to this assault. Indeed, the story goes that when Laplace presented a copy of his work to Napoleon, the latter uttered a concern that Laplace had made no mention in his work of the Divine "Originator" of this marvelous system--to which Laplace replied: "I had no need for that hypothesis!"
“Experts say the “low hanging fruit” of scientific knowledge, such as the laws of motion and gravity, was attained using simple methods in previous centuries, leaving only increasingly impenetrable problems for modern scientists to solve.
Uncharted areas of science are now so complex that even the greatest minds will struggle to advance human understanding of the world, they claim.
In addition, the remaining problems are becoming so far removed from our natural sensory range that they require increasingly powerful machines, such as the Large Hadron Collider, even to approach them.
Russell Stannard, professor emeritus of physics at the Open University, argues that although existing scientific knowledge will continue to be applied in news ways [JS: That's called engineering], "the gaining of knowledge about fundamental laws of nature and the constituents of the world, that must come to an end”.
He said: “We live in a scientific age and that’s a period that’s going to come to an end at some stage. Not when we’ve discovered everything about the world but when we’ve discovered everything that’s open to us to understand.”
Originally posted by JS357 Science Kills God; God Gets Even
I think that human curiosity, endeavour, and achievement ~ as expressed and exercised through scientific method, research and accumulating knowledge ~ (and alongside mankind's other capacities and attributes, such as its morality and social nature) is arguably an example of the human spirit at its most potent and wonderful, and as credible [if not more credible] an attempt to seek out what may be the answers to questions such as 'why are we here' and 'what is the meaning of life' and 'what is the nature of God', than any metaphor-strewn, curiosity-extinguishing, cul-de-sac religionist packages of doctrines and folklore, which use conjecture and fantasy to cut corners on the road to answering those questions, and in so doing sell the human spirit short. It is no wonder some religionist groups, steeped as they are in their partisan peephole ideologies, need to see science [along with people in different religionist cul-de-sacs] as threats and enemies.
Originally posted by JS357 CS Lewis: “Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared—the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, ...[text shortened]... 8020211/Is-the-age-of-scientific-discovery-ending.html
Maybe "Goddidit" will outlive science.
Though we all observe scientific laws, the question becomes who or what enforces them. Interesting change of pace thread.
Originally posted by JS357 CS Lewis: “Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared—the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, ...[text shortened]... that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.”
CS Lewis, as was often the case, was talking nonsense. Scientists did not expect Laws in nature because they believed in a Legislator.
Uncharted areas of science are now so complex that even the greatest minds will struggle to advance human understanding of the world, they claim. To a large degree that was the case even in previous centuries. It took Newton and Einstein and other 'great minds' to advance human understanding.
In addition, the remaining problems are becoming so far removed from our natural sensory range that they require increasingly powerful machines, such as the Large Hadron Collider, even to approach them. Not true. The Large Hadron Collider is not required because the phenomena in question is 'far removed from our natural sensory range'. It is required because the phenomena in question requires very high energies. Other atomic phenomena studied with previous less powerful colliders were just as far removed from our 'natural sensory range' as those phenomena being studied with the Large Hadron Collider.
He said: “We live in a scientific age and that’s a period that’s going to come to an end at some stage. Not when we’ve discovered everything about the world but when we’ve discovered everything that’s open to us to understand.” I agree, but we are still quite a long way away from that situation. At a guess I would say we are less than half way there.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby Though we all observe scientific laws, the question becomes who or what enforces them.
Who "enforces... [the] laws"? Scientific "laws" are generalizations that describe recurring happenings in nature and not a collection of rules imposed by authority. Language is interesting enough already without sophistry and wordplay. 🙂
People who claim that "God is dead, there is only Science" are as blindly restricted by their closed minds as those who say "Science is dead, there is only God".
They both miss the full picture.
Removed
Joined
03 Jan '13
Moves
13080
05 Oct '14 11:50
Originally posted by Suzianne People who claim that "God is dead, there is only Science" are as blindly restricted by their closed minds as those who say "Science is dead, there is only God".
Originally posted by sonship Put another way - "All truth is God's truth."
This may well be so. What a pity then that so many of your fellow Christians see science as some kind of nemesis and take pride in believing in palpable nonsense like the Earth being only 6,000 years old and that all the world's racial diversity comes from the sons of Noah at a relatively recent point in mankind's history. What a pity that sincere and headlong faith can shrivel someone's spirit and capacities in this way, and in so doing turn them away from the possibility that "All truth is God's truth". 🙂
Originally posted by twhitehead CS Lewis, as was often the case, was talking nonsense. Scientists did not expect Laws in nature because they believed in a Legislator.
[b]Uncharted areas of science are now so complex that even the greatest minds will struggle to advance human understanding of the world, they claim. To a large degree that was the case even in previous centuries. I ...[text shortened]... ite a long way away from that situation. At a guess I would say we are less than half way there.[/b]
My take: Although humans have intellectual limits, even the best of us, that does not mean we will not penetrate deeper into the mysteries of the universe.
We are no longer alone in our pursuit of deep knowledge. We now have computers getting ever more powerful, now able to crank out quadrillions of calculations per second to simulate facets of the universe like exploding stars and the evolution of galactic threads and such but that is only the beginning. We are in fact still in the first grade to use a school analogy, we have had computers around for what, 80 odd years? That is just an instant in the larger scheme of things. In another 100 years computers may be smarter than the best human and if we can keep control of such machines our knowledge will still continue to grow.
Remember, it only took one Einstein to open up vast vista's of knowledge or one Newton. Of course there is the 'standing on the shoulders of giants' idea but one breakthrough from a combined human/computer team can also change the world with discoveries we can only speculate on now.
Removed
Joined
03 Jan '13
Moves
13080
05 Oct '14 21:00
Originally posted by FMF This may well be so. What a pity then that so many of your fellow Christians see science as some kind of nemesis and take pride in believing in palpable nonsense like the Earth being only 6,000 years old and that all the world's racial diversity comes from the sons of Noah at a relatively recent point in mankind's history. What a pity that sincere and headlong f ...[text shortened]... his way, and in so doing turn them away from the possibility that "All truth is God's truth". 🙂
So we love them and keep feeding them Jesus and feeding them Jesus.
Taking in Jesus is the way.
Some of us sing a song about taking in the living Christ ("eating" Jesus). It includes a line - "Why should we undernourished be, when we have His humanity?"
Originally posted by sonhouse My take: Although humans have intellectual limits, even the best of us, that does not mean we will not penetrate deeper into the mysteries of the universe.
We are no longer alone in our pursuit of deep knowledge. We now have computers getting ever more powerful, now able to crank out quadrillions of calculations per second to simulate facets of the unive ...[text shortened]... ned human/computer team can also change the world with discoveries we can only speculate on now.
"My take", too, with the caveat that the collective scientific and layman 'we' may apprehend factual truth already there....
Originally posted by FMF Who "enforces... [the] laws"? Scientific "laws" are generalizations that describe recurring happenings in nature and not a collection of rules imposed by authority. Language is interesting enough already without sophistry and wordplay. 🙂
Originally posted by FMF I think that human curiosity, endeavour, and achievement ~ as expressed and exercised through scientific method, research and accumulating knowledge ~ (and alongside mankind's other capacities and attributes, such as its morality and social nature) is arguably an example of the human spirit at its most potent and wonderful, and as credible [if not more credible] ...[text shortened]... to see science [along with people in different religionist cul-de-sacs] as threats and enemies.
Curious turns of phrases (pointing toward a pursuit of answers) when the atheistic world view declares none exist and such questions are illegitimate.
Originally posted by twhitehead CS Lewis, as was often the case, was talking nonsense. Scientists did not expect Laws in nature because they believed in a Legislator.
[b]Uncharted areas of science are now so complex that even the greatest minds will struggle to advance human understanding of the world, they claim. To a large degree that was the case even in previous centuries. I ...[text shortened]... ite a long way away from that situation. At a guess I would say we are less than half way there.[/b]
CS Lewis, as was often the case, was talking nonsense. Shall we simply take your word for it?
Scientists did not expect Laws in nature because they believed in a Legislator. The scientists to which Lewis referred absolutely did this very thing.
To a large degree that was the case even in previous centuries. Nothing like today.
Not even close.
It is required because the phenomena in question requires very high energies. Partially true, but fundamentally wrong.
Had the folks of CERN who benefited from the LHC been able to walk up to a chalk board and provide conclusive support or denial of the Higgs boson or any of the other supersymmetric theories, such very high energies would not have been required.
Sometimes chalk only gets you so far, it appears.
The fact of the LHC's required existence--- when sophisticated and progressively higher means of detection and/or simulation are required for substantiating base ideas--- by itself bespeaks of an increasingly narrowing field.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Curious turns of phrases (pointing toward a pursuit of answers) when the atheistic world view declares none exist and such questions are illegitimate.
I am not responsible for what the "atheistic world view" supposedly "declares".
If i have ever once declared such questions "illegitimate" in all my years of posting here, please point it out.
Science Kills God; God Gets Even
04 Oct '14 18:361 edit
Back to Top