Posted on 07/16/2006 4:45:40 PM PDT by walford
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge in the field of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods."
—Albert Einstein
The general, historical dialogue between religion and science goes back a long way—at least to Plato, Aristotle, and Leibniz. Before the 17th century, the goals of science were wisdom, understanding the natural order, and living in harmony with it.
Ever since the "quantum revolution" of about 70 years ago, various scientists have been finding the intriguing parallels between their results and certain mystical-transcendental religions.
Heisenberg, Bohr, Schroedinger, Eddington, Einstein—all held a mystical, spiritual view of the world. Einstein wrote in a letter to a child who asked if scientists pray: "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of a man...."
...David Bohm's work in subatomic physics had led him to the conclusion that physical entities which seemed to be separate and discrete in space and time are actually unified in an implicit or underlying fashion. In Bohm's terminology, under an unfolded order of separate things and events is an enfolded order of undivided wholeness, and this whole is simultaneously available to each unfolded part. The enfolded order harbors our reality, much as the DNA in the nucleus of the cell conceals potential life and directs the nature of its unfolding...
...ever since Galileo, science has objectified nature by looking at it through lenses. Or, like Pribram put it, "Maybe reality isn't what we see with our eyes. If we did not have that lens, we might know a world organized in the frequency domain. No space, no time—just events..."
"...Has humanity taken a wrong turn somewhere in the past, which has brought about endless division, conflict and destruction?"
He confirms this when he talks about "the corruption of mankind," which was caused by "the pollution which has accumulated over the ages… in the nonmanifested consciousness of mankind, which we could call the sorrow of mankind because it leads to all this violence, corruption, disorder, self-deception…"
The nonmanifest, according to Bohm, is n-dimensional and not temporal, and cannot be handled in any way by 3-dimensional thought.
"And I think, " Bohm continues, "that this present (pragmatic) view of science has contributed considerably to the disorder in the brain. The origin of the chaos in human relationships is in our fragmented, atomistic… untruthful way of thinking..."
"...A human being is a part of the whole, called by us 'Universe,' a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is, in itself, a part of the liberation, and a foundation for inner security," wrote Albert Einstein in 1950...
BOOKMARKED........Thank you!!!!!!!!
Who has said they should be separate?
Sorry, but your attempt to kid your way around the thorny issues of epistomology has failed. One cannot talk meaningfully about "fact" without defining fact, and how one can distiguish fact from non-fact. Until one deals with the basic questions of Being and the nature of human knowledge, "science" is just another belief system.
What a lot of drivel!
Worthy of Madonna, or perhaps the Maharishi.
Outside the field of physics Einstein's opinions are about as worthwhile as those of my old aunt Hazel.
Don't forget he was a supporter of every loony left wing cause
and probably a communist sympathizer as well.
As for Dr. Bohm, he was a follower of the charlatan, Krishnamurthi.
As I have said on this forum before
you will learn more about Reality from your dreams
than by a lifetime studying quantum mechanics.
True, but lunatics are also thought to be lunatics, and they heavily outnumber the inspired. If someone has moonbat ideas it is generally safest to start from the viewpoint that they are probably truly a moonbat and then go from there.
To overcome prejudice the genuinely inspired man needs to bring evidence and secure reasoning to the table. If he does this it is surprising how fast science adopts new ideas even when they overturn cherished preconceptions (which is science's strength and its weakness). Religion is largely impervious to ideas that overturn cherished preconceptions (which is also religion's strength and its weakness).
Einstein's view of God is that He is some kind of cosmic auto-mechanic. Better than no God, I suppose, but not much.
In other words, science is everything that can be modeled and predicted by mathematics.
Mathematics breaks down at the singularities. The realm of mathematics is constantly expanding as we improve the models and eliminate the singularities.
Beyond the singularities - that's where religion, superstition and speculation take over.
BUMP
I would have to argue that the ground that devout men and women have gained in the understanding of the laws of nature, bringing incalculable benefits to mankind, basically renders this comment absurd. But, like all absurd comments, it enjoys a certain following.
Devout men and women have contributed to understanding of the laws of nature to the precise extent to which they left their Holy Works at the laboratory door. People who take their Holy Books in the laboratory with them only make progress understanding the world if the data happens to match the preconceptions they gained from their holy books. For example the Answers in Genesis Ministry requires that its "scientific" workers must sign up in advance to the idea that scientific observations can never contradict a literal reading of the Bible. To my mind you aren't doing science if you get your answers in advance from a Holy Book.
Your absurd canard does enjoy a certain following however, I agree.
Not all of us...
Creationists who are a) ignorant or b) grasping at straws.
If we should not give any weight to Einstein's opinions on epistemology, why should we give any weight to your opinions on Einstein?
You should not, any more than I give any weight to yours.
However, that does not deny me the right to have them.
Where Einstein made remarks about things other than physics we ought to examine his supporting arguments as closely as we would examine anyone elses. Since this is the internet no-one's credentials can be examined so everyone's argument is worth as much as they are prepared to back it up with facts, checkable references, and manifest knowledge of what they are talking about.
Ping to above.
Can one not learn from charlatans?
Krishnamurthi may be a fake, but Bohm is not.
Yes you are right
I know from personal experience
you can learn from a charlatan.
Bohm is authentic and well-meaning
but I do find him tedious and pedantic.
I agree with your sentiment, but the tradition also exists in Western (RCC) Christianity - and I wouldn't make the incarnation an exception.
To give you a more serious reply:
Since science has nothing to do with metaphysics
(words to that effect you have posted several times)
and since you cannot have epistomology
without a metaphysics
(at least as a subconscious substratum)
it logically follows
that a man's background in science
however eminent
does give weight to his thoughts on epistomology.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.