Replies

PS. And I mean that your thinking is 'small' in this regard: the potential of science. Otherwise, your thinking seems to be very broad indeed; unfortunately, it's wasted on pseudoscience and supernaturalism, circling endlessly around a futile quest (uncovering God).

Which, to wrap up my aside, is another reason why I express such disdain for religion: if all such creativity and ingenuity were harnessed toward achieving scientific progress, we'd be so much further along than we are to date.

But in the nexus between science and religion, science is the long-range, generational endeavor; whereas, religion is the immediate, personal coping mechanism in a hostile universe. The saving grace for religion is the solace and structure it provides for the interim, but I have a hard time looking beyond the modern-day drawbacks to that.

If religion did not impede science, which is an unfortuitous consequence of the particular religion that happened to prevail in the civilization that has been at the vanguard of science, then it would not concern me in the slightest.

Thank you for your various posts!

And I mean that your thinking is 'small' in this regard: the potential of science. Otherwise, your thinking seems to be very broad indeed; unfortunately, it's wasted on pseudoscience and supernaturalism, circling endlessly around a futile quest (uncovering God).

I appreciate your clarification that your assertion that I am thinking ‘small’ is with regard to the potential of science. Nevertheless, the prevailing philosophy of scientific materialism reduces the boundary of science. Therefore, by definition, where the philosophy prevails, science itself is small minded, tunnel visioned, incomplete.

Your assertion that my purpose is to uncover God is false on the face simply because you cannot read my mind.

Further, I testify that ‘uncovering God’ is not my purpose – I neither desire nor need to uncover the Person in whom I live and Who lives in me. We are on a first name basis. He gives me understanding freely as I ask it or as I need it.

Of a truth, my interest in science is inspired by Him (Psalms 19, Romans 1) and facilitated by Him – but it is not to “uncover” Him. That is impossible per se.

I also object to your characterizing my interest as “pseudoscience” especially considering the scientists and mathematicians whose work I hold most illuminating: Cumrun Vafa, Max Tegmark, Gregory Chaitin, Claude Shannon, Tom Schneider, Luis Rocha, Chris Adami, Jurgen Schmidhuber, Roger Penrose, Albert Einstein, Lisa Randall, P.S. Wesson, Paul Steinhardt, Burt Ovrut, H.H. Pattee.

BTW, what should be most revealing about all this is that here is why I have such great disdain for religion. Science is the ultimate pro-life endeavor. The quality of life after death is zero, and science is the only route toward defeating it.

For any atheist, the quality of life after physical death is zero. No wonder they are so interested in avoiding it.

What makes you think that, with indefinite life to work on the impediment, mankind need forever remain corporeal, or "in" space/time?

Indeed, this is the only path to immortality for an atheist who is not a metaphysical naturalist. Metaphysical naturalists cannot "go there" because they (like Pinker) see the mind/soul as merely an epiphenomenon of the physical brain (or device in the case of artificial intelligence).

me: As a last point, it is curious that science is seeking "immortality" when it has yet to embrace a rigorous definition for "what is life v non-life/death in nature".

you: Not really. The latter is a 'meta' question with no real practical bearing. It serves to pass the time of philosophes and mystics, but achieves little more.

To the contrary, abiogenesis (life from non-life) requires a definition of non-life v life. Likewise, how could one assert they have overcome death without a definition of life v death.

AFAIK, the Shannon definition offered at post 2034 is the only mathematical definition of life v non-life/death in nature. Without such a definition, I would never seriously entertain any theories of abiogenesis, near death experiences, etc. With it, I am able to evaluate alternative theories, observations and the ilk.