Posted on 04/20/2002 6:37:23 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP
Now that is putting your concept short and not so sweet. I will have to remember that phrase.
About 15 billion years ago.
Einstein was never religious, and he said so. Quite often. Einstein's Writings on Science and Religion .
Who is Stephen Weinberg? Not hard to figure out: Stephen Weinberg . Now then, you're wrong about Einstein and you're unaware of Weinberg. So where does that leave you?
Please use some common sense. It happened once? And an explosion, which is a destructive force on any other occasion, CREATED something? It never ceases to amaze me the things that people will believe in order to deny a divine creator.
"One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious"
"Well, Stevie, doll, tell that to Albert Einstein; but, then again, what did that old fart know?"
"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom."
and
"The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man. To know that what is impenatrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties - this knowledge, this feeling ... that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself amoung profoundly religious men."
and
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." [Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]
In conclusion, my 'issue' with Weinberg is that he is postulating that one cannot be intelligent and maintain a religiosity; when in fact he is oppressively dogmatic in his endeavor to promote his own form of religiosity, atheism. He cannot prove that his hypothesis (which is where it must remain, if he IS a pure scientist)is true until concrete evidence is discovered that unequivocally supports his claims. Now, whether variant claims of double blind studies on the positive effects of prayer, that have been conducted and continue to be so, actually prove that there is a personal god ALSO remains to be seen, but, to date, they appear, at least, to fall within the very realm that Albert Einstein suggested that humans could most definitely experience as an inexplicable wonderment of the universe and that it encompasses and all that may encompass it. Hence, i have substantially less respect for the purported scientific objectivism of Weinberg (and those who jump on his bandwagon without a second thought) than I do the late, great Albert Einstein.
And, this is also all i want to discuss about this for now. How much shall we beat this dead horse, eh?
Clearly he does nothing of the sort.
"One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious"
Well, common sense would say that if an explosion couldn't come from nowhere, neither could a God.
This is a bit interesting when one studies Scripture and the feeding of the multitude with bread and fishes, or walking on water. Phrases such as faith can move mountains may have much more meaning than a simple analogy or allegory.
Seems like he might be an interesting fellow, although I suspect one doesn't need millions to study the issue. Seems to me that one could do just fine by simply devoting oneself to prayer and fasting and asking Him to lead the way.
I just checked the website. From http://www.templetonprize.org/purpose.html
The Templeton Prize does not encourage syncretism but rather an understanding of the benefits of diversity. It seeks to focus attention on the wide variety of endeavors toward discoveries or spiritual realities research. It does not seek a unity of denominations nor a unity of world religions; but rather it seeks to encourage understanding of the benefits of diversity.
What is this preoccupation with 'diversity'? My gut feeling is that religion which fails to ascribe to God's plan is a devise of evil. Or in other words, this same prize is simply another evil devise, perhaps independent of the devil and man-ade, but fails to worship Him.
Oh, I concur with that. I mean God, if he existed, could certainly "prove" he existed to the satisfaction of any mortal. But if he is stealthy about it, no, you couldn't prove him or disprove him.
If he intervenes in human affairs in a way that doesn't change causality, then you could detect him statistically (i.e. those who pray for intervention ought to have altered outcomes versus those who don't pray/believe.) It is hard to imagine how God could answer prayers and yet remain statistically undetected -- but I suppose one can assert some comcommitant causality change that hides the discrepency.
My only question is why should anyone believe anything for which there is no evidence? There are lots of things for which there is no evidence -- an infinite selection of things. Why this particular thing?
Ok. What I believe and have been taught is that people are refered to as sheep (in the Bible) for a reason. Do you know how stupid sheep are? Following through on that, is a sheep capable of understanding its sheperd in more than just a rudimentary way? No. If we understood God, we'd BE God and we're not. Consequently, we only know a little of God because we aren't capable of understanding more. I can't create a tree just by speaking but He can. So we don't know where God came from, wouldn't understand and actually don't need to know. But explosions I understand and I don't smoke in gas stations. :-) I also undertand that you don't believe any of this and that's ok. I'm not trying to lecture, just explain my viewpoint. Explosions can be understood by man, God isn't something we can fully understand.
Send him to see Rev. Moon. See if Weinberg is still convinced that science and religion aren't compatible afterwards.
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.