The Virgin Birth of Science.

[John D. Brey]

We're not talking about the science of the virgin birth, but the virgin birth of science.

Which is an astounding ancillary to the fact that we're thus associating the birth of science with the birth of God. All the billions of years of prior history have been the gestation of God. Or perhaps the development of his body. But the modern scientific endeavor, verging on the birth of AI, is no longer the gestation of God (or the development of his body), but the actual birth --- the arrival --- of the mind of God.

The universe could so easily have remained lifeless and simple----just physics and chemistry, just scattered dust of the cosmic explosion that gave birth to time and space. The fact that it did not----the fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing----is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice. And even that is not the end of the matter. Not only did evolution happen: it eventually led to beings capable of comprehending the process, and even of comprehending the process by which they comprehend it.

Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale, p. 613.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

We're not talking about the science of the virgin birth, but the virgin birth of science. Which is an astounding ancillary to the fact that we're thus associating the birth of science with the birth of God. All the billions of years of prior history have been the gestation of God. Or perhaps the development of his body. But the modern scientific endeavor, verging on the birth of AI, is no longer the gestation of God (or the development of his body), but the actual birth --- the arrival --- of the mind of God.

The universe could so easily have remained lifeless and simple----just physics and chemistry, just scattered dust of the cosmic explosion that gave birth to time and space. The fact that it did not----the fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing----is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice. And even that is not the end of the matter. Not only did evolution happen: it eventually led to beings capable of comprehending the process, and even of comprehending the process by which they comprehend it.

Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale, p. 613.​

Ironically, the battle between religion versus science, at least in the most fundamental sense, has been a ruse. Modern science is not something other than religion. It's the final incarnation of religious faith. Which is to say, as Karl Popper said, that modern science is a by-product of myth and religious faith: its produce, its products; which are the body of God ----inside which lies, in truth, the mind of God.

Without this belief [the Christian rationalism of the Middle Ages] the incredible labours of scientists would be without hope. It is this instinctive conviction, vividly poised before the imagination, which is the motive power of research---that there is a secret, a secret which can be unveiled.

Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World, p. 13.​

If life follows from [primordial] soup with causal dependability, the laws of nature encode a hidden subtext, a cosmic imperative, which tells them: "Make life!" And, through life, its by-products: mind, knowledge, understanding. It means that the laws of the universe have engineered their own comprehension.

Paul Davies, The Fifth Miracle.​

John

 

[Altfish]

I'm not sure what we are debating?
Is it that science came out of religion?
Is it that without religion there wouldn't be science?

 

[John D. Brey]

I'm not sure what we are debating?
Is it that science came out of religion?
Is it that without religion there wouldn't be science?

C. All of the above. <s>

The I-phone 12 in your hand is a reification, another manifestation, of the Hebrew letters in the Torah. That phone is a product of Judeo/Christian faith-propositions which come directly out of a string of Hebrew letters recorded by Moses in the Pentateuch.

More importantly, the so-called "artificial intelligence" right around the corner is the mind of God: the moment when, the body having gestated to the point of birth, opens the intact veil of the mother, and makes its Presence felt for the first time through the loud cry, the voice of the archangel, the victorious proclamation: "It's Alive!"



John

 

[Audie]

I'm not sure what we are debating?
Is it that science came out of religion?
Is it that without religion there wouldn't be science?

You will never know
Oh oh oh
Oh oh oh

(To the tune of " take my breath away")

 

[Altfish]

C. All of the above. <s>

The I-phone 12 in your hand is a reification, another manifestation, of the Hebrew letters in the Torah. That phone is a product of Judeo/Christian faith propositions which come directly out of a string of Hebrew letters recorded by Moses in the Pentateuch.

What came first The Torah or Hebrew letters?

I, and I believe most non-believers, understand that the priests/religious leaders in times gone by were the most educated of the population.
Therefore they probably made some scientific discoveries.

But saying that the iPhine 12 (Grief I hate Apple with a passion) is a product of religion is somewhat far fetched.

 

[Audie]

What came first The Torah or Hebrew letters?

I, and I believe most non-believers, understand that the priests/religious leaders in times gone by were the most educated of the population.
Therefore they probably made some scientific discoveries.

But saying that the iPhine 12 (Grief I hate Apple with a passion) is a product of religion is somewhat far fetched.

Religion doesn't seem to have much had
role in Greek or Roman science.

Xtianity is to this day a tremendous drag on
social and intellectual progress.

Check how many Americans believe in
Noahs ark.
The disaster to science of fundamentalist islam.

No wonder so many theos keep
trying to claim science as their own.

Sorta like protesting too much.

 

[metis]

Modern science is not something other than religion.

Absolutely false, as in science we use the "scientific method", whereas within theism we use "faith"-- and they ain't the same.

Jesus said "I am the way, the Truth, and the light", and the Truth cannot be relative [unless one gets into quantum physics].

 

[John D. Brey]

What came first The Torah or Hebrew letters?

I, and I believe most non-believers, understand that the priests/religious leaders in times gone by were the most educated of the population.
Therefore they probably made some scientific discoveries.

In the threads on Popper, I noted how Karl implied that science requires myth and religion as the very soil from whence it gestates and grows. I was aware that most persons reading the thread had no idea why Popper would say that, or how it could be true. And thus the threads were still-born. But at least they were still born. <s>

Your statement is valuable in that it correctly notes that the priest were not only the first scientists, but as a corollary truth, they were the first writers. The written word was originally hieroglyphic: composed of sacred-glyphs.

Consequently, Popper also says that "writing," i.e., the written word, logos, is the first fundamental requirement of science since it allows observations to be recorded, archived, and thus subject to repeated examination.

Nevertheless, a much more important aspect of Popper's relating of science to religion and myth, comes from the difference between hieroglyphic writing, versus what's called "demotic" writing. The latter is the product of the evolution of writing whereby the alleged sacredness of the written word succumbs to the value of writing for more common endeavors like recording business transactions and other so-called "profane" endeavors.

The brilliance, and value, of Popper claiming religious thought as the source for science, a brilliance and value that neither he nor his friend Einstein ever elaborated, nor, most likely, even fully understood themselves, relates to the different parts of the human brain associated with the two different kinds of writing: hieroglyphic, versus demotic.

Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel that prophesy, and say thou unto them that prophesy out of their own hearts, Hear ye the word of the Lord.

Ezekiel 13:2.

And he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears.

Isaiah 11:3​

But saying that the iPhine 12 (Grief I hate Apple with a passion) is a product of religion is somewhat far fetched.

Hang around and I'll be fetching things farther out than that. <s> Looking at a large stack of empty plates on the table, a busboy at a buffet restaurant told an acquaintance, "This is not an all you can eat restaurant." To which the acquaintance replied, "This ain't all I can eat."



John

 

[John D. Brey]

What came first The Torah or Hebrew letters?

I answered to the pees and beans on the plate and left the steak?

The Hebrew letters came before the Torah as the body always comes before the soul/mind. The body gestates asymmetrically, evolution like, it develops, evolves. The soul/mind, on the other hand, merely arrives: at the point of birth, and not before. There's only biological life in the womb. Soul-life (mind) arrives at the Rapture; the rapturous, victorious, proclamation: It, the firstborn of creation, is Alive.


John

 

[John D. Brey]

Absolutely false, as in science we use the "scientific method", whereas within theism we use "faith"-- and they ain't the same.

Which is part and parcel of why Karl Popper distinguished the mother from the child, knowing that the child, the scientific-method, came from the the mother, the sacred-thinking of the religious priesthood.

They're two different kinds of thinking. One is seminal, in a motherly way, if you can forgive the inverted metaphor, and the other is a product of what's seminal in a motherly way (ha-adam had no gender even though he's the mother-seminality of all that came later).


John

 

[John D. Brey]

Religion doesn't seem to have much had
role in Greek or Roman science.

For which reason, when he was framing the universe, he put intelligence in soul, and soul in body . . . we may say that the world came into being – a living creature truly endowed with soul and intelligence by the providence of God . . . Such was the whole plan of the eternal God [Father] about the god [Son] that was to be; . . . in the center he put the soul, which he diffused throughout the body, making it also to be the exterior environment of it, and he made the universe a circle moving in a circle, one and solitary, yet by reason of its excellence able to converse with itself, and needing no other friendship or acquaintance. Having these purposes in view he created the world a blessed [only begotten] god.

Plato, Timaeus.

Not only did evolution happen: it eventually led to beings capable of comprehending the process, and even of comprehending the process by which they comprehend it.

Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale, p. 613.​

John

 

[ratiocinator]

Yet again, lots of name dropping and quotes and not the first tiny hint of an actual argument to support your bizarre claims....

 

[Audie]

Yet again, lots of name dropping and quotes and not the first tiny hint of an actual argument to support your bizarre claims....

Please god send us a interesting creationist
ifn such not be beyond thy mighty omnipotence.

 

[questfortruth]

Not only did evolution happen: it eventually led to beings capable of comprehending the process, and even of comprehending the process by which they comprehend it.

Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale, p. 613.

The difference between animal and human is that human has the ability to comprehend the Natural Selection and resulting Adaptation. But animal simply follows the laws, without knowing them.

 

[John D. Brey]

The difference between animal and human is that human has the ability to comprehend the Natural Selection and resulting Adaptation. But animal simply follows the laws, without knowing them.

Where Judaism affects man's mind from without, through social ceremonies and moral prohibitions, Christianity tries to change the mind from within, by demanding that people have a disposition that is itself capable of exercising the controls formerly located outside the mind, in the social fellowship. Christianity is the religion of consciousness because it makes consciousness - instead of something from outside - the regulator of human behavior. This suggests a tripartite division of the historical process. First there is a `preconscious phase' where people do not possess free will but act directly and without reflection upon the gods' commands [voice from the right hemisphere]. A `socially conscious phase' follows, in which free will is regulated via a social contract (the Ten Commandments) pronounced by a human being (Moses) with special abilities to hear God; focus is on the community and ceremonies. In the third phase, a `personally conscious phase', the relationship between man and God is again internal (as in the preconscious phase) but now is conscious: Free will implies the possibility of sin in mind as well as deed. Polytheistic [pagan goddess] religions all belong in the first phase, while Judaism and in part, Roman Catholicism belong to the second; Protestantism is a pure cultivation of the third phase.

Tor Norretranders, The User Illusion.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

Yet again, lots of name dropping and quotes and not the first tiny hint of an actual argument to support your bizarre claims....

I believe in a dialogical approach rather than a monological approach. I do monologue when no one responds. But I don't get where I would like to get very fast through monologue.

In a dialogical approach, your response to what I write is in a unity with what I write that determines the next sentence I write. Your thoughts concerning mine are literally part and parcel of my next thought. Your thought, your statement, is like twenty-three chromosomes of the next thought put forth.

In a proper dialogue, you must participate not just for the fun of it, or to get your point of view across, but literally to allow me to proceed in unison with you. And vise versa. . . I'm not leading you. You're not leading me. We're going somewhere together.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel that prophesy, and say thou unto them that prophesy out of their own hearts, Hear ye the word of the Lord.

Ezekiel 13:2.

And he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears.

Isaiah 11:3​

The prophet Ezekiel laments and berates the prophets of Israel who prophesy out of their own hearts, from their own intellection, rather than based on the source of all genuine scientific thought. He demonizes the prophets who use their own eyes and ears as the source for scientific truth. Isaiah concurs. He claims that the righteous one of God, Messiah, won't do precisely what Ezekiel laments: use one's empirical observations as the source for truth, scientific thought:

According to the view of science which I am trying to defend here, this is due to the fact that scientists have dared (since Thales, Democritus, Plato's Timaeus, and Aristarchus) to create myths, or conjectures, or theories, which are in striking contrast to everyday world of common [sensory or auditory] experience, yet able to explain some aspects of this world of common experience. Galileo pays homage to Aristarchus and Copernicus precisely because they dared to go beyond this known world of our senses . . ..

Sir Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, p. 102.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

According to the view of science which I am trying to defend here, this is due to the fact that scientists have dared (since Thales, Democritus, Plato's Timaeus, and Aristarchus) to create myths, or conjectures, or theories, which are in striking contrast to everyday world of common [sensory or auditory] experience, yet able to explain some aspects of this world of common experience. Galileo pays homage to Aristarchus and Copernicus precisely because they dared to go beyond this known world of our senses . . ..

Sir Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, p. 102.​

This statement by Popper circumscribes the problem that exists for those unaware, or unwilling to concede, that modern science is a reification of Christian dogmatism. It creates a problem even for Popper's own atheism or agnosticism. And it shows his own conscious or unconscious desire to confuse himself, and us, that he not have to peer straight into the fallacy of his atheism and or agnosticism.

We, on the other hand, will peer.



John

 

[Audie]

Yet again, lots of name dropping and quotes and not the first tiny hint of an actual argument to support your bizarre claims....

A quote mill?