Who forbade to mix Religion and Science?

[TransmutingSoul]

You feel qualified to judge the intelligence of a Nobel laureate in physics? In any case, there is still no science in the quote you posted and there is still no science that indicates that a conscious mind is required to keep the universe working.

I use a standard that is not mine, I have no qualifications but for fair and just observation.

Thus the quote;

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." – Max Planck

I picked up on His comments about atoms, which triggered other things I had read about Atoms, like this passage;

"..For physical things are signs and imprints of spiritual things; every lower thing is an image and counterpart of a higher thing. Nay, earthly and heavenly, material and spiritual, accidental and essential, particular and universal, structure and foundation, appearance and reality and the essence of all things, both inward and outward -- all of these are connected one with another and are interrelated in such a manner that you will find that drops are patterned after seas, and that atoms are structured after suns in proportion to their capacities and potentialities. For particulars in relation to what is below them are universals, and what are great universals in the sight of those whose eyes are veiled are in fact particulars in relation to the realities and beings which are superior to them. Universal and particular are in reality incidental and relative considerations. The mercy of thy Lord, verily, encompasseth all things!...:

Now I look at this verse, knowing the Atom will be structured much like this;

"..He made the bodies of these spiritual spheres to be subtle and soft, flowing and liquid, undulating and vibrating, in such manner that these refulgent orbs swim in the circumferences of the spheres, and move in their vast space by the aid of their Creator and Maker, their Ordainer and Fashioner...."

Then what holds it all together;

"....Divine and all-encompassing Wisdom hath ordained that motion be an inseparable concomitant of existence, whether inherently or accidentally, spiritually or materially. This movement must be governed by some check or rein, some regulator or director, otherwise order will be disrupted and the spheres and bodies will fall from the heavens. For this reason God brought into being a universal attractive force between these bodies to hold sway over them and govern them, a force deriving from the firm ties, the mighty correspondence and affinity that exist between the realities of these limitless worlds. By the operation of this attractive force those holy and resplendent suns, with their luminous worlds, satellites and planets, circling and orbiting in their heavens, at once exerted attraction and were subject to it, induced motion and were themselves moved, began orbiting and set into orbit other bodies, shone forth and caused others to shine. In this manner they became arranged in a perfectly ordered system, each one a handiwork of consummate fashioning and manifest beauty, each one an enduring creation and a conclusive proof. Glory be to Him Who attracted them, laid firm hold on them, imbued them with effulgence, ordered them and set them in motion; and far from His glory be that which any of his creatures can affirm of Him or attribute to Him..."

Regards Tony

 

[sooda]

I've been to Death Valley. It is also a hideous place. Except during a super bloom in March. Then it is beyond belief beautiful.

And neither observation has anything to do with whether there was a Sodom and Gomorrah, or whether they were hit by meteorites or attacked by clever enemies or covered with 'Greek Fire' or whatever theory is coming down the pike.

In antiquity it was a source of salt and asphalt.. No, its not asphalt .. Its bitumen I think. They traded both all over the ME.

Its an oppressive, hellish place about 1300 feet below sea level... and the Dead Sea has been shrinking and receding dramatically since the 1960s because the Israelis have destroyed the water table.

Collins is a serious archaeologist not some flighty amateur... So its he can uncover one of the cities of the plain at Tel Hammam, I'm sure he will.

 

[dianaiad]

dianaiad, I am not scare off myths, I actually loved myths, I have always love a good storytelling. But that's the thing, myth is a story, based on their tradition, culture or religion. And usually they are highly embellished.

I have website - Timeless Myths devoted to myths from Greece, from Rome, from the Celts particularly the Irish and Welsh, and from Scandinavia.

I had another website, closed down, since I haven't been paying my webhosting and URL name, called Dark Mirrors of Heaven, that focused on alternative sources/texts to the Genesis creation story, like from the Apocrypha (books of Julibees and Enoch), from Rabbinic Haggadah and Midrash, from the Gnostic Nag Hammadi codices.

The thing is that I don't treat these stories as history or science.

Nor should you. That you think I am advocating this means that you haven't been paying attention to what I am actually saying.

Flood stories occur everywhere, and in many points in human history, but when myths don't have specific timeframes of these events, then they can't be treated as history.

No. But they contain DATA that can be included in the search.

the FACT that there are so many flood narratives should tell an investigator that...there are many flood narratives. Sometimes those flood narratives refer to an actual event. Sometimes they don't. They may be borrowed from other cultures and other narratives.

My POINT here is that scientists have a propensity to decide that IF something is mentioned in a mythological narrative, then that is proof that no such event happened and that anything pertaining to that event is false. Even examining such narratives is a career killer.

What you can't do is compare scablands events to that of Native American myths, when there were no humans living in the continents at that time, especially in the channel of scablands, and like I have been saying, when there are no time frames in NA's myths.

y'know, WE were not there when the scab lands were formed, either, but scientists now have pretty much figured out how, and when, they were formed.

Do you honestly think that the native American narratives that talk about the scab lands, and the people who came up with pretty much the same explanation for them that WE have, are so stupid that they couldn't look at the landscape and see 'well, that was a flood...' without being automatically dismissed as ignorant savage idiots who didn't know what they were looking at?

If you are going to say that native Americans couldn't possibly have figured out that the scab lands were the result of flooding, because they weren't there at the time, then what's your excuse for US figuring out that they are the result of catastrophic flooding?

Or are you...as the point I am attempting to make is...figuring that anything from myth is ONLY story telling, and that if it occurs in mythology, it...never happened at all?

 

[dianaiad]

I guess you believe the Government should have left the Branch Davidians to do their thing with no interference.

Jamestown might still be going strong if a couple of Congressmen hadn't gotten involved and caused all those deaths.

You probably think it was wrong for the Government to get involved with Warren Jeff's group.

Actually, I DO think it was wrong for the Government to raid the FLDS compound years after Jeffs was imprisoned, kidnapping all the women and children and hauling them to detention centers in Baptist busses, yes.

I suppose that you think that because you agree with what the Feds did with some people, that what they did to Utah was just dandy.

 

[sooda]

Nor should you. That you think I am advocating this means that you haven't been paying attention to what I am actually saying.



No. But they contain DATA that can be included in the search.

the FACT that there are so many flood narratives should tell an investigator that...there are many flood narratives. Sometimes those flood narratives refer to an actual event. Sometimes they don't. They may be borrowed from other cultures and other narratives.

My POINT here is that scientists have a propensity to decide that IF something is mentioned in a mythological narrative, then that is proof that no such event happened and that anything pertaining to that event is false. Even examining such narratives is a career killer.



y'know, WE were not there when the scab lands were formed, either, but scientists now have pretty much figured out how, and when, they were formed.

Do you honestly think that the native American narratives that talk about the scab lands, and the people who came up with pretty much the same explanation for them that WE have, are so stupid that they couldn't look at the landscape and see 'well, that was a flood...' without being automatically dismissed as ignorant savage idiots who didn't know what they were looking at?

If you are going to say that native Americans couldn't possibly have figured out that the scab lands were the result of flooding, because they weren't there at the time, then what's your excuse for US figuring out that they are the result of catastrophic flooding?

Or are you...as the point I am attempting to make is...figuring that anything from myth is ONLY story telling, and that if it occurs in mythology, it...never happened at all?

I don't think that your all or nothing description is accurate at all.

For instance.. Steve Collins thinks Abraham lived at the same time as Hammurabi which is waaaay too early.

 

[dianaiad]

Where do you get these ideas from? Archaeologists spent looking for any evidence for The Exodus. No one said they should not look. Their looking and not finding, however, provides evidence that Exodus is just another tale.

If they hadn't looked, the question would still be open.

No reputable scientist says DON'T LOOK.

Yeah they do.

Try getting something published if you look in the 'wrong' place.

Of course, if you are going to use the 'no true 'reputable scientist' argument, there isn't much that can be said.

Mind you, if your stated hypothosis is 'THIS DID NOT HAPPEN," That's OK. It's only when one attempts to get data from mythology to find out if something DID happen that one runs into credibility problems.

However, it is reasonable to come to conclusions. There is no reason to continue looking when all the evidence of past searches has come up empty unless new technologies could change the results.

Uh huh.

 

[siti]

I use a standard that is not mine, I have no qualifications but for fair and just observation.

Thus the quote;

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." – Max Planck

I picked up on His comments about atoms, which triggered other things I had read about Atoms, like this passage;

"..For physical things are signs and imprints of spiritual things; every lower thing is an image and counterpart of a higher thing. Nay, earthly and heavenly, material and spiritual, accidental and essential, particular and universal, structure and foundation, appearance and reality and the essence of all things, both inward and outward -- all of these are connected one with another and are interrelated in such a manner that you will find that drops are patterned after seas, and that atoms are structured after suns in proportion to their capacities and potentialities. For particulars in relation to what is below them are universals, and what are great universals in the sight of those whose eyes are veiled are in fact particulars in relation to the realities and beings which are superior to them. Universal and particular are in reality incidental and relative considerations. The mercy of thy Lord, verily, encompasseth all things!...:

Now I look at this verse, knowing the Atom will be structured much like this;

"..He made the bodies of these spiritual spheres to be subtle and soft, flowing and liquid, undulating and vibrating, in such manner that these refulgent orbs swim in the circumferences of the spheres, and move in their vast space by the aid of their Creator and Maker, their Ordainer and Fashioner...."

Then what holds it all together;

"....Divine and all-encompassing Wisdom hath ordained that motion be an inseparable concomitant of existence, whether inherently or accidentally, spiritually or materially. This movement must be governed by some check or rein, some regulator or director, otherwise order will be disrupted and the spheres and bodies will fall from the heavens. For this reason God brought into being a universal attractive force between these bodies to hold sway over them and govern them, a force deriving from the firm ties, the mighty correspondence and affinity that exist between the realities of these limitless worlds. By the operation of this attractive force those holy and resplendent suns, with their luminous worlds, satellites and planets, circling and orbiting in their heavens, at once exerted attraction and were subject to it, induced motion and were themselves moved, began orbiting and set into orbit other bodies, shone forth and caused others to shine. In this manner they became arranged in a perfectly ordered system, each one a handiwork of consummate fashioning and manifest beauty, each one an enduring creation and a conclusive proof. Glory be to Him Who attracted them, laid firm hold on them, imbued them with effulgence, ordered them and set them in motion; and far from His glory be that which any of his creatures can affirm of Him or attribute to Him..."

Regards Tony

But none of that is science - how is this showing that science and religion have to go together? This is just blind credulity masquerading as 'scientific' by using 'sciency'-sounding words like 'atom' and 'force'. This is pure religious mumbo-jumbo - all of it - nothing to do with science at all.

 

[shunyadragon]

My POINT here is that scientists have a propensity to decide that IF something is mentioned in a mythological narrative, then that is proof that no such event happened and that anything pertaining to that event is false. Even examining such narratives is a career killer.

y'know, WE were not there when the scablands were formed, either, but scientists now have pretty much figured out how, and when, they were formed.

Do you honestly think that the native American narratives that talk about the scab lands, and the people who came up with pretty much the same explanation for them that WE have, are so stupid that they couldn't look at the landscape and see 'well, that was a flood...' without being automatically dismissed as ignorant savage idiots who didn't know what they were looking at?

If you are going to say that native Americans couldn't possibly have figured out that the scablands were the result of flooding, because they weren't there at the time, then what's your excuse for US figuring out that they are the result of catastrophic flooding?

Or are you...as the point I am attempting to make is...figuring that anything from myth is ONLY story telling, and that if it occurs in mythology, it...never happened at all?

Most if not all records in ancient writings of catastrophic flood events, and oral and pictograph (like totums) traditions are most likely real nature catastrophic flood events mostly river and Tsunamis confirmed by geologic evidence. The scablands are documented as specific geologic regional events related to glacial lakes, which have been dated..They are not all just myth, and scientists do not consider them just myth..

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But none of that is science - how is this showing that science and religion have to go together? This is just blind credulity masquerading as 'scientific' by using 'sciency'-sounding words like 'atom' and 'force'. This is pure religious mumbo-jumbo - all of it - nothing to do with science at all.

As you are free to conclude.

Personally I see, at this time, true science is in dire need to embrace what God has given in Faith.

I see the mid 1800's was a God given change of mind and capacity. As the Bible said, it was to be a new heaven and a new earth.

Regards Tony

 

[siti]

As you are free to conclude.

We are free to conclude whatever we conclude about our beliefs but...

Personally I see, at this time, true science is in dire need to embrace what God has given in Faith.

...we are not free to conclude what science should 'embrace' - "true science" (whatever you mean by that) cannot, by definition, embrace anything that is "given in (or on) faith"...it can only embrace what it finds by careful observation. Faith is nothing to do with science and vice versa. There's nothing wrong IMO with having both, but dishonest or uninformed attempts to reconcile them as the same thing are (a) doomed to failure and (b) irritating. So I'm sorry if I get a bit judgemental but, on the other hand, as a non-medical person, I would not presume to tell a doctor what medicine should "embrace" - and you should not do that with science...and especially using words like "dire need". Are you casting science as degenerate or a negative force in human society? What is this "dire need" intended to address?

 

[dianaiad]

Most if not all records in ancient writings of catastrophic flood events, and oral and pictograph (like totums) traditions are most likely real nature catastrophic flood events mostly river and Tsunamis confirmed by geologic evidence. The scablands are documented as specific geologic regional events related to glacial lakes, which have been dated..They are not all just myth, and scientists do not consider them just myth..

No. They don't any more, because they HAD THEIR NOSES RUBBED IN IT.

They DID dismiss those tales as 'just myth,' or mere story telling, however, until it became obvious that, er....those native Americans were on to something. But the scientists had to go at it backwards.

What I am saying here is that by ignoring the cultural and mythological stories, scientists are missing data that would have shortened the process considerably.

Oh, not that they should consider the moral point of such stories, or that they should say 'oh, the Great Spirit Ockuheechee did it so we don't have to look any harder for how...", but that there ARE so many stories about such events? That these events were such as to demand that the peoples surrounding them EXPLAIN them somehow?

The explanation they come up with isn't 'science.' It's not meant to be. But that there ARE events that prompt such stories?

Obviously there are. And those who are investigating, say, geological events should consider THAT cultures with mythology dealing with those events actually were dealing with events.

Oh....and that when native peoples who lived with 'lesser' floods all the time, would recognize the landscape left by one and actually say so, that they just might be describing an event and a process worth looking at themselves.

Oh, and religion and science don't work together any more than a teaspoon and a thermometer 'work together' to measure stuff for a recipe. They are different approaches, sometimes to the same problem, but very different approaches for very different purposes.

What they do NOT have to do, though, is destroy each other. The Bible is not a science text. "Essentials of Geology" is not a religious text. Don't mix 'em up...but don't decide that BECAUSE the Bible might mention a city called 'Sodom,' that there is absolutely no chance that 'Sodom' exists.

Don't decide that because "Essentials of Geology" mentions that the earth is something like 4.5 billion years old, that nothing in it is true...because your understanding of the Bible says that the earth is 6000 years old.

I honestly do not see a difference between the two groups, truthfully. Both sides are cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Are you casting science as degenerate or a negative force in human society? What is this "dire need" intended to address?

I see without using the guidance Faith has given, science can unknowingly become dangerously materialistic.

"..The harmony of science and religion is one of the fundamental principles of the Bahá’í Faith, which teaches that religion, without science, soon degenerates into superstition and fanaticism, while science without religion becomes merely the instrument of crude materialism. “Religion,” according to the Bahá’í writings, “is the outer expression of the divine reality. Therefore, it must be living, vitalized, moving and progressive.” “Science is the first emanation from God toward man. All created things embody the potentiality of material perfection, but the power of intellectual investigation and scientific acquisition is a higher virtue specialized to man alone. Other beings and organisms are deprived of this potentiality and attainment.”

Science and Religion | What Bahá’ís Believe

Regards Tony

 

[siti]

I see without using the guidance Faith has given, science can unknowingly become dangerously materialistic.

Dear God! "Dangerously materialistic"? What the Dickens does that mean? Sounds exactly like

superstition and fanaticism

to me.

FTR materialism in this sense is about the philosophical view that there are only physical things in existence...what is "dangerous" about that? Why is there a "dire need" to dissuade people from that idea? You have raised the spectre of danger and dire consequences if people base their views on science without religion...you have a duty to elucidate...please tell us what these dangers and dire consequences might be - and how you know this to be true.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

FTR materialism in this sense is about the philosophical view that there are only physical things in existence...what is "dangerous" about that? Why is there a "dire need" to dissuade people from that idea? You have raised the spectre of danger and dire consequences if people base their views on science without religion...you have a duty to elucidate...please tell us what these dangers and dire consequences might be - and how you know this to be true.

Is not the science of war the greatest example of materialism gone mad?

In Shoghi Effendi's Messages to the Baha'i World 1950 to 1957, in the years after world war 2, I contemplate this passage He penned;

"...Against the background of these afflictive disturbances—the turmoil and tribulations of a travailing age—we may well ponder the portentous prophecies uttered well-nigh fourscore years ago, by the Author of our Faith, as well as the dire predictions made by Him Who is the unerring Interpreter of His teachings, all foreshadowing a universal commotion, of a scope and intensity unparalleled in the annals of mankind.
The violent derangement of the world’s equilibrium; the trembling that will seize the limbs of mankind; the radical transformation of human society; the rolling up of the present-day Order; the fundamental changes affecting the structure of government; the weakening of the pillars of religion; the rise of dictatorships; the spread of tyranny; the fall of monarchies; the decline of ecclesiastical institutions; the increase of anarchy and chaos; the extension and consolidation of the Movement of the Left; the fanning into flame of the smouldering fire of racial strife; the development of infernal engines of war; the burning of cities; the contamination of the atmosphere of the earth—these stand out as the signs and portents that must either herald or accompany the retributive calamity which, as decreed by Him Who is the Judge and Redeemer of mankind, must, sooner or later, afflict a society which, for the most part, and for over a century, has turned a deaf ear to the Voice of God’s Messenger in this day—a calamity which must purge the human race of the dross of its age-long corruptions, and weld its component parts into a firmly-knit world-embracing Fellowship—a Fellowship destined, in the fullness of time, to be incorporated in the framework, and to be galvanized by the spiritualizing influences, of a mysteriously expanding, divinely appointed Order, and to flower, in the course of future Dispensations, into a Civilization, the like of which mankind has, at no stage in its evolution, witnessed...."

We can ignore that, or it will unfold. Again our choice, each and every one of us.

Regards Tony

 

[siti]

Is not the science of war the greatest example of materialism gone mad?

No it is not. It is the greatest example of fanaticism gone mad. It is the greatest example of the betrayal of Christ's non-violence by the military forces of a self-proclaimed "Nation under God". It is the greatest example of the cowardice and complicity of religion in failing to speak out in the face of the most grotesque violation of the principle of the sanctity of human life that is supposedly enshrined in the scriptural tradition of those religions. It is the greatest example of why - as Abdu'l Baha put it "If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division, it were better to be without it"...well it is, was and continues to be a cause not only of dislike, hatred and division, but of the most vile perversions of natural justice perpetrated with the blessing of priests and prophets - and as far as I can tell, there can be no further doubt, that on that score, "it were better to be without it" altogether. And I especially feel that way when fanatical and clearly ill-informed religionists try to blame their own failures on the irreligious with phrases like you just used. Absolutely preposterous.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

And I especially feel that way when fanatical and clearly ill-informed religionists try to blame their own failures on the irreligious with phrases like you just used. Absolutely preposterous.

I see that is an incorrect reading of the quoted passage.

If it is "absolutely preposterous", then no worries.

Regards Tony

 

[shunyadragon]

No. They don't any more, because they HAD THEIR NOSES RUBBED IN IT.

They DID dismiss those tales as 'just myth,' or mere story telling, however, until it became obvious that, er....those native Americans were on to something. But the scientists had to go at it backwards.

This is not true, and you need to provide references to justify this emotional response. The Tigris Euphrates catastrophic flood has been well documented since the 1920's by archaeological and geologic evidence, and determined that Sumerian cuneiform text and later texts are not totally myth.

From: The Flood: Mesopotamian Archaeological Evidence

The assertion of some historians and archaeologists that a great flood devastated a region of Mesopotamia at the dawn of history and that this event was the origin of the biblical Flood story has become a curious backwater in the debate over creationism. The topic has not proved of major concern to either the advocates of recent-creationism or to their scientific opponents. It has, however, given considerable, if probably unwarranted, encouragement to day-age creationists, gap theorists, and those who hope to reconcile apparent contradictions between scripture and science.

Within a few months of one another during the 1928-1929 excavation season, archaeologists at two southern Mesopotamian sites, Ur and Kish, announced the discovery of flood deposits which they identified with the Flood described in the Hebrew scriptures and cuneiform sources. The famous and glamorous Sir Charles Leonard Woolley, after his deep excavations of the Early Dynastic royal tombs at Ur, had a small test shaft sunk into the underlying soil. He persisted through some eight feet of bare mud before finally coming to a layer bearing artifacts of late prehistoric date. It did not take Woolley long to arrive at an interpretation:

I . . . by the time I had written up my notes was quite convinced of what it all meant; but I wanted to see whether others would come to the same conclusion. So I brought up two of my staff and, after pointing out the facts, asked for their explanation. They did not know what to say. My wife came along and looked and was asked the same question, and she turned away remarking casually, "Well, of course, it's the Flood."

[1954, p. 27]

What I am saying here is that by ignoring the cultural and mythological stories, scientists are missing data that would have shortened the process considerably.

Oh, not that they should consider the moral point of such stories, or that they should say 'oh, the Great Spirit Ockuheechee did it so we don't have to look any harder for how...", but that there ARE so many stories about such events? That these events were such as to demand that the peoples surrounding them EXPLAIN them somehow?

As described above the scientists did not ignore the stories, The same is true that scientists have confirmed the the ancient records of catastrophic floods in China and determined that even the date recorded by the Chinese is accurate. The oral tradition stories of the Northwestern Native American have also been confirmed as described by the stories as tsunamis. Again, the stories were not ignored.

The explanation they come up with isn't 'science.' It's not meant to be. But that there ARE events that prompt such stories?

Te scientists did use archaeology and geology to confirm the science behind the stories.

Don't decide that because "Essentials of Geology" mentions that the earth is something like 4.5 billion years old, that nothing in it is true...because your understanding of the Bible says that the earth is 6000 years old.

The geologic age and history of the earth is determined by the 'objective verifiable evidence,'

 

[Wandering Monk]

Joseph Campbell on Monomyth. Google it.

 

[cladking]

Joseph Campbell on Monomyth. Google it.

Perhaps anyone who strikes off on his own might experience this;

Hero's journey - Wikipedia

 

[ecco]

We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." – Max Planck

Why must we assume this? Why do people believe, as apparently you do, that there is a linear relationship between intelligence and religious belief?

There are highly intelligent people who are atheists.
There are highly intelligent people who are deists.
There are dumb people who are atheists.
There are dumb people who are deists.

However, it does seem to be that higher intelligence leads more to deism than to fundamentalism.