[FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)

[Frank Wimberly]

Nick,

Did you ever read "Brideshead Revisited" by Evelyn Waugh?  Or see the PBS
production.  The patriarch of an English Catholic family who is an avowed
atheist in a moment of oblivion on his deathbed crosses himself as he takes
his last breath.  A rigid Freudian would say that he was unintegrated.

I often wonder if we will have an epiphany (root meaning visit from God) as
we die.  A friend who had open heart surgery while his heart was stopped
said, "No, Frank".  But he wasn't really dead.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 4:04 PM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> reiteration of evidence to Eric the deep disdain and hatred many in Science
>
>
>
> Yeah.  Richard Dawkins and three other loonies.  I was in a chatgroup with
> hard scientists, etc., from all over the world for about a year, and I was
> the only avowed non-religious person on the chat.  The european physicists
> were all dedicated cartesians seeking truth in the real world … I e, the
> world that god knows and we aspire to know.   Any belief in a world beyond
> experience is a religious belief.
>
>
>
> I persist in thinking the key word is “hate”, here.   The way you speak
> these “many”,  with their “deep distain and hatred” in such sweeping terms,
> it seems that you hate them.  So what exactly is hate.  I think it’s an
> attempt to recruit allies to expell the target from one’s universe, to
> exile them. But Frank is right:  There is an element of “*get thee behind
> me”* in hatred.  You cannot hate what you don’t feel in some degree
> attached to.  So the key to resolving hatred is to find the tie that binds
> one to the thing one hates, and snip it.  Once you have done that, one
> doesn’t need allies any more.   You just walk away.
>
>
>
> So, Steve.  What do you find *attractive* in the scientistic denial of
> faith?  I am guessing that it has to do with their claim of certainty. But
> certainty is something that ony a religious person can have.    Or, to put
> it round the other way, Whenever we speak with  certainty, we are speaking
> from the religious side of ourselves. As I am doing right now.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Stephen Guerin
> *Sent:* Friday, September 25, 2020 10:41 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some
> people hate cops)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 5:42 AM Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> wrote:
>
> I don’t, for example, recognize quantum mechanics as truth.  If it turns
> out there is a convincing explanation why nature has to be this way, then
> it has to be this way and the “divine” has been cornered.   If nature can
> be some other way, in regimes that are hard for today’s technology to
> observe, then those are interesting qualifications or alternative models.
>  It’s all just provisional.
>
>
>
> I brought up Planck's views for two reasons:
>
>    - His views on religion and his rejection of its foundation of miracle
>    and superstition
>    - His challenge to the most sophisticated of scientists with
>    "generalized world views" that an understanding/model of "God" is a worthy
>    goal for a scientist.
>
> While I think Action and Bidirectional Path Tracing in Dual Fields is a
> potential model (Glen and Jon can unpack that in a steel man) I don't want
> to get distracted by the "How" the synthesis might happen. To borrow from
> Eric Smith in the Jim Rutt Podcast
> <https://jimruttshow.blubrry.net/the-jim-rutt-show-transcripts/transcript-of-episode-40-eric-smith-on-the-physics-of-living-systems/>:
> "we shouldn’t try to spin scenarios at this point".
>
>
>
> And for full disclosure, upon reflection, my post was mostly targeted at
> Eric Smith after I saw his comment on Marcus's post.
>
> First was to use Marcus's post as a reiteration of evidence to Eric the
> deep disdain and hatred many in Science have for Religion which we've
> talked about in the past and second to potentially engage Eric as one of
> the few scientists I know with a sufficient "generalized world view" to see
> the most basic patterns in Science and attempt a synthesis. If not leading
> the synthesis, at least playing bullshit detector and helping in pointing
> out potential formalizations.
>
>
> FWIW,  Eric's close colleague, the late Harold Morowitz, expressed similar
> views as Max Planck.
>
>      see:
> https://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Joy-Local-Pain-Scientist/dp/0684184435
>
>
>
> I know Eric is resistant at the value or even the worthiness of this
> pursuit. I put this out as a public challenge to Eric and he can decline.
> I think it could be one of the greatest scientific contributions of our
> time.
>
>
>
> To Marcus, Glen and Jon, I will try to refrain from casting pearls ;-p
> (meant in humor)
>
> -Stephen
>
>
>
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200925/d511c41d/attachment.html>