This talk that I heard a couple of weeks ago is a good springboard for a discussion. I wasn't sure whether to put it here, on Philosophy, or on the General Faiths pages - please feel free to move it Mods.
Daniel asks several questions here, particularly, "Do you think evolution is an argument for atheism?", "What is truth?" and "What is science?"
In the 19thC, mathematics, metaphysics and theology were all included in what was termed "science".
[url]“Evolution, revolution: Exploring science and religion/spirituality”[/url] by Daniel Scott PhD
Do you think evolution is an argument for atheism? This lecture argues that not only did Darwin believe in God, but today we can intelligently understand the nature of God without pushing aside scientific discoveries. Daniel looks beyond the popular evolution vs. creationism debate and explores the nature of God as a scientific reality.
About the speaker .. from theoretical physicist to practical Christian.
As a young teenager, Daniel Scott became fascinated with theoretical physics. He went on to spend seven years at Cambridge University studying mathematics and mathematical physics. During this time he gained a basic working knowledge of quantum theory and relativity theory, became a published mathematician, and earned a PhD in an abstract branch of mathematical physics. However, by the time he had finished his PhD, his desire to be a physicist had been superseded by a growing interest in scientific metaphysics. He explains that it was his desire to find answers to the big questions of “Life, the universe and everything!” that had sparked his interest in fundamental physics, but that he came to realize that the deepest answers weren’t to be found in mathematics or physics.
On the other hand, whilst at university he had been continuing his spiritual study, and it was during this time that he first glimpsed that Christian Science could be taken seriously as science. This led to a sharp turn in career plans: from theoretical physicist to practical Christian.
[DLMURL] http://cshealer.co.uk/about/dscott/ [/DLMURL]
Judy
Hi Judy,
I've always thought it strange that certain fundamentalist Christians can't credit God with more imagination than the limited one they possess themselves, and atheists who think that evolution disproves the existence of God are only reacting to very simplistic evangelical interpretations of scripture and are equally limited in imagination.
Barafundle, I agree with every word you say and I'll go as far as to say the statement: "Is evolution an argument for atheism?" is a non sequitur.
Atheism= A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. That's all the word means, nothing more nothing less. A person can be an atheist and reject evolution, and a person can accept evolution and be religious.
A fine example of the latter would be: Kenneth Raymond Miller. Miller is as fine a champion of Darwinian evolution as anyone could hope to find, Yet he is a devout roman catholic. Indeed it was Miller's testimony that helped put Michael Behe and the other creationist loons to the sword in the Kizmiller V Dover trial.
Ken Miller is one wicked smart dude, a lovely bloke. Here is one of the most definitive lectures ever given on the subject of evolution.
Erm... It's very long and hideously complex.
This is a wee snippet from the lecture.
And this is the biggest lunatic in the known universe.
Enjoy 
Barafundle, I agree with every word you say and I'll go as far as to say the statement: "Is evolution an argument for atheism?" is a non sequitur.
Atheism= A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. That's all the word means, nothing more nothing less. A person can be an atheist and reject evolution, and a person can accept evolution and be religious.
A fine example of the latter would be: Kenneth Raymond Miller. Miller is as fine a champion of Darwinian evolution as anyone could hope to find, Yet he is a devout roman catholic. Indeed it was Miller's testimony that helped put Michael Behe and the other creationist loons to the sword in the Kizmiller V Dover trial.Ken Miller is one wicked smart dude, a lovely bloke. Here is one of the most definitive lectures ever given on the subject of evolution.
Erm... It's very long and hideously complex.
This is a wee snippet from the lecture.
And this is the biggest lunatic in the known universe.
Enjoy
An Atheist or a Christian, who talks about God, is like darkness talking about light.
An Atheist or a Christian, who talks about God, is like darkness talking about light.
Now that's what I call a profound soundbite, meta. You obviously thought long and hard about that one.
Now that's what I call a profound soundbite, meta. You obviously thought long and hard about that one.
It took me about 4 billion years come up with that. sorry it took so long.
Meta is sooooooooooooo slow.
Hi Judy,
I've always thought it strange that certain fundamentalist Christians can't credit God with more imagination than the limited one they possess themselves, and atheists who think that evolution disproves the existence of God are only reacting to very simplistic evangelical interpretations of scripture and are equally limited in imagination.
Yes quite. I might be wrong, but whenever I see him banging on about evolution, it appears that that is Richard Dawkins' main argument against the existence of God.
Hi Bosun,
2 hours I don’t have to watch a lecture!! Daniel’s is an hour and that’s probably long enough for most people! It’s really interesting from a historical point of view, quite apart from its other content.
I watched the (too short) clip you gave which was good and the grammatically-wrongly-titled banana one. :rolleyes: Daft!
Judy
It took me about 4 billion years come up with that. sorry it took so long.
Meta is sooooooooooooo slow.
Meta. You're referring to yourself in the third person! This is not a good sign fella.
Yes quite. I might be wrong, but whenever I see him banging on about evolution, it appears that that is Richard Dawkins' main argument against the existence of God.
No Judy.
The main argument against the existence of god is the total lack of evidence of said entity.
Meta. You're referring to yourself in the third person! This is not a good sign fella.
Fella???? how cute
No Judy.
The main argument against the existence of god is the total lack of evidence of said entity.
Prove the non existance of God, and you will discover Him.
Meta.
Yes quite. I might be wrong, but whenever I see him banging on about evolution, it appears that that is Richard Dawkins' main argument against the existence of God.
Hi Bosun,
2 hours I don’t have to watch a lecture!! Daniel’s is an hour and that’s probably long enough for most people! It’s really interesting from a historical point of view, quite apart from its other content.
I watched the (too short) clip you gave which was good and the grammatically-wrongly-titled banana one. :rolleyes: Daft!
Judy
Darwin's theory of evolution from a material basis is more consistent than most theories. Mary BAker Eddy
No Judy.
The main argument against the existence of god is the total lack of evidence of said entity.
Can Love be quantified Bosun? Can Love be measured? When did Love begin?
But there's plenty of evidence for Love (and that is another name for God) 
Judy
Judy.
Your reply was nothing more than rhetorical slight of hand. A red herring.
Bosun,
As usual, you side-step my questions.
I haven’t time to to write any more for a few days (and besides, it's pointless with you) but here are some quotes I like from Daniel’s talk above:
“We may, to be more precise, have to relinquish the notion, explicit or implicit, that changes of paradigm carry scientists and those who learn from them closer and closer to the truth.”
Thomas Kuhn“… with the arrival of Kuhn’s account of scientific paradigms the case can be made that the way was open not only for the theories of science to look uncertain but also for the facts and observations on which they rested to be placed in jeopardy. The archetype of a fact, found in the strict and supposedly precise observations of science was itself to come under scrutiny and come to be seen by some not as an accurate description of an independent reality but as itself the product of a particular model and a particular conceptual framework.”
Hilary Lawson – Closure: A story of Everything“It is ironical that physics, which has led the way for all the other sciences, is now moving towards a more accommodating view of mind, while the life sciences, following the path of last century’s physics, are trying to abolish the mind altogether.”
Paul Davies
And I copied this a few years ago as it was so logical and sensible
:
The time has come when it is an urgent necessity that science should look at the pattern of life as a whole, taking every factor into account and excluding nothing from its inquiry... Firstly, science must approach the problem in the spirit of relativity rather than of Newtonianism; it must look for patterns, with a readiness to recognise whole patterns, rather than for force-laws. It will no longer start with the presumption that certain events cannot happen, or must not happen, or ought not to happen, in the old force-law terminology; it will rather be content to ask simply whether the event did happen, or does happen, and if so, of what particular pattern it is the evidence. It will be on the look-out particularly for the evidence of faint patterns emerging into sudden prominence... Relativity rules nothing out a priori; it is not concerned with rules, it observes patterns - and if it sees them it does not shut its eyes.
The Resurrection Pattern by Geoffrey Hoyland (1947)
Judy
Bosun,
As usual, you side-step my questions.
I haven’t time to to write any more for a few days (and besides, it's pointless with you) but here are some quotes I like from Daniel’s talk above:
And I copied this a few years ago as it was so logical and sensible
Judy
but here are some quotes I like from Daniel’s talk above:
Judy.
The quotes you quote from Daniels talk are not from Daniel.
Quote:
1) Thomas Kuhn.
2) Hilary Lawson.
3) Paul Davies.
The whole substance of his website is quoting others. I have spent a considerable amount of time today researching "Dr Daniel R D Scott phd."
From his website:
During this time he gained a basic working knowledge of quantum theory and relativity theory, became a published mathematician, and earned a PhD in an abstract branch of mathematical physics
However!
The University of Cambridge have no record of Daniel being awarded a Doctor of Philosophy, and I can find no publications by the published mathematician "Dr Daniel R D Scott phd."
Read into that what you will. I don't mean to do the man an injustice, but perhaps you could contact him directly and ask him for a copy of his bona fides.
His use of the terms "scientism" and "scientific metaphysics". Suggest he knows not of what he speaks.
Last and by no means least: deacon George.
Right click and "save as" before I get banned!
Barafundle, I agree with every word you say and I'll go as far as to say the statement: "Is evolution an argument for atheism?" is a non sequitur.
Atheism= A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Perhaps it's more accurate to say that an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God as they conceive Him/Her to be. They make the same mistake as religious fundamentalists who limit the idea of God to being exclusively the one they have.
As for evidence for God, there are millions of people who have evidence sufficient to convince them of His/Her existence. It's no real surprise if an atheist doesn't see the evidence, they're not looking for it.
It seems to me that the need to use language to declare existence or non-existence is really a linguistic trap. We can describe things for sure and come to some consensus about what happens when some set of conditions is observed. If you look for what "exists" you will, I think, find that all you can do is describe processes. I believe that the only meaningful debates that can take place are about "what happens when."
Norbu
Last and by no means least: deacon George.
Right click and "save as" before I get banned!
If you would like to get banned Boson Higgs, I'm sure we can arrange that for you :D, but seeing as it's the season of goodwill, I've done an edit instead to remove the youtube video link. Why? because we have minors/those who might be offended on religious grounds to consider.
On behalf of the Moderating Team,
calla lily
No Judy.
The main argument against the existence of god is the total lack of evidence of said entity.
Wowwwwwww I never knew that people still think of God as an entity, Thought those days were long gone.
What a concept. Now I understand why Boston Higgs can't accept the possible.
Maybe thats why there are Atheists, They reject the impossible, and I don't blame them.
A disaffected Meta.
The University of Cambridge have no record of Daniel being awarded a Doctor of Philosophy, and I can find no publications by the published mathematician "Dr Daniel R D Scott phd."
Seeing as I have the certificate on my wall I find that a little strange!
I was published in the Journal of Mathematical physics prior to my receiving my PhD
Classical Functional Bethe Ansatz for sl(n): Separation of Variables for the Magnetic Chain
J. Math. Phys. 35(11):5831-5843, 1994.* D R D ScottDaniel
From Google:
# [PS]
Symmetries and reduced systems of equations for three-boson and ...
File Format: Adobe PostScript
INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING. JOURNAL OF PHYSICS A: MATHEMATICAL AND ...... [15] Scott D R D 1994 J. Math. Phys. 35 5831. [16] Jurco B 1990 J. Math. ...
- Similar
by VA Andreev - 2002 - Cited by 10 - Related articles - All 4 versions
#
Gaudin models and bending flows: a geometrical point of view
INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING. JOURNAL OF PHYSICS A: MATHEMATICAL AND GENERAL ...... [28] Scott D R D 1994 Classical functional Bethe ansatz for SL(N): ...
- Similar
by G Falqui - 2003 - Cited by 18 - Related articles
As for him not knowing of what he speaks, I'm afraid Bosun that it is you who comes into that category. I could share some instantaneous healings that I and others have had through his deep understanding of scientific metaphysics, but what is the point?
There is a description in the Bible that rather fits:
[COLOR="Purple"] Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (I Cor 2)
Judy
Wowwwwwww I never knew that people still think of God as an entity, Thought those days were long gone.
What a concept. Now I understand why Boston Higgs can't accept the possible.Maybe thats why there are Atheists, They reject the impossible, and I don't blame them.
A disaffected Meta.
Is that a Freudian slip meta? BOSTON Higgs?
I found this quote from another one of Daniel's lectures and it rather echoes what meta says above:
“An Atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in their own concept of God.”
Don Houge’s uncle
Judy
# [PS]
Symmetries and reduced systems of equations for three-boson and ...
File Format: Adobe PostScript
INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING. JOURNAL OF PHYSICS A: MATHEMATICAL AND ...... [15] Scott D R D 1994 J. Math. Phys. 35 5831. [16] Jurco B 1990 J. Math. ...
- Similar
by VA Andreev - 2002 - Cited by 10 - Related articles - All 4 versions
#
Gaudin models and bending flows: a geometrical point of view
INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING. JOURNAL OF PHYSICS A: MATHEMATICAL AND GENERAL ...... [28] Scott D R D 1994 Classical functional Bethe ansatz for SL(N): ...
- Similar
by G Falqui - 2003 - Cited by 18 - Related articles
''Dr R. D. Scott is not registered as an owner of this paper"
Where did Daniel earn his phD?
I'm a tad busy right now but I'll be back.
Perhaps it's more accurate to say that an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God as they conceive Him/Her to be. They make the same mistake as religious fundamentalists who limit the idea of God to being exclusively the one they have.
Ah! The old 'That's not the god I believe in' gambit.
Whichever supernatural entity it is you believe in, is the one I don't.
As for evidence for God, there are millions of people who have evidence sufficient to convince them of His/Her existence. It's no real surprise if an atheist doesn't see the evidence, they're not looking for it.
Truth is not decided by popular vote.
btw, It's billions not millions.
''Dr R. D. Scott is not registered as an owner of this paper"
Dear oh dear, what are you trying to prove Bosun? Daniel is 100% genuine and honest. For a poss explanation of why he is not registered see this:
Where did Daniel earn his phD?
As he says, at Cambridge University. I don't know which college and as he is on his way now to the USA we will have to wait until he returns. But his qualifications as a mathematical physicist are no longer of utmost importance. What is most important is his understanding of scientific metaphysics, something he is constantly learning more about and working on and with which he has helped many individuals, including myself.
Have you actually watched his lecture yet Bosun?
Judy
If you would like to get banned Boson Higgs, I'm sure we can arrange that for you :D, but seeing as it's the season of goodwill, I've done an edit instead to remove the youtube video link. Why? because we have minors/those who might be offended on religious grounds to consider.
On behalf of the Moderating Team,
calla lily
Are you so uncertain of your position that you can't handle a little dissent?
because we have minors/those who might be offended on religious grounds to consider.
Perhaps they may be offended because what they see goes against their indoctrination?
Everyone has the right to be offended. Or to put it another way; no one has the right to be not offended.
Whoops
Dear oh dear, what are you trying to prove Bosun? Daniel is 100% genuine and honest. For a poss explanation of why he is not registered see this:
As he says, at Cambridge University. I don't know which college and as he is on his way now to the USA we will have to wait until he returns. But his qualifications as a mathematical physicist are no longer of utmost importance. What is most important is his understanding of scientific metaphysics, something he is constantly learning more about and working on and with which he has helped many individuals, including myself.
Have you actually watched his lecture yet Bosun?
Judy
I can only quite from my previous post:
"The University of Cambridge have no record of Daniel being awarded a Doctor of Philosophy, and I can find no publications by the Published Mathematician "Dr Daniel R D Scott phd."
Scientific Metaphysics is a contradiction in terms. Yes. It's another oxymoron.
Seeing as I have the certificate on my wall I find that a little strange!
Seeing as he has the certificate on his wall I find it a little strange he didn't mention the time, place and date of issue. Not that it matters: Cambridge say it's not from them.
I have a certificate on my wall from Starfleet Command but it hardly qualifies me to captain a starship.*
Yes I see he's giving a lecture in New York tomorrow. Is it in a university on the subject of mathematics or is it in a CS mission hall?
Have you actually watched his lecture yet Bosun?
The one he gave at © First Church of Christ, Scientist in Bosun
Yes I did and I want that hour back.
*It was a birthday prezzie from a pal.
Cambridge say it's not from them.
Having been so unnecessarily insulting Bosun, you could perhaps do Daniel the courtesy of giving him the actual source of this misinformation. Cambridge what? Rowing Club, Football Club? If it's the University, then which department, which individual please?
Judy
Now, to try to get this :offtopic: thread back.
As Daniel shows in his lecture, though Darwin rejected his Christian beliefs after the death of his daughter (and who can blame him when there were no answers from it?) he never called himself an atheist, but preferred the title agnostic. He also included quotes about the Creator in his books.
We are all thinking in the spiritual realm without even being conscious of it. Take reading a book as an example: from the point of view of physics, what you are actually doing is staring at wood pulp and ink, but from the point of view of metaphysics, what you're really doing is reading ideas!
What evidence is there that God exists?
None of us can deny that Love exists. Life exists. Intelligence (Mind) exists. In Christian Science these are just three of the synonyms and qualities for the divine Principle we call God.
You can say that intelligence exists within a pulpy substance called brain, but no one has ever found a thought when they have dissected a brain. What about the intelligence that supports the universe, the intelligence that directs birds, fish and mammals migrating or when they turn and move in unison - as with birds and fish? This intelligence does not originate in matter; neither does it exist in it. How is it that we often know when the phone rings, who it is at the other end? How did two dogs that were given away in Paris when their owners moved to the South of France, appear three months after they ran away, on the doorstep of their former owners’ new home, even though they had never traveled there before? There is a monkey experiment where, when one group of monkeys solved a problem other groups around the world who had been given the same problem, also solved it. To me this proves that we are all connected, part of the whole.
When Jesus was asked for his qualifications (i.e. was he the promised Messiah?) he didn’t give a yes or no answer, but pointed instead to his healing work. (Matt 11) Daniel says in his talk that the best evidence for the existence of God is to be found in metaphysical healing.
A young woman was suffering from depression, reliant on Speed and felt that her only choice was hard drugs or suicide. She spoke one day to the director of the ballet school she went to and this woman gave her Science and Health by Mary Baker Eddy telling her that she might enjoy reading it:
Not wanting to offend her, I took it, but I was insulted by this offer of religion, which to me seemed a crutch for people too weak to stand on their own feet.…it occurred to me that I could help this woman by pointing out to her that religion, especially Christian Science, had no practical value…. I decided to read the book as a source of good ammunition.”
(She spent several weeks arguing with the ballet director, feeling she could knock the props from under her, but each time received a satisfactory answer. Then...)
“One day … I was running down the stairs of my apartment building and scraped my hand severely on the brick wall. I remember standing on the stairs, looking at my bleeding and bruised hand and thinking: Of course Christian Science doesn’t work, but if it did and I were a Christian Scientist, what would I do right now? Then I thought: …. it would be simple, because Christian Science teaches that God is good and is all-presence, so all has to be good, and there is nothing outside of good. That was all there was to it. When I looked at my hand there wasn’t a mark on it. I was awestruck because I didn’t understand what had happened. But for the first time in my life I felt the presence of something greater than myself and knew that somehow I could learn to utilize this healing power.”
(D. Huebsch from Living Christian Science: Fourteen Lives)
I have read many testimonies of people who have had injuries that were there one minute and gone the next as the result of the application of these spiritual principles. I never dreamed I would ever experience this, but one day, my dog Muffin, a golden retriever, was lying quietly with me while I gardened, when suddenly the Jack Russell from next door charged up and grabbed him by the throat.
I was with a dear friend who had had many experiences of the practicality of a metaphysical understanding of God, like when her former husband pointed a gun at her, telling her that his Iraqi family had ordered him to kill her because she would not convert to Islam. She said, “You cannot harm me. God will protect me” and his hand became paralysed and the gun fell from it. (There is much more to this story, but this is not the place)
Betty was with me that day and I know she was praying through all the commotion, when Sam, the Jack Russell, almost immediately let go of Muffin’s throat and went back to his owner, something he had never done before.
I found a hole under Muff’s ear, with blood sticking to all his hair. I tried to clean it, but it distressed him, so left it, telling him that as a spiritual idea, it was impossible for him to be hurt in any way. The next day, when I returned home, my husband wanted to see the wound, but there was nothing there. I looked and looked, under both ears. There was no hole, (not even a scar) no matted blood, no missing hair. It really was as if nothing had happened and had I not thrown away the blood-covered cotton wool, I might have doubted it myself. I felt awestruck too before this proof that there is a spiritual reality, which transcends what the material senses tell us.
We have a lady at church who, as a teenager, was diagnosed with epilepsy, which was gradually getting worse and worse. When first given Science and Health she did not understand it, so put it aside for two years, but as the attacks increased and she found herself unable to work, to drive, dependent on her family for everything and fearing she may not live much longer, she tried again. This time, she had a glimpse that life is entirely spiritual, accompanied by a blinding light and was completely and permanently cured in that moment, so that she was able to dispose of the drugs that she had been dependent upon and to live a normal and independent life. This was no "anecdotal" healing - it had medical confirmation of both the disease and the healing.
This is a thoughtful article describing how the author was untouched even though he immersed his hand in boiling oil. [url]Existence—the eternal now[/url]
As astrophysicist Laurance Doyle said in a talk, “Nothing changed when you discovered the earth was round. Nothing changed. You just went higher.”
Judy