3 ms·

"What could define God [is thinking of God] as the embodiment of the laws of nature." I don't understand this sentence. Does he mean "We could define God as th

by zeynel1 16y ago

"What could define God [is thinking of God] as the embodiment of the laws of nature." I don't understand this sentence. Does he mean "We could define God as the embodiment of the laws of nature." "When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible." Here something got lost in the transcription. It should be "... how insignificant and accidental human life is..." "Science will win because it works." I think science and religion are two different domains; they don't deal with the same questions. Only academic physicists are still fighting this 18th century war.

kls 16y ago
I think science and religion are two different domains; they don't deal with the same questions. Only academic physicists are still fighting this 18th century war. Agreed, the fact is we don't know and to take a position either way is faith. To state: When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible. is pretty irresponsible statement for a person of his stature. The fact of the matter is even though we are not the size of a star or galaxy, or super cluster, does not mean that we do not play a vital role. Who knows each and everyone of us could play a very important part and be entangled with the very fabric that holds the universe together. For all we know the absence of just one of us could have caused the universe to never exist. I am not saying that it is the case but merely pointing at that we have no idea. I find it interesting that spirituality has show to have an evolutionary advantage and for the most part we have the core tenants of a moral code embedded into us despite what ones personal belief's are. It could be coincidence that these features where complementary to evolution but again we just don't know. For me, discounting the possibility of a god would remove a great deal of cool though experiments. I am agnostic by definition but I always have cool thoughts about how a God could use math and physics to do all of this.
nickpinkston 16y ago
Well, I guess you could say that modern religion is what's left of the more descriptive religions they evolved from. Christianity's creation story used to be accepted as gospel (::rimshot::), but science has re-answered that question very differently and rigorously. Even in most Christian circles this is accepted. Likewise, the psycho / social reason for religion is being unraveled as well - showing that religions' awesome memetic abilities lead to their spread. Also, historians and archaeologists are showing the earliest fertility religions and the genesis of modern religions. While science isn't replacing religion, it's certainly shrinking it where one day it might disappear from mainstream relevance all together.

by zeynel1 16y ago

kls 16y ago

I think science and religion are two different domains; they don't deal with the same questions. Only academic physicists are still fighting this 18th century war. Agreed, the fact is we don't know and to take a position either way is faith. To state: When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible. is pretty irresponsible statement for a person of his stature. The fact of the matter is even though we are not the size of a star or galaxy, or super cluster, does not mean that we do not play a vital role. Who knows each and everyone of us could play a very important part and be entangled with the very fabric that holds the universe together. For all we know the absence of just one of us could have caused the universe to never exist. I am not saying that it is the case but merely pointing at that we have no idea. I find it interesting that spirituality has show to have an evolutionary advantage and for the most part we have the core tenants of a moral code embedded into us despite what ones personal belief's are. It could be coincidence that these features where complementary to evolution but again we just don't know. For me, discounting the possibility of a god would remove a great deal of cool though experiments. I am agnostic by definition but I always have cool thoughts about how a God could use math and physics to do all of this.

nickpinkston 16y ago

Well, I guess you could say that modern religion is what's left of the more descriptive religions they evolved from. Christianity's creation story used to be accepted as gospel (::rimshot::), but science has re-answered that question very differently and rigorously. Even in most Christian circles this is accepted. Likewise, the psycho / social reason for religion is being unraveled as well - showing that religions' awesome memetic abilities lead to their spread. Also, historians and archaeologists are showing the earliest fertility religions and the genesis of modern religions. While science isn't replacing religion, it's certainly shrinking it where one day it might disappear from mainstream relevance all together.