trachemys

just want to throw this out to be read.

Eric Metaxas: Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God - WSJ

What has it to do with recovery, our recovery?

What if I'm wrong?

dwtbd

The fact of the universe's existence makes theories that posit alternatives obsolete.

Nature doesn't rely on the laws of physics, the laws of physics are the explanation of nature.

There is a lot more to unpack metaphysically and epistemologically but in short , I can live with those statements as explanation.

GallyG

It seems we humans must search for an explanation of things, even when the likelihood of finding such is less than zero - I say this as a retired scientist. It has something to do with making ourselves comfortable, just like different programs of recovery work differently for different folks. When we have no explanation we may have fear or just discomfort.

I learned I drank because I liked to drink booze -- this was a much more effective explanation than any physiological or neurological reasoning anyone could come up with. In other words I was addicted but I liked it so I had to find an alternative way of thinking. Given I found out the problem was I liked it, I had some idea of how I needed to approach not drinking. Thanks for listening.

dwtbd

GallyG well said and welcome to the forum.
My explicit realization/acceptance of the pleasure I found in drunkness was one of if not the most important component part of my thinking that convinced me that the responsibility of sobriety was all mine.

trachemys

The articles gone under WSJ's subscription umbrella. Sorry. Hopefully, it will make it onto Metaxa's site.

What it is saying is that in refining(discovering) the "explanation of nature", it is hard to deny that there was a creator.

Whether we are the creation of an omnipotent, omniscient diety or some 12th grader's science project who got a cool birthday gift is debatable.

dwtbd

I got to the article. It's just that the fine tuning argument opens more questions than it does to give evidence to, no? What are the "laws of physics" so "finely tuned" against? Who moves the prime mover reduction , just one different detail.

MIRecovery

I'm a little suspicious of science when the majority of the universe is made up of dark matter being controlled by dark energy and nobody has a clue as to what they are. Sounds like science has a ways to go when it comes to what controls the universe

trachemys

Yes.

The more we peel the onion, the more layers we find. In the case of the universe, they're fractal layers.

trachemys

Yes.

I think my point/question is that should we really be making concrete decisions when the foundation under our concrete is so malleable? Do we do it just to ground ourselves?

I don't think the question "What if I"m wrong?" is asked enough.

freshstart57

MIR, what is your expectation of science? Do believe that science is something whole and of a piece, a body of knowledge that is at the same time known and infinite? Or even known and finite? I think that science is a way of learning and thinking as much as a way of knowing. To me it is something to be trusted even though incomplete, rather than something of which to be suspicious. It will always be incomplete - there is a mathematical proof of this too, from Godel, which I think is very very cool. No matter how much have learned, there will always and necessarily be things which are true which cannot be proven to be true. This last statement is as much a proof of the existence of God as a limitation of knowledge.

MIRecovery

I am blissfully happy in my ignorance and letting may higher power handle things like, "Let there be light and there was."

MesaMan

Of several Search Results I chased down trying to find this Article, all led back to the 'pay-walled' WSJ Link. I did find a longer Excerpt, but it's still only an Excerpt. It caused me to agree with the Wiki assessment below in Italics before I read that Wiki bit. An engaging Metaxas appears to be out of his league again on this Topic vis-a-vis CERN Scientists, to name one Group.

I went to CERN several times, and saw their groundbreaking Research first hand. I think this Link explains the current state of what is known right now about Dark Matter. Note the associated Articles on the Webpage right side for the Intellectually curious. As an aside, CERN Scientists have actively dismissed talk of 'The God Particle'. It's a Pop Culture misrepresentation of their Research that 'got legs'.

'Dark Matter' ~ CERN


I quickly came across this Article which I think disassembles some of Metaxas's key points.

'More Creationism In The Wall Street Journal' ~ The Sensuous Curmudgeon


Re: this Topic, we've been down this proverbial Road many times throughout History. Everything from Human Circulation to the Earth being the center of our Solar System were explained by some aspect of Scientific Methods. These Processes were not understood, and now are. Going forward, I apply this same expectation of Science re: comprehensively understanding Dark Matter some day, as well as the Universe proper. Until future Tools similar to the Hubble Telescope and the Large Hadron Collider at CERN are conceived; technologically-possible; and funded, we are the proverbial Blind Man groping and defining the Elephant. As one Female Researcher said in a BBC Interview I heard: 'Science doesn't have all the answers. That is why you do more Science'. Well put.

We necessarily view progress in the span of our Lifetime and, thus, our Consciousness. To tap our Foot and conclude that Science is 'suspicious' because an explanation is not known within the arbitrary Time Frame of our Lifetime is irrelevant to the Scientific Method, and to true understanding of major questions. I find it reasonable to assume that Science will explain Dark Matter using the same Methods as were used to understand Human Circulation, and disprove that the Earth is flat.


Wikipedia ~ Eric Metaxas

'Metaxas's Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy won the 2010 Evangelical Christian Publishers Association Christian Book of the Year.[4] Bonhoeffer is a New York Times best seller, climbing to #1 in the e-book category.[5] It also won the 2011 John C. Pollock Award for Biography awarded by Beeson Divinity School and a 2011 Christopher Award.[6][7]

Although the book is popular in the United States among evangelical Christians, Bonhoeffer scholars have criticized Metaxas's book as unhistorical, theologically weak, and philosophically naive. Professor of German History and Bonhoeffer scholar Richard Weikart, for example, credits Metaxas's "engaging writing style," but points out his lack of intellectual background to interpret Bonhoeffer properly.[8] The biography has also been criticized by Bonhoeffer scholars Victoria Barnett[9] and Clifford Green.[10]

-----

FeelingGreat

Guys, why are we even discussing this? No-one knows a fraction of what there is to learn, but many people are certain they have a main-line to a male being in a white robe and snowy beard who magically happens to reflect their own values, backed up by a series of texts written thousands of years ago by many different people.

Their detailed beliefs are then imposed on the rest of us in the name of God.

PS This is strictly for the Secular Forum; I wouldn't question anyone's religious beliefs elsewhere on SR, just as I've never been criticised for being an atheist.

trachemys

This isn't about belief in god, it's about the possibility of.

As an intellectual exercise, I think it's necessarily considered. There may be God. There may be that student who's project we are.

MidnightBlue

This.

MesaMan

I'm linking this Article as a sort of 'Public Service'.

I've only glanced at it, but thought it likely complements this Thread. I'll give it a comprehensive read later.

Addicting Info – Astrophysicist Writes Brutal Response To WSJ Article Claiming Science Has Proven God Exists

-----

freshstart57

Good find, MesaMan. I like this quote from your article:And from another article linked from the first, by Rabbi Geoffrey A. Mitelman:And from Rabbi Jonathan Sacks:

trachemys

Good article, Mesa. As with mine, opinion pieces are about as far as this can go.

trachemys

I really don't think anyone understood my original post. What I was asking was, "what if I'm wrong about God?" I"m not a practitioner of anything but, I'm a questioner.

samseb5351

I guess the important thing here is to be a "questioner" is a position of inquiring not a position of conclusion. So its hard to see how we can be wrong if we are questioning in unto itself. So what do we use for questioning and whats the goal for questioning? Do we question or inquire to meet a conclusion we have already made or is it truly open?
We could be wrong about an almost infinite number of things and as the scientific method has demonstrated "wrongness" (falsification) is a dynamic and robust part of the whole process,
But I am not sure if the nature of the question "what if I am wrong about god?" fits into what I am talking about.
This question seems to be more a statement than a question, it makes no sense unless we have context on what God we are talking about. Whats the intention by the asker of the question? Is it to promote simple inquiry and debate or to warn of consequences, even when we ask it of ourself what do we hope to achieve?