Posted by Adam on June 1, 2000, at 10:35:44
In reply to Re: Ahh, science » Adam, posted by bob on May 31, 2000, at 23:22:03
> (sorry, but I just HAD to click that new button ;^)
>
> > Newton thought force at a distance was mediated by the Holy Spirit.
>
> Who's to say it doesn't? ;^)
>
Well, I guess in at least some circumstances this would require equating the Holy Spirit with photons, and gluons, which have actually been observed, and maybe things like gravitons and the Higgs particle, for which there is strong theoretical and some experimental/observational evidence.> Again, the frontiers of physics are always an interesting place to look. It seems like every physicist who gains any sort of notoriety, whether in the general press or even just among fellow physicists, has to take a crack at Einstein's "God does not play dice" ... and it usually comes in the boorish form of "Not only does God play dice, he [blah blah blah whatever]." Personally, I think Niels Bohr got the best shot in when he replied, "Stop telling God what to do."
>
I agree. I don't know why God keeps entering the scientific discussion, except to be inclusive or PC. I think Steven Weinberg might have been right when he said such musings on the Creator and purpose are attributable to "nostalgia". I imagine naming a book "The God Particle" (Leon Lederman, former Fermilab chief) is a great way to sell product. It also might stimulate debate, I suppose, on the nature of God in a universe increasingly demystified by science. I think doing so just leads to confusion and misinterpretation. I don't think it's correct to equate "God" with "energy" or forces or particles.I've sometimes wondered, if Anselm were alive today, would he have phrased his "Ontological Argument" as "God is that which is greater than ought else we can concieve, which is not subject to the limitations of relative time and the uncertainty principle." Unless one is trying to scrutinize a supposed miracle, there seems to be little place for God-hunting in science, since all one finds are manifestations of His creation, and not the creator Himself. At best we should expect to get a glimpse of the blueprint, which is just a finite expression of (by definition) an infinite mind. Otherwise, God is just the cosmos or something in it, which falls somewhat short of the mark we have set.
As for the rest, the progression from Ptolomy to Gallileo is well described, as well as Newtonian mechanics to Strings. Again, I won't say the search for Truth isn't what motivates many scientists, but I think it's an unnecessary, and perhaps undesireable goal to set for oneself. The more I learn about "Truth", the less I have any idea what it is supposed to be. I think all science needs to be is interesting, accurate, and useful, maybe not even useful. Pursuit of that which is interesting for the sole purpose of satisfying curiosity, while striving for accuracy has given us so many useful things anyway, why burden the whole process with "Truth"?
Whatever uses the information we gather with science is put to, that's a question for ethicists, I suppose. Scientists who have something to say on ethical matters certainly should chime in, but then we should understand they are dealing with morals, not with science, which should remain neutral on the subject. Ethics is a moving target that constrains the means of discovery, and the uses of those discoveries, as it should. Ethics should not interfere with our interpretation of data, or its communication. Matter can be converted to energy. That statement is enough without worrying about clean power or nuclear bombs. It's wrong to make the pursuit of science liable for either, but its great to hope for the benefits of the next discovery, and that we will learn to use knowlege responsibly.
poster:Adam
thread:34863
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000526/msgs/35518.html