Is religion "indifferent" to science?

[Kurt]

I forget (if I ever knew) what IMHO means. Please remind me.

The dead of Haiti are merely dead. The manner of their variously horrible deaths is G-d's work, if there is an omnipotent G-d. If God or G-d is just the "capacity for anything", then It is not actively omnipotent, but only potentially so. On what basis, Baruch,does your G-d decide to exercise or not exercise It's potential? Or is that not up to your G-d?

My question assumes the existence of time and space, but I don't know how any human, based on direct experience can assume their non-existence.

Kurt

[Baruch]

IMHO - the modest ... In My Humble Opinion.

Super understanding of what I said! Well I see G-d as pure potentiality, in reference to us, to Creation ... it is a limitation on our nature. The relationship doesn't exhaust the nature of G-d however, cats can't fly but birds can. But I regard G-d as person rather than non-person, because of my metaphysical prejudices ... top down, not bottom up. In part that is a human projection, but I think it goes too far to think of G-d as too human like so many Christians do (but Muslims and Jews do not). We can know G-d indirectly, thru that relationship, that immanence. But the transcendence, that actuality ... directly .... we can't know it by my own definition ... and I am not saying that only what we can know is real ... that would be arrogant on our part. Just as I believe it is arrogant to say that we do know that transcendence ... even indirectly thru others or thru scripture ... though that is hugely common of people to claim that. Even if life is complicated, in layers, like Shrek ... it isn't a parfait, but an onion. Even so each layer or after-life or pre-life or dreamtime ... is still immanent on its own, even if it is less visible from where we are currently at. That is where the confusion I think is, regarding visions and dreams ... they are other immanences, not transcendences ... but then I am being hard-edge defining. In the words of ancient visionaries ... reality is covered in veils like a dancer ... but the last veil is never removed, no matter how hot we get about watching the dance (think Shiva).

As far as G-d's will goes, besides generic prejudice in favor of all life, I can't see it myself. That will is G-d originated (part of ID really). There must be countless sentient species, even if G-d favors the sentient over the non-sentient, which is not clear to me. I agree, that direct experience of non-existence is problematic. But pre-life or post-life or dreamtime is not non-existence. We are reliably informed that there was a time when we were not here, and that in the long future, there will be a time also when we are not here ... the distant future is like the distant past. And most of us can imagine what that was like indirectly, because there is still something here in both cases.

Shalom

[Kurt]

I think I follow most of what you wrote, Baruch, but I had to look up "immanent" in the dictionary. Random House offered three definitions, of which I found the second easiest to insert in your writing. That definition reads "(of a mental act) taking place within the mind of the subject and having no effect outside of it." Am I on the right track in aplying that definition to your usage of the word?

Kurt

[Baruch]

Sorry, not the right definition. In theology, deity is imagined to be immanent (implicit in Creation), transcendent (explicit in Creation) or both. Classic theism assumes both. I can understand the definition you chose, it being psychologically based ... "my crossing of the street was immanent" ... meaning in my mind, but not yet in my body. But what I mean is the opposite, it is in my body, but not in my mind (so to speak) ... though I don't separate mental from physical ... so really immanent applies to both for me.

Shalom

[Kurt]

I didn't mean "imminent". I understand that word. But no matter...I think I understand now your use of "immanent" as "pre-supposed" or "inherent". I don't yet understand where the pre-supposition comes from, and I'm still confused about your use of "transcendent" to mean "explicit". I associate the term more with Random House's #2 definition: "being beyond ordinary or common experience, thought, or belief; supernatural". In some sense, that definition of "transcendent" is the exact opposite of "explicit".

Semantic difficulties aside, I do agree that the mental and the physical are inseparable.

Kurt

[Baruch]

Darn, you are correct, we are both right and both opposite ... explicit/implicit is a two edged sword, and we were both cut by it! My apologies. Your dictionary definition that you quoted is at least approximately what I meant

Shalom

[Kurt]

Since I feel it not, it must be a sharp blade indeed that did cut me!

Kurt

[Baruch]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V6SaBflpiM&NR=1

Here is an actual science professor, who was from India, but employed in the US, who has taught for years. Not Jewish, not materialist (which comes mostly from Western cultural decay) ... who has no contradiction between science and religion, and talks about lots of things competently, including quantum healing (aka miraculous healing) such as my best Hebrew student experienced 25 years ago, a spontaneous healing of a sever compound fracture of the leg.

Shalom

[evangelicalhumanist]

Well, this is going to take a couple more viewings, because although I didn't pinpoint them in my first go-round, I'm convinced that he makes a rather large number of unverifiable assumptions and, using those as axioms, builds more out of them than they will support.

He mentions a couple of "experiments" that he claims have been repeated, but I have not found these yet. I will want more information before I simply accept that they mean what they say he means.

I will say this -- and I don't mean it to be dismissive: Goswami would by no means be the first person to use the mysteries of quantum theory to support their pre-existing world-view. And clearly his world-view is largely informed by his cultural background.

More later...

[Baruch]

There are several more parts to the same interview, don't forget those too And don't be too narrow-minded about other people's culture ... provided that the intellectual content is adequate. Rudyard Kipling you ain't.

Shalom