Why I don't recommend Dawkins?????

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Phillip
_Emeritus
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 9:12 pm

Re: Why I don't recommend Dawkins…

Post by _Phillip »

MrStakhanovite wrote:
Phillip wrote:But if physical reality is in some sense mathematical in nature (as modern physics seems to suggest), and if my wife is entirely a product of that reality, then yes math does care about my sex life.


Numbers as abstracta wouldn't have a casaul or material effect like you are thinking here.

Darn, I was hoping that since I love math it would return the affection.

But about causal/material effect, isn't this exactly the function that the theist has in mind for God with respect to the laws of nature, etc. The thing that, to borrow from Hawking, "breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe"

Just for fun:

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jul/16-is-the-universe-actually-made-of-math/article_view?b_start:int=3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis
_Phillip
_Emeritus
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 9:12 pm

Re: Why I don't recommend Dawkins…

Post by _Phillip »

Tarski wrote:You would be better off mentioning the beautiful cusps on an algebraic curve.
Image


Does that count as internet porn?
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Why I don't recommend Dawkins…

Post by _Buffalo »

Tarski wrote:
Phillip wrote:Although the line 'You are the most beautiful partial differential equation that I have ever seen' didn't go over too well last Valentine's Day.


You would be better off mentioning the beautiful cusps on an algebraic curve.
Image


I think I'm in love!
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Re: Why I don't recommend Dawkins…

Post by _Some Schmo »

Tarski wrote: You would be better off mentioning the beautiful cusps on an algebraic curve.
Image

It looks like that's either the drawing of a very advanced mind, or the drawing of a boob.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
_MrStakhanovite
_Emeritus
Posts: 5269
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:32 am

Re: Why I don't recommend Dawkins…

Post by _MrStakhanovite »

Phillip wrote:But about causal/material effect, isn't this exactly the function that the theist has in mind for God with respect to the laws of nature, etc.


I think so, but I've been told otherwise, Philosopher Randal Rauser told me:

A couple minor points in closing.

First, modern theology does not hold to a “Neo-Platonist God”. Philosopher John Leslie does, but he’s not a Christian theist.

Second, Christians disagree over whether God “transcends space and time”.




The thing that, to borrow from Hawking, "breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe"


The relationship between something abstract and something concrete is a tricky business. I don't know how someone like Hawking would envision it.
_Phillip
_Emeritus
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 9:12 pm

Re: Why I don't recommend Dawkins…

Post by _Phillip »

MrStakhanovite wrote:The relationship between something abstract and something concrete is a tricky business. I don't know how someone like Hawking would envision it.

From Roger Penrose's 'Road to Reality' tome:

Image
_MrStakhanovite
_Emeritus
Posts: 5269
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:32 am

Re: Why I don't recommend Dawkins…

Post by _MrStakhanovite »

I would actually need to read the book before I could comment.
_Phillip
_Emeritus
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 9:12 pm

Re: Why I don't recommend Dawkins…

Post by _Phillip »

MrStakhanovite wrote:I would actually need to read the book before I could comment.

I wish I could brag that I've read through the whole thing myself, but a lot of the math goes over my head. But the introduction, from which the picture is taken, even I can read that.
_marg
_Emeritus
Posts: 1072
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 6:58 am

Re: Why I don't recommend Dawkins…

Post by _marg »

Phillip wrote:Honestly, I just read the part you posted. I'll try to take a closer look at his blog later this week. At a glance he seems to have a good educational background in the subject (better than me) and to be pretty active in writing against Christianity (which doesn't mean that his analysis couldn't be accurate). His basic facts seem to be ok, its the interpretation and spin on those facts that I would question. There are other ways, and to me more impartial ways, of reading the same historical evidence that leads to very different conclusions, as the quotes I posted earlier would suggest. I would at least caution that his views are not neccesarily representative of other prominent scholars in the field.


Are you still interested in this discussion? I listened to the lecture from a Teaching co course. It’s # 7 out of 36 lectures..and is about ½ hr. I don’t think I’ll transcribe the whole lecture but rather type out the notes which come with the course. For now I’ll just give the brief synopsis given by the course for Ch 7. I also downloaded a book with a chapter by R. Carrier addressing specifically this topic of whether Christianity was the cause of science in the middle ages and up to today. Once you’ve read Carrier’s blog and let me know if there is anything there you disagree with and if you are still interested I’ll type up the notes to the chapter by Goldman..but again it won’t be until Sunday. After which I'll then address some of your points in your current posts and new points made in new posts.


Great Scientific Ideas That Changed the World - By Prof. Stephen L. Goldman, Lehigh University


Lecture 7
Universities Relaunch The Idea of Knowledge

Scope: "Schooling is not unique to a text-based culture, but it is necessary, because writing must be taught and, as Socrates observed, because texts must be explained, clarified, and interpreted. The university was invented in the 12th century as the “ultimate” school: not merely a higher level school but a community of scholars pursuing knowledge for its own sake. The text-based intellectual culture of Greece and Rome and, subsequently, of Islam made medieval university inevitable once the desire to process that culture arose. It made the Greek idea of science, in both the generic and specific senses, central to Western European cultural life. From the 12th to the 16th centuries, universities created a population of educated people exposed to Classical, Islamic, and contemporary mathematical, philosophical, medical, and scientific texts. Universities thereby made available to the founders of modern science intellectual “tools” they used to create modern science."
_Phillip
_Emeritus
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 9:12 pm

Re: Why I don't recommend Dawkins…

Post by _Phillip »

Marg,

I'm still interested if you are willing to be patient with me. I probably won't have time to go over that blog and comment in detail on it until next week. I'm also interested in what your course has to say on the subject.

A civil discussion on an interesting topic is a wonderful thing.
Post Reply