1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.”
I always have criticized the excessive trend of specialization at the expense of losing the forest by the trees, big, well known scientist are not the exception to the rule not even figures like Professor Stephen Hawking English Theoretical Physicist, and Cosmologist in the sense of Astronomer, since we have to point out there is other definitions that apply to Cosmology (Cosmogony). In his most recent book “The Grand Design” he declared:
“Philosophy is dead.”
A sort of Nietzsche paraphrasing of: “God is dead.”
Alas!
Mr. Hawking alleges that Philosophy has not kept with modern developments in Science, particularly Physics. Therefore Scientist are the: “Torch bearers” of discovery.
Then he got to expound on the M Theory, basically in the simplest words possible he explains that ours is not the only…
There can be no balance of science and religion. There can be a give-and-take relationship that recognizes this. The scientist must seek empirical evidence. The faithful must seek absolute knowledge.
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was this imbalance in one visionary.
A biological approach for understanding life that seeks the absolute knowledge — lofty. That science/faith investigation must rearrange perception and place levels of perceptions into most-true perspectives, sort this about, reorganize, sift and categorize, expand and reduce, adjust and test and dialog.
The evolution of this is for me impossible to see. The process is not. I worked at it for many yeas, I see the process clearly.
This new emergence of a global Internet and of communication is essential. A process for intellectual evolution is necessary too. Teilhard, I think, viewed this process evolving from democratic global leadership.
Interestingly, this too is occurring and the ultra fast Internet is stimulating this. The balance too is virtually impossible to maintain of authoritative and individualist interests.
So, Teilhard went further too and he predicted trans-humanizing biology — enhancing humans.
As readers of this blog know, I believe that a synthesis of sound science and ancient spiritual traditions (combined with a healthy dose of humility) is necessary to avoid the dangers of fundamentalism, whether it be religious fundamentalism or scientific fundamentalism. One of the reasons I am a Catholic is because the Church has long supported science and the integration of faith and reason.
Dave Pruett had an excellent article in the Huffington Post this week what happens when this relationship between science and religion is severed. The result is contemporary Western civilization with its reduction of human beings to GDP units, consumerism and ecological damage. I encourage you to read the entire article (which references Teilhard de Chardin and Thomas Berry) but set forth below is an excerpt:
[I]n The Power of Myth (1988), the late Joseph Campbell explored the vital ways in which mythology — the overarching story of…
This is interesting — and — a perspective on addictions that I’ve not seen before. I wonder what others may say — think we are best to make conscious choices about what we believe and what we’d be liking to get in line for more of –> Self-Deception and Defiance –> not really… Following proven directions for success is good — but really the broken ego mind is needy too — I have to take some time with thinking things through with a mentor sometimes. Thanks for posting this essay Ursula — its thought-full. ~ Eric
To me all addictions and habits are a mix of benefit and detriment, and sometimes telling the difference between which part is beneficial and which is detrimental is tricky, especially if you listen to other people’s opinions and judgments about something and their words become louder than your own.
Taking the word of others as being the final say could also fall under the category of addiction. They may be right, they may seem wise, authoritative, an expert, they’ve done the work of researching, studying and thinking, they’ve had the experience, been there done that, and are now sharing their opinion, loudly and proudly.
Maybe you agree with them based on your own experience and thought.
But if you agree with them because they share their words with forceful conviction, making you feel that they know more than you do, more than you will…
When the sci-fi film “The Matrix” first hit theaters back in 1999, it inspired a whole new generation of amateur philosophers to ponder whether the world really is as it appears. In the film, sentient machines have subdued humanity by plugging everyone’s brains into a sophisticatedcomputer network that convinces them to believe in a simulated reality.
.
The film is a play on a philosophical conundrum as old as philosophy itself: How can we know whether the world really is how we perceive it to be?
.
Now a group of physicists led by Silas Beane of the University of Washington think they have accomplished what centuries of philosophy could not,according to Discover. They believe they have discovered a solution to this age-old mystery. Or at least, they believe they have devised a test that can determine, once and for all, whether we live in a computer simulation like the one in “The Matrix” or not.
Their proposed experiment has been deemed the “cosmic ray test.” It assumes that any simulation of the universe would need to be constructed out of a lattice, or grid, much as television images are built from pixels. The researchers then calculated that such a simulation would require that the fastest particles — or cosmic rays — would always bombard the Earth with a maximum energy amount.
.
Beane and colleagues surmise that if we do indeed observe a maximum energy amount for the cosmic rays that bombard the Earth, that this should provide confirmation that we really are living in a simulation. (In case you’re wondering, this is what has been observed: cosmic rays always arrive at Earth with a specific maximum energy of about 1020 electron volts.)
.
So does that decide it then? Is Beane’s experiment proof that we’re living in a simulated universe? Beane himself doesn’t think it matters one way or another: “Learning we live in a simulation would make no more difference to my life than believing that the universe was seeded at the Big Bang,” he suggested. To him, the issue is a mere scientific curiosity.
.
Philosophers aren’t likely to be so easily sated, however. Beane’s test makes a lot of unnecessary assumptions. For instance, it assumes that any simulation of the universe would need to be constructed from a lattice or grid. Perhaps our supergenius simulator overlords have discovered some more advanced way of constructing a simulation.
.
Beane’s test also can’t rule out the possibility that the universe might actually happen to function like a latticed simulation. In other words, it’s possible that reality and simulated reality are simply perceptively indistinguishable. If such were the case, then no test would suffice. We’d be right back at square one — a place where the scientist must, incontrovertibly, give way to the philosopher.
the room is actually not square —
its walls and floors are on angles and there is a high point as well
I’ve posted the video that demonstrates how the room
is constructed per a request from agnophilo
Do you take some time each day to reflect on what you believe? Do you have a method that brings spiritual growth into your life?
Later, next week, I’ll post an article entitled “is the brain spirituality wired?” and soon, I have one about the afterlife (see afterlife: part one). I have a few others in the works too… so, come back again and again.
Thanks for reading,
Eric
meantime, here are some past articles that may be interesting…
just for a diversion… sit down and watch this — it will probably get you out of your present thoughts
If you pass the test, the room will begin looking wavy. Make sure to close the ad if one opens. It can be viewed in full screen mode for the full effect — okay, be sitting down— it can cause a temporary imbalance. The effect is limited (thank goodness) and temporary.
Photo: 
Is science always the winner? Must religion denounce the Big Bang or evolution? I don’t think so.
Eric
This is an illusion.
