30 Mar 16
Originally posted by sonshipThis is what Wikipedia has to say about him:
Sure, let's not mistake one for the other. However, MIT physics professor Dr. Gerald Schroeder (orthodox Jew) discusses theology and in the course of it passes on good science.
Among other things, Schroeder attempts to reconcile a six-day creation as described in Genesis with the scientific evidence that the world is billions of years old using the idea that the perceived flow of time for a given event in an expanding universe varies with the observer’s perspective of that event. He attempts to reconcile the two perspectives numerically, calculating the effect of the stretching of space-time, based on Einstein's general relativity.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
30 Mar 16
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am aware of some of his "attempts". He might be on to something, though I find it not easy to follow.
This is what Wikipedia has to say about him:Among other things, Schroeder attempts to reconcile a six-day creation as described in Genesis with the scientific evidence that the world is billions of years old using the idea that the perceived flow of time for a given event in an expanding universe varies with the observer’s perspective of that eve ...[text shortened]... ting the effect of the stretching of space-time, based on Einstein's general relativity.
Atheist scientists "attempt" stuff too. Right ?
In both cases, they give a thoughtful person, at least something to think about.
You don't think the Multiverse is an "attempt" at some kind of reconciliation of philosophical or biased spiritual concepts for some anti-theist types ?
So he has some attempted hypothesizes with possible theological implications. So does Lawrence Kraus. That is attempts a materialist reasoning with anti-theistic philosophical implications, in spades.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
No, I am not saying that.
I am saying that it is not wise to get your scientific information from someone who propounding on theology (you don't even seem to realise that 'theology' is not equivalent to 'talking about God'. )
On contrary. I left room for the fact that "theology" may indeed be someone expounding on anti-theistic philosophical concepts.
And it is wise often to listen to someone who has the credentials to include science talk in his or her theological talk. And you cannot not shake off the instance of Isaac Newton.
me:
Your clarification does not remove the bigoted attitude.
Explain what is bigoted about my attitude.
This is the "Me no speak English" routine.
I can expect that good science can come from someone when they are expounding theological themes.
Hugh Ross is an example.
And quickly checking with Internet skeptics on how Ross can be hooted down as fast as possible will not impress me.
"Good science" is also changing science.
What is agreed upon by consensus today may not be tomorrow.
Hugh Ross of "Reasons to Believe" can also communicate good science in the same session in which he may discuss theology.
Even Kent Hovind (YEC extraordinaire) may pass on some good science at points.
Mentioning some good science may not mean all points are equally valid.
Einstein included some erroneous matters along with other more valid scientific ones. The cosmological constant is an example. In the midst of his discourse he included something he said latter was the biggest error of his scientific career.
A theologian can speak of theology and include accurate science up to the modern consensus. He may also include some error.
It would be bigoted to suggest nothing valid could be said of a scientific nature from a theologian. It is bigoted towards a philosophy of Materialism, I think. It is bigoted towards an attitude that no truth can be known except through the scientific method upon material things.
I don't regard you statement as fair and balanced as you wish to refine it to.
Sure, let's not mistake one for the other. However, MIT physics professor Dr. Gerald Schroeder (orthodox Jew) discusses theology and in the course of it passes on good science.
Reference please.
That means to me "ALL the burden on you, please."
Invest a dime, some time, and add to your library "The Science of God" by Dr. Gerald L. Schroeder. But if you don't I have no doubt that one even lecturing on theology can pass on some good scientific information. And the wishful thinking that such is impossible, I would have to take as a bigoted presupposition.
30 Mar 16
Originally posted by sonshipHe is not 'on to something'. He is trying his best to reconcile his religious beliefs with science and failing miserably. And he will is bastardizing science in the process.
I am aware of some of his "attempts". He might be on to something, though I find it not easy to follow.
Originally posted by sonshipBut it isn't just 'speaking about God'.
On contrary. I left room for the fact that "theology" may indeed be someone expounding on anti-theistic philosophical concepts.
And it is wise often to listen to someone who has the credentials to include science talk in his or her theological talk.
No it is not.
And you cannot not shake off the instance of Isaac Newton.
I assure you, that whenever Isaac Newton was talking about theology, his science would not have been worth listening to.
From Wikipedia:
In a manuscript he wrote in 1704 in which he describes his attempts to extract scientific information from the Bible, he estimated that the world would end no earlier than 2060.
He was also into alchemy.
This is the "Me no speak English" routine.
No, not at all. I know how to use a dictionary:
bigoted
obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, and intolerant towards other people's beliefs and practices.
That is an inaccurate description of my opinion in this matter. Therefore I asked for clarification in case you meant something other than the dictionary meaning.
Hugh Ross is an example.
And quickly checking with Internet skeptics on how Ross can be hooted down as fast as possible will not impress me.
Why will it not impress you?
And I don't need to look for 'internet skeptics' I only need to look him up on Wikipedia. If you think he you will be getting good science out of him when he is in Theology mode then you are badly mistaken.
"Good science" is also changing science.
What is agreed upon by consensus today may not be tomorrow.
Most scientific findings are essentially proven. You are mistaken if you think science changes wholesale every decade. That is the sort of gross misinformation that a theologian fed you.
Even Kent Hovind (YEC extraordinaire) may pass on some good science at points.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 🙂
And how you are you going to know when? My point is not that a theologist is incapable of repeating E=mc^2 My point is that you shouldn't get your science from them. If you are seriously suggesting that someone ignorant of science should listen to Kent Hovind in order to learn science then you are stark raving bonkers.
30 Mar 16
Originally posted by sonshipAnd it is my contention that the average theologian includes significantly more errors than the average scientist.
A theologian can speak of theology and include accurate science up to the modern consensus. He may also include some error.
It would be bigoted to suggest nothing valid could be said of a scientific nature from a theologian.
And it would be downright lying to suggest that I ever said such a thing.
That means to me "ALL the burden on you, please."
Yes. Every time I make a statement you demand two examples (even when they would actually be irrelevant to what I said), so I am playing the same trick on you to see if you are a hypocrite or not.
But if you don't I have no doubt that one even lecturing on theology can pass on some good scientific information. And the wishful thinking that such is impossible, I would have to take as a bigoted presupposition.
I suspect that the bigoted thinking was all on your part as you clearly think I said something I didn't. Must be your bigoted mind changing the words before your eyes.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't intend to defend that particular discussion.
He is not 'on to something'. He is trying his best to reconcile his religious beliefs with science and failing miserably. And he will is bastardizing science in the process.
But I would suggest you complain to Mass Institute of Technology for hiring Gerald Schroeder if you are certain that good physics could not possible come out of the same mouth that speaks of Judaism as a faith.
Also from a Wiki article on Gerald L. Schroeder -
Schroeder received his BSc in 1959, his MSc in 1961, and his PhD in nuclear physics and earth and planetary sciences in 1965, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).[2] He worked five years on the staff of the MIT physics department. He was a member of the United States Atomic Energy Commission. [3]
How come US Atomic Energy Commission didn't just say - "Well, we know no theologian can pass on to us good scientific information." ?
Don't look now, but world renown Atheist Anthony Flew seems to have been assisted in abandoning Atheism because of Schreoder's alledged unreliable (according to your viewpoint) science.
Antony Flew, an academic philosopher who promoted atheism for most of his adult life indicated that the arguments of Gerald Schroeder had influenced his decision to become a deist.[9][10]
No good science from a theologian ? Must have been good enough to help alter Anthony Flew's mind.
Gerald Lawrence Schroeder is an Orthodox Jewish physicist, author, lecturer and teacher at College of Jewish Studies Aish HaTorah's Discovery Seminar, Essentials and Fellowships programs and Executive Learning Center,[1] who focuses on what he perceives to be an inherent relationship between science and spirituality.
Does he lecture on Jewish theology? Yes.
Should we expect that he is not trustworthy to pass on good science to us?
I don't see why that should be.
Might there be some good science mixed with some weaker science?
I don't know why not. Many great scientists passed on something less confirmed or mistaken.
His works frequently cite Talmudic, Midrashic and medieval commentaries on Biblical creation accounts, such as commentaries written by the Jewish philosopher Nachmanides. Among other things, Schroeder attempts to reconcile a six-day creation as described in Genesis with the scientific evidence that the world is billions of years old using the idea that the perceived flow of time for a given event in an expanding universe varies with the observer’s perspective of that event. He attempts to reconcile the two perspectives numerically, calculating the effect of the stretching of space-time, based on Einstein's general relativity.[7]
Science wise, I am not yet able to discuss it in defense or critically.
Schroeder was a recipient of a certain Trotter prize from Texas A&M.
In 2012, Schroeder was awarded the Trotter Prize by Texas A&M University's College of Science.[13]
Still from Wiki.
The Trotter Prize is awarded at Texas A&M University and is part of an endowed lecture series. It is awarded "for pioneering contributions to the understanding of the role of information, complexity and inference in illuminating the mechanisms and wonder of nature" and includes The Trotter Lecture which "seeks to reveal connections between science and religion, often viewed in academia as non-overlapping, if not rival, worldviews.
Previous winners:
Previous winners[edit]
Nobel Prize winners Charles Hard Townes and Francis Crick received the inaugural award at A&M's Rudder Theater in 2002. Townes spoke about connections between science and faith.[1] Promoter of the notion of intelligent design William A. Dembski[2] shared the award in 2005 with theoretical biologist Stuart Kauffman.[3] Simon Conway Morris received the award and spoke in 2007.[4][5] Francis Collins, the director of the human genome project, and Stephen Weinberg, a Nobel Prize recipient for physics, shared the Trotter Prize in 2008 and discussed the interplay between science and religion.[6] Astronomer and historian of science Owen Gingerich also won the prize.[7]
Robert L. Park has criticized the award for being given to William A. Dembski, proponent of the concept of intelligent design, saying it is given out for "overlapping the magisteria" (a comment based on Stephen Jay Gould's concept of non-overlapping magisteria, NOMA, the idea that science and religion inherently do not overlap). .[8]
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
30 Mar 16
Originally posted by twhitehead
Pro tip: don't get your science from Thomas Aquinas, or any other theologians for that mater.
You once said it.
And it is my contention that the average theologian includes significantly more errors than the average scientist.
Define "average theologian".
It would be bigoted to suggest nothing valid could be said of a scientific nature from a theologian.
And it would be downright lying to suggest that I ever said such a thing.
You suggested such a thing.
Pro tip: don't get your science from Thomas Aquinas, or any other theologians for that mater.
You're refinement was not that much better.
Yes. Every time I make a statement you demand two examples (even when they would actually be irrelevant to what I said), so I am playing the same trick on you to see if you are a hypocrite or not.
Sometimes is not "every time".
Two examples have been given of theologians or ( theologically lecturing men ) who passed on some good science.
Isaac Newton.
Gerald Schroeder
I suspect that the bigoted thinking was all on your part as you clearly think I said something I didn't. Must be your bigoted mind changing the words before your eyes.[/b]
I don't have to "suspect" anything about you. I know you're a bigot.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)To Whomever It May or May Not Concern:
"How is eternity expressed mathematically?" Thread 158620 (30 Mar '14 23:48)
"Here are the largest numbers I could find as a layman's point of reference:
Googol: A large number. A "1" followed by one hundred zeros.
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000, ...[text shortened]... te quantitative/qualitative aspect of an eternity with or separated from God?"
____________________
Is there a mathematical construct which yields an Inverse Googolplexian between the words Yes|No?:
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIs there another universe, one in which we actually know reliably when the next high speed bus will pass our house? In this universe, there is every reason to suspect at times that the wait will be eternal.
[b]I pick the instant death every time.
When does the next high speed bus pass by your house?[/b]
The post that was quoted here has been removedThe idea of eternal life in which we all get back together - sans the ones who went to the other place - is asinine. Has anyone remarked that people change over time? I am not sure in what sense my ten year old self can be identified with my sixty year old self but neither has much in common with myself at forty. If I fail to change over eternity then clearly I am not experiencing anything worthwhile at all, but if I change in any degree comparable to the changes over my decades on this plane, then the product of an inconceivable time period would be a being with no resemblance whatever to the puny mortal I have been to date. If however I am in addition constrained to be eternally happy - or indeed, eternally anguished - then my capacity to change through experience would seem to me severely restricted - it would be more like being anestheticized or in a delirious trance, which is about as interesting as just not bothering and being dead.
My ten year old self had no way to envisage my sixty year old self. I am not convinced it would have been helpful. Neither edition of my self can have much connection with the strange and weird creature that is the hypothetical product of eternal life in a different plane - it must be different since this plane is rather useless over such a timescale as Earth cannot be relied on to remain habitable or even recognizable indefinitiely. I am really not convinced that there can be any relationship of any interest whatever between our mortal selves and our putative immortal future selves, if the concept of self is any use in this context. [To say that I myself will live eternally is not much use if I myself change into something unrecognizably different, a situation rather similar to saying I will not live eternally after all, and to live eternally without changing would be comparable to being reborn as a very long lasting cabbage and having the choice between a really great joint or a really bad acid trip, neither of which matters. This is a disaster for the suicide bombers among us of course.]
We are all mortal. Even advocates of eternal life do not pretend that death does not take place, or that we are not reduced to ashes.
A mortal man is a man. An immortal man is not; it is something inconceivably different and alien.
A mortal man is not an immortal man.
Man is not immortal.