The theory to explain everything - God. Gee why didn't I think of that. Thankfully, they will have a DL program. Be the first on your block to get a PhD in physics, just by praying for it. And a side benefit is that the periodic table is much easier to memorize now. I guess we can tell Witten et al. to quit messing aroung with string theory.
One of the recurring themes in Ursula LeGuin's EarthSea series is that there is one single element that controls all the others. Nigerium?
Oyibo says "all the other efforts in science have become obsolete and been pushed to the archives." Great. Now George Gollin can stop wasting his time with physics, and focus entirely on degree mills.
Confusing religion and science is a profound and increasingly common error. Scientific inquiry uncovers ever greater knowledge about the physical universe through the scientific method while religion is incapable of uncovering a single new scientific fact. Faith does not inform us in this way. On the other hand, science can tell us nothing about God. Confounding the two is rank charlatanism.
I think that science can tell us a lot, mi amigo. For instance, if the weight (or the charge) of the electron had been slightly different then the world would have been completely different too. So for us to be the way we are there had to be a lot of parameters set, fixed. Otherwise, life would be completely different. Another example could be the odd molecular structure of the water. Thanks to that, cold water weights less than warm water as it has a smaller volume per weight unit (smaller density), allowing thus life in the bottom of the ocean which is where everything (according to most scientists) started. I am saying this because the Bible said that man was created as the image of god. For this to be true, a definite set of parameters had to be fixed as I just said. Then, did God have many options during the creation if we were to be like Him? This is the type of questions science can help us solve. Saint Thomas, Saint Augustine, Saint Anselm of Canterbury and others successfully tried as well to mix reason and religion in their treaties. And they were saints.... Science has as well discarded absurd theories like creationism, like anthopocentrism, and so on. The Vatican, for instance, has already accepted the Big Bang Theory..... They didn't dare though to explain what that means then for that little bed story of Adam and Eve Just a (respectful) idea. Cordial greetings PS The theory of everything is just an old chimera. I think the mathematics (and therefore the physics) we have now are not correct. The microphysics and macrophysics are both right when analized independently as hundreds of experiments show. When they are put together, however, they contradict each other. I think we haven’t found the right tool, the right algebra, the correct way of thinking. One day we might. But maybe we are not meant to know it anyway. Maybe life is not about us after all, and we are just a collaterla effect of something else..... Too late for this type of conversation.....
I agree that there have been churchmen who were also scientists. I took chemistry from a monk, for example. However, the danger lies in substituting faith for proper scientific enquiry about the natural world. Look what happened to Gallileo! Look at the so-called "creation science" people, trying to teach genesis on an equal BIOLOGICAL footing with evolution. When it comes to science, faith has NO place.
In think it was Hawking who said that one of the reasons he pursued physics was to "know the mind of God." Yes Einstein's and quantum physics are not reconciled yet. That's what string theory is trying to do. Witten and his clan are working feverishly. The problem he says (I'm paraphrasing) is that we have a theory (string) that probably should have come a couple of hundred years later, and thus we only have the mathematics of the present in order to flesh it out. I think that science IS leading inexorably towards the question of God. Already, physics and philosophy are commingling in a tantalizing way. Tipler has written the Physics of Immortality (Google or Amazon it). I’m not sure about it, but it’s interesting nonetheless. Maybe it will be string theory. We just have to accept that we live in 11 dimensions (I think that’s the number. Prof. Gollin, jump in if I have it wrong.) I do agree that religion has almost nothing to say about science except things that are wrong.
Yes, I think you're right, Nosborne. To introduce faith in science is simply preposterous. I am myself embarrased when I read about those scientists from Christian Universities who "prove" the Creation theory, and trash Darwin's evolution. They are not the only ones though. Einstein came to the conclusion that the Universe was moving. This didn't fit within his religious views and for that he introduced what he called a cosmological constant to counteract this expansion of the Universe. Of course, soon after, I think it was Hubble, who prove that galaxies are moving apart one from another. In reality, this was pretty obvious from Newton's gravitation work ... almost three hundred years earlier!!! But nobody though of it because of religious views! Science and religion simply don't mix well. At least when doing science. Greetings.
Einstein also answered, when asked if he believed in God, "I believe in Spinoza's God." Now, I am no expert on Spinoza, but I do know that he was "excommunicated" or at least "persona non grata" in the Jewish community because he rejected the usual God of the Jews.
Certainly, Nosborne, the Deus sive Nature proposal (against the anthropomorphic conception of God). I think his family was originaly from Spain where his family and him had to run, of course, from the Holy Inquisition. Nevertheless he'd still be prosecuted, if he were alive, by fanatics of any sign around the world. I wonder when humanity will make that leap of faith to get rid of religious fanatism.
