Message: previous - next
Month: June 2018

Re: [trinity-users] got a puzzle OT - dragons versus dinosaurs

From: William Morder <doctor_contendo@...>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 02:02:11 -0700

On Wednesday 20 June 2018 01:08:22 Thierry de Coulon wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 June 2018 09.06:53 William Morder wrote:
> > Yet while I agree with you about the science, and disagree with Felix
> > (and probably others) about religion, I still hold that they are free to
> > believe whatever they want. I only ask that we can coexist in peace. I
> > will leave you in your ignorance, if you agree likewise to leave me in
> > mine.
> I totaly agree with you about that.
> > Furthermore, even whether or not I agree with them, I still recognize
> > their contributions to the list; and Felix has made many useful
> > suggestions.
> I hope my English never made me imply he didn't. And I do hope we can
> disagree about things without animosity.
> Thierry

The next time anybody falls down (instead of up), he or she ought to be 
reminded that gravity, too, is just a "theory". You are confounding the 
vulgar sense of the word (as used in newspapers and popular writing) with its 
technical sense. 

When scientists use the term *theory*, it is in the original Greek technical 
sense of a "vision", something imagined or visualized. Einstein spoke of his 
theory of relativity as a kind of myth, and also explained the inner workings 
of the atom by a kind of myth. Suppose that you have a watch that cannot be 
opened; you see the hands move round, one faster than the other, so you 
create a vision in your mind that seems to explain it. You still cannot open 
the watch, but your vision, or myth, accounts for all the variables. 

Even by using the Hadron collider, scientists still will not be able to open 
atoms and view subatomic particles. They study the traces left by those 
experiments, but they never (at least, not yet) actually can look inside and 
handle the thing itself. 

While these explanations are just theories, we can use them with enough 
precision to create atomic bombs, send spacecraft to distant planets, and 
power our cities by electricity. 

If religious people could avoid the tendency to fundamentalist (to turn ideas 
into things, or things into ideas, and misinterpret spiritual principles in 
physical terms), maybe humanity could get themselves reasonably united enough 
to save our home planet before it's too late. When the Bible speaks of the 
earth as God's footstool, surely this is intended as a figure of speech; we 
should not get hung up on such things any more than we demand that the words 
*sunrise* and *sunset* be understood literally. 

Moreover, neither science nor religion will ever arrive at some absolute, 
final understanding of the universe. There will always be something more, 
just out of our reach, which we must imagine, so that we can use our theories 
to advance our knowledge of the universe.