Comments on: The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom http://www.2002youngscientists.org/the-science-of-god-the-convergence-of-scientific-and-biblical-wisdom Tue, 18 May 2010 18:45:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Danny Ceja http://www.2002youngscientists.org/the-science-of-god-the-convergence-of-scientific-and-biblical-wisdom/comment-page-1#comment-88 Danny Ceja Mon, 08 Mar 2010 04:26:48 +0000 http://2002youngscientists.org/the-science-of-god-the-convergence-of-scientific-and-biblical-wisdom#comment-88 This person sounds like he is no scientist at all. <br>He is trying to mix Science and God, not a good mix! Rating: 1 / 5 This person sounds like he is no scientist at all.
He is trying to mix Science and God, not a good mix!
Rating: 1 / 5

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.2002youngscientists.org/the-science-of-god-the-convergence-of-scientific-and-biblical-wisdom/comment-page-1#comment-87 Anonymous Mon, 08 Mar 2010 01:27:51 +0000 http://2002youngscientists.org/the-science-of-god-the-convergence-of-scientific-and-biblical-wisdom#comment-87 When people talk about God and Science, they make a lot of category mistakes. For a simple example, plenty people are very concern of arguments about proving or disproving the presence of God through observed facts. It is a simple mix-up of Formal and Informal System. A formal system is something like Mathematics, in which everything is well defined ahead of time before anything else is proven or disproven. 'Proving' or 'Disproving' is a concept from a formal system 'spilling' over to the Informal System. Language everyone uses is constrained by the fact that it is a tool used in an informal system, in which the constructs being used are forever changing in definitions. Terms, concepts, statements are all analytic. Talking about proving or disproving in such system is a misunderstanding of this demarcation and the features of metaphysics.<p>Why would people still spend time to write a book about this sort of things?<p>Karl Popper taught us how to build our epistemological structure. Wittgenstein taught us the fact that plenty philosophical problems are simply a misuse in language. Why do people still spend so much time in the inherent impossibility of linking metaphysical concepts to empirical sciences? <p>For a good introduction to scientific methodology, please read some Karl Popper. Platonic Ideas and Forms, Aristotle's Teleology, Freudianism, Hegalism, Marxism, etc etc, all made the same mistakes as what this book and plenty people on Earth are making. They all confuse justification with scientific reductionism. With a confused mind, they write books to confuse other people. Rating: 1 / 5 When people talk about God and Science, they make a lot of category mistakes. For a simple example, plenty people are very concern of arguments about proving or disproving the presence of God through observed facts. It is a simple mix-up of Formal and Informal System. A formal system is something like Mathematics, in which everything is well defined ahead of time before anything else is proven or disproven. ‘Proving’ or ‘Disproving’ is a concept from a formal system ‘spilling’ over to the Informal System. Language everyone uses is constrained by the fact that it is a tool used in an informal system, in which the constructs being used are forever changing in definitions. Terms, concepts, statements are all analytic. Talking about proving or disproving in such system is a misunderstanding of this demarcation and the features of metaphysics.

Why would people still spend time to write a book about this sort of things?

Karl Popper taught us how to build our epistemological structure. Wittgenstein taught us the fact that plenty philosophical problems are simply a misuse in language. Why do people still spend so much time in the inherent impossibility of linking metaphysical concepts to empirical sciences?

For a good introduction to scientific methodology, please read some Karl Popper. Platonic Ideas and Forms, Aristotle’s Teleology, Freudianism, Hegalism, Marxism, etc etc, all made the same mistakes as what this book and plenty people on Earth are making. They all confuse justification with scientific reductionism. With a confused mind, they write books to confuse other people.
Rating: 1 / 5

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.2002youngscientists.org/the-science-of-god-the-convergence-of-scientific-and-biblical-wisdom/comment-page-1#comment-86 Anonymous Mon, 08 Mar 2010 00:35:33 +0000 http://2002youngscientists.org/the-science-of-god-the-convergence-of-scientific-and-biblical-wisdom#comment-86 The most charitable comment I can give to this book is that "it is a journey". More specifically, it is a torturing journey. The author tends to mix up very simple scientific methodology and metaphysical philosophy. Often, Gerald seems to look like an armchair philosopher and jumps to unsupported onotological conclusion. One may find plenty philosophical problems in the analysis, arguments from personal credulity and incredulity. The arguments are not even close to being convincing. I would not recommend this chauvinistic exegesis to anyone would like to 'find things out'. Rating: 1 / 5 The most charitable comment I can give to this book is that “it is a journey”. More specifically, it is a torturing journey. The author tends to mix up very simple scientific methodology and metaphysical philosophy. Often, Gerald seems to look like an armchair philosopher and jumps to unsupported onotological conclusion. One may find plenty philosophical problems in the analysis, arguments from personal credulity and incredulity. The arguments are not even close to being convincing. I would not recommend this chauvinistic exegesis to anyone would like to ‘find things out’.
Rating: 1 / 5

]]> By: Oguchi H. Nkwocha http://www.2002youngscientists.org/the-science-of-god-the-convergence-of-scientific-and-biblical-wisdom/comment-page-1#comment-85 Oguchi H. Nkwocha Sun, 07 Mar 2010 22:39:23 +0000 http://2002youngscientists.org/the-science-of-god-the-convergence-of-scientific-and-biblical-wisdom#comment-85 Schroeder does a brilliant work of compressing time to 6 literal days. Too bad he forget to reckon with "0" (zero) in the numerical count. Too bad he cannot use religion to prove "purpose" in the universe or universes.<p>But he succumbs to the same scotoma by which he judges unbelieving fellow-scientists. He relies on old, inscrutible indisputable, and non-changing documents and ideas to make his points; in so doing he negates "the change of mind" that he is so eager to expect and extract from other scientists. It's indeed a good thing that Science questions everything, and has no sacred holybooks or theories that cannot be challenged and overthrown. <p>In the author's reach to prove "purpose" (in creation and the universe) this scotoma is most obvious. He tells us, approvingly, that a prosecutor once said he would have tried Cain (Cain and Abel story in Genesis) for murder one (meaning, in the First Degree) on the spot. If this prosecutor is accusing Cain and bringing him to trial for murder in the death of Abel, he is not only predictable, but is also either stupid or lazy. Even to a lay and objective person, there is no premeditation or anger towards his brother on the side of Cain. On the other hand, if the prosecutor is going to get God for this heinous crime, he is truly on the right track. Compared to Cain, God had more of the means, the motivation and more opportunity to set up Cain, as much as to prevent the unnecessary death of Abel. God is the suspect and even the guilty one here, if justice must be done. And since the author mentioned it briefly, the choice and power over 6 million hapless Jews during the holocaust is less of Hitler and his Nazi regime's than of God's.<p>If there is "purpose" to the universe and to existence, you cannot prove it by defending and using the image and persona of the God of Genesis, as Schroeder does, regardles of which version--the Torah, the Old testament or whatever, and regardless of whose interpretation--the Talmud or Billy Graham's. Well, unless you want to show the pathological co-dependent relationship between a Bully-God and his captive human slaves as "purpose." This is a relationship that immediately exonerates God from right choices and prudent exercise of power and immediately places blame on hapless humanity--"the usual suspects." This is a typical bully-bullied relationship. This is "the purpose" that religion is trying to prove. <p>(For the record, Jesus rejected the above, and thought and taught otherwise; for this, his teachings were rejected by traditionalist Judaism and adulterated into antithetical doctrines by Christianity).<p>The only hope of finding "purpose" in existence, if "purpose" exists, lies Science, not religion. So, I strongly disagree with Schroeder. Rating: 3 / 5 Schroeder does a brilliant work of compressing time to 6 literal days. Too bad he forget to reckon with “0″ (zero) in the numerical count. Too bad he cannot use religion to prove “purpose” in the universe or universes.

But he succumbs to the same scotoma by which he judges unbelieving fellow-scientists. He relies on old, inscrutible indisputable, and non-changing documents and ideas to make his points; in so doing he negates “the change of mind” that he is so eager to expect and extract from other scientists. It’s indeed a good thing that Science questions everything, and has no sacred holybooks or theories that cannot be challenged and overthrown.

In the author’s reach to prove “purpose” (in creation and the universe) this scotoma is most obvious. He tells us, approvingly, that a prosecutor once said he would have tried Cain (Cain and Abel story in Genesis) for murder one (meaning, in the First Degree) on the spot. If this prosecutor is accusing Cain and bringing him to trial for murder in the death of Abel, he is not only predictable, but is also either stupid or lazy. Even to a lay and objective person, there is no premeditation or anger towards his brother on the side of Cain. On the other hand, if the prosecutor is going to get God for this heinous crime, he is truly on the right track. Compared to Cain, God had more of the means, the motivation and more opportunity to set up Cain, as much as to prevent the unnecessary death of Abel. God is the suspect and even the guilty one here, if justice must be done. And since the author mentioned it briefly, the choice and power over 6 million hapless Jews during the holocaust is less of Hitler and his Nazi regime’s than of God’s.

If there is “purpose” to the universe and to existence, you cannot prove it by defending and using the image and persona of the God of Genesis, as Schroeder does, regardles of which version–the Torah, the Old testament or whatever, and regardless of whose interpretation–the Talmud or Billy Graham’s. Well, unless you want to show the pathological co-dependent relationship between a Bully-God and his captive human slaves as “purpose.” This is a relationship that immediately exonerates God from right choices and prudent exercise of power and immediately places blame on hapless humanity–”the usual suspects.” This is a typical bully-bullied relationship. This is “the purpose” that religion is trying to prove.

(For the record, Jesus rejected the above, and thought and taught otherwise; for this, his teachings were rejected by traditionalist Judaism and adulterated into antithetical doctrines by Christianity).

The only hope of finding “purpose” in existence, if “purpose” exists, lies Science, not religion. So, I strongly disagree with Schroeder.
Rating: 3 / 5

]]> By: Rohan L. Ebanks http://www.2002youngscientists.org/the-science-of-god-the-convergence-of-scientific-and-biblical-wisdom/comment-page-1#comment-84 Rohan L. Ebanks Sun, 07 Mar 2010 19:54:13 +0000 http://2002youngscientists.org/the-science-of-god-the-convergence-of-scientific-and-biblical-wisdom#comment-84 The entire premise of this book is "If you hold the bible up to the light of the full-moon while standing on one leg, one can plainly see how scriptures and science are in harmony" While I can think of many colorful short phrases to describe this book while it ricochets of the wall into the trash can, the initials "B,S" comes to mind. <br /> <br />Schroeder wants the reader to believe that the book of Genesis makes reference to Einstein's theory of relativity! Supposedly, Einstein's time-dilation explains why the Creation "days" are actually long eons of time and that quantum mechanics can be used to explain other apparent contradictions between Genesis and the findings of modern science. Never, I say again never have mankind witnessed the establishment of a scientific fact that came about as a result of biblical investigation. These pseudo scientists lurks in the murky shadows of biblical nonsense until real science reviles some wonderful and enlighten truth about our world. Then they pounce and yell "Eureka!!!", bible in hand, ready to defile and hijack true scientific findings. <br /> <br /> By reinterpreting the bible to conform to reality is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty. For it is written starting from Genesis that "The evening and the morning was the first DAY!!!" The evening and the morning was the second DAY!!".... so on and so on" <br />"Six DAYS you shall you labor and do all your work, but the seventh DAY is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. For in six DAYS the Lord made the heavens and the Earth and rested on the seventh DAY"......Exodus 20: 9, 11. Hence 1 day = 24hrs Wouldn't it be fun to see how "science in the bible" explains how dead people rise from the tome and rejoin the living, how blindness, leprosy, paralysis are healed just by a mere touch???????? <br /> <br />This book makes a mockery out of science and a travesty to critical thinking. Click your heels together three times Mr. Schroeder then return to reality. The rest of us are waiting for you. <br /> <br />In Reason. <br /> Rating: 1 / 5 The entire premise of this book is “If you hold the bible up to the light of the full-moon while standing on one leg, one can plainly see how scriptures and science are in harmony” While I can think of many colorful short phrases to describe this book while it ricochets of the wall into the trash can, the initials “B,S” comes to mind.

Schroeder wants the reader to believe that the book of Genesis makes reference to Einstein’s theory of relativity! Supposedly, Einstein’s time-dilation explains why the Creation “days” are actually long eons of time and that quantum mechanics can be used to explain other apparent contradictions between Genesis and the findings of modern science. Never, I say again never have mankind witnessed the establishment of a scientific fact that came about as a result of biblical investigation. These pseudo scientists lurks in the murky shadows of biblical nonsense until real science reviles some wonderful and enlighten truth about our world. Then they pounce and yell “Eureka!!!”, bible in hand, ready to defile and hijack true scientific findings.

By reinterpreting the bible to conform to reality is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty. For it is written starting from Genesis that “The evening and the morning was the first DAY!!!” The evening and the morning was the second DAY!!”…. so on and so on”

“Six DAYS you shall you labor and do all your work, but the seventh DAY is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. For in six DAYS the Lord made the heavens and the Earth and rested on the seventh DAY”……Exodus 20: 9, 11. Hence 1 day = 24hrs Wouldn’t it be fun to see how “science in the bible” explains how dead people rise from the tome and rejoin the living, how blindness, leprosy, paralysis are healed just by a mere touch????????

This book makes a mockery out of science and a travesty to critical thinking. Click your heels together three times Mr. Schroeder then return to reality. The rest of us are waiting for you.

In Reason.

Rating: 1 / 5

]]>