What Religion is Book?
POSTED BY: Lukasaurus
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 21, 2025 16:38
VIEWED: 16439
PAGE 4 of 8
Quote:
Originally posted by thoreau:
Our scientific community is already bordering on the stupidity of organized religion (no flame intended, and in case it isn't obvious I'm talking about the way scientists of today believe in earlier scientists theories as if they were holy law. I'm not making a reference to scientology) so I can easily see the mixture eventually developing.
And you're basing this on what exactly?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
Still, amazing isn't it that scientists do hold onto their faith in their theories, even though there are glaring inconsistencies?
Amazing, isn't it, that scientists test and refine their theories? If scientists really just wanted to hold onto their "faith" they simply wouldn't conduct experiments. You work with a theory that works, until you get evidence that it's wrong, and then you try to refine that theory if possible or throw it out and start anew if necessary. That's (part of) the scientific process.
It's well known there's problems with aspects of relativity, QM, etc. I don't see anybody (not actual scientists anyway) saying "No no no no no, Einstein is right, he'll always be right. I won't listen to the evidence, I can't hear you." People are working hard every day trying to come up with new theories and experiments to test those theories. Don't you think there's lots of scientists who'd love to be able to say they one-upped Einstein?
There really aren't _any_ set in stone theories in science (something many "evolution is just a theory" types don't understand). The closest you're going to get is some classes of mathematical theorems, but even there you'll get debates on the validity of certain axioms. (And yes, most of modern mathematics is based on "faith" in certain axioms. But we certainly don't pretend it's the only possible way for things to work, and there's branches of mathematics that explore the consequences of altering those axioms.)
Sure, you'll always have bad apples, people who hang on to outdated theories for whatever reason, outright frauds, etc. But in the end, truth will out.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I like Channain's "pulling a Succatash"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!
You buncha goobers. . .is OBVIOUS!!!!
Book is a Seventh-Day Whedonist. . .
The small but fervently devout faith that Joss Whedon's best creation, "Firefly", will be put on Sunday Nights at 8:00PM between "The Simpsons" and "Family Guy"
==================================================
"Wash. . .we got some local color happening. A grand entrance would not go amiss."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Static:
Book is a Seventh-Day Whedonist. . .
With a Catholic/Jewish mother and a Lutheran father, I always saw myself as a Hindu: Believing that every face of God is just another face of the same God. If you believe in any god, than you believe in the same god as everyone else.
Now, I'm embracing the Seventh-Day Whedonists.
"Just keep walkin, preacher man."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here is her response. If she doesn't get back to you in acouple of weeks send me a message through,
http://www.fireflyfans.net/showprofile.asp?un=SigmaNunki
and I'll remind her.
Zoid,
I will be happy to reply to you when my time allows, which will probably not be before next week. I like talking to interested laymen, because it forces me to word science in a comprehensible way and to take a different point of view. But to do this in an appropriate way requires some time and some thinking.
Best regards, the wife.
----
"If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!" -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SigmaNunki and honorable spouse,
Thank you very much. I am truly looking forward to any elucidation she may provide for those of us who frequent FFFn, and who are interested in actual science as well.
Please post in a new thread -- since I think we're getting somewhat outside "What religion is Book?" by this point. A thread title including "quantum mechanics", perhaps? Also, please feel free to repost any of my statements she wishes to address specifically; along with her comments, corrections and criticisms of any misleading or mistaken statements I may be making.
On the other hand, if she wishes to start afresh with what details of her own work she can freely divulge (some stuff is classified), those would be equally welcome and appreciated.
For everyone else, I highly recommend "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. It is critically acclaimed, and its explanations are highly approachable to the layperson. Sort of tying this back into Book's religion: I guarantee you'll find the governing concepts of quantum and n-dimensional physics stranger than the most fantastic religious mythology you've ever heard. Just remember, as strange as it sounds, it describes something fundamentally true about our universe and 'reality', otherwise you'd not be reading this on your computer (because there'd be no computers, or magnetic resonance imaging, or...). And for those who are familiar with Ancient Greek philosophy and Far Eastern religions, you will see obvious parallels between those and QM. For a deeper comparison between QM and Eastern religions, read also the excellent, aforementioned "Dancing Wu Li Masters".
See ya' around the 'H-Bar'...
Respectfully,
zoid
_________________________________________________
"River? I thought she was a sweet girl. Of course, we were all sure she was crazy, too."
- Inara Reynolds, Secretary of Ecumenical Affairs
from A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence Wilkins, Richard
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by embers:
I still believe that Book only joined 'the Abby' a few years ago...after having been an important man in the Govt/Military/Corporate power structure...
I have to agree with this. The facts regarding his skill with firearms lend not only to that, but suggest a small possibility that he isn't dedicated to one faith for the people that he ministers to, very like an Army Chaplin who has a faith of his (or her) own, but should set aside conversion dogma to better care for the people he is responsible for.
Good Thread
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
For everyone else, I highly recommend "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. ]
Great book!
Have you read 'the fabric of the cosmos' by Brian Greene yet?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Heb wrote:
Quote:
Have you read 'the fabric of the cosmos' by Brian Greene yet?
Nope. I was at Border's today (in fact I just got back) hopeful of finding something else by Dr. Greene; however, they had nothing of his. Instead, I seriously considered David Bohm's Thought as a System, but purchased Ian Stewart's Flatterland: Like Flatland, Only More So, based more or less on its 2001 publishing date, compared to Thought's 1990. Next buying cycle, perhaps...
I really enjoy reading sci-fi (in fact, it is the only fiction I read) but I also enjoy reading popular treatments of scientific study, by reputable and pedigreed authors. Some of my favorites in both genres are listed in posts above. I forgot to mention -- and would be remiss not to correct the oversight -- Fritjof Capra's excellent The Tao of Physics, which likewise provides a strong correlation between QM and Eastern religio-ideology.
My fellow Browncoats have many differing opinions on "science as a religion". My opinion is that scientists -- those who engage in observation and discovery of God's handiwork -- do have a religious belief, a faith that underlies their profession. While it's true that scientists will stress that no theory can ever be ultimately considered complete (Gödel), and that they are constantly updating, refining and even reorganizing theories and models, there are nevertheless basic, fundamental and underlying assumptions that they are 1) describing something real, 2) that this reality is manipulable, and 3) that the universe itself is ultimately mechanistic, not holistic or even (gulp!) mystical. Faith in science, itself, is the religion of the scientist. And it's a faith predicated upon assumptions that are every bit as convoluted and contradictory as the wildest deistic religion you've ever heard of.
Occam's Razor cuts both ways...
I personally believe that God created the universe and gave Humankind an intellect equal to the comprehension of its (fractally deep) mysteries. To seek the truth of our physical existence is to pursue God's highest goal for our minds, especially since such pursuit leads invariably to a Spiritual conclusion -- or at least an undeniably metaphysical one (see again, Gödel), that is perhaps infinitely more complex than "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light"...
Respectfully,
zoid
_________________________________________________
"River? I thought she was a sweet girl. Of course, we were all sure she was crazy, too."
- Inara Reynolds, Secretary of Ecumenical Affairs
from A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence Wilkins, Richard
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME