I like the cut of your jib Sir. Real. I push back in to your openness nonetheless. I accept that we may achieve staggering orders of magnitude more in computational power that will facilitate ever better simulation of climate, weather, aviation and all engineering at every scale; medical imaging and diagnostics, practical telepathy and generally make it easier for trillionaires; we’ll end up with our own Turing test passing desktop counsellors. educators, doctors, companions, friends. None of which can address inequality including AGW and the other appalling legacies of imperialism.
Thanks, Klax. You have an interesting story, I am sure. That story – after “50 years”-- is, I am sure, a complex one. But don’t think that others have not “been there, done that.” Or not read what you have. And so on … “Scales fall from our eyes” from time to time…and from time to time all of us find ourselves in an echo chamber.
2 Likes
So which emergent Christian writers have you read?
Sometimes the echo chamber is in our own head, thoughts stuck in a loop from telling ourselves the same things over and over. Then it becomes habitual thinking long practiced and next to impossible to change, even when we have been given excellent evidence that something is rigged and that God is sovereign over time and place, timing and placing, and that we should reevaluate our presuppositions.
Was this comment and analysis meant for ME, Dale? or for someone else?
1 Like
No, not at all. 
The other party in the conversation.
Yes, unfortunately it is only going to make the rich get much richer and probably everyone else not so much. It also offers the possibility of a a small global elite controlling everything (if they don’t already). This is not conspiracy theory because we can extrapolate how much power different scales throughout history have had and it has tended to increase.
I actually hope we don’t get these things as we are already are too powerful for our own good and capability of managing. I’ve followed these things closely for quite awhile as I was in IT for many years and studied the social implications as well. dystopia here we come.
1 Like
I’m a cockeyed (IT2!) optimist. If there is no God, then the Godless gospel is still the greatest human achievement. As Dr. MLK quoted Theodore Parker, ‘the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice’. If God is, then it’s fully achieved even in the transcendent.
I believe Moltmann book on creation does one of the best jobs of equating god’s creation with himself without it falling into being a typical pantheist or panentheist explanation. I recommend you read it. Pantheist has been mainstream but not in the western mainstream.
There is no current reason for why the universe cannot originate from some type of multiverse type scenario and/or have always existed. As I said before, any explanation that hints or states a god/gods as the origin is a “god of the gaps” explanation. Paradox tends to surround these origin questions no matter which solution you adopt - god/gods, something from nothing (and I’m not talking about vacuum fluctuations or some type of esoteric quantum effects, but the old fashion understanding of nothing) or universe always existing.
Third - agreed
Physical Science is foundational to all other Science. However, the descriptions of more complex systems (chemical, biological etc.) cannot use precise mathematical formulations as say some physics can. It may be possible at some future date to reduce all chemistry and biology to physical and mathematical descriptions but not into the foreseeable future. Even relatively simple chemical interactions cannot be described exactly with math and physics.
There is a trade off between more accurate descriptions used in Physical Science and complexity of a system. The more complex the system the less capable the math and physics is at describing it because of its complexity. Other less accurate but more macroscopic methods are needed such as biological.
With less accurate not mathematical solutions there are always a lot of questions left unanswered.
“human psychology and cultural anthropology. However, scientists would say that we do have an adequate understanding for both of these from a Evolutionary perspective (currently Evolutionary Psychology does seem to provide adequate and acceptable explanations). I would say the third is, as of yet, unresolved.” - @brianwhite1066
Which “scientists would say”? On what basis do you claim this “adequate understanding” in human psychology and cultural anthropology using an “evolutionist” (exaggerated) ideology? Could you please indicate which scholarly work by which authors you believe provides “adequate and acceptable explanations” in (the field of) “evolutionary psychology”?
Evolutionary psychology is nowadays seen by many people as both corrupt, often not replicable, and pretty much fully drenched in materialistic ideology (lone exception: BioLogos-affiliated Justin Barrett). The entire basis of eVopsych was called into doubt by philosopher Subrena Smith in 2020. Doesn’t this give you reason to pause @brianwhite1066 with false flag eVopsych triumphalism “to provide adequate and acceptable explanations”?
What would you suggest instead?
Psychology that does not suffer from or try to profit from a “matching problem” like the “evolutionary” variety does. Human developmental psychology, for example, does not suffer from such a problem as eVopsych, the latter which looks much more like ideology than science.
eVopsych can be compared with the “nature fakers” controversy; they both fabricate(d) details about the natural world. The nature fakers lost in the end. Nature fakers controversy - Wikipedia
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.