Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   John Polkinghorne - Scientist and Priest
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1 of 39 (449979)
01-20-2008 2:30 AM


I've been reading some of John Polkinghorne. He has a PHD from Cambridge and was a professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge. After years of working in the scientific field he studied to become a Priest in the Church of England.
He has written several books and has been awarded with the Templeton Prize for Science and Religion in 2002.
Here is a website that contains his bio.
John Polkinghorne
From this web site I have provided a link to a lecture that he gave in 1990 that discusses how a man of science can also be a Christian and not find the two in conflict.
God's Action in the World
I know that opening a discussion by just providing links is not the norm but frankly this lecture addresses many of the issues that are raised on this forum such as where is God in the world of physics and biology. I think that it would be difficult to find a person more qualified than Polkinghorne to discuss these issues.
Any forum including Coffee House would be fine with me.
Edited by AdminNWR, : fix broken links (removed extraneous space)
Edited by GDR, : sp
Edited by Admin, : Fix misspelling in title.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by sidelined, posted 01-20-2008 12:09 PM GDR has replied
 Message 11 by Brad McFall, posted 01-21-2008 12:37 PM GDR has not replied

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 39 (450003)
01-20-2008 8:03 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 3 of 39 (450037)
01-20-2008 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by GDR
01-20-2008 2:30 AM


GDR
Well in perusing the arguements we really do not come across anything mind boggling to begin with as he summerizes his first 21 paragraphs thus.
In summary, what I'm saying is that the physical world seems shot through with signs of mind and to me, indeed it is a Mind, spelled with a capital 'M.' I don't present that as a knock-down argument, for there are no knock-down arguments in this area of discourse. But I do present it as a deeply satisfying insight which supports the idea of a world upheld by the will of God.
It is deeply satisfying to have a viewpoint that arrives at the upholding of the world by the will of God by premises that only seem to show a sign of mind in operation?
It is not even close to a knock down arguement for a specific reason.
God is not really explained in any manner as to what John Polkinghorne
considers God to actually be. Time and again this is the problem that people such as John refuse to face. Not just that the evidence is weak but that the conclusion {God}is maintained in a level of belief far out of sync with the claims being perpetrated.
Then we come to the second part of his arguement.
We've come to realize that that amazing evolution of complexity from simplicity wouldn't happen in just 'any old world.' As far as we can figure it out, it's only possible in a world that is extremely finely-tuned in its given scientific law and circumstance.
Fine-tuning has been shown to be very weak in its presumptions and I am surprised that Mr Polkinghorne would not point out these weaknesses as he should do. The following is an example of the arguements brought forth concerning the fine-tuning hypothesis
The Fine-Tuning Argument Revisited » Internet Infidels
Next we have John imagining that God has given us the controls of his universe making machine and that we had access to the knobs and such that allowed us to change parameters of the cosmos.
Now, our understanding is this: unless you had adjusted those knobs very, very carefully, to settings very close to the settings specifying the actual universe in which we live, the world which you decided to create would be extremely boring in its history. In particular, it would not produce anything like such interesting consequences as you and me. It is not just any old world which is capable of producing men and women -- a scientific insight which I'm sure you know is called the Anthropic Principle.
So here we come upon a difficulty that is raised by the very principle that John is using to explain the Fine-tuning here.
Why has it not occurred to him that in us being limited to being able to choose only certain parameters to allow for the universe to unfold the way it has {as demonstrated with God's universe making machine} we must also in the same breath say that God is also limited in choice?
In other words this arguement is saying that God works within limits as well.
Now if God works within limits as well then what is the greater thing that is forcing God to do so?
Is this really where you want to take the discussion of God GDR?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by GDR, posted 01-20-2008 2:30 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by tesla, posted 01-20-2008 12:54 PM sidelined has replied
 Message 12 by GDR, posted 01-21-2008 7:46 PM sidelined has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 4 of 39 (450047)
01-20-2008 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by sidelined
01-20-2008 12:09 PM


In other words this arguement is saying that God works within limits as well.
i find this interesting. but what i see him doing is just pointing out the obvious, but not understanding how better to say it.
the limitations are set by conditions.
that energy is subject to the condition that it exists. but that the conditions are so perfect and complex in its perfect exchange with other energies that its arrogant and naive to believe that it could be possible without direction.
that's my take.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by sidelined, posted 01-20-2008 12:09 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by sidelined, posted 01-20-2008 10:23 PM tesla has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 5 of 39 (450131)
01-20-2008 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by tesla
01-20-2008 12:54 PM


tesla
i find this interesting. but what i see him doing is just pointing out the obvious, but not understanding how better to say it.
Yes and the hallmark of not better understanding how to say it is the result of not properly understanding the problem to begin with.
that energy is subject to the condition that it exists. but that the conditions are so perfect and complex in its perfect exchange with other energies that its arrogant and naive to believe that it could be possible without direction.
Huh? What conditions are so perfect and complex in its perfect exchange? You are putting out a phrase without explaining what you mean. Could you possibly give an example to illustrate what you are asserting?
Perhaps you mean something like the balance of energies that work to produce snowflakes with always exactly 6 sides? Is it of this kind?
Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by tesla, posted 01-20-2008 12:54 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by tesla, posted 01-21-2008 10:39 AM sidelined has replied
 Message 7 by AdminNosy, posted 01-21-2008 11:04 AM sidelined has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 6 of 39 (450216)
01-21-2008 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by sidelined
01-20-2008 10:23 PM


Could you possibly give an example to illustrate what you are asserting?
Perhaps you mean something like the balance of energies that work to produce snowflakes with always exactly 6 sides? Is it of this kind?
partly yes. a good example in conditions of energy is water.
ie: in all appearances, when something is too hot it becomes liquid which is lighter than its solid form. and a solid of the same substance will sink to the bottom, being cooler on the bottom.
but in water, its solid form floats. which all the life in the oceans would die if it didn't. i'm not aware of any other element that is lighter than its solid form when in its liquid form. but that is the condition of water.
the balance of the earth of its location to its proximity to our sun, and the suns energy bursts being shielded, and the moons existence at the right distance to balance out the plates of the earth and control tides is another condition of greater energies that must be in careful balance.
the balance of gravity being not to weak, or not too strong, so that everything doesn't directly swallow what is in proximity, but rather flows like a bubble around a drain is another careful balance.
if these balanced energies did not behave inside there conditions perfectly complimenting the others, our life would not be able to be on this planet.
like the G force that holds atoms together, being a big one, because without that, no shape of anything would be possible.
do you understand these? and how very delicate the balances are?
i hope so, but that is the problem with pointing out the obvious as this man is attempting to do..we have all seen it from birth, and take for granted this is just the way it is, and record it in science what we understand. but its perfection is taken for granted.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by sidelined, posted 01-20-2008 10:23 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by AdminNosy, posted 01-21-2008 11:06 AM tesla has not replied
 Message 9 by sidelined, posted 01-21-2008 11:49 AM tesla has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 7 of 39 (450222)
01-21-2008 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by sidelined
01-20-2008 10:23 PM


Topic!
Tesla's "ideas" are not the topic here. Do not go down this rabbit hole!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by sidelined, posted 01-20-2008 10:23 PM sidelined has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 8 of 39 (450225)
01-21-2008 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by tesla
01-21-2008 10:39 AM


Coffee shop or not Tesla
You ideas are NOT the topic here. You will not be allowed to drag them in here either.
Note also: Your post is, as usual, full of errors that demonstrate you ramble on with words that you don't understand. I think the topics discussed on this site are beyond your current level of comprehension. I strongly suggest you read more and post less. I will continue to restrict your privileges if you continue to clutter threads (even in the coffee shop). If no other admin decides to intervene you will find yourself very restricted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by tesla, posted 01-21-2008 10:39 AM tesla has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 9 of 39 (450237)
01-21-2008 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by tesla
01-21-2008 10:39 AM


tesla
Edited to remove off topic post as per Admin Nosy's instructions. Sorry Nosy. I will forthwith have my worthless self flogged mercilessly{Goody goody goody}
Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere."
Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by tesla, posted 01-21-2008 10:39 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by tesla, posted 01-21-2008 12:27 PM sidelined has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 10 of 39 (450254)
01-21-2008 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by sidelined
01-21-2008 11:49 AM


so be it.
i was just saying what the scientist pastor said, in a different format. his opinion mirrors mine in that sense, but was said in a different way.
I've said already what i can say on his work. i leave the rest for your debates then.
i find it odd that my opinions would be considered irrelevant in any debate. especially when you agree to disagree, yet don't point out what flaws you did find. but instead just say i don't know what i am saying. i know what i have said. why do you crucify me because you don't understand it?
you can crucify my words, but Christ will not be crucified twice.
i have observed the truth, and its not easy to cope with truth is it? can you debate the laws i gave to you? as i do by obedience, bring to you?
i will pray for you all. let your arguments with the truth be with yourselves, for i have given what was told of me to give. and it is now yours to understand or not.
when you walk by a murder, you can look the other way. and tell yourself it wasn't real. but if it was real, it will come back to haunt you eventually. that is the way truth is.
i will pray for you, and for the work of the word. you can ban me, but you cannot ban the truth. God be with you, all of you. the will of the lord be done. so be it.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by sidelined, posted 01-21-2008 11:49 AM sidelined has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 11 of 39 (450258)
01-21-2008 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by GDR
01-20-2008 2:30 AM


Polkinghorne on Hoyle and at Cornell
Here, on EvC is a post I made on Polkinghorne. He DOES indeed have a two-step or two-speech process of uniting both religion and science which is not linguistically common in the US. It was a delight to listen to him. He did however speak about the gorges in Ithaca as well as being something someone can not avoid. That is however possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by GDR, posted 01-20-2008 2:30 AM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 12 of 39 (450418)
01-21-2008 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by sidelined
01-20-2008 12:09 PM


sidelined writes:
It is deeply satisfying to have a viewpoint that arrives at the upholding of the world by the will of God by premises that only seem to show a sign of mind in operation?
It is not even close to a knock down arguement for a specific reason.
God is not really explained in any manner as to what John Polkinghorne
considers God to actually be. Time and again this is the problem that people such as John refuse to face. Not just that the evidence is weak but that the conclusion {God}is maintained in a level of belief far out of sync with the claims being perpetrated.
John isn't even attempting to make an argument for what he considers God to be. All he is saying is that science is compatible with science and that with his scientific knowledge he finds the idea of a Mind behind the universe more compelling than the lack of such an intelligence.
sidelined writes:
So here we come upon a difficulty that is raised by the very principle that John is using to explain the Fine-tuning here.
Why has it not occurred to him that in us being limited to being able to choose only certain parameters to allow for the universe to unfold the way it has {as demonstrated with God's universe making machine} we must also in the same breath say that God is also limited in choice?
In other words this arguement is saying that God works within limits as well.
Now if God works within limits as well then what is the greater thing that is forcing God to do so?
Is this really where you want to take the discussion of God GDR?
Frankly I don't have a problem with that. I agree that Christians throw around terms like omnipotent and omniscient, (which I've done myself on occasion), but in the end what do they really mean. How can we with our mental capacity ever come to terms with an intelligence that is able to create the universe? If God has sufficient intelligence and imagination to create the universe I'll allow you your quibble that maybe He does have limitations in what He can do.
For that matter perhaps the concept of us having free will meant that He had to impose limitations on Himself. Actually in a book I read that was written by Polkinghorne he suggested that perhaps God has total knowledge about the past and present but has created us in such a way that He is only aware of the possibilities for the future.
None of us have all the answers but when it comes to questions that involve both science and Christianity Polkinghorne is probably more qualified than anybody on this forum, (or any other forum I've seen), and so it seemed to me that his thoughts might be of interest.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by sidelined, posted 01-20-2008 12:09 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by sidelined, posted 01-22-2008 12:05 AM GDR has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 13 of 39 (450457)
01-22-2008 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by GDR
01-21-2008 7:46 PM


GDR
All he is saying is that science is compatible with science and that with his scientific knowledge he finds the idea of a Mind behind the universe more compelling than the lack of such an intelligence.
Did I fall asleep for some class as we grew up wherein there was a definition known as "Mind" separate from the "mind" we all possess as a property of having a physical brain that operates with capabilities as a result of the electromagnetic force at work within its tissues?
Exactly what is it about the operation of the universe that allows a scientist to claim that it is scientific to speculate without offering evidence or observation that would support such a hypothesis?
Since when is personal opinion without evidence found to be somehow compelling?
I agree that Christians throw around terms like omnipotent and omniscient, (which I've done myself on occasion), but in the end what do they really mean. How can we with our mental capacity ever come to terms with an intelligence that is able to create the universe? If God has sufficient intelligence and imagination to create the universe I'll allow you your quibble that maybe He does have limitations in what He can do.
But we have not established that an intelligence exists such as described here. Since the common definition of intelligence is still subject to being a physical property of the brain why is there speculation about a disembodied intelligence which exists separate from a brain and which is neither detectable nor demonstatable?
My "quibble" about limitations is not a small matter. Even if we concede a god we cannot dismiss what the capabilities of that entity are without again having evidence by which to make such assertions.
First John is allowing for a God {without evidence} then making claims as to the abilities of that God {again without evidence}.
This seems rather like the invisible immaterial dragon in the garage that is claimed to "really" be there but only if you have faith.
Again the science is located where?... here?
For that matter perhaps the concept of us having free will meant that He had to impose limitations on Himself. Actually in a book I read that was written by Polkinghorne he suggested that perhaps God has total knowledge about the past and present but has created us in such a way that He is only aware of the possibilities for the future.
See what I mean? Suggesting such wild unsupported parameters for a God you cannot show exists and who's properties you cannot demonstrate and then to say what the limitations of those capabilities are is ludicrous on the face of it much less as a logical progression of arguement.
You might also be made aware that the concept of freewill is hardly cut and dried and is in fact shown to be not so easy a thing to pin down much less declare as a factual statement.
None of us have all the answers but when it comes to questions that involve both science and Christianity Polkinghorne is probably more qualified than anybody on this forum, (or any other forum I've seen), and so it seemed to me that his thoughts might be of interest
I am sure he is a competent scientist but the fact remains that in issues where science is not applied he cannot make claims for a scientific support of that which he himself refuses to offer a coherent hypothesis backed by evidence.
Faith is cool if that is what floats his boat but in the hard world of evidential based acquisition of knowledge his assertions do not amount to much at all.

"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere."
Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by GDR, posted 01-21-2008 7:46 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by GDR, posted 01-22-2008 12:54 AM sidelined has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 14 of 39 (450460)
01-22-2008 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by sidelined
01-22-2008 12:05 AM


sidelined writes:
Did I fall asleep for some class as we grew up wherein there was a definition known as "Mind" separate from the "mind"
Quite possibly
sidelined writes:
Exactly what is it about the operation of the universe that allows a scientist to claim that it is scientific to speculate without offering evidence or observation that would support such a hypothesis?
John separates his science and his faith other than to show how they are compatible.
Polkinghorne writes:
So I stand before you as someone who not only wishes to take science seriously, but who also wishes to take religion seriously. Religion is concerned with asking, and seeking the answers to, deeper questions about the world in which we live -- questions of meaning and purpose and destiny. It moves us from the largely impersonal world of scientific knowledge, to the world of personal encounter, with all the risk and ambiguity and necessary commitment that's involved in that. Religion is concerned with the type of inquiry in which testing has to give way to trusting.
sidelined writes:
Since when is personal opinion without evidence found to be somehow compelling?
Someone else might find it compelling. Both of us lack objectivity.
sidelined writes:
But we have not established that an intelligence exists such as described here. Since the common definition of intelligence is still subject to being a physical property of the brain why is there speculation about a disembodied intelligence which exists separate from a brain and which is neither detectable nor demonstatable?
My "quibble" about limitations is not a small matter. Even if we concede a god we cannot dismiss what the capabilities of that entity are without again having evidence by which to make such assertions.
First John is allowing for a God {without evidence} then making claims as to the abilities of that God {again without evidence}.
This seems rather like the invisible immaterial dragon in the garage that is claimed to "really" be there but only if you have faith.
Again the science is located where?... here?
But you only acknowledge scientific evidence. The scientific evidence is that the universe is finely tuned. That doesn't constitute scientific evidence for the existence of God, but it might make one think about whether or not there is an intelligence or "Mind" that caused it to be that way. We come to different conclusions but neither of us can prove our beliefs.
sidelined writes:
But we have not established that an intelligence exists such as described here. Since the common definition of intelligence is still subject to being a physical property of the brain why is there speculation about a disembodied intelligence which exists separate from a brain and which is neither detectable nor demonstatable?
My "quibble" about limitations is not a small matter. Even if we concede a god we cannot dismiss what the capabilities of that entity are without again having evidence by which to make such assertions.
First John is allowing for a God {without evidence} then making claims as to the abilities of that God {again without evidence}.
This seems rather like the invisible immaterial dragon in the garage that is claimed to "really" be there but only if you have faith.
Again the science is located where?... here?
Polkinghorne, unlike Dawkins is clear as to when he is talking science and when he is talking religion. He is not saying that his "faith" is scientific. He is saying that they aren't contradictory and that in his view they compliment each other.
He is saying that he believes that there is a Mind behind all of creation. He is saying that the way he views and experiences the world causes him to come to that conclusion. I have come to the same conclusion and you the opposite conclusion. There is no scientific evidence to prove any of us right.
sidelined writes:
I am sure he is a competent scientist but the fact remains that in issues where science is not applied he cannot make claims for a scientific support of that which he himself refuses to offer a coherent hypothesis backed by evidence.
Faith is cool if that is what floats his boat but in the hard world of evidential based acquisition of knowledge his assertions do not amount to much at all.
On a purely scientific level I agree, but that isn't the point of his polemic.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by sidelined, posted 01-22-2008 12:05 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by bluegenes, posted 01-22-2008 5:16 AM GDR has replied
 Message 16 by sidelined, posted 01-22-2008 9:33 AM GDR has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2478 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 15 of 39 (450475)
01-22-2008 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by GDR
01-22-2008 12:54 AM


GDR quoting Polkinghorne (my bold) writes:
So I stand before you as someone who not only wishes to take science seriously, but who also wishes to take religion seriously. Religion is concerned with asking, and seeking the answers to, deeper questions about the world in which we live -- questions of meaning and purpose and destiny. It moves us from the largely impersonal world of scientific knowledge, to the world of personal encounter, with all the risk and ambiguity and necessary commitment that's involved in that. Religion is concerned with the type of inquiry in which testing has to give way to trusting.
I'm glad you brought up Polkinghorne, GDR, as I've already recommended him to at least one creationist type of Christian on this site. If someone has to be a Christian, and wants to talk about science, then the it's worth listening to one of the fast decreasing number of top level scientists who are also Christians.
I emboldened the bit where he's lying to himself, a habit of the religious. Religions actually exist because they answer "questions of meaning and purpose and destiny" without reason or evidence, not because they want to ask them. Asking those questions is something that anyone with a philosophical mind might do, but being religious is about cheating, and coming up with faith based answers when there are no known real ones.
A religious mind is a believing without reason mind, not an inquiring mind, and the claim that Polkinghorne makes in the sentence I highlighted is outrageous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by GDR, posted 01-22-2008 12:54 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by GDR, posted 01-22-2008 3:39 PM bluegenes has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024