Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
It seems to me that the sort of natural theology that's alluded to by by Planck (see for example his comments on miracles in the same wiki section) does not really lead towards a view of God as Omnipotent Person. Omnipresent and omniscient as in a sort of universal observer (as a solution to interpretational issues in QM) maybe, but seemingly not omnipotent.
Obviously though, the majority of theoretical physicists, many of whom are seemingly just as intelligent as Max Planck disagree with his conclusion, especially if you are defining God in any classical theological sense.
See this from the wiki article:
[QUOTE]Later in life, Planck's views on God were that of a deist.[27] For example, six months before his death a rumour started that Planck had converted to Catholicism, but when questioned what had brought him to make this step, he declared that, although he had always been deeply religious,
he did not believe "in a personal God, let alone a Christian God."[/QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces
I think his views seem nuanced and reflective. This isn't the type of "God" that bans work on the sabbath, but more a vague impression of something unknown and the dedication to find it. Which is a good way to go.
It also makes the distinction between atheism and theism pointless (in regards to this particular concept of God).
See above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidDream
However, science is a religion
Of course it isn't. Even I can easily come up with a way to defeat that claim. By definition, Religion is a belief in , and the worship of god, or gods, and Science refers to the accrual of knowledge through 'testable' observations. Since the practice of religion involves something that can't be tested, the comparison fails at that first hurdle. Religion can't be science and science can't be religion. I don't even need to get into Methodological Naturalism.
Last edited by Mightyboosh; 06-27-2014 at 06:00 AM.