科學與信神

原帖由 blackcurtain 於 2008-7-2 01:47 發表 [科學與信神 - 信仰天地 -  backchina.com]  
He is an atheist. He doesn't believe a personal God.  ...

If you say he is an atheist, then he does not believe there is a God; if you say he doesn't believe a personal God, then he does believe there is a God.

Which statement of yours is true?

在科學史與文化史的研究中，人們多次提出過這樣的問題：為什麼近代科學沒有誕生在中國、印度、非洲、或相信回教的阿拉伯國家？為什麼近代科學沒有誕生古代希臘？為什麼近代科學誕生在十六世紀的歐洲？

要全面回答這些問題需要很多的篇幅，以下的幾點分析也許可以提供一些提示：

１、印度教及佛教都教導，肉體的世界是不真實的，只有世上的靈魂才是真實的。任何人必須學到的最大一件事就是肉體的世界不真實。因此，沒有理由要窮其一生探索這個不真實的世界。

２、回教相信，各樣事情都早已註定了，沒有必要再試著去駕馭大自然而來改變什麼，因為萬事都是無可改變的。

３、盛行於中南非及世界其它許多地方的靈魂之說相信，萬物―不管是石頭、樹或動物或任何其它的東西，都有一個活的、不同的神明或祖先之靈魂在其中。他們不可能、也不敢拿這些東西作實驗。

４、迷信常常驅使人把自然現象歸功於各種鬼神，科學研究則被視為冒犯鬼神，人們對科學試驗的可重複性變得沒有把握，這樣的社會是不可能真正深入科學的。科學的創新性也決定了它和傳統的衝突，如果一個社會的傳統「權威」不容挑戰，傳統是衡量事物的絕對標準，那麼科學就失去了發展的空間。

５、如果歷史被看作是靜止的，或者是輪迴的，任何科學或社會的進步都被視為對長輩和先人靈魂的威脅，甚至引起長輩和先人靈魂的憤怒，那麼科學就失去了發展的勇氣。

６、如果商業貿易和工匠受到社會的鄙視，知識分子樂於純粹的思辨，而不屑於驗證理論是否正確，那麼科學就失去了社會價值的地位。

７、如果知識的擁有者（通常是統治者和社會上層）是為了便於統治和愚弄貧窮的民眾，那麼科學至多只能成為統治工具、宗教儀式中的奇迹、贏得戰爭的秘訣，而不是為了提升普通民眾的生活，它就失去了推動其發展的真正誘因。

Like Albert Einstein 「I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human ..."

In short, a collection of nature laws...

Not your God. He doesn't think your god exists.

原帖由 aawang 於 2008-7-2 01:52 發表 [科學與信神 - 信仰天地 -  backchina.com]  
If you say he is an atheist, then he does not believe there is a God; if you say he doesn't believe a personal God, then he does believe there is a God.

Which statement of yours is true?

原帖由 blackcurtain 於 2008-7-2 01:59 發表 [科學與信神 - 信仰天地 -  backchina.com]  
Like Albert Einstein 「I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human ..."
...

That's good enough.

What I quoted is:

「Steven Weinberg（1933－）是一九七九年諾貝爾物理獎得主。他認為，神是關切宇宙的神，是宇宙的創造者，是宇宙自然律的創造者。這種認識事實上是照著聖經的啟示。」

What do you think is the discrepancy?

Putting things into scientist's mouth, distorting facts to fit Xristian agenda, so typical.

It truly reveals the credibility of this Xristian propaganda piece and the likes.

Without lies, Xristianity can not survive a day.

黑暗中世紀以後，隨著改教運動，聖經從羅馬天主教的禁鎖里被釋放出來。聖經的解禁和公開使得人們認識到以下諸點：

１、人在神面前地位上都是平等的，人和神之間並不存在居間階級。神在教會和世俗所設立的代表權柄，不是為著轄管人，乃是為著服事人。

２、整個宇宙，包括物質的自然界乃是神所創造的，它的有序性反映了一位有序的創造主，神乃是所有真理的來源，因此人不需懼怕鬼魔，因為神已經勝過魔鬼；人也不必迷信，因為神不僅有旨意，也有經綸和規律；人也不可恪守傳統，因為只有神和神的話―聖經是絕對的。宇宙不是希臘人所認為的，只是為了被了解，更不是象印度教所說，是為否定它自己的存在。乃是造物主偉大的創造，為了彰顯祂自己的榮耀，也為著人類的生存和益處。

hehe.....nope.

It supports the thesis of this piece perfectly...if that's TRULY his view.

原帖由 aawang 於 2008-7-2 02:03 發表 [科學與信神 - 信仰天地 -  backchina.com]  
That's good enough.

What I quoted is:

「Steven Weinberg（1933－）是一九七九年諾貝爾物理獎得主。他認為，神是關切宇宙的神，是宇宙的創造者，是宇宙自然律的創造者。這種認識事實上是照著聖經的啟示。」 ...

Calm down. As a scientist, speak as a trained person.

通過受造物認識神的觀念鼓勵基督徒對自然之研究。聖經羅馬書一章二十節說「自從創造世界以來，神那看不見永遠的大能，和神性的特徵，是人所洞見的，乃是借著受造之物，給人曉得的，叫人無法推諉。」神是看不見的，但神的造物是看得見的。神學家郎巴德（P.Lombard）說，「由受造物的綿延，可以認識主宰的永恆；由受造物的廣大，可以認識主宰的全能；由受造物的秩序和安排，可以認識主宰的明哲；由受造物的統治，可以認識主宰的仁慈，這一切都表明神的統一性。」羅吉爾.培根（Roger Bacon，1214－1292）說過：「所有哲學運動的意義就在於通過認識而認識造物主。」哥白尼(Copernicus,1473-1543)、伽利略(Galileo,1564-1642)、開普勒(Kepler,1571-1630)、萊布尼茲(Leibniz,1646-1716)、牛頓（Isaac Newton，1642－1727）等科學家都是在這種觀念驅動下從事科學研究的。

３、神造的宇宙是有秩序、有規律的。按照著名科學史家李約瑟的說法：「自然法（規律）是西方文明最古老的觀念之一」。在神的創造里，神說，「天上穹蒼之中要有光體，可以分晝夜，作記號，定節令、日子、年歲；並要發光在天上穹蒼之中，普照在地上」（創一14-15）。新約聖經希伯來書也說：「（神）用祂大能的話維持、載著並推動萬有」（來一3）。舊約詩篇一四八篇也說：「因祂一吩咐，這些便都造成。祂將這些立定，直到永永遠遠；祂頒布了命令，就不能廢去（或譯：越過）。」奧古斯丁說：「永恆的法是神的神明和意志，祂命令並維持著事物的自然秩序，且禁止事物違背這個法。」

That should apply to you.

Who is the one that's not honest here?

原帖由 aawang 於 2008-7-2 02:07 發表 [科學與信神 - 信仰天地 -  backchina.com]  
Calm down. As a scientist, speak as a trained person.

OK, let's get serious.

Can you provide the reference for this:"Steven Weinberg（1933－）是一九七九年諾貝爾物理獎得主。他認為，神是關切宇宙的神，是宇宙的創造者，是宇宙自然律的創造者。這種認識事實上是照著聖經的啟示。"

Where did you get this? Let's take a read on it.

After I  have finished reading his interview with PBS:

http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/wein-body.html

I am more convinced that Steven Weinberg IS an 100% atheist. I should retract the statement that he believes Spinoza's God. He doesn't believe any kind of God at all.

He is against the loose using the word "God" as a metaphor for natural laws. Here is his view on Einstein's famous quote"God doesn't play dice":

QUESTION: What do you make of the fact that perhaps the greatest scientist of this century - Albert Einstein - used to talk so often about God and physics?

MR. WEINBERG: Often people talking about science and religion point to the example of Einstein as a deeply religious scientist, but who has certainly seen as far into the laws of nature as any of us. And I think that's really quite wrong. I think that Einstein in his famous remarks about God not playing dice with the cosmos, and wanting to find out whether God had any choice in the way he created the world, was using the word "God" quite metaphorically. He said in a more serious vein that he did not believe in a god who intervened in human affairs, to whom it made sense to pray. For him God was an abstract principle of harmony and order. There have been deeply religious physicists, but I don't think you can count Einstein as one of them.

I think much more often, however, when a physicist says, "Well, then the explanation is God," they don't mean anything particular by it. That's just the word they apply. Einstein said that he didn't believe in a God who was concerned with human affairs, who intervenes in human life, but a God who was simply an abstract principle of harmony and order.

And so then I rather grieve that they use the word "God," because I do think one should have some loyalty to the way words are used historically, and that's not what people have historically meant by "God" - not an abstract principle of harmony and order. If that's all you mean by it, if God is practically synonymous with the laws of nature, then we don't need the word. Why not just say the laws of nature? It isn't that it's wrong, because after all G-O-D is just a set of letters of the alphabet, and you can let it mean anything you like. But if language is to be of any use to us, we ought to try to preserve the meanings of words, and "God" historically has not meant the laws of nature. It has meant an interested personality. And that's not something we're finding scientifically. It's not something for which I see any evidence."

A book I recommend is Dreams of a Final Theory by Steven Weinberg.

Chapter XI of his book is titled "What About God?" Therein Weinberg tells a story related by the Venerable Bede (672-735), English theologian and historian of the Middle Ages. In the story, a speech is made before King Edwin of Northumbria in favor of the adoption of Christianity. In this speech the term "banqueting hall" is used to describe the ordinary existence of human beings on planet earth. Weinberg's perceptive comment on the speech is, "It is an almost irresistible temptation to believe with Bede and Edwin that there must be something for us outside the banqueting hall." There must be something beyond strict reductionism or materialism. This view is echoed in the New Testament. For example, St. Paul wrote, "Ever since the creation of the world, God's eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things He has made" (Letter to the Romans 1:20). This is essentially what Steven Weinberg is attempting to describe - that almost "irresistible temptation" to believe in God.

I provided every reference for things I have quoted and referred.

Since you seem to value high standard on scientific training, how about apply it to your writing.

First step: reference, please?

「神聖立法者」的觀念引導著基督徒科學家對自然規律的尋找。按照聖經的啟示，宇宙不是混亂的，乃是有規律的，並且自然規律也是有脈絡可尋。

羅吉爾.培根被後人尊為現代科學之父。許多人，包括弗朗西斯.培根，都曾從他的著述受益。他教導，聖經無誤，遠超各種人的著作。他曾說，「奧古斯丁在回答耶柔米時說，他信聖經的作者是唯一無誤的，而其他人的著述都不一定是真理，不論他們的學識有多高超，為人有多聖潔。只有說法能被聖經證實，並且被其他作者證實，或者有充足的理由，才可當做真理對待。」

Fortunatus 也曾說，「任何人的理論都不應和聖經有同等的權威，即使這個人學識如何淵博，人格如何配得讚賞。因此，雖然我們一面尊重這樣的人，但是如果他們的觀點和真理相抵觸，我們也當加以質疑和拒絕。真理只有借著神的幫助，我們或者其他人才能領會。我盼望我的讀者看待我的著作時，有我對他人著作同樣的態度。」

羅吉爾.培根教導說，所有的真理都屬於神，如果我們用神的話篩除糠皮，我們根本無須懼怕聖經以外的知識。他還教導，研究自然界是基督徒的一個職責，物質的世界並不低下，但是「神學是一切其它科學的主人。對於神學而言，其它科學完全必要，反之，若是沒有神學，其它科學就不及其終……只有一種完全的智慧，它完全藏在聖經里……」

Well, have you checked the context? Isn't this so called "taken out of context' defense Xristians like to use defending their Bible?

This is just a perfect example of Xristian malicious distortion.

原帖由 aawang 於 2008-7-2 02:33 發表 [科學與信神 - 信仰天地 -  backchina.com]  
A book I recommend is Dreams of a Final Theory by Steven Weinberg.

Chapter XI of his book is titled "What About God?" Therein Weinberg tells a story related by the Venerable Bede (672-735), Englis ...

* Maybe at the very bottom of it... I really don't like God. You know, it's silly to say I don't like God because I don't believe in God, but in the same sense that I don't like Iago, or the Reverend Slope or any of the other villains of literature, the god of traditional Judaism and Christianity and Islam seems to me a terrible character. He's a god who will... who obsessed the degree to which people worship him and anxious to punish with the most awful torments those who don't worship him in the right way. Now I realise that many people don't believe in that any more who call themselves Muslims or Jews or Christians, but that is the traditional God and he's a terrible character. I don't like him.
          o The Atheism Tapes (2005) Episode 2

Is this clear enough? You can listen to it in the clip I provided.

[ 本帖最後由 blackcurtain 於 2008-7-2 02:48 編輯 ]

Let's quote some more words from the book Dreams of a Final Theory you cited from which you derived "他認為，神是關切宇宙的神，是宇宙的創造者，是宇宙自然律的創造者。這種認識事實上是照著聖經的啟示。"

[Excerpt]:
If there is a God that has special plans for humans, then He has taken very great pains to hide His concern for us. To me it would seem impolite if not impious to bother such a God with our prayers.
-- Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory

[Passage]:
Religious people have grappled for millennia with the theodicy, the problem posed by the existence of suffering in a world that is supposed to be ruled by a good God. They have found ingenious solutions in terms of various supposed divine plans. I will not try to argue with these solutions, much less to add one of my own. Remembrance of the Holocaust leaves me unsympathetic to attempts to justify the ways of God to man. If there is a God that has special plans for humans, then He has taken very great pains to hide His concern for us. To me it would seem impolite if not impious to bother such a God with our prayers.
-- Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory

Premature as the question may be, it is hardly possible not to wonder whether we will find any answer to our deepest questions, any signs of the workings of an interested God, in a final theory. I think that we will not.
-- Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory

[ 本帖最後由 blackcurtain 於 2008-7-2 02:59 編輯 ]

Shameless malicious distortion.

Case closed.

原帖由 blackcurtain 於 2008-7-2 02:46 發表 [科學與信神 - 信仰天地 -  backchina.com]  
* Maybe at the very bottom of it... I really don't like God. You know, it's silly to say I don't like God because I don't believe in God, but in the same sense that I don't like Iago, or the Reverend  ...

In other words, he believes in God, but because he doesn't like Him, he refuse to be closer to Him.