Early career[edit]
Kuhn first came to prominence in 1972 when "Why the Vast Difference between Animal Brain and Human Mind?" appeared in The Plain Truth magazine published by Ambassador College, an institution of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG). The WCG's Systematic Theology Project[6] was coordinated by Kuhn, but later banned by WCG Founder Herbert W. Armstrong. Kuhn severed his connection to the WCG and its affiliates, including the Ambassador International Cultural Foundation (classical music concerts, featuring musicians including Vladimir Horowitz and Luciano Pavarotti), which Kuhn had created and managed.
24 comments:
I like Carroll's honesty when he says sometimes "we pretend to know". The best quote is about how the "Big Bang" came about, "it was a fluctuation out of nothingness".
Using the real science of mathematics, it is known that the Cosmological Constants that make up the Laws of Physics have to be extremely precise to create matter and their combined existence is mathematically impossible, just as the "natural' formation of left-handed amino acids to create a protein is impossible.
So real science, including the law of biogenesis prove the need for intelligent Creator. Again, when you study deeply into it, Nature is not Natural.
In the Astrophysical Journal, theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss referred to dark energy as presenting “the most extreme fine-tuning problem known in physics.”1 Dark energy is energy embedded in the universe’s space surface that makes up about 70 percent of all the stuff of the universe (see figure 1). Krauss determined that the fine-tuning level is more extreme than one part in 10120! He has been joined by several other theoretical physicists who conclude that the required fine-tuning of dark energy is “the most difficult problem in physics.”
The whole "Closer to the Truth" series by Robert Kuhn, is worth watching, whether one be a believer or not. Kuhn was one of the greatest thinkers that the WCG ever had. Difficult, as the WCG was an anti-intellectual organization on the whole, and HWA attacked intellectuals often in his sermons.
It's a shame that Kuhn's efforts to remove many cultish teachings through the STP project wasn't adopted. Basically, all the issues addressed in STP were applied in United. Of course, HWA couldn't cope with any fair questioning of his extreme and silly teachings, such as the use of doctors, makeup, birthdays, etc.
It is quite an adjustment, learning to live with uncertainty. It became easier, once I admitted I didn't know as much as I thought I did. Usually scientists are more willing to admit that fact than religious leaders.
I like Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology(CCC) theory of the Big Bang and his OrchOR, (orchestrated objective reduction), theory of consciousness. That covers the science but what about spirituality, if it indeed exists? (I believe it does) I guess I would fall under the label of a "philosophical theist".
"In the beginning there was nothing but light, but it had nothing to shine on, so KABOOM"
DBP
I thought him intellectually dishonest when he replied that we've made so much scientific progress in the past hundred years, hence in the next hundred years we might discover the source of the laws of physics and chemistry. There comes a time when sufficient information is gathered about a problem to draw a conclusion. We are at this point with science now.
Gerald wrote, "It is quite an adjustment, learning to live with uncertainty."
I have always prefered to live in uncertainty. I never felt the need to have all of the answers. It was appaling to watch the church and the ministry pretend to think they had to have the answer to everything. It was the best way to dumb down the membership and results in the kind of people who now follow Malm, Thiel, Pack, Flurry and some of the other crackpots.
Uncertainty, mystery, and the unknown is far more fascinating.
207. Thank you Galileo. We got enough knowledge. We can stop now. Lol
Pretending certainty in all matters is a manifestation of black and white thinking, a psychopathic trait.
anti-intellectual organization
When GTA was on his leave of absence in 1972, HWA praised Dr Kuhn for his PT series, academic achievements and work at AC. After GTA's final departure, HWA blamed him for leading GTA astray.
Anon2:07PM wrote:
"I thought him intellectually dishonest when he replied that we've made so much scientific progress in the past hundred years, hence in the next hundred years we might discover the source of the laws of physics and chemistry. There comes a time when sufficient information is gathered about a problem to draw a conclusion. We are at this point with science now."
If this is true, then there comes a time when sufficient information is gathered about whether Jesus is going to return or not, and one can say with just as much warrant that we are at this point with christianity now. If you want to accept one, it is intellectually dishonest to reject the other.
Anon7:34AM wrote:
"I like Carroll's honesty when he says sometimes "we pretend to know". The best quote is about how the "Big Bang" came about, "it was a fluctuation out of nothingness". Using the real science of mathematics, it is known that the Cosmological Constants that make up the Laws of Physics have to be extremely precise to create matter and their combined existence is mathematically impossible, just as the "natural' formation of left-handed amino acids to create a protein is impossible. So real science, including the law of biogenesis prove the need for intelligent Creator. Again, when you study deeply into it, Nature is not Natural."
Scientists are, or at least have no reason not to always be, both sanguine and candid about the limits of their ability to observe natural evidence, and hence, the limits of their warrant to "know" the natural. Our ability to observe, however, is always increasing, and those limits, the perimeter of our ignorance, keeps getting pushed outward.
By contrast, there are no supernatural observations, so there is no supernatural evidence, and hence, there exists no warrant to "know" anything about the supernatural. Moreover, there is no change in the ability to observe the supernatural, and there isn't any progress in supernatural understanding. All that exists is a proliferation of blind guesswork and warrantless, unevidenced beliefs. Faith is the epitome of "pretending to know" things you don't know.
Time and time again, evangelists and apologists irresponsibly presume away all evidence with a wave of the hand, asserting that science is just another religion, and that evidence-based conclusions have no more weight than completely unevidenced beliefs and that there's no more epistemic justification for "knowing" the warranted than there is for merely "believing" the warrantless.
Those who do this peddle in confusion and fraud, and are really no different in principle from the serpent in the garden, muddying the waters by deceptively presenting warrantless mythology as though it were on an equal footing with our best understanding with the full weight of a depth of research behind it.
Yes, there will always be gaps in our ability to observe and thus, to understand. But pointing at those gaps and scoffing 1) does not get you any closer to a warrant for the supernatural in general, much less any closer to a warrant for christianity specifically versus any other among thousands of other equally warrantless and conflicting supernatural schemas, and 2) pointing at the gaps says nothing about the direction which the area which is filled in with observed data points, and it does not point toward theism. It points toward naturalism or deism at best.
Claiming that "nature is not natural" is an over-reach. It's hypocritically "pretending to know" things you don't know. It's another example of peddling in confusion, irresponsibly trying to pass off the warrantless as though it had equal merit with lesser warranted claims.
Many atheists are quick to point out that not knowing how something works is not sufficient to claim that God did it.
That is true.
However, you still end up with a problem where everything we understand through science can only tell us what happened and how.
We are still stuck with the question: Why does anything exist at all?
Carl Sagan liked to say that a pre-existing universe is one less assumption than a pre-existing God, and it has the advantage that we are sure the universe currently exists.
Except that all current theories for how the universe came to be require something greater than the universe to create it. Extra dimensions, exotic physics, something more fundamental. The big bang excludes the possibility of a self existing universe.
This leaves both creationist and materialist giving identical arguments, both believe the universe was created by some greater, self existing entity that doesn't require being created itself.
Both point to the one universe we have and say the evidence matches the kind of universe you would expect if it was created by my preferred greater self existing entity.
This sort of inductive logic requires a large data set to compare against, and even if we had 1000s of prior universes to compare against it would still give us only greater possibilities, not certainty, that the universe we reside in matches one possibility or the other.
In pointing out that so many creationists lack sufficient evidence to prove much of anything the materialist points fingers back at themselves, as they also lack sufficient evidence.
An honest mind, looking at the objective evidence, is forced to conclude that the best we can say is that its impossible to know based on current evidence. Its likely that future evidence may give us a conclusion. But for now, we do not know.
Of course, that leads many to conclude that we can figure it out using subjective evidence, but that is such a large can of worms that it includes pretty much the entire history of humanity.
Subjective evidence, by definition, cannot be clearly observed by others and is therefore pointless to argue about. But here we are, arguing whether one persons feelings are more valid than another's.
Does a shared subjective experience lead to more objective evidence?
DBP
9:18
Oh yes DBP.
In politics all the time. And when it doesnt, the other party gets elected.
Nck
It could, so long as the shared subjective experience wasn’t drugs.
BB
Jeff Davis
Nice write up. One point you didn't bring up are the fundamental constants. There are 35 of these such as the speed of light and the electric charge of a electron. If the atomic weight of a proton is changed even slightly, stars cannot exist. Probability points to a master 'control room' that sets these constants to the correct value.
Hence it cannot be proven to most people with absolute certainty that a God created a universe. However the lower levels of certainty that everyone has to live with in everyday life, says God did create everything.
6.07 PM
If a 10 nation United States of Europe appears on the world scene, over runs the Middle East, vanquishes the Anglo Saxons, resulting in a 200 million strong Euro-Asian army, would that be proof of Christ's imminent return? Yes, in my books.
As of now, it is not so obvious to most people.
In case you haven't noticed, it's perceiving the near and far future that results in wealth. Ask Bill Gates or a successful investor. There's a downside in demanding absolute certainty before acting.
11:26
In my book it would be a set up for an old family to step forward and take control. Perhaps the set up would be engineered by powersttructures alligned with power and control over the worlds resources at a time the entire world will be looking for a deliverer.
In short, a repeat of the times of jesus. Its been done before.
Nck
If there was nothing before the big bang, then the teaching is that nothing exploded?
6:58 PM
"Claiming that "nature is not natural" is an over-reach" No it's not an over-reach.
Statistic probabilities are a part of real science. Watch the YouTube below.
Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance - The chance is zero that amino acids can come together "naturally".
Proteins are only created by the coordinated work of many specialized proteins. And a protein is but one micro element of an vast army of other micro machines that enable life to exist. To watch the "supernatural" process of protein production, lookup the dozens of YouTubes that cover what's call biology's "Central Dogma". No human genius would ever imagine concocting such an extremely complex process to produce proteins.
Some astronomers suggest that every universe is formed by a "Big Bang" when matter "disappears" into a black hole in a prior universe. Some suggest that this is all happening from fluctuations in an original steady-state universe, while others assume an infinite regression of universes created from a prior universe. The "Big Bang" theory neither proves nor disproves the prior state of an originating universe.
Lets face it - life is a mystery.
If you believe in God - then how did God exist?
I am glad we are here, and I believe in God, because it seems more logical to me.
It seems more logical to me that the first life was not made of matter - spirit or energy - is there a difference?
Post a Comment