Unified Theory and God

  • Thread starter itwillend
  • Start date
  • #26
Freeman Dyson, being aggressive does not make your points more sound. The entire audience of TED gave him a standing ovation, those are not your average Jo audience honestly. I think a little more humility would serve better your argumentation.

Any substance to your argument or his besides agreement from the audience? What does a standing ovation prove? Oprah gets one everyday. Don't lecture me about humility when your entire argument rests on the fame and applause level of the person making the point.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
Evo
Mentor
23,534
3,150
Freeman, Did you actually watch the entire video of Harris, and if so, what, specifically, do you disagree with?
 
  • #28
Freeman, Did you actually watch the entire video of Harris, and if so, what, specifically, do you disagree with?

His entire premise of science telling us what constitutes a good life and what is worth living and dying for. Are those scientific questions? When has science ever revealed and directed us to correct moral action? Or preferred one moral action over another? Sean Carrol has made similar points, to be called an idiot and stupid by Harris. What did you agree with?
 
  • #29
2,461
8
His entire premise of science telling us what constitutes a good life and what is worth living and dying for. Are those scientific questions? When has science ever revealed and directed us to correct moral action? Or preferred one moral action over another? Sean Carrol has made similar points, to be called an idiot and stupid by Harris. What did you agree with?
I can only repeat : when I read the title of the talk, I also completely disagree with the scheme. After I watched the video, I thought it was interesting, while certainly very preliminary and deserving much more discussion. This is also illustrated by the amount of questions and explicitly commented at the end of the talk, and it is very rare at TED to have such a long discussion, even any discussion at all. The host is very skeptical. So, I think we basically all agree on most points, and I am just saying that it does not help to be aggressive. In fact, I can also interpret your reaction as a strong interest in this talk, strongly sided against, but certainly not indifferent.
 
  • #30
16
0
Side note guys and gals... Is there an implication in the thread that morals are not absolute?

If I may, would you all not agree at the very least among humans without mental deficiency that a life free from harm is universally agreed upon? I find that concept alone to be common for everyone on the planet, again minus mentally impaired persons.

Thoughts?
 
  • #31
I just have to add this monumental strawman by Harris that I originally missed from this talk.

"Does the Taliban have an opinion on physics that is worth considering? No? Then how is their ignorance any less obvious, on the subject of human well-being?"

Does Harris have an opinion on physics worth considering? Did Martin Luther King have any opinion on physics worth considering? Did African slaves on the plantation have any opinions on physics worth considering? They can't be trusted to know anything about anyone's well being, much less their own.

So, if a scientologist, Christian, communist, Muslim, etc..came up with a workable form of quantum gravity it would make it "obvious" that their worldview/personal philosophy now has seniority over others and their personal philosophies are now worth considering. Unbelievable.

How can anyone listen to this man?
 
Last edited:
  • #32
Side note guys and gals... Is there an implication in the thread that morals are not absolute?

If I may, would you all not agree at the very least among humans without mental deficiency that a life free from harm is universally agreed upon? I find that concept alone to be common for everyone on the planet, again minus mentally impaired persons.

Thoughts?

"Harm" is subjective. You don't really want to rid the world of harm. There is harm in all things. How many people die in cars? You want to ban them? I think most violent crime involves alcohol. Ban that? I walk into my local supermarket and the majority of the foods in there are bad for me. Ban them? A woman rejects my advances. This is psychologically harmful to me and I'm sure it would show up on Harris' little neuroscans. What does science demand we do about all these harms? I guarantee you personally will allow some harms and not tolerate others. Where does science show us what harms should be tolerated?
 
  • #33
837
1
Is your response assuming that I am limiting the god-concept to just this one aspect "unified theory"?

I mean, the irony to what I am saying is, our greatest physicists would like to find a unified theory, a single force behind it all. At the same time, monotheistic religions believe one God is behind it all.

The/a unified theory/'theory of everything' will explain how 'forces', 'energies', mass, time, and space correlate in a way that makes logical and scientific sense. It won't be a 'single' force behind it all; and, it doesn't and won't relate to religious ideas.
 
  • #34
56
0
That would have to be a very passive and panentheistic God-concept, like the Aristotelian "unmoveable mover".

Pantheistic, yes but wouldn't this type of pantheistic God contain all information in the universe/multiverse and, in a very real sense be omniscient?
 

Related Threads on Unified Theory and God

  • Last Post
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
54
Views
8K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
99
Views
9K
Top