From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 12:28:07 -0800, Vincent Maycock   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 13:20:57 +0000, Martin Harran   
      
      
   [mercy snip]   
      
   >>>Do you believe that spiritual entities can be detected in a manner   
   >>>similar to the way physical ones are? ("Materialism" seems to have   
   >>>been surpassed by physicalism, reductionism, naturalism,   
   >>>verificationism, or positivism in modern philosophy.)   
   >>   
   >>No, I don't think they can be detected in a manner similar to the way   
   >>physical ones are; but that does not mean they cannot be detected in   
   >>other ways.   
   >   
   >I deliberately phrased it as "similar to" rather than "in the same   
   >way" to account for this possibility.   
      
   Sorry, I don't grasp what point you are making there.   
   >   
   >>Is there someone in your life who you are absolutely   
   >>convinced loves you? If so, how do you "detect" that love in any   
   >>scientific way?   
      
   >   
   >Not a significant other now, but my immediate family members appear to   
   >love me because they seem to like to hang out with me, and some say as   
   >much as well.   
   >   
   >>I detect God's love for me in the same way that I   
   >>detect that my wife still loves me after nearly 54 years of putting up   
   >>with my foibles - I can't explain it in scientific ways but that does   
   >>not mean it doesn't exist.   
   >   
   >I would imagine there's no reason to doubt her if she says she loves   
   >you, and I suppose you could go into gaze length and touches per   
   >second if you really want to be "scientific" about it, but scientific   
   >logic is just regular logic writ large,   
      
   Now you're stretching!   
      
   >and there should be no area of   
   >life where that kind of critical thinking shouldn't be involved.   
   >   
   >>>>as a result of the scientific work. Whether that "something" equates, for   
   >>>>example to the Judeo-Christian God is. of course, a separate argument.   
   >>>   
   >>>Why be so coy about the God under consideration?   
   >>   
   >>Not being coy at all. I have made no secret of my Catholicicm but I   
   >>recognize that there are many different viewpoints about what God is   
   >>or might be.   
   >   
   >Do you believe that the Judeo-Christian god is preferable to other   
   >gods?   
      
   I honestly can't say as I haven't made an exhaustive study of other   
   religions; all I can say is that I am happy with the Judeo-Christian   
   god, it gives me all I need. I do think that the Catholic Church has   
   some things going for it; one of the biggest in relation to this   
   discussion group is that all its conclusions and teachings have been   
   thoroughly documented over the last 2000 years so when someone makes a   
   claim about its teachings vs science, it is always possible to get its   
   exact teaching, not some mishmashed perception.   
      
   >   
   >>>>>There's nothing wrong   
   >>>>>with that, as long as the religion doesn't begin to creep into the   
   >>>>>science.  For example, we don't consider a "spiritual world" to be   
   >>>>>something that's addressable by science.  Or at least that's something   
   >>>>>theists can tell themselves if they want to keep up with atheists   
   >>>>>intellectually.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>There are issues on both sides of the fence there. Just as there are   
   >>>>Creationists and ID'ers who reject science where it seems to conflict   
   >>>>with their religious beliefs, there are scientists who dismiss ideas   
   >>>>just because they think those ideas might let religion in the door;   
   >>>   
   >>>And with good reason.  Religion does not belong in science, through   
   >>>any sort of door or another.   
   >>   
   >>Do you think the door should be shut against things just because they   
   >>*might* let God in accidentally?   
   >   
   >Provide an example of one of these ideas.   
      
   Err … the Big Bang that we have been discussing.   
      
   >   
   >>>>the authors of this book make a very strong case that the virulent   
   >>>>opposition to the Big Bang   
   >>>   
   >>>Cite?   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>David Bohm went so far as to claim that the partisans of the Big Bang   
   >>"effectively turn traitor to science, and distort scientific facts to   
   >>reach conclusions that are convenient to the Catholic Church." [173]   
   >   
   >As I understand it, his "implicate order" is rather theist-friendly.   
      
   I wouldn't regard it as particularly friendly to call people   
   "traitors" who  "distort scientific facts".   
      
   >   
   >>The British physicist William Bonnor did not mince words: "The   
   >>underlying motive is, of course, to bring in God as creator. It seems   
   >>like the opportunity Christian theology has been waiting for ever   
   >>since science began to depose religion from the minds of rational men   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)