Science proves apophatic theology

[ladyjane]

The Australian philosopher colin leslie dean points out that
Science proves apophatic theology ie the universe is a negative not a something. An apophatic theology sees God as ineffable science sees the universe as ineffable

gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … eology.pdf

PROLEGOMENON TO THE STUDY OF THE SIMILARITIES IN MYSTICAL THEOLOGY AND SCIENCE
By
Colin Leslie dean
B,Sc, BA, B.Litt(Hons), MA, B.Litt(Hons), MA,
MA (Psychoanalytic studies), Master of Psychoanalytic studies,
Grad Cert (Literary studies)

GAMAHUCHER PRESS, GEELONG WEST VICTORIA Australia
2007

Mystical theology and science share a common understanding in regard to the limitations and hindrance of language in unlocking reality. Both would agree that language falsifies reality. It falsifies it by imposing limits to the real. It falsifies it by imposing human categories and classifications to the real. For both realities is beyond words and human concepts. Reality transcends language. Language in fact hinders a true understanding of the real. What language does is create what the Hindus’ call Maya. Namely a conventional reality based upon language -a world of appearances and forms of illusion or deception generated by a falsifying language which an unenlightened mind takes as the only reality. For the physicist Bohr language is a barrier to understanding reality Dante like Lao Tzu, Pseudo-Dionysius St Augustine (354-430), St Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) Zen and many forms of Eastern mysticism knew the simultaneous inapplicability and inevitability of human language when talking of reality or God and his attributes and domains. Whether the reality as investigated by science is really just another name for God or the reality investigated by science is just a reality and not the God of religion. In other words is God just another name for reality or is reality just another name for God is by the by. What is important is this reality/God as understood by both science and theology is beyond the ability of human language –and thus intellect to grasp

Heisenberg notes that “ the strangest experience of those years was that the paradoxes of quantum theory did not disappear during this process of clarification; on the contrary they have become even more marked and exciting.”

In regard to the paradoxes and contradictions of quantum theory Wick state the orthodox view when he says “here my opinion of the orthodox quantum mechanics, like Bohr, comes down to the meaning of words. “Classical” and “complementarity”, insult and commendation, are euphemisms; the belief concealed is that Nature has been found in a contradiction. But quantum physicists are not simpletons. In their hearts they know such a claim is philosophically unacceptable and would be rejected in other sciences.”
Wick notes “ I believe orthodox quantum theorists [slates] reason, consciously or unconsciously, something like this. The microscopic world exhibits paradoxes or contradictions and this fact is reflected in the best theory describing it.”

Nicholas of Cusa states “… needful to enter the darkness and to admit the coincidence of opposites beyond all grasp of reason … [God] art found unveiled is girt around with the coincidence of contradictories … the door whereof is guarded by the most proud spirit if reason and unless he be vanquished the way in will not lie open”

“Dual pictures, dual language: linguistic analysis is the key to understand quantum mechanics Bohr told his protégée Heisenberg shattering his hard won vision of the micro world. The very words physicists use to describe reality constrains their knowledge of it and scientists in every field will one day encounter this barrier to human understanding”

Now on the point of an object being both a particle and a wave Zajak notes that “we are limited by our language to lists of words much as our worldly experiences limit the concepts those words bring to mind.” With this in mind Zajak points out that we naively apply to the micro world concepts which only have applicability in the macro world. Electrons don’t behave like mini billiard balls and light does not behave like scaled down sea waves. As Zajak notes “particles and waves are macroscopic concepts which gradually lose their relevance as we approach the submicroscopic domain.”

[AbyssOfLife]

deleted

[ladyjane]

do you agree that science arrives at the same view of reality as does religion

[AbyssOfLife]

deleted

[ladyjane]

For sake of conversation. I don’t really care what science arrives at or what religion arrives at. What matters to me is what I arrive at.

and what do you arrive at
is reality meaningless, ineffable , a negation not a something

is science right is religion right

[Liteninbolt]

An apophatic theology sees God as ineffable science sees the universe as ineffable

I believe that to be an affable connotation. We humans can get arrogant of our empirical judgements when we really know very little about external and para-external forces. I think both forces permeate us through our physical and spirtual essences. Which places us in a situation where we must impel superstitious faith based reliances to fill the areas we can not understand.

[Rhinoboy]

I find the science of religion very interesting. I find it amusing that most atheists get hung up on petty arguments used by the average theistic lay person, and then assume because their argument is the more logical that God does not exist, when in actuality there opponent just is not up to the job. Good argument, shame there is not more of them.