Our understanding of physics influences assumptions about truth and religion

People who take a rigid view of truth and nature's laws are using Newtonian thinking. In the time of the great physicist, Sir Isaac Newton, the laws of gravity, inertia, mass and mechanics seemed absolute. The universe looked like clock work. They thought one could always find the right answer if one plugged correct numbers into a formula. There could only be one right answer.

Main menu.

Much of our technology is still based on the predictability of Newton's physics. Clock work thinking has also influenced our views on religion, but it isn't the only way to view the universe.

After Newton came Einstein who is famous for the word "RELATIVITY." Rigid fundamentalists don't like that word. Einstein has turned the Newtonian "clock work" universe on its head. We are still getting used to Einstein's thinking.

Newton's rigid laws are true to a certain context, but reality is much larger than one context. Truth is much more multifaceted than we had originally thought. Relativity theory says there can be more than one right answer for the speed and mass of an object. The answer depends, in part, on the inertial state of the observer.

More than one truth at once? Or, at least, this is what I think relativity theory would say. Actually I don't fully grasp the concepts either, of course. We are all still learning. Civilization is taking many years to get used to these more flexible views of reality.

God has more tricks in his (her) bag for us to ponder.

Reader comment about this section
I would just like to mention that neither special, nor general relativity does away with Newtonian (more properly, Laplacian) determinism. Many feel that Quantum mechanics does so (though it is possible that quantum "randomness" is part of a deterministic, "many world" system). Actually, the religious determinism of Phelps and his ilk predates Newton. It is best known to be associated with Calvinism (John Calvin lived from 1509 to 1564, long before Newton) though it probably had other forms before him. Anyway, sorry for the physics and history rant. Anyway, overall, I do think this is a nice site at which I must look more.

What religion knows about God April 10 2004

Back in the middle ages, I heard about this circle of monks who felt a mystical power. If an acid, like lemon juice, was placed in a barrel with some metal rods, a strange power was felt. A person at one end of the circle touched one rod while a person at the other end touched the other rod. If this happened while everyone held hands a jolt was felt.

This mystical force is now understood to be electricity. Today's concepts of God reminds me of the monk's concept of electricity.

Could those monks have comprehended the internet that runs on electricity? Do our religious traditions really give us an understanding of God, or should we go back to the drawing board? Are we like the monks who barely have a hint of what this is about, or what it can be used for?

Does modern science make us more humble and less arrogant than the ancients who may have felt they had the explanation of things holy? Are our leaders more humble than ancient rulers who felt they were appointed from deity?

Realizing that we are not necessarily the center of the universe can be humbling. Like entering the Kingdom as children.