On Western Religion and Science/History

I consider science to be less than philosophical today, unlike in the era of the enlightenment. String theory has predominated for about thirty years, and writers such as Woit and Smolin have been critical about the sociology of science of recent times. This global corporate era demands conformity and immorality upon all including scientists-individual thought is rather derided and pure materialism along with crass social power over 'the small people' is demanded.

I had some ideas about parameters of cosmology that fit a little with philosophy. Philosophical thought about cosmology today may be a way of thinking about making selections amidst a zillion theories and considering how each might select ontology, world-view, teleology, significance , meaning and so forth.

This is an example of a cosmological concern.

Double Special Relativity I and II are newer ways of applying the special theory of relativity. There may be a minimum constant as well as a maximum constant (the speed of light). I am not very knowledgeable about either, yet with a minimum and maximum scale relativity takes on a different context not just physically,but philosophically.

I simply wonder about the phenomena of existence as a circumstance given by God, with the backdrop of theories about construction of the universe.

My hope is that in some future insight I will have a better idea of how relativity theory parameters cohere with a construction of one-dimensional units underlying everything--especially if there are minimum planck length constants that would seem necessarily to be at least one-direction limits rather than isotropic. We can infer that fact at least with the speed of light, since cosmologists speculate that faster than light inflation of the universe occurred at Time=O. The accelleration may have been infinite to start with for a fraction of a second until decellerating to sub-light speed--and that must have been a heck of a jolt for any passengers on board.

So what about religion and science? Religion is about transcendent affairs with a requirement for a little metaphysical faith. Science may exploit intuition for a fell swoop conceptualization of the unknown aspects of universal phenomena, yet that is a dissimilar activity from general religious activity, and of course we cannot reasonably lump together all varieties of religious experience.

Science is specialized while philosophy is generalized. Specialized data may support general theory, yet generalities are not as readily falsifiable as are special theories. Religions may represent immanent and transcending categories of meaning and fact irreducible to testable hypotheses.

It is worth considering that the French revolution was against an old regime that included conservative church property holding more like feudalism and aristocracy possessions than not. The political and social history of society is different than the consideration of the veracity of particular concepts of religion--of the truth of Jesus Christ in particular.

Jesus Christ in the parable of the sower explains to a crowd about receiving the word of God, and if the meaning 'sticks'. Then His disciple asked him what the parable meant. Jesus explained that he spoke in parables in order that those listening might not understand, and then explained the parable to the disciples. Our Lord seemed somewhat sarcastic I think, as he was talking to the dolts (strikethrough that), the 'small people' who are human beings without an oil company free to pollute the oceans. Two thousand years of retrospect and somewhat more comfortable circumstances make The Lord's brevity and clarification appear strikingly effective.

Jesus explained the meaning of the parable to the disciple completely. Providing the correct level of implicit meaning to mortal man at the right intellectual level must have been a little challenging,or at least it would have been for a human instructor.

Elements of the historical evolution of science through the enlightenment toward a different time paradigm than that held by the ancien regime and their co-religionists of conservative catholicism of the era may be considered. Science and democratic politics sought an objective or perhaps 'fair' social basis without special privilege for hereditary classes or beliefs. Thus the heritage of bias against religion by scientists associated with the overturning of pre-revolutionary political circumstances developed an atheistic inertia for-itself. Delimiting right realms of civil rights for the new social boundaries of individualism would be difficult and continue to the present era when homosexual efforts for hegemony over heterosexual institutions would overturn natural reason for itself in an effort to make the helium reverse radiation to yield hydrogen or deuterium in effect--neither the direction of time nor the nature of sexuality as isotropic in structural composition.

The land holdings and sociological facts of that time and since have little or no relationship to the objective nature of the truth of the Bible or of objective enquires of reason. Yet that point was one of the main points such as Rousseau and Kant held that differed with the three classes of pre-revolutionary French society.

The authority of royalty was held to be absolute, and the commoners were considered blessed to be ignorant and encouraged to remain so. The oppression of would be authorities can be extreme. The will to power may be intense and pervasive as minorities express the desire to rule without consent as many subjects as they may acquire.