That's so cool!

*nod*nod*

Aboriginal meditation?

Kinda - he might not be aboriginal, but he definitely tries to get in touch with something spiritual.

Has he ever met any of the said natives?

Yeah - he met a few of them

They induct him into their tribe?

Nicely Cool.

Haha - I thought the scene was rather hot

That is gorgeous!
I can also relate to the sentiment of the piece, finding that place that truly strikes the soul in a way you can't explain with logic and facts.
Simply wonderful.

Thank you! It always makes me happy if someone can relate to my commissioned artwork in a similar way that I do!

aww nice draw

o(^^)/

Very lovely tree, character, and sentiment.

And as much as my own faith has a logical, rational component to it, very often it must fall to its knees in awe and gratitude at the mystery and wonder of all that is.

Dominus tecum

I actually expected you to like this picture Well - believe / religion or more abstract spirituality is a really complicated thing to discuss, and unfortunately I often have trouble putting my thoughts into words in that area. I was happy to find this great quote by another scientist ... and Einstein nonetheless (Although he did have some trouble incorporating QM into his worldview )

"God doesn't play dice!" is the sentiment I believe Einstein expressed.

I always hate it when people say science disproves religion. It just proves to me they don't even know what science or religion actually are! Properly understood they complement each other and help us better understand the world and our place in it. That's some of what your picture also conveys.

Dominus tecum

Indeed - that's what Einstein said! But the universe is probabilistic on a deeply fundamental level - as the Bell tests nicely demonstrate. I guess I feel similarly. A lot of conflict arises, when people take religion too literally - and start to disregard the "larger picture" or message of the stories. On the opposite side, there is a wonderful quote by Terry Pratchett, that boils down the issue with pure science:
"Take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy."

Ayup! Terry Pratchett is right there. But we must also be cautious when we say "probabilistic"; that doesn't mean it is not deterministic, it just means we don't understand the exact nature of the cause and effect. It merely fits a probabilistic model. Note I'm not taking a position here on the exact nature of the universe, only noting what we don't know.

I do take my religion literally in the sense that I know it teaches things that are true in what they say in the proper sense. But we much of what we speak is of the mysteries of faith, and a mystery is something about which we can always know more. I believe that there is truth we know, but I also believe there is still yet much more truth to be learned and discovered.

Dominus tecum

Hm - I hope you read the article (or at least the introduction) about Bell's Theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

Experiments based around this theory do not just confirm QM (experiments can never do that anyway) but it can actually falsify a *huge* class of possible theories in an extremely general way - including pretty much all deterministic ones. There IS a way around the theorem: super-determinism ... But accepting this also means giving up the idea of free will. So personally I choose to believe that the current understanding of a probabilistic universe is the "real" one - unless there are indications for that (although I would be rather disappointed by that).

I would agree that there is a lot to discover in the context of religion with respect to behavior, thought, meaning and philosophy. But as Pratchett nicely said so: I think we will never be able to find literally god by studying nature (and grinding down the universe). But we might be able to find god in a metaphorical sense if we look at history (of the world / of your own life), our decisions, interactions, thoughts, faith and the meaning behind these factors and how they relate to us.

First off, sorry for taking so long to get back to you. Real life has been... difficult these last few months.

Yes, I know about Bell's Theorem, but thank you for the reminder.

Partly my skepticism is informed by metaphysics. If I understand everything adequately, then the conclusions here are only valid if free-will is a material property, but that seems dubious to me at best. And as you might have guessed, I do not believe reality is solely material in nature. Which is one reason the questions of determinism vs probabilistic are not quite so dramatic for me here; that certain classes of local hidden variables are ruled out, as well as some classes on non-local variables in later experiments, is quite interesting and I do want to learn more about all of this, it doesn't really impact my belief in the potency of cause and effect. The fact that our observations have impacts on the quantum realm is fascinating and emphasizes that the act of measurement is a subject-object interaction that changes both; it is just less obvious at the corporeal level.

You cannot use natural science to find God; natural science is limited by its very nature to that which is material. But we can use it to better understand effects of claimed supernatural events impacting nature (such as many reported miracles with physical evidence). And yes, looking at history and meaning can help us better reason our way to being open to faith.

Dominus tecum

Actually I know the feeling - I started a new job in a different city this week - and it took a while to finish everything for that...

Hm - personally I don't see a probabilistic universe being in opposition to any shape of a god per se - unless you add "all-deciding" to the list of properties ... - which would be a rather "boring" degree of predeterminism in my humble oppinion.

And at least the Christian god explicitly grants free will - ie. something that is outside of his sphere of direct influence.
Just because something is probabilistic, doesn't change the fact that everything still follows rules and that there are ways to influence the outcome of events through intervention (to a degree that makes something infinitely probably or improbable).

And in the case you want to add "all-deciding" to the list after all - there is still "super-determinsm", which is not excluded by the experiment.

So after all, a probabilistic universe is yet another thing that science tells us about reality, which doesn't really impinge on any kind of religious discussion about god - or god's abilities :) There will always be place for god - whatever science finds out about our universe - they operate on completely different levels and if there are interactions between these two layers of interpretation, they are not part of the set of repeatable rules that science can check.

Personally, I have a rather "realist" view of christian miracles - for example: like the "Feeding of the 5,000", where I rather like to believe that it was a "miracle of sharing", which is still a "miracle" triggered by Jesus - but one that doesn't need supernatural elements to explain. In many other cases I think the stories about miracles have to be read likewise in an non-literal way, which still carries the same weight of course.

How's the new job working out?

I concur, and we Catholics don't believe in that sort of pre-determinism.

I am reminded of this quote: “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
― Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

As for the "Feeding of the 5,000" I find the sharing interpretation a nice moral lesson but completely at odds with the Scripture and Jewish Tradition underlying the event. The even hearkens back to the miraculous feeding of Mana in the desert during the time of the Exodus and it also looks forward to the institution of the Eucharist where Jesus would give us his Real Flesh and Real Blood as food. This miracle is the only one to be recounted in all four Gospels, and in the Gospel of St. John, it is immediately followed by a discourse on the Eucharist which further emphasizes its significance. The food was not shared by the people, but miraculously provided from God. The sharing interpretation alters who Jesus is, His mission, and replaces the Christian faith with something else entirely because it breaks the continuity of the Tradition from Old Testament to the New. In at least one of the Gospel accounts it also mentions how Jesus knows the people don't have any food, which means there was nothing for them to share. There's more reasons why I find this interpretation incompatible with the Christian beliefs, but that's a start.

Dominus tecum

Doing good so far :) I think the quote does something that shouldn't be done, namely conflate the two things - I would argue the two are not even climbing the same mountain - and that theologians also still have a long way to go. In particular since there may not even exist a peak.

I think I would argue that the sharing interpretation is just a continuation of one of the central aspects (for me) of the christian teachings like: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself.". I suppose this also found a continuation in the early christian communist societies of the first and second century. Anyway that economic model obviously didn't survive for too long - human nature being as it is and so on...

PS: This interpretation is also the one suggested for teaching children in sunday school by the "EKD" - the protestant church in Germany. So I'm rather confident that a lot of theologians with better grasp of the scripture than I have are ok with it

Personally, I don't think the interpretation is at odds with Jesus and his mission - or the continuity between old and new testament. Since you mentioned the Exodus - I think the consensus is that Manna was some form of Trehalose - and you can find sources for that in the desert. Personally I don't think this makes the whole ordeal and survival of the Jewish people during these harsh years any less of a wonder.

Sorry I'm so slow to reply.

The question of which mountain is a good one, but if you are trying to understand what reality is, then yeah, it's the same mountain chain at least. As far as whether there is a peak or not, I am reminded of what St. Augustine says, (paraphrased) "If you have a definition of or God, that is not God."

While the sharing interpretation is certainly a continuation as you say, it missed the central point which is the connection to the Bread of Life, the Eucharist. Since the EKD are going to disagree with Catholics about what the Eucharist is, it makes sense that they would not understand this point. As a Catholic, I reject the non-miraculous interpretation and the general demythologizing approach. It does a disservice to the whole point of the supernatural.

Dominus tecum

Nice picture :)

You mean an encounter with your sona in an otherworldly setting? I think I would first hug my sona / myself :D