Around 1900 when Lord Kelvin suggested that the end of physics were in sight, the mechanical view of the world was fully in sight, the infinite steady-state universe had no reason to be doubted, evolution was purely natural selection, etc. We were at the peak of the Gaussian curve around this time where a non-material answer to the universe was very difficult to doubt.

In 1905 Albert Einstein introduced symmetry in terms of relativity and the beginning of quantum mechanics. Later Einstein reestablished a modern view of theism (perhaps one of his greatest and least recognized at the time innovations).

As non-material states and idealist views take more precedent, we are seeing the shift toward the other side of the Gaussian curve in science where 'God' is now becoming more common for scientists to speak (just last year Stephen Hawking talked about his belief in 'God' on Larry King talk show).

Just think of what has transpired in the 20th century. Science has found that the universe requires a beginning (and this appears to be true even for an inflationary universe according to Guth), there is apparently a destiny in the evolution of the universe that is dictated by a non-material order in the universe (not simply the flow of matter), positivists who wished to rid science of metaphysics have lost their case, and we have seen the development of even more promising disciplines such as complexity, catastrophe theory, chaos, etc that add even more destiny to not only physical systems but to all systems (biological, social, etc).

So, there you have it. More God, less materialism. The Gaussian curve is at work.

Warm regards, Harv

• Correction - harvey1 - January 24, 2002 - 13:21 UTC
  • A dangerous step - ymateen - January 24, 2002 - 17:00 UTC
    • The art of subjectivity - harvey1 - January 24, 2002 - 19:15 UTC
      • Harv's post translated to English - aurino - January 24, 2002 - 20:03 UTC
        • Humor or serious? - harvey1 - January 24, 2002 - 20:12 UTC
      • Harvey, define nature, please. - alexander - January 24, 2002 - 20:59 UTC
        • That's not what I'm saying - harvey1 - January 24, 2002 - 21:23 UTC
          • Alex, read the writing on the wall - aurino - January 24, 2002 - 21:33 UTC
            • Prove? - harvey1 - January 24, 2002 - 21:41 UTC
              • We must infer??? - doctordick - January 25, 2002 - 14:03 UTC
                • We must define??? - aurino - January 25, 2002 - 14:56 UTC
                • That's right - harvey1 - January 25, 2002 - 15:00 UTC
          • Is anything wrong with Newton's laws? - alexander - January 25, 2002 - 23:24 UTC
            • Doesn't work in QM - harvey1 - January 26, 2002 - 01:54 UTC
              • Correction. - alexander - January 27, 2002 - 00:26 UTC
            • Some issues regarding the correction - harvey1 - January 27, 2002 - 02:03 UTC
              • Correction - harvey1 - January 27, 2002 - 02:04 UTC
      • Correction: H-D method not H-T method (nt) - harvey1 - January 25, 2002 - 15:40 UTC
• Harvey, you mention just people's opinion. No F(ACTS) of gods. - alexander - January 24, 2002 - 19:02 UTC
  • Holy principle - harvey1 - January 24, 2002 - 19:50 UTC
    • If to look for gods, more logical would be to say math=god(s). - alexander - January 24, 2002 - 20:42 UTC
      • But, I'm talking about a higher principle - harvey1 - January 24, 2002 - 20:50 UTC
        • Harvey, again, unification is the result of math. - alexander - January 24, 2002 - 21:03 UTC
          • You named it holy! - harvey1 - January 24, 2002 - 21:34 UTC
            • Yes, if you mean "mathematical" by holy, I agree. - alexander - January 24, 2002 - 22:06 UTC
              • It is higher than mathematical - harvey1 - January 24, 2002 - 22:26 UTC
                • Math (logic) starts exactly when anything comes to existence. - alexander - January 25, 2002 - 00:18 UTC
                  • Cart before the horse - harvey1 - January 25, 2002 - 01:27 UTC
                    • Incorrect.First I label"something" and then call it "existing" - alexander - January 25, 2002 - 04:21 UTC
                  • That's still cart before the horse - harvey1 - January 25, 2002 - 15:07 UTC
                    • "Something" is not a principle. - alexander - January 26, 2002 - 00:26 UTC
                  • That would defeat the purpose - harvey1 - January 26, 2002 - 00:55 UTC
                    • Harvey, word "before" has no meaning here. - alexander - January 27, 2002 - 00:46 UTC
                  • That's not what I meant by the term 'before' - harvey1 - January 27, 2002 - 02:50 UTC
                    • Finally you start understanding. - alexander - January 27, 2002 - 17:22 UTC
                  • Hey, wait a second... - harvey1 - January 27, 2002 - 17:49 UTC