Believing in God and/or science

[Tormod]

Good morning, I woke this morning seeing a connection between people choosing to ignore the information I present, with the Catholic church persecuting Galileo, insisting he was wrong, and refusing to look through Galileo's telescope.

 

I wish all those people who try to make me paranoid would simply go away. :)

 

Oh man, all the information we choose to ignore. And still there is the infinity of information we do not even know about.

[freeztar]

After making a great effort to share what is to me, very important information, I give up. My only satisfaction is finally understanding what happened to Galileo, and why despite his ability to prove he was correct, the church condemned him. When people knowingly choose to ignore information and persist in attacking, it is futile to continue. I think the well intentioned warning I recieved, is miss placed. Shalom

 

What information is being ignored? In that whole long post you just made, you made no mention of this ignored information other than to say it has been ignored.

 

Furthermore, drawing a parallel to your situation here and Galileo is a bit of a stretch. You are talking about the "science of God" where Galileo was talking about the science of the solar system. Galileo's ideas could be tested, but were dismissed. Your ideas can not be tested and are dismissed. Not everyone who is dismissed is right, nor are they necessarily wrong. Hypography is not the Catholic Church of Galileo's days, quite the opposite.

[Moontanman]

Good morning, I woke this morning seeing a connection between people choosing to ignore the information I present, with the Catholic church persecuting Galileo, insisting he was wrong, and refusing to look through Galileo's telescope.

 

Democracy is based on an ancient Greek philosophical the idea that reason, is the controling force of the universe. Socrates was order to drink hemlock for standing up for this idea, because the majority of Athenians wanted their superstitious religion. Athens fell soon after Socrates was killed. However, the Roman statesman Cicero had studied in Athens and was a prolific writer. At the time of the founding of the US, literate meant literate in Greek and Roman classics and Cicero was one of the most read men, having a profound influence on our forefathers. The religion that came out of this literacy was Deism. Thomas Jefferson wrote from this point of view when in the Declaration, when he wrote of the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. It has become evident to me that while my writing is associated with a belief in the tooth fairy, no one is looking at the evidence I provide for a scientific understanding of God. What I am saying is being ignored, except for a comment to attack it.

 

It is one thing to share information with people who want it, and quite another to share information with those who intentionally ignore it and continue to attack; associating what I say with believing in the tooth fairy, and giving me a warning because I object to the information being ignored while the attacks and insults continue. Let me make this perfectly clear, the information was ignored, while what I said was associated with believing in the tooth fairy. That is not following the rules of argumentation, and it is a personal attack, not a logical argument. If I say what you believe is equal to believing in the tooth fairy, I am not making a logic argument to counter your logic. I am attacking you, not your the logic. And after being on the defensive for several days, with everyone ignoring the information I present, I am the one who gets the warning. Great. This is cherry on top.

 

After making a great effort to share what is to me, very important information, I give up. My only satisfaction is finally understanding what happened to Galileo, and why despite his ability to prove he was correct, the church condemned him. When people knowingly choose to ignore information and persist in attacking, it is futile to continue. I think the well intentioned warning I recieved, is miss placed. Shalom

 

Nutron, while I respect your belief and acknowledge that in some ways it is more appealing than the biblical idea of God I cannot make the connection with Galileo other than almost surety that organized religion would not approve of your ideas.

 

You continue to promote the idea of God as the natural laws of the universe. I do not see how this is any different than any other concept of god. Why must your idea be described as God?

 

If I was told I had to worship something and I had to chose my own idea of God I would choose the "Sun" The sun gives the Earth the energy that allows all complex life (as well as humans) to exist. But the concept of God also includes intelligence and direction, the sun has no intelligence (the science fiction Novel "Whipping Star" would disagree) and it gives us the energy for life through no desire or intent of it's own. Nor has it chosen or consciously influenced life on Earth.

 

Your concept of god is very similar. The natural laws of the universe, nature, or the universe as a whole is indeed responsible on some level for our existence but not in any conscious way. I don't see how a label like God in anyway contributes to our understanding of the universe. Are you saying that humans need and are somehow benefited by a belief in God and a null god would be the best way to go?

 

If the god you describe Has no conscious influence or intent on us and cannot be proved to exist then this god would be a null. To me it's like saying there is another universe we cannot see or detect in anyway that has no influence on us in any way and is totally outside our experience. Why even discuss it's existence if it is for all purposes non existent to us? Does this describe your idea of god or am I totally off in the wrong direction?

[InfiniteNow]

I find what you saying in response to what I write a personal attack.

 

After having listened to the below (in it's entirety, not just the section I shared), I realize that I should have responded to your comment above, "So ****ing what?"

 

 

YouTube - Chris Hitchens Vs. Stephen Fry Debate 4/9 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCGfkH3O6X4&feature=related

[Pyrotex]

Right. That's called nature. Not God. I'm fine if you call it nature, but calling it god brings a whole new aspect to the equation...:circle:

There is a scene in "Alice Through the Looking Glass" (by Lewis Carol) where Alice meets Humpty Dumpty. He entertains her with some nonsense poetry and she questions how he can create poems with made up words.

 

He said, "when I use a word, it means precisely what I want it to. I say what it means, and it means what I say. You must decide who is to be the Master, you or your words!"

 

The story is funny, because although well-intentioned, Humpty had it wrong. Words carry not just the meaning that we want to attach to them ("god") but also the mountains of meaning and innuendo, or baggage, that the words have accumulated over generations of use. "God" is NOT a word that can be used context-free and malleable, because it carries its own context around with it.

 

Arbitrarily trying to equate "god" with anything else, Nature, Love, Knowledge, Mercy--typically results in a very strained metaphor. It sounds like it belongs in poetry. But it doesn't convey any profound meaning.

[nutronjon]

Science has shown a link between mind and body. Science has shown us nothing about "ESP". So while it may seem that people are being close-minded, remember where you are posting. :shrug:

 

I agree that it is not good to be close-minded about most things (ideally, all things). Yet, it seems a condition of our existence. On opposite sides of the deity chasm, you'll find intelligent people with closed minds. Indeed, I believe everyone's mind is closed to a certain degree or other. So, in a sense, we are all blind.

 

I believe we are posting in the Theology forum.

 

Science revealed nothing about bactria, until the microscope. Just because we do not have already have a scientific explanation for something, that doesn't mean a scientific explanation is not possible. A reason for speaking outside of the science forums, is to ask the impossible questions and than attempt to answer them. The step to wisdom begins with "I don't know". As soon as we believe we know God, we know God not.

[freeztar]

I believe we are posting in the Theology forum.

 

Yes, a theology forum on the broader science forums.

Science revealed nothing about bactria, until the microscope. Just because we do not have already have a scientific explanation for something, that doesn't mean a scientific explanation is not possible. A reason for speaking outside of the science forums, is to ask the impossible questions and than attempt to answer them. The step to wisdom begins with "I don't know".

 

I agree with this. I encourage it! :shrug:

 

As soon as we believe we know God, we know God not.

 

I'm not sure why you stated this. Are you suggesting that the reverse is true as well?

[Pyrotex]

...Science revealed nothing about bactria, until the microscope. ...The step to wisdom begins with "I don't know". As soon as we believe we know God, we know God not.

Excellent.

 

"Believing in" is a mental process that is similar to (metaphor alert) casting something in concrete. Once the concrete dries, you may be able to paint it, or hang flowers on it, or drape it in fabric, but the concrete itself cannot be changed. The mind stops "searching" for alternate shapes and forms. There is only one shape, one form, the concrete statue in front of the eyes. All subsequent questions are limited to those that fit that shape, that form. After a while, the mind ceases to wonder if there ever could be any other shapes.

 

The second step to wisdom begins with "I want to know".

[C1ay]

One can believe in both God and science but they must realize that they believe in the God-Of-Gaps where God is considered the answer for phenomena that cannot currently be explained by science. As science progress though the gaps get smaller and smaller and carried on ad infinitum would eventually leave no gaps for God.

 

Remember theists, there once was a time when man believed that the God Of Fire was responsible for fire. We know differently now.

[HydrogenBond]

I don't have any problem doing both at the same time. These are two different areas of knowledge. I like to keep all the options open. But being in the middle I have tried to find a way to bridge the two. The way I did that was science is about the outer reality and religion about the inner reality connected to human consciousness. Religion is about the evolution of human nature and tells the sequence of how it evolved and changed.

 

The area where science and religion overlap is consciousness. Science investigates the brain but really can't agree on a definition of consciousness which covers all the options and features of human mind. The problem this can create is human consciousness is the main and most important tool used by science. It is sort of like using an analytical instrument, with some unknown features. How do we know it is calibrated properly? Or how do we filter out noise from the unconscious? Religion, over the years, projected mythology into the world from the unconscious and imagination. Layer by layer science has shifted through these affects from the mind to improve calibration. But not really knowing how the mechanism fully works does not mean all the haze is gone. Religion does allow another angle that allows one to get a handle on that other haze.

 

Let me given an example. One of the main mysteries in cosmology, based on solid data is the horizon problem, where there is uniform cosmic background microwaves in all directions. It is not easy to explain, since energy needs to move faster than speed of light. Although everyone knows this is a problem, the resolution is not necessary for any theory. In the real world, without haze, if we can't explain this valid observation maybe we are missing something. Focusing on the beginning of time is nice but it also buffers one from the anomaly. Maybe theories can't explain it because these are partly from the imagination. It is not helios riding his chariot but sort of a modern version of the same thing. One may ask won't helios catch fire? Don't worry about the CMBR he is a god and this will not affect him.

 

The next question is, what is the motivation for all this, maybe this can tell us the nature of the haze in calibration? It could be fame, fortune and females, all of which can be fun. It could be competition, with science being a tough sport. We only have one universe how can we have more than one explanation? Say one is correct, does that mean science can also support n- imaginary realities? How is this different than chosen Zeus, Venus or Apollo. One is a humanoid personification and the others are abstractions wrapped in mathematics addressing obscure areas of fuzzy reality. There will come a time when people look back and say those superstitious scientists of the 22nd century, the stuff they thought all that was real.

 

I am not dumping on science, rather I am only pointing out some of the calibration problems with the main analytical equipment. When the human mind reaches the limits of reality some type of religion appears. It is a natural way the human instrument has evolved to work. Religion often provides clues on how inner mechanism works because the human mind worked that way for thousands of years.

[nutronjon]

Excellent.

 

"Believing in" is a mental process that is similar to (metaphor alert) casting something in concrete. Once the concrete dries, you may be able to paint it, or hang flowers on it, or drape it in fabric, but the concrete itself cannot be changed. The mind stops "searching" for alternate shapes and forms. There is only one shape, one form, the concrete statue in front of the eyes. All subsequent questions are limited to those that fit that shape, that form. After a while, the mind ceases to wonder if there ever could be any other shapes.

 

The second step to wisdom begins with "I want to know".

 

I am very thankful for what you have said.

[C1ay]

I don't have any problem doing both at the same time. These are two different areas of knowledge. I like to keep all the options open. But being in the middle I have tried to find a way to bridge the two. The way I did that was science is about the outer reality and religion about the inner reality connected to human consciousness. Religion is about the evolution of human nature and tells the sequence of how it evolved and changed.

 

I wouldn't refer to religion as knowledge, it's more like opinion. They're really pretty easy to sort out. Science, in the broadest sense, refers to any system of knowledge which attempts to model objective reality. Religion, in the broadest sense, refers to made up answers which attempt to model objective reality.

[HydrogenBond]

wouldn't refer to religion as knowledge, it's more like opinion. They're really pretty easy to sort out. Science, in the broadest sense, refers to any system of knowledge which attempts to model objective reality. Religion, in the broadest sense, refers to made up answers which attempt to model objective reality.

 

This may be true when religion tries to explain physical reality. The movement of the sun across the sky was helios in his chariot. But religion has another side connected to understanding human nature. Let me give an example. Before monotheism, i.e., Moses, idol worship was common. After that one was not suppose to do this.

 

One way to look at idol worship is connected to the subjective affects a good work of art can create. Good art can cause the observer to drift off in their imaginations or feel something. The art critics then try to define what the artist meant, if artist is not around to explain, and those in the know, will begin to tailor their own subjective reactions down these lines. In ancient idol worship, the idol was essentially a work of art able to induce that art subjectivity. Humans didn't know the art was pushing their buttons but assumed it was a god within the art that was doing this. The temple priests were the art critics sort of funneling the collective reaction to the art, i.e., golden calf.

 

They didn't have psychology to help explain their reaction was coming from the unconscious. Monotheism indirectly tried to point this out. The golden calf was not a god but a manmade object that was pushing unconscious buttons creating a compelling special affect, i.e., art affect. Through the power of suggestion combined with group reinforcement the special affect is amplified to where appears more real. The change helped people clear their heads so they could remove the subjectivity from synthetic. It was still there in the natural world waiting for science to clear the head.

 

It is not out of the realm of possibility that some aspects of science are creating their own special affects. I am not saying all of science is suspect because most of it appears very rational. But hypothetically, one might expect the same idol response, since this is part of human nature. Special effects that trigger the unconscious could explain how we can get so many compelling alternatives for what should be a mono-phenomena. This is a different type of art work more based on mathematical abstractions or computer simulations. They can't all be right, when some are mutually exclusive. It is not easy to tell which are the golden calfs.

 

Simplicity seems to be the way nature is set up. For example, life displayed extreme complexity until the cell was discovered. This simple observation, which anyone could grasp, put the entire random complexity into a common sense perspective. Next, the cell got more and more complex as the capability for investigation evolved. Then DNA and genes created another common sense simplicity that allows everyone the ability to participate. Simplicity is how nature is. But from a marketing point of view a plane box does not sell as well as a fancy container. The fancy container will create more subjectivity, i.e., modern, advanced, thereby adding the special affect which people seem to crave.

 

Early Christianity took this one step further trying to calibrate the mind even better. Not being conformed to the cultural world, was not so much to ignore it, but to try to unravel another layer of fog. If culture defines the pet rock as valuable, the subjectivity spreads to the entire herd. Now it can seem almost objective to get a pet rock because there is a cause and affect with respect to the way the herd and the pecking order will react. The mind is collectively calibrate and based on that subjective calibration we use cause and affect to work in that reality. At one level it is objective but the data is off due to the calibration error. The household pet is actually more objective treating the pet rock as a rock. In modern times, the home computer evolves the hardware faster than software. But the calibration is set to think a few milliseconds will make life better. Within that calibration of the mind it does appear to be fully objective.

 

Taking the middle point between science and religion I keep in mind the golden calf affect. The golden age of science was trying to reduce the complex to simplicity. After that, there is a transition point. Natural is just a simple box, like E=MC2. But a simple box does not sell as well today based on the calibration of the mind. In my experience it is almost forbidden. For example, some areas of physics work under the assumption that common sense no longer applies or it can't be reduced to common sense. The special affects will not work if we require simplicity or common sense. I like science and what I do is not against science, but against special affects. The mind can appear objective even when the calibration is not at zero.

[nutronjon]

This may be true when religion tries to explain physical reality. The movement of the sun across the sky was helios in his chariot. But religion has another side connected to understanding human nature. Let me give an example. Before monotheism, i.e., Moses, idol worship was common. After that one was not suppose to do this.

 

One way to look at idol worship is connected to the subjective affects a good work of art can create. Good art can cause the observer to drift off in their imaginations or feel something. The art critics then try to define what the artist meant, if artist is not around to explain, and those in the know, will begin to tailor their own subjective reactions down these lines. In ancient idol worship, the idol was essentially a work of art able to induce that art subjectivity. Humans didn't know the art was pushing their buttons but assumed it was a god within the art that was doing this. The temple priests were the art critics sort of funneling the collective reaction to the art, i.e., golden calf.

 

They didn't have psychology to help explain their reaction was coming from the unconscious. Monotheism indirectly tried to point this out. The golden calf was not a god but a manmade object that was pushing unconscious buttons creating a compelling special affect, i.e., art affect. Through the power of suggestion combined with group reinforcement the special affect is amplified to where appears more real. The change helped people clear their heads so they could remove the subjectivity from synthetic. It was still there in the natural world waiting for science to clear the head.

 

It is not out of the realm of possibility that some aspects of science are creating their own special affects. I am not saying all of science is suspect because most of it appears very rational. But hypothetically, one might expect the same idol response, since this is part of human nature. Special effects that trigger the unconscious could explain how we can get so many compelling alternatives for what should be a mono-phenomena. This is a different type of art work more based on mathematical abstractions or computer simulations. They can't all be right, when some are mutually exclusive. It is not easy to tell which are the golden calfs.

 

Simplicity seems to be the way nature is set up. For example, life displayed extreme complexity until the cell was discovered. This simple observation, which anyone could grasp, put the entire random complexity into a common sense perspective. Next, the cell got more and more complex as the capability for investigation evolved. Then DNA and genes created another common sense simplicity that allows everyone the ability to participate. Simplicity is how nature is. But from a marketing point of view a plane box does not sell as well as a fancy container. The fancy container will create more subjectivity, i.e., modern, advanced, thereby adding the special affect which people seem to crave.

 

Early Christianity took this one step further trying to calibrate the mind even better. Not being conformed to the cultural world, was not so much to ignore it, but to try to unravel another layer of fog. If culture defines the pet rock as valuable, the subjectivity spreads to the entire herd. Now it can seem almost objective to get a pet rock because there is a cause and affect with respect to the way the herd and the pecking order will react. The mind is collectively calibrate and based on that subjective calibration we use cause and affect to work in that reality. At one level it is objective but the data is off due to the calibration error. The household pet is actually more objective treating the pet rock as a rock. In modern times, the home computer evolves the hardware faster than software. But the calibration is set to think a few milliseconds will make life better. Within that calibration of the mind it does appear to be fully objective.

 

Taking the middle point between science and religion I keep in mind the golden calf affect. The golden age of science was trying to reduce the complex to simplicity. After that, there is a transition point. Natural is just a simple box, like E=MC2. But a simple box does not sell as well today based on the calibration of the mind. In my experience it is almost forbidden. For example, some areas of physics work under the assumption that common sense no longer applies or it can't be reduced to common sense. The special affects will not work if we require simplicity or common sense. I like science and what I do is not against science, but against special affects. The mind can appear objective even when the calibration is not at zero.

 

I have to say I agree with the idea that science is going the same path that religion once took. We have "the same idol response, since this is part of human nature". When this happens, I say a person is being up tight, because it is not allowing for other possibilities, any more than religion once did. When we can't even say, we can study nature and infer something about God; than we should question, what is a theology forum doing in the science forum? If it is taboo to say and think something, there shouldn't be a place for it. Make sense?

[freeztar]

I have to say I agree with the idea that science is going the same path that religion once took.

 

Yeah, Science is closed-minded.

 

When we can't even say, we can study nature and infer something about God; than we should question, what is a theology forum doing in the science forum?

 

Good question!

 

If it is taboo to say and think something, there shouldn't be a place for it. Make sense?

 

The theology forum is supposed to be a place where a scientific discussion of religion can occur. It is not a place where someone says, "When we can't even say, we can study nature and infer something about God". It could be a scientific discussion, but because you've refused to answer the question of "what" we can infer about god, it becomes troubling. One must believe in god and seek to infer something about it in nature. Or, one does not believe in god, so can observe nature and not infer anything about god.

[C1ay]

than we should question, what is a theology forum doing in the science forum?

 

Aside from the existence or non-existence of God(s), religion is a valid part of the study of social sciences, cultures of people. We do not need to endlessly debate the unprovable, unsupportable claims of the existences of God(s) but if we want to apply science to populations of people we have to study the effects of religion on those peoples and their cultures. Theology is a valid social science that can be intellectually evaluated without ever raising the question of God. Even if someone could prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is no God, some societies would cling to that belief and it would still be part of their culture. In the interest of science there is a need to study theology.

[ughaibu]

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00002446/01/Leslie_Review.pdf