Science has much better answers than "God did it" (Catholicism, preacher)

[Maia160]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I resist a rigorous refutation because I enjoy the discussion . . . but more importantly . . . you are reaching those who automatically tune me out. You are able to alert them to the real issues that they did not even realize existed in their "Imperical"*** (see creative definition in another thread) philosophical ignorance. (Besides this is neither the time nor place for such rigorous explication.)

You've grown on me Mystic and there have been times when I wondered whether you were on to something. Unfortunately, you've been relatively unapproachable (although, I've been guilty far too often of the same and I get that it is out of frustration). I'm also troubled that your 'synthesis' leaps from science and philosophy to acceptance of Jesus. At any rate, GW has proven to be an excellent teacher and I have a much better understanding of where you are coming from even if I don't accept your end conclusions.

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by Asheville Native

Do you completely fail to pay any attention. Fire and brimstone you're going straight to hell and lakes of fire is very much alive and well.

Maybe not so much in your social circle of the porn world, but in the real world not much has changed in 2000 years of religion.

FYI...the "porn world" IS the "real world"...it's a 100 BILLION dollar a year industry...you don't do those kind of numbers and not be as "real world" as "real world" can possibly be.
Maybe it's YOU that is "out of touch"...and "completely fails to pay any attention" to the world you live in.

ANY research will inform you that "feel good" sermons are the new style of "preaching". Not saying there isn't a decent dose of "Fear Hell" still out there...but that the basic "tone" has shifted is common knowledge.

And...ummmm...the whole post was smothered in snarky humor...and meant more for a laugh, than anything else...or did you fail to pay attention to that too?

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

No, no, no, no, Braunwyn...not to people like you, Gwoof, and some others, anyway. You guys are too sharp for that.

All the best to you.

Ok, it's cool. The best to you as well.

Originally Posted by GldnRule

Science is cool for acquiring "comforts", "amusement", "conveniences", and "trivia"...and more efficient methods of blowing things/people up...but it's really not NEEDED.

It's no more needed than humans are needed. I'm not philosophical to be clear, but I'll venture to say that science, or scientific inquiry, is an innate human quality. And as it goes with humans the results of scientific endeavors can be wonderful and/or scary.

Lose our intuition and perception?!...we're doomed!

Man can, and did, survive without "The Scientific Method". But probably wouldn't have made it without intuition & perception, based in wisdom.
Thus...The Scientific Method takes a back seat to Intuition & Perception...You all need to get hip to that.

Intuition, if defined as "keen and quick insight" (grasp)", and perception are necessary characteristics of any half way decent scientist (imo/e). I figure these qualities are directly related to intelligence as well. And we shouldn't confuse them with assumptions based on ignorance (not saying you are, but I can see how some might). As far as it being based on wisdom, I agree and wisdom typically comes from experience (intellectually, emotionally, etc). So, I don't see a dividing line here between science and prized attributes.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Maia160

You've grown on me Mystic and there have been times when I wondered whether you were on to something. Unfortunately, you've been relatively unapproachable (although, I've been guilty far too often of the same and I get that it is out of frustration). I'm also troubled that your 'synthesis' leaps from science and philosophy to acceptance of Jesus. At any rate, GW has proven to be an excellent teacher and I have a much better understanding of where you are coming from even if I don't accept your end conclusions.

I am pleased, Maia . . . and that is what I was hoping my discussion with GW would achieve for some of you. The "leap" from science and philosophy to Jesus was the result of the second prong of my decades-long effort to understand God once I knew He was real. The first prong was reconciling the reality of God with science and philosophy. The second was reconciling the "spiritual fossil record" of speculations and beliefs about God under the assumption that . . . God (what we experience as the unconscious) would have "inspired" our spiritually infant species to efforts to understand Him and our connection to Him. It just made sense. The record is remarkably consistent and sufficient for me . . . but it remains in the "beliefs about" God . . . not science.

As "spiritual embryos" (Born of God) we are as divorced spiritually (the unconscious) from our Father in the "womb" of our brain as any physical embryo is from its physical father in the womb of its mother. So . . . no truly direct form of communication exists. As I learned inadvertently through my epiphany meditation . . . there is a more rigorous way to achieve that contact after significant and rigorous training of our right brain sensitivities in deep meditation (or apparently as science has found . . in devout prayer). Still . . . it is an inefficient communication at best . . . and only after very tedious and disciplined practice in my case. However, we differ enormously in our right brain sensitivity . . . so others may not be as insensitive as I was as a confirmed atheist virtually from birth and for 30+ years thereafter.

The issue is complicated by the needs of our spiritual Mother (our body). Our physical body is heavily influenced primarily by the demands of the limbic system of the brain (the reptilian brain or "Serpent").Metaphorically . . . our bodies are the nurturing Mothers of our Souls (Eve) influenced by the "Serpent" of the limbic system to satisfy all the demands of our bodies . . . good or bad. We fail to nourish our "spiritual embryo souls" if we do not distinguish those demands that we should satisfy from those that we shouldn't . . . hampering our spiritual maturation.

In any case, Maia . . . GW has aided me in helping you to understand my views. That is my only purpose here . . to share them. I'm glad I've grown on you.

[Asheville Native]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

FYI...the "porn world" IS the "real world"...it's a 100 BILLION dollar a year industry...you don't do those kind of numbers and not be as "real world" as "real world" can possibly be.
Maybe it's YOU that is "out of touch"...and "completely fails to pay any attention" to the world you live in.

ANY research will inform you that "feel good" sermons are the new style of "preaching". Not saying there isn't a decent dose of "Fear Hell" still out there...but that the basic "tone" has shifted is common knowledge.

And...ummmm...the whole post was smothered in snarky humor...and meant more for a laugh, than anything else...or did you fail to pay attention to that too?

Yes the bible is also big on the desegregation of women, so I guess porn and bible belief are of the same mind set. I subscribe to neither, as they are both negative fantasy worlds. I'll just stick to the clear unpolluted streams.

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by Asheville Native

Yes the bible is also big on the desegregation of women, so I guess porn and bible belief are of the same mind set. I subscribe to neither, as they are both negative fantasy worlds. I'll just stick to the clear unpolluted streams.

Yeah, Rrrrrrrright!!! Like beer drinking?! HAHAHAHAHA!

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
To take your last point first:It isn't but is a mixture of semantic details and rather poor logic.

Thom

That's a relief. I'm not really interested in being just logical so that I continue not being so is good.

Further comment would see to be superfluous.

:Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
You are saying a lot more than you know. And you are rather reducing science to a man in a white coat fiddling with a test - tube.

Thom

Not really. The woman living with chimps, the man exploring volcanoes, the astronaut, the submarine explorer, the peanut farmer, and so forth can also be science. Science is the study of nature wherever that takes one. From the highest mountain to the deepest ocean to outer-space to one's front yard.

I just don't see how that takes one to questions about justice, reality, ultimate truth, transcendence, or other concepts that aren't really natural phenomenon.

If you don't accept that human moral instincts are a product of evolution and that the moral codes we build upon them is derived from a reasoning brain then you might never see it. I have already seen the preliminary work being done and I can see it coming. You can say it is faith - based, I say it is extrapolating from the present. The fact is, like it or not, the work is going on now.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I am talking about the application of the scientific method and logic too. Science, once it understands the basis of where our ideas on society and morality come from (and you cannot say from your position of not knowing that it can't be understood by science), then that is the basis for the application of logical reasoning which is what we have been doing all the time - except where the sheer rather brutal instinct is upheld by religious authority. Whatever the inadequacies of science, it has to be better than that - since the doctrine of God given morality has been pretty much demolished here on the boards.

Thom

No it hasn't. You overreach yourself here. At best all you, plural, have done is pick at some Bible moments. Even then you haven't demolished any values at all. At most you've said certain historical
events didn't actually occur as recorded so one doesn't have to believe what comes from them.

I understand that there are a lot of posts here and you won't have read everything but the free will debate was nothing to do with the Gospel criticism threads. The problem of evil and the free will response, the question of moral absolutes and god - given moral codes was thrashed out several times by many posters and the theist side could not maintain its position.

Thom

And that's your choice, but it doesn't demolish the values or that they come from God. I grant that the way your mind works it does, but for how a vast number of people think it doesn't do anything like that.
Humility, self-sacrifice, loving one's enemy, loving God, etc can certainly still be values from God even if you are somehow right about everything. You want people to abandon things in the hopes that maybe a logical study of human behavior can create some better values. And I think there's no reason for anyone to do that unless they share your faith.

No I don't. I do want them to abandon the idea that these values come from a god (because it isn't an argument that stands up) and that, because it comes from a god, the terms and parameters of morality are to be found in one Holy Book or another. I want the matter looked at logically, not dogmatically.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
As to getting lost books It occurred to me last night that the principle of indeterminacy is evidence that there is a world where WWI never happened, Elgar never lost his faith and he actually wrote his 3rd religious oratorio. Who is to say that it is impossible to dip into the other universe and return with the lost work? Some of what you deem impossible may become possible.

Thom

I'm thinking you're half-joking here. Still a good deal of what you're saying is based in a never-never land where science and logic can do things that I'm not even sure science and logic claim they can do.

Of course I'm half kidding, yet the idea of divergent time lines where Hitler never came to power, Paul never converted and America is still technically under the British throne, came from scientists, not me. The idea of actually being able to access those time - lines is the stuff of science - fiction, but you know, when it comes to saying what's definitely not possible, you are a darn sight more prone to doing it than I am.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Point taken. But don't theists often say 'believe or not?'. If one doesn't believe, then one disbelieves. There seems no middle ground.

Thom

Well perhaps, but theists vary and I'm not trying to represent them all. I think a person can simply be undecided on any number of issues. I guess in a way that's a disbelief, but I don't quite see it that
way.

You don't speak for all theists any more than I speak for all atheists, but logical constructs speak for ALL logical constructs. Logic is like mathematics and science - it is universal. If there is a different 'version' it is probably wrong.

And logic says that, if one is undecided, then one is not believing. The thing is that unbelief covers everything from being utterly convinced that it isn't so to not quite sure it's true. To be a believer one needs to have taken it as true. Not 'possible' but convincing enough to buy into it.
I can see where you are coming from. There are are a lot of issues where one is undecided and may go with the flow on the grounds that it looks probable and a lot of other people seem to believe it. Yep, I can understand that. What should be done then is to comprehend the issues. That's what we do here and so far (apart from Mystic's effort) the theists have come a cropper every time.

Thom

If a person told me some new hypothesis would unify all of physics I might say "maybe." This doesn't mean I'm saying it won't, but it also doesn't mean I think it will. It means I'm not sure.

It means you haven't looked at the information and might not understand it if you did. I probably wouldn't either. Yet evey time we board a plane we trust that the people who did the mechanics knew their job. It is
the same with the mental engineering. The fact is that the perpetual motion machine does not work and would not work even if it was in the Bible and half of America took it as an article of faith.

That is why we put in the effort on the boards - to show that the arguments for theism do not stand up.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Perhaps the problem is that you confuse disbelief with the state of knowing that something isn't so. If it isn't given a decent amount of reason to believe something one should logically not believe.

Thom

Disbelief generally implies you don't believe it. If we get technical than yes "don't believe" could be a spectrum that includes "don't have an opinion either way" but generally I think "disbelief" means you doubt it. You're not saying you know it's not true, but you personally don't think it's true.

I say, if you believe, you believe. if you don't you don't. And you accused me of being 'slippery'. These semantics cover up that, if you are not sure, you should not take it as a definite fact and definite fact (on wretched evidence), is what a believer in God takes it to be.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
And faith based on inadequate evidence is worse than inadequate.

Thom

Why? And at what point is evidence "adequate" and who gets to decide.

Ah That's the question. What is valid information and evidence and who gets to decide it? If the various disciplines and their experts (I will avoid the sci.. word) are not to decide, who is?
The onging debate produces a corpus of evidence considered sound and believable. Religion is much more tricky. Until the 19th century no one tried to apply he SMethod to the Bible. Until the last century archaeology did not call the Bible into question and until this century, there was really no serious sliding of the skids under God.

The debate goes on and when the arguments of the theists are shown to be unscientific and illogical then the evidence for god and religion is deemed inadequate and only experts in cult and illogic will say otherwise.

Will people listen? I trust that they will, if the evidence is explained, agree that that the evidence for evolution is compelling and that for creationism is almost non -existent. I tust that they will agree that the evidence is adequate and the right people decided that was the case.

I trust that the discussions going on the board and being taken up by more and more of the experts will come to make their case just as soundly. As I say, the debate is over. It is just a case of making it generally public.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
In a way, yes. I can see the way forward clearly, but I could be wrong. In fact science has said a lot of this but it hasn't come together as a whole rational investigation of love, hate and the rest because each is doing its own bit and I am looking to the future. The point is not whether I turn out to be a prophet or not but that science (if and when it does do this) has every right to try and irrelevant protests that it will never have all the answers are actually more blinkered than my speculations that it could find more than you'd think, and any suggestions that it shouldn't even be allowed to try are totally unacceptable.

Thom[/quote]It can try whatever it wishes. I think trying to put it into these cosmic or moral issues is quite possibly just creating a religion of equations, but in a way religion suits you. You're possibly a more devout
person than I am.[/quote]


It is going to, of course. I may be more devout than you as I am quite convinced (on evidence) by the validity of science and logic. More than you are, I sometimes think, by the validity (in spite of the evidence) of Christianity.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I should say again that the science can, through investigation, find out the biological reasons why we do these things and why we think in that way and I don't doubt that survival is the driving force.
Seems obvious. If so, understanding this clears away a lot of irrational clutter about good and bad and thus morality, law and the rest will be approached purely on a logical basis, if the scientific method can't assist.

Thom

And that's downright terrifying. How do you debate a morality that has the iron will of science and logic behind it. Did you ever read "Notes from Underground" by Dostoyefsky?

You do what the concensus of atheist on the boards do, put the Golden rule at the head of the code even above logical pragmatism. And if you think an author has some point to make about the discussion say what it is. I don't go rushing off of book readings to make your case for you.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I know it probably appalls you to think that good and bad is a matter of human convenience rather than some invisible judge handing the dictat down to us, but really that myth hasn't done too well and I reckon we've been trying to do it pragmatically and logically for a long time now and the god - given moral compass idea has just confused the issue.

Thom[/quote]Actually I think in Catholicism morality has a great deal to do with our nature as understand by reason. However if that's all it is, there is no revelation at all, then yes it purely being an artificial creation of people is appalling.[/quote]

Actually that it is a (supposedly) immutable code handed down by that ghastly creature in the Bible is far more appalling.

Thom

It's the basic flaw I find in most rational atheism. You need people to be the source of everything. But you also know enough to know people are just evolved apes and that most of them will not be logical in the way you desire. So it's ultimately a faith of a scientific elite. And a very flawed one at that, one that's failed far worse than almost any religion in history. Eugenics, race-based genocide, involuntary human experimentation, chemical weapons, totalitarianism, etc. That's on the Enlightenment and after values, not mine.

It is only to be expected that someone wallowing in the easy life which science has given them is able to accuse it of all the world's evils in the interests of maintaining a superstitious belief.

Of course people are flawed. Their perceptions are flawed which is why we developed science, proven to be sound. They are irrational which is why we developed the rules of logic - to counter irationality. Religion is the product of humanity's flawed perceptions and inherent irrationality. It is not from a god, perfect or imperfect.

Which is why there is no alternative to us. The best we can do is equip ourselves with the best mental tools we can. I shudder at the thought of letting us loose only with the various irrational religious Faiths.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Not quite. There is (almost certainly) an answer but we don't know what it is - yet.

Thom[quote]There is no "answer" science is going to bring on justice, equality, virtue, ultimate truth, the number of extraterrestrial species out there, or lost books unless it has a time machine or access to some
noosphere of all knowledge.

The point is not that logic and science is going to answer all questions though, as I said, you are claiming far more omniscience than I am in declaring that so much will 'never be found out'. Which is why I tend to see that as no more than a Faith - based declaration of hope that it doesn't.

The point is that the research going on right now will (I am sure, because all the biological and evolutionary evidence points that way) find out the evolutionary and biological origins of a lot of instinctive thought and, thus of the reasoned codes based on that. Thus thought on justice, equality, virtue, moral codes, law, politics, war, gender issues and the like will lose the instinctive and wrong 'common sense' authority (not to mention any Bible - based input) and will be considered from a rational and logical point of view.

Don't worry. We are not straw Vulcans. The golden rule rather than cold pragmatism will be (if the atheist consensus here and elsewhere is representative) the touchstone of morality.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

"Science" has ALWAYS existed...even before the invention of "The Scientific Method"?

"Science" simply is "knowlwdge"....as opposed to ignorance or misinformation.

If you're just looking to redefine words to mean whatever you want in order to score rhetorical points for Jesus, have at it. Don't expect to be taken seriously, though.

Oh, and let me add my favorite: Intuition & perception, based in wisdom...has it ALL OVER science...at discerning TRUTH.

Redefine "superstitious religious dogma" as TRUTH and pretend that science not discovering it is a weakness. Like I said - there's no meat here, just word games.

Science is cool for acquiring "comforts", "amusement", "conveniences", and "trivia"

Clean water, vaccines and enough food to support the planet's population are "amusements"? Pretty easy to say for someone who doesn't worry where his next meal is coming from - but not exactly what Jesus would do, I imagine.

Lose our intuition and perception?!...we're doomed!

Yeah, who cares if it's real as long as it feels good.

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

If you're just looking to redefine words to mean whatever you want in order to score rhetorical points for Jesus, have at it. Don't expect to be taken seriously, though.

Redefine "superstitious religious dogma" as TRUTH and pretend that science not discovering it is a weakness. Like I said - there's no meat here, just word games.

Clean water, vaccines and enough food to support the planet's population are "amusements"? Pretty easy to say for someone who doesn't worry where his next meal is coming from - but not exactly what Jesus would do, I imagine.

Yeah, who cares if it's real as long as it feels good.

No Bro'...it's YOUUUUUUU trying to "redefine words" and give them more meaning.

See...here's the REAL DEAL: the word "SCIENCE" is derivative from the Latin scientia...simply meaning, "knowledge". It's just really....The state of "knowing"..."Knowledge" as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.
Just because it is now a vocation, and represents some offshoot "Method", and can now be additionally defined to include those "undertakings"...doesn't change the BASE meaning.
YOU, and your ilk...are the one's looking to change it to "score points".

And as far as "not being taken seriously"...that's the main Atheist angst.
Your platform is of such "negligible mojo", that you get all bollixed-up in a "Napoleonic Complex"...and become all mentally irregular. Not that the frustration isn't understandable. Who wouldn't get frustrated if they were getting their butt handed to them at a rate of 9or10 to 1 (like Belief VS Nonbelief in the arena of world influence) for thooooooounds of years?!!
But this isn't Theists' fault. You guys are like the blind guy getting mad at the sighted, because they can all see and he can't.
Theists can "see" (right-brain perception) what Atheists can't. And though I sympathize with your plight...you are just going to have to learn to live with your deficiency.

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Is this 'god' we are talking about 'for sake of argument' or a given the nature and function of which is being discussed. I note that you accept the idea of a 'primordial experiencer', which sounds awfully godlike, but that depends on the experience, I suppose.

Perhaps this will help: Would you agree that, for any actual event, let's call it X, the nature of reality must be such that X is logically possible, given the nature of reality? I say yes.

Now, I would say that logical possibilities are non-temporal, which is to say, they don't come into existence, nor do they ever disappear. Also, if there is a multiverse, then logical possibilities apply to all universes. ("Natural possibilities," in contrast, would be tied to the rules of a given universe. So, for example, it is logically possible to go to the sun and back in 1 second, but if the theory of relativity is correct, it naturally impossible to do so in our physical universe.)

Now here is the crucial point: Given that consciousness does in fact exist in our universe, I would say that consciousness is a logical possibility, and thus the "potential for consciousness" is non-temporal. Now I would also say that the non-existence of consciousness is also a logical possibility (here, perhaps, Mystic will want to disagree?). This suggests that the existence of consciousness is not logically necessary; it's existence is contingent. But contingent upon what? All I can say at this point is that the existence of consciousness is contingent upon the character of natural possibility in the universe (or in our little corner of the multiverse). The actual existence of consciousness is enough to guarantee the logical grounds of consciousness, but what are the natural grounds? At this point we can only speculate.

My speculative offering is what I've been calling a "primordial qualitative chaos" or "intrinsic subjectivity" or "primordial experiencer" - but all of these terms are basically equivalent in my mind, and they are all just meant to wrap some vague hints of flesh around the bare bones concept of "that which accounts" for the natural (and possibly also the logical) grounds for the possibility of consciousness. I think I will stop using the term "primordial experiencer" and perhaps go with "primordial proto-experiencer" since "experiencer" leads us to think of "actualized" when it is really potential. I hesitate to equate the "primordial chaos" with "God" or "experiencer" because these terms tend to pull our minds in the direction of a "person-like" entity. The term "qualitative chaos" seems to get at my intended concept with somewhat less historical baggage, but the intrinsic subjectivity of qualia does lend itself to thinking of the unconscious qualitative chaos as a "sleeping experiencer" who "wakes up" only in the process by which the chaos begins to form actual patterns. Another way to think of it: The Chaos is like "God's Mother" in the sense that God (aka the kinds of patterns constituting the building blocks of all possible conscious experiences) emerges from the "womb" of Chaos (hence my preference for "Goddess"). Or, yet another way to think of it: The Chaos is the "deep sleep" out of which "God awakens" and the world that we know as "physical reality" comes to be. (If you get lost in a tangle of speculative terms/concepts, you can always go back to the concept I started with, namely, the idea of "that which accounts for the possibility of consciousness" - whatever "that" is.

I would also suggest a distinction between "non-conscious" and "unconscious." The term 'non-conscious' would relate to a possible world in which consciousness is not a natural possibility, whereas 'unconscious' would relate to a possible world (like ours) in which consciousness is a natural possibility, but in which the actualization of consciousness is contingent. The "natural-possibility-for" consciousness which is not actualized, would be the unconscious. Given the natural possibility of consciousness in our world, death can never literally mean "non-conscious" but it could refer to "unconscious." Thus, in this sense, we might talk of "dead" instead of "sleeping" and say that "God arose from the dead" and this could account for the universal nature of the archetype of "arising from the dead" found in so many religious traditions, as well as the familiar "victory over death" or salvation motif. Perhaps those who fear death the most are those who conflate "unconscious" with "non-conscious." (?) Just a thought.

That's way more than enough for now. I will consider your other questions later.