I misspoke when I said that there was evidence for spiritual phenomena; I meant spiritual experience. Unless you believe someone is actually lying, then if they say they are having an experience, then it's not difficult to believe them if you've had one yourself; just like dreams.
Also, when I said no one denies spiritual experience, what I was saying is that I agree with you; that no one can reasonably disbelieve a common experience that many people have been reporting for thousands of years. That was my point.
But, then my main point is that the experiences themselves do not prove that they are not limited to purely neurological experiences.
With that being said, I do think that even if spiritual experiences only take place within our skulls, that does NOT mean that they are of lesser importance. After all, my conscious life itself only exists within my skull, but that also does not mean it is insignificant; of course not. When I feel pain, it is real. When I feel love, it is real. It's ALL real in that sense and it's is just as significant as it ever was; with or without a God in the world.
So, just because I do not believe in a god, that doesn't mean that I believe that NOTHING is real, i.e., my conscious self, feelings, desires, etc..
Therefore, spiritual experiences ARE important and worthy of study just because of the simple fact that they happen and have profound effects on us.
So, you consider the concept of an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful, all-loving God as rather narrow, huh? Well, um, I'm sorry Haga, but if you don't mind, I would like to discuss this particular definition at this time... one step at a time please. There is plenty of time and threads on the Internet to discuss all of the other definitions.
All right, then no I do not believe there is such a being, all knowing, perhaps, all seeing, perhaps all powerful, I do not think anything is completely all powerful, really, really powerful, might seam all powerful by our standards, yes, but all powerful as in their is no other, no I do not think that. All loving, perhaps a God could be, but if you are talking about the Christian, God then He is definitely not all loving, at least not if you look at the Bible, let us see He is said to punish all women by horrible pain at childbirth for one woman not obeying Him. He made a bet with the Devil, giving all the shit he could time of the Job just to test the man's loyalty. He killed scores of innocent children in Egypt when he ordered the death of all the firstborn. He cursed mankind to have finite lives because two humans disobeyed Him, He wiped out a few nations which was not to His liking, sent a flood to kill most of the people in the world because He was unhappy with how they lived. And when Moses looses his temper and say that I have led you through the dessert to the Jews, and keep in mind here that Moses had given up his entire life to God's service, then God punishes him by killing him before he reached the promised land. I could go on, if you go by the Bible, the Torah or the Quran then God is described as a cruel, tyrannical ruler who kill and maim those that do not do exactly as he say. That do not sound all loving to me.
So, you consider the concept of an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful, all-loving God as rather narrow, huh? Well, um, I'm sorry Haga, but if you don't mind, I would like to discuss this particular definition at this time... one step at a time please. There is plenty of time and threads on the Internet to discuss all of the other definitions.
All right, then no I do not believe there is such a being, all knowing, perhaps, all seeing, perhaps all powerful, I do not think anything is completely all powerful, really, really powerful, might seam all powerful by our standards, yes, but all powerful as in their is no other, no I do not think that. All loving, perhaps a God could be, but if you are talking about the Christian, God then He is definitely not all loving, at least not if you look at the Bible, let us see He is said to punish all women by horrible pain at childbirth for one woman not obeying Him. He made a bet with the Devil, giving all the shit he could time of the Job just to test the man's loyalty. He killed scores of innocent children in Egypt when he ordered the death of all the firstborn. He cursed mankind to have finite lives because two humans disobeyed Him, He wiped out a few nations which was not to His liking, sent a flood to kill most of the people in the world because He was unhappy with how they lived. And when Moses looses his temper and say that I have led you through the dessert to the Jews, and keep in mind here that Moses had given up his entire life to God's service, then God punishes him by killing him before he reached the promised land. I could go on, if you go by the Bible, the Torah or the Quran then God is described as a cruel, tyrannical ruler who kill and maim those that do not do exactly as he say. That do not sound all loving to me.
Perhaps some of us just do not accept the explanations modern mainstream science presents, but believe that there is an explanation for the experiences that one as of yet can not discover in a lab.
It's not just that current science cannot replicate those "spiritual" phenomena, but no believer can ever conceive any possible way to replicate, to "prove" those experiences. Strange isn't it? If you can conceive a way to prove your case then I'm happy and let's wait until science catches up (until then your idea remains just a completely unproven hypothesis, though). As long as we cannot validate those claims and there's no imaginable way that they would work, other than basic laws of physics and biology, they remain irrelevant, because without validation you can claim anything (e.g. I claim to be the emperor of ZodiaC in the dimension of 'raping little girls with flowers'; it's true, you can't disprove it after all).
Is there sides here? Is there a war between the Spiritual and science? I am sorry. I do not see that war, nor a need for one. Why can one not have both, perhaps the world need both. Both faith and science.
You are free to believe in spirituality (if we define it as things that cannot be proven by science), but you should acknowledge that it is just another form of supersition. It cannot exist on equal footing with science. Yes, a war exists; it's a war against supersitition and those who argue that supersitition has the same rights as science. It's also a war against NOMA and all it's derivatives that suggest that supersitition is a valid way of "knowing". I suggest to read Dawkins, Myers or Coyne; they present some interesting arguments.
All right, then no I do not believe there is such a being, all knowing, perhaps, all seeing, perhaps all powerful, I do not think anything is completely all powerful, really, really powerful, might seam all powerful by our standards, yes, but all powerful as in their is no other, no I do not think that.
...any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. But does it matter if haven't wittnessed such magic/technology? No.
All loving, perhaps a God could be, but if you are talking about the Christian, God then He is definitely not all loving, at least not if you look at the Bible, let us see He is said to punish all women by horrible pain at childbirth for one woman not obeying Him.
Indeed.
but seriously, now that i got the sarcasm out of the way, i'm just surprised how many people are taking this thing called life for granted whit all the 'miracles' it has to offer. i don't wanna toot my wisdom, toot toot, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that we live in an unbelievably complex, ultra-intelligently DESIGNED universe, starting from lowest organisms to cosmic proportions, and everything in between. and yet, we need more 'miracles', breakin the law of physics, lol
Designed. Erm.. Ummm..Ok and how can you prove that? I'm happy with a positive or negative statement, a hypothesis or just logical reasoning; anything will do. Most things can be explained by physics. So should I assume that you will argue god of the gaps? (and prepare the usual rebuttal?) Are you sure you are not just misinterpreting what merely seems as design? See for instance (yeah, I know he's explaining it to children):
and usually further than that, many atheists are vehemently anti-god and anti-spirituality, in any form. this ideological concept (atheism) in itself has nothing to do with buddhism, which is essentially the 'emptying of the self'.
Atheists are vehemently anti-god? Who would have thought? Let's ignore this little faux pas, though. So if we define spirituality as "things that cannot be proven by science" having an influence on our lives, then yes, I'm vehemently opposed to superstition as are most Atheists.
to singularity, i only brought up the solipsist comment to shed further light on the idea that the experience of god is of a personal nature. spiritual experience is certainly of a personal nature, yes, but it is not entirely without objective reality. generally speaking, i would not agree with you when you say that ".....it still only exists within the confines of our skulls." yes, this statement is true in a sense, but false at the same time. most people would infer from your assertion here, that spiritual experience is merely a simple psychological state, when in fact it is so much more than that.
So do you acknowledge that your spiritual experience does not produce any physical changes in this world? If yes, how can you argue that it is relevant? (other than "I like it", but how is it relevant to people who do not need it? And if it is not physical how can it be actually important for anyone?) If no, what study design do you propose to test your hypothesis?
It's not just that current science cannot replicate those "spiritual" phenomena, but no believer can ever conceive any possible way to replicate, to "prove" those experiences. Strange isn't it?
Not really, that depend allot on what sort of experience we are talking about here. A feeling of the Divines presence for example, that is a bit hard to replicate, that just happens, I mean do you know how to replicate that just plain old good feeling one sometimes have when one just know that to day will be a good day, or the excitement you felt seeing that Christmas tree with gifts under it as a child? Such feelings are just feelings, and I have not idea how to replicate a feeling, nor how some scientist should be able to measure those feelings if I managed to. Then one have psychic flashes, communications with Spirits and so on, by it's very nature it just comes when it want to come, not very strange that one have not been able to force such experiences in a lab very often. But then one have things like healing, telepathy and so on, and many of these things have been tested in a lab, with good results. I see no reason why such things can not be investigated by science as it is direct and measurable, however a feeling of holiness or Divinity, how will you test for that?
You are free to believe in spirituality (if we define it as things that cannot be proven by science), but you should acknowledge that it is just another form of supersition. It cannot exist on equal footing with science.
Why should I believe that? I do not agree that this is the case. Is not that a bit like a Christian saying, sure you can believe your silly Pagan beliefs as long as you acknowledge that it is only a flawed little system we by law can not stop you from believing in? I mean that is the same as me saying sure you can believe modern science as long as you accept that it is only another form of alchemy and can never stand on equal footing with a belief in Gods and magick. Why not have a little more respect for what others believe and there would be allot less hostility in the world, let us face it, not of us have the one and single truth, just different systems with which to try to understand the world around us. And as such no good Sir I do not aknowledge your system as superior to mine.
Yes, a war exists; it's a war against supersitition and those who argue that supersitition has the same rights as science.
Go to a meeting of some fanatical members of any religion and you will find statements tossed around that is surprisingly similar to the one you utter here. Now you are off course entitled to your opinion, however I think that by being so sure that you are right and everyone else is wrong that you miss out on allot in life. And when someone declare war on other people's beliefs I call that fanaticism, and fanaticism now that is truly something worth fighting against. I see no reason for a onflict between science and religion, though there might be a conflict between fanatics on both sides that can not accept that perhaps neither sit with the whole and complete truth.
I misspoke when I said that there was evidence for spiritual phenomena; I meant spiritual experience. Unless you believe someone is actually lying, then if they say they are having an experience, then it's not difficult to believe them if you've had one yourself; just like dreams.
Also, when I said no one denies spiritual experience, what I was saying is that I agree with you; that no one can reasonably disbelieve a common experience that many people have been reporting for thousands of years. That was my point.
But, then my main point is that the experiences themselves do not prove that they are not limited to purely neurological experiences.
With that being said, I do think that even if spiritual experiences only take place within our skulls, that does NOT mean that they are of lesser importance. After all, my conscious life itself only exists within my skull, but that also does not mean it is insignificant; of course not. When I feel pain, it is real. When I feel love, it is real. It's ALL real in that sense and it's is just as significant as it ever was; with or without a God in the world.
So, just because I do not believe in a god, that doesn't mean that I believe that NOTHING is real, i.e., my conscious self, feelings, desires, etc..
Therefore, spiritual experiences ARE important and worthy of study just because of the simple fact that they happen and have profound effects on us.
Good post. I think there is many ways one can look at a experience depending on one's own Paradigm. There is this story, I have no idea if it is true or not. But it do illustrate a point. It is about an artist. Now our artist had met a wall, he did not get his paintings sold, he was sad and depressed. Mostly for fun he visited a past life therapist. Now this woman told him he had been a famous, successful painter in a former life, she took our artist to a museum and showed him the works he had done in his former life. Now the artist was filled with new motivation, he knew art was in his soul, he started painting again, got his works sold and had great success, all thanks to believing he had been this famous painter in another life. Now for our artist, do it really matter if it was really true, that he was a reincarnated master or if it was just him having had a profound experience with the past life therapist and this had awoken potential which had been in him all the time, no it do not matter. The result was the Spiritual experience he had had helped him allot, now everyone can make up their own mind as to what exactly that experience really was, but the bottom line is that it worked, and in the end is that not the important part?
Designed. Erm.. Ummm..Ok and how can you prove that? I'm happy with a positive or negative statement, a hypothesis or just logical reasoning; anything will do. Most things can be explained by physics. So should I assume that you will argue god of the gaps? (and prepare the usual rebuttal?) Are you sure you are not just misinterpreting what merely seems as design? See for instance (yeah, I know he's explaining it to children):
kismet, just take a good look in your mirror and ask yourself what 'coincidence' could have created that perfect, absolutely unique, very expressionate and multifunctional thing you call your face? evolution? law of physics? but why? why do each one of us of our little 6-billion+ population have such a totally unique 'look' and 'personality' when all the monkeys have done well without? mind you, i'm just talking about a face, not even whats behind it's surface. i just see it like this, you can break down everything in this universe, whether positive or negative, just to find out that it makes perfect sense, either in relation or direct purpose and this applies to everything, even evolution, law of physics, dawkins and all other monkey business. and to me at least, design seems like the perfect word for that and a very logical reasoning for what is (and is not)
but enough of me, since i don't really have to prove nothing. scientists do that all day everyday.
as far as war is concerned, of course there is one since us super-intelligent humans still haven't figured out how to just accept each other peacefully but i betcha, even that will make sense one day
Can you argue the existence of a creator god who does not influence reality (Deism)... but has merely created governing laws which control the universe? Anyone can argue theism, and atheists who argue against it are attacking easy targets. A snake that talks... wow that's hard to argue against. What if it's a metaphorical snake which represents another concept, like your mom?
If you take the bible literally then it's easy to prey... of course one could take literally and metaphorical whatever works until it ceases to work, but there are still some scientific evidence that shows some of the events in the bible might have happened. Like Sodom & Gamora (sp) for instance or Noah's Ark. You can argue that as you want, i haven't kept up with it cause i honestly don't give a shit. However, form a well constructed argument against the existence of a god and stop using religions as a tool, most of them are idiotic. You'll probably realize there's no way of knowing, especially if the only signs of an existence of god is the beautiful architecture that inhabits your brain and body as the drunkfunk mentioned.
Can you argue the existence of a creator god who does not influence reality (Deism)... but has merely created governing laws which control the universe? Anyone can argue theism, and atheists who argue against it are attacking easy targets. A snake that talks... wow that's hard to argue against.
I agree that religion is an easy target. But it's still a target many people proudly, loudly wear.
One reason why I don't believe -- even in that creator god who dumped the ingredients into the pot and then left the pot to boil on its own -- is that at every close examination of a spiritual claim, the spiritual element evaporates. The record so far seems pretty poor for the spiritualists.
By what criteria do you judge the accuracy of a spiritual belief? Why do you believe in a creator god but not fairies or Superman? Why in a creator god but not in creator gods? Why in a creator god but not in a destroyer god who killed the creator god trillions of years ago and constantly tries to snuff out the endlessly recurring spawn of universes? Why anything and by what criteria?
If the criteria is only "the beautiful architecture that inhabits your brain and body", what if the idea of a godless universe does that for us? So can atheism for some people be better (more rewarding and beautiful and useful, for instance) than a spiritual belief? And based on the no-way-to-prove-it criteria, doesn't that also make atheism as "true" as your beliefs?
...Now for our artist, do it really matter if it was really true, that he was a reincarnated master or if it was just him having had a profound experience with the past life therapist and this had awoken potential which had been in him all the time, no it do not matter....
Ok, let's be clear about what happened in your story. He MAY have been tricked, but that trickery allowed him to overcome an obstacle to his success. That is all well and good. But, still, why would you suggest that it is better to remain ignorant of the real truth? I say, don't stop there! After he has benefited from this trick for his own good, he can learn the REAL lesson, which is that the limitations that he had been a slave to really were not as insurmountable as he had once thought. That is the real lesson. What you are suggesting is that one will not get "lucky" without a little bit of purposeful gullability in one's outlook, or the "willingness to play make-believe". The brightest of us are already as ignorant as humans come and we will on occassion stumble into good fortune from time to time, or succeed for the wrong reasons, but I see no reason to think that that is the best route to success.
...Now for our artist, do it really matter if it was really true, that he was a reincarnated master or if it was just him having had a profound experience with the past life therapist and this had awoken potential which had been in him all the time, no it do not matter....
Ok, let's be clear about what happened in your story. He MAY have been tricked, but that trickery allowed him to overcome an obstacle to his success. That is all well and good. But, still, why would you suggest that it is better to remain ignorant of the real truth? I say, don't stop there! After he has benefited from this trick for his own good, he can learn the REAL lesson, which is that the limitations that he had been a slave to really were not as insurmountable as he had once thought. That is the real lesson. What you are suggesting is that one will not get "lucky" without a little bit of purposeful gullability in one's outlook, or the "willingness to play make-believe". The brightest of us are already as ignorant as humans come and we will on occassion stumble into good fortune from time to time, or succeed for the wrong reasons, but I see no reason to think that that is the best route to success.
what both of you failed to realize is that after the artist really began believing he was the famous artist, he began painting identical copies, since it is obviously his own artwork. After awhile he was caught for his fraud yet believed himself innocent. He later tried contacting the past-lives expert to use her as his witness, but she was nowhere to be found. Taking both his future and his money.
Answers are in reverse order. I\'ll answer in bold, trying to avoid a quote-mess.
How much can you argue this topic? Atheists-
Can you argue the existence of a creator god who does not influence reality (Deism)... but has merely created governing laws which control the universe? Anyone can argue theism, and atheists who argue against it are attacking easy targets. A snake that talks... wow that\'s hard to argue against. What if it\'s a metaphorical snake which represents another concept, like your mom? Actually arguing against Deism is extraordinarily easy if you do not set out to completely disprove the hypothesis. Don\'t forget deism without some level of agnosticism is completely contradictory. How can you presuppose a god? If you subscribe to the deistic model, anything would work as the "creator of the universe". The existence of a "god" in the broadest sense, the existence of something, be it imaginable or unimaginable or just nothing are about as likely. Most importantly a universe with a deistic creator (who does not interfere per definition) looks and feels the same as one without. Therefore the answer to that question is pretty irrelevant. Deism is just a boring thought experiment.
If you take the bible literally then it\'s easy to prey... of course one could take literally and metaphorical whatever works until it ceases to work, but there are still some scientific evidence that shows some of the events in the bible might have happened. If I write an invented story but mix it with real events, the story is still an invention. You get the drift? Like Sodom & Gamora (sp) for instance or Noah\'s Ark. You can argue that as you want, i haven\'t kept up with it cause i honestly don\'t give a shit. If you think Noah\'s story as depicted in the bible might have really happened then you really did not keep up with the evidence. There's some evidence of a big (in no way global) flood , yes. Arguably the biblical texts have been written by real people, so you can expect them to incorporate and mention real events. However, form a well constructed argument against the existence of a god and stop using religions as a tool, most of them are idiotic. You\'ll probably realize there\'s no way of knowing, especially if the only signs of an existence of god is the beautiful architecture that inhabits your brain and body as the drunkfunk mentioned. This is an argument from wonder, but unfortunately an argument from awe or wonder is no argument at all; in fact I believe that it\'s just a logical fallacy. If there was no other imaginable way how the world might have come about, then we could let such an argument pass, but the [url="http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle\""]anthropic principle[/url] provides a fairly sophisticated explanation that does not require god. Therefore - if anything - we should be agnostic deists.
Designed. Erm.. Ummm..Ok and how can you prove that? I'm happy with a positive or negative statement, a hypothesis or just logical reasoning; anything will do. Most things can be explained by physics. So should I assume that you will argue god of the gaps? (and prepare the usual rebuttal?) Are you sure you are not just misinterpreting what merely seems as design? See for instance (yeah, I know he's explaining it to children):
kismet, just take a good look in your mirror and ask yourself what 'coincidence' could have created that perfect, absolutely unique, very expressionate and multifunctional thing you call your face? evolution? law of physics? but why? why do each one of us of our little 6-billion+ population have such a totally unique 'look' and 'personality' when all the monkeys have done well without? mind you, i'm just talking about
How? Molecular and developmental biology. Why? TOE. Sexual selection. Natural selection.
Sorry for the quote mess:
To Kismet
It's not just that current science cannot replicate those "spiritual" phenomena, but no believer can ever conceive any possible way to replicate, to "prove" those experiences. Strange isn't it?
Not really, that depend allot on what sort of experience we are talking about here. A feeling of the Divines presence for example, that is a bit hard to replicate, that just happens, I mean do you know how to replicate that just plain old good feeling one sometimes have when one just know that to day will be a good day, or the excitement you felt seeing that Christmas tree with gifts under it as a child? Such feelings are just feelings, and I have not idea how to replicate a feeling, nor how some scientist should be able to measure those feelings if I managed to.
You don't need to replicate feelings, because...
Then one have psychic flashes, communications with Spirits and so on, by it's very nature it just comes when it want to come, not very strange that one have not been able to force such experiences in a lab very often. But then one have things like healing, telepathy and so on, and many of these things have been tested in a lab, with good results.
By the way I'm pretty sure none of those have been ever replicated. I can be swayed by evidence, however. But I'd like to see references to established and peer-reviewed journals. Actually, I'm pretty sure that a very popular form of healing, i.e. healing through praying for people, has been tested and failed. Look up the Harvard prayer experiment. Praying does not improve outcomes. In fact those who were prayed for recovered slower.
I see no reason why such things can not be investigated by science as it is direct and measurable, however a feeling of holiness or Divinity, how will you test for that?
Well, you don\'t need to replicate those feelings, because they\'re immaterial*, but that\'s also the reason why they do not influence the physical world and make no predictions. A thought experiment: Let\'s say I feel like the emperor of China; Sure I\'m fine to feel that way, but if I think that the Chinese are going to worship me then I\'m making a testable hypothesis. Do you make a testable hypothesis? If you don\'t, then your belief does not matter to anyone else then you and it cannot even matter to anyone. If you, however, argue that \"spiritual\" people are somehow healthier, happier, more capable, intelligent, special, what you have; then we can talk about those predictions (although, we know already from experience that epidemiology is pretty tricky in that regard).
*for the simplicity of this argument. Let's ignore the fact that they're [believed to be] very material and some future and very complicated experimental design might allow us to "assess" thoughts and feelings.
You are free to believe in spirituality (if we define it as things that cannot be proven by science), but you should acknowledge that it is just another form of supersition. It cannot exist on equal footing with science.
Why should I believe that? I do not agree that this is the case. Is not that a bit like a Christian saying, sure you can believe your silly Pagan beliefs as long as you acknowledge that it is only a flawed little system we by law can not stop you from believing in? I mean that is the same as me saying sure you can believe modern science as long as you accept that it is only another form of alchemy and can never stand on equal footing with a belief in Gods and magick.
This is a pretty strange comparison considering that science works the way it is supposed to work, while Alchemy doesn't and considering that there's no proof that any Gods or magic exist. Understandably there's pretty much worldwide consensus that science does what it is advertised to do.
Why not have a little more respect for what others believe and there would be allot less hostility in the world, let us face it, not of us have the one and single truth, just different systems with which to try to understand the world around us.
I think that accusation is neither fair nor evidence-based. My policy is that of vehement, non-violent opposition to beliefs which I consider superstition and thus potentially detrimental to society. Non-violent opposition and contempt towards muder, wars and violence is also a basic tennet of both the Humanist and Atheist movement (but only because the latter mostly subscribe to Humanism or similar philosophies; atheism per se is just the lack of a theistic belief). I don't need to respect your "religion" or your other beliefs to respect your rights (your right to live, your right to freedom, etc) and to live a peceaful life. In fact I do not respect your beliefs as I find them silly. It has been long argued that personal beliefs are sacred and exempt from criticism. "New Atheism" tries to smash this misconception and rightly so. Any belief that is made public or can be considered a threat is open to debate (thus also open to ridicule); as long as you obey the laws, that is, e.g. libel-, slander laws (and I do not mean English libel laws, haha!) Blaming my opinion for hostility in the world, which I take to mean actual violence, unfair oppression, etc; is not really the way to go. It would require oppression of freedom of speech to silence us anyway.
And as such no good Sir I do not aknowledge your system as superior to mine.
I'm not sure if I understand correctly. Perhaps because my original post unfortunately used rather vague terminology. When I say that spirituality and religion cannot exist on equal footing with science, I'm saying that they cannot provide the answers which science seeks. This, I'm pretty sure, is worldwide consensus among scholars: most of them subscribe to NOMA after all; Religion according to them is a "different" way of knowing. I really do hope that you will concede at least that science is superior when it comes to scientific answers. Do you? However, I'm also going one step further. Many people subscribe to NOMA and accomodationalisms (e.g. supporting something like theistic evolution), which I do not. I can only second Dakwins, Myers, et al. -- science and spirituality & religion (from here on I will abbreviate those two just as "superstition" or "belief") are inherently incompatible and I consider supersitition (i.e. your belief) to be "inferior" (whatever that means) or to be more exact: dangerous and detrimental to society. Do you know why they're incompatible? Because most such beliefs happen to infringe upon science way too often, they're in constant conflict with science because many if not all of them make testable predictions which are refuted by science. Many beliefs encourage uncritical groupthink and discourage evidence-based research and are the exact opposite of science. If your beliefs are wishy-washy enough to make no predictions and not discourage scientific endeavours, then you are probably better served by frank philosophy anyway.
Then again my wording was pretty bad, to rephrase: If you believe that "spirituality (if we define it as things that cannot be proven by science)" can somehow influence the material world, then I'm extremely worried and I will do everything to mitigate the negative influence that your superstitious beliefs might have (you see, I'm not trying to convince those who cannot be convinced, but I'm arguing to the benefit of those "fence sitters" who do not know how persuasive and plausible the Atheistic argument really is).
Yes, a war exists; it's a war against supersitition and those who argue that supersitition has the same rights as science.
Go to a meeting of some fanatical members of any religion and you will find statements tossed around that is surprisingly similar to the one you utter here.
Indeed we (i.e. the people believing in the scientific, evidence-based method) are often surprisingly true to our beliefs, very similar to fanatics. The major difference is, however, that we're easily swayed by convincing evidence. They're not. About the war terminology: I'm not sure if you live in the US, I do not, but I happen to read many US science/sceptic blogs and I'm absolutely convinced that there is a "war" going on. They're fighting the good fight against supersitition; against vaccine denialisms, against pushing creationism in schools, against fooling dying people into buying homeopathic "remedies", etc. Still we have our own problems in Europe.
Now you are off course entitled to your opinion, however I think that by being so sure that you are right and everyone else is wrong that you miss out on allot in life. And when someone declare war on other people's beliefs I call that fanaticism, and fanaticism now that is truly something worth fighting against. I see no reason for a onflict between science and religion, though there might be a conflict between fanatics on both sides that can not accept that perhaps neither sit with the whole and complete truth.
Yeah, as expected you subscribe to some form of NOMA/accomodationalism. I don't.
How? Molecular and developmental biology. Why? TOE. Sexual selection. Natural selection.
still doesn't explain the hows and whys. how come, biology works so perfectly? why is there any selection in the first place? and theory of everything is, well, just that, a theory.
How? Molecular and developmental biology. Why? TOE. Sexual selection. Natural selection.
still doesn't explain the hows and whys. how come, biology works so perfectly? why is there any selection in the first place? and theory of everything is, well, just that, a theory.
In this case I meant TOE=Theory of evolution. Just FYI; evolution is not a theory, it's an observable fact. Confusingly the theory aspect pertains to the mechanisms by which evolution takes place. E.g. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural (sexual) selection. A theory in scientific terms also means something pretty well established and supported by the evidence.
The point is, I don't think it's right to look at the universe in awe and simply postulate a god to explain all the things we don't understand. First, history teaches us that advancing a "god of the gaps" argument never works in the long term, but more importantly, why not work to answer those questions the hard way, i.e. using scientific inquiry? That's why I believe that non-scientific "beliefs" are detrimental, they silence inquiry and human curiosity. I mean why should I investigate something if I can simply cry "godidit"? Why not wait for ultimate proof before shouting "creator"? If you are still wondering how those things may have come about, you should research the anthropic principle. It's a parsimonous and elegant explanation how the universe may be exactly the way it is, without any gods. It does not disprove the existence of god, but it disproves a very popular argument for god (i.e. "the universe is too perfect to have come about 'by chance'" you know the cosmological constant and such). That's why some level of agnosticism is always prudent.
If we are agnostic, one of the big questions is, what probability do we attribute to the two options "some form of creator" and "no creator". I'm definitely not talking about abrahamitic or interventionists gods, which have been made very improbable by science and common sense; so we can be rather safely a-religious. In the end we're back to the fact that a universe with a creator is the same as without one... more on deism later.
How? Molecular and developmental biology. Why? TOE. Sexual selection. Natural selection.
still doesn't explain the hows and whys. how come, biology works so perfectly? why is there any selection in the first place? and theory of everything is, well, just that, a theory.
In this case I meant TOE=Theory of evolution. Just FYI; evolution is not a theory, it's an observable fact. Confusingly the theory aspect pertains to the mechanisms by which evolution takes place. E.g. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural (sexual) selection. A theory in scientific terms also means something pretty well established and supported by the evidence.
The point is, I don't think it's right to look at the universe in awe and simply postulate a god to explain all the things we don't understand. First, history teaches us that advancing a "god of the gaps" argument never works in the long term, but more importantly, why not work to answer those questions the hard way, i.e. using scientific inquiry? That's why I believe that non-scientific "beliefs" are detrimental, they silence inquiry and human curiosity. I mean why should I investigate something if I can simply cry "godidit"? Why not wait for ultimate proof before shouting "creator"? If you are still wondering how those things may have come about, you should research the anthropic principle. It's a parsimonous and elegant explanation how the universe may be exactly the way it is, without any gods. It does not disprove the existence of god, but it disproves a very popular argument for god (i.e. "the universe is too perfect to have come about 'by chance'" you know the cosmological constant and such). That's why some level of agnosticism is always prudent.
If we are agnostic, one of the big questions is, what probability do we attribute to the two options "some form of creator" and "no creator". I'm definitely not talking about abrahamitic or interventionists gods, which have been made very improbable by science and common sense; so we can be rather safely a-religious. In the end we're back to the fact that a universe with a creator is the same as without one... more on deism later.
i'm a little bit familiar with the anthropic reasonings and it's multiverses, which for me personally would be just more proof for intelligent design since we are supposed to live in such a fine-tuned universe. i'm surprised though you would bring that up since it's so scientifically unprovable.
and you saying that the awe and wonderment for all this creation numbs our curiosity is simply not true, i think einstein would really disagree with you on that one. nothing wrong with being a lil thankful while on ones quest for truth
All right, then no I do not believe there is such a being, all knowing, perhaps, all seeing, perhaps all powerful, I do not think anything is completely all powerful, really, really powerful, might seam all powerful by our standards, yes, but all powerful as in their is no other, no I do not think that. All loving, perhaps a God could be, but if you are talking about the Christian, God then He is definitely not all loving, at least not if you look at the Bible, let us see He is said to punish all women by horrible pain at childbirth for one woman not obeying Him. He made a bet with the Devil, giving all the shit he could time of the Job just to test the man's loyalty. He killed scores of innocent children in Egypt when he ordered the death of all the firstborn. He cursed mankind to have finite lives because two humans disobeyed Him, He wiped out a few nations which was not to His liking, sent a flood to kill most of the people in the world because He was unhappy with how they lived. And when Moses looses his temper and say that I have led you through the dessert to the Jews, and keep in mind here that Moses had given up his entire life to God's service, then God punishes him by killing him before he reached the promised land. I could go on, if you go by the Bible, the Torah or the Quran then God is described as a cruel, tyrannical ruler who kill and maim those that do not do exactly as he say. That do not sound all loving to me.
Perhaps the worlds religions hava not satisfactorily described him? Perhaps he is not all powerfull but all good? or all powerfull but not all good. Perhaps words and concepts we have do not describe him adequately? This no reason to deny his existance. Obviously this sucks on a personal level as all of us would like to mold him to our image. perhaps "Ehyeh asher ehyeh" more acurately describes him.
Perhaps the worlds religions hava not satisfactorily described him? Perhaps he is not all powerfull but all good? or all powerfull but not all good. Perhaps words and concepts we have do not describe him adequately? This no reason to deny his existance. Obviously this sucks on a personal level as all of us would like to mold him to our image. perhaps "Ehyeh asher ehyeh" more acurately describes him.
But why are you clinging to such a strong hope that God is even real at all in the first place? Why does there have to be a God to explain things that we just don't know yet? Factor also in human beings tendencies to be extremely irrational at times and it's no wonder we've thought up God's and mythology to calm our fears about death, and humanities purpose in this life.
If you are not clinging to that hope than I may have misread you as I just read a partial part of this thread.
Just how omnipotent? More potent than even the laws of logic allow? So is this god only 99% potent? How can he be allgood? You cannot want a child and a molester to be BOTH happy at the same time. Only one of them can be happy in the end...
i'm a little bit familiar with the anthropic reasonings and it's multiverses, which for me personally would be just more proof for intelligent design since we are supposed to live in such a fine-tuned universe.
Yeah, I get it. Anything that we can imagine would be just proof of more "intelligent design". But could you avoid to use the word intelligent design. The term is normally reserved for a particularly abominable movement that tries to mingle a theistic god with science. I thought you are speaking in deistic terms.
i'm surprised though you would bring that up since it's so scientifically unprovable.
Very similar to gods, which is my point: Gods are irrelevant. Only evidence counts.
and you saying that the awe and wonderment for all this creation numbs our curiosity is simply not true, i think einstein would really disagree with you on that one.
I merely said that it seems that your awe numbed your curiosity and that it may apply to some other people. Not necessarily Einstein. He was a deist if anything, but I don't think that he was so naive as to believe that there must be a god.
nothing wrong with being a lil thankful while on ones quest for truth
Why are you constantly anthropomising the universe and "god"? Why should I be thankful? Who cares? This god person? How do you know he doesn't want me to spit on his creation and rape little children? There is nothing, no evidence either way. We are left in this cold, heartless world and have to figure everything out on our own (and we can only do it using the scientific method...)
Just how omnipotent? More potent than even the laws of logic allow? So is this god only 99% potent? How can he be allgood? You cannot want a child and a molester to be BOTH happy at the same time. Only one of them can be happy in the end...
Yeah, I get it. Anything that we can imagine would be just proof of more "intelligent design". But could you avoid to use the word intelligent design. The term is normally reserved for a particularly abominable movement that tries to mingle a theistic god with science. I thought you are speaking in deistic terms.
Very similar to gods, which is my point: Gods are irrelevant. Only evidence counts.
I merely said that it seems that your awe numbed your curiosity and that it may apply to some other people. Not necessarily Einstein. He was a deist if anything, but I don't think that he was so naive as to believe that there must be a god.
Why are you constantly anthropomising the universe and "god"? Why should I be thankful? Who cares? This god person? How do you know he doesn't want me to spit on his creation and rape little children? There is nothing, no evidence either way. We are left in this cold, heartless world and have to figure everything out on our own (and we can only do it using the scientific method...)
Yeah, I get it. Anything that we can imagine would be just proof of more "intelligent design". But could you avoid to use the word intelligent design. The term is normally reserved for a particularly abominable movement that tries to mingle a theistic god with science. I thought you are speaking in deistic terms.
i didn't know about this movement, so thanks for the up on this, but you don't have to imagine anything, just open your eyes and see the 'magic' of design. pleasing to the eyes, the ears and the mind but seriously, do you really believe, that all this complex perfection around and inside of us has happened by pure chance out of nothing? just cause? well, more awe for me then.
Very similar to gods, which is my point: Gods are irrelevant. Only evidence counts.
huh?
I merely said that it seems that your awe numbed your curiosity and that it may apply to some other people. Not necessarily Einstein. He was a deist if anything, but I don't think that he was so naive as to believe that there must be a god.
that's quite an assumption for you not knowing me, but to still your inquiring mind, it has, if anything, really spurred my curiosity and hunger for knowledge of what's going on around here. and it seems, the more i learn, the more wonder i get. really a beautiful trip.
as far as Einstein is concerned, i quote: "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
Why are you constantly anthropomising the universe and "god"? Why should I be thankful? Who cares? This god person? How do you know he doesn't want me to spit on his creation and rape little children? There is nothing, no evidence either way. We are left in this cold, heartless world and have to figure everything out on our own (and we can only do it using the scientific method...)
i'm sorry to hear that, kismet, that you have nothing to be thankful for. but come on man, i think there's plenty of very logical evidence, that raping little children is WRONG, and i'm not even talking morally. your very animal 'instinct' can tell you that, don't even need no scientific method. even if one is allergic to the word God.
i guess in the end it's whatever floats your boat, but i will share a secret with you and you put that, where it feels good: the more thankful i have become, the more cared for i feel. placebo maybe?
Is there like a religious gene that just makes people drift off into irrational dreaming as a way to cope with life? God is a mythological creature and shouldn't even be mentioned because hes the equivalent to a fiction children story to make kids feel happy about life.
Also stop comparing things to being like a God or the equivalent to a God if you don't believe in God it just doesn't make sense.
If God was not powerful enough not to create any suffering and still follow his plan than he is not all powerful. Lol, these counters and counter counters and thought and babbling can go on for millennium. Why? Because it's abstract hogwash! Anything someone says using logical can be countered with 'mystical reasoning' and 'the divine'. Take out logic and you are left with verbal garbage.
The artist may be wrong in what he believe yes, however he might also be right so who know if he is ignorant of the real truth or not, he have taken a question where no one can truly know one way or another, only speculate and believe and he choose to have faith in something that made his life better. If it where me, and I could not know one way or another, I would rather choose faith in something that made my life better than faith in something that made it worse, when all I could get was faith, no definitive yes or no, it is this way or that.
You see to me the artist is not playing make believe, it might as well be true perhaps he is the reincarnation of this successful artist, no one can know for sure, but having faith in that bettered his life and so is a good thing, proof or no. My point is it do not matter if he really was a reincarnation, or just opened up something in his mind believing he was, what matters is the end result, this man's life became better.
This is a pretty strange comparison considering that science works the way it is supposed to work, while Alchemy doesn't and considering that there's no proof that any Gods or magic exist. Understandably there's pretty much worldwide consensus that science does what it is advertised to do.
Science is a way to examine something, it is not a thing in itself that can or can not work, it is a method for finding knowledge. Alchemy is an art, I do not really see what they have to do with one another. And my dear how do you know that Alchemy do not work if you have never tried it?
I think that accusation is neither fair nor evidence-based. My policy is that of vehement, non-violent opposition to beliefs which I consider superstition and thus potentially detrimental to society. Non-violent opposition and contempt towards muder, wars and violence is also a basic tennet of both the Humanist and Atheist movement (but only because the latter mostly subscribe to Humanism or similar philosophies; atheism per se is just the lack of a theistic belief).
And how do this make my statement that your complete lack of respect for what others believe make you in the same boat as others that think the same from their own point of view? There really is not difference between a Christian saying you are evil and your ideas are wrong since you do not believe like me and an Atheist saying you are stupid and your ideas are superstition because you do not believe like me.
I don't need to respect your "religion" or your other beliefs to respect your rights (your right to live, your right to freedom, etc) and to live a peceaful life.
What about my right to believe as as I want, and not just what one group or another approve of?
In fact I do not respect your beliefs as I find them silly. It has been long argued that personal beliefs are sacred and exempt from criticism. "New Atheism" tries to smash this misconception and rightly so. Any belief that is made public or can be considered a threat is open to debate (thus also open to ridicule); as long as you obey the laws, that is, e.g. libel-, slander laws (and I do not mean English libel laws, haha!)
You are free to ridicule whoever you want, but in my opinion this make you a very short sighted and small human being. And while I respect your belief that there exist nothing supernatural. I do not respect your ridiculing the ideas of others, that is childish and just say far more about you, than about any belief system you direct your criticism against. You see debate to not equal insults, and those of us who have mentally made it out of kindergarten have learned this.
Blaming my opinion for hostility in the world, which I take to mean actual violence, unfair oppression, etc; is not really the way to go. It would require oppression of freedom of speech to silence us anyway.
I do blame human being's tendency to not accept that others believe differently than them and the often demonstrated inability of many, yourself included to accept that people are different, without labeling those differences as dangerous or wrong for much unrest in this world. If we where to offer other people a bit more respect, I honestly do believe this would be a more peaceful and far better world.
I'm not sure if I understand correctly. Perhaps because my original post unfortunately used rather vague terminology. When I say that spirituality and religion cannot exist on equal footing with science, I'm saying that they cannot provide the answers which science seeks. This, I'm pretty sure, is worldwide consensus among scholars: most of them subscribe to NOMA after all; Religion according to them is a "different" way of knowing. I really do hope that you will concede at least that science is superior when it comes to scientific answers. Do you?
Science is a method of gaining knowledge, it have nothing to do with religion or Spirituality, if science is used to prove the existence of a molecule or of a God do not matter. Science can not be either superior or inferior to religion as it is a method to gain knowledge about the world around us, nothing more, nothing less. Combining the two is like asking what tastes better of a juicy beef and apple pie there is no answer, they are complete different animals. Religion is not based on scientific method and as such can not give scientific answers, though science can give scientific answers about religion.
Do you know why they're incompatible? Because most such beliefs happen to infringe upon science way too often, they're in constant conflict with science because many if not all of them make testable predictions which are refuted by science.
How can a belief be in conflict with a method of gaining knowledge? Both religion and science try to find answers about this world, and then it is up to the individual which answer or both one want to accept.
Then again my wording was pretty bad, to rephrase: If you believe that "spirituality (if we define it as things that cannot be proven by science)" can somehow influence the material world, then I'm extremely worried and I will do everything to mitigate the negative influence that your superstitious beliefs might have (you see, I'm not trying to convince those who cannot be convinced, but I'm arguing to the benefit of those "fence sitters" who do not know how persuasive and plausible the Atheistic argument really is).
I see, so you are preaching, just like a Catholic Priest or a member of Jehovah Witnesses are preaching. Enjoy.
In conclusion. I do not see a conflict here, I do not see a war. I am perfectly content to let everyone believe as they may for I think one of us will ever find the one and only truth, so no matter what we decide to place our faith in, it is just that, faith, nothing more.
In this case I meant TOE=Theory of evolution. Just FYI; evolution is not a theory, it's an observable fact. Confusingly the theory aspect pertains to the mechanisms by which evolution takes place. E.g. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural (sexual) selection. A theory in scientific terms also means something pretty well established and supported by the evidence.
I do not think anyone here deny evolution, however that some of us is asking is why did it happen? Was it just random, or was there perhaps an intelligence behind evolution? Was there some God or force guiding nature to the way it is to day. You see believing in a God do not mean one have to believe that there sit some magickal dude with a white beard someplace pointing at the world and poof things happen, perhaps there is Something influencing the world in more subtle ways, have you ever considered that?
That's why I believe that non-scientific "beliefs" are detrimental, they silence inquiry and human curiosity. I mean why should I investigate something if I can simply cry "godidit"?
I have heard this from several Atheists, and I show a complete lack of understanding for religion. I have dedicated my life to the Spiritual, to understand it, to understand how it work. I do not sit on my ass and say God did it. try to find out how it happened. What would make you think I am less curious even if I use a different method to gain knowledge than you do?
Why not wait for ultimate proof before shouting "creator"?
I do not believe there is an ultimate truth, nor an ultimate proof, only likelihoods and assumptions.
If you are still wondering how those things may have come about, you should research the anthropic principle. It's a parsimonous and elegant explanation how the universe may be exactly the way it is, without any gods. It does not disprove the existence of god, but it disproves a very popular argument for god (i.e. "the universe is too perfect to have come about 'by chance'" you know the cosmological constant and such). That's why some level of agnosticism is always prudent.
Yes here is one theory, one may be, how do it make one less curious and inquisitive to seek out other possibilities to? I would think not being content with one possible answer would make one more curious than if one accept one idea right away.
Just to step in this debate for a sec. My dad always used to say "religion is believing in what you know just ain't so!" I always liked that one As for my opinion on the matter, and I know you're both dying to hear it; I don't have a problem with religion as long as it doesn't subjegate or oppress good science from occurring. I do think that the more one thinks about it and studies what is known on things like conscious thought and how the brain works, you start to realize and seriously doubt in things like a soul and eventually one comes to the realization that religion is more wishful thinking than anything truthful in anyway. It just never made sense to me from an early age how we could just invent some tale that sounded really cool and made us feel better and simply than adopt that as probable truth or even fact. It's equivelant to me saying if I really try hard I can grow wings one day.
It's equivelant to me saying if I really try hard I can grow wings one day.
How do you know that you can not? Have you tried?
On a serious note, what make you so sure the mythologies in the various religions are made up, do you have any proof that they are just made up to make people feel better? How do you know they did not happen, or at least are primitive people's interpretation of things that did actually happen? I am not saying you are wrong here, but I am saying how do you know what you are saying to be true?
On a serious note, what make you so sure the mythologies in the various religions are made up, do you have any proof that they are just made up to make people feel better? How do you know they did not happen, or at least are primitive people's interpretation of things that did actually happen? I am not saying you are wrong here, but I am saying how do you know what you are saying to be true?
but that's the point and beauty of faith, that nobody can prove or disprove anything. you just gotta believe. otherwise it wouldn't make sense.
fact is, there's REASON, and while some ridicule it (until proven otherwise), others use it to control people and some just enjoy, share and learn from it. but why it is there in the first place, we just don't know. and i don't think we will anytime soon.
You Are Using Ad Block Plus or some other advert blocking software. More info here: "https://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/84454-please-disable-adblockers/
LongeCity
