Anyone who's been on this site more than a few days probably knows of several people and blogs where those who have a religion clash with those who do not. Frankly, I can't understand why either side continues to run head first into a brick wall trying to convince the other that they're right. It's gotten to the point, though, that I feel I have to say something. It probably won't make much of a difference, but hey, I can dream, right?
In This Corner...
Before I dive in, I need to establish a short term that I can use for the separate groups.
Theists -- In general, this group would include anyone that believes in some sort of higher power. Specifically, I'll be referring to the subgroup that insists they can logically prove the existence of their preferred facet of said higher power.
Atheists -- This one's pretty self-explanatory for the most part, but in the context of this blog, it refers to anyone that is on the side of "there is no tangible evidence to support the existence of a higher power, so I have no reason to believe that the higher power exists," regardless of whether they identify themselves as "atheist" (I'm using the term because that is how most of the people I've seen more or less identify).
Please don't be nitpicky. If you want to get technical, I fall into the "Theists" category, but I don't try to logically prove the existence of the deities in which I believe. No, the labels may not precisely describe your beliefs, but I'm not going to constantly refer to the groups as "those that see no tangible evidence of the existence of a higher being" and "those that try to logically prove the existence of a higher being." Don't like it? Too bad.
And they're off!
Ok, now that we got that out of the way, let's get to the actual meat of the post. I've seen a dozen different entries on the topic of proving or presenting logical evidence of the existence of "god," and a thousand comments that invariably follow. From reading all the blogs and the comments, as well as the research I've done and the experiences I've had, I agree with the atheists -- there is no tangible evidence of the existence of any deity. Now, you'll, of course, note that I had earlier put myself in the theists category. Why is that?
Because I make no effort to try to provide tangible evidence. I don't believe that there is tangible evidence to provide, so why waste my time?
How can you believe in a higher power without evidence?
Simple, my own experiences. I've experienced a number of events that I cannot reconcile scientifically and can only attribute to something science cannot yet explain. However, I don't expect others to believe what I believe because of my experiences. My experiences are not theirs, their experiences have led them to believe otherwise, and that's fine.
Faith is Not Science
Here is where I believe the underlying issue is. Both sides seem to think that the matter needs to be explained scientifically. Religion, however, is not science. It's philosophy. It has a lot of good lessons and guides, but it's not even the same league as science. It's like comparing hockey to baseball. It just doesn't work.
Trying to scientifically prove why some people believe in a higher power is, at least to me, like trying to scientifically prove why some people can paint spectacular paintings or come up with photorealistic works of art, while others, even those who are equally art-minded/"right-brained" couldn't do something like that if their life depended on it.
Religion and Science Strive to Answer Different Questions
Here's another fundamental difference between religion and science. In short, science strives to answer questions like "Can we do this?" whereas religion strives to answer questions like "Should we do this?"
For example:
Science: Can we travel through time? {Insert complex math and explanations as to why and how time travel is or isn't possible.}
Religion: Should be travel through time? {Insert lengthy explanations as to why time travel should or shouldn't be utilized if possible. Such topics would probably include things like the Butterfly Effect and whatnot.}
Even one of the biggest points of contention between religion and science -- evolution -- actually derives from two different questions. Evolution doesn't answer the question "how did this all start?" it asks "how did everything become so diverse?" Religion tries more to answer "how did this all start?" Though, admittedly, it has bled over into wanting to explain diversity, at least to some extent, but not enough, I believe, for them to fully cross paths. They're still two different things (especially when religion repeatedly wants to rope theories like "the Big Bang" into evolution).
Religion is Abstract, Science is Concrete
When I say "science is concrete," I'm talking almost exclusively about the hard sciences -- math (yes, I consider math a science in this context, it's the basis of pretty much all your other sciences and plays an integral role in science as a whole; it's also what many would consider a "nerdy" topic), physics, astronomy, astrophysics, quantum mechanics, chemistry etc., as well as (to a slightly lesser extent) biology, as opposed to the "soft" sciences of psychology and sociology.
Science revolves around, and relies upon, tangible, measurable data. Cold, hard, facts. If it can't be measured and explained and tested using the Scientific Process, then it doesn't belong in the science lab.
Like I've mentioned earlier, religion is a philosophy. It's ideologies and ideals. Religion is about as concrete and tangible as the philosophical works of Plato or Socrates.
"God" is Representative of the Unknown
Have you ever noticed how the more we learn about the world around us, the fewer the number of things that are contributed to "miracles" or "acts of god?"
This is because religion attempts to explain the things that science has not yet been able to explain. People used to think that you didn't fall off the earth because a god held you there. Before that, people thought that a god rode his chariot across the sky, carrying the sun.
The more we learn, the less we attribute to a higher power, but as long as there are things to learn, there will always be gods.
Or, as Arthur C. Clarke put it -- "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Frankly, I can't understand why either side continues to run head first into a brick wall trying to convince the other that they're right.
For me at least, its because--quite simply--the theists to whom you refer aren't the real target of my arguments. In my opinion, the specific sub-group who "insists they can logically prove the existence of their preferred facet of said higher power" have already demonstrated a basic inability to think and express themselves in a rational manner. I don't realistically expect people of that sort to change their mind, regardless of the style or substance of the arguments offered. But, those folks do serve as valuable tools that can be used to show other people who still have the ability to think rationally why one should think twice before allowing oneself to fall prey to neither the well meaning fools nor the not-so-well meaning charlatans who drape themselves in robes of religious zealotry.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
:yay: (something is up, I can't see smileys, and I wanted to post the big clapping one.)
"those folks do server as valuable tools that can be used to show other people who still have the ability to think rationally why one should think twice before allowing oneself to fall prey to neither the well meaning fools nor the not-so-well meaning charlatans who drape themselves in robes of religious zealotry."
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
But, those folks do serve as valuable tools that can be used to show other people who still have the ability to think rationally why one should think twice before allowing oneself to fall prey to neither the well meaning fools nor the not-so-well meaning charlatans who drape themselves in robes of religious zealotry.
If by that you mean them convincing people that the existence of deity(ies) can be proven logically/scientifically, then okay. If you mean you want to convince people that believing in deity is illogical/wrong because there is no objective evidence, then you've completely missed the point of this entire blog entry.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
"show other people who still have the ability to think rationally why one should think twice before allowing oneself to fall prey to neither the well meaning fools nor the not-so-well meaning charlatans who drape themselves in robes of religious zealotry,"
I think that what Blackout meant was that those who *still* have the ability to think rationally, or as I would say, "openly," or even "critically," but really it all means the same thing, those capable of putting *truth* before all, are able to see through the charades of predictable religious intolerance. (In this statement, "religious" is the adjective, and intolerance is the verb/noun. I am referring to the intolerance of a good many religious folks.)
Whether the intolerance is a result of ignorance or intentional deceipt, the effect is the same, and it is up to us to penetrate these man made barriers to *truth.*
if you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
No...I get the point of your blog, entirely. I believe that it is possible to have an honest disagreement on the matter of supernatural existence. There are those here at ProU who have strong religious beliefs and with whom I regularly chat without either of us falling into the categories you describe, above. The difference is that the "relatively rational" crowd lacks the hysterical hostility that transforms a believer into a zealot.
But here's the rub...even relatively rational theists are still thinking and arguing irrationally, whenever they take on and try to explain their religious beliefs. And yes, that includes you my friend. And I think that if you turned the same critical eye towards your religious beliefs that you use to approach other subjects, you would be forced to agree.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"But here's the rub...even relatively rational theists are still thinking and arguing irrationally, whenever they take on and try to explain their religious beliefs. And yes, that includes you my friend. And I think that if you turned the same critical eye towards your religious beliefs that you use to approach other subjects, you would be forced to agree."
I have been forced to agree under your rules, and I still bother to try to explain my own spiritual beliefs. I do not say religious because I do not engage in rituals or pre-written prayers and I do not attend organized services but occasionally for someone else's benefit.
Still, I have to conclude that even though you and Logic, our mutual friend, reject my, dragonwolf's, and many others' beliefs, and dismiss them as "irrational," I, for one do not let that stop me from enjoying and exploring my experiences which I consider to be spiritual of origin.
I have no desire or reason to oppress anyone with my ideas, but what I do enjoy is a positive response from someone who does identify with me. Essentially, if I share, i am sharing for the benefit of those who are seeking themselves, and find themselves validated by sharing in experiences that I choose to share.
You have insinuated yourself into that process, and I do not object, and have been greatly entertained, as well as informed by your insights. Still, I will not ever stop attempting to describe my beliefs, even as they change, just because they have been rendered "Irrational."
I value exploration, and other perspectives are a requirement for any true exploration of anything. You and anyone else who is so inclined are more than welcome to assert your own opinions, challenges and questions.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
I have been forced to agree under your rules, and I still bother to try to explain my own spiritual beliefs. I do not say religious because I do not engage in rituals or pre-written prayers and I do not attend organized services but occasionally for someone else's benefit.
This is a semantic evasion. Changing the terms and activities surrounding your supernatural beliefs does not change the basic assertions on which those beliefs are based. You can spin the Lazy Susan all you want, but sooner or later it will always roll back around to the same dish of baseless assertions followed by a side of logical fallacies.
I, for one do not let that stop me from enjoying and exploring my experiences which I consider to be spiritual of origin.
Lots of people find enjoyment in fiction. I like comic books. I read them voraciously (even today, at age for...nevermind). I enjoy the artwork. I feel uplifted by the moral lessons and challenged by the moral quandaries presented in the stories. I even sometimes seek to emulate my favorite heroes (and anti-heroes) in my own life from time to time. But, I also know that the characters in those books are not real. Loosing that grip on the first rung of reality is what starts the slide down into madness and zealotry.
I have no desire or reason to oppress anyone with my ideas,
One could argue that spreading falsehoods disguised as truth is intellectually oppressive, but that's another argument entirely. (:P)
but what I do enjoy is a positive response from someone who does identify with me.
Of course you do. Finding someone to agree with you re-enforces the lie.
Essentially, if I share, i am sharing for the benefit of those who are seeking themselves, and find themselves validated by sharing in experiences that I choose to share.
We've had discussions before, and you've defended your positions in the past a bit too agressively for me to accept the idea that you were just "sharing." Based on some of our previous discussions, I would suggest that your past defenses of your beliefs were just a little bit too aggressive to be simple "sharing." Of course, its perfectly natural to be emotionally vested in the ideas that matter to you. I certainly am. But to remain rational about such things, there is I think a certain degree of perspective in regards to reality that one must maintain.
Still, I will not ever stop attempting to describe my beliefs, even as they change, just because they have been rendered "Irrational."
I don't want you to "stop," explaining your beliefs. I just want to you examine them a bit more deeply, and with a little more objectivity.
TTFN,
Blackout
"The unexamined life is not worth living" ~ Socrates
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
This is a semantic evasion. Changing the terms and activities surrounding your supernatural beliefs does not change the basic assertions on which those beliefs are based. You can spin the Lazy Susan all you want, but sooner or later it will always roll back around to the same dish of baseless assertions followed by a side of logical fallacies.
Spirituality: Concern for that which is unseen and intangible, as opposed to physical or mundane; Appreciation for religious values
Religion: an institution to express belief in a divine power
While closely related, religion and spirituality are technically two different things.
Also, changing of definitions isn't simply semantic evasion, it's linguistic evolution (and yes, it does apply here, because Turtlesuds isn't the only one that differentiates between religion and spirituality).
For example, the word "geek" originally meant "a carnival sideshow performer who bites heads off chickens, bats, or other animals." However, the meaning has since been changed to mean something more along the lines of a highly intelligent, socially introverted person and is often associated with people who are technically savvy.
To go a step further, nerd also has a very similar definition, but generally has a different connotation from geek.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Why, you ask?
Spirituality: Concern for that which is unseen and intangible, as opposed to physical or mundane; Appreciation for religious values
Religion: an institution to express belief in a divine power
Because both of these definitions when approached in the context of this discussion (i.e. as they relate to the intellectual conflict between theists and atheists) assert a belief in something for which there is no acutal, objective evidence, i.e. supernatural forces and/or beings. Both concepts fail to pass rational and logical muster for the same reasons. One of the terms (i.e. religion) just has a bit more social baggage attached to it.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I have been forced to agree under your rules, and I still bother to try to explain my own spiritual beliefs. I do not say religious because I do not engage in rituals or pre-written prayers and I do not attend organized services but occasionally for someone else's benefit.
In the context of Turtlesuds' response, I beg to differ.
In the context of my original post, yes, I could/should have been more clear on it. However, it's generally members of the institution of religions that are the ones that blindly try to argue that there's logic to it (at least in my experience).
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
it's generally members of the institution of religions that are the ones that blindly try to argue that there's logic to it (at least in my experience).
...as the folks to whom you refer in this comment. That does not, however, mean that you are not guilty of the basic fallacies that those folks employ when defending their beliefs. You' just not a d*** about it.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
because I have more pressing matters at hand in my "physical" world.
Thank you for response. I am always inclined to growth by your challenges.
There is a lot in your post, so I will reply selectively to those which ask for a simpler explanation.
"Lots of people find enjoyment in fiction. I like comic books. I read them voraciously (even today, at age for...nevermind). I enjoy the artwork. I feel uplifted by the moral lessons and challenged by the moral quandaries presented in the stories. I even sometimes seek to emulate my favorite heroes (and anti-heroes) in my own life from time to time. But, I also know that the characters in those books are not real. Loosing that grip on the first rung of reality is what starts the slide down into madness and zealotry."
I know this about you. I followed a link you used to have as part of your signature that brought to some sort of RPG "world of warcraft" fantasy type site.
Losing grip on reality? I am not sure that I am guilty of that, but feel free to disagree. i think that I do mind sharing my "fantasies." At the same time, I don't think that I insist on living in my fantasies at the expense of others.
You sometimes seek to emulate your heroes? Me too.
When it comes to day to day, I am just like you, and a lot of other people.
"One could argue that spreading falsehoods disguised as truth is intellectually oppressive, but that's another argument entirely. (:P)"
Yes, and I believe that i have argued that before myself. But if we are talking about sharing personal fantasies, well then, you would need to call Tolkein intellectually oppressive, as well as Anne Rice.
My feeling is that people have a choice in what they read, and decide to believe. I can share my thoughts, feeling, ideas, and fantasies. That does not make me guilty of anything, other than exercising my right to Freedom of Speech.
Anyone who wishes may voice their disagreement, distaste, or dislike. It is all the same to me.
"you've defended your positions in the past a bit too agressively for me to accept the idea that you were just "sharing." Based on some of our previous discussions, I would suggest that your past defenses of your beliefs were just a little bit too aggressive to be simple "sharing."
You are not the first to accuse of me of bieng "aggressive," I believe the last description I encountered of myself was "biting," and "combative."
I will humbly ask of you the same thing I asked of the last person who felt this way, what did I say, and how was it "aggressive?"
I know that I have a tendency to come off this way, I have been told this in real life too.
I do not mean to. I get excited and passionate. I have no desire to make my voice heard at the expense of others. I am interested in open dialogue.
yes, I can get agitated, and respond harshly and too quickly. If I have done this with you, or in any thread where you felt this about me, I ask you to please share with me. That is the only way i can hope to become objective about myself.
How can anyone be totally aware of the effect they have on others 100% of the time? I do try to pay attention, and to be sensitive. But at the same time, i am not one to stay silent when I feel strongly. i am also known to bend, and change my stance when provided with information I did not have before. This quality alone, i believe, gives me more credibility than the average "believer."
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
But here's the rub...even relatively rational theists are still thinking and arguing irrationally, whenever they take on and try to explain their religious beliefs. And yes, that includes you my friend. And I think that if you turned the same critical eye towards your religious beliefs that you use to approach other subjects, you would be forced to agree.
It's because of that section of response that I believe you have missed the point of my original post. I never said, nor meant to imply, that such beliefs were rational or logical. In fact, I thought I made it quite clear of the opposite, as the was the entire point of post. Classical reasoning and logic require the subject of the premises to be true. In order for them to be true, they need to be proven so. The facets of religion cannot be proven one way or the other. Ergo, they are not "logical."
As for your assumption as to whether or not I've turned a critical eye on my beliefs, I have not fully disclosed my beliefs on this site, primarily because it's outside of the scope of ProU. So, you don't know whether I have or have not turned a critical eye on my beliefs. I have, actually, and because of such, I have either come to accept that I cannot, for one reason or another, explain the experiences I've had through science or logic (but which are undeniable truths to me), or have attempted to reconcile the things I believe. My beliefs have undergone a number of changes and one of the things that has changed the most in recent months are my views on Deity or "God" (I hate using the term "God" because it gives connotations of Jehovah, and I am not of the Abrahamic religions), because I am at a point of conflict of logic and experience.
The thing is, though, is that you assume the world around you is real because you can experience it. You can feel, hear, taste, smell, and/or see it. That is your proof, that is your logic. You assume it's all true and real because of your experiences. You make connections that other things are real, even if you haven't experienced them yourself because you've experienced other aspects of the things.
For example, you assume and accept that the galaxy Andromeda exists. Have you ever seen it? Well, unless you're an astronomer, probably not. However, you see the stars in the night sky and you've probably seen the far-off clusters from other parts of the Milky Way. Therefore, you assume the Andromeda exists, as well. And how do you know that the stars in the sky are stars? Again, if you're an astronomer, you might have seen them up-close with a long-range telescope, but if you're not an astronomer, you probably haven't. You know they stars because you know the Sun is a star. You know the sun is brighter and hotter than the night stars because we're significantly closer to the Sun than we are to...say....Rigel.
The same goes for the things people consider "supernatural" (in this case, not including Deity, but other supernatural facets of religion). The people who experience the various phenomena that science can't yet explain often consider such phenomena to be real because they've experienced them. And if you notice, I refer to "supernatural" phenomena as things that science can't yet explain because I don't believe that just because we don't have the tools or know-how to explain certain things scientifically that we'll never be able to. If we were to take a lighter or a match and go back to a time before humans harnessed the powers of fire, we would be revered as gods because we could control something that the people (as a whole) of the time could not fully understand. I thought I had covered this sufficiently in my "God" is Representative of the Unknown section, but I guess not.
I also thought I made it clear that I do not try to explain my beliefs using classical reasoning for the very reasons that I've already pointed out.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
...but I have decided not to let you off the hook quite so easily.
I thought I made it quite clear of the opposite, as the was the entire point of post.
You did make it clear, but you haven't provided us with any context that would explain why a person like yourself would abandon the basic processes of logic and reason that seem to work quite well when applied to any other subject. In your blog, you compared religion to philosophy and in contrast to the hard sciences. You said that "god" was an abstract concept, but that isn't really how that concept is usually addressed. A theist is (by definition) "One who believes in the existence of a God; especially, one who believes in a personal God." Theism doesn't fail at the level of philosophy, it fails with the basic presumption that there is an intelligent entity or force, referred to as a "god" that actually exists in an objective sense. This is not a philosophical assertion. And, that's where I think your argument fails.
As for your assumption as to whether or not I've turned a critical eye on my beliefs, I have not fully disclosed my beliefs on this site, primarily because it's outside of the scope of ProU.
You've revealed enough, and implied a bit more. In your own words...
So, from this one statment we can (safely, IMO) assume that A) you are a theist, and B) you do believe in SOME sort of "deity."
So, you don't know whether I have or have not turned a critical eye on my beliefs. I have, actually...
I can't say whether or not you have ever tried to view your beliefs in a critical manner, but your admission that you have abandoned any pretense of logic in your beliefs would seem to suggest that you have not, or if you have that you refused to accept the conclusions to which that process would inevitably have led you. Critical Thinking as it is commonly defined requires three things...
If you have decided NOT to approach your beliefs from a logical perspective, then you are not thinking critically about those beliefs.
...and because of such, I have either come to accept that I cannot, for one reason or another, explain the experiences I've had through science or logic (but which are undeniable truths to me), or have attempted to reconcile the things I believe.
Well...if you aren't willing to provide us with the specifics of your experiences, then we can only operate under the assumptions which are implied by what you DO decide to tell us. In general, I would suspect that there is nothing "unexplainable" in anything that you may have experienced. I say that because MY experience has taught me that claims of this sort aren't really "unexplainable" at all, and the lack of explanation more often than not comes instead from a lack of any real attempt to rigorously apply the scientific method in order to explain those experiences.
The thing is, though, is that you assume the world around you is real because you can experience it.
Well...yeah. To quote the most famous of Descartes' medititations...
Unless you are going to argue for the reductio ad absurdum which posits that you are the only "real" person in existence and everything else is just a figment of your senses, I would suggest that there is enough common experience to reasonably establish the objective existence of most (if not all) real beings and forces that we set our minds and senses to find. For example...
For example, you assume and accept that the galaxy Andromeda exists. Have you ever seen it?
Its been a few years, but as amateur astronomy was a hobby that I explored in my youth, yes...I have in fact seen the Andromeda Galaxy, both with my naked eyes (which worked better then than they do now) and in the literature of other sources with access to better tools than the tiny refractor telescope that I used to have.
The same goes for the things people consider "supernatural" (in this case, not including Deity, but other supernatural facets of religion). The people who experience the various phenomena that science can't yet explain often consider such phenomena to be real because they've experienced them.
Ah, but there's one really important difference in these scenarios that you (like many theists) either missed or are ignoring, which is of course that the experience of viewing things like the Andromeda Galaxy is objectively reproduceable, on demand, and it doesn't require the "faith" of the viewer in order to be shared. If you were skeptical about my experience in viewing the Andromeda Galaxy, it would be a simple manner (excepting of course if you were blind or suffering from synesthesia or some similar challenge) for me to describe the process so that you could view the object for yourself. And unless your "experiences" are very different from every other claim of experiencing the supernatural which I have encountered or read about which I have read, I suspect that those experiences are not similarly reproduceable for an objective observer.
All too often, theists abandon the realm of reason and logic not because it provides them with a better of understanding and describing their experiences, but rather because those methods do not provide them with the answers that they WANT. If that's what you need to do in order to be happy with yourself, that's well and good. But I think it is unreasonable to expect people to respect you for being irrational..
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
You've revealed enough, and implied a bit more. In your own words...
If you want to get technical, I fall into the "Theists" category, but I don't try to logically prove the existence of the deities in which I believe.
So, from this one statment we can (safely, IMO) assume that A) you are a theist, and B) you do believe in SOME sort of "deity."
...Except for the fact that you're taking it out of context and using the definition you provided:
A theist is (by definition) "One who believes in the existence of a God; especially, one who believes in a personal God."
...as opposed to the information I provided for the context of the post:
Theists -- In general, this group would include anyone that believes in some sort of higher power. Specifically, I'll be referring to the subgroup that insists they can logically prove the existence of their preferred facet of said higher power.
Yes, I would fall into the general group, at least currently. Sorry, I'm still working on shaking off the idea that at least some sort of deity exists that has been drilled into my head for 90% of my life. Forgive me, I'm only half your age. Yes, I'm currently at a crossroads of both belief and disbelief, get over it.
And perhaps I wasn't clear by what I meant when I said that I don't try to logically prove the existence of a deity. I meant that I don't try to prove it to others. In other words, I don't try to be like Respectlife or Chillbill or whoever else you've contended with about the matter.
I can't say whether or not you have ever tried to view your beliefs in a critical manner, but your admission that you have abandoned any pretense of logic in your beliefs would seem to suggest that you have not, or if you have that you refused to accept the conclusions to which that process would inevitably have led you.
Again, I hope I've clarified this and this has become a moot point, but just because I haven't done so on here it does not mean I have not done so at all. And just because I haven't come to the conclusions you expect, it does not mean that I'm done coming to conclusions. As I've mentioned, the idea of a deity existing is not a solid foundation for me and is, primarily, a result of a Christian upbringing that I have not, as of yet, been able to shake.
Also, lack of explanation doesn't necessarily mean lack of trying, it simply means lack of tools and ability to come to an explanation that is there.
I suspect that those experiences are not similarly reproduceable for an objective observer.
Question: can you create a painting on par with those of DaVinci?
How do you explain the ability of a person to create great works of art, yet another person can't even draw a stick figure to save their life? How do you explain that the second person cannot reproduce the work of the first person on their own?
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Yes, I'm currently at a crossroads of both belief and disbelief, get over it.
If you don't want to discuss the subject of your beliefs, then maybe you should stay away from religious blogs until you are.
And perhaps I wasn't clear by what I meant when I said that I don't try to logically prove the existence of a deity. I meant that I don't try to prove it to others.
If the proofs you've used to convince yourself are actually logical, then it should be quite simple for your to convince other logical people to agree with you. In fact, that's kind of the whole point behind informal logic, which is at its core the study of arguments.
Again, I hope I've clarified this and this has become a moot point, but just because I haven't done so on here it does not mean I have not done so at all.
Your aloof unwillingness to provide us with any actual details about your beliefs or the experiences and reasoning which led you to adopt them is a bit confusing. If you are so sure of the validity of your thoughts, why are you so unwilling to see those thoughts challenged directly?
How do you explain the ability of a person to create great works of art, yet another person can't even draw a stick figure to save their life? How do you explain that the second person cannot reproduce the work of the first person on their own?
As with any cognizant feature, the answer lies within the human brain. Some people are more "artistic" than others because the right hemisphere of their brain is more active than those "less artistic" folks. Likewise, the ability to express that creativity--or as in your example, the ability to "reproduce the work"--is contingent on the unique physical capabilities of the person in question. Just as some people can run faster than others, so also some people are better able to transfer their creative thoughts through their arms and hands to final expression in a physical medium. Living things evolve in part through random variations in their basic biological characteristics. This includes the cognizant characteristics which occur in the organ known as the brain.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Your aloof unwillingness to provide us with any actual details about your beliefs or the experiences and reasoning which led you to adopt them is a bit confusing. If you are so sure of the validity of your thoughts, why are you so unwilling to see those thoughts challenged directly?
Three reasons:
1) The details have been out of scope of the site and its blogs thus far (as just posting about what I believe would be exactly what most of the people here complain about).
2) I'm still trying to figure out how to write everything down to make my train of thought and my experiences as clear as possible to avoid confusion and tension such as what this blog entry has caused.
3) I'm still researching the "scientific side" of things, as several events have prompted me to find natural causes for it and has such led me into studying the brain, which is not something easily digested (at least for me) and will, therefore, take some time.
Yes, it seems I made a mistake in my original post by even off-handedly mentioning my own beliefs. I assure you, it won't happen again.
As with any cognizant feature, the answer lies within the human brain. Some people are more "artistic" than others because the right hemisphere of their brain is more active than those "less artistic" folks. Likewise, the ability to express that creativity--or as in your example, the ability to "reproduce the work"--is contingent on the unique physical capabilities of the person in question. Just as some people can run faster than others, so also some people are better able to transfer their creative thoughts through their arms and hands to final expression in a physical medium. Living things evolve in part through random variations in their basic biological characteristics. This includes the cognizant characteristics which occur in the organ known as the brain.
Would it not stand to reason, then, that some of the other aspects of religion (in this case, not "god" but other things...various phenomena people often consider "miracles" or "supernatural" such as spontaneous healing, prophecy, telepathy, etc) could, in fact, be very natural things that simply some people can do and some can't? An artist himself can't always reproduce works he's done.
This would, in part, tie into the section in my original post that "God is the Unknown." Everything that is currently or has been in the past attributed to one or more deities has been as a result of humans attempting to explain things they don't yet have the tools or knowledge to explain through science. Is it not possible that there hasn't been evidence for various "supernatural" phenomena because it's one of those cognizant things that, like art, can't be reproduced in a structure or manner required by science to document and explain (at least, not yet)?
The very fact that the best answer you were able to come up with for my question was that some people are just more "left-brained" or "right-brained" suggests that the full role and functionality of the brain (and the rest of the body, for that matter) isn't yet entirely understood. Is it not possible that the human mind and body is capable of more things than science gives it credit for simply because the other abilities don't really allow for the production of something tangible?
Oh, and another question. Does the scientific process not start with an observation? My point in general in the past few comments has been that not all things have always been reproducible because we did not always have the tools to reproduce things.
Everyone thought the world was flat until it was proven that it was round. However, we could not prove the world was round until we had the ability to sail far enough.
With my Andromeda example earlier -- you cannot reliably observe Andromeda without tools. Yes, you could sometimes see it without such tools, but not reliably. It doesn't mean it's not there, it just means you don't necessarily have the capability to observe it.
Conversely, the same could be said of micro-organisms. They exist, and we see evidence of this everywhere, but directly observing them was impossible until a powerful enough microscope was inventing.
And now, I think I see where the disconnect has been. The original point of my entry was that science and religion are apples and oranges. They're two different things that can't be handled the same way.
However, it seems to me, now, that they're more intertwined than I had originally thought. Religion is the result of humanity trying to explain things that it doesn't yet have the tools to explain. As such, it's a necessary evil, because not everyone understands the intricate workings of things like quantum mechanics. And they won't until it works its way into mainstream, in which case, something else will take its place. Computers are a great example of this. They were once cryptic machines that only the military and big R&D labs got to play with. Then they came into the home, but only the elite knew how to build, repair, or program them. Now, most people in the younger generations can build and repair their own machines, many can even program them. Soon, such things will become mainstream and even appear in a typical classroom setting.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Would it not stand to reason, then, that some of the other aspects of religion (in this case, not "god" but other things...various phenomena people often consider "miracles" or "supernatural" such as spontaneous healing, prophecy, telepathy, etc) could, in fact, be very natural things that simply some people can do and some can't? An artist himself can't always reproduce works he's done.
Not necessarily. The first step in considering such a possibility would be to at least establish that such experiences are real rather than imagined experiences. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a credible study that would reliably suggest that there is any actual, objective truth behind the various claims of spontaneous healing, prophecy or telepathy...or for that matter ANY of the types of abilities or occurrences that are often referred to as "supernatural" events.
This would, in part, tie into the section in my original post that "God is the Unknown."
If something is "unknown," then why not just call it "unknown?" If you admit that you do not know the characteristics of an object whose existence you suppose, then it seems intellectually dishonest to arbitrarily assign properties to that object. The term "god" has a LOT of baggage associated with it, and in any context even remotely associated with the usual defintions of that word implies at least the existence of an intelligent being of some kind. THAT's where the first major illogical leap (a fallacy known as begging the question) of ALL religious beliefs occurs. Calling the unknown "god" is a projection of what you WANT to find that has absolutely nothing to do with what may or may not really be out there.
Is it not possible that there hasn't been evidence for various "supernatural" phenomena because it's one of those cognizant things that, like art, can't be reproduced in a structure or manner required by science to document and explain (at least, not yet)?
Anything is possible...but the evidence that we DO have doesn't point in that direction.
The very fact that the best answer you were able to come up with for my question was that some people are just more "left-brained" or "right-brained" suggests that the full role and functionality of the brain (and the rest of the body, for that matter) isn't yet entirely understood.
Well, duh. Of course we don't understand the brain "entirely." The brain is one of the most powerful and complex biological constructs known to modern science. But, not understanding the brain "entirely" doesn't mean that we don't know anything about how it works. This is a common canard used by many theists in an attempt to equate the relevance of their purely speculative opinions to the evidence based predictions used by the scientific method. Finding a gap in knowledge does not justify filling that gap with some imaginary figure. To use a common atheistic metaphor, your arguments could be just as easily ascribed to a "flying spaghetti monster" as they could to a "god."
Is it not possible that the human mind and body is capable of more things than science gives it credit for simply because the other abilities don't really allow for the production of something tangible?
Again, anything is possible. Do you have any acutal, objective evidence that would suggest, however, that this speculation has any basis in reality?
Oh, and another question. Does the scientific process not start with an observation? My point in general in the past few comments has been that not all things have always been reproducible because we did not always have the tools to reproduce things.
Then the first step in your quest would seem to require that you try to invent the tools that you need, rather than lazily skipping over that step and just deciding that the first thing you imagine must be the correct answer to your questions.
Everyone thought the world was flat until it was proven that it was round. However, we could not prove the world was round until we had the ability to sail far enough.
That's not exactly true. Magellan's circumnavigation of the globe (1519-1522 C.E.) may have ended the debate, but it was apparent to prominent scholars that the earth was sperical at least as far back as the 6th Century B.C.E. One doesn't have to sail all the way around the world to observe the curvature of the Earth. What we are discussing here is no different. We haven't "sailed all the way around" the brain quite yet, but we have seen enough of it to make give us a pretty good idea about how it works.
With my Andromeda example earlier -- you cannot reliably observe Andromeda without tools. Yes, you could sometimes see it without such tools, but not reliably. It doesn't mean it's not there, it just means you don't necessarily have the capability to observe it.
This is also not true. You CAN reliably observe the Andromeda Galaxy. It is visible to the naked eye on almost any clear night. Having better tools allows us to see it in more detail, but that's not a question of reliability.
Conversely, the same could be said of micro-organisms. They exist, and we see evidence of this everywhere, but directly observing them was impossible until a powerful enough microscope was inventing.
I can't help but point out something that you say, here..."we see evidence of this everywhere." And you're right, there WAS acutal, objective evidence that led to the discovery of micro-organisms prior to our development of the necessary tools to observe them. For example, Abū Alī ibn Sīnā observed that certain diseases seemed to be spread by close proximity, and that by quarantining individuals one could limit the spread of an infectous disease. That observation strongly suggested that there were "foreign earthly bodies" that enabled the infection to spread. His observations were objective and reproduceable. My question to you then becomes, "what kinds of indirect evidence can you point to that would make a similar suggestion about your beliefs in the supernatural?"
And now, I think I see where the disconnect has been. The original point of my entry was that science and religion are apples and oranges. They're two different things that can't be handled the same way.
And this is where I call bullshit. The only reason why religion and science aren't handled the same way by many people is that, frankly, the basic precepts of religion can't stand up to close scientific scrutiny. It has nothing to do with "apples and oranges." Apples and oranges are acutally very similar, and they grow in very similar ways. The same principles that allow you to grow apple trees serve pretty well when growing oranges, too. Rather, the dichotomy of science and religion is more like "apples and rotten apples."
However, it seems to me, now, that they're more intertwined than I had originally thought. Religion is the result of humanity trying to explain things that it doesn't yet have the tools to explain.
I don't doubt that it is. One would hope, however, that as our society grows our need for such primitive explanations would fall by the way-side.
As such, it's a necessary evil,
I disagree completely. There is nothing "necessary" about ignorance.
because not everyone understands the intricate workings of things like quantum mechanics.
Then educate yourself. There's no excuse for making shit up to fill in the gaps just because you lack the motivation to be better informed.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Okay, talking to you has become like talking to a brick wall. It's apparent that you've completely missed or ignored my point, even when I've said it, flat-out. Not only that, but you also seem to have let the biases of your own experiences with others in regard to the idea of religion that you've automatically stuck everything I've had to say under the "she's just a religious zealot like the rest of them" umbrella.
On top of that, you seem to blatantly ignore the fact that religion and the belief in deities has been a part of human society for thousands of years. Does that make it correct? No, but it does make it there and because it's there and there on a societal level, it can't just be ignored. Whether you like it or not, people will still believe in it.
If something is "unknown," then why not just call it "unknown?" If you admit that you do not know the characteristics of an object whose existence you suppose, then it seems intellectually dishonest to arbitrarily assign properties to that object.
Here, we have evidence that you have completely ignored the matter at hand. Remember, kids, religion has been around for thousands of years. Whether you like it or not, it's been there. Why our parents and their parents and their parents and all the way fucking back to the stone age didn't call it "unknown" is beyond me. Perhaps you should take up archaeological psychology and sociology and let me know what you find on the matter. I'm sure it wasn't originally meant to be deceptive, but actually the exact opposite.
Do you have any acutal, objective evidence that would suggest, however, that this speculation has any basis in reality?
And again, you've completely missed absolutely everything I've been saying. Why? Because if you hadn't, you'd have seen that I've already stated that such things can't, by their nature, produce tangible results. However, thoughts, in an of themselves cannot, either. It is only through other means -- actions, language, and pictures -- that thoughts can produce tangible results (unless you include the brainwave imaging technology, in which case you can often pick up on the various states people go into for some practices, as well).
Also, I'd like to point out that believing in "supernatural" phenomena does not necessarily mean belief in "god." One can easily believe in things that are beyond our current understanding without attributing it to a "higher power."
It has nothing to do with "apples and oranges." Apples and oranges are acutally very similar, and they grow in very similar ways.
Wow, are you really being that thick that you even completely miss a common analogy? I thought you were smarter than that.
Then educate yourself. There's no excuse for making shit up to fill in the gaps just because you lack the motivation to be better informed.
Yep, yep, it's got everything to do with being too fucking lazy.
I'll just add that to my list of things to do:
Writing an operating system
Starting a non-smoking restaurant
Learning Latin
Learning Japanese
Learning Spanish
Learning French
Learning more about biology
Learning Javascript
Learning WPF
Mastering Java
Learning more details about ancient history
Go on an archeological dig
Run for Congress
Run for President
Publish a book
Join the Red Cross
Start a charity
Yep, as you can see, I have absolutely nothing better to do than to learn everything there is to know about quantum mechanics.
And, please note the MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF SARCASM present in this section of my comment.
Now, I suggest you discard your prejudices and re-read what I've had to say and make sure you don't come across as having ignored half the argument as you sit on your pedestal, because I have no further interest in your responses otherwise.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Okay, talking to you has become like talking to a brick wall.
Logical people then to be that way...especially when presented with an argument that is decidedly illogical.
. It's apparent that you've completely missed or ignored my point, even when I've said it, flat-out.
No, I get it. I'm just not willing to let pass the idea that irrational beliefs are in any way...intellectually, socially, morally, whatever...owed the equivalent respect to well informed, rational, scientifically-based opinions. The reason that theists and atheists don't get along is because whenever people start to really use their brains, the theists end up looking stupid, and that pisses them off. The entire argument that religion is a special case--the ONLY case in which rational, logical throught process don't apply--in which one has to think and behave in a manner that in ANY OTHER context would get you ridiculed as a crazy person is a CANARD. It is a bullshit excuse given by people who lack either the intelligence or the courage to face up to the fact that their beliefs are the product of their imagination, only. If that's the way you want to live your life, fine. But don't expect anyone with half a brain to respect you for it.
Whether you like it or not, people will still believe in it.
A favorite professor of mine once said...
Whether you like it or not, it's been there. Why our parents and their parents and their parents and all the way fucking back to the stone age didn't call it "unknown" is beyond me. Perhaps you should take up archaeological psychology and sociology and let me know what you find on the matter. I'm sure it wasn't originally meant to be deceptive, but actually the exact opposite.
That's why I divide zealots into "well-meaning fools" and "charlatans." The former are simply the prey of the latter. But a well intended lie is still a lie, and perpetuating ignorance for the sake of tradition is pretty disgusting way of approaching the world, IMNSHO.
Wow, are you really being that thick that you even completely miss a common analogy? I thought you were smarter than that.
No, I go your analogy...but I extended it and demonstrated why it was a bad choice for you to use to color your argument.
Now, I suggest you discard your prejudices and re-read what I've had to say and make sure you don't come across as having ignored half the argument as you sit on your pedestal, because I have no further interest in your responses otherwise.
Your petulant stabs are irrelevant. If you aren't prepared to have your ideas challenged, you probably shouldn't be blogging about them. You intentionally chose to blog about a subject that you knew (or should have known) had the potential to spark some controversy. For you to affect an air of surprise and offense is either extraordinarily disingenuous or incredibly naive. I can't say which is the case, but I have little respect for either, so I guess it really doesn't matter.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
owed the equivalent respect to well informed, rational, scientifically-based opinions.
I never said they were. You should know by now, that I'm against using religion to determine social rules that affect others not of that religion. What one believes or doesn't believe is personal. That's not to say that it can't or shouldn't be discussed openly, but rather that it shouldn't be forced on others.
The reason that theists and atheists don't get along is because whenever people start to really use their brains, the theists end up looking stupid
I can't speak for other places or people, only what I've observed from you, here on ProU, but did it ever occur to you that people get pissed because of the way you try to "make them think?" Every time I've seen you get into these types of debates, you come off like "you're wrong, I'm right. I'm going to try to force you to see it my way, whether you like it or not, and no amount of evidence you present to your case is or ever will be good enough for me." The problem is, though, is that most people can't be told what to think in that manner (yes, technically it's possible through repetition for a very long time, but that's not really possible in this medium), especially of matters such as religion, but rather have to come to the conclusions themselves. I've found that asking hard questions that force people to think for themselves to find an answer to you is much more effective than thinking for them and constantly telling them how "wrong" they are.
Another thing that bugs me is that you rope "god" and "supernatural" together. This is probably because to you, they're the same thing. However, not everyone thinks the way you do and therefore, many people consider them two different things. You come off as ignoring what the person has to say when you start talking about "god" when you're referring to something someone else said in reference to something else "supernatural."
Also, just because someone believes in one or more deities, it doesn't mean they believe said deity(ies) function the same way as Jehovah, which seems to be where the basis of a lot of your train of thought comes from. I say this because you oftentimes are working under the pretense that everyone you talk to that believes in one or more deities believes in the Abrahamic god, Jehovah, or one similar.
Regardless of whether you think they're lies or not, these are people's worldviews you're challenging (that often includes the third-party readers you always refer to). Just keep that in mind.
If you aren't prepared to have your ideas challenged, you probably shouldn't be blogging about them. You intentionally chose to blog about a subject that you knew (or should have known) had the potential to spark some controversy. For you to affect an air of surprise and offense is either extraordinarily disingenuous or incredibly naive.
Actually, I expected the ideas to be challenged to an extent. What I didn't expect is that you would turn it into challenging my beliefs, which is what you essentially have done. I also didn't expect you to turn to criticizing me for not laying out my life story for you to go over with a fine-toothed comb after I told you twice that I haven't because such a topic is completely out of scope of the site (especially as a blog of its own, as that's the only way I would be able to adequately write about my experiences and beliefs).
All that said, I apologize for freaking out. It just feels like you're ignoring what I'm actually saying and instead going off what you think I'm saying (regardless of how much you say you get what I'm saying, your responses more often than not seem to suggest otherwise). To be honest, it's really that that I'm getting upset with the most.
Finally, I have a question for you -- what do you think about the "soft" sciences (psychology, sociology, etc)? They function on very little, if any, tangible evidence and almost entirely on observation and statistical correlations.
For the believer, no proof is necessary. For the non-believer, no proof is enough.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
...and so I will reply to you, below.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I found an article you might be interested in.
I especially want to note a couple of things I found within the article and its comments:
Skeptics and believers tend to follow the same thought processes, and come to conclusions that validate their own methods and beliefs, and invalidate those of their opponent. More than once, I've had a conversation with a well read, intelligent, articulate true believer, who charged me with the same flaws in my logic that I found glaring in his. I've watched debates between the top names in science and pseudoscience, and seen these conversations deterioriate into little more than "Takes one to know one", "Nuh-uh", and "I know you are, but what am I?"
The problems that believers face is that the theories cannot be tested in a laboratory.
I to appreciate Brian's work, but unlike Brian I do believe there are things that cannot be proven in the laboratory. Brian's explanation about the Marfa Lights for example took real research in the field to figure out what was happening. In the case of those things classified as paranormal, the effort to research is not there beyond the efforts of amateurs. The efforts of SciFi's Ghost hunters is a service, They have indicated that 80% of the cases they investigated that there were mundane explanations. The fact that they go in with an attitude of debunking claims seems to have eluded Brian.
In the rest of the cases they document the paranormal activity, things that are not explainable by the mundane. Is it proof of ghosts? No, but it shows that the people are not crazy or imagining things happening. The fact that the skeptics consider the believers as crazy or liars is a disservice to all. Something is happening, it needs to be researched and explained, if scientist won't do the foot work it is left to the amateurs.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
...and this was the most interesting comment that I saw:
I'm not even sure what being "closed minded" is. I guess it means that you won't give a chance to any evidence of any quality. If that's true, then closed minded is probably not a term that genuinely applies to either skeptics or believers. The first step is to be selective about what evidence we turn away at the door, and this is where the real difference is. We all turn away some of the evidence at the door. We have to. It would be impossible to get through your day if you had to devote a full-fledged investigation into every minute suggestion or claim or anecdote that comes along.
My response, of course, that I am quite willing to alter my opinions if there is acutal, objective evidence that strongly suggests that I should. But, before you can accuse me of being a "closed minded skeptic," you would first have to at least TRY to present some evidence to be considered, and be PREPARED to have that evidence closely scrutinized.
Can you do that?
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I don't recall ever accusing you of being close-minded. I just thought you'd be interested in the article.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Every time I've seen you get into these types of debates, you come off like "you're wrong, I'm right. I'm going to try to force you to see it my way, whether you like it or not, and no amount of evidence you present to your case is or ever will be good enough for me.
It wasn't a literal quote, dearie, but I think its a fair rephrasing of your accusation.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I fall into the "Theists" category, but I don't try to logically prove the existence of the deities in which I believe.
Dragonwolfe is making a common mistake. To argue that God is real through reason is different than to argue God is real through emprical evidence. You can argue that "logically" god exists and this dosent conflate with science.
I believe I address both science and classical reasoning in my post, if you bother to read the whole thing.
To argue logically, the premises must be true for the conclusion to be true. For the premises to be true, there needs to be enough empirical evidence to support their truth. That, in the case of religion, requires using science to prove the existence of something.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
You can argue that "logically" god exists and this dosent conflate with science.
The basic rules of informal logic don't change just because you WANT your premises to be true. If you cannot prove objectively that the premises of your argument are true, then you cannot reach a logically sound conclusion with that argument...period. As for the "scientific" side of your comment, this is also false since science deals ONLY with empirical evidence. If you cannot provide actual, objectively demonstrable empiricial evidence that supports your beliefs, then those beliefs do in fact run contrary to the scientific method.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
If I'm reading this right he's talking about (onto-)"logical" proofs for God's existence, such as Anselm's "greatest entity" argument. The premises are usually ok, but the logic is obviously invalid. My favorite counter argument uses this same logic on any thing X (ice cream sandwiches, unicorns, etc) to 'prove' that the greatest conceivable X and the worst conceivable X actually exist. DragonWolf isn't missing much by ignoring ontological arguments.
I can't speak for other places or people, only what I've observed from you, here on ProU, but did it ever occur to you that people get pissed because of the way you try to "make them think?"
Let me point you to a quote from ProU's About Us page...
I think that my tactics fall well within the stated purpose of this site.
Every time I've seen you get into these types of debates, you come off like "you're wrong, I'm right.
That's because, more often than not, they ARE and I AM. If you disagree, please feel free to challenge me on any particular point which you think you can prove otherwise.
I'm going to try to force you to see it my way, whether you like it or not, and no amount of evidence you present to your case is or ever will be good enough for me."
The obvious error in your observation is that, to date, NOT ONE SINGLE THEIST HAS EVER BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE EVEN ONE EXAMPLE OF ACTUAL, OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE THAT WOULD SUPPORT THEIR BELIEFS. Just making shit up and saying "I believe" over and over isn't "evidence." In fact, I am quite willing to change my opinions if the evidence actually suggests strongly enough that I should.
The problem is, though, is that most people can't be told what to think in that manner (yes, technically it's possible through repetition for a very long time, but that's not really possible in this medium), especially of matters such as religion, but rather have to come to the conclusions themselves. I've found that asking hard questions that force people to think for themselves to find an answer to you is much more effective than thinking for them and constantly telling them how "wrong" they are.
Perhaps the concept of a debate is arcane to you, but I would suggest that if you pursue any significant amount of higher education, you will find that my tactics are hardly extraordinary. I would also remind you of my first comment in this discussion...
In my experience, for every blogger than takes the time to repsond, there are dozens, if not hundreds (even thousands?) who read the blogs and comments but who never actually join the fray. I am quite willing to put you or anyone else through the ringer in the hopes of educating that silent majority. And, whether you like it or not, it is a tactic that works. I regularly get private messages from the quiet crowd that reinforce my methods and thank me for my efforts. Every mind that is set free from ignorance and superstition is a victory, regardless of whether it happens publically or privately.
Another thing that bugs me is that you rope "god" and "supernatural" together. This is probably because to you, they're the same thing. However, not everyone thinks the way you do and therefore, many people consider them two different things. You come off as ignoring what the person has to say when you start talking about "god" when you're referring to something someone else said in reference to something else "supernatural."
Its a simple matter of defintion...
Main Entry: su·per·nat·u·ral
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature
Date: 15th century
1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe ; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b: attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)
I am sorry if you or any other theist lacks the ability to pick up an dictionary, but words have meanings. If you want to level-set a different meaning when you use a term, that's all well and good to a point, but I don't feel obligated to use terms incorrectly simply to assuage the hurt feelings of people who haven't taken the time to adequately educate themselves. ProU is intended to appeal to a collegiate audience that values higher education, and there's no reason that a college-bound, currently enrolled or post-graduate student in the United States should lack the ability to express themselves in plain English.
Also, just because someone believes in one or more deities, it doesn't mean they believe said deity(ies) function the same way as Jehovah, which seems to be where the basis of a lot of your train of thought comes from. I say this because you oftentimes are working under the pretense that everyone you talk to that believes in one or more deities believes in the Abrahamic god, Jehovah, or one similar.
Your observation is only partially correct. I usually frame my arguments around the framework of the abrahamic religions because (obviously) that's the religion that most often comes up in countries like the U.S. who have a majority population that self-identifies as "christian." However, when I refer to "all theists" and "all religions" in general, I mean it. In my experience, ALL religions and ALL theists have based their uniquely religious beliefs on the same basic logical fallacies. And, until at least ONE person from at least ONE of religious sect or system can provide at least ONE example of actual, objective evidence that supports their beliefs, that assertion will stand unchallenged.
Regardless of whether you think they're lies or not, these are people's worldviews you're challenging (that often includes the third-party readers you always refer to). Just keep that in mind.
Trust me, I'm aware of it. I've been threatened often enough (even here) to be quite aware of that fact.
Actually, I expected the ideas to be challenged to an extent. What I didn't expect is that you would turn it into challenging my beliefs, which is what you essentially have done.
Why not? The conflict in belief is rather obviously at the root of the issue, isn't it? And, you DID mention your beliefs in your original blog, which I think makes questioning those beliefs perfectly "in bounds."
I also didn't expect you to turn to criticizing me for not laying out my life story for you to go over with a fine-toothed comb after I told you twice that I haven't because such a topic is completely out of scope of the site (especially as a blog of its own, as that's the only way I would be able to adequately write about my experiences and beliefs).
Well, for one, I disagree that it is out-of-scope for ProU. Such discussions are quite common-place in our blogs and forums. I also think that your refusal to expound on something that you keep mentioning, over and over again, to be demonstrative of an aloof control drama (which triggers my own tendency to fall into the role of the interregator...oh well).
All that said, I apologize for freaking out.
Don't concern yourself. I don't take it personally. I enjoy passionate debates, and even appreciate a good flame from time to time (probably more than I should).
It just feels like you're ignoring what I'm actually saying and instead going off what you think I'm saying (regardless of how much you say you get what I'm saying, your responses more often than not seem to suggest otherwise). To be honest, it's really that that I'm getting upset with the most.
You don't like the way that atheist and theists debate each other, and you think that the reason is that they think in different ways. That pretty much sums up your position, as I see it. Frankly, that's obvious and a little boring. I would rather lure you into a deeper discussion about WHY these people think the way that they do, and then challenge you to defend your choice to value irrational behavior over logical reasoning.
Finally, I have a question for you -- what do you think about the "soft" sciences (psychology, sociology, etc)? They function on very little, if any, tangible evidence and almost entirely on observation and statistical correlations.
I think that I have to take exception with your statement that psychology and sociology do not rely on tangible evidence. People are quite tangible, and observing their actions and responses is a direct and objective process that can be explored both through passive observation AND through active experimentation. That being said, "soft" sciences like sociology still utilize the scientific method, but do so from a "distance," due in large part to the ethical concerns about the kinds of things you would have to do to groups of humans in order to really explore these subjects experimentally. Beyond that, you would have to be more specific about your question.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Let me point you to a quote from ProU's About Us page...
I never said it was against the ToS or anything like that. I was simply pointing out that my experiences have taught me that other ways of doing the same thing have been more effective.
Perhaps the concept of a debate is arcane to you, but I would suggest that if you pursue any significant amount of higher education, you will find that my tactics are hardly extraordinary.
Not only is it not arcane to me, but your methods also don't come as a surprise. Please keep in mind that when talking to me, you're not dealing with a high schooler. I may be young enough to be your daughter, but I'm still old enough to hold a degree.
but I don't feel obligated to use terms incorrectly simply to assuage the hurt feelings of people who haven't taken the time to adequately educate themselves.
Actually, the breakdown over the definition of supernatural wasn't over correct or incorrect usage of a word, but rather either different interpretations of the same definition, or use of different definitions altogether (for example, you using def 1 and me using def 2, neither is wrong).
Well, for one, I disagree that it is out-of-scope for ProU. Such discussions are quite common-place in our blogs and forums.
Considering the complaints I've seen about the over-abundance of "I am {insert beliefs here}" blogs, my opinion still stands. If/when I come up with a way to detail my beliefs that isn't simply an "I am..." blog, then I'll post it.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Please keep in mind that when talking to me, you're not dealing with a high schooler.
If I thought you were in high school, I would probably be a lot nicer about all of this. Someone that young shouldn't be held to standards of education which they haven't yet had a chance to attain.
I may be young enough to be your daughter, but I'm still old enough to hold a degree.
That's twice with the age comparison...keep it up and I'll spank you with my cane.
Actually, the breakdown over the definition of supernatural wasn't over correct or incorrect usage of a word, but rather either different interpretations of the same definition, or use of different definitions altogether (for example, you using def 1 and me using def 2, neither is wrong).
Horseshit. Let's review why I gave you that defintion. YOU said...
Another thing that bugs me is that you rope "god" and "supernatural" together. This is probably because to you, they're the same thing.
So yes, you WERE accusing me of using the term incorrectly. The definition proved otherwise. Tsk, tsk...
Considering the complaints I've seen about the over-abundance of "I am {insert beliefs here}" blogs, my opinion still stands. If/when I come up with a way to detail my beliefs that isn't simply an "I am..." blog, then I'll post it.
And so the aloof drama continues...oh, well. If you won't explain yourself, then I'll take the liberty of assuming that everything that I have suggested about unwillingness to do so is true, and proceed accordingly. Your refusal demonstrates that like every other theist in these blogs, your arguments are without ANY substantive basis, and can be dismissed accordingly.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
So yes, you WERE accusing me of using the term incorrectly. The definition proved otherwise.
And again, interpretation fails...
You interpreted definition 1 from your definition of supernatural to always include a deity. Therefore, to you, they are always the same thing. I don't interpret said definition to always include a deity. Therefore, they are not always the same thing to me. I believe one of the points I was referring to when I had posted that does, in fact, mention supernatural things other than a deity. It was you who brought deities back into it.
And so the aloof drama continues...oh, well. If you won't explain yourself, then I'll take the liberty of assuming that everything that I have suggested about unwillingness to do so is true, and proceed accordingly. Your refusal demonstrates that like every other theist in these blogs, your arguments are without ANY substantive basis, and can be dismissed accordingly.
How is explaining that I've seen enough people complain about the "I am..." posts to decide to not post something as simply an "I am..." post aloof drama? Like I've said multiple times at this point, I'm not refusing to post it at all, I'm just choosing to find a way to post it so that adds to the site without being simply an "I am..." post. I have too much I'd want to say to be able to do so in a comment, so I'm not going to do so regardless of how much you demand it of me.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
You interpreted definition 1 from your definition of supernatural to always include a deity. Therefore, to you, they are always the same thing. I don't interpret said definition to always include a deity. Therefore, they are not always the same thing to me. I believe one of the points I was referring to when I had posted that does, in fact, mention supernatural things other than a deity. It was you who brought deities back into it.
Bullshit. How YOU were using the term was never in question. I was using the term correctly, and you implied that I was not. I showed you the definition that proved you wrong, and now you're trying to backpedal from your accusation. To continue to argue the point further is just more dis-ingenuity on your part.
Also, I gave you a link that describes how the aloof control drama works. I would suggest that you read it. Your behavior is pretty classic.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I'm inclined to agree with dragonwolf here. "Supernatural" does include gods, but it also includes things that are not gods, by the very definition you gave. The idea of ghosts jumps out in my mind as the best example of something that is not a god, or any sort of deity, but is supernatural. "God" doesn't cover everything that is supernatural, nor does 'supernatural' only mean god. She was arguing exactly that.
Also, if dragonwolf is uncomfortable expounding upon her religious beliefs in this setting, that's her choice. Religious beliefs are often complex, and difficult to explain in detail, since everyone interprets things in different ways. Even two people who go to the same church will likely have slightly different religious beliefs. People can spend years debating on the nature of God (within a religious context, of course), so summing up all beliefs in a single blog can be rather complicated.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I NEVER SAID that every definition of the term "supernatural" ONLY included references to "gods" OR that it could not include OTHER imaginary concepts. I was RESPONDING to a comment in which dragonwolf implied that by using a definition that DID include god's was inconsistent with the way that term is commonly defined. I was pointing out that my use of the term's PRIMARY definition was correct, and those who were confused by my use of the term were poorly-informed. Anyone who took the time to properly educate themselves should not experience any sort of confusion when the term "supernatural" is used to encompass a belief in a "god." And suggesting that this sort of confusion was a reasonable response to my use of the term was clearly unwarranted.
And, if Ms. Dragonwolf doesn't want to discuss her beliefs, then the shouldn't bring them up in her blogs and comments.
How can you believe in a higher power without evidence?
Simple, my own experiences. I've experienced a number of events that I cannot reconcile scientifically and can only attribute to something science cannot yet explain. However, I don't expect others to believe what I believe because of my experiences. My experiences are not theirs, their experiences have led them to believe otherwise, and that's fine.
Questioning the details of her beliefs is completely relevant to the original blog.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
looks just like my very best atheist friend, Stan. I know he feels inclined to whoop me every now and then. Good thing I am faster than him.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
I am sorry if you or any other theist lacks the ability to pick up an dictionary, but words have meanings. If you want to level-set a different meaning when you use a term, that's all well and good to a point, but I don't feel obligated to use terms incorrectly simply to assuage the hurt feelings of people who haven't taken the time to adequately educate themselves. ProU is intended to appeal to a collegiate audience that values higher education, and there's no reason that a college-bound, currently enrolled or post-graduate student in the United States should lack the ability to express themselves in plain English.
DragonWolf didn't deserve this particular rant. If somebody is talking about supernatural bs, you should berate them in equally general terms.
carry on.
Here is a post I used for my logic and reasoning class. What is sad is that the minds in that forum seem to be totally and completely numb and dulled. No one gives a shit about God vs. Science, except to insist on their beliefs in spite of challenging perspectives.
Makes me doubly glad i found ProU, but also makes me think i should have given ProU the $1500 I paid for that class. It is so dull compared to what we have here.
Anyway, here is my post. Feel free to pick it apart bit by bit. I enjoyed constructing it.
"The way I see it is that science is simply man's observations of things as can be physically measured by our 5 senses. some scientists probably had a sixth sense, like isaac newton and einstein, where they were able to tap into mysteries unknown to the rest of the world.
That sixth sense was probably what early man was using when he discovered fire.
There are forces at work in the universe that humans have been able to spontaneously tap into and channel in productive ways, like electricity.
Science is a tool, a method of measuring the reality or existence of something so that humans can perceive it. I don't care what science or scientists say, there may not yet be physical or tangible evidence of God, but science has not come clos e to explaining most of what is in the universe.
It makes perfect sense to me that God said "Let there be Light" and BOOM, the Big Bang. I do not see how evidence of the Big Bang is in any way a negation of the possibility of God.
Back to the idea of the process by which humans "discover" mysteries of the world; Consider Isaac Newton:
"Sir Isaac Newton, FRS (4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727 [OS: 25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727]) was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist, and theologian and one of the most influential men in human history. His Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, published in 1687, is considered to be the most influential book in the history of science.
In this work, Newton described universal gravitation and the three laws of motion, laying the groundwork for classical mechanics, which dominated the scientific view of the physical Universe for the next three centuries and is the basis for modern engineering.
Newton showed that the motions of objects on Earth and of celestialKepler's laws of planetary motion and his theory of gravitation, thus removing the last doubts about heliocentrismscientific revolution."
"Newton was also highly religious (though unorthodox), producing more work on Biblical hermeneutics than the natural science he is remembered for today."
"In the 1690s, Newton wrote a number of religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible. Henry More's belief in the Universe and rejection of Cartesian dualism may have influenced Newton's religious ideas. A manuscript he sent to John Locke in which he disputed the existence of the Trinity was never published. Later works – The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended (1728) and Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John (1733) – were published after his death. He also devoted a great deal of time to alchemy (see above)."
"Historian Stephen D. Snobelen says of Newton, "Isaac Newton was a heretic. But like Nicodemus, the secret disciple of Jesus, he never made a public declaration of his private faith – which the orthodox would have deemed extremely radical. He hid his faith so well that scholars are still unravelling his personal beliefs."
"In an age notable for its religious intolerance there are few public expressions of Newton's radical views, most notably his refusal to take holy orders and his refusal, on his death bed, to take the sacrament when it was offered to him."
"Although the laws of motion and universal gravitation became Newton's best-known discoveries, he warned against using them to view the Universe as a mere machine, as if akin to a great clock. He said, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."'
"In his own lifetime, Newton wrote more on religion than he did on natural science. He believed in a rationally immanent world, but he rejected the hylozoism implicit in Leibniz and Baruch Spinoza. Thus, the ordered and dynamically informed Universe could be understood, and must be understood, by an active reason." bodies are governed by the same set of natural laws by demonstrating the consistency between and advancing the
"Newton and Robert Boyle’s mechanical philosophy was promoted by rationalistpamphleteers as a viable alternative to the pantheists and enthusiasts, and was accepted hesitantly by orthodox preachers as well as dissident preachers like the latitudinarians.
Thus, the clarity and simplicity of science was seen as a way to combat the emotional and metaphysical superlatives of both superstitiousatheism enthusiasm and the threat of and, at the same time, the second wave of English deists used Newton's discoveries to demonstrate the possibility of a "Natural Religion."'
"Newton gave Boyle’s ideas their completion through mathematical proofs and, perhaps more importantly, was very successful in popularising them."
Newton refashioned the world governed by an interventionist God into a world crafted by a God that designs along rational and universal principles.
These principles were available for all people to discover, allowed people to pursue their own aims fruitfully in this life, not the next, and to perfect themselves with their own rational powers.
Newton saw God as the master creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_newton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, if you ask me, if one of the world's most important scientists, perhaps the most important, found reasonable evidence of God in his discoveries of the universe, I am very inclined to pay attention.
Let me also add that i am particularly fascinated with the idea that Newton was a heretic, and had the good sense to stay quiet about his faith, even though he obviously spent a great deal of time journaling his ideas.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
Scientific revolutions are evidence of a sixth sense? Seems like you grossly underestimate human ingenuity and as a result your worldview is a whole lot messier than it needs to be. If you think skepticism robs the universe of its grandeur I suggest you read some Carl Sagan.
You mention Newton and Einstein. Interesting how you focus on the one who confirmed his religious beliefs; Einstein grew less religious over time. He believed in Spinoza's 'hands-off-the-universe' God early in life, then said:
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text.
It looks like you're paying extra attention to evidence that confirms your beliefs. And the attitudes of famous scientists are not good evidence - contrary to popular opinion it is possible for an amazing scientist to be a total moron. Science works because of its error correcting machinery, not because scientists are magic.
Since when did it become so controversial to communicate a belief in creative force in the universe?
"It looks like you're paying extra attention to evidence that confirms your beliefs."
Well, i don't think that anything I posted above could possibly called be *evidence.* I thought I was sharing some interesting information. I happen to find Isaac Newton intensely fascinating. His discoveries regarding light and optics have fascinated me since I was in the third grade.
Is it a bias to choose to focus on someone I admire? Of course it is. It is bias for anyone to choose one subject for anything, whether it be a novel, a painting, or a blog post.
Not to knock Einstein, but Isaac Newton has been declared the most influential scientist in the history of the world, even above Einstein.
The fact that one genius fixates on a theory of creative organization and design in the universe, and another doesn't is not surprising. I don't think one cancels the other out. I think both men were amazingly intelligent, and part of why they were able to make such magnificent discoveries is because they did not allow their minds to be bound by what was *already* known.
They chose to ask questions, and they were open to any answer they received. That is fascinating to me, and if I happen to find myself mystified when pondering such things, I don't see why I should be put in a corner where i have to defend that as if I had just declared that leprechauns are invading the earth.
Is it so *magical* to entertain the idea of sixth sense? Tell me then, how did Einstein figure out the formula for energy? How did Isaac Newton know how to make a prism?
Was it through sight? No, both things were invisible, except the rainbows in the sky, but how did Mr. Newton figure how to use glass to manipulate light rays?
Was it through touch? Not with light, but perhaps with energy, since energy is within every cellular function of our bodies, but was Einstein physically conscious of that?
Was it through smell? Not likely. Through hearing? No. Although Newton discovered all kinds of things about the speed of sound, etc. also.
Taste? I doubt it.
So what is left, but a sixth sense? Something called *intuition,* something that allows humans to imagine things that they do not already know to exist. What is so outlandish about that?
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
If by 'sixth sense' you mean perception of our own thoughts and memories, sure. That's how you figured out how to turn on your computer, and its how Einstein figured out that mass is energy. He thought about it. You observe the ON button, he observes radiation, you both connect the dots.
online after researching thousands of computers. I have had several computers.
My grandfather built computers. He was the primary engineer of IBM when they patented the microchip.
My uncles followed his example and work in the computer industry. My cousin is 6 months younger than me. He chose to pay attention to the family legacy, and graduated high school with a full time job with IBM making 6 figures, with 100% tuition reimbursement for any college course he would ever take.
I could have had the same privilege. I didn't take the offer. I wasn't into computers. My grandfather built my first computer with his own two hands. I was the only kid in the comples with a computer. i didn't have a TV, since my mother was a religious fanatic. But I had a TV that acted as my computers monitor, and a computer that I inserted floppy discs into to play over 100 Atari games, as well as typing tutor in 1985.
So, the fact that I know how to push the power button on my computer is a result of the teaching I have received, from people with knowledge I did not have previously.
Einstein and Newton are unique in that they *discovered* things not previously known to mankind. Turning on a computer is an act of social programming. Inventing a computer involves genius, and *original thought.*
I am not a robot, but if you wish to be one, i won't stop you.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
Einstein and Newton discovered new stuff because they used their scientific training (social programming). You expect good scientists to discover new stuff simply because they are good at applying the scientific method, which is designed to unearth patterns not previously known to mankind. No ESP is required to do science: you do carefully planned experiments to get evidence, you look at the evidence, you connect the dots, and voila! Why is that so hard to believe? Insight is involved - scientists have to imagine theoretical models that explain the data - but imagination is made of memories. Insight is mixing old ideas in new ways.
Turning on your computer, you apply previously learned techniques. You observe the orientation and location of the box, you do a (subconscious) efficiency calculation, you push the button and voila!
The reason, I suspect, that great scientists like Einstein and Newton came up with so much great physics is because the lived science. They immersed themselves in it and made enormous personal sacrifices out of sheer curiosity. It had nothing to do with a sixth sense and it definitely had nothing to do with everyone else being robots.
Even if you're right, and some people have a sixth sense, how does that make the rest of us robots? Or was the comment a personal attack? If you have something to say, give reasons - Instead of calling you crazy, I argued that your worldview is probably wrong. If you want to tear apart my philosophy go comment on my first and only blog.
if it is so easy, would you mind sharing your own most recent discoveries?
ESP? extrasensory perception. hmm, well I think i already qualified that by suggesting that any discovery outside of the known 5 physical senses are extra-sensory.
In your explanations, learning is the extra-sensory perception, outside of the 5 senses. You refer to memory.
That is not a bad hypothesis at all. I would be inclined to agree. Memory is significant to discovery.
One thing though, I suggested in another thread that music was *discovered* by human consciousness, and you said it was *invented.* How does that fit in with your social conditioning as the basis for genius activity?
According to your current stance, all such mysteries already exist. The power button on my computer already existed. But music didn't exist until humans created it?
You are not making much sense at all.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
Last night I learned that Donatos has excellent thick-crusted pizza! I coulda swore they only made that crappy paper thin junk. I only found out about this because I discovered a local board gaming club. A hundred super friendly nerds, a wall with every board game known to man, good times. Not exactly earth-shattering; mechanism of discovery was human contact.
I'm no Einstein, but I help discover new stuff as a research assistant. We study quark-gluon plasma - when big atoms smack into eachother going ridiculously fast they melt into this state of matter. I have to defend a thesis explaining the physics we discovered - our computer simulation connects equations of motion with data from particle colliders - before getting published.
I'm excited about it, but there's nothing magical about typing in some equations and seeing what pops out. The computer is just a tool, and the input (well-researched and very precise) educated guesses. Its not hard to imagine Newton making similar guesses about acceleration and dropping some anvils to see if he's right. Today's anvils cost billions and look like the death star, but same idea.
Thought and memory are a sixth sense. They detect what's going on inside the brain and put it up next to the other five senses on your mental projector screen. Inside access means perception of thought/memory can be directly controlled while the other senses are controllable thru motion. Your sixth sense may let you "tap into mysteries unknown to the rest of the world" but these mysteries are natural, scientifically explainable, and in a way -by analogy to their own thoughts and memories - known to the rest of the world.
The mysteries of science are as old as the universe but science itself began with humans. Similarly, sound waves predate music and a button can exist before you learn what it does. Music and science are techniques that were invented and taught: music for creation, science for discovery. With millions of musicians and scientists creating and discovering throughout history, you should expect a few Beethovens and Newtons.
Both the board game event and playing with quark-gluon plasma.
Well, I can live with calling the nature of the universe, science, original thought, genius and discovery *mysterious* rather than *magical,* which I don't think I ever actually did, but whatever.
Even with scientific method, which is only about a thousand years old, there is still something fascinating to me about the process that certain people use to make new hypotheses that seem radical to the culture they live in, but actually end up being true and provable.
Don't get me wrong, this is a total tangent away from the *God* question. I am not saying that all of this has anything to do with that.
What I find interesting is simply the fact that there is Truth, which does not change, whether we as humans are aware of it or not. What fascinates me is our whole process of discovering it. I happen to believe that there is an infinite amount of it, and that as humans, we are biologically limited in our capacity to grasp the majority of it.
yet, there have been some amazing humans, who defied nature, both physical and psychological, by asking controversial questions, going against the grain, and dismissing myths and fables, and in so doing have expanded our awareness of Truth beyond our physical existence and our own planet.
i don't take that process for granted, and I only hope that more people will keep doing the same, so we can learn even more.
Now, with all of that being said, i must say that part of why I want to science to keep searching is that I feel it is absolutely necessary if our world is ever going to find itself in a state of peace.
By continuing to ask questions, applying the scientific method, and coming up with discoveries related to the question of the existence of God, I feel we have the power to take God away from religion. I realize this may sound crazy to some, but it is my own theory.
The problem is that by leaving God in the hands of religion and churches, we have wars going on based on a conflict of mythologies, with no real or tangible evidence whatsoever.
By scientists seeking evidence of God (even if they never actually find any) we have a chance at finding at least some *universal* truths that cannot be dismissed by differences in languages and stories.
We may have to rely solely on the *soft* sciences, such as psychology and sociology for any progress on the issue. But I do suspect that there are some vital pieces of the puzzle that are as yet unexplained, which may very well hold the key to the ultimate source of reality. As I have mentioned elsewhere, i really do think that Dark Matter just might be one of those pieces.
And even if I am wrong about God, I don't care, because I would rather be wrong, and find out that I am wrong in such searching, than to continue to let religion monopolize the powers of creation and human existence.
I think that science is the only answer to the God question. When scientists have closed that chapter, refusing to look any further, they have conceded to letting the church continue.
If scientists would rather put their energy into 100% disproving the possibility of God, so be it. I won't stop them. That would still be progress for humanity. I am not so invested in my own personal hypothesis that God does exist that I would cling to it in the face of counter-evidence.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
that stuff about science looking for God is "out there" but I'm happy ending on a conciliatory note. Thanks for posting your essay and challenging everyone to have at it. I don't mean to police your beliefs, its just the things people "know" are interesting, especially when I don't "get it". Its cool being challenged to think instead of tossing insults.
or myself?
Sorry, it seemed like it was for me, because of the comment "that stuff about science looking for God is "out there"
but I don't want to assume. I didn't post any essay, so I thought it might be for dragonwolf.
I just want to add, that while I realize that scientists who are also atheists see the question as closed, in my opinion, they have a duty to the rest of the world to make it universally known. The only way to do that is to produce hard evidence that God does not exist.
The implications are huge. Wars are happening, and people are being killed and martyred for their beliefs surrounding God. To be able to absolutely disprove God would mean a chance to bring all of those jihadists to justice, whether they be Christian, Muslim or Jewish.
The question is not satisfactorily answered for anyone, which means it requires further investigation.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
The reply button eludes me. Essay, blog, whatever. You posted a thing from a class up there somewheres.
No amount of hard evidence can disprove the phantomy 'leaves-no-hard-evidence' type of God. If your belief is founded on vaguely spiritual personal experience, what can science possibly do to change your mind? (so you have to say something that hasn't been done yet, but is theoretically possible - something involving neurobiology?) We can disprove the Judeochrislamic (Abrahamic?) God - I think the problem of evil is sufficient.
But looking for hard evidence against specific gods would be fighting the symptoms of a deeper problem - sloppy thinking. That's why many scientists go around promoting skepticism. Last week Michael Shermer lectured here on "Why People Believe Weird Things" - confirmation bias and evolutionary incentive to anthropomorhism (the illusion of agency). If critical thinking were universally known, superstition wouldn't exist and nobody would be fighting for Allah.
"But looking for hard evidence against specific gods would be fighting the symptoms of a deeper problem - sloppy thinking."
My response is that as a nurse, my job is to address and treat symptoms, not causes or diseases. That is up to the physicians, policy makers, philosophers, etc.
My job is to meet a person in need, and to decipher what they have any influence over in their particular situation. I am not here to make any universal discoveries or write any universal definitions. I am here to help those who meet me and agree that they need some help.
I am limited in my expertise and knowledge, but I am open with my mind and heart, and make myself available for anyone who chooses to ask me for help. I must qualify that my basic requirement for any help is evidence of an individual's personal desire for the advancement of humanity, not that humans gain at the expense of other humans.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
and Ha ha ha...
"If critical thinking were universally known, superstition wouldn't exist and nobody would be fighting for Allah."
No argument from me.
I need some time to assimilate this with all that we have already established, or questioned, argued, whatever.
However, I love this particular statement. Thank you.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!