One Question For The Christians

[EdwardAbbey]

What is a God, exactly, and why do you think one exists?

 

Without using any bible passages, how would you answer this question?

[R. S. Martin]

That was posted 13 Days ago. Not a single response. Must be Christians don't know even the basics of their own religion. Is it any wonder they could never answer my questions!

 

Since my deconversion I've been grilled enough to get some idea as to what Christians think is evidence of God to perhaps answer the questions in the OP.

 

God is the almighty Being the is larger than and distinct from the universe who created everything that is and orders every detail of all our lives. The evidence of God is in the inexplicable beauties of nature, the love of humanity, the depth of the Bible and godly wisdom of the sages. If these things seem to be replicated by unbelievers or explained by science, this does not do away with the validity of the evidence of God's existence. Why not? Because God moves in mysterious ways; God is universal love and causes even the heathen to act in loving and wise ways, though they do not acknowledge the Source of their wisdom and love.

 

As a nonreligious person I say that is a stop-gap answer that cannot be falsified and therefore it is not acceptable. I would further hazzard a guess that it is because Christians know we take that position that they have not bothered responding to the OP. This, however, does not change the Bible's command for them to be prepared to speak about the hope that is in them "in season and out of season."

 

(tongue-in-cheek: That is the beauty of the bible; it is so terribly inconsistent that it can be used against its followers no matter if they obey it or disobey it. Furthermore, in not answering the OP they were actually obeying the command not to throw their pearls to the swine or their treasures to the dogs. In other words, one can do pretty much what one wants to and still be obeying the Bible.)

[Evolution_beyond]

I second this inquiry - what does the term 'God' mean? What does it refer to?

 

And I would also add the following questions:

 

What is a 'soul'?

 

What is 'sin'?

 

What is the definition of 'good' and 'evil'?

[Open_Minded]

What is a God, exactly, and why do you think one exists?

 

Without using any bible passages, how would you answer this question?

 

Hello EdwardAbbey:

 

Well... I'll take a shot at it. But keep in mind I am a liberal Christian, so my answers (most likely) do not represent literalist Christians.

 

I use the word God because, I guess, at the core of my belief system I believe there is intent at the foundation of all that is. I believe there is ONENESS - a unity of all that is. And I believe this ONENESS is also AWARENESS itself, and that the universe (and all that is) unfolds with intention. I also believe that love and wisdom are closely affiliated with this infinite AWARENESS.

 

 

I second this inquiry - what does the term 'God' mean? What does it refer to?

 

And I would also add the following questions:

 

What is a 'soul'?

 

What is 'sin'?

 

What is the definition of 'good' and 'evil'?

 

What is "soul"?.... Soul is that which is aware of "self". Today I was reading a book about the brain/mind. The author was talking about a conversation he had with a student - in which the student was struggling with why it is so difficult to define consciousness. The professor asked the student to define consciousness in his own language. The student said something to the affect of, "well - I would say that consciousness is the mind recording life - sort of like a T.V. set in my mind". Then the professor said, "well who/or what is watching the T.V. set, who is flipping the channels, who (or what) is deciding what to watch and what to skip over?"

 

For me - soul points to this - but is not limited to this who/what that is watching "self". For me, soul also points to the that which is awareness of "self". I also believe this that watches and is aware of self is also an extension (for lack of a better word) of the ONENESS. This that is aware of "self" is aware of "self" but also unfolding of the ONENESS of all that is. (This is difficult to explain - but even though I believe that ONENESS encompasses all that is, or ever was, for me the "soul" - this awareness within - is the movement between infinite awareness and physical unfolding into concrete form.)

 

What is "sin". The Aramaic word Jesus would have used for "sin" meant something akin to "missing the mark". Also, the Aramaic word for "evil" was something akin to "not quite ripe yet". I like these ways of looking at "sin" and "evil".

 

I'm not sure if this post answers your questions, but figured I'd hop in with my own thoughts even though they aren't something conservative Christians would agree with. I do have to say, my understanding of "soul" comes straight out of the Christian mystic/meditative traditions.

[Evolution_beyond]

I use the word God because, I guess, at the core of my belief system I believe there is intent at the foundation of all that is.

 

Why? What is it about the Universe that makes you think that it must be designed or have an intelligence behind it?

 

I believe there is ONENESS - a unity of all that is.

 

I agree. Everything is one. All matter is connected and it is all made of the same stuff (atoms)

 

And I believe this ONENESS is also AWARENESS itself, and that the universe (and all that is) unfolds with intention.

 

This is where I disagree. I used to think this way but I now I see no reason why consciousness/awareness couldn't simply arise as a result of complicated forms of sensory information processing.

 

Again - I ask why do you think that the Universe must be the result of intention, by which I assume you mean some kind of intelligence. There seems far too much evidence of random trial and error in the history of the Universe and biological life. This, to me, seems to suggest the opposite of an intelligent universe.

 

What is "soul"?.... Soul is that which is aware of "self".

 

In other words, the part of the brain that has awareness of self

 

Today I was reading a book about the brain/mind. The author was talking about a conversation he had with a student - in which the student was struggling with why it is so difficult to define consciousness. The professor asked the student to define consciousness in his own language. The student said something to the affect of, "well - I would say that consciousness is the mind recording life - sort of like a T.V. set in my mind". Then the professor said, "well who/or what is watching the T.V. set, who is flipping the channels, who (or what) is deciding what to watch and what to skip over?"

 

Maybe the conscious experience (what is described by saying 'who or what is watching?') is just the collective effect of all that information processing

 

For me - soul points to this - but is not limited to this who/what that is watching "self". For me, soul also points to the that which is awareness of "self". I also believe this that watches and is aware of self is also an extension (for lack of a better word) of the ONENESS. This that is aware of "self" is aware of "self" but also unfolding of the ONENESS of all that is. (This is difficult to explain - but even though I believe that ONENESS encompasses all that is, or ever was, for me the "soul" - this awareness within - is the movement between infinite awareness and physical unfolding into concrete form.)

 

the collective effect of all the information processing. Yes, consciousness is a kind of connectedness - a kind of oneness. But humans (and other animals) are the means through which consciousness happens. There is absolutely no evidence for consciousness in non-living matter. I see no evidence for the universe being conscious.

 

What is "sin". The Aramaic word Jesus would have used for "sin" meant something akin to "missing the mark". Also, the Aramaic word for "evil" was something akin to "not quite ripe yet". I like these ways of looking at "sin" and "evil".

 

I like those definitions too. It suggests that wrong and evil are the result of mistakes. It suggests that life is a learning process, in which mistakes are made so that we can learn from them and become better. This is a healthy philosophy to have. It encourages us to try and heal evil rather than condemn it - to try and understand the wrong that is in the world and try and move beyond it and on to better things.

 

In my experience however religion tends to work in the opposite direction. Condemning, rather than healing - religion does not reach to better things but only makes them far, far worse.

[SWIM]

Why? What is it about the Universe that makes you think that it must be designed or have an intelligence behind it?

 

 

I have come to discover that most xtians think ID is real because of the complexity of life. Things like the complexity of the brain and nervous system seem "designed" because everything works in harmony, and the complexity is to such an extent that even our best scientists cannot duplicate it.

 

To me, this is only evidence that in infinity, any and all things that are possible will occur, and are constantly occuring somewhere. An xtian thinks it's complexity however, is evidence of ID.

[Open_Minded]

I use the word God because, I guess, at the core of my belief system I believe there is intent at the foundation of all that is.

 

Why? What is it about the Universe that makes you think that it must be designed or have an intelligence behind it? I agree. Everything is one. All matter is connected and it is all made of the same stuff (atoms).

 

There is no scientific evidence to prove anything about my belief system - none. I love physics and have read as many books about physics as I have about mysticism, theology and ancient history. I have read enough of physics to know that science also makes its assumptions and has its beliefs. For instance, it is an assumption that atoms make up all that is. It is an assumption that the core constituents of the universe are atoms, an assumption that is increasingly being challenged by string theorists.

 

You ask, what makes me think the universe has intelligence and awareness within and behind it. It's difficult to articulate a short response.

 

My beliefs are born out of years of living, lots of reading across many disciplines, my own world-view, etc... It's impossible to wrap them up into a nice neat package because they reflect 50 years of living.

 

In the end - after living through the randomness of life as well as the beauty and intricacy of life it may simply be that my own bias favors a view of intention and wisdom and awareness and love as the foundation for all that is. I accept that take on things - after all none of it can be proven.

 

And I believe this ONENESS is also AWARENESS itself, and that the universe (and all that is) unfolds with intention.

 

This is where I disagree. I used to think this way but I now I see no reason why consciousness/awareness couldn't simply arise as a result of complicated forms of sensory information processing.

Or, it may suggest that we simply view the world differently. The point is that neither position can be proven. There are scientists who do not view consciousness as an epiphenomenon of the brain - people with more education about these things than you and I debate the idea of consciousness all the time. I think it goes without saying that neither your belief (and it is a belief) nor my belief can be proven.

 

Today I was reading a book about the brain/mind. The author was talking about a conversation he had with a student - in which the student was struggling with why it is so difficult to define consciousness. The professor asked the student to define consciousness in his own language. The student said something to the affect of, "well - I would say that consciousness is the mind recording life - sort of like a T.V. set in my mind". Then the professor said, "well who/or what is watching the T.V. set, who is flipping the channels, who (or what) is deciding what to watch and what to skip over?"

 

Maybe the conscious experience (what is described by saying 'who or what is watching?') is just the collective effect of all that information processing

Maybe it is - but - then again - maybe it is awareness itself... Let me ask you this question? Isn't the assumption that consciousness is the collective effect of all that information processing itself sort of circular? Isn't it saying that the brain/mind is producing it's own awareness of itself? I mean I don't care if that's your position, but it never quite made sense to me.

 

For me - soul points to this - but is not limited to this who/what that is watching "self". For me, soul also points to the that which is awareness of "self". I also believe this that watches and is aware of self is also an extension (for lack of a better word) of the ONENESS. This that is aware of "self" is aware of "self" but also unfolding of the ONENESS of all that is. (This is difficult to explain - but even though I believe that ONENESS encompasses all that is, or ever was, for me the "soul" - this awareness within - is the movement between infinite awareness and physical unfolding into concrete form.)

the collective effect of all the information processing. Yes, consciousness is a kind of connectedness - a kind of oneness. But humans (and other animals) are the means through which consciousness happens. There is absolutely no evidence for consciousness in non-living matter. I see no evidence for the universe being conscious.

You see no evidence for the universe being conscious - what exactly are you looking for? I'm sorry - but a puny human being on a planet in the middle of nowhere - has no chance of discovering the universe as it is - objectively - not as we perceive it, none. We perceive it from a very limited and relative point of view. And as much as physics (and the other sciences) have given us in the way of information about the universe and our place in it, science cannot give us all the answers.

 

When you look for evidence of a living universe - what kind of "life" are you looking for? Would you expect to find a universal heart-beat? If we define life we immediately make it relative to our experience of life. At that point the search for a living universe is already compromised. As humans we define human life either through the heart beat or brain activity. Assuming that is what you are looking for in the universe, where exactly would you go to find it. Science cannot discover (at least not in this point of it's evolution) whether the universe is aware or not? So, it comes down to philosophy.

 

Two sane and rational individuals can have different philosophies about the same thing.

 

have come to discover that most xtians think ID is real because of the complexity of life. Things like the complexity of the brain and nervous system seem "designed" because everything works in harmony, and the complexity is to such an extent that even our best scientists cannot duplicate it.

 

To me, this is only evidence that in infinity, any and all things that are possible will occur, and are constantly occuring somewhere. An xtian thinks it's complexity however, is evidence of ID.

Michael - please do not make the assumption here that I am arguing for the "theory of intelligent design". That whole debate makes me angry. It makes me angry that there are Christians who want intelligent design to be taught as scientific theory. As I said earlier there are some places science cannot go. Intelligent design, presented as science cannot hold water. Even though statisticians can gather mountains of data about the statistical improbability of certain biological events occurring by chance, they can not use that information to make predictions about the future. Therefore, ID cannot hold water within the classical scientific model.

 

Having said all that, on philosophical grounds, it makes sense to pay attention to the statistical improbabilities of life as we know it - and on philosophical grounds I accept the data as a valid point of view. I just think it has no place in a classical scientific model.

 

I accept my position is a position of philosophy and belief, not one of science. I also accept the reality that science has it's limitations and I am willing to live with ambiguous answers.

[Evolution_beyond]

I have read enough of physics to know that science also makes its assumptions and has its beliefs. For instance, it is an assumption that atoms make up all that is. It is an assumption that the core constituents of the universe are atoms, an assumption that is increasingly being challenged by string theorists.

 

Of course atoms don't quite make up all that is - there is energy as well as matter after all.

 

Science makes many assumptions - but most of them are fairly reasonable. Cause and effect is an assumption. We can't really tell whether things cause other things. It could be that certain things always happen to occur after other things with no real link between the two. But it is a fairly reasonable assumption to view such occurences as cause and effect because this is an assumption that all human beings make in their everyday lives. I use this as an example of the type of assumptions that science makes.

 

I don't see how atoms being building blocks of matter can be assumption when there is plenty of evidence and experimentation to back it up. String theory does not deny the status of atoms as the building blocks of matter. String Theory was developed to explain sub-atomic anomalies, quantum mechanics and stuff. These things are to do with the sub-atomic world and may suggest extra dimensions. But none of this undermines existence of atoms or the notion that all matter is made up of atoms.

 

people with more education about these things than you and I debate the idea of consciousness all the time.

 

I do have a degree in philosophy you know.

 

I also used to be a panpsychist. But I have accepted a functionalist explanation of consciousness now.

 

Either one of these approaches seems to work best in explaining consciousness - but Dualism is pretty much universally agreed to be problematic.

 

The only problem with panpsychism is that it requires belief in things we have no evidence for, and it still holds out consciousness as something of a mystery. Functionalism however doesn't require a belief that rocks have a kind of consciousness and it does try to explain what consciousness is (a form of information processing). I used to think that this doesn't quite explain everything about consciousness (what about the subjective qualia of experience?) - until I realised that qualia are exactly what one would expect from any entity that is responding to information about the outside world. There's no need for any magic or a ghost in the machine, qualia is just what it happens to feel like to be a sophisticated biological machine that takes in sensory information about the world and processes it in a certain way.

 

Let me ask you this question? Isn't the assumption that consciousness is the collective effect of all that information processing itself sort of circular? Isn't it saying that the brain/mind is producing it's own awareness of itself?

 

Is it circular to say that an ice cube is frozen water?

 

Awareness or consciousness means that you are accessing information about the world (or even about yourself). The brain is the way that animals such as human beings do this.

 

What is circular about that?

 

You see no evidence for the universe being conscious - what exactly are you looking for? I'm sorry - but a puny human being on a planet in the middle of nowhere - has no chance of discovering the universe as it is - objectively - not as we perceive it, none. We perceive it from a very limited and relative point of view. And as much as physics (and the other sciences) have given us in the way of information about the universe and our place in it, science cannot give us all the answers.

 

It is a rational position to require some kind of evidence before you will believe something. Otherwise you would be forced to believe everything - UFOs, unicorns, fairies at the bottom of the garden, Christianity, Islam, the claims of Jehovah's witnesses and mormons, accounts of ghosts and vampires, Buddhism, Hinduism, pagan religions, various conspiracy theories, the idea that Jesus fathered children by Mary Magdalene - everything. So in order to cut through all the falsehoods, it is rational to start from the position of requiring some kind of evidence before you'll accept something as true.

 

Yes, we'll always be limited by our human brains and our tiny corner of the Universe etc etc. But science tries its best to test its assumptions, to try and prove them wrong, to base things purely on evidence and experimentation. Science tries to prompt the Universe to reveal its secrets, and tries not to let human assumptions, beliefs and errors get in the way of that. Given our situation - science is the best tool for the job of discerning truth rather than being chained to human traditions, superstitions and anthropomorphic assumptions.

 

Of course science doesn't have all the answers. It can't tell you how to live, how to feel or give you 'meaning' - that's the job of ethical philosophy, the arts (art, music, literature, film etc) and psychology.

 

When you look for evidence of a living universe - what kind of "life" are you looking for? Would you expect to find a universal heart-beat? If we define life we immediately make it relative to our experience of life. At that point the search for a living universe is already compromised. As humans we define human life either through the heart beat or brain activity. Assuming that is what you are looking for in the universe, where exactly would you go to find it. Science cannot discover (at least not in this point of it's evolution) whether the universe is aware or not? So, it comes down to philosophy.

 

If the Universe were intelligent and aware I would expect a world that was carefully designed, rather than one that seems to have come about as a result of an extremely long-lived form of trial and error. Perhaps you have not noticed some of the errors of evolution. When you choke on food because it goes down the wrong way, this is because the tube that takes food to your stomach is linked to the tube that takes air into your lungs. There is no real reason why this should be - and we would be much less likely to choke if the two tubes were totally separate. Yet it is an evolutionary flaw that was never severe enough to ever get ironed out.

 

There are many other, possibly better, examples for those who look for them. Life arose on our planet as a result of trial and error. The universe is also a particularly dangerous place that doesn't seem to favour life - all those meteors pulverising planets left right and centre. It takes a very special atmosphere to protect us from solar radiation. There is a tiny margin for error in how near or far from a star a planet needs to be in order for life to be viable.

 

Wouldn't a conscious universe act so as to make things more favourable for life? Wouldn't a conscious universe act in some way - show some evidence that it is there, watching and making decisions about things? But instead we have this curiously random, lifeless universe. My guess is that nobody's home and consciousness is the result of biological organisms, not biological organisms the result of consciousness.

[Open_Minded]

Of course atoms don't quite make up all that is - there is energy as well as matter after all..... I don't see how atoms being building blocks of matter can be assumption when there is plenty of evidence and experimentation to back it up. String theory does not deny the status of atoms as the building blocks of matter.

I'm sorry - I was going through my last response quite quickly and didn't really make myself clear. Yes - there is plenty of for atoms. But... until quite recently in scientific history - it has been assumed that zero-dimensional point particles make up electrons, photons, etc.... String theory throws that all into question. If string theory holds ground - zero-dimensional point particles will give way to tiny vibrating strings instead of point particles.

 

The basic idea behind all string theories is that the constituents of reality are strings of extremely small size (possibly of the order of the Planck length, about 10−35 m) which vibrate at specific resonant frequencies.[13] Thus, any particle should be thought of as a tiny vibrating object, rather than as a point. This object can vibrate in different modes (just as a guitar string can produce different notes), with every mode appearing as a different particle (electron, photon, etc.).

 

people with more education about these things than you and I debate the idea of consciousness all the time.

I do have a degree in philosophy you know.

No ... I was not aware of that. But my point still holds ... I'll word it differently ... humans have been debating the idea of consciousness for thousands of years ... you and I will not figure it out in this one little thread.....

 

Let me ask you this question? Isn't the assumption that consciousness is the collective effect of all that information processing itself sort of circular? Isn't it saying that the brain/mind is producing it's own awareness of itself?

Awareness or consciousness means that you are accessing information about the world (or even about yourself). The brain is the way that animals such as human beings do this.

 

What is circular about that?

It just doesn't make sense to me that the brain can access information about the world - gather it up - and then look at itself accessing the information and gathering it up. Awareness is not only accessing the information - it is also watching oneself accessing information. It just makes more sense (to me) that there is awareness, then there is the brain/mind (which participates in the universal awareness), and that the Universal Awareness (in which the brain/mind participates) is within the functions of the brain/mind and analyzing the functions of the brain/mind simultaneously.

 

You see no evidence for the universe being conscious - what exactly are you looking for? I'm sorry - but a puny human being on a planet in the middle of nowhere - has no chance of discovering the universe as it is - objectively - not as we perceive it, none. We perceive it from a very limited and relative point of view. And as much as physics (and the other sciences) have given us in the way of information about the universe and our place in it, science cannot give us all the answers.

It is a rational position to require some kind of evidence before you will believe something. Otherwise you would be forced to believe everything - UFOs, unicorns, fairies at the bottom of the garden, Christianity,.... <snipped>

Well... no.... I have no concrete evidence for my beliefs and that does not "force" me to believe in unicorns or fairies.. Beliefs do not have to be linked to science, or math, or anything else concrete.

 

It is my experience...that beliefs can be linked to life experience which includes many rational and concrete facts... but is not limited to those things....

 

If belief required some kind of evidence then there would be no disagreement amongst rational people over rational things.

 

More to come....

[Open_Minded]

Yes, we'll always be limited by our human brains and our tiny corner of the Universe etc etc. But science tries its best to test its assumptions, to try and prove them wrong, to base things purely on evidence and experimentation. Science tries to prompt the Universe to reveal its secrets, and tries not to let human assumptions, beliefs and errors get in the way of that. Given our situation - science is the best tool for the job of discerning truth rather than being chained to human traditions, superstitions and anthropomorphic assumptions.

First of all - I agree that science tries its best to test assumptions. But I stand by point, it is limited, it cannot answer all the questions of life.

 

Secondly - do not make the assumption that since I feel science has its limits that I am superstitious and my understanding of God is anthropomorphic. You don't know me well enough to insinuate that.

 

When you look for evidence of a living universe - what kind of "life" are you looking for? Would you expect to find a universal heart-beat? If we define life we immediately make it relative to our experience of life. At that point the search for a living universe is already compromised. As humans we define human life either through the heart beat or brain activity. Assuming that is what you are looking for in the universe, where exactly would you go to find it. Science cannot discover (at least not in this point of it's evolution) whether the universe is aware or not? So, it comes down to philosophy.

If the Universe were intelligent and aware I would expect a world that was carefully designed, rather than one that seems to have come about as a result of an extremely long-lived form of trial and error. Perhaps you have not noticed some of the errors of evolution. When you choke on food because it goes down the wrong way, this is because the tube that takes food to your stomach is linked to the tube that takes air into your lungs. There is no real reason why this should be - and we would be much less likely to choke if the two tubes were totally separate. Yet it is an evolutionary flaw that was never severe enough to ever get ironed out.

 

There are many other, possibly better, examples for those who look for them. Life arose on our planet as a result of trial and error. The universe is also a particularly dangerous place that doesn't seem to favour life - all those meteors pulverising planets left right and centre. It takes a very special atmosphere to protect us from solar radiation. There is a tiny margin for error in how near or far from a star a planet needs to be in order for life to be viable.

And you do realize that some people would use that very argument to insist that there is a God... that chance could not have produced that tiny margin of error? (I am not one of them ... I don't feel the need to invoke science or statistics to "prove" my beliefs. As I said earlier in this thread - I know there is no scientific foundation for my belief.) But, you do realize that there are those who would take that tiny margin of error and defend their belief in an intelligent designer? And if you realize that - then I'm sure you realize that your position is just that, your position. You look at the same facts and come to a different conclusion.

Wouldn't a conscious universe act so as to make things more favourable for life?

I don't know - I'm not the universe and I don't anthropomorphize the universe and insist that it act according to my idea of what a conscious universe should do.

 

Wouldn't a conscious universe act in some way - show some evidence that it is there, watching and making decisions about things?

What if its evidence is the watching and the making of decisions through that which it "creates" - through us and other life forms?????

 

But instead we have this curiously random, lifeless universe. My guess is that nobody's home and consciousness is the result of biological organisms, not biological organisms the result of consciousness.

Yes... the universe is random ... I'll give you that.... Well – there is chaos that is for certain. But, what I have consistently seen in my 50 years of living is love establishing order in the midst of chaos.

 

I’ve seen plenty of chaos in my life. The reason I’ve not been on this board for several months is because of chaos. Too much to go into right now…. But for a short run down … within a six week period this summer my daughter and her friends have had to bury 3 young people – all 18/19 years-old.

 

• One friend died in the hospital waiting for a lung transplant that never came.
  
• My daughter’s best friend almost died in a car accident – that wasn’t her fault. The driver of the other car was high on drugs and swerved into her lane. The driver of the other car did die and also happened to be a classmate and the grand-daughter of a very good friend of mine.
  
• My daughter’s boyfriend died just a few week’s after the car accident – he died because of prescription drug overdose.
  
• In addition to all that – my husband’s mother was in the hospital with some severe health problems. Her troubles lasted for weeks and we didn’t know if she would survive.
  
• My brother-in-law has just finished 6 weeks of radiation therapy for cancer – he will probably survive.
  
• And if all of this wasn’t enough chaos for our family - all summer long our extended family has been waiting for the birth of a child the doctor’s said would die minutes after the birth because of severe birth defects. The baby was born three weeks ago and is still alive – but his birth defects are quite severe and we don’t know how long he will be with us.
  

But, you know what I see in all of this – what consistently happens in the middle of all the chaos is love. Science can’t give me an answer for this.

 

The doctors told the parents of our new baby that they should abort and they couldn’t. It’s not that they don’t believe others have the right to that option – but they couldn’t. The mother went into that labor knowing full well her baby would probably not live after his first few breaths – but she hung onto the pregnancy and went through the labor for nothing more than love. And this baby is now three week’s old. He may surprise all the doctors and live for years instead of weeks…. And if he does his parents will sacrifice for him so that he can live and love and laugh – when natural selection says that they shouldn’t for the sake of their own lives and children they may have in the future. Science can’t give me an answer to this… it can’t….

 

I gave up week’s of my life this summer to take care of my mother-in-law. And this was huge for me, she has not always been an easy person to deal with. I do not parent the way she feels I should and she has made it abundantly clear to me that she would do things differently. We have not had an easy relationship – the two of us.

 

And yet, here she is in the hospital fighting for her life. She is elderly, she’s lived a good long life, she was ready to go – she told us so. And yet all of us gathered together and decided we were going to do what was “right”. What was “right” was love. If she survived we determined that she would not go to a nursing home – that we would rearrange our lives to make sure she stayed in her own home and had the time she needed to recover so that she could again be alone during the day.

 

Now mind you – this woman has consistently called me by another daughter-in-law’s name through 27 years of marriage. And still I let it go – I called my clients – rearranged my schedule – left my 17 year-old daughter to fend for herself while my husband was at work and went to live with my mother-in-law for 2 weeks. I did this for love and nothing more – and during this two weeks she called me by my given name – and she has ever since. We reconciled somewhat during those two week’s she discovered what unconditional love was and I discovered how to give unconditional love.

 

And science can’t answer that for me…. It simply can’t ….

 

Love and Wisdom transcend science (and everything else). Love/Wisdom also includes and makes room for science – not the other way around. My brother is a scientist – he is for the love of asking the question “why”? He is a scientist for the love of seeking answers. Yes – love and wisdom can include science – but science has its limits. It needs concrete answers and love and wisdom are anything but concrete.

 

We love because we are aware. The parents of our new baby could not abort because they are aware that this severely deformed child is also human.

 

We love because we are aware…. I loved my mother-in-law this summer because I was aware of her humanness, her vulnerability… that enabled me to let go and simply love….

 

Awareness gives us all the elements of the human experience. It gives us science …certainly we seek the concrete scientific answers of life because we are aware.

 

Awareness gives us love as well….certainly we love because we look at others and see in them ourselves….

 

So, at the end of the day, I give primacy to love/wisdom. Love and wisdom happen because of awareness. We are aware – so we love. We love when natural selection tells us we shouldn’t because we are aware the other is human and we empathize. Natural selection would tell us – so what – the other is not a viable candidate for the evolutionary gene pool, let it go. Love gives us permission to fight for the others life, even if our own is at risk. Humans do this all the time – they give their life for the sake of others – even others who are vulnerable and not viable candidates for an evolutionary gene pool.

 

I don't write all this personal stuff to gain any sympathy - it's just my take on things that's all. You asked why I believe what I believe. It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with life - the way I perceive it.

[RIPw4]

I like your style openminded.. You are ok in my book. *writes down openminded in book of cool Christians.*

[Evolution_beyond]

until quite recently in scientific history - it has been assumed that zero-dimensional point particles make up electrons, photons, etc.... String theory throws that all into question. If string theory holds ground - zero-dimensional point particles will give way to tiny vibrating strings instead of point particles.

 

The basic idea behind all string theories is that the constituents of reality are strings of extremely small size (possibly of the order of the Planck length, about 10−35 m) which vibrate at specific resonant frequencies.[13] Thus, any particle should be thought of as a tiny vibrating object, rather than as a point. This object can vibrate in different modes (just as a guitar string can produce different notes), with every mode appearing as a different particle (electron, photon, etc.).

 

Wow. More oneness. Even the particles that make up atoms are all the same - just strings vibrating in different ways. All things really are one.

 

This is something we can agree on. I still feel awe when I contemplate the oneness of all things. But I don't think that oneness = awareness. Awareness seems to me to be the result of at least sensory experience - at its most sophisticated it also includes self-awareness. I don't think that exists outside of biological organisms (and in the future, possibly computers too if we can ever make them do what brains can do)

 

But the basic matter that underpins all things, including conscious beings like ourselves - is fundamentally a kind of oneness. That is a beautiful truth that I hold dear and find very inspiring.

 

It just doesn't make sense to me that the brain can access information about the world - gather it up - and then look at itself accessing the information and gathering it up. Awareness is not only accessing the information - it is also watching oneself accessing information. It just makes more sense (to me) that there is awareness, then there is the brain/mind (which participates in the universal awareness), and that the Universal Awareness (in which the brain/mind participates) is within the functions of the brain/mind and analyzing the functions of the brain/mind simultaneously.

 

A simple organism will simply take in sensory information. This is a conscious experience I believe - it would involve some kind of experiencing of the world around it.

 

A more complex organism (like ourselves) also has a brain that can form concepts and think about things - and even reflect on and observe its own sensory experiences. But I don't see why that adds any more mystery. Surely it is just a matter of shuffling information around.

[Evolution_beyond]

First of all - I agree that science tries its best to test assumptions. But I stand by point, it is limited, it cannot answer all the questions of life.

 

I agree. There are questions that art can answer better (and I include novels, film and music when I say 'art'). There are also questions and problems in life that psychology/psychiatry/counselling can help with. There are also ethical questions and problems, which is what ethical philosphy is for. I would stress philosophy though instead of religion - because religion tends to get stuck in tradition and tends to simply lay down God-given laws that should be obeyed without question. Philosophy tackles ethics by trying to use reason and being willing to question and adapt.

 

But I agree that science can't answer all of life's questions. But I don't trust religion to fill that gap.

 

Secondly - do not make the assumption that since I feel science has its limits that I am superstitious and my understanding of God is anthropomorphic. You don't know me well enough to insinuate that.

 

anthropomorphic doesn't have to mean that you believe God has a physical body. That is clearly absurd and I can see why it would be insulting for someone to assume that theists believe that.

 

But looking at things from an atheist perspective, I see any attempt to say the Universe is conscious or intelligent to be an example of the human urge to see human characteristics in the cosmos. This is still anthropomorphism of a more subtle and intelligent kind. But it is still the falacy of seeing human characteristics in non-human things.

 

imho - no offense meant

 

As for your final points. I can certainly see the point of what you are saying.

 

I think we can agree to disagree here.

 

Love and self-sacrifice are extra-ordinary aspects of human nature. Scientific language may seem to take the magic out of such things, to be trying to argue them away, or to diminish their meaning. But it's not really doing that. Science just tries to explain why things are that way.

 

The proper understanding as I see it is to accept science's explanation of things such as love and altruism - without diminishing one's appreciation of the true beauty and wonderousness of those sides of human nature.

 

Anyway, I accept your points - you do make some good ones

 

I'm not really trying to pick a fight with you. I just enjoy sharpening my mind with debate

[Open_Minded]

I like your style openminded.. You are ok in my book. *writes down openminded in book of cool Christians.*

Thanks RIPw4

 

until quite recently in scientific history - it has been assumed that zero-dimensional point particles make up electrons, photons, etc.... String theory throws that all into question. If string theory holds ground - zero-dimensional point particles will give way to tiny vibrating strings instead of point particles.

 

The basic idea behind all string theories is that the constituents of reality are strings of extremely small size (possibly of the order of the Planck length, about 10−35 m) which vibrate at specific resonant frequencies.[13] Thus, any particle should be thought of as a tiny vibrating object, rather than as a point. This object can vibrate in different modes (just as a guitar string can produce different notes), with every mode appearing as a different particle (electron, photon, etc.).

 

Wow. More oneness. Even the particles that make up atoms are all the same - just strings vibrating in different ways. All things really are one.

 

This is something we can agree on. I still feel awe when I contemplate the oneness of all things.

yes - we certainly do agree here. Oneness is core for me - I "see" it in everything and it really does give me a sense of peace.

 

Secondly - do not make the assumption that since I feel science has its limits that I am superstitious and my understanding of God is anthropomorphic. You don't know me well enough to insinuate that.

anthropomorphic doesn't have to mean that you believe God has a physical body. That is clearly absurd and I can see why it would be insulting for someone to assume that theists believe that.

 

But looking at things from an atheist perspective, I see any attempt to say the Universe is conscious or intelligent to be an example of the human urge to see human characteristics in the cosmos. This is still anthropomorphism of a more subtle and intelligent kind. But it is still the falacy of seeing human characteristics in non-human things.

 

imho - no offense meant.

No offense taken..

 

But, it is not anthropomorphic to me since I do not believe AWARENESS to be a human construct. In fact - from my perspective - it is quite "center of the universe" thinking for humans to believe that AWARENESS is a result of the human experience. AWARENESS has no form - and is not limited to my itty bitty brain. IMHO

 

Anthropomorphizing AWARENESS would be making the assumption that AWARENESS manifests itself in the universe that way it manifests itself in the human brain. I see AWARENESS in other things - besides the human experience. For instance - and this is just an example of my own perceptions - it is not an attempt to defend or prove my position. But, I've mentioned that I enjoy physics. Have you ever heard of Quantum entanglement?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality

 

Quantum entanglement is a quantum mechanical phenomenon in which the quantum states of two or more objects have to be described with reference to each other, even though the individual objects may be spatially separated. This leads to correlations between observable physical properties of the systems. For example, it is possible to prepare two particles in a single quantum state such that when one is observed to be spin-up, the other one will always be observed to be spin-down and vice versa, this despite the fact that it is impossible to predict, according to quantum mechanics, which set of measurements will be observed.

As a result, measurements performed on one system seem to be instantaneously influencing other systems entangled with it. But quantum entanglement does not enable the transmission of classical information faster than the speed of light

(see discussion in next section below).

 

I don't know how to explain this - but this kind of thing is like a music to me. AWARENESS (to me) is not a human construct - it simply is. All of creation participates in it. My cats know when my children are sick because of AWARENESS. A tree knows when it is part of a forest or when it is alone - it responds in its own way to the difference - this is also AWARENESS to me. And it is AWARENESS that is NOT anthropomorphized - in other words - I don't believe the tree is thinking like humans think or that the quantum wave/particles are acting the way they do because they are "communicate" the way humans do. I just believe that all that happens - happens within an innate AWARENESS.

 

Now, I know, the scientist can explain why a tree "knows" its environment. It might be able to explain why a pet "knows" intuitively what its master needs. But, that doesn't explain it all to me. I minored in environmental sciences. (That was years ago - but back then I had a pretty good scientific explanation for why a tree "knew" its environment. But, it never was enough of an explanation for me - that the members of the forest "knew" they participated in an eco-system larger than themselves and acted differently than they would act if they were growing alone on a plain (which is an eco-system of its own). There just always seemed to be something more at work in the equation - that science could never account for. It's all too subtle - what the participants of an eco-system "sense" in their growing and living together.)

 

And, bottom line, my assumption of awareness as the foundation of the universe is no less valid than the assumption by others that matter/energy is the foundation of the universe. Neither can be proven, both are assumptions.

 

I think we can agree to disagree here.

Yes - there are some things that we will never know for sure and it is best to "agree to disagree".

 

Love and self-sacrifice are extra-ordinary aspects of human nature. Scientific language may seem to take the magic out of such things, to be trying to argue them away, or to diminish their meaning. But it's not really doing that. Science just tries to explain why things are that way..... Awareness seems to me to be the result of at least sensory experience - at its most sophisticated it also includes self-awareness. I don't think that exists outside of biological organisms (and in the future, possibly computers too if we can ever make them do what brains can do)

 

I've a question for you... do you think it's possible that a computer could ever be constructed that is not only "self-aware" but will also act in an "self sacrificing" way or would be able to act altruistically?

 

This is an honest question... like you... I am not trying to pick a fight .... just sharpening my mind.

[EdwardAbbey]

That was posted 13 Days ago. Not a single response. Must be Christians don't know even the basics of their own religion. Is it any wonder they could never answer my questions!

 

Since my deconversion I've been grilled enough to get some idea as to what Christians think is evidence of God to perhaps answer the questions in the OP.

 

God is the almighty Being the is larger than and distinct from the universe who created everything that is and orders every detail of all our lives. The evidence of God is in the inexplicable beauties of nature, the love of humanity, the depth of the Bible and godly wisdom of the sages. If these things seem to be replicated by unbelievers or explained by science, this does not do away with the validity of the evidence of God's existence. Why not? Because God moves in mysterious ways; God is universal love and causes even the heathen to act in loving and wise ways, though they do not acknowledge the Source of their wisdom and love.

 

As a nonreligious person I say that is a stop-gap answer that cannot be falsified and therefore it is not acceptable. I would further hazzard a guess that it is because Christians know we take that position that they have not bothered responding to the OP. This, however, does not change the Bible's command for them to be prepared to speak about the hope that is in them "in season and out of season."

 

(tongue-in-cheek: That is the beauty of the bible; it is so terribly inconsistent that it can be used against its followers no matter if they obey it or disobey it. Furthermore, in not answering the OP they were actually obeying the command not to throw their pearls to the swine or their treasures to the dogs. In other words, one can do pretty much what one wants to and still be obeying the Bible.)

 

Good post. I was wondering why there were no comments for a while myself. But I think you pretty much answered the way an average believer would. I've been down the same road as you friend. I deconverted a few years ago myself. It's great to get back to logical and rational thinking for a change right?