Science And Religion Aren't Friends

[Guest end3]

I reject mysticism because it is often used as a term to become one with God/s or get in touch with spirits (even one's own). Since I reject gods and spirits, see no evidence for gods or spirits, this must be rejected till proof is offered of these things.

 

Let's drop the idea that "mysticism" has anything to go with gods and spirits for a second.

 

However the mystic might explain it, the one common thread is that it is a direct experience. Now, do you consider this experience valid and what proof would be required when the experience is stripped of it's religious language?

Oh I am sure people think they have some sort of experience. People hallucinate stuff all the time. Jesus talks to them, they feel his presence. The virgin Mary appears. All sorts of little mental tricks and seeing "signs". I don't doubt that people have these experiences...but there is nothing special or enlightening about them. Look for some "experience" long enough and you'll imagine one up.

 

There are times when they happen in direct contrast to "conjuring one up".

[Ouroboros]

Jesus Hans, it was just a statement and I tried to be nice even in my approach.

It wasn't a statement. It was a misrepresentation of what I was arguing. You made a statement that was in total opposition to what I was saying. How can I express it any better, if I post the same thing over and over again, and yet hear that I supposedly said something that I didn't say. The only response I can give is to rub it in, hard.

 

Yes, and thank you, that makes it much more clear for someone that doesn't have the extensive vocabulary that some share here.

It has nothing to do with the vocabulary as much as it has to do with going back to the first post I made regarding my argument. When I start a discussion about something, then it usually is a thread of thoughts that tie together. So to jump in, into the middle of it, and charge me with some assumed positions, is frustrating, but can be easily resolved by just going back to the first post and read to what started it.

 

Legion made some statement that made me think that he, and others here, would want to change science because science isn't good enough to explain reality. And my position is that it is unnecessary.

 

The problem I see is that rather than communicating that as you did, and easing any discomfort that I have by my core beliefs being discounted, many throw the science blanket on top of issues to cover things we don't currently understand. I am certain that Christianity does the same thing, to someone else's cost or discomfort.

I didn't discount your religion in the previous posts. Where did you get that idea from?

 

I didn't throw the science blanket over all issues to cover something we don't currently understand. Where did you get that from?

 

Explain how you could misunderstand me so completely and use that as an argument against me?

 

For the 4th time, I do NOT consider science to be the all-answer-for-everything solution. I believe that my experience in watching a beautiful sunset, or when I do a 1 hour workout and are all sweaty, or when I cuddle with the dogs, are all valid experiences of this world and can't be summarized in mathematics or science. Those things are just what they are, and they are valid for existence and part of explaining my existence.

 

How can I say it so you can understand me? I don't know. This is the problem with words. They are one dimensional, and I'm trying to convey a n-dimension concept here.

 

And Jesus End, why are you so angry and discredit my experience and my options all the time?

[Guest end3]

It wasn't a statement. It was a misrepresentation of what I was arguing. You made a statement that was in total opposition to what I was saying. How can I express it any better, if I post the same thing over and over again, and yet hear that I supposedly said something that I didn't say. The only response I can give is to rub it in, hard.

 

The same thing happens in the other direction as well. Why do you think the level of frustration/imbalance exists even between the non-believing members of ExC? There are seldom admissions that science doesn't or won't explain everything.....seldom....trust me on this one.

 

It has nothing to do with the vocabulary as much as it has to do with going back to the first post I made regarding my argument. When I start a discussion about something, then it usually is a thread of thoughts that tie together. So to jump in, into the middle of it, and charge me with some assumed positions, is frustrating, but can be easily resolved by just going back to the first post and read to what started it.

 

My bad, my apologies.

 

Legion made some statement that made me think that he, and others here, would want to change science because science isn't good enough to explain reality. And my position is that it is unnecessary.

There may exist miscommunications between what Legion and you understand. I can imagine an instrument to do the Spock "mind meld" someday being realized by some technology, so maybe Legion was just saying that science will have to progress as the meaning of "changing". And I would definately think we can perform "science" on organizations of stuff, rather than just pieces of stuff, so I don't see it as a critical statement, but one that addresses the facilitation of improved understanding.

 

I didn't discount your religion in the previous posts. Where did you get that idea from?

It is the resounding theme of many non-believers.

 

I didn't throw the science blanket over all issues to cover something we don't currently understand. Where did you get that from?

You have in the past....promoting understanding abiogenesis within the next 30 years.

 

How can I say it so you can understand me? I don't know. This is the problem with words. They are one dimensional, and I'm trying to convey a n-dimension concept here.

 

Exactly the frustration I have as a believer.

 

And Jesus End, why are you so angry and discredit my experience and my options all the time?

 

Because we don't swallow our pride and communicate on a level that promotes trust. In order to do that, we must suffer the possible ridicule from the other party.

[Ouroboros]

The same thing happens in the other direction as well. Why do you think the level of frustration/imbalance exists even between the non-believing members of ExC? There are seldom admissions that science doesn't or won't explain everything.....seldom....trust me on this one.

And I am here now admitting that I am not taking that point of view. Shouldn't you be happy instead?

 

My bad, my apologies.

Accepted.

 

There may exist miscommunications between what Legion and you understand. I can imagine an instrument to do the Spock "mind meld" someday being realized by some technology, so maybe Legion was just saying that science will have to progress as the meaning of "changing". And I would definately think we can perform "science" on organizations of stuff, rather than just pieces of stuff, so I don't see it as a critical statement, but one that addresses the facilitation of improved understanding.

The problem I have with "science to change" is that science is extremely large concept. There are so many "sciences" and some of them seem more legit than others. And there are many sciences that take a lot more higher view of the things studied. And I can even see that many traditional sciences already have changed in that direction. So my argument is that we can't demand that science should change basically because it is already doing what it is supposed to do, and if we change it more, then it stops be science.

 

Science is about analyzing things we can observe and measure in this world. We can't make science to mean something about testing supernatural spirits through emotional responses from a magical torch in the 97th dimension. Science is about the ability to test things.

 

This doesn't mean that science is the only way we can experience or understand the world. There are other fields of study that are not scientific, or only have a little science mixed into it. Cooking, painting, composing, and much more, are fields where science only have something to say, but can't answer all things. I like cajun food. Some people don't. I can't demand "cajun tastes good" to be declared as a scientific truth in the cooking class, can I? And I can't demand that cajun should be part of the mathematical formulas for the event horizon effect at the rim of black holes. Science is about things we can measure. And to change it to be something that can't be measured, then science will lose the power it has. Science is useful for what it is useful for, but it will stop being useful in those areas if we water it down to non-science.

 

It is the resounding theme of many non-believers.

When I debate something like this, I am doing a point-of-the-needle argument. I am focusing on one thing, and try to stay as close to that particular topic as much as possible. Again, I am not talking about Christianity's role in all this, or other kinds of faiths, or whatever, I already made, several times, the admission that science is not enough. But I still consider that science will not be better science the day we introduce the Bible to explain supernovas instead of using math. Let's keep these things separate, don't you agree?

 

Put it this way, if you want science to become more faith oriented and let the Bible to be part of how scientific inquiry works, then I must demand that Christianity have to accept science like evolution, geography, astrophysics, and quantum mechanics. How would Sunday sermons look like then? I'm sure you don't want that. And you don't want that anymore than I want astrophysics class to start with a Bible verse.

 

I didn't throw the science blanket over all issues to cover something we don't currently understand. Where did you get that from?

You have in the past....promoting understanding abiogenesis within the next 30 years.

I AM FOCUSING ON THIS PARTICULAR DISCUSSION. Don't derail the specific point I am trying to make by taking it into other parts of discussion.

 

Why don't we bring in discussion about horticulture too, since we're supposed to bring in EVERYTHING into the discussion?

 

AND! One more thing. To say that I believe that we probably will have the answer to abiogenesis within the next 30 years is NOT the same as throwing a SCIENCE BLANKET on everything. It's only throwing a science blanket on abiogenesis. Duh!

 

So why are you throwing a Christian Blanket on everything? Why don't you respect my views? You demand I respect yours, and yet you don't respect mine?

 

And Jesus End, why are you so angry and discredit my experience and my options all the time?

 

Because we don't swallow our pride and communicate on a level that promotes trust. In order to do that, we must suffer the possible ridicule from the other party.

So you expect me to respect you when you are being disrespectful to me?

 

If you keep on discrediting my view, I will keep on discrediting yours.

 

Unfortunately, most of your arguments against me are based on complete misunderstanding on your part. I can't give anything of what I've said in any more straight way, but the fact is that we talk different languages.

 

If you keep on throwing the Christian Blanket over everything and discredit science to explain anything, we won't be able to talk. And if you keep on misrepresenting my views, you will keep on missing my points. So in the end, End, you will never learn anything from me.

[Guest end3]

So you expect me to respect you when you are being disrespectful to me?

 

Good lord, today, I am doing my best to NOT discredit your view.

 

If you keep on discrediting my view, I will keep on discrediting yours.

 

Unfortunately, most of your arguments against me are based on complete misunderstanding on your part. I can't give anything of what I've said in any more straight way, but the fact is that we talk different languages.

 

If you keep on throwing the Christian Blanket over everything and discredit science to explain anything, we won't be able to talk. And if you keep on misrepresenting my views, you will keep on missing my points. So in the end, End, you will never learn anything from me.

 

The science blanket/abiogenesis understanding is implied: it is similar to rolling out the god of the gaps discussion......so please don't say it doesn't happen with blanket intent.

 

You have heard of obedience within the Christian dogma? I believe it is where we are called to be obedient to just be polite within a difficult discussion. There are times, for various reasons, that regardless of HOW good the teacher is, that one of the parties is just not going to grasp what is trying to be taught. We have to realize and again, suffer, that we are not going to be known in these particular instances. It happens all the time. But the choice to accept that, and respond politely through the obedience to choice, yields the continued openness required for some future communication when the knowledge finally hits the student.

 

You are exactly right.....different languages....but that doesn't exclude communication, but calls for adherence to a method that facilitates communication within individual experience.

[Phanta]

Some people are able to accept that they are not going to be known in a certain scenario without suffering. Not being known does not always result in suffering. Just a thought...

[Antlerman]

As for learning from other people I keep saying, show me the science. Antlerman presented some things which frankly I don't really understand. Some of it I get but most of it sounds very nonsensical to me.

So, you're saying if you don't understand the science, it's not evidence???

 

Good god, what would satisfy you? Everything comprehensible to an IQ under 90? Only that could possibly be accepted as evidence? That you can grasp it??

 

Don't blame me you don't get the science. You were given it. Now shut up, or go to school and get an education or something. At the least you can do is admit honestly and with integrity that there is a lot, a very great deal you don't understand and are probably incapable of understanding, so therefore it would be wrong of you to pass judgment from your ignorance.

 

I am going to shut you down at some point if this crap from you keeps up. Time to toe the line here. The best you can do is to have some personal integrity in the face of your inability to grasp the science you're presented with. For you to continue in light of this, would be nothing short of just being abusive for the sake of being abusive. You are ignorant. Admit that.

[Rev R]

Oh I am sure people think they have some sort of experience. People hallucinate stuff all the time. Jesus talks to them, they feel his presence. The virgin Mary appears. All sorts of little mental tricks and seeing "signs".

 

This however is not the experience of the so-called mystic. He does not speak with God, Jesus, Buddha, Mary, Krishna, et cetera nor does he see visions of such; he claims "union with God" (if theistic) or that he "sees into the heart of reality" (if non-theistic).

 

In language that you would be more likely to appreciate: the experience of the mystic is bypassing a portion of the brain associated with the sense of self or the separation between self and other. Not exactly something you want to happen while crossing the street.

 

I would recommend the book "Zen and the Brain". It's a doorstop of a book, but if you have the time and inclination it might be of some interest.

 

I don't doubt that people have these experiences...but there is nothing special or enlightening about them.

 

"Nothing special" I would agree with, "not enlightening" I guess would depend on what you mean by "enlightenment". I'd assert that these experiences are definitely transformative in folks that have them, but the nature of the transformation is dependent on individual circumstances. In a way it's kind of like the de-conversion experience.

 

Look for some "experience" long enough and you'll imagine one up.

 

Or worse, become frustrated with whatever practice one is engaging in to have this experience to the detriment of any other benefit that may be gained.

 

I agree that the mind can manufacture these sorts of experiences if given enough data or some kind of idea to latch on to (and likely does in some).

 

Even if I had evidence that something is happening in the brain at my fingertips, would I be correct in saying that it still wouldn't be enough to convince you that it may be something worth looking in to? If so, what would convince you to see for yourself?

[foolish girl]

[Ouroboros]

[Rev R]

 

Now I'm confused, did I post a picture of my butt instead of words?

[Ouroboros]

 

Now I'm confused, did I post a picture of my butt instead of words?

I don't know.

 

My shrugging shoulders were a response to FG's twitch. I'm not sure what she was twitching about.

 

Seems like this whole thread is a prime example of confusion and misunderstanding between individuals. I can only suspect language is the big culprit for this.

[Rev R]

 

Now I'm confused, did I post a picture of my butt instead of words?

I don't know.

 

My shrugging shoulders were a response to FG's twitch. I'm not sure what she was twitching about.

 

Seems like this whole thread is a prime example of confusion and misunderstanding between individuals. I can only suspect language is the big culprit for this.

 

You may be right Hans. Perhaps I should have went with the picture of my butt.

[Guest end3]

 

Now I'm confused, did I post a picture of my butt instead of words?

I don't know.

 

My shrugging shoulders were a response to FG's twitch. I'm not sure what she was twitching about.

 

Seems like this whole thread is a prime example of confusion and misunderstanding between individuals. I can only suspect language is the big culprit for this.

 

You may be right Hans. Perhaps I should have went with the picture of my butt.

 

You did.

[florduh]

You did.

This round is awarded to end3.

[Rev R]

Sorry Ed, if that were true there'd be no atheists left on this forum because my ass is God.

[Legion]

Hans, I'm not sure if I am qualified to address all the points you made in that last post to me. And I hate to speak in these matters when I don't know what I know. If you know what I mean. However let me single out physics for a moment.

 

There are some people who are of the persuasion that all of objective reality will one day be understood in the terms of contemporary physics. Perhaps they believe that the tradition begun by Newton and extended by others such as Einstein will someday be all encompassing. But Rosen argues extensively that the formalisms (the mathematical languages) employed by contemporary physics is too impoverished to explain the natural systems we call organisms. Specifically, he says that they will not accommodate what are called "impredicativities". These are more commonly referred to as paradoxes and are exemplified by things such as the "chicken and the egg" and "self-fulfilling prophesies".

 

Unfortunately this is where my understanding starts to fray, because I do not yet understand impredicativities. In fact, one of my hopes was that you would read Life Itself and perhaps share your persepective on it with me. I was hoping that I could gain more understanding through you.

[Deva]

Well let's hear the evidence.And is there such a thing as an independent thought.I don't see why not.Completely new inventions, tales spun by people etc.They may build on what their experiences but they still can bring something new to the world.;I child raised in isolation would still have thoughts.

 

Nah, not interested. It isn't "peer reviewed science," its only circumstantial.; Its stories. You won't accept it, and my time is valuable. How would you design an experiment in a lab to prove reincarnation? My time would be better spent on people who actually would be willing to review the evidence as it is with something of an unbiased perspective.

[foolish girl]

 

Now I'm confused, did I post a picture of my butt instead of words?

I don't know.

 

My shrugging shoulders were a response to FG's twitch. I'm not sure what she was twitching about.

 

Seems like this whole thread is a prime example of confusion and misunderstanding between individuals. I can only suspect language is the big culprit for this.

 

You may be right Hans. Perhaps I should have went with the picture of my butt.

 

Yes please Rev! a-hahahaha.

 

Now I must admit. My A.D.D kicked in (real or hypothetical, i don't know,) I couldn't absorb it all....I started to twitch.

The blame is not yours, you see?

[Ouroboros]

Hans, I'm not sure if I am qualified to address all the points you made in that last post to me. And I hate to speak in these matters when I don't know what I know. If you know what I mean. However let me single out physics for a moment.

 

There are some people who are of the persuasion that all of objective reality will one day be understood in the terms of contemporary physics. Perhaps they believe that the tradition begun by Newton and extended by others such as Einstein will someday be all encompassing. But Rosen argues extensively that the formalisms (the mathematical languages) employed by contemporary physics is too impoverished to explain the natural systems we call organisms. Specifically, he says that they will not accommodate what are called "impredicativities". These are more commonly referred to as paradoxes and are exemplified by things such as the "chicken and the egg" and "self-fulfilling prophesies".

And I totally agree with this. 100%. Seriously.

 

I fault scientists, not science, for these sentiment. Do you see where I draw the line?

 

It's not the method or formulation of Newton's laws of nature to blame for reductionism or restricted views of reality. It's those who buy in into the idea that these laws are the "one and only" for everything.

 

And I think you agree with this. It all started with that you phrased something in such a way that made me react, and I think it's all about that you didn't make it clear exactly what you meant.

 

Unfortunately this is where my understanding starts to fray, because I do not yet understand impredicativities. In fact, one of my hopes was that you would read Life Itself and perhaps share your persepective on it with me. I was hoping that I could gain more understanding through you.

You know. I think I must.

 

I will never be able to speak your language until I also have experienced the reading you've done.

[Guest Valk0010]

Well let's hear the evidence.And is there such a thing as an independent thought.I don't see why not.Completely new inventions, tales spun by people etc.They may build on what their experiences but they still can bring something new to the world.;I child raised in isolation would still have thoughts.

 

Nah, not interested. It isn't "peer reviewed science," its only circumstantial.; Its stories. You won't accept it, and my time is valuable. How would you design an experiment in a lab to prove reincarnation? My time would be better spent on people who actually would be willing to review the evidence as it is with something of an unbiased perspective.

You can't evaluate the supernatural, without bias criteria if your right then. Religion is a bias criteria and science is a biased criteria according to you.

[Deva]

Well let's hear the evidence.And is there such a thing as an independent thought.I don't see why not.Completely new inventions, tales spun by people etc.They may build on what their experiences but they still can bring something new to the world.;I child raised in isolation would still have thoughts.

 

Nah, not interested. It isn't "peer reviewed science," its only circumstantial.; Its stories. You won't accept it, and my time is valuable. How would you design an experiment in a lab to prove reincarnation? My time would be better spent on people who actually would be willing to review the evidence as it is with something of an unbiased perspective.

You can't evaluate the supernatural, without bias criteria if your right then. Religion is a bias criteria and science is a biased criteria according to you.

 

I don't regard the area under discussion as supernatural.

[Vixentrox]

Well let's hear the evidence.And is there such a thing as an independent thought.I don't see why not.Completely new inventions, tales spun by people etc.They may build on what their experiences but they still can bring something new to the world.;I child raised in isolation would still have thoughts.

 

Nah, not interested. It isn't "peer reviewed science," its only circumstantial.; Its stories. You won't accept it, and my time is valuable. How would you design an experiment in a lab to prove reincarnation? My time would be better spent on people who actually would be willing to review the evidence as it is with something of an unbiased perspective.

You want to believe your circumstantial evidence because you are biased to believe it. Cuts both ways.

[Guest Valk0010]

Well let's hear the evidence.And is there such a thing as an independent thought.I don't see why not.Completely new inventions, tales spun by people etc.They may build on what their experiences but they still can bring something new to the world.;I child raised in isolation would still have thoughts.

 

Nah, not interested. It isn't "peer reviewed science," its only circumstantial.; Its stories. You won't accept it, and my time is valuable. How would you design an experiment in a lab to prove reincarnation? My time would be better spent on people who actually would be willing to review the evidence as it is with something of an unbiased perspective.

You can't evaluate the supernatural, without bias criteria if your right then. Religion is a bias criteria and science is a biased criteria according to you.

 

I don't regard the area under discussion as supernatural.

So how is reincarnation not supernatural?

[Vixentrox]

Oh I am sure people think they have some sort of experience. People hallucinate stuff all the time. Jesus talks to them, they feel his presence. The virgin Mary appears. All sorts of little mental tricks and seeing "signs".

 

This however is not the experience of the so-called mystic. He does not speak with God, Jesus, Buddha, Mary, Krishna, et cetera nor does he see visions of such; he claims "union with God" (if theistic) or that he "sees into the heart of reality" (if non-theistic).

 

In language that you would be more likely to appreciate: the experience of the mystic is bypassing a portion of the brain associated with the sense of self or the separation between self and other. Not exactly something you want to happen while crossing the street.

 

I would recommend the book "Zen and the Brain". It's a doorstop of a book, but if you have the time and inclination it might be of some interest.

 

I don't doubt that people have these experiences...but there is nothing special or enlightening about them.

 

"Nothing special" I would agree with, "not enlightening" I guess would depend on what you mean by "enlightenment". I'd assert that these experiences are definitely transformative in folks that have them, but the nature of the transformation is dependent on individual circumstances. In a way it's kind of like the de-conversion experience.

 

Look for some "experience" long enough and you'll imagine one up.

 

Or worse, become frustrated with whatever practice one is engaging in to have this experience to the detriment of any other benefit that may be gained.

 

I agree that the mind can manufacture these sorts of experiences if given enough data or some kind of idea to latch on to (and likely does in some).

 

Even if I had evidence that something is happening in the brain at my fingertips, would I be correct in saying that it still wouldn't be enough to convince you that it may be something worth looking in to? If so, what would convince you to see for yourself?

Is this "Zen and the Brain" by James H. Austin? I've added it to my ever growing Amazon.com shopping list which has around 30+ book already in the queue. I still have one on Egypt that someone (Lunaticheathen I think) recommended to me like 6 months ago.

 

As I said in another post, my great issues with mystic stuff is when they start talking about union with gods or souls or it is wrapped up with kooks claiming they can go a year without food, levitate and the like. If it is done without such nonsense it becomes something more tolerable.

 

As long as no superstition like gods and spirits and the like are involved I would be willing to look into it of course. Surely these "Zen masters" or whatever have had brain monitors or something hooked up to measure what is going on in their brain before.