Science And Religion Aren't Friends

[Guest end3]

Yes, you are totally incorrect. My wife and I were both fully committed Christians from childhood. I did not piggyback on her faith and then go back to my godless ways when she died. My deconversion in fact predated her death by roughly five years. As usual, you struggle to understand the simple fact that I left the faith for rational reasons. You feel the need to fit it into the standard Christian model that I have a wayward heart that was shamed into submission by a good woman and now I'm back to carousing again.

 

I was thinking more in the line of you benefitted from her faith. I don't know that I struggle to understand but have rather failed to know the whole story. If you have related your deconversion before and I don't remember, then yes, I failed. I didn't use words like carousing. The way you presented your story in pieces through various posts in conjuction with my mind putting the pieces together is the description that I posted. Yes, there are many things I missed. But in that Bob, you seem to resist drifting away from Christianity, making it a work to train yourself and accept such....almost like if your wife were here, she was a crutch or security blanket for you to venture and explore without retrobution. Like she was your assurance. Certainly I took liberty, and am doing so now, but in every effort to "hear" that you are ok. You're right, it ain't the cold hard facts, but the products are more than just cold hard facts. It just seems like you don't want to change beliefs.

No sweat....I've been accused of playing Jr. Therapist guy before.....I need to swear off such.

 

 

Well, I appreciate the genuine effort to respectfully connect and find common ground. You seem to have turned some kind of corner lately, and I know it cost you something.

 

Yeah, it is a combination of John 17:3 and Hebrew 2:10. Really big for my personal understanding. I'll work on holding my Jr. therapy in the meantime, but the dinner offer still stands.

[DesertBob]

But ... you seem to resist drifting away from Christianity, making it a work to train yourself and accept such....almost like if your wife were here, she was a crutch or security blanket for you to venture and explore without retrobution. Like she was your assurance. Certainly I took liberty, and am doing so now, but in every effort to "hear" that you are ok. You're right, it ain't the cold hard facts, but the products are more than just cold hard facts. It just seems like you don't want to change beliefs.

No sweat....I've been accused of playing Jr. Therapist guy before.....I need to swear off such.

You assume too much. Yes, you should swear it off. You don't know what it's like to be me, or what it was like for my wife and I to be "us", but I can assure you, she neither supported nor judged me in my unbelief. She was, Buddah-like, willing to let it be as it was. Did this allow me to be myself and facilitate honest exploration? Given the relationship, yes. Absent the relationship, it's irrelevant.

 

As to being resistant to "drifting away from Christianity", I think you're projecting your own reluctance onto me (one amateur psychoanalysis deserves another).

[Guest end3]

She was, Buddah-like, willing to let it be as it was. Did this allow me to be myself and facilitate honest exploration? Given the relationship, yes. Absent the relationship, it's irrelevant.

 

If she was a Christian, it was grace. Absent the relationship, it only is irrelevant based on your ability to practice such my friend. Don't fool yourself.

[Guest end3]

I think if we really discussed it in detail, we would probably discover that the methods are much the same or at least the relationships between them.

 

We get into these things in all the wrong places and time, and after this many years of jousting I think you deserve the "A" game. Tell you what Ed, let's take this to the arena for some friendly sparring. What do you say?

 

I was deserving solely due to belonging to humanity. In that, you might consider your own beliefs as warranting merit.....maybe the silence and beating yourself with a stick is a better option for humanity. Thanks for the offer, but I'll pass.

[Rev R]

maybe

[Antlerman]

So are you suggesting that your consciousness is some magical form of atom?

Why yes! It's magic fairy dust controlled by special gnomes. Why do you ask?

 

Let's talk evidence. Give me one single shred of evidence, since you claim that is so important to you, where anything I have ever said would support such an absurd question being asked of me? Don't have any evidence for that? Then why do you persist in asking such nonsensical questions of me? Evidence. Present yours.

 

 

I'll try to explain to you but you need to do one thing, one request from me in these discussions if you wish to actually be respected as a participant with valid points of view to be considered and responded to. You must stop lacing your verbiage with all sorts of editorializing, utterly superfluous value attacks such as "idiotic", "stupid", "rubbish" etc in talking with others about their views. You seem incapable of not throwing these in, and in reality, 99.9% of the time you in fact have no idea what they actually mean or believe.

 

Secondly it serves absolutely no value to anyone but you and your emotional raging. That is not a discussion at that point. And I might start considering that a deliberate disruption of others actual discussion if it continues, and view it as pretty much being Troll behavior and respond accordingly to that. I don't want to think that or go to that at this point, but that could happen. I would prefer not to go there.

 

No one is saying you don't have valid views to discussion, just you need to stop being so insulting even if you feel everyone else but you are ignorant of the facts as you see them. Let's get past that, and then we can have a real discussion. That's all.

 

I'll address your points momentarily...

 

I already said we are already connected at a molecular level. The atoms from Roman slave feces may very well exist in each of our brains. So what? Atoms are constantly reused in new forms. And matter is something occupies a space and has mass; things that are measurable.

And values, and thoughts, and ideas, and perceptions, and truths, and meaning - are not things that occupy space and have mass, nor are measurable empirically. Yet they are real. These are things that we interact with and influence with the physical world, yet we never seem to question them as real.

 

Give me you empirical evidence of the meaning of Hamlet. Give me your empirical evidence of the meaning of life. Where is your proofs? My point is you are completely missing the majority of what reality is and how we understand it by saying you need empirical evidence. And for evidence, you yourself don't live consistently with that. You live using other means than science to tell you how to live.

 

Do I presume to be the only form of awareness in the universe, no, animals have awareness of a sort. What does that have to do with anything? Not a damn thing.

It has everything to do with all of this. That consciousness that they exhibit is not a product of the human brain. That consciousness, like matter itself, is not a product of the body. That consciousness runs through the interior of all forms, and is seen in all forms to one degree or another, just as matter is in all forms to one degree or another of complexity and depth. Your empirical world looks at only one aspect of everything - the material, physical forms. It does not, nor can look at the interior realm.

 

Here's something for your rational mind to process and consider in you claims of science and evidence as the all important measure of reality:

 

How do we actually understand things? How do we gain knowledge? Based on Jürgen Habermas' model:

 

1. The physical, or body world understands the physical world in a horizontal relationship through instinctual, sensorimotor input and response;

 

2. The mental world, or mind, understands the physical world through empirical-analytic thought, a technical evaluation of mind observing the material (using systems of symbols to translate it to the mind, whether those are mathematical or mythological).

 

3. The mental world, or mind, understands the mental world in descending relationship though

historic-hermeneutics

; a practical interpretation. This is always going to occur in a context of social/cultural spheres - and as such its truths are in that context.

 

You are trying to say that the interior world either does not exist, or that somehow, magically as you like say, can be understood and processes relationally between minds in the exact same way you can measure the dimensions of a rock, to prove it's dimensions and call it that one thing only. This is not how you live your life.

 

To quote briefly from someone I greatly respect,

 

I, along with Habermas, Gadamer, Taylor, Ogilvy, etc., consider exclusive empiricism to be radically and violently reductionistic, no matter how cleverly concealed; the demand for "empirical proof" is really a demand to strip the higher levels of being of their meaning and value and present them only in their aspects that can be reduced to objective, sensory, value-free, univalent dimensions. While we will not shun empirical data (that would miss the point), neither will we confine ourselves to empirical data (that would miss the point completely).

 

(Wilber, Up from Eden, pg 37)

 

You are missing the point completely in ignoring, dismissing the entire interior world of mind and consciousness, which is not created by matter, but is inextricably bound in all things. It is not a "magic atom", any more than the human mind is a magic body.

 

You are inconsistent in your approach, and your insistence that all must follow and obey this new paradigm you claim as authoritative, is invalidated by the fact that you yourself in fact do not follow it either. I just recognize the difference, and pursue developing in these area you deny to yourself, for some internal reason.

[DesertBob]

She was, Buddah-like, willing to let it be as it was. Did this allow me to be myself and facilitate honest exploration? Given the relationship, yes. Absent the relationship, it's irrelevant.

 

If she was a Christian, it was grace. Absent the relationship, it only is irrelevant based on your ability to practice such my friend. Don't fool yourself.

It was grace whether or not she was a Christian. She was a gracious person, and would have been one anyway. I do not want to take away from her character by attributing the fruit of her own ethics and self discipline to some external force, or by attributing her motivation for doing the right thing to the usual Christian suspects -- fear and guilt. She loved and respected me, and acted accordingly. That's all.

 

My wife's willingness to not interfere in my processes was relevant while she was alive in that I was not held back by a need to keep the peace or constantly explain or justify or debate. Now that she is dead, I also do not need to keep the peace or explain or justify. In that sense her forbearance is no longer relevant in the present, other than that I appreciate the memory of it.

 

Slow down when you read things, end, and do not jump to conclusions, okay? I don't know what you feel I'm fooling myself about, but I frequently feel that you respond to something other than what I actually said. In any case it's impertinent to suggest that I don't know my own mind. You haven't earned the right to say things like that to me.

 

Thanks.

[Legion]

I don't believe empiricism implies reductionism.

[Antlerman]

Energy and matter have stopped being a lake and are doing/being something else. Therefore, even if we accept on faith that consciousness is a non-local activity, I still fail to see how that changes anything on the local level.

Because our nature is beyond the body. Our conscious becomes aware of this fact, rather it becomes exposed to our conscious mind.

 

 

There aren't very many possible responses to the fact of our mortality:

 

1) Decide (or pretend) that it doesn't matter

 

2) Make peace with the idea.

 

3) Accept some concept of afterlife so you don't have to make peace with the idea.

 

4) Completely avoid thinking about it or anything in life that makes you think about it. Act strangely around people who have lost a loved one. Speak of serious illness or accident only in stage whispers. That sort of thing.

 

5) Become consciously aware that all that is, is Life, and to apprehend Life Itself into our conscious mind and to experience that state of being, is to transcend the form, to transcend the self and negate any requirement to imagine some human-like existence in some mythical world after the human body. This is eternity. We are Life. There is no such thing as afterlife, just as there is no such thing as tomorrow.

 

In short we become God. Our true nature is eternal. I am God. It is the awakening to that that eliminates the fear of death. Back to what I said before about facing death. Beyond death, the death of who I see as "me", is the true Self. And that is without form, and without death. Death is the death of form. In dying, we live. It is the formless, and I am that, as is all things. We understand our nature, and transcend ourselves. This is all an experience of being and difficult to express. It's not some theoretical notion anyone 'believes' to console themselves with.

 

The end result of this is not yet one more 'immortality project' we create to put a mask on death. Rather it is a complete opening and awakening of mind to a Realization of our Nature, and from that, and through that, we become Life. In other words, it is a transformation of mind into Awakening.

[Antlerman]

I don't believe empiricism implies reductionism.

Neither do I.

[Legion]

I don't believe empiricism implies reductionism.

Neither do I.

Oh. I'm glad we agree on that.

[Antlerman]

I don't believe empiricism implies reductionism.

Neither do I.

Oh. I'm glad we agree on that.

I think what you may have missed in what I quoted is what I'll highlight here:

 

I, along with Habermas, Gadamer, Taylor, Ogilvy, etc., consider

exclusive

empiricism

to be radically and violently reductionistic, no matter how cleverly concealed;

 

See?

[Legion]

See?

Yeah, I see.

 

I don't know Antlerman. I think you and I probably agree on many things. We agree that science need not be reductionistic to be science. We probably agree that science may not be the sole means for acquiring understanding. But some of the stuff you say makes me uneasy.

[Antlerman]

But some of the stuff you say makes me uneasy.

Well that's OK. It's meant to push the boundaries of conventional thought and provoke some breaking out of that easy place. Sounds like it's working.

[Legion]

But some of the stuff you say makes me uneasy.

Well that's OK. It's meant to push the boundaries of conventional thought and provoke some breaking out of that easy place. Sounds like it's working.

Nah, it makes me uneasy as in... "I don't know if I want people to see me hanging out with you"... kind of uneasy.

[Antlerman]

But some of the stuff you say makes me uneasy.

Well that's OK. It's meant to push the boundaries of conventional thought and provoke some breaking out of that easy place. Sounds like it's working.

Nah, it makes me uneasy as in... "I don't know if I want people to see me hanging out with you"... kind of uneasy.

 

You govern your thoughts for fear of others not approving of you? Don't go too far, just a small, safe pushing of the boundaries? Just different enough, but not too much? Wussy.

 

 

Well at least you don't call everyone idiots for not toeing the party line...

[Legion]

 

You govern your thoughts for fear others not approving of you?

Not really. I've always been a fairly independent thinker when it comes to these things. Witness my open admiration for Robert Rosen's work while many scientists hem and haw about his contribution. I don't care. I think he was on to some important things.

[Ouroboros]

We agree that science need not be reductionistic to be science.

I think I disagree on that one. It's kind of the idea of science to reduce the complexity of nature to simplistic models, even if those models might not be 100%. It's hard to make science from opinion, feelings, experience, or values. Right?

 

We probably agree that science may not be the sole means for acquiring understanding.

This I do agree with. But to tie it up to my above response, I think whatever else we need to acquire understanding, doesn't have to be science, and on that line, science doesn't have to embrace and provide those things. Science can stay "sciency," and the other aspects of understanding can stay as "non-sciency."

 

We don't need to create a science to give us tools to appreciate art. Science can be used to break down art in its components, but science is not needed to give us a happy feeling about watching a pretty painting.

[Legion]

We agree that science need not be reductionistic to be science.

I think I disagree on that one.

Well Hans, I can't speak better than Rosen. I keep hoping you'll read Life Itself. Or better yet maybe read up on Stuart Kauffman's definition of "agency" (an autocatalytic set that performs one or more workcycles) and then read Rosen.

 

I know you're a busy man though.

[Antlerman]

You govern your thoughts for fear others not approving of you?

Not really. I've always been a fairly independent thinker when it comes to these things. Witness my open admiration for Robert Rosen's work while many scientists hem and haw about his contribution. I don't care.

If he said he was God, you might think twice, as that seems to matter that I AM.

 

[Legion]

You govern your thoughts for fear others not approving of you?

Not really. I've always been a fairly independent thinker when it comes to these things. Witness my open admiration for Robert Rosen's work while many scientists hem and haw about his contribution. I don't care.

If he said he was God, you might think twice, as that seems to matter that I AM.

 

When the aliens come in 2012 to kick us into the Kosmic Kindergarten, you're not going to feel so godlike then.

[Antlerman]

We agree that science need not be reductionistic to be science.

I think I disagree on that one. It's kind of the idea of science to reduce the complexity of nature to simplistic models, even if those models might not be 100%. It's hard to make science from opinion, feelings, experience, or values. Right?

Are you defining science as Hard Science, and ignoring the soft sciences?

 

BTW, there is a difference between using reductionist methodologies in examining nature, and reductionism in a philosophical sense. Reductionism philosophically doesn't allow for any other methodologies. They philosophically assume everything can be reduced to its components. It's a conclusion before the facts. And that is the point of the complaints you hear, and rightly so.

[Ouroboros]

We agree that science need not be reductionistic to be science.

I think I disagree on that one.

Well Hans, I can't speak better than Rosen. I keep hoping you'll read Life Itself. Or better yet maybe read up on Stuart Kauffman's definition of "agency" (an autocatalytic set that performs one or more workcycles) and then read Rosen.

 

I know you're a busy man though.

Here's my argument:

 

A chef is a chef, and a carpenter is a carpenter. You don't need to change cookery to include carpentry to explain carpentry in chef's terms. Each niche has its purpose, and there's no need to include poetry in science to make us feel awe for a supernova or encouraged by a song.

 

I have the book. I will try to see if he explains what you're talking about.

 

What would be the added tool for science? What is it that is missing? Why do we need it? And why does it have to be in the category "science" to be of any value to us? Is it some "science envy" that needs to be satisfied?

[Legion]

Reductionism has it's place. It is very good at understanding machines.

[Deva]

I have never been able to accept that death is the end of consciousness.

Why? Have you seen some peer reviewed science article that says consciosness continues after worms are eating your rotting brain? Or is it "faith" like a Christian, believing in absurd stuff? How is thinking that death isn't the end of consciousness any less absurd than talking donkeys, Jesus coming back from the dead, talking flaming bushes, and the like? Why would you stop beleiving in that ridiculous stuff but stick with this fanciful belief?

 

Perhaps your God -"peer reviewed science"- doesn't have the answer for everything. It doesn't have the answers for the mystery of living. Just because I left Christianity does not automatically mean that none of it had any truth or value. Have you ever heard of the mythic or the metaphorical?

 

You call it "fanciful" if you like. I really don't care.

The mystery of living? Bio-chemical reactions, cellular activities, electrical impulses. It doesn't seem a huge mystery. Certainly I have heard of "mythic" and metaphorical. Saying you think consciousness goes on after death is a metaphor to you? And mythic:

 

Adj. 1. mythic - relating to or having the nature of myth; "a novel of almost mythic consequence"

2. mythic - based on or told of in traditional stories; lacking factual basis or historical validity; "mythical centaurs"; "the fabulous unicorn"

mythical, mythologic, mythological, fabulous

unreal - lacking in reality or substance or genuineness; not corresponding to acknowledged facts or criteria; "ghosts and other unreal entities"; "unreal propaganda serving as news"

 

Underpants gnomes fit into that category.

 

I mentioned the mythic with reference to your "talking donkeys, Jesus coming back from the dead, etc..." line. NOT with reference to consciousness surviving death. You have lumped them all together as if its all the same thing. I don't regard it that way.

 

I can see from your idea of myth that you haven't read any Joseph Campbell or Jung -- pity.

 

In regard to your "underpants gnomes" comment. You just resort to ridicule instead of discussion.