BS: Faith

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 01:08 PM

See this New Thread for Freda's discussion.

Regards,

A

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 12:59 PM

I would politely suggest a new thread with a different title....such as "A different take on Faith" or something similar. This thread has a pretty 'heavy' lead in, and could be a burden to what you want to discuss.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: freda underhill
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 09:28 AM

This thread has been sleeping a little.

But I want to talk about faith, not faith in God or a benevolent universe, but faith in the essential goodness and bravery of human nature.

I am thinking about people, who, under tremendous pressure from powers that be, choose to do the right thing and reveal government corruption, whistleblowers.

To me, these people, who give up everything, including their means of support and status, to publicly dump on a corrupt government, deserve the respect and support of ordinary people who benefit from their actions.

Here is a web address to an article on the subject (can anyone make a blue clicky of it?)While this is an academic article, it addresses a very important subject.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/22/1082616257471.html

As well, I think of good friends and neighbours who, in the small friendships of daily interactions, by their essential ethics and decency, continually revive my faith in human nature, my faith in people.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Mar 04 - 09:43 PM

Amos... I have read Whitehead, Husserl, Hegel, Sartré and Kierkegaard, and I confess- your last sentence, with no extra context, is as puzzling as any I have read. (not disagreeing with it, just don't get it..)

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 04 - 06:57 PM

Kendall:

Sounds like a moment of belief about what was possible created a fact, all right. Mebbe what would be mor accurate is "No amount of counter-belief can change a fact you already believe". Trying to use metaphysics to counter the facts of the physical universe doesn't work because those facts are already fully subscribed to, or we wouldn't be resisting them so hard!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 04 - 05:42 PM

Interesting post, Kendall. Much food for thought there.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: kendall
Date: 21 Mar 04 - 01:35 PM

The thought just crossed my mind, "No amount of belief can create a fact" and suddenly, there was a huge clap of thunder! no kidding!

Anyway, I'm always amazed and pleased to see such intelliget posts on the forum. However, Doug, old buddy, I know many left wing types, but I don't know one who has ever said that taking out Hussein was a bad thing. Our problem with the "war" is our leader lying about the reason. He planned this from the very beginning, and I'm hoping that 60 Minutes tonight will tell the whole truth about it.

Freda, I once had an out of body experience. While meditating, I found myself out in the cosmos, free and able to go anywhere in the universe. Suddenly, I thought, "This is not possible" and just as suddenly, I was back in my body.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Mar 04 - 12:01 PM

Superb article, Wolfgang, and I believe I agree with all its main points. Science is one of the most spiritual of all pursuits, given the fact that it is a disciplined, purposeful search for truth and understanding.

I'll have to take some time and read it thoroughly. Thanks for the link.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 01:54 PM

absolutely wonderful article, Wolfgang! I have read at it quickly, and will print it for more detailed reading later...thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Wolfgang
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 05:47 AM

Back to the beginning:
So, I don't have any faith, but I have a lot of hope (Ann Druyan)

quote from: Ann Druyan talks about science, religion, wonder, awe....and Carl Sagan

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 11:56 PM

(I'm not really here...)

Phenomenology seems to ring a bell. I remember an example from a philosophy class where the instructor gave examples of a man "knowing" a mountain.

1) He camped there as a child.

2) He took his bride there.

3) He carried his brother down the mountain in a casket.

etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 11:51 PM

hmmm, Mary..not existentialism, but I see what you mean..perhaps a thing called "the eidetic reduction" by Husserl comes close..

" in phenomenology, a method by which the philosopher moves from the consciousness of individual and concrete objects to the transempirical realm of pure essences and thus achieves an intuition of the eidos (Greek: shape) of a thingi.e., of what it is..."...but it is really too abstract to apply here...(I gotta refresh...I haven't done this 'formally' for quite awhile)

in your usage, the "aha" experience is as good as anything. Suddenly, you see what your study and research and experiments and RE-experiments and RE-thinking are supposed to show you, and why it is all necessary. And maybe, if you are lucky, you will manage to figure out how to explain it clearly to those who want to dismiss it as "just another opinion".

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 11:46 PM

Bill, there ARE scientists with profound spiritual understanding. There always have been. They are not the straw men I was referring to in the least. Science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive. They support one another.

But when I see people concocting laughable "scientific" arguments to dismiss an already laughable concept of God that they themselves thought up or assumed in the first place...then I get sarcastic. They make up an idiotic notion about God, and assume that everyone who believes in God must subscribe to that same idiotic notion. Talk about a closed circle of reasoning!

The problem is this: An initial level of prejudice which does not even consider the possibility that the "other guy" might know something you don't know   It's the same thing that has traditionally poisoned good relations between different religious groups, such as Protestants and Catholics or Christians and Muslims. It's cultivated ignorance, cloaked in an assumption of innate superiority. Given such an assumption, the "other guy" must be very, very stupid, if not downright evil. Therefore, everything that he believes in can simply be discounted as utter foolishness...or worse. Upon these grandiose prejudices are wars launched and straw gods declared to be non-existent. And of course, straw gods ARE nonexistent. But who made them up? Atheists compose a straw god the moment the concept of God crosses their mind, and then think how intelligent they are to have realized that it is a manfactured falsehood.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 11:26 PM

Just another comment, and then I'll leave, promise...

The scientific method is so elegantly obvious in its logicality and application that any reasonably intelligent child should be able to grasp it.

Comments about the Scientific Method are thrown around a lot in these discussions. And maybe I'm totally missing the point, but this happens to be something I have personal knowledge and experience with. I spent many, many years not fully understanding the Scientific Method. With lots of science training, I always just muttered, "yeah, yeah, I've heard that before." Not until I truly experienced it in a chemical research lab and made it a part of me, "owned it," (the aha experience) did I truly understand it. (Bill, isn't there a word for that in philosophy...perhaps existentialism or something.) Anyway, I think "The Scientific Method" is used too lightly in philosophical discussions, usually by talkers who really don't understand it as scientists do. I'm not sure if it even has the same meaning in a philosophical discussion as in a scientific discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 11:07 PM

" Science is for primary school level minds with a taste for the details.."

gee, and I thought guys like Stephen J. Gould were a wee bit above that...

"A scientist looks at a flower and sees photosynthesis, cells, pistil, stamen, petals, pollen, and a billion other little technical aspects ..."
WHICH scientist? I have met, and read, many scientists who FULLY appreciate the beauty and wonder of life and its intricacies. It is quite possible to see the poetry of the universe, and try to study it all at the same time! Methinks I detect a 'straw man' argument here, LH, me boy!

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 11:04 PM

God is constantly revealed in every moment, Peter K., but not in the fashion that you imagine. That's because you imagine a "god" that is separate from you. Such a god would have to be invented by someone, because it does not exist.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 11:04 PM

Science is for primary school level minds with a taste for the details.

ouch.

******************

unto thine ownself be true

Isn't the first part of that quote, "Know Thyself."    ??????

(One of my favorites.)

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 11:02 PM

Well, in your case, Amos, I know you "get" a lot (and I ain't talkin' about sex! :-)...

If there was an actual verbal message from "God", most people would be disgusted by it and reject it with contempt, because they simply cannot deal with or accept unconditional love. They don't believe in it! They have seldom, if ever, received it from any other human being (except maybe from their mother when they were tiny infants...and usually not for too long even then).

They would dismiss such a message as patently false, condescending, goody-goody, and lofty....all at the same time. They'd get angry about it.

It's really too bad...you can plainly see how Jesus ended up getting crucified. Just observe the average mind's reaction to a statement or a demonstration of unconditional love in what is considered to be "not the right time or place" for it.

And I am quite serious about that.

But I'll tell you something. If you got it straight from the "lips" of an angel, you would then sober up and listen! And you would believe it. Those who are totally disinclined to search for something are not likely to find it, are they? Reality gives to people according to their basic assumptions about reality. And that's entirely fair and equitable, as far as I can see. Those who search for jackpots (or bankruptcy) go to casinos. Those who search for sex devoid of feeling go to prostitutes or singles bars.    Those who search for facts go through investigative procedures. Those who search for truth go within.

And those who search for scoring another ego point post in Internet debates! :-) (me included)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 10:42 PM

Thanks for adding your opinions, LH. They are always appreciated and as usual, very poetic.

Let me just add that it is easy to believe that others don't "get it", but most often this is not a truth -- often it is done for a purpose, not because it is true, It's just another angle on the table, so to speak, and doesn't bear being brought up.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 10:37 PM

"Creator's" comments to Wolfgang and Amos are entirely apt, but they are impenetrable to the human ego, because it does not love. It seeks to survive and to win. It is proud, insecure, competitive, and terrified. It wouldn't know love if it drowned in it.

I might add that I do not know who posted as "Creator", but he/she is right on the mark. Nice work.

No one will get it who is bent on "winning" the debate. And it really doesn't matter. Not a fig. Nor is it ANY threat to science, because it is not in opposition to science. The scientific method is so elegantly obvious in its logicality and application that any reasonably intelligent child should be able to grasp it. The same cannnot be said of spiritual insight...or indeed, any form of insight. Very few adults master such things or even spend much time thinking about them. But most adults can plainly comprehend science, unless they're in the grip of some religious or cultural dementia. Science is for primary school level minds with a taste for the details. A poet looks at a flower and sees a metaphor for life itself, for beauty, for fragility, for mortality, etc. A scientists looks at a flower and sees photosynthesis, cells, pistil, stamen, petals, pollen, and a billion other little technical aspects of the physical plant and its function in the environment. He is searching for how many angels he can find on the head of that particular "pin". (don't take me literally, Wolfgang) The poet is wiser.

I offer a quote from Bob Dylan:

"I stood unwound beneath the skies
And clouds unbound by laws.
The cryin' rain like a trumpet sang
And asked for no applause.
Lay down your weary tune, lay down,
Lay down the song you strum,
And rest yourself 'neath the strength of strings
No voice can hope to hum."

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: JennyO
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 09:14 PM

Unto thine own self be true.

This quotation was on my grandfather's grave. He died when I was a teenager, and from what I remember he was a very good person, a business man, very fair, very generous, with a wicked sense of humour. I think he lived by that quote. I am only sorry I didn't get to know him better.

Jenny

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 07:52 PM

If there are gods, what's the point of faith? They could simply reveal themselves, as the Judaic god, among others, used to do (when folks were more gullible), and that would remove much uncertainty all round.

If the challenge is to believe without proof, where does this put the disciple Thmaas on the day of reckoning? I'd believe in Christ myself if I'd seen him risen from the dead. But I don't see why I should believe without evidence, just to score points in some silly faith test. If gods had to be invented to give meaning to life, spare a thought for the gods themselves. What gives meaning to their lives? The existence of yet greater gods?

As for a personal creed, I'd put Shakespeare is up there with the Bible, the Koran, the Talmud etc: Unto thine own self be true.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: freda underhill
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 07:16 PM

women around the world celebrate Reclaim The Night - reclaiming their right to walk the streets safely at night.

maybe this is Reclaim the Thread day!

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: freda underhill
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 06:53 PM

this was an inspiring and sustaining thread. it helped me.

Amos and Wolfgang, your intellectual rigour and thirst for objectivity is admirable.

but that wasn't what this thread was about, and i miss the beginnings of this thread, which were beautiful, insightful, helped me.. with limited ideas like cultivating patience and hope, both attributes close to faith, which i don't have, or understanding.. understanding that there is a wider perspective, a new day, a positive outlook.

objectivity, empirical evidence, yes, fine and interesting topics for debate, which have helped move us away from crippling supstition and religious manipulation.

BUT

this was a thread about faith.

i have faith that somewhere, another thoughtful thread will rise up to replace this one.

and just to throw a pebble in the pond

i believe in and have perceived and experienced in lucky moments, an intelligent universe in which each atom of existence is unified, aware, and conscious.

and this was a joyful experience.

i don't expect anyone who hasn't experienced this to believe it, that would be irrational.

however, i would say to them, don't argue, go and learn some meditation, spend a couple of decades practising it, and you will learn another kind of intellectual rigour and objectivity - the art of becoming objective and detached from your own self. it is then that you experience the higher self.

best wishes

freda

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 06:30 PM

*smile*...and maybe I didn't say mine well either...

Of course you don't test lead bullets for psychic abilities...you test people (and maybe dogs, etc.) Some of the test results must necessarily not be technically 'material', in that 'information' and 'statistics' are not material...but used properly, they are still scientific.

(more ramblings deleted before I posted...I do get carried away...*grin*)

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 03:38 PM

Hey, be fair. I didn't say empirical testing was impossiblke or even undesireable. I said that you have to use tests that maintain relevance and coherence with the frame of reference you are testing from. You don't test lead bullets for psychic abilities -- it's a silly idea.

Maybe I am not saying this very well Of course your point about how knowing happens at all is very much part of this overall question.




A

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 03:22 PM

gosh, I missed my chance to speak with "the Creator"...too bad, I had some questions. (though, as Wolfgang AND Amos note, I probably wouldn't have gotten very satisfactory answers.)


but, I see I was right about one thing...

I said: "Unfortunately, I see many arguments that assert that 'not being empirically testable' is no problem, as the very point is that their claims do not fall under standard scientific purview."

and Amos said: "...so too you would have to be sure to make a test of non-material awareness, or life force, or whatever you call it, not rely on material variables which aren't germane."

This sort of issue is never resolved, it is merely pushed upward to Meta-discussion in which issues like the basis of reality, how we can know anything, and linguistic questions about expressing concepts become the topic. Then, once again, it becomes just a question of what you are most comfortable with.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 02:49 PM

Ah!! Danke!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 02:41 PM

That's a possibility but I guess it is rare (as rare as in normal psychology, I'd say). I hadn't that in mind. Lack of proper controls was in my mind. The cheat argument (Hansel and others) is disingenious for it can never be proved wrong. You only have to allow for more cheaters (the controllers) colluding.

I hate that argument for that reason. Except when there is very good proof (W. Broad, N. Wade, Betrayers of truth, give a lot of examples, mostly from standard science).

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 02:19 PM

I assume you mean the explanation which says the presence of the skeptic is keeping the experimenters honest, and when he leaves they start lying. But such an explanation implies that an independent third party witness (not skeptical but not anticipating positive outcomes) would NOT be able to prevent lying. To me this means an experimental flaw.

Or am I missing something?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 02:14 PM

Does hostility dampen ability?

Most (para)psychologists would agree for that explains why skeptics never seem to get the real results. This argument was raised even against parapsychologist Blackmore when she couldn't repeat a colleague's findings.

On the more lunatic fringe of parapsychology, one went even so far to say that the skeptics reading articles from parapsychological research (and not wanting them to present a positive finding) retroactively (in time) make the experiment fail. So he blamed those skeptical future readers of his articles for preventing him to find a positive result when he did the experiment. (that may be too far out even for LH; :-))

Hostility can dampen ability (that's undisputed), but not to the effect of nil ability at all (on the average; in a single case, it could be). If a reported effect goes down to nil for all subjects when a skeptic is present and up when the skeptic leaves, there is at least one other explanation. You won't be surprised I find that more probable. But you knew I would.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 01:15 PM

W:

Interesting -- I hadn't thought the two posts were contrary, but I think I can see why you indicate they are; my sense of the Swann experiments was that they were different in certain ways from Rhine's work with card prediction. But I may be misremembering.

If you try to exercise awareness just by exercising it, even in a somewhat controlled environment, as I understand the Swann series was done, just comparing the results to the pure chance numbers of a material system, I guess you're not imposing any standards on the performance of awareness, are you? All the filtering, really, is left in the hands of the test subject. If you limit him to guessing about cards, I would expect that the sheer boredom and unreality of the subject matter would be enough to distort the results, assuming (and I do) that interest is an attribute of awareness in action.

I make the point about germane variables because I think there is a range of attributes which are peculiar to awareness itself, which can be messed with in a test environment that is trying to control the wrong things, or at least an insufficient number of things. For example, if Ingo Swann (or any other such subject) were tested by a person who was perceptibly hostile to the question of awareness being extra-material, would that "resonate" in some way as to distort results? Does hostility dampen ability? It certainly makes a difference in human performance in other circumstances, such as auditions in musical groups, etc. depending on the indiivudal. But it NEVER makes a difference (as far as I have heard) in purely material experiments relying on the replicative aspects of physical setups.   Expectation has an effect on some events in the boundary region between living and mechanical systems, as demonstrated int he placebo effect. If an observer expects you to fail, does it disrupt your focus in some degree? All this is unquantified as far as I know.

I have to run off and be productive for a while. Thanks for the interesting conversation so far.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 12:32 PM

It is a pleasure for me too, Amos. Just one last bit about changing the goalposts:

Look up, if you can still find it, the research series conducted at SRI involving Ingo Swann in tele-perception and tele-kinetic effects. Woth digging in to. ... Strong evidence for exterior perception, etc.

...not rely on material variables which aren't germane. That's the problem with our testing history, largely -- for example, Rhine's statistical analyses using guesses about card symbols. The framework is wrong for the kind of subject you are trying to test.

The Targ/Puthoff (and other) experiments with Swann (bye the way, his picture and bio are on this usefull page; scroll down the alphabet to S) are firmly in the Rhine tradition: counting successes and reporting more than chance level.

Have it the way of the first quote, then I'm game. That's my usual trained way of thinking and discussing.

Have it the way of the second quote, then we can part friendly after a few words. That's outside of my thinking.

However, if you take the second route, you shouldn't even mention the experiments with Ingo Swann for they then mean nothing one way or the other.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 12:23 PM

Dear Creator:

Believe it or not this is not about You and Your Eternal Self-Titillation. Your condescending metaphysics is almost as arrogant as mine.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: GUEST,Creator
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 11:56 AM

I know you are still quite the confused little Chip off the Ole Block, Wolfgang, my precious son. That's okay. While I've been Evolving for Eternity, you've had only a few million years.

I still Love you, in Infinite Measure, no matter what you say or do. So tell me, if you will, are your neurons still convulsing and your Heart still shrivelling in terror at the very Idea of My Love for you?

Not to worry. You've an Eternity (rather, an Eternity of Eternities) to figure it all out to your Heart's content, at your own pace. I'm sure you will. Chip off the Ole Block, after all.

So enjoy it - or not - in whatever manner you please!

Because that's why you're here.


Creator

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 11:49 AM

W:

I think that as a postulate for testing, the notion of a non-material element could in fact lead to predictable results, with one caveat. The test structure must be written in terms germane to the subject. Just as you would not look for color-changes in a material to indicate the effect of mass in in its vicinity, because it is not a relevant variable, so too you would have to be sure to make a test of non-material awareness, or life force, or whatever you call it, not rely on material variables which aren't germane. That's the problem with our testing history, largely -- for example, Rhine's statistical analyses using guesses about card symbols. The framework is wrong for the kind of subject you are trying to test.

It is just self-fulfilling prediction to require a postulate of non-material awareness to act enough like material objects to satisfy the test, and then fail it becaus eit doesn't act that way. You're dealing with the very center of subjectivity and the source of opinion and the fountain head of all wishful thinking, here. You're not going to easily get it to perform in rectilinear fashion like the flipping of a coin. But that does not mean that "it" doesn't exist, unless you define existence as only consisting of energy/matter phenomena in space and time. If you do that, of course, you have left all imagination out of the picture, or so it would seem. Unless you presuppose that imagination (and all its dimensions) are just material projections, which leads you directly back top the Hard Problem that Dr Blackmore discusses.

Here's a related question: does talk-based therapy ever change a person? If so, how does that happen? There's some kind of reviewing going on, looking at old information and past decisions and perhaps changing those past decisions when one finds the data was flawed or some such. Even if we posit the old stories are stored in wet-ware, wjo's doing the reviewing? Are we positing a system of mirrors in which wet-warelooks at wet-ware and becomes wet-ware aware? How can that even seem possible? The leap in qualitas which Dr Blackmore refers to is glaringly apparent; why should it be ignored for the sake of a comfortable frame of mind? At least, I don't see how such a system could stand up to scrutiny (and scrutiny by who or what?).

I cannot buy Francis Crick's unthinkable speculation that we just haven't uncovered enough complexity to see how it really is all electrons. All of it. Even our knowing that this is so. That strikes me as almost a blasphemy against thought itself, oddly enough, but putting that aside it strikes me as illogical in the extreme, because it insists on an identity-in-kind between particles (at some scale) and awareness.

But the honesty answer is that "science" (whoever that is) doesn't yet know. My opinion, and that is all that it is, is that as long as science locks itself in to the effort to prove the material nature of thought they will run around in circles, because they are trying to make elctrons do something they cannot, no matter how cleverly arranged.

Perhaps, since this is opinion, we just need to agree that we look at these things differently.

I always appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 11:31 AM

My God, you are a sloppy thinker.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: GUEST,Creator
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 11:03 AM

I'm so very pleased to see that my snowflake designs and the physical laws I drafted to create them have met with your scholarly approval (even if I haven't!   

Please know that arguing with one another about my Nature and Existence does nothing but waste your precious and quite limited physical Time and Energy.

Here's a little Secret for you all - Everyone is "right" and no-one is "wrong" about whatever they understand Me to be - be they atheists, agnostics, Christians, Muslims, Satanists, the Dalai Lama, or Conan the Barbarian. To spend the rest of your days pondering this Truth until you really understand it would a much wiser use of your Time and Energy than the way some of you are spending it right now, on this thread.   

At the same time, you are all free to think and behave however you choose, of course. That is your Divine Birthright.

Here's some Light for your dark little minds - any "fact" or "non-fact" which is impossible to physically demonstrate or "prove" as "fact" or "non-fact" may be called a "theory". That is the meaning of the word "theory".

Now, some theories are truths, not yet facts. And some theories are completely off-base, neither truth nor fact. My explanation may disappoint the scientists and philosophers among you, but it's really no more complicated than that.

Truth is also divinely Simple.   That's the way I designed It. I have also Seen how very easy it is for you to allow your restless minds, untamed egos and wagging tongues to continue to keep you forever enslaved to your opinions and 'theories', imprisoned by your ignorance of Truth.

Sadly, that's the option a lot of human beings choose.

So maybe you'll change, and maybe you won't. Honestly, it doesn't matter at all. Whatever you think or do, just know that I Love you, now and always.

This is all that really Matters, to matter.

Creator

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 11:31 AM

very nice summary, Wolfgang. (Thank you especially for noting why this thread drifted from Jerry's original concept.) If it is read by those we have debated in this thread, I suspect that sentences like these will be singled out:

" I only do not consider these ideas to have a proper place in science. The reason for that is simple: They do not lead to testable predictions."

"Tell me, how for instance a grant proposal in broader scope science could look like with empirically testable predictions..."

Unfortunately, I see many arguments that assert that 'not being empirically testable' is no problem, as the very point is that their claims do not fall under standard scientific purview. This is put forward as a feature, not a flaw. I have been told several times now that I will understand when it happens to ME.

My answer, if something amazing does 'happen' to me....No, I will NOT understand and accept in a blinding flash of non-linear intuition. I will investigate and ponder and compare and analyze ....and hope I can recreate the experience and do something that will leave no doubt with others that it is 'real'-in the broad sense of the word.

I do not doubt that people are honest and sincere when they report unusual phenomena like OOB experiences or contact with aliens or precognition or healing-- I just reserve judgment about the precise cause.

But when it comes to disputes about such things as evolution, Wolfgang has made the point very well. To simply dismiss it as merely 'theory' is to misunderstand the very concept and to "show ignorance of what a theory in science is and how it is related to facts."

We can write all day, but no one, on either side of the dispute, can enforce whether others accept their view, whether it is based on reason, faith, logic or simple rhetoric.

I suppose we must leave it at that.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Ben Dover
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 09:20 AM

Faith Brown, Woof!

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 09:14 AM

The second Blackmore link was wrong (sorry): Here it is again

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 09:09 AM

Amos,

at different points with different words you have written that science could be better and more complete if it accepted more than merely actions of neurosn to explain the mind.

Since ages, something called psyche, anima, soul, life energy, life force has been postulated by many different people from different faiths. They have differed about which was animated (humans, animals, plants, wells, rivers, mountains,...). They have differed about what happens to the anima after death: (1) Does it get recycled as the same entity but in different form, (2) does it return to the big pool of energy to be recycled in different forms (so that my soul might be like a drop in the ocean, each litre of water contains some units of my former soul), (3) does it get lost for good (4) does it get a permanent storage at once (Greek mythology), (5) does it go to a kind of sleep/inexistence before being restored and getting a permanent place.

All those are interesting ideas and I can't say they are wrong for I don't know. My personal guess is all are wrong, but I am an agnostic here.

My quarrel with you is not at all that these thoughts have no place at all, for I consider them worthwhile to think about. I only do not consider these ideas to have a proper place in science. The reason for that is simple: They do not lead to testable predictions. How could we differentiate between the many different position as to what happens when a human has died? (And I haven't mentioned yet the many differing ideas about where the souls come from and at which moment in time, when a new human is 'made'). I do not have enough fantasy to see a research program here. Tell me, how for instance a grant proposal in broader scope science could look like with empirically testable predictions and I might have to reconsider my position.

Up to then, I still think the best position is to accept that our knowledge is not complete but not to close that gap by a passepartout explanation fitting every conceivable question. But that's only me.

Former parapsychologist Susan Blackmore has written a fine essay (New Scientist 22 June 2002) about research in neuropsychology/neurophysiology. An explicit critique of much of the current theories but also an implicit critique of ideas postulating something like consciousness. (end of message in particular to Amos)

Since I have mentioned Susan Blackmore, a woman I admire much, some might want to read her chapter Why I have given up. It is useful for those who like to think scientists have a close mind. Without exception all those things and feats mentioned by Two Bears have been studied by one or more scientists. They just did not find a corroboration for the claims.

Whenever you read a sentence like 'scientists are baffled', 'science has no explanation', 'scientists are puzzled', much more often than not the sentence is outrightly wrong for anybody with just a bit of knowledge in the field. These sentences are in the texts because they feel good to the believers.

Or does a truthful sentence like 'I haven't bothered to check whether there is a scientific explanation' or 'I know of a possible scientific explanation but I'm sure buyers of my books wouldn't like to read about it' tickle your fancy in the same way as the more mysterious 'Scientists have failed to find any normal explanation'?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 08:18 AM

Now I am at a computer that lets me post to long threads. I'll bring up this thread once again for these thoughts belong into it and not somewhere else.

Jerry has started (long time ago) this thread hoping that it will not be divisive, pitting people against each other. It has ended before this post as a quarrel about science and about evolution. Why? That's easy to understand. Most times, science and religions are Nonoverlapping Magisteria (S. J. Gould; I agree with much of what he writes). They have their say on completely different things. Scientists refrain to make statements about moral and ethics (except of course, as individuals), religions usually refrain from making statements of fact on fields on which science can make those. But from time to time science claims a new field on which one or more religion(s) have a stand too. Then it comes to a fight that invariably, sooner or late, has been lost by the religions.

The earth is not flat? That's in contradiction to Daniel 4:11 and Matthew 4:8 in which all kingdoms of the Earth can be seen from a mountain. The number of flat earthists has gone down considerably. The retreating fights of some religions for some claims have gone on for centuries. Natives in both Australia and America have challenged scientific findings that have been in contradiction to what their myths say about where they came from. Some Christians and some Muslims attack evolution because they consider the findings to be in contradiction to one particular reading of a big book.

They could in principle attack the theory of special relativity ("it's only a theory"!!) or the model of the atom and its nucleus ("that's only your faith"). They don't because there are no theological implications.

The anti-evolution front is far from being united. I have mentioned the flat earthists, there are the young earth creationists, the gap creationists (two creations at different times), the day-age creationists (creation it was, but at the evolutionists time-scale), the micro-evolution creationists (as Two Bears) who postulate creation for the species and a later micro-evolution. I have missed some groups but I'll mention the other extreme to the flat-earthists, the theistic evolutionists. They accept evolution as described by science but think it was God who has created the cosmos with all its laws to allow for later evolution from scratch, that is animated from unanimated matter.

The retreat can be spotted in the succession of the argumentation in court cases, a string of legal defeats. In the famous Scopes trial in 1925, in Bryan's last speech the accusation was that evolution was against God's writings and laws and that only a minority was supporting evolution.

Then came Creation Science, an endeavour abusing a good word for accumulating evidence only for one particular preconceived conclusion. It was put to final silence by the famous judgement of Overton. Bottom line: It isn't a science despite its name.

Then came 'Intelligent Design' and the clever accusation that science was a faith or religion too (I'm smiling to see Little Hawk using arguments from the religious far right with which he usually has nothing to do). In the 1990s, the Ninths Circuit court of Appeals ruled that a school district had a legal right to require one of its teachers to teach evolution because it is a scientific theory, and rejected the teacher's contention that there was such a thing as religion of evolutionsism (M. Pigliucci, Denying Evolution, 2002).

The schools of creationist thought only differ in how much of reality they accept, from the flat earthists to the theistic evolutionists who accept everything but postulate a divine creation of the cosmos before it ran completely on its own.

Two arguments to conclude:

Two Bears, your argumentation is based on analogies. Analogies are plausible for those sharing your basic convictions and are therefore good in teaching but fall completely flat with those not sharing the conviction. Your argument that if someone sees something complicated the conclusion is inevitable that there has to be a designer, is wrong for at least two reasons:
(1) There is something like 'design without intention' (example: snowflakes that look at close-up like works of an artist, though the laws of chemistry and the binding forces are well known)
(2) Theistic evolution mentioned above. These people accept everything in evolution you consider impossible and still believe in a designer.


'Evolution is just a theory' or similar sentences and sentiments are mistaken for they show ignorance of what a theory in science is and how it is related to facts. The body of facts points so clearly to evolution that any realistic theory has to be evolutionary to make sense ("Nothing in biology makes sense if not in the light of evolution", Dobzhansky, in: Biology Teacher, 1973; himself being a devout theist, by the way). There are several competing theories about the mechanism and the speed that come to different predictions ('punctuated equilibrium' being one example of such a theory), but since they start by trying to explain the same set of data they all start from evolution as a fact, the concrete mechanisms being under debate.

"This confusion between the purposes of science and religion is based on the fundamentalists' misunderstanding of their sacred scriptures as not only books on how to live, but also descriptions of how the universe works." (M. Pigliucci, Denying Evolution, 2002).

That was long enough. A shorter post directed at Amos will follow.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 02:01 PM

"the scientists who present big industry with what it wants to hear are the ones who get continued funding from big industry." *sigh*...all too true. Fudging of data occurs every day, in order to win contracts to....fudge data. They ain't all guilty, but like slick televangelists, they give the rest of 'em a bad name.

As to "culturally induced blind spots"...a man has to do his best, if he really cares, to examine his life & thoughts and sort them out. 'Tain't easy-- If it was easy, we'd have a kinder, gentler world!

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 01:49 PM

Well, of course they're more reliable than the Pope! :-) I was just making an analogy.

But do you really imagine that scientists, simply by virtue of the fact that they are scientists, are completely without prejudice? Completely fair-minded? Completely free of peer pressure? Completely disinterested in the findings they present? Completely free of the competitive desire to be "right", and to prove people with different theories wrong?

Ha! Tell me another one, Amos. If you do think those things, I have a bridge to sell you.

Keep in mind that the scientists who present big industry with what it wants to hear are the ones who get continued funding from big industry. And where does that lead?

And how does a man with culturally induced blind spots know he has them? He doesn't. Scientists, like the rest of us, have them.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 01:41 PM

Well then, LH, let me just say that I disagree with the sentiment ; because they knwoingly engage in cross-verification and have some standard of objective evidence, even if not perfect, scientists by and large are significantly more reliable than the Pope, and much less subject to fallibility, if that is a word. But since infallibility is an absolute term, it doesn;t really apply to either Popes of scientists. On relative merits I'd take the scientist, 'most any day. So your literal statement is perfect.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 01:35 PM

typo in my last sentence. It should have said:

I am NOT questioning empirical scientific evidence, only the subjective interpretation of said evidence.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 01:34 PM

I don't think I miss the thrust of science at all, Amos, considering that I began my life as a very scientifically minded young man, shaking his head at all the superstitious and gullible people around him who believed in fantastic stuff like...Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, or the immaculate conception. And I could go on...

No, I understand the thrust of science very well. I also understand that the scientific authorities of any era in human development are only prepared to see what they are prepared to look at...and in the manner in which they understand to be "looking". As such, they are as much mired in their particular orthodoxies as other people are.

They think "inside the box" of their usual set of beliefs about reality. So does everyone else...except the odd genius or radical thinker. It is such people who introduce brand new scientific theories at times which are "outside the box". Those people are often ridiculed and scoffed at by their peers who can't think outside the box.

As I said. Wait and see. New ideas will come forward which discredit the old. They always have and they always shall. Once a new idea becomes mainstream, people just take it for granted...and then they have a brand new box to think inside of.

I'm talking philosophy here, Amos. I am now questioning empirical scientific evidence, only the subjective interpretation of said evidence.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: *daylia*
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 01:32 PM

If I ever get to meet a 'creator' on some plane above this, I hope I get to ask a few pointed questions...*smile*

Well, I hereby hypothesize that simply by writing your "hope", your intention down - right here among the Cats! - you've already accomplished just that, on those (seemingly-so-elusive) subtle planes!   "As above, so below" after all ....   

Question is, are you ready for your Response?   Gotta have your Heart's "Ears" and "Eyes" prepped, remember .... :-)   


You have to make you own peace with all the stuff ....It wont affect how you live and how you care for others if you NEVER believe those startling claims of science, but some of us (like me) feel like we MUST accept the best evidence we can glean, no matter how hard it is to wrap our heads around.

I agree. Everyone chooses how, when and upon what to spend their time and energy. Whether I consider myself "created" or "mutated" is, in truth, pretty trivial - what's really important is, of course, the way I choose to use each moment of my life, right here and now, be I "created" or "mutated"! And everyone is free to create, upgrade and maintain the personal view of the Universe that works best for them ----

- unless that personal "view" causes harm or somehow interferes with the health, happiness and free will of another. That's the old conflict between Religion and Science, demonstrated so well by the case of Galileo. While I see no conflict between Science and what is truly "spiritual", I know the history of Science is one long bitter ... (and very much NEEDED) ... power struggle with organized religion.

daylia


PS -- aw shucks and I thought maybe Beethoven could open those Ears up for ya ... maybe I'll borrow that barred F chord from Amos, infuse it with a torrential deluge of loving enlightenisms .. you know, all dolce and cantabile ... and pitch it (gently) at'cha instead!

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 12:14 PM

"I am through with this debate with you; no matter what else you post."
ok...I post this, then, merely for others who might be following the discussion.
"Although genuine dinosaur tracks are abundant in Texas, claims of human tracks have not withstood close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been largely abandoned even by most creationists. Alleged Paluxy "man tracks" involve a variety of spurious phenomena, including erosional features, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, indistinct markings of unknown origin, and a few loose carvings. "

(I was asked why I was willing to take the word of 'scientists' and not do my own research. Well, I am not ABLE to travel to Texas and examine those track myself, nor am I trained to do analysis of sediments and weathering patterns and the differences between dinosaur tracks and purported human tracks...but when the articles SAYS that even the creationists have given up on this, I have a pretty good idea which seems most likely. If other 'evidence' is found later, will I reconsider? sure!)

one other point (for others, not Two Bears, as he is convinced my mind is closed)

"Your beloved science states no animal weighing more than 100 pounds survived the incident that killed the dinosaurs."

I hadn't seen that precise claim, but it seems reasonable...65 million years can do a lot, and more & more data is confirming that approximate time in new research. I have not seen any new research that supports man & dinosaurs existing at the same time. (This line of thinking 'seems' to want to assert that the dinosaurs were a much more recent thing...in the thousands of years past, rather than millions...but no real, solid evidence for this seems to be forthcoming.)

daylia..you state...
"I'd much rather "know" I'm Divinely Created
Than try to "believe" I was randomly mutated!"

I can see why that would feel better, and I see why you and many others feel that " ...to accept something like the theory of random mutation would take a GIANT leap of faith..." It's very much like those in Copernicus' day being told that Ptolemy was wrong and the Earth was not the center of the universe. They could look up and SEE the stars revolving around them! Galileo got in deep trouble for espousing the theories of Copernicus. Galileo's career was ruined....so what happened?

" On 31 October 1992, 350 years after Galileo's death, Pope John Paul II gave an address on behalf of the Catholic Church in which he admitted that errors had been made by the theological advisors in the case of Galileo. He declared the Galileo case closed, but he did not admit that the Church was wrong to convict Galileo on a charge of heresy because of his belief that the Earth rotates round the sun. "

Is the Galileo stuff irrelevant to what we were discussing? Not to me, as it illustrates the natural reluctance of people to give up believing what 'feels' better. To some believers these days, it is easier to simply give a divine creator credit for designing and setting in motion the 'evolution' that seems so pervasive. You have to make you own peace with all the stuff ....It wont affect how you live and how you care for others if you NEVER believe those startling claims of science, but some of us (like me) feel like we MUST accept the best evidence we can glean, no matter how hard it is to wrap our heads around.

To me, imagining a Supreme Creator is just as hard as visualizing 4-5 billion years of evolution, and I have simply come to terms with it. I care---very much-- about others and the state of civilization, and feel that IF there is Spiritual Conciousness to the universe, it will, if it cares at all, understand why I feel like I do. If I ever get to meet a 'creator' on some plane above this, I hope I get to ask a few pointed questions...*smile*