BS: Science and Religion

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 11:30 PM

Well, there are many instances of consciousness surviving without a body. There are many narratives of consciousness being able to take over inanimate forms or at least permeate them with perception.

The logic of insisting that all the consciousness a body is aware of comes from other bodies or parts of them, therefore consciousness must be a product of matter and energy, is (as I have said many times before) very similar to believing that cellphones can hold conversations. Such a belief would require that you steadfastly and completely ignore the presence of connected, remote elements (the owners or operators of cellphones). You could insist, two, that the life forms of planet Earth were boxy things with round rubber feet that lived on petroleum, occasionally infested by small bipedal parasites, but which had the innate ability (hidden somewhere in their internal-combustion systems) to navigate and manage themselves in traffic.

Attributing function inaccurately to structure is an easy, but very incapacitating error.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 11:06 PM

Slag, 10:42 What I was trying to convey was that, for the preservation of life and our species, the one who reaches beyond himself or herself, the one who effects others positively and promotes the good that we assert life is, they have truly lived and have a heart, which in this age, seems to be a little more rare than in the past.

I believe that this and LH's latter comment are more pessimistic than my take on the subject. I believe the world is getting smaller and people becoming more aware of this and of each other. Our young people - teens and 20s, at least - are connecting with people around the world (thanks to the wonders of science!) and learning more than any previous generation about their contemporaries and the way others think and view the world, hence will be more compassionate, knowledgeable and understanding of those differences which have separated people. My hope/dream - whatever anyone chooses to call it - is that this will bring about a more peaceful world. The young people will have the power before long and a very different, broader world view than ever was possible before this internet on which we have so much fun - and gain so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 10:10 PM

I feel for what you're saying, Bill! ;-) Alas, I think it's too big a problem for you and me to tackle. Anyway, the fact is, the world will never be entirely safe, no matter what we do.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 09:59 PM

"Come on all you scientific geniuses, which of you is going to take my final sentence and refute it so that you may be justified in your statement that "There is NO God"?"

            With every hour that passes, science finds more evidence that there is no god. It's just a matter of time. More and more people everyday turn away from religion. When religion is finally determined to be a mental illness, we'll be on our way to a peaceful world.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Slag
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 08:42 PM

Uncle_DaveO, re post @ 9:41AM, Huh, the Big Bullet? The Big Fuse? The Big Interstitial Brat with a cosmic hammer? Perhaps.

A real good discussion, again, as usual, here at the 'cat. It is noteworthy that this is pretty much the same discussion that has been going on for thousands of years with no clear winner as yet.

Some ancients noticed that there is always a little puff of air going in and out of living things, as they understood them. This "pneuma" or "spirit" must be the life force (they thought) that animates all living things (they thought). Whether it is still a popular idea today, I don't know, but we still use the term and mean, pretty much, the same thing.

So where did this breath of life come from...? ...and on it goes. We approach these things with the thought tools (words) and understandings that have been conveyed to us over the centuries.

Perhaps the better question is the one of consciousness. What is the body/mind connection? After all, it is the human consciousness that asks and then attempts to answer these questions. The galaxies don't ask and don't tell. Right in there is the Existential Question too. How we answer them or attempt to answer them, or even ignore them tells us who and what we are.

In the final analysis and in answer to Dorothy Parshall's 1:11AM post about who cares and flying fish cakes: The only mind you truly inhabit is your own. True, whether we are remembered or not, has little to do with on-going life on this planet. Without a theological perspective and an eye toward eternity, a "who cares" is really the RIGHT question. If it matters not then, it matters not now. In fact, life on Earth matters not at all. It is simply a minor anomaly, infinitesimal, in the scope of the space time continuum. Shakespeare's "...tale told by an idiot..." sums it up pretty well.

What I was trying to convey was that, for the preservation of life and our species, the one who reaches beyond himself or herself, the one who effects others positively and promotes the good that we assert life is, they have truly lived and have a heart, which in this age, seems to be a little more rare than in the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 07:35 PM

Sadly, Little Hawk, it only takes a tiny fraction of a %....none of whom YOU are likely to know... to cause a great deal of problems.


You wanna sit down with me and overhaul the entire educational system to weed out all these folks early? How far do you think we'd get?

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 07:32 PM

Yes, Strinsinger, wherever people unite political extremism with religion one has a dangerous situation. Wherever they unite other forms of extremism with politics, one has a dangerous situation.

The problem is not religion itself. The problem is not politics or race or culture. The problem is extremism.

I know people of all religions (or not), races, and cultures among my circle of friends and acquaintances, and none of them has shown any inclination to hurt anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 07:22 PM

That list Stringsinger posted is a pretty good set of reasons to at least find ways to limit religion's direct influence in governmental affairs and the educational system. Although, some 'believers' already are reasonable, others very belief system commands them to interfere and try to impose their values on the rest of society!
THIS is the crux of the problem.... now we need to maintain 'freedom OF religion', while allowing those who wish to have 'freedom FROM religion.'
   It will never be easy to juggle those conflicting views.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 07:21 PM

LH, wish it were only 2. AIPAC represents another threat. Hinduism is rife with violence in India. There are instances of extremist Buddhist groups and Shinto and ....and...
the list goes on. Scientology proclaims itself as a religion. Catholics and Proddies in Northern Ireland. (Both claim to be Christian). Sectarian violence based on religious principles in Iraq show that there are many forms of being Muslim.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 07:05 PM

American fundamentalist religion has become dangerous all right. No doubt about that. So has Islamic fundamentalist religion.

That doesn't mean "religion" in general has become dangerous. It means that 2 specific forms of fundamentalist religion have become dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 07:02 PM

Here's the problem, Don. Religion poses a social problem today with the advent of "just wars", reproductive rights advocates being murdered, Catholic priests abusing children,
Rumsfeld's memos to Bush about the battlefield, denial of global warming and adherence
to a false doctrine of geological time, the evangelizing of the American military by right-wing religious Christians, the forcing of ID and Creationism into the science curriculum of American education, the censoring of reputedly anti-religious speech, the violation of the Separation of Church and State by the enforcement of tax money for religious social programs supported by the Obama Administration (Madison would turn over in his grave),
a national day of prayer which should be outlawed as promoted as a government edict,
the violence in religious disputes all over the world by adherents......religion has become dangerous.

As to the powers of imagination, the Acquinas argument can be expelled by imagining that there is no god and that would be true for the foreseeable future. There were many scientists who did not pooh pooh new tech developments that were shown to be empirically viable. Even today, new ideas in space travel, quantum mechanics, and other ideas which may at present be improbable next week are not rejected out of hand because there is scientific methodology being used to support these innovations. This was also true during Galileo's time but we know the real "enemy" toward the realization of scientific breakthroughs.

Radio waves, space travel, flying etc. were not that far-fetched by many of the scientific
community. If you reason that the bible is an index to clairvoyance, as many of the Christian persuasion do, it is untenable. This can also be said to be true of any of the "holy" books.

It is your right to believe as you wish (whether anyone can accept it reasonably) and I respect that you have studied the bible and have some scholarship chops. I commend to you Bart Ehrman from N.C. University as a person who debunks biblical historical accuracy.

With respect,

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 06:31 PM

I'm happy with admitting that I don't know everything or have all the answers, Paul.

How about you?

I do not oppose science to religion/spirituality. I unite them into a single path of knowledge. I do oppose science AND rational spirituality, however, to the old traditions and superstitions that are clearly in violation of known scientific facts...as does any rationally objective human being. The spirituality that interests me has nothing to do with those archaic traditions and superstitions. It has to do with mastering my own consciousness and making it more positive. It has to do with becoming more forgiving, less reactive, more loving, less condemnatory. I'm not out to convert anyone to anything. I belong to no religious order or tradition or structure. I'm out to improve myself. Period.

Why do I talk about religion/science/spirituality here? Because I find the subject very interesting.

You said, " religion as it has been practiced for most of human existence "

Now, there's a glittering generality! ;-D What you really mean is "religion that fits the very pejorative definitions I like to give to religion".

Have you ever studied Taoism or Buddhism? Have you ever studied the spiritual traditions that are not built around a surrogate human-like god-deity? There are several such traditions in existence.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Paul Burke
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 06:24 PM

It's virtually impossible to prove a negative that doesn't involve a logical contradiction. It's possible to believe in all sorts of unprovable things. Whether such beliefs are socially useful is another matter.

However, it has long ago been shown that if a god exists, it can not have the traditional attributes of the Abrahamic God of infinite power, infinite knowledge and infinite goodness.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 06:21 PM

JUST one condition.

I ASKED THE QUESTION, so will NOT accept any answer based on a requirement for ME to prove there is a God.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 06:18 PM

""Just over one hundred years ago the concept of talking to someone in America by wireless transmission, the concept of travelling in a vehicle without a horse in front, and the concept of reaching America in three hours in a flying machine would have been equally matters of blind faith for believers, and objects of ridicule for those of a scientific mindset.

Yet some DID believe, and have since been proved right. The concept of a deity may be similarly unbelievable to many, but it would be UNSCIENTIFIC to say that such an entity is IMPOSSIBLE.""

Come on all you scientific geniuses, which of you is going to take my final sentence and refute it so that you may be justified in your statement that "There is NO God"?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Paul Burke
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 06:11 PM

What, LH, you're happy with a straw man, and a bald assertion? Nobody surely thinks feeling is behaviourist in origin- in fact behaviourism is based on feelings, otherwise there wouldn't be anything to choose between reward and punishment. And his statement "Consciousness, if there is any spirituality to the universe, seems to be an innate attribute of spiritual existence, not something that rises out of it" is merely begging the question.

Consciousness seems to be an innate attribute of organisation of material networks, not something that rises out of an external cause. How is that statement inferior to Amos's, without evidence?

But back to the original question. If it had been "Stories or facts", no one would have hesitated to answer BOTH OF COURSE.

There are many things and assertions that can't be proven. That doesn't mean that they are unexplorable, just that the method of exploration is metaphor rather than method. And that you should be aware of the limits of the metaphor, just as you should be aware of the fact that evidential proof is limited in scope. No conflict there.

But how do you assess one metaphor as against another? If you reject seeking for evidence (i.e. striving to make it scientific- for science is itself only a search for better metaphors), one assertion is as good as another, and if you base action on the metaphor, one action is as good as another.

When you oppose science to religion, you are introducing- especially on the religious side- emotionally loaded terms. It amazes me how, when pressed, religious people will deny the realities of religion as it has been practiced for most of human existence, and take refuge in some idealisation that reflects only their own, often admirable, construct. No real Scotsman....

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 05:19 PM

I'm not saying that spirit MUST exist, Shimrod. I'm saying that it very well may exist. I think it probable. You don't. Neither one of us is in a position to state that it MUST or MUST NOT exist.

Paul Burke - Amos's last 2 posts will do fine for me to answer your question.

Mrrzy - I think you're imaginging that the cart is pulling the horse or that the tail is wagging the dog when you say "onsciousness is electrochemistry". ;-) Consciousness affects our electrochemistry. An outside intervention in our electrochemistry (by drugs, alcohol, etc) can also affect our consciousness as it attempts to function through the mechanism of the physical body.

Likewise, the horse pulls the cart...and an outside intervention (such as breaking one of the wheels on the cart or getting several men to attempt to impede the progress of the cart) can affect the horse (he'll struggle against the impediment)...but it is still the horse which pulls the cart, not the cart which pulls the horse. The cart is passive and without purpose. The horse is active and purposeful. Electrochemistry is passive and without purpose. Consciousness is active and purposeful.

You are surrendering your own recognition of your own freedom of will if you think your consciousness is just the result of some electrochemical processes. You're denying, in effect, your own intelligence. This would be rather like a god(dess) denying her own godhood and saying, "I'm a rock." or "I'm a worm."

If you have freedom of will...and you do...you can even use it to assert or deny that you have freedom of will. As you believe, so shall it be. You have the power.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 05:00 PM

Seems to me there is a great deal of mystery everywhere. Otherwise what is this thread about?

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 04:48 PM

Life is biochemistry. Consciousness is electrochemistry. Very little mystery there. We don't know exactly how it works, but then nobody understands quantum physics, either. Doesn't stop us from using it.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 04:29 PM

"Prior to the invention of those instruments which can detect or generate radio waves, people didn't believe there was anything such as a radio wave. Why? Well, their physical senses could not detect it.

Because their physical senses do not (generally) detect the presense of spirits, souls, and such spiritual phenomena, they tend to not believe those exist either. Some people, however, do detect the presence of spirits, souls, ghosts, whatever.....but it's easy for someone who hasn't done so to just dismiss their reports and say, "Oh, they were having a hallucination." or "They're not telling the truth.""

LH I think you're pushing analogies a bit too far here: At one time people couldn't detect radio waves, just as, at the present time, people can't detect 'spirits', 'souls' and ghosts'. We now know that radio waves exist, therefore 'spirits', 'souls' and 'ghosts' must exist ... uuuummm ... give me a minute ... sorry, LH, but it sounds like very bad logic to me.

The fact is I'm not an unbeliever - I'm a sceptic - there is a big difference!

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 04:01 PM

(No, Amos...if I'm wrong, THEY get to say "I told you so!"...if Susan hasn't 'spirited' me away first...*grin*)

My Mother-in-law was convinced that some sort of salvation would be forthcoming for 'leading a good life', no matter what I believe now. Nice attitude... I hope to earn it, whether it happens or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 03:54 PM

"structure subordinate to function" As in Selye's work showing the effect of stress factors on the internal organs of rats? And the fact that the functioning of our organs is dependent on the stress factors/feelings we have, "positive" or "negative"?

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Paul Burke
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 03:43 PM

What evidence have you for that?

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 03:41 PM

Paul:

Consciousness, if there is any spirituality to the universe, seems to be an innate attribute of spiritual existence, not something that rises out of it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 03:40 PM

As far as I can see, the general pattern of life forms I have dealt with is that structure is subordinate to function.

Once you differentiate between S=>R chains (Pavlov and Skinner) and actual awareness, it seems highly likely to me that consciousness has far more effect on structure than structure has on consciousness, even though in some cases the individual consciousness pretends to be wholly fixated on S=>R inputs from a physical nervous system, for example.    Furthermore I have never seen evidence that a purely physical aggregate can make a postulated state begin to come about, the way life does every day.

So I am inclined toward the probability that attention and consciousness actually bring about postulated spaces which then get left on automatic and accruing and solidifying, gradually form the kind of spacetime we are so accustomed to.

But the truth is these are simply preferred hypotheses, until such time as I can figure out how to walk through walls and such.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Paul Burke
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 03:33 PM

Does consciousness mysteriously arise out of physical phenomena somehow (as materialists and reductionists would seem to see it)...and if so, how?

Does consciousness mysteriously arise out of spiritual phenomena somehow (as mystics and religionists would seem to see it)...and if so, how?

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 02:50 PM

Possibly, Dorothy.

Okay, Amos, I shall expand the definition of "physical" as you wish, to include energy waveforms as well as matter. (though matter may itself be an energy waveform that is at quite a low oscillating vibrational state)

Now what about consciousness? It is the nature of consciousness that really concerns me here. What would you say about that? Does consciousness mysteriously arise out of physical phenomena somehow (as materialists and reductionists would seem to see it)...and if so, how? Or is it the other way around and physicality arises out of consciousness? What do you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 02:25 PM

LH: I suspect that even unconscious there would be a physical reaction. But, not being a neurologist. We do know that children are affected in the womb and that persons who are in a coma are also.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 01:57 PM

LH:

THey are not non-physical. That is a totally misleading description. Physical does not mean made ofparticles greater than some preferred minimum. The physical range of phenomena includes space and energy, time and solid accretions thereof such as atoms.

Your three-state description is a simplistic description of the states of matter only. It ignores the peculiarities of transition states, and the interesting range of phenomena of energy itself.

As to your example, why is it any different if your exertions transmit from you to your body to yellow paint to my house to my eyes, than if they transferred from you to your hand to a sharp stick to my eyeball? The contact is quite direct even though the coupling, I grant you, is a bit less solid. But it is still perferctly physical.

# "Of or relating to matter and energy or the sciences dealing with them" according to one of the AmHEr definitions of "physical".

A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 01:44 PM

Amos, I should really have said, "If, however, you were already unconscious when I burst in, due to Chongo having bopped you over the head with his trusty sap a minute or so previously, then your bodily state would not change one iota, no matter how much I trashed your house. It would change later...when you regained consciousness."

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 01:30 PM

Yes, the non-physical and the various forms of energy can affect the physical in various ways. No doubt about it. And why wouldn't they? Everything is interconnected.

Does our civilization not define physical things as existing in 3 specific states? Solids, liquids, and gases? That's what they taught me when I was in science class back in high school.

Amos, my dachshund will indeed suffer a physical effect from the microwaves. That doesn't mean microwaves are themselves physical. They are a form of energy. A thought is also a form of energy. An emotion is a form of energy. If my dachshund experiences the emotion of excitement or irritation then his heartbeat will accelerate, his little furry head will get hot, his eyes will open wider, and he will salivate. He will also bark or growl. All this just on the basis of a shift in consciousness! That's why consciousness is king.

The study of spirituality, I think, is primarily the study of how to manage and govern one's own consciousness in such a way as to enhance the experience of life to the fullest. Consciousness is what it's all about. Consciousness is not a physical thing...but it profoundly affects the physical in both obvious and subtle ways. Consciousness decides...and the physical then responds.

If I were, for instance, to burst into your house and start throwing yellow paint all over your furnishings and walls....you would probably get red in the face and start yelling at me, and your whole body would tense up. I would have altered your consciousness, without any direct physical contact with you, and the conditions in your body would change dramatically. That's the power of consciousness.

If, however, you were already unconscious when I burst in, then your bodily state would not change one iota, no matter how much I trashed your house.

Consciousness is what makes life real to you, me, or anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 01:11 PM

hah, Now it is getting interesting. However:
at 3:19 am - LH: All those experiences generate feelings which are accompanied by measurable changes in one's physiology. They are, in fact, physical. So how can they not be "physical events"? As radio waves are also - that we feel them without recognizing it does not make them non-physical.
at 5:57 am - Slag: great ideas. What is the "you" who needs to be remembered? If I help one family raise one child better, that will continue to carry "me" into who knows how many generations of improved parenthood. Will the 10th generation remember "me". "I" do not give a flying fish cake.
at 10:12 am - Shimrod: I would not be surprised to learn there are people who do KNOW what will happen after death. Would we believe them? Who would believe whom? How would we know whom to believe? The one whom our own inner wisdom believes, if we listen to it.at 10:53 am - Amos speaks my mind, precisely.
Noon - I tried to get folks to define religion days ago! They, apparently, have more fun waffling.
12:26 pm - LH: Just as "feelings are not unlike the wind... neither can be touched and with neither is it necessary". Nice lines and I hesitate to argue with genius but I strongly question these lines. I believe both can be touched and, with feelings at least, it is
necessary. Clearly, my concept of "touching" may differ but, then, many of my concepts differ! Ain't life fun!
(You all have probably moved on while I tried to catch up. Oh well.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 01:07 PM

LH:

You can't use words any old which way. If you don't think EMF is physical, try standing in front of a microwave tower dish some cold afternoon and see if you can sense any physical experience, or put one of your dachshunds in the microwave for 45 seconds on high, and see if he reports anything physical.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: wysiwyg
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 12:56 PM

(sadly, If I'm right, I don't get to say "I told you so."

That's OK. With universal salvation, I can just come fetch you when it's time.

~S~

Ongoing jokes with my good friend Bill)

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 12:31 PM

100! Oh joy.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 12:26 PM

You said something quite interesting, Amos, when you said:

"The core nature of awareness is non-local, meaning it has no location in space or time except to the degree it decides to generate one. Life has the ability to decree--to say things will be so, and have them exist."

I think you're probably quite right about that.

****

When I say that a radio signal is not "physical", I mean that it's not a solid, a liquid or a gas. It has no physicality in the normal sense and you can't grab hold of it with your hand....or pour it into a glass...or blow it around with a fan. It will pass seamlessly through the solid wall of a building. But, we can observe it using certain instruments we have invented in fairly recent times, and we can use to to control a machine.

Prior to the invention of those instruments which can detect or generate radio waves, people didn't believe there was anything such as a radio wave. Why? Well, their physical senses could not detect it.

Because their physical senses do not (generally) detect the presense of spirits, souls, and such spiritual phenomena, they tend to not believe those exist either. Some people, however, do detect the presence of spirits, souls, ghosts, whatever.....but it's easy for someone who hasn't done so to just dismiss their reports and say, "Oh, they were having a hallucination." or "They're not telling the truth."

Such is the arrogance of those who are absolutely sure that they already know what is and what isn't real... ;-)

Well, I think that one day science may well invent instruments that DO confirm the presence of spirits and can, for instance, photograph them and measure their energy signature. And then the skeptics will probably change their tune, since they will have what they term "verifiable evidence".

For me, my direct experience IS verifiable evidence...but just for me...not for someone else who wasn't there at the time. I am willing to show a good deal of respect for other people's accounts of their direct experience of the unusual, even if it doesn't fit my expectations. That doesn't mean I will categorically accept their explanations as being true and accurate. Neither does it mean I will categorically deny them. I'm in no position to. I wasn't there.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 12:19 PM

But if you're wrong, you DO get to say "I told you so"!!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 12:06 PM

"Bill, I'm sorry that you spent so much of your time in churches, classrooms and libraries and didn't find any answers. Others haven't been quite so frustrated. "

Did you ever hear the story of the guy who prayed for something and was disappointed? His friend said: "I told you religion & prayer were useless. All that praying and you got no answer."
The guy replied: "God answered...he said "No"."

That's the religious form of the answer *I* got from all those studies. Because I found no consistent, testable answers in some areas, or any answers which were not based on 'wishful thinking' or linguistic equivocation, the answer I got was that certain questions do not have answers we can be sure of, (or possibly, that we have framed questions improperly.) This is what I call learning. I do not assume in my questioning that the answer MUST take some pre-determined form, or that there IS a religious answer entwined in all the confusion.

   I am not "frustrated" that I didn't 'find' certain answers - I put such things into the category of 'stuff humans can't seem to get a handle on'. (If you want to add "yet" to that, be my guest). Just as we can't really answer "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?", we can't answer "What is the nature and origin of all reality?"

When someone tells me, "I can't imagine how anything can exist without a First Cause.", I reply, "I can't imagine what a First Cause might imply or how IT got there."

You can't say that something **EXISTS** or happened, just because we have words for it. Are there Unicorns? or Elves? or Ghosts?

So, "frustrated", for me, applies to other things....like being told I "haven't opened my mind" to the 'truth'.....

Am I taking my chances with my eternal life? *shrug*... sadly, If I'm right, I don't get to say "I told you so."

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: John P
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 12:00 PM

If you define religion as an experience of The Universe and don't go for deism or faith, then there isn't any conflict -- maybe no difference -- between religion and science. If you define religion as in a deistic way that requires believing things on faith, then religion is the exact opposite of science.

JP

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 10:53 AM

There is no reason to iden6tify a spiritual experience by association with "god", especially an anthropomorphic, gender-embodying, icon whose godliness is highly dubitable. Why not just continue to observe the spiritual experience, and see where it leads? I am sure of one thing--it does not lead to a cranky old man.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: John P
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 10:47 AM

Human beings are, through meditation/prayer/fasting/spell-casting/etcetera, capable of an ecstatic blissful experience that is identified by many of us as spiritual. Common experiences are a feeling of connection with the rest of the universe, a temporary suppression of our sense of self, and internal "visual" effects such as a light shining within us. Lots of people from all of history and all over the world have reported these experiences. I have had them myself, and see no reason to doubt the reality of this experience. Many people attribute this to a god, ignoring the fact that other people have the same experience and attribute it to a completely different god, or to no god at all. Saying that this is a manifestation of a god makes as much sense as saying that last night's lightening storm means that Zeus was angry with Hera, or that life is so complex that it must have had a creator. That is to say, none at all.

I remember when I was a kid going to Sunday School at church. There I was, an innocent five year old, being fed stories that simply did not make sense. I knew they didn't make sense at the time, and I sat around wondering why all the adults were such idiots, and why they were lying to me.

Why do so many people have to ascribe anything they don't understand, and anything that happens to them that isn't a physical phenomenon, to the intervention of some being that no one has ever seen or heard from? In this sense, religion is the exact opposite of science. The willingness to believe in something for which there is no proof, or even any evidence, places most religious people in a position of being shockingly unscientific at their cores.

I know that the word religion has as many meanings as it does gods, so having this conversation without a clear statement of what is meant by religion is a sure way of having people use the same word for many different concepts. Susan, I have to say that expecting any useful information or meaningful discussion when you want everyone to define the terms in their own way seems a bit silly. It's made for some interesting reading, however, so thank you!

John

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 10:12 AM

"Shimrod, no honest scientist would begin to give you definition with an ironclad guarantee for light, or any other part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Truth is, they really don't know what it is." Slag

I agree with that ... and your point is? The fact is, though, radio waves have enough of a physical reality to allow my radio to pick up Radio 4 (UK radio station) broadcasts in the morning.

I can have lots of 'deep thoughts' about life after death too. Those thoughts don't tell me what's going to happen though. I don't know and, 'deep thoughts' notwithstanding, neither do you!

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 09:41 AM

I think it was Michael Morris who asked:

What was there before the Big Bang?

That's not a meaningful question. "Before" depends on time, and the concept of "Big Bang" is that spacetime was begun by it. There wasn't a "before", because there was no time for "before" to exist in.

Yes, this sounds contrary to all our everyday experience, but so is all of quantum theory, and string theory too. And those concepts, although not "common sense" and not fully understood, are useful, operable concepts.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 09:31 AM

BBCW:

I submit that is because you missed the concept.

Radio signals are certainly physical, LH.

The core nature of awareness in non-local, meaning it has no location in space or time except to the degree it decides to generate one. Life has the ability to decree--to say things will be so, and have them exist. If you don't believe me, I decree you will think of a purple onion.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 07:29 AM

I have always prefered "I think therfore I think that I am" to "I think therfore I am".

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Slag
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 05:57 AM

Shimrod, no honest scientist would begin to give you definition with an ironclad guarantee for light, or any other part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Truth is, they really don't know what it is. They can tell you some of the ways it behaves in our four dimensional existence but on the quantum level it get verrrrry strange. Throw in a few measures of dark energy, dark matter, the essence of string theory, what the limit of the universe may be, what precipitated the Big Bang, if indeed there was one (it has come under doubt of late!) and a few other conundrums, the enigma, wrapped in a riddle (the original description of a Quasar) and then tell me what you mean by physical.

In the nuts and bolts "soulless" universe, when you die your basic chemical composition assumes a random and inert (other than chemically) form, sans efforts of those beauticians of the dead---morticians. Your conscious mind ceases to to exist as the electrical energies in your brains become random (whatever that really means). From your perspective, the universe ceases to exist and the unknown and unknowing infinity from whence you came reclaims your temporary consciousness.

Have you had a night when you did not dream? Where were you? Who or what are you during that time? How is it that you are still you when you awake? No, that is not true. You are ALMOST the same person who went to sleep the night before, but you have changed, physically, mentally. Some changes are big and some little. For most folks death is a big change, or at least a surprising one but for others it is only a slight shift from their present mode. For many, it is a welcome relief from a lifetime of pain and if you have ever lived you know that life IS pain.

If you have lived right, after you die you are missed by some. You don't have a heart unless you have loved someone other than yourself. If you managed to get outside yourself and touch someone else you have done a good thing and you will be remembered for one generation only; then you are gone from living memory. If you have made a significant contribution to mankind then your secondhand memory will persist for a little longer. If you have slaughtered millions during your time on this planet, you may be remembered for even longer as a great leader like Julius Caesar or as the embodiment of evil like Adolf Hitler. Who knows? and to you it will make absolutely no difference, at least not in THIS dimension.

Sweet dreams.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 04:46 AM

"The radio signal is not physical either."

That's a new one on me! As I understand it radio signals are physical phenomena (amenable to study and measurement by physicists) - it's just that we can't perceive them directly with our senses. And, yes, there may be other things out there that we can't perceive directly with our senses - 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' - but if we do discover them I would be prepared to bet heavily on them having some sort of physical reality.

As for what happens after we die - I don't know ... absence of evidence etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 03:19 AM

Shimrod - "LH - can you explain to me how a thing or force, or even an experience (leaving aside hallucinations or other tricks of the mind/brain) can be something other than physical in nature? Surely, something that is not physical has little chance of interacting with physical phenomena such as you and I? Please give me an example (not just a personal, unverifiable anecdote - but something that I can experience myself) of a 'non-physical' phenomenon."


Sure thing. When I experience great respect for someone or something, that is an experience I have which is real, and it's important to me, but it's not physical. It's a perception of something not physical. It's a real experience.

When I experience joy or calmness or excitement or depression, those are all perceptions of something that are real experiences I'm having...but they're not physical. They can have effects ON the physical system to some extent, but they are not themselves physical events. They're mental/emotional/spiritual events or movements in consciousness.

When I experience love for a person, an ideal, or a concept, it's a real experience for me, but it's not physical.

When I experience the thrill of a new idea it's real, but it's not physical.

You can say if you wish that I am physical, and that without my physical self I would not have those experiences. You might be right about that. You might not be. In any case, I experience all kinds of things in consciousness that are not physical, and they are among the most important things in my life. Life would be pretty meaningless without them, seems to me.

Spirituality concerns consciousness. Consciousness is not based on the physical, it simply passes through the physical and uses it as a device the way a radio signal passes through a radio receiver and uses it to play music or to steer a radio control sailboat.

The radio signal is not physical either. It's a form of coherently organized and purposeful energy, as is consciousness.

Without consciousness, you wouldn't even be reading this. Without your eyes you wouldn't be either. We need both a physical body and a non-physical consciousness to do all the wonderful things we do here during our physical lives.

I think the non-physical consciousness continues after the body is dead and gone. I expect you think it doesn't. Well, we'll find out after we die, won't we? Or else we won't. If I turn out to be right about this I will have a chance to say to you, "Surprised?" if I run into you in the afterlife. ;-D If not, well, it won't matter anyway, will it? Cos we'll both be gone.

It's okay with me either way.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Paul Burke
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 02:01 AM

OK Michael, if science needs to explain where stuff came from, religion needs to explain where God came from.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: GUEST,Michael Morris
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 12:59 AM

As I said, my own views tend towards an equation of Infinite Universe with God. Hence, the Creation and the Creator are, somehow, one. These are verbal devices that, however clumsy, help me to define my beliefs.

Bill, I'm sorry that you spent so much of your time in churches, classrooms and libraries and didn't find any answers. Others haven't been quite so frustrated. I fully understand that Einstein didn't believe in a personal god, but that doesn't make him an atheist. He was one of a great many scientists who held religious beliefs of one sort or another. Science or Religion? That is a false dichotomy. At best, they complement each other.