Can you mix science with god?

[john5746]

The natural sciences offer no insight into metaphysical questions and this is why they are called metaphysical questions.

..So I see theoretical physics and metaphysics as being a single topic. If they are not then theoretical physics is nonreductive.and can never explain the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN1MqbLZZ5I Edited March 25, 2013 by john5746

[PeterJ]

Nope, Sorry. You'll have to explain the relevance. Do you disagree with those comments?

[john5746]

I was basically saying the same thing to you. Those statements look contradictory, unless you think theoretical physics has nothing to do with the scientific method.

 

Seems like you are being vague and talking in circles.

 

Do you mean physics can't answer the Why questions?

 

Like Why are we here?

 

Or do you mean it can't answer the meta questions like

 

Why does physics or the scientific method work so well?

 

or something else?

[PeterJ]

Aha. Yes, Now I see what you mean.

 

No, the two statements are not contradictory. Defined as it usual is physics sheds no light on metaphysical questions. As soon as we ask one we have abandoned physics.

 

If we say that they are the same discipline at the limit, however, as I would rather heretically consider them to be, then things would be different. Hence my second statement. Physics on its own is a very restricted method and can have nothing to say about metaphysical questions. Physicists can do metaphysics, of course, but when they do this they become metaphysicians and should not be charging their expenses to the physics department. .

 

Examples? You must know them already. They are known collectively as 'the problems of philosophy'.

 

Physicists can have nothing to say about fundamentals, about how the universe begins, whether it begins, how big it is, the ontological status of space and time, the origin of mind and matter, ethics and many other things. This would include the question of whether spacetime is an ideal continuum or a series of points. For Einstein's favourite mathematican, (whose name slips my mind right now), this was a central problem in physics and mathematics, reconciling the staccato of numbers with the legato of the contuinuum. It is a conceptual, mathematical and metaphysical problem, not something that can be solved by peering at spacetime. This and others like it are the problems that prevent physics from constructing a fundamental theory of anything. Solving them is a task that we assigned to metaphysics long ago, and the reason why it was created in the first place. .

 

Strangely, I may have more confidence in physics as a guide to the solutions to these problems than many physicists, for I do believe that the scientific data gives us clues. Strong ones in fact. It is very difficult to explain nonlocal effects once we have assumed that spacetime is an extended series of locations. This suggests that it is not. The fact that such a spacetime would be a logical contradiction also suggests that it is not. There are other examples. I have full confidence, or as much as any cautious physicist, in the results of physics. For me physics and metaphysics would be in full agreement, shedding light on each other and having complementary results.

 

This view would be impossible if we hold on to our usual notion of extended spacetime, however, as we know, since then our physics will be irreconcilable with our reason and spacetime will seem to be paradoxical. We will not be able to make sense of our own idea of it.

 

The truth is, of course, is that it would be impossible to do physics without metaphysics, and various physcists say as much in their writings. But we can do as little as possible, and in this way cut physics off from a fundamental theory.

 

Sometime physicists do take metaphysics seriously. Paul Davies would be a good example. He comes very close to a fundamental theory in The Mind of God. But on the whole it is ignored. It is widely assumed to be a waste of time. I see this as physics shooting itself in the foot and it really annoys me, as you might be able to tell. .

[tar]

PeterJ,

 

I have a somewhat unothodox view of things, but I do not think I am taking them front to back, nor back to front.

 

I assume the both are good ways to look at it, and both are true. I assume the other position, and take the one.

 

To me, the best way, the best insights, are the ones that add back, and bolster the credibility of the other.

 

I do not have the philosophical problems you say I must have. I assume that we are in the middle, and that is why there are two ways to look, on any axis you define. It is analogous to looking at a life. To be alive, you have to be born, exercise your entityness, and then die. There was a before, without you, and there will be an after, without you. To be an entity, exactly defines you as a component in a larger entity and a composite of smaller entities. Once in a spacial way, and once in a temporal way, where the longest you can stay you, stay an entity, is but a flash in the vastness of time, and the briefest moment, is time enough for billions of cycles of the entities within you.

 

I suppose, to make a long story short, I assume we are big stuff to the little stuff, and little stuff to the big stuff...we are about mid size. And we are the current situation, formed by the past and predecessors to the future. Here and now is what we are, and that is why we know space and time.

 

Sort of silly to expect to know something different than what we are.

 

But we do it differently than a rock, so there must be reasons, things we do, that rocks do not. Cycles make a difference to us. We are subject to the world, the same as a rock, but have the facility to focus on this or that vibration and remember it, and learn how to use the patterns to our advantage.

 

There is as much god in a rock, as there is in us. Especially if it is a really big rock. We are not so magical in nature as to be superior to the reality that we are in and of. And we are not so unreal and insignificant and fleeting as to be inferior to reality.

We are in the middle, between the two extremes, with solid claims to both the self, and the all.

 

All in all it is highly appropriate that we exist, and highly inappropriate that we pass...but thats the way it is. For any entity.

 

A time for every purpose under heaven...so to speak.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Iggy]

Hichens does not care anymore. He is no longer alive. It is us, who are alive, that still care about Hitchens' consciousness and thoughts. It is our life that I am speaking about when I say there is life after Hitchens's death, and the memory of Hitchens is part of the life that continues to exist, after his death. His memory is alive, in us. We were formerly, while he was alive, objective reality to him, and he still lives in us and we still judge him. Something "like" what role God is supposed to play in our personal afterlife. (Minus the impossible heaven and hell thing, where Hitchens' himself is supposed to be experiencing the virgins and angels or the boiling oil). Us actual living judges can provide the honors and the chides for him posthumunously. And the fact that we are still alive, and he is dead proves that there is life, after death. Just not for the dier. His/her life is over. Gone, but not forgotten.

 

I think you were passively pointing that comment at me.

 

It isn't... well... let me take it point by point,

 

Hichens does not care anymore. He is no longer alive.

 

correct

 

It is our life that I am speaking about when I say there is life after Hitchens's death, and the memory of Hitchens is part of the life that continues to exist, after his death.

Y

es, we are alive and he isn't. Children figure this type of thing out by age six. We are here and he isn't. It is real. Deal with it.

 

And the fact that we are still alive, and he is dead proves that there is life, after death.

 

Do you think "life after death" refers to anyone other than the dead? No, you aren't that retarded. You are doing your best to equivocate. You are trying to be clever about it. You are trying to say that when someone dies and they are gone and think no more and have no more consciousness then they live for some unstated way in our memory. You are holding on to scraps. You are arguing for scraps and that isn't the best way to get on about yourself.

 

Plant that flag in camp atheism already! State what you know as if it means something!

Edited March 26, 2013 by Iggy

[tar]

Deal with it?

 

I don't think I lost a close family member, other than a fish or a turtle 'til I was in my late teens.

 

Lucky perhaps to have an intact world of relatives to base myself on, for so long.

 

And perhaps why I continue to consider those people, alive in my youth, who are no longer alive, still important.

 

Remember my Grandfather, as he grew older, having fewer and fewer close friends, as they one by one passed away. 'Til he felt like he was being left alone in the world.

 

Deal with it? Depends on what you are basing "it" on.

[Iggy]

Deal with it?

 

Yes, please. Don't feign or anything. Grab onto it with the teeth and bite hard, if you can, and if you don't mind,

 

I don't think I lost a close family member, other than a fish or a turtle 'til I was in my late teens.

 

Well, I don't know. You keep talking about your mum who was a Jesus freak. I don't know. You keep saying it and I don't know if that is some kind of motivation or if she is no longer with us. I assume she isn't. But, it doesn't matter.

 

Whatever the case, you are advocating theism (and pantheism to be particular), and you are espousing atheism. I'm sure that makes perfect sense to you because of your mum or whatever, but to the rational world it is pure shit. People who are dead are dead. If you can't say that with conviction then you are equivocating.

 

 

But, I don't mean to discourage you. If there is more equivocating you have to offer then I welcome...

Edited March 26, 2013 by Iggy

[tar]

Iggy,

 

People that are dead, are still concerns of ours. They built our world, and its ours to carry on.

 

If every morning, we started over from scratch, with no memory of what came before...with no stories, with no way of considering what was done on our behalf the day or week or year or decade, or century or millenium before, and no concern for the next generations to follow us...then I would agree with you, that dead is dead. But it is not that way. Not in my life, not in my family, not in my town or state or country, and not even that way, in the world of a scientist. It is well known that those of us who discover new helpful things, are standing on the shoulders of giants. Dead giants. Of whom you cannot say that "dead is dead". Its simply not so. Science, the Law, Governments, Religions, Philosophies, technologies, processes, human capabilities of all sorts are carried on, on behalf of the dead guys and gals that paved the way, and applied the lessons learned from their ancestors, maintained and improved it, and passed it on to their children.

 

Let's say you and I started to build a small dam to turn a swampy part of a lower field where we kept getting the tractor stuck in the mud, into a fish pond, we intended to stock and eat from, and to swim in after working in the fields on hot summer days. And I died. Would you finish the dam? Would you perhaps include my initials in the cement cap?

 

Or is dead dead?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Perhaps I consider that I am a part of something (life on Earth) that started long before my conception, and will continue long after I am dead. I benefit from previous and current life, especially recent human life that made effort to maintain the world in such a way as is consistent with my way of life. I feel responsible for carrying on the traditions and ways that prepared the place for me. Why do you draw the line so hard and fast, as to pretend the past is of no concern of yours? And how far into the future do you consider worthy of concession, sacrifice and concern?

 

Is every moment, a new situation, with no ties to the past and responsibilities for the future?

 

Consider the Humanist desire to find a normative morality. The mere thought is quite unrealistic on several counts, by all evidence, different groups of people and different personalities within those groups differ on their opinions of what is good and bad. Some people are OCD and others don't ever wash. Some people think anal sex is abhorent, and others see it as a human right and a civil liberty issue. "Good" Americans think everybody wants freedom, the rule of law, human rights and prosperity. "Good" North Koreans might have a different set of moral values. "Good" people have endeavored to "play god" and reengineer corn and wheat and soy to be pest and drought resistent, and other Good people, like Green Peace in Europe, fight against the spread of the "altered" genes.

 

I am an Atheist, but that does not mean I should be against the real things that are considered, as if there is a greater consciousness at play, then just TAR. Because there are larger stories, than just my life. And the stories tend to run into each other. The Pheonix rising from the ashes is a real thing that happens all the time. Life continues, in the face of death, and sets the stage for the next generation.

 

If we were to all die at once, then dead would be dead. Otherwise...life goes on.

[Ringer]

PeterJ, the statement that physics, or any science, cannot get by without a god figure is blatantly false. In fact there is not a part of science that has found it necessary to introduce a god figure to explain something, so a god figure is completely unnecessary in any part of science.

[Iggy]

Iggy,

 

People that are dead, are still concerns of ours. They built our world, and its ours to carry on.

 

If every morning, we started over from scratch, with no memory of what came before...with no stories, with no way of considering what was done on our behalf the day or week or year or decade, or century or millenium before, and no concern for the next generations to follow us...then I would agree with you, that dead is dead. But it is not that way. Not in my life, not in my family, not in my town or state or country, and not even that way, in the world of a scientist. It is well known that those of us who discover new helpful things, are standing on the shoulders of giants. Dead giants. Of whom you cannot say that "dead is dead". Its simply not so. Science, the Law, Governments, Religions, Philosophies, technologies, processes, human capabilities of all sorts are carried on, on behalf of the dead guys and gals that paved the way, and applied the lessons learned from their ancestors, maintained and improved it, and passed it on to their children.

 

Let's say you and I started to build a small dam to turn a swampy part of a lower field where we kept getting the tractor stuck in the mud, into a fish pond, we intended to stock and eat from, and to swim in after working in the fields on hot summer days. And I died. Would you finish the dam? Would you perhaps include my initials in the cement cap?

 

Or is dead dead?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Perhaps I consider that I am a part of something (life on Earth) that started long before my conception, and will continue long after I am dead. I benefit from previous and current life, especially recent human life that made effort to maintain the world in such a way as is consistent with my way of life. I feel responsible for carrying on the traditions and ways that prepared the place for me. Why do you draw the line so hard and fast, as to pretend the past is of no concern of yours? And how far into the future do you consider worthy of concession, sacrifice and concern?

 

Is every moment, a new situation, with no ties to the past and responsibilities for the future?

 

Consider the Humanist desire to find a normative morality. The mere thought is quite unrealistic on several counts, by all evidence, different groups of people and different personalities within those groups differ on their opinions of what is good and bad. Some people are OCD and others don't ever wash. Some people think anal sex is abhorent, and others see it as a human right and a civil liberty issue. "Good" Americans think everybody wants freedom, the rule of law, human rights and prosperity. "Good" North Koreans might have a different set of moral values. "Good" people have endeavored to "play god" and reengineer corn and wheat and soy to be pest and drought resistent, and other Good people, like Green Peace in Europe, fight against the spread of the "altered" genes.

 

I am an Atheist, but that does not mean I should be against the real things that are considered, as if there is a greater consciousness at play, then just TAR. Because there are larger stories, than just my life. And the stories tend to run into each other. The Pheonix rising from the ashes is a real thing that happens all the time. Life continues, in the face of death, and sets the stage for the next generation.

 

If we were to all die at once, then dead would be dead. Otherwise...life goes on.

That's an ok story. You threw the Phoenix in there and some north Koreans... Ok stuff. Ok fiction. When I read you I expect some kind of fiction and that wasn't all that bad.

 

It would, though, if you don't mind me giv9ing you some pointers... here is some real fiction on the topic...

 

Dr. Braun wanted nothing more than to stop all this. For what came of it?

One after another you gave over your dying. One by one they went. You went.

Childhood, family, friendship, love were stifled in the grave. And these tears!

When you wept them from the heart, you felt you justified something, understood

something. But what did you understand? Again, nothing! It

was only an intimation of understanding. A promise that mankind might might,

mind you eventually, through its gift which might might again!

be a divine gift, comprehend why it lived. Why life, why death.

 

And again, why these particular forms these Isaacs and these Tinas?

When Dr. Braun closed his eyes, he saw, red on black, something like molecular

processes the only true heraldry of being. As later, in the close black

darkness as the short day ended, he went to the dark kitchen window to have a

look at the stars. These things cast outward by a great begetting spasm

billions of years ago.

 

Now there is a little ending of a little short story from which you can draw some inspiration for your fiction. Or... If that doesn't do it...if that is a bit intellectual, here is someone else to channel,

 

 

You'll have to find a computer with the sound working for that. Sorry otherwise.

 

But, besides all this fiction nonsense, I do have a question,

I am an Atheist, but that does not mean I should be against the realthings that are considered, as if there is a greater consciousness at play, then just TAR.

Can you pick the four least convincing words out of that sentence? (Hint: it has nothing to do with you referring to yourself in the third person)? Edited March 27, 2013 by Iggy

[tar]

Iggy,

 

Welll of course. "I am an Atheist" seems to be somewhat in doubt.

 

But here is my logic. I am typing words that have meaning to me, which others comprehend to some extent. This proves to me, that I am not the only consciousness on the planet. There are "other" minds and wills and opinions and purposes, outside TAR.

Whatever limitations I have, in terms of senses and mind, are also to be found elsewhere than TAR. For real.

Whatever capabilities I have, in terms of senses and mind, are also to be found elsewhere than TAR. For real.

 

There is no fictional aspect to this evident case. It proves to me, and it should to all minds, that for each of us, there is an objective reality, that has consciousness, mind, opinion, life and purpose. In other words, it is evident, that the rest of the world is just as capable as TAR, when it comes to "being", and your just above average intelligence type human, of which there are millions if not billions, are similarly outfitted and placed by reality on this Earth. These are unargued facts. Not fictional in nature.

 

So the question of belief in God, becomes somewhat a question of where one draws the line, between oneself, and others.

That is, what do we consider outside our consideration and control, on an individual basis. What "other" consciounesses do we consider "us", and what other consciousnesses do we consider he/she/them/it.

 

About 15-20 years ago, as an Atheist, I made a determination, that when God is referenced, it must be a common understanding that a group of people together hold, that there is a common, greater than individual human, consciousness that one can reference. A "collective" consciousness, that is behind "Christmas Spirit", and "Human Spirit", and "Karma". Something that I could "in reality" understand and agree with, when in the company of "religious" folk. Belief in the "real attributes", without belief in any actual lone, conscious "entity" that would have these attributes, or be waiting for us, or guiding us, or judging us, in some magical or unreal or supernatural way.

 

But here I use the word "us", assuming that my understanding applies, as fact, to everybody else...which it does not. My insights have little to do, with the insights of others...even though they "might", given that everybody has the same "evidence" to work with, as I do.

 

So I equivocate a bit, because I know my understanding is not the last word...but I assume that even all human thought, and all the smartest "we" have, all put together, can not have an "insight" that is greater than the sight itself. We can "know" reality from here and now. We can study its past and predict its future, but we remain subject to it, and not a one of us, or any group of us, or all of us put together, can claim to be other than it, or outside it, or better than it, or able to match its immense and longlived capabilities. "It" remains something "like" God, that science names and tries to understand. And forces me to state that it seems that Science and God have already mixed.

 

Regards, TAR2

[PeterJ]

PeterJ, the statement that physics, or any science, cannot get by without a god figure is blatantly false. In fact there is not a part of science that has found it necessary to introduce a god figure to explain something, so a god figure is completely unnecessary in any part of science.

This is not quite what I said. What I said was correct. A fundamental theory would require a phenomenon with some godlike properties. Being absolute would be one. This is not a controversial idea but commonplace. pretty much common sense. The word 'God; would be innapropriate, but it's in the ballpark. Okay - you won't;agree. But then you don't need to agree, or even examine the issue, as long as you can make do without a fundamental theory. If you can do this the issue does not arise.

Edited March 28, 2013 by PeterJ

[John Cuthber]

"The word 'God; would be innapropriate, but it's in the ballpark. Okay - you won't;agree."

Nope, it's not in the same ball park, so of course we won't agree.

One is demonstrably real and the other isn't.

One has intent, the other hasn't

and so on.

They really have very little in common.

So it's still flat out wrong to say that there is any need for any sort of God (by any conventional definition of the word "God").

[Iggy]

Iggy,

 

Welll of course. "I am an Atheist" seems to be somewhat in doubt.

 

Yes, it most certainly is.

 

But here is my logic. I am typing words that have meaning to me, which others comprehend to some extent. This proves to me, that I am not the only consciousness on the planet. There are "other" minds and wills and opinions and purposes, outside TAR.

Whatever limitations I have, in terms of senses and mind, are also to be found elsewhere than TAR. For real.

Whatever capabilities I have, in terms of senses and mind, are also to be found elsewhere than TAR. For real.

 

There is no fictional aspect to this evident case. It proves to me, and it should to all minds, that for each of us, there is an objective reality, that has consciousness, mind, opinion, life and purpose. In other words, it is evident, that the rest of the world is just as capable as TAR, when it comes to "being", and your just above average intelligence type human, of which there are millions if not billions, are similarly outfitted and placed by reality on this Earth. These are unargued facts. Not fictional in nature.

 

So the question of belief in God, becomes somewhat a question of where one draws the line, between oneself, and others.

That is, what do we consider outside our consideration and control, on an individual basis. What "other" consciounesses do we consider "us", and what other consciousnesses do we consider he/she/them/it.

 

About 15-20 years ago, as an Atheist, I made a determination, that when God is referenced, it must be a common understanding that a group of people together hold, that there is a common, greater than individual human, consciousness that one can reference. A "collective" consciousness, that is behind "Christmas Spirit", and "Human Spirit", and "Karma". Something that I could "in reality" understand and agree with, when in the company of "religious" folk. Belief in the "real attributes", without belief in any actual lone, conscious "entity" that would have these attributes, or be waiting for us, or guiding us, or judging us, in some magical or unreal or supernatural way.

 

But here I use the word "us", assuming that my understanding applies, as fact, to everybody else...which it does not. My insights have little to do, with the insights of others...even though they "might", given that everybody has the same "evidence" to work with, as I do.

 

So I equivocate a bit, because I know my understanding is not the last word...but I assume that even all human thought, and all the smartest "we" have, all put together, can not have an "insight" that is greater than the sight itself. We can "know" reality from here and now. We can study its past and predict its future, but we remain subject to it, and not a one of us, or any group of us, or all of us put together, can claim to be other than it, or outside it, or better than it, or able to match its immense and longlived capabilities. "It" remains something "like" God, that science names and tries to understand. And forces me to state that it seems that Science and God have already mixed.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Ok.

 

Fine.

 

I'll stop trying to convince you of your own beliefs.

 

You are no kind of atheist. There is no stripe or banner that you share with one. In fact, I have just one request of you, please stop calling yourself an "atheist". Please stop using that word to describe yourself altogether. Please, from the bottom of my heart, please! STOP!

 

I said earlier "you are trying to smuggle something across boarders and I'm determined to discover it". Well...

 

I figured out what it is. It is you. You are calling yourself atheist and jumping across fences to do it when you have no business even trying that. Please get back to your side of the argument and do your best to make it from there.

Edited March 30, 2013 by Iggy

[tar]

So my Atheist club card has been revoked?

 

Do not know how to respond to that. I didn't think that was something that could happen. I do not recall being issued the card, I thought I printed it up myself. And I was not aware of a set of bylaws that I was required to follow. Thought I just had to not believe in the existence of supernatural deities.

 

I do not believe, literally in Moses' God, or the garden of Eden, or the creation of Man occuring by the hand of this character 4000 years ago..

Nor do I believe that Jesus was the Son of this character.

Nor do I believe that Mohammed was the final bearer of messages from this character.

Nor do I believe you can petition this character with prayer, or are subject to the whims, blessings, punishment, judgement and guidance of this character.

I do not believe in him. He is not real. He is impossible, non-existant. and to anyone that believes in him, I am rightly labeled a dis-believer, an unbeliever, an Atheist.

 

And I have not resorted to the belief in any other supernatural diety to take Moses's place, as my creator, sustainer, and purpose. So forgive me if I align myself with the word Atheist, and call myself one. I think it an appropriate label under the circumstances.

 

This however does not mean I do not believe in reality, or nature, or science, or philosphy, or love, or dreams, or friendships and promises, or music and poetry, or high ideals, or laws and principles, of man and nature, or the objective judgement of my person and my actions, by my actual environment. It does not preclude me from being in sync with the rest of reality, and feeling responsible for it, and responsible to it. It does not preclude me from fighting wars to maintain my way of life, against those and that, that would challenge the way I would like to see things proceed. I am the great Satan to many, an imperialist American, deserving death, to hoards of North Koreans, a capitalistic pig, a supporter or dupe of the military industrial complex, a pawn in the games that Hollywood, and big business, and the sports and entertainment industry play...at least allow me to be all these things, and an atheist as well.

 

Maybe you could give me a guest pass?

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited March 30, 2013 by tar

[Iggy]

So my Atheist club card has been revoked?

 

You've been denied. Sorry to be so harsh, but the secret meetings are off limits to the likes of you.

 

Do not know how to respond to that. I didn't think that was something that could happen. I do not recall being issued the card, I thought I printed it up myself. And I was not aware of a set of bylaws that I was required to follow. Thought I just had to not believe in the existence of supernatural deities.

 

You have to disbelieve and you have to *stop arguing for*. It's the last part you got wrong. Sorry if you didn't understand the rules.

 

You are not an atheist!

 

I am very sorry to have to give you the news.

 

 

I do not believe, literally in Moses' God, or the garden of Eden, or the creation of Man occuring by the hand of this character 4000 years ago..

Nor do I believe that Jesus was the Son of this character.

Nor do I believe that Mohammed was the final bearer of messages from this character.

Nor do I believe you can petition this character with prayer, or are subject to the whims, blessings, punishment, judgement and guidance of this character.

I do not believe in him. He is not real. He is impossible, non-existant. and to anyone that believes in him, I am rightly labeled a dis-believer, an unbeliever, an Atheist.

 

No, I know. This is why I keep calling you a pantheist. I think I've used that word like four or five times talking to you. I keep throwing it out there hoping you'll grab onto it and say "Yes, I am a pantheist". I keep doing that because I want you to argue for something. I want you to say something from the heart. Stop pretending.

 

But, you've made clear you wont. Maybe your sister and your dad were atheists. Maybe that part of your story was true. But, the part you tell about yourself is unconvincing. Nobody is fooled. I've tried to extract any kind of atheistic sentiment from you by force and at every turn you've kicked and screamed about it.

 

I'm sorry. You never had a pass. Therefore there is no need to revoke it. You are no atheist. I'm sorry you convinced yourself otherwise.

Edited March 30, 2013 by Iggy

[Ringer]

This is not quite what I said. What I said was correct. A fundamental theory would require a phenomenon with some godlike properties. Being absolute would be one. This is not a controversial idea but commonplace. pretty much common sense. The word 'God; would be innapropriate, but it's in the ballpark. Okay - you won't;agree. But then you don't need to agree, or even examine the issue, as long as you can make do without a fundamental theory. If you can do this the issue does not arise.

So not god, but like god, so god? Does not follow.

[tar]

Iggy,

 

So let me ask a question. If I would start the realist pantheist wing of the reformed Atheist camp, would I be alone at the campfire, or would there be any other semirational human that would find any warmth there?

 

My manifesto would read something like this.

 

Life emerged on Earth when probable chemical combinations, similar in kind to the growth of crystals, responding to the ebbs and flow of heating and cooling caused by the sun's absence and presence as the Earth turned, and the tossing of the seas by the wind and weather and pull of the moon, caused various bubbles and collections of certian combinations of chemicals to clump and associate, and retain the energy of the Sun for a time, in a pattern that was repeated the next day. In sync with the cycles of the enviroment and the shape of the pools and crevices of the Earth, regular, repeating patterns formed and certain characteristics of density, and chemical compostion emerged, urged by the environmental effects of the crystal concentrations below and the regular cycles of movement and energy above. What was, one day, created the possibilities for the next day, and certain arrangements, certain patterns with discernable characterisics, took hold, and established themselves, and found a way to continue the pattern, to leave a seed, a start, for the same form to emerge again and grow into the same pattern, with the same characteristics, the same shape, the same basic relationships and compositions as was before, with slight variations as the environment changed its character, and chemical combinations were accumulated or dispersed. What fit, fit again, what did not fit did not occur. Life emerged and grabbed form and structure and stored energy, and passed the pattern onto the next generation in a universe otherwise tending toward entropy.

 

And so we continue our own pattern and use the seed, given to us by our parents to grow into the pattern that we are, that fits with our environment, and we pass that pattern on, to the next generation. We are alive, and conscious of it. Not only our own pattern, but the environment that our form fits. We each are the mold, the molded, and the molder. And such is conscious human life, in and of reality. Exactly fitting, yet a unique pattern, with a life of its own.

 

What we make of it, who or what we associate with, love and protect, maintain, and promote, and who or what we separate ourselves from, hate, destroy, consume, eliminate or use to our advantage, depends a lot on what works, to survive, and carry on the pattern, that we call our own.

 

Regards, The outcast atheist.

Edited March 31, 2013 by tar

[Iggy]

Iggy,

 

So let me ask a question.

 

How very brave.

 

If I would start the realist pantheist wing of the reformed Atheist camp, would I be alone at the campfire, or would there be any other semirational human that would find any warmth there?

 

Oh, yes! You've got all kinds of company there. Good people, all of them. They're waiting for you. Claim the title and run to them already!

 

My manifesto would read something like this.

 

No, I've read your manifesto many times at this point. I could recite it from memory. I'm not going to read it again.

 

Seriously, Tar. I'm not playing. Pantheism is a fine tradition. It started with Spinoza, who was brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. The tradition continues and it takes nothing away from you to say you believe it. You obviously don't lack a belief in god, and that's fine. But, doing that and calling yourself atheist is just weird. You can't imagine how much more I would respect you if you just planted that flag somewhere.

Edited March 31, 2013 by Iggy

[tar]

Iggy,

 

But we are on a section of a talk board, placed to discuss the rational foundations of religion.

 

We are in a thread, trying to determine if you can mix Science and God.

 

Spinoza is in play, Kant is in play, Moses is in play, Jesus is in play, Einstein is in play...everybody on this board is in play, everybody accross the board is in play.

 

I cannot not have incorporated the sound ideas of the people I have read during my life. I cannot not entertain the ideas and theories, and the accomplishments and efforts and stories of other conscious humans that have come before me, and that surround me.

 

I do not take your impatience with me, your desire that I get off the fence, stop pretending and argue from my heart, as a personal attack, it is the ideas, and the truth, the meanings behind my opinions and thoughts, that you and I are both "after".

And in that I am fair game, and have offered my story up for inspection, to determine where the sense and meaning is, and where it is not.

 

But I am 59 years old, I am capable of learning, and changing my mind, but do not run anymore. I am not looking to run to the campfire of others, I look for sticks and logs to throw on my own, to keep me warm, and do not mind a bit, in fact welcome the fact that others have kindled the flames I feed, and others share the warmth and feed the flames.

 

When I reread my last post this morning, and your reply about me pretending and you not reading a rehash of what you have heard so much from me, I was a little disheartened that you missed my attempt to frame religious ideas in terms of the actual scientifically discovered facts of our existence.

 

Molder, molded and mold, are evidently what living humans are.

 

It is probably not coincidence that the trinity Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, ring true in the mind, body and heart of a human.

 

An uncle of mine, back in the 50s and 60s, was one of the people that worked to established YMCA camps in PA, NJ and NY. The important things to build and strengthen in a young man, in their determination, were Body, Mind and Spirit.

 

The three are real aspects of our existence. No single aspect works alone. A total human can not be considered, if any of the three are left out of the mix.

 

Regards, TAR2

Or perhaps Teacher, Student, and principle.

 

You cannot teach, without knowing a principle you endeavor to endow the student with.

You cannot learn without being taught a principle or be a student without a teacher.

And neither student or teacher are much without the principle in question.

Edited March 31, 2013 by tar

[Iggy]

Iggy,

 

But we are on a section of a talk board, placed to discuss the rational foundations of religion.

 

We are in a thread, trying to determine if you can mix Science and God.

 

I can't tell if you're responding to my last post or what you're trying to imply. I haven't forgotten where we are and what we are doing. Being in a place that allows for the rational discussion of the foundations of religion does not prevent one from having a straightforward opinion on the thread's topic -- or solving it logically.

 

 

I cannot not have incorporated the sound ideas of the people I have read during my life. I cannot not entertain the ideas and theories, and the accomplishments and efforts and stories of other conscious humans that have come before me, and that surround me.

 

I still don't get what you're responding to or implying.

 

Nothing that I've asked or said, and nothing about the OP's question, requires you to (I feel silly just saying this) incorporate every idea that you have ever read and consider every theory proposed by every human that has ever existed.

 

Edit: I get it. I didn't notice the double negative. You're saying that you must incorporate and entertain other people's ideas. That goes without saying. You must have been responding to my comment about there being a lot of good people from a long tradition that make fine company. It would be impossible not to incorporate and consider things you've read and heard into your reasoning and conclusions.

 

I don't understand your need to affirm that no man is an island, but true enough, it is true.

 

 

When I reread my last post this morning, and your reply about me pretending and you not reading a rehash of what you have heard so much from me, I was a little disheartened that you missed my attempt to frame religious ideas in terms of the actual scientifically discovered facts of our existence.

 

Ok, consider what I said earlier. "the sort of mixing I see between god and science is just to mistake one for the other".

 

You say that you want to 'frame religious ideas in scientific terms'. What that ends up being is pure equivocation -- to make scientific facts sound religious, and using religious words and ideas in a scientific context where they don't, by definition, belong. It confuses the issue rather than illuminate it.

 

Let me read and quote your 'manifesto' portion that I ungracefully skipped so maybe you'll see what I mean,

Life emerged on Earth when probable chemical combinations, similar in kind to the growth of crystals, responding to the ebbs and flow of heating and cooling caused by the sun's absence and presence as the Earth turned, and the tossing of the seas by the wind and weather and pull of the moon, caused various bubbles and collections of certian combinations of chemicals to clump and associate, and retain the energy of the Sun for a time, in a pattern that was repeated the next day. In sync with the cycles of the enviroment and the shape of the pools and crevices of the Earth, regular, repeating patterns formed and certain characteristics of density, and chemical compostion emerged, urged by the environmental effects of the crystal concentrations below and the regular cycles of movement and energy above. What was, one day, created the possibilities for the next day, and certain arrangements, certain patterns with discernable characterisics, took hold, and established themselves, and found a way to continue the pattern, to leave a seed, a start, for the same form to emerge again and grow into the same pattern, with the same characteristics, the same shape, the same basic relationships and compositions as was before, with slight variations as the environment changed its character, and chemical combinations were accumulated or dispersed. What fit, fit again, what did not fit did not occur. Life emerged and grabbed form and structure and stored energy, and passed the pattern onto the next generation in a universe otherwise tending toward entropy.

 

And so we continue our own pattern and use the seed, given to us by our parents to grow into the pattern that we are, that fits with our environment, and we pass that pattern on, to the next generation. We are alive, and conscious of it. Not only our own pattern, but the environment that our form fits. We each are the mold, the molded, and the molder. And such is conscious human life, in and of reality. Exactly fitting, yet a unique pattern, with a life of its own.

 

What we make of it, who or what we associate with, love and protect, maintain, and promote, and who or what we separate ourselves from, hate, destroy, consume, eliminate or use to our advantage, depends a lot on what works, to survive, and carry on the pattern, that we call our own.

In what sense did you address, or even mention, religion or God with that? It is written in the style of a religious myth, but in reality everything you just said is 100% irreligious and unrelated to the concept of God. It does nothing to answer the question "can you mix science with God", and worse, it obfuscates it.

 

 

Molder, molded and mold, are evidently what living humans are.

 

It is probably not coincidence that the trinity Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, ring true in the mind, body and heart of a human.

 

No, it is not a coincidence. It is your active effort to equivocate that accomplished that. If you wanted to clearly say "god and science can mix because a metaphor of natural selection can be worded in such a way that it might remind a person of the trinity" then you would have the courage of your clear and unhidden convictions.

 

An uncle of mine, back in the 50s and 60s, was one of the people that worked to established YMCA camps in PA, NJ and NY. The important things to build and strengthen in a young man, in their determination, were Body, Mind and Spirit.

 

By "spirit" I assume you mean "a supernatural element given by God and present in the body which can be validated with science" otherwise the word is equivocated and conflated because it doesn't address the thread's title question, but implies that it does thereby obfuscating the issue, and running the risk of suggesting the author means to dissemble... if you know what I mean.

 

 

The three are real aspects of our existence. No single aspect works alone. A total human can not be considered, if any of the three are left out of the mix.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

 

Or perhaps Teacher, Student, and principle.

 

You cannot teach, without knowing a principle you endeavor to endow the student with.

You cannot learn without being taught a principle or be a student without a teacher.

And neither student or teacher are much without the principle in question.

 

If you want to mix science and God then find a scientific law, theory, or formula that relies on, or contains, God. Otherwise, find a divine source of revelation that predicts the charge of an electron, and the orbit of mars, and other empirical matters the way that scientific laws, theories, and formula do.

 

The truth is that the scientific method with its empirical investigation are at their core and by definition incompatible with divine revelation. They simply do not mix because they are mutually exclusive.

Edited April 2, 2013 by Iggy

[Sirtuin3]

The truth is that the scientific method with its empirical investigation are at their core and by definition incompatible with divine revelation. They simply do not mix because they are mutually exclusive.

 

Science does not inherently refute the existence of a creator, it just acknowledges what is known, currently. Now, if some breakthrough happens with regards to uniting (or redefining) divine revelation as objective scientific phenomena, whether within a few weeks or a millenium, the conceptual "yard stick" to what many consider "divine revelation" might just be moved a few yards forward.

 

As Dr. Kaku put it in a debate that included the likes of Dawkings and Craig, "A hundred years from now, guess what? We'll be arguing over the same thing"- during his assertion that string theory was what he believed, to be the be-all end-all of the argument.

[Iggy]

Science does not inherently refute the existence of a creator,

 

I agree. Like I said in the preceding paragraph, "If you want to mix science and God then find a scientific law, theory, or formula that relies on, or contains, God." I wasn't implying that would be impossible. I mean to say that would do it.

 

However, "science" is not the same as the "scientific method". Science is the knowledge and the scientific method is the process by which the knowledge is obtained. The thing you quoted of me says that the scientific method is incompatible with divine revelation. They are mutually exclusive -- polar opposite methods of obtaining information.

 

This does not, as you say, imply that science has refuted or could refute the existence of a creator. The scientific method, in fact, is incapable of refuting the existence of a creator just as it is incapable of refuting the existence of a perpetual motion machine.

[tar]

Iggy,

 

I went to a private school from 4th to 9th grade. There was an honor code, written by students and endorsed by the faculty that talked of ones responsibilities to ones team mates, ones fellow students, ones school and the greater society of the world.

 

It had the word spirit in it. It did not have the word God in it.

 

I can believe in the spirit. I did believe in the spirit. I still believe in the spirit. You say I must believe in a diety to believe in a spirit, but it is not true.

 

One can believe in a "story", without pretending. The American Dream, the Human Spirit, team spirit, "till all the world is for Allah", must have some things in common with each other. Myth and story, alliegences and promises, obligations and a feeling of belonging, are not scientifically sound areas of study. They live in that "spirit" area of the human animal. Spirit, it does not have a particular weight, or size or location, or measurable objective existence. Yet we know when another has it, or not. We know when we have it, or not, and we know, based on something other than material evidence when we have faith in a common spirit, or story. Unspoken, unacted upon...until its challenged, and then we rise up in unison with the others that believe in the story, and combat the threat. Unplanned, unscripted, unspoken, but understood.

 

There is evidence that one groups story does not correspond with another's group story. Recent pictures from North Korea, showed ranks of soldiers, ready to die in the attempt to defeat the villian. To be heroes in each others eyes. To overcome the evil threat to their way of life. Not unlike the unfortunate non correspondence of stories at the root of most conflicts.

 

I do not think there is a way to scientifically prove that my story and spirit is superior in scientific truthfullness, to the story and spirit going on in the mind and body of a North Korean. I can think of plenty of ways that they are not following my script, but they can evidently see plently of ways I am not following theirs. Either that, or they are human spirits, yearning to be free, subjigated and lied to, and ruled by an evil crazy dictator, and as part of my script, I should look for ways to remove the bastard from the scene, to prevent stupid and unrequired war and nuclear destruction. But I can hope there is a spirit in the world, a concensus, that would work to make my story the winner, and keep North Korea from achieving weapons that kill and destroy life. Does that mean I believe in God? Or just my story, just this unsubtantiated "spirit" of mine, and yours, and hopefully most of the free world.

 

My framing of the creation myth in scientifically possible terms, is still a myth, until we would get the details ironed out, and see exactly how, in reality, it is scientifically known and explained, how life and consciousness has emerged.

 

The results are known. That we are made of universe material, is unquestioned by science. By definition, this means that universe material can and does think and feel, and know things, and is able to make judgements, at least in our case. We are no better than the universe, nor worse, nor "other than" the universe, by all evidence.

 

If I should "believe in us", us very particular jumbles of quarks, as well as the jumble of quarks we are standing on, as well as the energy streaming down upon us from above, and that would seem a little like what people that believe in God believe in, and you would say, why call it God, when you are really talking about reality...I would say...duh...thats my point.

 

Regards, TAR2